Family proclamation founded on irrevocable doctrine: President Oaks

[jerryp48]

11 hours ago, ttribe said:

Perhaps you are unaware, but sex is biological and gender is a social construct. This issue is apparently lost on Elder Oaks, as well.

Its not lost on him, he just refuses to accept the radical appropriation of the the word gender.  The church’s website is explicit that when they refer to gender they mean “biological sex at birth”

[Hamba Tuhan]

30 minutes ago, filovirus said:

Didn’t mean to offend, just trying to draw a distinction. Is there a more proper way to designate between the two?

Zero offence taken. I just worry about how effective language is at giving life to artificial social constructs.

But yeah, good question. Opposite-sex marriage? Traditional marriage? Personally, I just use 'marriage', but that's an act of defiance in the face of a would-be totalising discourse.

[ttribe]

44 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No, because that's not what polygamy was.

It wasn't one man and multiple women in one marriage.  It was one man with multiple marriages, each to one woman.

Marriage is always one man and one woman, even if the man has more than one marriage.

That is, hands down, some of the worst reasoning on Earth to justify some alleged divine mandate for polygamy. 

[ttribe]

6 minutes ago, jerryp48 said:

Its not lost on him, he just refuses to accept the radical appropriation of the the word gender.  The church’s website is explicit that when they refer to gender they mean “biological sex at birth”

Which is not how science actually defines it, but I realize you don't care about that. 

[JustAnAustralian]

12 minutes ago, ttribe said:

That is, hands down, some of the worst reasoning on Earth to justify some alleged divine mandate for polygamy. 

It isn't trying to justify it. It's simply pointing out that plural marriage as practiced by the church was multiple simultaneous two person M-F marriages, not one marriage with more than two people.

Edited April 5, 2022 by JustAnAustralian
change in past/present tense

[Hamba Tuhan]

14 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Which is not how science actually defines it, but I realize you don't care about that. 

First (non-grammar-related) definition of gender in the OED: 'Males or females viewed as a group; = sex n. 1'. The definition at the link states: 'Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions; (hence) the members of these categories viewed as a group; the males or females of a particular species, esp. the human race, considered collectively'.

The usage you appear to be aiming for is labelled by the OED as specific to 'Psychology and Sociology (originally U.S.)', not science.

Edited April 5, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[ttribe]

8 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

First (non-grammar-related) definition of gender in the OED: 'Males or females viewed as a group; = sex n. 1'. The definition at the link states: 'Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions; (hence) the members of these categories viewed as a group; the males or females of a particular species, esp. the human race, considered collectively'.

The usage you appear to be aiming for is labelled by the OED as specific to 'Psychology and Sociology (originally U.S.)', not science.

Psychology and Sociology aren't science? I'm sure that's news to them.

[ttribe]

9 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

It isn't trying to justify it. It's simply pointing out that plural marriage as practiced by the church was multiple simultaneous two person M-F marriages, not one marriage with more than two people.

It's mental gymnastics of the highest order, but whatever helps you stomach it, right?

[filovirus]

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Psychology and Sociology aren't science? I'm sure that's news to them.

There actually is a distinction between “hard” sciences and “soft” sciences. Psychology and sociology are the latter.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Psychology and Sociology aren't science? I'm sure that's news to them.

The Church's (and Elder Oaks's) usage of the word gender is in complete alignment with the first and only non-specialised definition in the OED. 

Edited April 5, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[jerryp48]

10 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

why would it?

How many times was the priesthood ban affirmed by leaders? 

Honestly, when one leader says "X will never change" it strikes me as hubris. We can all cite multiple examples of past leaders teaching what they believed was absolute truth, only to have that changed by a later leader. Isn't that the point of continuing revelation? Isn't that why it is said that a living leader is more vital than a dead leader?

I have no doubt that Oaks views the proclamation as absolute truth, but do we put our faith in the current understanding of a leader? Even IF the proclamation is teaches important principles needed by the people in today's world, eliminating the possibility of change and growth seems a bit foolish.

If that strikes you as hubris this definitely will.  God’s law of celestial marriage will never be expanded to include same-sex couples.  It’s not hubris it’s just seeing things as they really are.  Polygamy and the priesthood ban were tough doctrines but were not dialectically opposed to God’s eternal plan.  Marriage is about the propagation of family and procreation and it furthers God’s work. It’s hubris to assert that scripture and prophets haven’t been ultra-clear on marriage and how it fits into God’s eternal plan.  If we truly want to help those members with SSA we’ll stop filling their heads with false ideas of future doctrinal changes that absolutely won’t happen and start working on ways to truly help them move forward.

[JustAnAustralian]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

It's mental gymnastics of the highest order, but whatever helps you stomach it, right?

Mental gymnastics for what?

It was literally multiple simultaneous two-person M-F marriages. The women had no marital relationship with each other.

Edited April 5, 2022 by JustAnAustralian

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

It's mental gymnastics of the highest order, but whatever helps you stomach it, right?

Why?  To me it seems a point of accuracy to avoid confusing it with polyamory.  It doesn’t justify it in the least by simply pointing out it is not polyamory in my view.

Edited April 5, 2022 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Personal issue, but the term 'heterosexual marriage' drives me crazy. The historical, anthropological, and linguistic consensus is that heterosexuality is a late 19th-century social construct in the exact same way that homosexuality is, lacking historical precedent. The vast majority of marriages across human history, therefore, have not been heterosexual despite being almost entirely comprised of men marrying women. I'm not aware of any scriptural or prophetic injunction for the Saints to become 'heterosexuals', and in fact, men are expressly commanded by the Lord in both ancient and modern scripture not to be.

<end of rant/derail>

In this context it can simply mean between man and woman. It's easier and clearer than than writing differently sexed. And fwiw, people who tend to oppose SSM also have been slower to acknowledge sexual orientation in the first place as being real, the LDS Church, for example. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

People who tend to oppose SSM also have been slower to acknowledge sexual orientation in the first place as being real, the LDS Church, for example. 

Until six years ago, I worked in a research school at a major university that brought together close to 60 historians, anthropologists, and linguists. I'm unaware of any of them who rejected the academic consensus that sexual orientation is a late 19th-century social construct that has managed to spread through the networks of Western power and its attendant colonisation of the imagination. This was about intellectual honesty on their parts, not opposition to same-sex marriage.

Edited April 5, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

No, because that's not what polygamy was.

It wasn't one man and multiple women in one marriage.  It was one man with multiple marriages, each to one woman.

Marriage is always one man and one woman, even if the man has more than one marriage.

There are differences between bigamy and polygamy. Aside from legality, there's the consent of all parties, and all spouses of a polygamous marriage are participating in a polygamous marriage, which involves each wife understanding that she is not the single wife and the husband having more than one wife.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

There are differences between bigamy and polygamy. Aside from legality, there's the consent of all parties, and all spouses of a polygamous marriage are participating in a polygamous marriage, which involves each wife understanding that she is not the single wife and the husband having more than one wife.

But that doesn’t equate to the husband’s wives being married to one another. In each instance, it’s a marriage between a man and a woman. 

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

And fwiw, people who tend to oppose SSM also have been slower to acknowledge sexual orientation in the first place as being real…

Sexual orientation, as opposed to sexual attraction, is real in the same sense race is real, imo.  It is a social construct, its meaning determined by society, by collecting and categorizing ideas people have about themselves or others under one attribute, a way of seeing their life and the world that enough people have decided works to add clarity or is “true” that it gets established as part of language and knowledge.  The idea of race has a huge effect on others’ perceptions as well as self perception and yet race is not biological (there is not a gene or group of genes that just belong to “whites” or “blacks”) even though people act as if it is.

So depending on the context, it may be entirely appropriate to say “sexual orientation” or “race” isn’t real (such as a discussion about genetics).  In other contexts, it would be inaccurate, such as a discussion about social identifiers.

Edited April 5, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

there's the consent of all parties, and all spouses of a polygamous marriage are participating in a polygamous marriage, which involves each wife understanding that she is not the single wife and the husband having more than one wife.

Are you suggesting in the case of all polygamous marriages, wives consented to other marriages?  Being aware of a husband’s other marriages does not equate to either consent or involvement in the other marriages.  It would be better if it did, but unfortunately not true.  Even in Latter-day Saint history, we had husbands showing up with new wives without their current wives being informed or consenting to them.

Edited April 5, 2022 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

News flash!  If anything can be changed by revelation then we have no actual beliefs.

Not the case by any means. I have tons of "actual beliefs"

By the way, what is an "unactual" belief ???

That's like saying because science keeps changing our beliefs, we have no "actual" scientific beliefs.

You will simply see the world as a relativist and understand how paradigms work!

That which works for the intended purpose, works.

Welcome to my world  !

 

[Meadowchik]

12 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Until six years ago, I worked in a research school at a major university that brought together close to 60 historians, anthropologists, and linguists. I'm unaware of any of them who rejected the academic consensus that sexual orientation is a late 19th-century social construct that has managed to spread through the networks of Western power and its attendant colonisation of the imagination. This was about intellectual honesty on their parts, not opposition to same-sex marriage.

The academic consensus about what marriage has been is one thing, what potential is approved or supported is another position entirely.

[Meadowchik]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But that doesn’t equate to the husband’s wives being married to one another. In each instance, it’s a marriage between a man and a woman. 

Of course it doesn't, it is each wife sharing the husband, each not being his one wife as he is her one husband.

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you suggesting in the case of all polygamous marriages, wives consented to other marriages? 

No. 

Hypothetically, though, wouldn't there be bigamous polygamy and lawful polygamy, were polygamy legal?

I'm just drawing a distinction between being married to one person as their only spouse and being married to one person as one of their spouses. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

13 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The academic consensus about what marriage has been is one thing, what potential is approved or supported is another position entirely.

Entirely not what I wrote. At all.

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

(there is not a gene or group of genes that just belong to “whites” or “blacks”).

Then how do we instantly know who is black and who is white?

It seems totally obvious to me that this is wrong

Of course there are CASES where the line may be barely perceptible, that seems also obvious.

But if one takes 1000 randomly selected citizens of Sweeden and compares them with 1000 randomly selected citizens of Nigeria, one will obviously see genetic differences common to each group.

Maybe skin color might be one?

Curly vs straight hair?

I think I must be misunderstanding what you mean?