Family proclamation founded on irrevocable doctrine: President Oaks

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Entirely not what I wrote. At all.

My point is that the academics you mentioned might not oppose SSM. What you said about them does not mean they necessarily oppose it.

I was speaking of tendency of the pool of people who oppose SSM; a relatively small cohort of scholars are not representative of it. 

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

11 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

My point is that the academics you mentioned might not oppose SSM.

Overwhelmingly they don't.

Quote

I was speaking of tendency of the pool of people who oppose SSM; a relatively small cohort of scholars are not representative of it. 

You described the Church's position as if it were some problematic fringe position arising from opposition to same-sex 'marriage'. It is not. Church leaders are in fact in complete alignment with the historical, anthropological, and linguistic consensus on sexual orientation.

Edited April 5, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, MrShorty said:

they want me to either come to the top or fall to the bottom, never content to let me exist in the middle.

In fact, you do that quite well, imo!

I can never figure out what side you are on, or why you have upvoted my comments  ! I put you in one mental category and then you will upvote the category opposed to the one I thought you would like!

You are the Mystery Man!

 

[Meadowchik]

Just now, Hamba Tuhan said:

You described the Church's position as if it were some problematic fringe position. It is not. The Church is in complete alignment with the historical, anthropological, and linguistic consensus on sexual orientation.

I said the church has been slower to acknowledge sexual orientation as being real.

I've watched it unfold in real time, and--as one who has argued opposition and later support--I've participated in thousands of discussions about same sex marriage, a significant portion of them with members of the church. It's always been a bit more difficult linguistically to speak about the topic in an LDS context because the LDS vocabulary has been slower to use the current vocabulary of the time. For example, using same-sex-attracted individual instead of homosexual.

 

 

[OGHoosier]

23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

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?

If I understand correctly, I think she means that these various physical features have been associated with social constructs called "races." There's not a gene that identifiably makes one a certain race, rather people are associated with races based on their possession of certain physical features. We can instantly tell who is black and who is white (well, in a lot of cases) because they carry the physical features which are associated with races, but that does not mean that "race" is any less a socially constructed category. 

Basically, physical features are bedrock reality, "race" is a construct built on top of it. 

Honestly it's a distinction without a difference in my opinion. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

34 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I said the church has been slower to acknowledge sexual orientation as being real.

Correct. Because sexual orientation is a late 19th-century social construct with no historical precedent. It's 'real' only the sense that other social constructs are -- i.e., people believe in them. Church leaders know this, and every academic I've ever worked with also knows this.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I think I must be misunderstanding what you mean?

Mark, this should be something right up your intellectual alley. The literature on the social construction of race is pretty extensive and conclusive at this point. It even has a known and very recent genealogy, not unlike sexual orientation. One of the great 'tricks' of ascendant discourses is their ability to appear timeless and therefore universal. This is where a good grasp of history really helps deconstruct them. I'm still at work but may be able to recommend some introductory readings later.

[Meadowchik]

12 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Correct. Because sexual orientation is a late 19th-century social construct with no historical precedent. It's 'real' only the sense that other social constructs are -- i.e., people believe in them. Church leaders know this, and every academic I've ever worked with also knows this.

People believe in them and then use words to describe them, including words to identify their own experience. In the case of homosexuality this has often been in the face of opposition ranging from subtle to brutal.

Persecuted groups often struggle just to be part of the lexicon, and to be included but with identifiers which are not derogatory or demeaning. There seems to be a process, simply put: invisibility, then visibility being identified but demeaned, and eventually identified with respect, if they're fortunate.

It is intellectually honest to use the words that best describe what one means, even if the words are not perfect or even if they may have different meanings in different contexts, or even if they require clarification between genuinely interested parties.

So perhaps more patience with language would help you--please understand that people are using the words available. It's often a best estimation until a more accurate vocabulary is adopted, and in this general topic is it against a history of suppression including linguistic suppression.

 

 

 

 

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

28 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

So perhaps more patience with language would help you--please understand that people are using the words available. It's often a best estimation until a more accurate vocabulary is adopted, and in this general topic is it against a history of suppression including linguistic suppression.

This is perhaps the most creative framing I've ever seen for a discourse that is not only ascendant but, to date, totalising in its reach and thoroughly hegemonic in its intentions. Congratulations!

Edited April 5, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[Meadowchik]

23 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

This is perhaps the most creative framing I've ever seen for a discourse that is not only ascendant but, to date, totalising in its reach and thoroughly hegemonic in its intentions. Congratulations!

No thanks. I'd rather have a genuine conversation.

Language is created by those who use it, not just by academics.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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

We don’t…if by that you mean their ancestry.  If you mean simply skin color, then you can have twins who are different races.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/561472/Twins-different-coloured-eyes-hair-skin

If physical characteristics, is this woman black or white?

This:

Is someone who has black parents, but has decided to live as ‘white’ because they are light skinned black or white?  Does their race depend on what type of culture they choose to live in or physical characteristics or ancestry?  Their actual biology or what people assume their biology is?

And their children, if they see themselves as white, what biologically has changed if they suddenly perceive themselves as black?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2021/10/13/white-black-multiracial-passing-census/

Quote

For the majority of my life, I’d never been asked my race. Everyone, including me, assumed I was what I appeared to be — a White woman. I never considered that once my mother’s story went public, people would question my racial identity.

”Well, I’m looking at you and I can see what you look like. But,” she struggled, “what are you?”

https://www.cnn.com/2015/06/12/opinions/rachel-dolezal-france/index.html

Edited April 5, 2022 by Calm

[JustAnAustralian]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

If you look at localised subsets sure. Not when you look at wider groups though

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/30/AR2009043002485.html

Quote

Africans are more genetically diverse than the inhabitants of the rest of the world combined, according to a sweeping study that carried researchers into remote regions to sample the bloodlines of more than 100 distinct populations.

 

[Calm]

The one drop rule…someone is of black race if they have one drop of black blood in them…but since all blood is produced by the same cells, exactly how can one drop of blood be black and all the rest white?  That is nonsense, so what do they actually mean?  They mean one black ancestor….genetically speaking though, it only takes around 9 generations before an ancestor can go completely missing, so in the case where that one black ancestor is 10 generations back without any shared genetic info between them and their descendant….how do we instantly know that descendant is black (assuming the validity of the one drop rule)?

https://gcbias.org/2013/11/04/how-much-of-your-genome-do-you-inherit-from-a-particular-ancestor/

Edited April 5, 2022 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

If physical characteristics, is this woman black or white?

We have a ward member whose immediate ancestors are Anglo-American, Chinese, and Samoan, but he was born and raised in none of those places. He married a woman whose father is English/Maori and whose mother is from Greece, but she was born and raised in none of those places. They have a little girl, born here. Good luck to anyone who thinks he can assign her a race based on either physical characteristics, ancestry, or cultural traits!

There are very good reasons why preventing 'miscegenation' is always an essential aspect of racialist discourses.

Edited April 5, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

When there is a possibility of several million “blacks” passing as “white”, not sure one should confidently claim race is commonly instantly recognizable.

Quote

the extent of passing has never been reliably quantified by social scientists, hence estimates up to 1950 ranged from hundreds of thousands to several million blacks vanishing into the ranks of unsuspecting whites.

https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/passing-passing-peculiarly-american-racial-tradition-approaches-irrelevance/

Then there is the issue of Hollywood imagining three races (Asian, Native American, and Latin) pretty interchangeable until it became politically incorrect, but even now dark hair and eyes allows them to pick a Welsh woman to fill the biographical role of a Latina.

Edited April 5, 2022 by Calm

[Nofear]

12 hours ago, rockpond said:

Position 3:  Continuing revelation.

^ Maybe that overlaps with #2.  Or maybe it's just a less cynical version of #2.  But it's a fair position for people to hold.

I suppose that is a fair statement. One can hold that the current and past prophets aren't wrong but that doctrine and policy might/will change through revelation.

Though, to also be fair, I don't see too many taking that position. It's either position 2a) the prophets are wrong, but they are still prophets (implies that it can/will change) or 2b) the prophets are wrong, and they ain't prophets (implies the Church will or can do whatever/whenever).

 

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

We have a ward member whose immediate ancestors are Anglo-American, Chinese, and Samoan, but he was born and raised in none of those places. He married a woman whose father is English/Maori and whose mother is from Greece, but she was born and raised in none of those places. They have a little girl, born here. Good luck to anyone who thinks he can assign her a race based on either physical characteristics, ancestry, or cultural traits!

There are very good reasons why preventing 'miscegenation' is always an essential aspect of racialist discourses.

We celebrated American Thanksgiving in Canada with a business professor who knew no Chinese, couldn’t use chopsticks, had a typical Californian accent (as I did), even had a name like Smith…can’t remember it unfortunately.  Our families had been the same income and educational levels, lived in the same type of communities in California growing up.  He was 3rd or 4th generation and the only real difference between me and him besides sex was his eyes were slightly almond shaped and a bit darker brown (our hair color was pretty much the same as well as haircut as I like mine quite short usually), his skin less blotchy pink and therefore less prone to sunburn, and he had a Ph.D.  I was jealous over the last two.  Oh, and he had two girls and I had one boy, one girl.  Two American families in a foreign  country, sharing a remembrance of home.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/25/race-east-jackson-ohio-appalachia-white-black

Quote

I’m 53 years old, and that’s all I’ve ever been raised as: black,” Shreck says. “So if you’re taught that from when I’m old enough to understand, up to when you’re a grown woman, then [it’s] born and bred in you and you’re automatically black.”

As first reported in State of the Re:Union, most of Shreck’s generation and the generations before her here in East Jackson, on the edge of Appalachian Ohio, were raised to believe they are black. Never mind that they might register to most as white by appearance, or that there is hardly a trace of black ancestry left in their blood. This inherited identity most East Jackson residents still cling to and fiercely protect is based on where they were born and who they were told they are. It comes from a history rooted in racism and an identity placed upon their ancestors – and now many of them – without their consent.

Quote

Officials in Waverly created East Jackson by corralling any newcomer they deemed to be black because of their appearance, or by second-class status because they were laborers or housekeepers, into the smaller town. Some forced to stay in East Jackson were not black, but because they all lived in East Jackson, grew up together and were treated as black by law, a community that identified as black took root. They married across racial lines, and had multiracial children. Over generations, as fewer black people sought this area out, black heritage thinned out. But black identity did not.

 

 

Edited April 5, 2022 by Calm

[SwedishLDS]

The whole position of future same sex marriage really has no indication of happening imo. The teachings has been very clear and we know what to do and what to teach. We only have to follow at this point. Sure what ifs are always possible but I just see no indication anywhere in history, the scriptures, prophetic statements and other of this happening. All of the scriptures are built upon the traditional family unit

Gender is eternal. As said earlier 

“the instructions to unite male and female, marry, raise children, multiply and replenish, and the definition of exaltation are all throughout and clearly laid out. Lineage, inheritance, family lines, patriarchal blessings, marriage and family sealings.  The entire plan of the gospel revolves around the father/mother/child relationships.  The blessings of Abraham and the covenant are based entirely in his seed.  Eve's entire justification for eating the fruit according to scripture was to be able to reproduce.”

There are plenty of things which will not exist in the afterlife including disabilities and mental illnesses. Many people likewise oppose this view in certain communities because they have such a strong identity connected to their disability. We know however, our biggest identity should be as a child of God. 

In a similar manner, from what we have been taught on the matter, it appears LGBT feelings will not exist in the afterlife. They are one of multitude of different earthly trials and experiences here on earth. 

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction

 

ELDER WICKMAN: One question that might be asked by somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is, “Is this something I’m stuck with forever? What bearing does this have on eternal life? If I can somehow make it through this life, when I appear on the other side, what will I be like?”

Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.

The good news for somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is this: 1) It is that ‘I’m not stuck with it forever.’ It’s just now. Admittedly, for each one of us, it’s hard to look beyond the ‘now’ sometimes. But nonetheless, if you see mortality as now, it’s only during this season. 2) If I can keep myself worthy here, if I can be true to gospel commandments, if I can keep covenants that I have made, the blessings of exaltation and eternal life that Heavenly Father holds out to all of His children apply to me. Every blessing — including eternal marriage — is and will be mine in due course.

ELDER OAKS: Let me just add a thought to that. There is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband, a wife, and posterity. Further, men are that they might have joy. In the eternal perspective, same-gender activity will only bring sorrow and grief and the loss of eternal opportunities.

 

Why doubt our leaders. There’s no way we are better than them

Edited April 5, 2022 by SwedishLDS

[the narrator]

15 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

The Hebrew word also means, "wife" and is determined by context.  The spelling in Genesis 3:8 (wə·’iš·tōw),  would indicate, "his wife"

Yes, but the possessive simply makes it "his woman" or wife or girlfriend or concubine or whatever. My point remains though-that there was no "marriage" as you understand the term.

[the narrator]

9 hours 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”

I think "gender" is frequently used incorrectly by Church leaders because they have some odd aversion to saying the S-E-X word.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, SwedishLDS said:

Why doubt our leaders. There’s no way we are better than them

First, it's not so much a question about who is better but who can be correct. What prevents church leaders from being incorrect, what prevents us (individually or collectively) from being correct? The fact is, even the church, some leaders turn out being incorrect in their sayings while there were contemporary laypersons with a more correct view.

And by the way, I'm very glad "traditional"marriage is no longer the standard. I don't want to be a man's property.

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, filovirus said:

Next question: If a person in a SS marriage wanted to be baptized, what would be the process? Would the process be different for someone in a heterosexual marriage? If the process if different, does that mean that God sees the civil marriages between SS and heterosexual as different?

If the church changed its doctrine that SSM didn’t keep someone from being able to make and keep their baptismal covenants, then I imagine it would be the same for everyone.

If the church didn’t change its teachings on that issue, then getting baptized will remain different for someone in a SSM than for those in heterosexual marriages.  The SSM person would have to divorce and leave their family before being able to be baptized and the heterosexual person wouldn’t.

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Yeah, by our lights it was pretty darn wrong. Wrong enough to delegitimize the entire paradigm?

I guess everyone has a different standard and tolerance for such things.  Let's reframe this. If you had invested with Bernie Madoff would you give him a pass once your realized how badly he had bilked you?  Or would it be "Well investment managers are not infallible."  The LDS leaders make some fairly strong claims about themselves and how we should follow them. For me at least such claims require a better track record. I just don't see it.  The priesthood ban is simply one of many such examples. 

 

18 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

 

YMMV. 

What is YMMV?

18 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Honestly at this point I think its a personal call. 

Indeed.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I guess everyone has a different standard and tolerance for such things.  Let's reframe this. If you had invested with Bernie Madoff would you give him a pass once your realized how badly he had bilked you?  Or would it be "Well investment managers are not infallible."  The LDS leaders make some fairly strong claims about themselves and how we should follow them. For me at least such claims require a better track record. I just don't see it.  The priesthood ban is simply one of many such examples. 

 

What is YMMV?

Indeed.

Your mileage may vary. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, SwedishLDS said:

The whole position of future same sex marriage really has no indication of happening imo. The teachings has been very clear and we know what to do and what to teach. We only have to follow at this point. Sure what ifs are always possible but I just see no indication anywhere in history, the scriptures, prophetic statements and other of this happening. All of the scriptures are built upon the traditional family unit

Gender is eternal. As said earlier 

“the instructions to unite male and female, marry, raise children, multiply and replenish, and the definition of exaltation are all throughout and clearly laid out. Lineage, inheritance, family lines, patriarchal blessings, marriage and family sealings.  The entire plan of the gospel revolves around the father/mother/child relationships.  The blessings of Abraham and the covenant are based entirely in his seed.  Eve's entire justification for eating the fruit according to scripture was to be able to reproduce.”

There are plenty of things which will not exist in the afterlife including disabilities and mental illnesses. Many people likewise oppose this view in certain communities because they have such a strong identity connected to their disability. We know however, our biggest identity should be as a child of God. 

In a similar manner, from what we have been taught on the matter, it appears LGBT feelings will not exist in the afterlife. They are one of multitude of different earthly trials and experiences here on earth. 

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction

 

ELDER WICKMAN: One question that might be asked by somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is, “Is this something I’m stuck with forever? What bearing does this have on eternal life? If I can somehow make it through this life, when I appear on the other side, what will I be like?”

Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.

The good news for somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is this: 1) It is that ‘I’m not stuck with it forever.’ It’s just now. Admittedly, for each one of us, it’s hard to look beyond the ‘now’ sometimes. But nonetheless, if you see mortality as now, it’s only during this season. 2) If I can keep myself worthy here, if I can be true to gospel commandments, if I can keep covenants that I have made, the blessings of exaltation and eternal life that Heavenly Father holds out to all of His children apply to me. Every blessing — including eternal marriage — is and will be mine in due course.

ELDER OAKS: Let me just add a thought to that. There is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband, a wife, and posterity. Further, men are that they might have joy. In the eternal perspective, same-gender activity will only bring sorrow and grief and the loss of eternal opportunities.

 

Why doubt our leaders. There’s no way we are better than them

Hi Swed,

I agree that there is no current indication of any changes happening.  But I am sure that many black members felt the same way in the early church.  They were told that the scriptures are clear and that the prophets have spoken.  They were told that they would not have the priesthood until after the resurrection.  It turns out, the scriptures really were not that clear, and that many prophets were wrong.

Quote

“the instructions to unite male and female, marry, raise children, multiply and replenish, and the definition of exaltation are all throughout and clearly laid out. Lineage, inheritance, family lines, patriarchal blessings, marriage and family sealings.  The entire plan of the gospel revolves around the father/mother/child relationships.  The blessings of Abraham and the covenant are based entirely in his seed.  Eve's entire justification for eating the fruit according to scripture was to be able to reproduce.”

Many families struggle with infertility and don't fit into the traditional mold.  It can be hard for these families to find their place in the gospel, quite honestly.  I know because my wife and I struggled with infertility for 10 years.  It was often painful to attend church and hear people teach that one of the primary purposes of life is to reproduce and have children; that the greatest happiness in life comes from bearing and raising children; that no other blessing in life can compensate for raising a family, etc.  In testimony meeting we would often hear, "I am so grateful that the Lord trusts me enough to give me children..."  The implications were terrible for my wife and I.  We had faith that we could some day have children in eternity, and perhaps maybe some day have enough money to adopt, but we felt left out of the plan of mortality in many ways - like we didn't fit.  I can't imagine how much more difficult it might be for faithful gay Latter-day Saints.  

Quote

In a similar manner, from what we have been taught on the matter, it appears LGBT feelings will not exist in the afterlife. They are one of multitude of different earthly trials and experiences here on earth. 

This seems as baseless as the justification for the priesthood ban, quite honestly.  There is no scriptural or revelatory foundation for this.  It is wishful thinking, at this point.  We need a revelation.  

Quote

The good news for somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is this: 1) It is that ‘I’m not stuck with it forever.’ It’s just now. Admittedly, for each one of us, it’s hard to look beyond the ‘now’ sometimes. But nonetheless, if you see mortality as now, it’s only during this season.

Again, there is no revelation about this.  Also, the wording is quite offensive, honestly - "The good news is..."I'm not stuck with it forever".  No, the good news is that these children of God are exactly as they are supposed to be, and as our perfect creator created them.  My children both have albinism.  If someone said to them that "the good news is that they wont be like that forever", I would have difficulty restraining myself from engaging in a Will Smith style smack down.

Quote

Why doubt our leaders. There’s no way we are better than them

...said many in the handcart companies who blindly followed their leaders to their death  

The fact is that our leaders are fallible.  There is a long history of false teachings that guided the church into strange and dangerous beliefs.  While we need to sustain our leaders and keep a watchful eye on them, we always need to understand that they are fallible and should never have blind faith in them, but should question everything - as Brigham Young counseled.  When leaders are taking a position that doesn't feel right with you, it is ok to question.  It is ok to ask for clarification in the basis of their beliefs.  

I am not suggesting that they are wrong on this matter, but I am suggesting that it is not based on anything that has been revealed to the church.  Until a clear revelation is given, it is ok to take a more nuanced position. 

Edited April 5, 2022 by pogi