Family proclamation founded on irrevocable doctrine: President Oaks

[ttribe]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

It may be more accurate but, in my opinion, it is a line of reasoning which attempts to rationalize and legitimize a system that commoditizes women by equating it to the more culturally acceptable one man/one woman marriage. It comes off as silly and disingenuous.

[ttribe]

9 hours ago, filovirus said:

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

I spent two years in a PhD program and my minor was judgment and decision making. I am more than aware of this alleged "distinction." Nevertheless, I find it ignorant hubris for a bunch of Internet culture warriors to dismiss a concept as 'unscientific' out of convenience to rationalize an ill-informed theological position.

[ttribe]

9 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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. 

I see. So, the dictionary is more authoritative than actual scientific research in your mind. The dictionary...smh.

[JLHPROF]

10 hours ago, ttribe said:

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

Not even an attempt to justify polygamy, and I made no mention of its divinity.

But it's simply wrong to say it was a marriage with one man and multiple women.
It's one man with multiple marriages, each to one woman.  That's provides no justification for polygamy.  But it does clearly show that polygamy doesn't fall outside the one man/one woman per marriage definition.
You are welcome to still hate polygamy.  It just doesn't contradict the proclamation.

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Not even an attempt to justify polygamy, and I made no mention of its divinity.

But it's simply wrong to say it was a marriage with one man and multiple women.
It's one man with multiple marriages, each to one woman.  That's provides no justification for polygamy.  But it does clearly show that polygamy doesn't fall outside the one man/one woman per marriage definition.
You are welcome to still hate polygamy.  It just doesn't contradict the proclamation.

As I said before - silly and disingenuous.

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, ttribe said:

It may be more accurate but, in my opinion, it is a line of reasoning which attempts to rationalize and legitimize a system that commoditizes women by equating it to the more culturally acceptable one man/one woman marriage. It comes off as silly and disingenuous.

I'm not understanding how pointing out that polygamous marriages aren't group marriages makes polygamy any "better"?  We live in a society that accepts polyamory as a legitimate choice so clearly we don't have a problem with group marriages, so outlining the differences between the two isn't throwing polyamory under the bus. 

If it doesn't denigrate polyamory how does it elevate polygamy?

[Meadowchik]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Not even an attempt to justify polygamy, and I made no mention of its divinity.

But it's simply wrong to say it was a marriage with one man and multiple women.
It's one man with multiple marriages, each to one woman.  That's provides no justification for polygamy.  But it does clearly show that polygamy doesn't fall outside the one man/one woman per marriage definition.
You are welcome to still hate polygamy.  It just doesn't contradict the proclamation.

No way is it falling under the one man and one woman category. Having more than one spouse (or being one of multiple spouses) is fundamentally different from having one and only one spouse. One spouse means having one partner, prioritized as such. 

One man, one woman means a specific state, it's not as malleable as you claim.

 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

As I said before - silly and disingenuous.

Why is pointing out the differences between polygamy and polyamory "silly and disingenuous" but a refusal to acknowledge the differences between sex and gender "ignorant hubris"?

[Meadowchik]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not understanding how pointing out that polygamous marriages aren't group marriages makes polygamy any "better"?  We live in a society that accepts polyamory as a legitimate choice so clearly we don't have a problem with group marriages, so outlining the differences between the two isn't throwing polyamory under the bus. 

If it doesn't denigrate polyamory how does it elevate polygamy?

Does it need to elevate or denigrate? How about just saying it's not the same? Polygamy is different from polyamory, but they're both different from marriage between one man and one woman.

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Does it need to elevate or denigrate? How about just saying it's not the same? Polygamy is different from polyamory, but they're both different from marriage between one man and one woman.

ttribe stated that saying that polygamy is one man having multiple marriages is an attempt to justify polygamy.  So he apparently believes that it elevates it.  You'd have to ask him why because I don't understand his point.

But I agree with you, polygamy is not the same as monogamy.  But I agree with JLH too, in that polygamy is one man having multiple marriages, each to one woman.

I think it's the multiple marriages part that separates polygamy from monogamy, not the one man and one woman issue.

Edited April 5, 2022 by bluebell

[ttribe]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not understanding how pointing out that polygamous marriages aren't group marriages makes polygamy any "better"?  We live in a society that accepts polyamory as a legitimate choice so clearly we don't have a problem with group marriages, so outlining the differences between the two isn't throwing polyamory under the bus. 

If it doesn't denigrate polyamory how does it elevate polygamy?

 

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Why is pointing out the differences between polygamy and polyamory "silly and disingenuous" but a refusal to acknowledge the differences between sex and gender "ignorant hubris"?

As I've stated several times now, the argument being posited regarding polygamy v. polyamory is an effort to equate polygamy with the one man/one woman paradigm. In my opinion, it's an obvious ploy to reconcile two disparate positions of the Church; namely, the historical practice of polygamy with the Family Proclamation. As to your assertion that "society...accepts polyamory as a legitimate choice," I'd say your position is highly overstated as to how widespread any such acceptance is at this point. It has the appearance of saying - "Hey, we're just like you mainstream people on marriage! We're not like those weirdos in group marriages!"

As to your second question, there are several examples in this very thread of hand-waving dismissal of the results of scientific research in order to support the ongoing narrative of the alleged eternal nature of "gender." This is tantamount to saying - "I refuse to consider the science because it causes harm to my pre-existing belief system."

Edited April 5, 2022 by ttribe

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

On 4/3/2022 at 4:28 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

He just said it in Sunday PM session. He affirmed the proclamation is not just “changeable policy.”

I think this needs to be re-emphasized from time to time. I welcome President Oaks’s affirmation. 

Glad he affirmed the “Proclamation” as unchangeable doctrine. After all, it is Biblical Doctrine, and the Bible is unchanged, and always will be so, or so I hope. 

[filovirus]

42 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I spent two years in a PhD program and my minor was judgment and decision making. I am more than aware of this alleged "distinction." Nevertheless, I find it ignorant hubris for a bunch of Internet culture warriors to dismiss a concept as 'unscientific' out of convenience to rationalize an ill-informed theological position.

I too have an advanced degree in science. I find it ignorant hubris for a for an intellectual to dismiss the values and ideas of "internet culture warriors" (as you put it) in order to rationalize theological positions.

See, I can do that too!!!

Now, can we get past the haughtiness?

[bluebell]

37 minutes ago, ttribe said:

 

As I've stated several times now, the argument being posited regarding polygamy v. polyamory is an effort to equate polygamy with the one man/one woman paradigm. In my opinion, it's an obvious ploy to reconcile two disparate positions of the Church; namely, the historical practice of polygamy with the Family Proclamation. As to your assertion that "society...accepts polyamory as a legitimate choice," I'd say your position is highly overstated as to how widespread any such acceptance is at this point. It has the appearance of saying - "Hey, we're just like you mainstream people on marriage! We're not like those weirdos in group marriages!"

As to your second question, there are several examples in this very thread of hand-waving dismissal of the results of scientific research in order to support the ongoing narrative of the alleged eternal nature of "gender." This is tantamount to saying - "I refuse to consider the science because it causes harm to my pre-existing belief system."

I can see how you may assume that someone was trying to say the bold by explaining polygamy accurately, but once multiple posters told you that that's not what they were trying to do, why would you keep insisting that your original assumption was actually correct and the other posters are lying?

As to the underlined, I'm sure that that is true for some, but clearly it does not appear to be true for Hamba.  Refusing to agree with science (that has no universal consensus on the topic) is not always the same as the underlined.  That is you (again) framing someone's position in the worst light possible light, despite them explaining it's not correct.

Edit to add-on the acceptance of polyamory, I don't think that I'm overstating anything.  Last week I read an article, published on yahoo news, about the number of A-list celebrities that had openly spoken about currently their polyamorous relationships.  These were relationships that had been spoken about over the years, but this article was outlining how acceptable the practice had become (which the article seemed to see as a good thing).

Now, imagine the reaction if an A-list actor admitting to being in a polygamous relationship.  It would be HUGE news.  And probably not in a "hey, live and let live" way.

Edited April 5, 2022 by bluebell

[Metis_LDS]

I left school at 14 years old and self educated and even I know this thread is now pointless!

[ttribe]

27 minutes ago, filovirus said:

I too have an advanced degree in science. I find it ignorant hubris for a for an intellectual to dismiss the values and ideas of "internet culture warriors" (as you put it) in order to rationalize theological positions.

See, I can do that too!!!

Now, can we get past the haughtiness?

You tell me. You were the one who felt compelled to point out the alleged distinction between the "hard" and "soft" sciences, ostensibly to undermine my use of the word 'science.'

[ttribe]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I can see how you may assume that someone was trying to say the bold by explaining polygamy accurately, but once multiple posters told you that that's not what they were trying to do, why would you keep insisting that your original assumption was actually correct and the other posters are lying?

As to the underlined, I'm sure that that is true for some, but clearly it does not appear to be true for Hamba.  Refusing to agree with science (that has no universal consensus on the topic) is not always the same as the underlined.  That is you (again) framing someone's position in the worst light possible light, despite them explaining it's not correct.

Edit to add-on the acceptance of polyamory, I don't think that I'm overstating anything.  Last week I read an article, published on yahoo news, about the number of A-list celebrities that had openly spoken about currently their polyamorous relationships.  These were relationships that had been spoken about over the years, but this article was outlining how acceptable the practice had become (which the article seemed to see as a good thing).

Now, imagine the reaction if an A-list actor admitting to being in a polygamous relationship.  It would be HUGE news.  And probably not in a "hey, live and let live" way.

I called exactly no one a liar. No one. I pointed out how bad their argument looks. That's it.

As to celebrities, I think we can agree most celebrities and their lifestyles can hardly be considered mainstream.

[filovirus]

10 minutes ago, ttribe said:

You tell me. You were the one who felt compelled to point out the alleged distinction between the "hard" and "soft" sciences, ostensibly to undermine my use of the word 'science.'

And then you were the one to tell me how educated you are. I find usually once someone feels the need to back up their position by telling of all the schooling they had, as opposed to actually backing up the points of their position, that the discussion is at an ending point.

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, filovirus said:

And then you were the one to tell me how educated you are. I find usually once someone feels the need to back up their position by telling of all the schooling they had, as opposed to actually backing up the points of their position, that the discussion is at an ending point.

Okay.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Not even an attempt to justify polygamy, and I made no mention of its divinity.

But it's simply wrong to say it was a marriage with one man and multiple women.
It's one man with multiple marriages, each to one woman.  That's provides no justification for polygamy.  But it does clearly show that polygamy doesn't fall outside the one man/one woman per marriage definition.
You are welcome to still hate polygamy.  It just doesn't contradict the proclamation.

When a man has multiple marriages with different women, isn’t that called bigamy?   Why does the church always refer to what they practiced as polygamy ?

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

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. 

I don't get it because to me all reality AS WE KNOW IT has to be socially constructed, since human brains are the only input for what humans know.

The whole idea of genes and science itself is socially constructed.

So the idea that "physical features are bedrock reality, "race" is a construct built on top of it", does not make sense to me because the importance of a human face IS both bedrock reality AND a social construct, ask any 6 month old. If she does not know her mother's face from others, she has not bonded to human culture and will have a very tough life!

We are social creatures, built in, and all we know is what humans know, which means socially constructed.

Put any 6 month old out in the wilderness - heck any average 35 year old- and see how long they survive!

I just read a news article about a man who went hiking with his dog, and went missing. They found both a few days later, the man was dead, the dog was alive.

We simply can't survive anymore without human culture to give us even water and food.

The dog could do without human society, but the man could not!

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

the argument being posited regarding polygamy v. polyamory is an effort to equate polygamy with the one man/one woman paradigm

Certainly doesn’t go there in my mind.  It does place it into one man-one woman sexual or romantic relationships, which besides monogamy, includes cohabitation, courtships, adultery, fornication, bigamy and likely others moral and immoral my brain can’t think of right now.

[MrShorty]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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!

 

 

Part of the mystery is the uncertainty I feel. I do not yet know where I end up. I only know that I am attracted to some at the top and some at the bottom and much in the middle, but I don't know what it all means, so, if it seems confusing it is because I am somewhat confused myself. I would add that I think certainty is often a problem in these controversial issues. I have long observed that the certainty with which Elders McConkie and Smith spoke against evolution seems to be a big part of what drives the controversy around evolution. A bit less certainty on their parts would make the modern discourse so much easier.

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, Fether said:

Because plural marriage was not based in unchanging doctrine.

Brigham Young would disagree with you.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Glad he affirmed the “Proclamation” as unchangeable doctrine. After all, it is Biblical Doctrine, and the Bible is unchanged, and always will be so, or so I hope. 

Technically he said that it is "founded on unchangeable doctrine", and not that it itself is an unchangeable doctrine.  That is an important difference.   For example, Brigham Young had several teachings (which have since been disavowed) that were founded on eternal doctrine.  He would point to the scriptures as a foundation for his "doctrine".    While the foundation may be true and eternal doctrine, what we sometimes build upon that foundation is no more than straw in the wind. 

I think the proclamation is an important document and is largely inspired.  There are some parts that I am not sure are revelated truth however.  For example, if it is true that gender is an essential and eternal identity, I don't know what to make of intersex individuals.  Is their premortal and post-mortal identity somewhere between male and female?  If it is "eternal", how could it possibly change from what it is now?  The proclamation only mentions that males and females are created in the image of God.  Again, what about intersex individuals?  Male or female is in fact a false dichotomy in mortality.  What does that tell us about the eternal nature of gender?   Of this question I have no answer and I don't think the proclamation gives us any direction.  There seem to be those who don't fit into the proclamation model.  There must be more that we don't know. 

Edited April 5, 2022 by pogi