Family proclamation founded on irrevocable doctrine: President Oaks

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, CA Steve said:

I can't speak for others but I do it all the time.

"I'll start my diet tomorrow after this meal of burger and fries that isn't really all that bad for me."

"I can hit the snooze button one more time and still make it to work on time."

"My kid would never do something like that."

 

So lying to yourself and being disingenuous to yourself are the exact same thing?  Ok.

So how does that work when ttribe specifically said that saying that someone is lying, and calling them disingenuous, are not the same thing?  That lying and being disingenuous are different things?

[pogi]

26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s not just President Oaks. The entire First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles were signatories to the proclamation at the time it was published. Church leaders have continually, consistently and unitedly reaffirmed it since then. It doesn’t work to try to marginalize it by comparing it to some quirky thing Brigham Young is reported to have said in this occasion or that. And the assumption is baseless that the proclamation will be disavowed if one merely waits long enough for the current leadership to die off. 

Their signatures were in no way affirming that it is official, unchanging, and eternally binding doctrine on the saints.   These are not some "quirky" comments from Brigham Young, the leadership consistently proclaimed many of these teachings as truths and doctrines that will never change (See kimpearsons post above).  Prophets claimed to "know" certain things and said that anyone who believes contrary is "deceiving themselves".   Well...things changed.   Time causes funny things to happen. 

You seem to be equating this document with some kind of creed or systematic theology.  We do not have any form of catechism like the Catholic Church which provides a definitive statement of the official theology of the church.  There simply is no systematic theology in our Church. 

Do you mind answering my questions about intersex individuals and how they fit in with the proclamation?  I have asked twice, you have neglected to answer twice. Third time is hopefully the charm.  

Quote

And the assumption is baseless that the proclamation will be disavowed if one merely waits long enough for the current leadership to die off. 

I think the idea that the unanimous and consistent teachings of the prophets and leadership throughout many generations can change is not baseless at all.  There is a long history of it, in fact.  It is baseless claims like yours that often makes these changes take so long.    

[pogi]

54 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We are slow learners.

I think we would all be so much more malleable if we rejected the idea of creeds and adopt the idea of holism.   People, and even prophets, may be hesitant to question when there is a long history of one narrative strongly proclaiming a "doctrine", which historically has hindered progress and slowed learning.   We seem to be seeing the same problem here with the proclamation which is being upheld as absolute, unquestionable, and unchanging eternal creed.  The problem is that it simply isn't.  We have an open canon and the proclamation is not even a part of it.  It is an important document that represents our leaders understanding at this time in how they feel inspired to direct the church.  I think we shoot ourselves in the foot and potentially become slow learners when we pretend like it is more than that.             

[carbon dioxide]

On 4/4/2022 at 9:21 AM, Meadowchik said:

Perhaps let those concerned explain themselves. 

The fact is that with every generation of faithful families in the church, are born new people who are LGBTQ. That's the issue. They are part of the church and the teachings against them are harmful.

Gay people are not the only people who have challenges or there are teachings that might be considered by some to be "harmful."  We all have our favorite sins, habits, or tendencies that are harmed by the gospel.  That is because we are sent here to deal with and overcome if possible our challenges.  There are some who think God should carve out special exceptions for them so they can be accommodated.  In the perspective of the gospel, we are all born with stuff that goes against the laws of God.  The natural man is an enemy to God thing.   We are to put off the natural man and conform to things to the will of God.  That means we have to sacrifice.  Might have to endure some discomfort or pain.  Might not get all of our wishes during this short period we are alive in this mortal existence. 

I am sure the whole idea and teaching to Jesus that he has to perform the atonement was a harmful teaching to him.  He did not want to do it but instead of negotiating a compromise with the Father, he sacrificed his will to the Father.   We will not have to deal with such uncomfortable and harmful realities that Jesus had to accept and follow but we have our own issues.  We are left with the choice to follow and sacrifice or demand be changed for us be made because we don't want to change or sacrifice.

[CA Steve]

33 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So lying to yourself and being disingenuous to yourself are the exact same thing?  Ok.

No they are not. 

I thought you would see the difference with those examples but maybe you are just being disingenuous with yourself. 😜

Edited April 5, 2022 by CA Steve

[rongo]

49 minutes ago, pogi said:

Do you mind answering my questions about intersex individuals and how they fit in with the proclamation?  I have asked twice, you have neglected to answer twice. Third time is hopefully the charm.  

This wasn't directed at me, but I would say that the intersex person's "eternal gender" (proclamation definition) is unambiguous and clear (and eternal), but the "phenotypical" manifestation in mortality is ambiguous and unclear. But, that doesn't mean that the spirit is "intersex" --- they are eternally either male or female, from the beginning when intelligence was combined with spirit matter.  

Edited April 5, 2022 by rongo

[Meadowchik]

11 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Gay people are not the only people who have challenges or there are teachings that might be considered by some to be "harmful."  We all have our favorite sins, habits, or tendencies that are harmed by the gospel.  That is because we are sent here to deal with and overcome if possible our challenges.  There are some who think God should carve out special exceptions for them so they can be accommodated.  In the perspective of the gospel, we are all born with stuff that goes against the laws of God.  The natural man is an enemy to God thing.   We are to put off the natural man and conform to things to the will of God.  That means we have to sacrifice.  Might have to endure some discomfort or pain.  Might not get all of our wishes during this short period we are alive in this mortal existence. 

I am sure the whole idea and teaching to Jesus that he has to perform the atonement was a harmful teaching to him.  He did not want to do it but instead of negotiating a compromise with the Father, he sacrificed his will to the Father.   We will not have to deal with such uncomfortable and harmful realities that Jesus had to accept and follow but we have our own issues.  We are left with the choice to follow and sacrifice or demand be changed for us be made because we don't want to change or sacrifice.

There's nothing inherently wrong or bad about being gay or in a gay relationship. That's the core issue here, people calling something good bad. The arguments against it are not compelling intellectually or spiritually. "Believe us we know" is not good enough when they're telling people gay relationships are wrong, especially considering that a loving gay relationship can be one of the most righteous, beautiful experiences of life.

 

[Fether]

21 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

especially considering that a loving gay relationship can be one of the most righteous … experiences of life.

 

Aside from the fact that it is a sin.

Im sorry… how is a gay relationship more righteous than a straight relationship? Sounds like blatant lgbtq propaganda to me.

I also remember see studies showing homosexual couples (particularly biological female based) are more violent than straight couples. I’m not sure what studies count as acceptable, but I’ll dig around for those again

 

UPDATE: https://ncadv.org/blog/posts/domestic-violence-and-the-lgbtq-community

“43.8% of lesbian women and 61.1% of bisexual women have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner at some point in their lifetime, as opposed to 35% of heterosexual women.

Transgender victims are more likely to experience intimate partner violence in public, compared to those who do not identify as transgender.

Bisexual victims are more likely to experience sexual violence, compared to people who do not identify as bisexual.”

Edited April 5, 2022 by Fether

[rockpond]

8 hours ago, Nofear said:

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).

 

I think the right/wrong dichotomy in your statements is where you may be getting tripped up in understanding those who hold positions different than yours.  Consider that the prophets may be simply working with the most/best that has been revealed and that continuing revelation will restore additional truths.

[Meadowchik]

13 minutes ago, Fether said:

Aside from the fact that it is a sin.

Im sorry… how is a gay relationship more righteous than a straight relationship? Sounds like blatant lgbtq propaganda to me.

I also remember see studies showing homosexual couples (particularly biological female based) are more violent than straight couples. I’m not sure what studies count as acceptable, but I’ll dig around for those again

 

UPDATE: https://ncadv.org/blog/posts/domestic-violence-and-the-lgbtq-community

“43.8% of lesbian women and 61.1% of bisexual women have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner at some point in their lifetime, as opposed to 35% of heterosexual women.

Transgender victims are more likely to experience intimate partner violence in public, compared to those who do not identify as transgender.

Bisexual victims are more likely to experience sexual violence, compared to people who do not identify as bisexual.”

I didn't say gay relationships are more righteous than straight ones. 

Like I said, it's only a sin according to some peoples' word. Why should that be believed when gay relationships demonstrably produce good fruit?

Violence is wrong in any relationship. Neither gay or straight relationships are inherently violent.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You're right. That definitely strikes me as hubris  

Not to beat a dead horse with the obvious, BUT...there are plenty of marriages where there is no procreation or even the potential of procreation. This could be due to age, disability, contraceptive choices etc. which begs the question of whether a marriage with no possibility of procreation fails to meet God's plan or do his work? If the answer is "no" that is incredibly offensive to anyone married in such a situation and to parents who raise adoptive children. I have a 70 year uncle who just married a 72 year old woman. No procreation happening there, yet there is more to marriage than procreation. 

Please tell me how a SSM differs from other non-procreative marriages? Are all non-procreative marriages opposed to God's law of marriage? Are they just pretending at marriage because it's better than being alone? Or is that OK because in the next life they may sxually procreate little spirits? Is that how it works? Does anyone even know or claim to know?

President Oaks addressed this in his talk on Sunday. Did you listen to it? Did you read the partial transcription I made and posted on this tread yesterday?

“Consequently [Satan] seeks to oppose progress toward exaltation by distorting marriage, discouraging childbearing or confusing gender. However, we know that in the long run, the divine purpose of our loving Heavenly Father will not be changed. Personal circumstances may change, and God’s plan assures that in the long run, the faithful who keep their covenants will have the opportunity to qualify for every promised blessing. 

(Emphasis mine)

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Do you mind answering my questions about intersex individuals and how they fit in with the proclamation?  I have asked twice, you have neglected to answer twice. Third time is hopefully the charm.  

I’ll answer it with the same quote I just provided to HJW. In fact, I won’t bother to paste it in. I’ll just invite you to look at my post just above this one and regard it as being addresddd to you as well. 
 

Added later: Or look at Rongo’s response. He gave you a pretty good one. 
 

What percentage of the population fits the category you describe, by the way? Is it greater than those who struggle with infertility, or with those who are born with disabilities that preclude childbearing? I’m sure President Oaks’s assurance would apply in all such cases. 
 

By the way, why are you so quick to judge those who refused to heed First Presidency counsel with regard to vaccines and mask wearing yet so dismissive of this formal and longstanding declaration by the First Presidency and the Twelve? Isn’t that a bit inconsistent? How do you reconcile it? 

Edited April 5, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[pogi]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

This wasn't directed at me, but I would say that the intersex person's "eternal gender" (proclamation definition) is unambiguous and clear (and eternal), but the "phenotypical" manifestation in mortality is ambiguous and unclear. But, that doesn't mean that the spirit is "intersex" ---

What exactly is the "proclamation definition" of gender and exactly what revelatory and unchanging doctrine is that definition founded upon?   The definition seems to equate gender with premortal/postmortal sex.  The "eternal gender" of intersex individuals is "unambiguous and clear" to whom?  If gender is based on sex, what eternal sex are they?  How is that unambiguous and clear?   Gender, for them, can only be based on how they personally identify - because that is all these people have to go on (and they often identify in different ways from each other, even within the same category of intersex).  So, is that the "proclamation definition" of gender - how we personally identify? 

How are they suppose to know if they should marry a man or a woman?  Is it just based on how they personally identify with gender or who they are personally attracted to?  What if they happen to be attracted to their same gender (whatever that is)?  What if they identify their gender wrong?  These things are in NO WAY unambiguous and clear. 

Quote

they are eternally either male or female, from the beginning when intelligence was combined with spirit matter.  

You seem to be making an addendum to the proclamation here.  It mentions nothing about gender beginning at spiritual birth - and where is the eternal and unchanging revelatory doctrine that idea is founded upon?  All the proclamation said is that gender is "eternal".  If we had no gender as intelligences, then gender is not internal, or eternal, after-all.  It requires redefining terms in ways that do not jive with how we use them in other doctrines.  None of this seems to be based on unchangeable and revealed doctrine.  It all seems to be speculation to me.  To consider this an unchanging creed is to hinder our progress in understanding. 

Edited April 5, 2022 by pogi

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

No they are not. 

I thought you would see the difference with those examples but maybe you are just being disingenuous with yourself. 😜

I sincerely have no idea what the difference is.  I asked someone else what someone might mean saying it, thinking they might have a different perspective to offer, and they weren't sure either.  Oh well.  It's not that important and if ttribe and I never get it ironed out, I'm sure life will continue on just fine for both of us.   

[pogi]

32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

39 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Personal circumstances may change, and God’s plan assures that in the long run, the faithful who keep their covenants will have the opportunity to qualify for every promised blessing. 

It is kind of hard to keep covenants based on gender when you don't know what sex or eternal gender you are. 

[ttribe]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Is it?  How to you 'pretend that something is real when you know it's not" with yourself?

I was conscious of this very phenomenon during the final year of my belief in the Church. Once conscious of it, the internal conflict was excruciating.

[bluebell]

Just now, ttribe said:

I was conscious of this very phenomenon during the final year of my belief in the Church. Once conscious of it, the internal conflict was excruciating.

I will take your word for it, seeing as how I still have no idea what you are saying.   

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

We are slow learners.

Bluebell, early Monday, in response to a request from you for direct quotes from President Oaks’s talk, I transcribed a portion of it and posted it on this thread. I noticed that you gave me an upvote on my post, which I took as an acknowledgement (thanks for that), but I haven’t seen where you or anyone else here has referred to my transcription or directly addressed what President Oaks said Sunday. I was under the impression you wanted to directly refer to his words as a basis for discussion. 
 

I admit I have not been thoroughly following this thread as it has developed, so it’s quite possible there was something that I’ve missed. 
 

[the narrator]

3 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

and considering the sacred nature of marriage throughout the bible

Like when a rapist is required to marry their victim and pay off the father for his lost profits? Through most of the Bible, marriage is a transaction between men to purchase women for sex and children. I guess you could call that sacred if you want, but don't start pushing your modern notions of marriage onto the Bible. Marriage wasn't considered a sacred ceremony/sacrament until 16th century, and this was just 3 centuries after they starting thinking that consent for those being married was a good thing.

 

3 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

it is quite evident that there was a marriage.

Maybe I have no idea what you mean by "marriage" here. Please explain.

I should also add that debating whether Adam and Eve were actually married is rather silly, since there was never a pair of naked humans made out of clay talking to snakes in a magical garden guarded by angels with flaming swords in Missouri six thousand or so years ago (or as far back as you want to go.)

[pogi]

41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

By the way, why are you so quick to judge those who refused to heed First Presidency counsel with regard to vaccines and mask wearing yet so dismissive of this formal and longstanding declaration by the First Presidency and the Twelve? Isn’t that a bit inconsistent? How do you reconcile it? 

I am not, and have not, judged anyone for not heeding the First Presidency in regards to vaccines and masks.  I was angry at them for putting other peoples lives at risk.  I was pointing out inconsistencies and irony in going against the prophets when their political ideologies and world-views differed - despite their judgments of others for doing the same in other regards.  I never claimed that what the prophet said was unchanging and unalterable eternal doctrine.   I was not claiming any kind of creed, as you seem to be doing here. I was also attempting to show the strength of a position when both science and prophets align and agree. 

Edited April 5, 2022 by pogi

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

It is kind of hard to keep covenants based on gender when you don't know what sex or eternal gender you are. 

Many people struggle their whole lives with unanswered questions yet remain faithful and humble as they wait on the Lord. They draw strength and peace from assurances such as that given by President Oaks. 

[T-Shirt]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

No they are not. 

I thought you would see the difference with those examples but maybe you are just being disingenuous with yourself. 😜

From the Oxford Dictionary:

ADJECTIVE

1‘it would be disingenuous of us to pretend ignorance of our book's impact’

SYNONYMS

dishonest, deceitful, underhand, underhanded, duplicitous, double-dealing, two-faced, dissembling, insincere, false, lying, untruthful, mendacious

not candid, not frank, not entirely truthful

artful, cunning, crafty, wily, sly, sneaky, tricky, scheming, calculating, designing, devious, unscrupulous

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am not, and have not, judged anyone for not heeding the First Presidency in regards to vaccines and masks.  I was angry at them for putting other peoples lives at risk.  I was pointing out inconsistencies and irony in going against the prophets when their political ideologies and world-views differed - despite their judgments of others for doing the same in other regards.  I never claimed that what the prophet said was unchanging and unalterable eternal doctrine.   I was not claiming any kind of creed, as you seem to be doing here. I was also attempting to show the strength of a position when both science and prophets align and agree. 

Angry at them but not judging them. Not sure how that works exactly. 

I’m not claiming a creed (interesting use of potentially inflammatory terminology there). But when the entire First Presidency and Twelve issues a signed proclamation (there have only been a handful published in the history of the Church) I tend to take it seriously. 

[pogi]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Many people struggle their whole lives with unanswered questions yet remain faithful and humble as they wait on the Lord. They draw strength and peace from assurances such as that given by President Oaks. 

Good on them and I support them in their choices. 

What about those intersex people who want to marry?  Should they be forbidden because we don't know what eternal gender they are?  It seems that President Oaks wants to blame Satan for their confused gender.  That doesn't seem fair or right, nor based on unchanging eternal doctrine. 

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

Good on them and I support them in their choices. 

What about those intersex people who want to marry?  Should they be forbidden because we don't know what eternal gender they are?  It seems that President Oaks wants to blame Satan for their confused gender.  That doesn't seem fair or right, nor based on unchanging eternal doctrine. 

Why would we even listen to Satan?