Family proclamation founded on irrevocable doctrine: President Oaks

[Meadowchik]

41 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Excellent post!

Many of the endless controversies that continue to drag on and on this board could finally come to resolution if it could only be understood that exceedingly difficult sacrificial tests of obedience lie at the very heart of the gospel of Jesus Christ. In the context of this discussion, those with same sex attraction who keep the law of chastity by faithfully emulating the awe inspiring example of the atoning Lord Jesus Christ,  by doing the Father’s will and not their own, will be rewarded with knowledge and divine powering great glory  far beyond human comprehension. Endless happiness is the he eternal reward for those who demonstrate such magnificent trust and faithfulness. And though the need for such great sacrifices of will may not be fully comprehended in this life, they will be perfectly understood, appreciated and greatly honored at the time of the final judgment.

The Savior himself said that for some strong sexual desires would have to be sacrificed on the alter of obedience in order to exit this fallen state of existence triumphantly. Until the ineluctable need for the law of sacrifice is accepted, many here will continue to stumble in the dark while mistakenly thinking they’re being kind and compassionate as they continue to excuse violations of the will of God?  And for as long as those who excuse sin remain unable to accept the absolute necessity for obedience to the holy law of sacrifice that requires the surrender of one’s individual will to the will of God, they will remain in turmoil without inner peace and joyful reconciliation  with God.

12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. (Matthew 19)

Right, so become a eunuch and sacrifice all that you know of your life now to join a monastery...if you want "joyful reconciliation with God."

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

 

 

Why should that matter?  Do you think that matters to the intersex individual or their parents?   

 

It matters if extremely rare occurrences are being used as a pretext for advocacy of general policy. Best to deal with them on a case-by-case basis, as is currently being done in the Church, according to T-shirt’s post. 

Edited April 5, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[pogi]

57 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think the intersex issue is a red herring, though, because this is a very small number of people in the scheme of things. 

It is not a red herring to intersex people and those who love them or generally are concerned about their well-being. 

1 hour ago, rongo said:

"All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

Each is a son --- or daughter when created. 

To us in mortality. Not to God. And, not to the intersex individual in the resurrection. For the very small number of people this affects, this burden they were given (or that they chose) in mortality will be resolved, and they will remember and not be constrained by the hurdles of mortality. 

They are whatever eternal sex they were created as as spirits. When the veil is lifted and we remember, it will be unambiguous and clear to everyone. I disagree that how people "personally identify" determines what sex they were created as as spirits.

That's a real conundrum, and I believe that true hermaphrodites/intersex people will be judged accordingly. I think in most cases, marriage or normal adult sexual relationships are precluded for most true intersex people (people for whom sex traits are indeterminate). I think this will be factored into how they are judged --- especially if they themselves are truly confused or don't know for sure what sex they actually are. God either gave them this burden, or they chose it themselves, for reasons harking back to the pre-existence that we won't know until the resurrection. 

I think the intersex issue is a red herring, though, because this is a very small number of people in the scheme of things. The exponential explosion of "trans"-identifying teenagers and young adults (high 90s % of which are confused girls, in my experience as a teacher of 20 years) is almost exclusively a social, psychological, and media phenomenon. Almost all of these people are not "intersex" at all. Many of these girls later revert back --- they are confused and being tossed to and fro with social currents, contagion, and influences. It is very sad, and it is wreaking havoc on their psyches, independent of conservative religious teachings. The explosion of gender confusion itself is damaging and troubling to them, and a bigger factor than conservative religious rejection that it is immutable in them. 

You have said a lot in here that is your opinion and not based in any known revelation.  Let's not pretend any of this reaches the level of creed though.

Quote

 

They are whatever eternal sex they were created as as spirits. When the veil is lifted and we remember, it will be unambiguous and clear to everyone. I disagree that how people "personally identify" determines what sex they were created as as spirits.

 

So...what you are saying is that it is not unambiguous and clear to any of us.  You originally claimed that eternal gender is "unambiguous and clear" - it actually isn't.   

According to church policy, the parents get to decide the gender of their children in these cases:

Quote

 Parents or others may have to make decisions to determine their child’s sex with the guidance of competent medical professionals. Decisions about proceeding with medical or surgical intervention are often made in the newborn period. However, they can be delayed unless they are medically necessary.

Let's hope they guess right!

[pogi]

32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It matters if extremely rare occurrences are being used as a pretext for advocacy of general policy. Best to deal with them in a case-by-case basis, as is currently being done in the Church, according to T-shirt’s post. 

Nobody here is using this as a pretext for advocacy of general policy.  I am refuting your claim that the proclamation has achieved creedal status of unchanging and eternal doctrine.

[filovirus]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

Nobody here is using this as a pretext for advocacy of general policy.  I am refuting your claim that the proclamation has achieved creedal status of unchanging and eternal doctrine.

According to you, where can we find eternal doctrine? The scriptures? The prophets? Personal revelation? Joseph Smith? This message board? I'm just curious where you think it will come from.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

Nobody here is using this as a pretext for advocacy of general policy. 

Then why do you keep pushing it as though it were a gotcha point?

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 hours ago, ttribe said:

So, the dictionary is more authoritative than actual scientific research in your mind.

When it comes to defining words, yes. Though I'd like to see this 'actual scientific research' into what words mean that you seem to think exists. Does it involve putting words into centrifuges? Heating them up in test tubes?

[pogi]

18 minutes ago, filovirus said:

According to you, where can we find eternal doctrine? The scriptures? The prophets? Personal revelation? Joseph Smith? This message board? I'm just curious where you think it will come from.

Good question.  I wish I even knew what doctrine is.  Is there any clear doctrine on what doctrine is? How do we not get circular with this?

 

 

[pogi]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Then why do you keep pushing it as though it were a gotcha point?

I have only pushed the point that we don't know that this is an unchangeable doctrine of the Church. 

Edited April 5, 2022 by pogi

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am refuting your claim that the proclamation has achieved creedal status of unchanging and eternal doctrine.

I never made the claim that it “has achieved creedal status.” That’s your own inflammatory rhetoric. 
 

What I’ve done is to echo the authoritative statement by President Oaks that the doctrines taught in the proclamation pertaining to God’s plan and the eternal nature of gender and marriage between a man and a woman are unchangeable. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

When it comes to defining words, yes. Though I'd like to see this 'actual scientific research' into what words mean that you seem to think exists. Does it involve putting words into centrifuges? Heating them up in test tubes?

I think we may be seeing the advent of jargon supremacy. 

[filovirus]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

Good question.  I wish I even knew what doctrine is.  Is there any clear doctrine on what doctrine is? How do we not get circular with this?

 

 

The church is pretty clear on what divine truth is. We could start there.

[OGHoosier]

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

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.

Marriage was regarded as sacramental in the 1184 Council of Verona's edict to the Cathars and in various council statements from then on. No ritual was prescribed until Trent, if I am not mistaken, but marriage itself was considered sacramental. Furthermore, the institution of marriage (and thus the condition of husband/wife) is implicated as possessing divine sanction by the Gospels and the Pauline epistles. 

I would add that Matthew 19:4-6 references the Adam and Eve narrative while the Savior is discussing divorce, so Matthew at least viewed Adam and Eve as married. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It us obvious to me that "sexual orientation" was clearly known, perhaps in a different language game before the late 19th century.

Except that it wasn't. Happy to provide some introductory resources on this matter if you're genuinely interested. (Or you could just search the dozens of posts where I've provided them in the past ...)

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

I have only pushed the point that we don't know that this is an unchangeable doctrine of the Church. 

And you thereby contradict the teaching of a member of the First Presidency openly expressed in the world general conference of the Church. Let’s be clear on that. 

[pogi]

2 minutes ago, filovirus said:

The church is pretty clear on what divine truth is. We could start there.

Ok. So, doctrine, or divine truth, is what the church says it is.   Can we all agree on that?
 

What constitutes, “the Church” in this regard?  And has anything “the church“ has historically claimed as doctrine or divine truth ever changed in time?

[pogi]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And you thereby contradict the teaching of a member of the First Presidency openly expressed in the world general conference of the Church. Let’s be clear on that. 

Is this some attempt to shame me or something?  Can I not disagree in good standing?

To address your claim though, I actually haven’t contradicted anything he said - not that I see them as infallible anyway. See my first post you responded to in this thread.  

Edited April 5, 2022 by pogi

[T-Shirt]

On 4/4/2022 at 10:18 AM, ttribe said:

Perhaps you are unaware, but sex is biological and gender is a social construct.

This statement is a social construct.  A very new one that society is being bullied into believing.  Fortunately, for now, only a very small portion of society believes it.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

Is this some attempt to shame me or something?  Can I not disagree in good standing?

It’s a statement of fact. Whether you’re inclined to feel shame over it depends on your attitude I suppose. Seems like you put a lot of stock in their statements when the subject is vaccines and masks. 🤷‍♂️ 

[filovirus]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

Ok. So, doctrine, or divine truth, is what the church says it is.   Can we all agree on that?
 

What constitutes, “the Church” in this regard?  And has anything “the church“ has historically claimed as doctrine or divine truth ever changed in time?

No. Divine truth is not doctrine. Divine truth just is. Absolute reality. Divine truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come.

What is "the church"? Let's just keep it at "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" knowing that it encompasses the scriptures, both modern day and ancient, as well as the words of the prophets, both modern day and ancient.

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

 

To address your claim though, I actually haven’t contradicted anything he said - not that I see them as infallible anyway. See my first post you responded to in this thread.  

From the talk:

“Those who do not fully understand the Father’s loving plan for His children may consider this family proclamation no more than a changeable statement of policy. In contrast, we affirm that the family proclamation, founded upon unchangeable doctrine, defines the kind of family relationships where the most important part of our eternal development can occur.”

(Emphasis mine) 

Edited April 5, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

From the talk:

“Those who do not fully understand the Father’s loving plan for His children may consider this family proclamation no more than a changeable statement of policy. In contrast, we affirm that the family proclamation, founded upon unchangeable doctrine, defines the kind of family relationships where the most important part of our eternal development can occur.”

(Emphasis mine) 

Again, I have not contraindicated anything in his talk.  Please see the first post you responded to of mine in this thread (again).

[pogi]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s a statement of fact. Whether you’re inclined to feel shame over it depends on your attitude I suppose. Seems like you put a lot of stock in their statements when the subject is vaccines and masks. 🤷‍♂️ 

No, it is not a fact...and I always put a lot of stalk in their statements.

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

This is absolutely nonsense 

Please, tell us all about your training, education, and research in psychology, cognitive development, and sociology.

35 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

When it comes to defining words, yes. Though I'd like to see this 'actual scientific research' into what words mean that you seem to think exists. Does it involve putting words into centrifuges? Heating them up in test tubes?

Are you really going to deny that there are social sciences?

9 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

This statement is a social construct.  A very new one that society is being bullied into believing.  Fortunately, for now, only a very small portion of society believes it.

I, for one, am not bullying anyone. But there is research to back this up; not that I think you will engage in the intellectually honest exercise of trying to understand the research. For the record, I'm not sure what you consider 'new,' but this issue has been actively studied since at least the 70s.

 

Examples:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1359104502007003002

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13645579.2020.1768346

https://europepmc.org/article/med/17643082

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1359104502007003004

https://www.childpsych.theclinics.com/article/S1056-4993(04)00010-0/fulltext

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2930225

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-45479-009

https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/116902

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1980-05376-001

 

[pogi]

11 minutes ago, filovirus said:

No. Divine truth is not doctrine.

I agree.  I asked what doctrine is and you were the one who brought up “divine truth”, so I am confused.

14 minutes ago, filovirus said:

What is "the church"? Let's just keep it at "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" knowing that it encompasses the scriptures, both modern day and ancient, as well as the words of the prophets, both modern day and ancient.

It also constitutes...me.