Family proclamation founded on irrevocable doctrine: President Oaks

[filovirus]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

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

It also constitutes...me.

So what is doctrine then? I will put down a definition, and we will see if we both agree.

Doctrine: What God teaches is called doctrine. God supplies his doctrine by way of commandments and instructions. "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth shall pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

Do I need to make any clarifying statements?

[T-Shirt]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I've mentioned this many times before, the church and its leaders have no answer about how LGBTQ+ individuals fit into God's plan. The only possible answer is, "it will all work out in the end". If that is the answer, religion fails. If I asked the question about how I fit into God's plan and the answer was a shoulder shrug, I'd be looking for answers elsewhere.

They have answered it, unfortunately it is not satisfying to some.  What clarification do you expect?  A gay lifestyle does not mesh with the restored Gospel.  This, understandably, puts the Church and gay members in an awkward position.  There is no good answer that will satisfy all involved.  In order for the Church to maintain its core beliefs about the plan of salvation, it must always remain that this lifestyle is not compatible, no matter how good the people are.  They have to try, as best as they can, to be loving and inviting without compromising what they believe to be eternal truth.  Elder Oaks explained that the Church operates with the purpose of promoting exaltation and that all teachings, doctrines and ordinances are focused on that one thing.  The ordinances are designed to bring us to exaltation, and therefor, a lifestyle that is in direct conflict with the divine destiny of the faithful, rightfully, cannot be included in these ordinances.  I am sure many wish it could be, but it is not compatible.  About all that can be said is that those with same-sex attraction who wish to remain in the Church and work towards exaltation, must of necessity, remain celibate their entire life, unless they can, in the rare occasion, marry a member of the opposite sex and make it work.  That isn't tenable for most.  This is a hard thing, I understand that and I believe the leaders of the Church understand it as well.  It is heartbreaking.  As much as we wish those of this community would desire to remain in the Church, it is understood that some may have to find their own path of happiness outside the Church. and I respect that decision.  We don't love them less.  This is quite clear, there can be no more clarity.  I think those who say they want more clarity are only asking for the Church to condone their desired lifestyle.  I don't think that will ever happen.  Some have suggested that the Church could offer a compromise by allowing gays who are married or dating in a chaste relationship to be baptized and hold callings just not receive temple ordinances.  This, in my opinion, would make matters worse.  There would soon be problems of a class system in the Church and it will never satisfy the advocates of a gay lifestyle.  It would create even more criticism from outside the Church with even more cries of bigotry and homophobia.  It would create more problems than it tries to solve.  Unfortunately, there is not a good satisfying answer for all involved, but the position of the Church is crystal clear.

Edited April 6, 2022 by T-Shirt

[Calm]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

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

Adam and Eve are only two people, a lot fewer than that though.

[T-Shirt]

28 minutes ago, ttribe said:

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.

First of all, there is no need to be insulting, it is not helpful and does not entice me to want to further interact with you.

That being said, I cannot access any of the studies that you posted.  All I can read are the abstracts, several of which admit to the controversial nature of their position.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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 ...)

Well give me a start on an article or two and I will take it from there to prove they are wrong. 

Just kidding- yes if it's not too hard something would help.  I have read too much Plato et al to believe it!

https://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/9780199315468/student/ch5/wed/plato/

Quote

 

Plato also writes of the origin of same and opposite sex urges. In his Symposium, Plato has Aristophanes tell a tale of human origins in which everyone was once a four legged creature until Zeus cut each in half. Each half tried to reunite with its mate and this explains the nature of human beings:

Men who are a section of that double nature which was once called androgynous [made up of a man and a woman] are lovers of women, adulterers are generally of this breed, and also adulterous women who lust after men. The women who are a section of the woman do not care for men, but have female attachments: the female companions [that is, lesbians] are of this sort. But they who are a section of the male follow the male, and while they are young, being slices of the original man, they have affection for men and embrace them [the Greek verb implies a sexual sense], and these are the best of boys and youths, because they have the most manly nature. [bracketed material in Crompton] (Crompton, 2003, p. 58).

This passage is an unusual celebration of male same-sex desire by contemporary Western standards. Plato is explicitly linking manliness not with heterosexual desire but with homosexual desire.

 

Also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Homosexuality_(book)

 

Edited April 6, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

3 hours ago, the narrator said:

Marriage wasn't considered a sacred ceremony/sacrament until 16th century

Are you talking globally or for Europe or Rome or what?  Not something I have studied, but would be curious about how marriage was viewed in ancient societies outside the Middle East and Europe.

[T-Shirt]

1 hour 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?

From the Church website:

Quote

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

According to this explanation, the Proclamation on the Family is clearly established doctrine.

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Well give me a start on an article or two and I will take it from there to prove they are wrong.

Here's a good popular (i.e., non-academic) introduction: Brandon Ambrosino, 'The Invention of "Heterosexuality"', BBC, 16 Mar. 2017.

And if you can get your hands on the monograph reviewed here, it is considered seminal (no pun intended!) research in my field of study: Gilbert H. Herdt, Ritualized Homosexuality in Melanesia, Berkeley, U of California P, 1984.

Quote

I have read too much Plato et al to believe it!

I've read Plato too. Same-sex sexual behaviour has been ubiquitous throughout world history. Fixed, gendered, sexual orientation is an innovation.

[JustAnAustralian]

56 minutes ago, ttribe said:

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.

Terms having different meanings doesn't mean that all people use them in the same way

https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/japplphysiol.00376.2005

That article discusses academics, in the field of physiology, using gender as a stand in for biological sex, in greater numbers than using biological sex as a stand in for biological sex.

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I've read Plato too. Same-sex sexual behaviour has been ubiquitous throughout world history. Fixed, gendered, sexual orientation is an innovation.

Well perhaps it is not worth pursuing after all.   I appreciate your effort, but I see that last sentence a bit too ambiguous and nuanced to really have a great argument about, especially with a good buddy.     Dang it!   

I concede that based on that statement your argument is justifiable.   On the other hand, I think it's pretty tough to define those terms especially in combination, each multiplying the ambiguity!   So There!  🤕 

  

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

17 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Well perhaps it is not worth pursuing after all.

Your call. I personally find it useful to place the Church's position within a data-supported historical context: essentially, we are being called upon to discard or compromise our doctrines to accommodate a social construct/movement that is both culturally and temporally bound, one that has very little history and limited geographic reach and therefore no guaranteed future. (And in fact, I think we can see evidence that it is already beginning to self-deconstruct.)

Edited April 6, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[rongo]

29 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Your call. I personally find it useful to place the Church's position within a data-supported historical context: essentially, we are being called upon to discard or compromise our doctrines to accommodate a social construct/movement that is both culturally and temporally bound, one that has very little history and limited geographic reach and therefore no guaranteed future. (And in fact, I think we can see evidence that it is already beginning to self-deconstruct.)

Yeah, I also see signs that the LGBT wave might be cresting, and jumping the shark. I think a lot of young adults who are caught up in it right now are figuring out that they were sold a bill of goods, and will decide that they are not, in fact, "non-binary." It won't happen overnight, but I think momentum is starting to slowly turn.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Your call. I personally find it useful to place the Church's position within a data-supported historical context: essentially, we are being called upon to discard or compromise our doctrines to accommodate a social construct/movement that is both culturally and temporally bound, one that has very little history and limited geographic reach and therefore no guaranteed future. (And in fact, I think we can see evidence that it is already beginning to self-deconstruct.)

Well then let's go for it

I frankly don't understand this post,so please explain it.  How does this view benefit the church?

I usually see things 180 degrees from the way others do, and find the social construct "movement" beneficial for the church.

If nothing can be "proven" then religious experience is as valid as scientific, since EVERYTHING is a social construct

Some just work better, and religion works best at answering moral and teleological questions.

Nothing else even tries

So what's going out of style? 🤔

Edited April 6, 2022 by mfbukowski

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 
 

Yes, thank you for providing that.  I mostly just wanted to see if Oaks stated the FoP was founded on unchangeable doctrine or if that was a paraphrase.  I need to go over the other parts that you've posted to see if he mentioned what the unchangeable doctrine is specifically or if he means ideas of eternal gender and marriage being between a man and woman in general.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

From the Church website:

According to this explanation, the Proclamation on the Family is clearly established doctrine.

Ok, but then we must apply the following, according to the same explanation:

Quote

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church.

Can this solitary statement by Elder Christofferson which establishes proclamations as doctrine then be considered a well-considered opinion?  Is his statement doctrine?  Can he alone establish doctrines as to what constitutes doctrine?

Also, if we are to consider these sources as doctrine, it is important to know if doctrine can change?  It might help to define doctrine in the first place.  What are we talking about here?  Is church doctrine eternal and unchangeable?   I might concede that proclamations are doctrine, if we accept the fact that church doctrines can change over time.  This seems evident by the fact that women are permitted to teach in church today (something that is outlined as forbidden in the scriptures - which are doctrine).  I am sure that there are several other doctrines taught in scriptures which have changed over time.  

So, if a single statement by a single leader is not necessarily doctrine, should unanimous and consistent statements and teaching declared as "doctrine" over many, many generations of first presidencies and apostles be considered doctrine?  Or are their signatures and title of "proclamation" or "declaration" required?

According to the 1865 proclamation, any prophet can unilaterally declare doctrine without the approval of the apostles.  It also suggests that anyone can proclaim a new doctrine if they first get approval from the first presidency:

Quote

There is but one man upon the earth, at one time, who holds the keys to receive commandments and revelations for the Church, and who has the authority to write doctrines by way of commandment unto the Church. And any man who so far forgets the order instituted by the Lord as to write and publish what may be termed new doctrines, without consulting with the First Presidency of the Church respecting them, places himself in a false position, and exposes himself to the power of darkness by violating his Priesthood.

The problem is that prophets have historically declared doctrines which have since been disavowed.  So, it seems doctrines can indeed change.  

Edited April 6, 2022 by pogi

[Duncan]

5 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Of course there would need to be a revelation, but it’s never going to happen

God gave a revelation to a General Authority to call a man, who worked in the temple department no less, who later came out as trans and was exed but God knew he was trans before he called him to be a SP. Never say never in the church led by revelation. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

It won't happen overnight, but I think momentum is starting to slowly turn.

Agreed, though it is notoriously difficult to time these kinds of things. As Derrida repeatedly pointed out, discourses are 'born' with the seeds of their own deconstruction already inherent. Are we just seeing these seeds, or are we seeing the actual cracks from the germination of these seeds. I think it's the latter, but I'm unsure. In any case, I suspect we still have at least a couple of decades to hang tight.

[ttribe]

6 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Of course there would need to be a revelation, but it’s never going to happen

Said white people in Kentucky in 1977.

[JAHS]

21 minutes ago, ttribe said:

6 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Of course there would need to be a revelation, but it’s never going to happen

Said white people in Kentucky in 1977.

Brigham Young himself said blacks would someday get the priesthood. No prophet has ever said God would some day approve of SSM.

[Duncan]

6 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Brigham Young himself said blacks would someday get the priesthood. No prophet has ever said God would some day approve of SSM.

SSM has only existed in the US since what like 2015 or later, so you have only two options for a prophet to have said anything. SSM existed prior to that elsewhere but based on the fact that the church is US centric, they don't care. It isn't a problem until they have to deal with it. 

[JAHS]

8 minutes ago, Duncan said:

SSM has only existed in the US since what like 2015 or later, so you have only two options for a prophet to have said anything. SSM existed prior to that elsewhere but based on the fact that the church is US centric, they don't care. It isn't a problem until they have to deal with it. 

Well they are dealing with it now. Marriage between a man and woman is unchangeable doctrine. 

[Orthodox Christian]

8 hours ago, JAHS said:

Right. This is one of those things that if it were to happen God would cease to be God. And the church would most likely fall.
Marriage between man and woman is an eternal concept, which means it is a law that will not change.
Even though the church made a statement in their opposition to proposition 8 it can tolerate the existence of the practice of ssm as being something for other people who are not members of the church.

 

Was plural marriage an eternal concept, if so, why was stopped? If the priesthood ban came from God through the prophet, wasn't that an eternal concept, if so, same question. I am not trying to be contentious I just don't understand how edicts can be given, presumably by God, how they can change? And if it has happened before how can you be sure that it can't happen with ssm? 

[california boy]

8 hours 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 on a case-by-case basis, as is currently being done in the Church, according to T-shirt’s post. 

Quote

According to experts, between 0.05% and 1.7% of the population is born with intersex traits – the upper estimate is similar to the number of red haired people. Being intersex relates to biological sex characteristics, and is distinct from a person's sexual orientation or gender identity.

 

 

That means there are more intersex people born than their are members of the Church. How does that fit with your dismissal  as being unimportant?  

[california boy]

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

Bigamy is typically used as a legal term.  In that someone is legally married to one spouse and pretends they aren't so that they "legally" marry another spouse.  Polygamy, as the term is almost always used, doesn't attempt to get the law to legitimize more than one marriage.  

What do you think the definition of polygamy is?

[Duncan]

4 hours ago, JAHS said:

Well they are dealing with it now. Marriage between a man and woman is unchangeable doctrine. 

if they allowed SSM it wouldn't unchange marriage between a man and a woman, both exist at the same time-like we have now