The Family Proclamation and the NHS

[Ragerunner]

So smac97,

You make a post from a well know highly conservation newspaper, that clearly twisted the issue and then try and take it and do more twisting with the Proclamation? 
If you go to the actual GOV.UK site for the NHS Constitution I think people will find the changes are not as the Telegraph tried to spin it.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/nhs-constitution-plans-to-strengthen-privacy-dignity-and-safety#:~:text=An updated NHS Constitution would,in a single-sex ward.

Here are a few highlights without political spin.

“Proposed updates to NHS Constitution for England will reflect biological needs of patients and empower people to request same-sex wards and care.”

“In the proposed changes to the NHS Constitution for England, patients will be empowered to request that intimate care is carried out by someone of the same biological sex, where reasonably possible.”

“An updated NHS Constitution would reinforce the NHS’s commitment to providing single-sex wards. This includes setting out that placing transgender patients in single-room accommodation is permissible under the Equality Act 2010 when it is appropriate, such as respecting a patient’s wish to be in a single-sex ward.”

It also doesn’t change NHS’s current position on gender affirming care that has been in place for almost a decade.

[ZealouslyStriving]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

This is so vague it is essentially meaningless. You are a descendant of a God and birthed into a spirit form in the likeness of your embodied parent with all that entails. We literally have no idea what that would entail!

Pull out your waistband a bit, if you're like me suck in your gut, and look down- that will give you a clue of what it entails. ♀️♂️

I refuse to adopt any trinitarian notions of an amorphic god. 

[Benjamin McGuire]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't think so.

And? How do you define something based on a mortal condition that exists in a pre-mortal condition? I suspect you could make the claim that the mortal condition always reflects a pre-mortal condition - but it seems clear that for at least a small group, this simply isn't the case. And if the empirical evidence suggests that this cannot be the case in some instances, then it becomes suspect as a generalization.

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think that's eminently possible.  People can change their legal "sex," can "identify" as a sex/gender they are not, etc.

Again, you are engaging in this swap. The idea of a legal sex is purely a construct. The idea of a biological sex seems to be (at least in your argument) something that is empirically accessible. So it seems clear that the Church's statement on gender and sex is not using the notion of legal sex. So to

The idea of gender seems to be something that is not empirically based. Gender isn't really equatable with sex because unlike sex (legal or biological) it doesn't seem to be binary at all.

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

Because you often feel impugn the character of people with whom you disagree, rather than simply address their arguments?

Not at all. I think sometimes you get special treatment because your views come across as being so odious. I am old enough now that I don't always feel the need to be particularly diplomatic.

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Gender" continues to be a fairly amorphous concept, hence the extensive equivocation associated with it.  It can be synonymous with "sex," but it can mean other things as well.  The Church has clarified that the two terms are synonymous.  NHS must, to some extent, continue to differentiate between the two in some contexts, but in others it is clarifying that its previous use of "gender" has, in some instances, been synonymous with "sex" (from the article: "The proposed changes will also see discrimination requirements updated, with the word gender replaced with sex").

The Church isn't in a position to define language that everyone uses. What the Church did was to clarify what the language meant in the document that they produced - so that it wouldn't be confusing in a context in which it could be read differently. The two terms are not synonymous - and nothing that the Church can do will change that.

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

So the NHS is moving away from equivocation.  That's a good thing.

Absolutely. Clarity is always a good thing. It is good for the Church as well. I think that they are working to try and present a consistent approach.

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

And the Church has since clarified that "gender" and "sex" are synonymous in terms of the Proclamation.

Yes. And this was expected because the source of the proclamation's language used the word sex. Had Talmage used the word gender, I doubt that they would have made this statement.

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Pres. Nelson was not Pres. Nelson in 1995, when the Proclamation came out.

That's right, he wasn't. I don't think that I said he was. However, the clarification that was published is something that came about during his Presidency. It's a lot like the shift from the LDS 'I'm a Mormon campaign' to President Nelson's "To remove the Lord’s name from the Lord’s Church is a major victory for Satan." A shift in policy. But it's hard to argue that President Monson was carrying out a campaign for Satan. And this suggests, among other things, that there is a certain level of fluidity in these kinds of policies. This has always been the problem of trying to push doctrine through policy. It is easy to change policies - they require no action or sustaining vote from the body of the Church.

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

I would not be surprised if things go quite the other way, which is that the Proclamation ends up being canonized.

This creates an interesting problem - because once it's canonized, it becomes doctrine, right? But, they can't canonize the interpretation of the scriptures. And we end up in the same place we were when the priesthood ban was lifted, when Elder McConkie pointed out "Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world." Interpretation doesn't mean a whole lot in the larger scheme of things when it comes as part of incomplete knowledge. And we know, in this particular situation, that we have incomplete knowledge.

[OGHoosier]

2 hours ago, Ragerunner said:

So smac97,

You make a post from a well know highly conservation newspaper, that clearly twisted the issue and then try and take it and do more twisting with the Proclamation? 
If you go to the actual GOV.UK site for the NHS Constitution I think people will find the changes are not as the Telegraph tried to spin it.

I don't think you can accuse the Telegraph of "spin" when the BBC interprets it substantially the same:

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-68923861

Quote

The proposals stress the importance of biological sex for the first time when it comes to same-sex accommodation and intimate care.

 

In both cases, the rights are available only where possible.

 

For example, same-sex accommodation rights, which have existed for years, can and are breached where there is a clinically urgent need to admit and treat a patient and do not extend to areas such as critical care or accident and emergency.

 

The guidance also means that trans men should not be housed on single-sex male wards.

 

Under the proposals:

• transgender people, whose gender identity differs from their biological sex, may be provided single rooms, where appropriate
• patients will have the right to request a person of the same biological sex delivers any intimate care

Health Secretary Victoria Atkins said it was about making it clear that "sex matters".

 

"We want to make it abundantly clear that if a patient wants same-sex care, they should have access to it wherever reasonably possible," she said.

Even the BBC notes that the stress on biological sex is a novelty compared to recent policy.

[OGHoosier]

I must ask if we're assuming that the premortal spirit stays intact after contact with the mortal body. I really doubt this is the case, or even could be the case - our bodies clearly are not just meat puppets or meat Legos. To be honest I've come to think that the spirit body is dissolved upon incarnation as the intelligence it housed moves to the physical body. To believe otherwise is to believe that at all times an infant is surrounded by an astral form of an adult that he will only be identical to for a short period of his life.

So it's an open question to what degree the old spirit body is controlling on our experience in the tabernacle of flesh. 

[the narrator]

16 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

If I had to guess, the language was changed from sex to gender because, at the time, there was a desire to avoid implicating the idea of sex as an ongoing issue in post-mortality.

I think it's just from a weird Mormon aversion to saying the S-E-X word. Hence, instead you get "relations," "intimacy," and "procreation"--which is especially weird when use to describe non-procreative sex and basically anything involving sexual arousal.

[the narrator]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Proclamation does not deny that we have biological sex prior to being born.

It makes no sense at all to say that a non-biological thing has biological sex

[smac97]

1 minute ago, the narrator said:

Quote

The Proclamation does not deny that we have biological sex prior to being born.

It makes no sense at all to say that a non-biological thing has biological sex

Biology: "the science of life or living matter in all its forms and phenomena, especially with reference to origin, growth, reproduction, structure, and behavior."

Spirits are both "living" and made of "matter."  So I respectfully disagree that they are "non-biological thing{s}."

And per the Proclamation, they do have "biological sex."

Thanks,

-Smac

[the narrator]

10 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Male spirits were created in the image and likeness of Heavenly Father, female spirits in the image and likeness of Heavenly Mother(s) with all that that entails.

What does "image and likeness" of immaterial spirits even mean?

My "image and likeness" is determined primarily by genetic material from my parents. I look the way I do--or, rather, I exist--because during one particular night of passion, one of 200-300 million sperm from my father happened to be the one that impregnated an egg from my mother. Had another one of those guys one the raise, a completely different person would have been conceived that night--and there is a roughly 50 percent chance that this person would have been female.

Not only that, but my general human form is 100-percent a result of my genetics, which itself is a result of over 3 billion years of evolution. It's the reason I have five fingers on each hand, hair on my back, internal organs, warm blood, a penis, etc. 

[the narrator]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Spirits are both "living" and made of "matter."

Sure. Let me know as soon as someone kills or weighs a spirit. Until then, I'll just say that the chair I'm sitting on is biological because I say its alive and made of material.

[the narrator]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Biology: "the science of life or living matter in all its forms and phenomena, especially with reference to origin, growth, reproduction, structure, and behavior."

Spirits are both "living" and made of "matter."  So I respectfully disagree that they are "non-biological thing{s}."

And per the Proclamation, they do have "biological sex."

Thanks,

-Smac

And please find me a biologist who studies invisible, unmeasurable, unseeable, unknowable spirits.

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

I must ask if we're assuming that the premortal spirit stays intact after contact with the mortal body. I really doubt this is the case, or even could be the case - our bodies clearly are not just meat puppets or meat Legos. To be honest I've come to think that the spirit body is dissolved upon incarnation as the intelligence it housed moves to the physical body. To believe otherwise is to believe that at all times an infant is surrounded by an astral form of an adult that he will only be identical to for a short period of his life.

So it's an open question to what degree the old spirit body is controlling on our experience in the tabernacle of flesh. 

I tend to disagree with this interpretation. The metaphysics and theological question one might ask is why have a spirit body at all? Indeed, some versions of Christianity and Judaism don't do have it. Form them our physical body is all there is. But for Latter-day Saints the concept of spirit is quite firm. We go even further and explicitly deny the immaterialism of spirit declaring spirit to be a form of matter. But, back to the question, why have a spirit body at all? For me the answer that makes the most sense is that that the God's are maximally capable (omniscient and omnipotent are words that try to convey some of that). But physical matter has a very poor interaction cross section with spirit matter. If, as an exalted being I was only a physical body "half" of the universe would be basically hidden from me and likewise for a spirit body. It is only with both that the universe becomes completely accessible.

 

Edited May 2, 2024 by Nofear

[Nofear]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Biology: "the science of life or living matter in all its forms and phenomena, especially with reference to origin, growth, reproduction, structure, and behavior."
Spirits are both "living" and made of "matter."  So I respectfully disagree that they are "non-biological thing{s}."
And per the Proclamation, they do have "biological sex."

I fully agree with you that as a trans-mortal species we have both gender and sex. At the same time we don't know why. Given the supreme control over our biology, both physical and spiritual, that our trans-mortal species has it is entirely conceivable to me that we formed our celestial societies based on these two genders and sexes out of a choice and not merely a whim. It would be a wise choice, a good choice, the best choice. But we don't know why just yet.

We also don't know the structure of how our spirit bodies operate. Phenotypically they are similar. Our physical bodies are "patterned" after it. But, do spirit bodies have DNA? If not, then no X or Y chromosomes. Hence one can quibble about the definitions of "biological sex". For my part, given my previous comment I think that sex/gender is something that transcends our biological (spiritual or physical) bodies. But we don't know enough about it scarcely enough to even have educated speculation.


 

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

I would not be surprised if things go quite the other way, which is that the Proclamation ends up being canonized.

I am skeptical. It has been almost twenty years since it came out.  But then again anything is possible with the church and its fluidity and regular changing of policy and doctrine.

[smac97]

On 5/2/2024 at 7:56 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

And? How do you define something based on a mortal condition that exists in a pre-mortal condition? I suspect you could make the claim that the mortal condition always reflects a pre-mortal condition - but it seems clear that for at least a small group, this simply isn't the case.

I respectfully disagree.  I assume the "small group" you refer to here is people with a DSD.  I find it no more plausible that DSDs exist outside this mortal sphere than does any other type of disorder or affliction.  If a person is born without legs, that is a disorder that will not persist after death.  I think we will find that the same will be said of those with DSD.  This is all a matter of faith, of course.  However, I think my position comports well with the doctrines of the Church.  We'll see when we get to the other side.

On 5/2/2024 at 7:56 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Again, you are engaging in this swap. The idea of a legal sex is purely a construct.

Lots of things can be a "construct" and yet still need to be addressed.  Same-sex marriage is a "construct," and the Church addressed it at length.

On 5/2/2024 at 7:56 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

The idea of a biological sex seems to be (at least in your argument) something that is empirically accessible.

Yes.  And not just in my argument.  Biological sex is a fact, regardless of how I or anyone else feels about it.  Caitlyn Jenner, f/k/a Bruce Jenner, is a male, regardless of how "she" presents herself to the world.  

On 5/2/2024 at 7:56 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

So it seems clear that the Church's statement on gender and sex is not using the notion of legal sex.

I agree.  I think the Church's statement was intended to clarify that "the notion of legal sex" does not override biological sex, which per the Proclamation "is an an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."  And not just "legal sex," but other attempts to circumvent the reality of biological sex, such as "social transitioning" (a biological male dressing and acing like a woman), medical interventions (puberty blockers, hormone treatments, penectomy, orchiectomy, vaginoplasty, vulvoplasty, clitoroplasty, scrotoplasty, mastectomy, phalloplasty, tracheal shave, facial feminization surgery, voice feminization surgery, etc.) and so on.

On 5/2/2024 at 7:56 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

The idea of gender seems to be something that is not empirically based.

Well, that's where the equivocation comes in.  From Wikipedia:

Quote

While in ordinary speech, the terms sex and gender are often used interchangeably,^[1][2] in contemporary academic literature the terms often have distinct meanings, especially when referring to people. Sex generally refers to an organism's biological sex, while gender usually refers to either social roles typically associated with the sex of a person (gender role) or personal identification of one's own gender based on an internal awareness (gender identity).^[3][4][5][6] Most contemporary social scientists,^[7][8][9] behavioral scientists and biologists,^[10][11] many legal systems and government bodies,^[12] and intergovernmental agencies such as the WHO^[13] make a distinction between gender and sex.

"{I}n ordinary speech, the terms sex and gender are often used interchangeably..."  In other contexts, they are distinguished from each other.

The Church has clarified that the reference to "gender" in the Proclamation was meant as a synonym for "biological sex."

On 5/2/2024 at 7:56 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Gender isn't really equatable with sex because unlike sex (legal or biological) it doesn't seem to be binary at all.

That depends on how one defines "gender."

On 5/2/2024 at 7:56 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Quote

Because you often feel impugn the character of people with whom you disagree, rather than simply address their arguments?

Not at all.

Quite often, actually.

On 5/2/2024 at 7:56 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

I think sometimes you get special treatment because your views come across as being so odious.

You again demonstrate my point.  You conclusorily denigrate my position, rather than demonstrate its supposed flaws.

I was previously surprised to see such stuff coming from a person of your stature.  I'm more accustomed to it now.

On 5/2/2024 at 7:56 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

I am old enough now that I don't always feel the need to be particularly diplomatic.

You often impugn the character of people with whom you disagree, rather than simply address their arguments.  That is not an intrinsic component of age, since young people can also succumb to this form of poor reasoning.

Put another way, it's more than you being "undiplomatic."  Your posts often include clear examples of the ad hominem fallacy.

On 5/2/2024 at 7:56 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

The Church isn't in a position to define language that everyone uses.

But it is in a position to explain its own usage of language, particularly as pertaining to terms that are susceptible to misunderstanding.  

On 5/2/2024 at 7:56 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

What the Church did was to clarify what the language meant in the document that they produced - so that it wouldn't be confusing in a context in which it could be read differently. The two terms are not synonymous - and nothing that the Church can do will change that.

The two terms can be synonymous, and only recently have come to be treated as distinct.

Yale School of Medicine: "What do we mean by sex and gender? Aren’t these terms interchangeable? Perhaps at some point in time they were used as synonyms, but this is no longer true in science."

Dictionary.com:

Quote

When two words have the same meaning, we call them synonyms. When two words have different meanings but people use them interchangeably, we write articles about what those words actually mean.

Take gender and sex. While people substitute one for the other on the regular, their meaning and usage are significantly—and consequentially—different. Because we’re most often talking about human beings when we use these terms, it’s critical we get them straight

The Inexorable Rise of Gender and the Decline of Sex: Social Change in Academic Titles, 1945–2001

Quote

More than 30 million titles of “academic” articles, from the years 1945–2001, were surveyed for occurrences of the words sex and gender. At the beginning of this period, uses of gender were much rarer than uses of sex, and often used in the sense of a grammatical category. By the end of this period, uses of gender outnumbered uses of sex in the social sciences, arts, and humanities. Within the natural sciences, there was now more than 1 use of gender for every 2 uses of sex. The beginnings of this change in usage can be traced to Money’s introduction of the concept of “gender role” in 1955 (J. Money, 1955). However, the major expansion in the use of gender followed its adoption by feminists to distinguish the social and cultural aspects of differences between men and women (gender) from biological differences (sex). Since then, the use of gender has tended to expand to encompass the biological, and a sex/gender distinction is now only fitfully observed.

And on and on and on.

There is an ongoing effort to create a sharp distinction between "sex" and "gender."  It is an interesting exercise in social engineering.  In any event, the Church's usage of "gender" in the Proclamation has been clarified.

On 5/2/2024 at 7:56 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Quote

So the NHS is moving away from equivocation.  That's a good thing.

Absolutely. Clarity is always a good thing. It is good for the Church as well. I think that they are working to try and present a consistent approach.

I agree.

On 5/2/2024 at 7:56 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Quote

Pres. Nelson was not Pres. Nelson in 1995, when the Proclamation came out.

That's right, he wasn't. I don't think that I said he was. However, the clarification that was published is something that came about during his Presidency.

I think perhaps because the need for the clarification came about during his presidency.  "Gender" and "sex" were previously essentially treated as synonyms.  That has changed over time, such that the Church felt the need to clarify that its usage of "gender" in the Proclamation was intended as a synonym for sex.

On 5/2/2024 at 7:56 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

It's a lot like the shift from the LDS 'I'm a Mormon campaign' to President Nelson's "To remove the Lord’s name from the Lord’s Church is a major victory for Satan." A shift in policy.

I don't think there's much of a comparison here.  The clarification of "gender" was definitional, intended to clarify the (doctrinal) meaning of the Proclamation.  The shift from "Mormon" to "Latter-day Saint" was not definitional.

On 5/2/2024 at 7:56 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

This creates an interesting problem - because once it's canonized, it becomes doctrine, right? But, they can't canonize the interpretation of the scriptures.

I think they can.  I can think of a few instances in scripture right off.  D&C 77 is a canonized "interpretation" of other scriptures (Revelation 4, 7-11).  1 Nephi 11-14 is an extended explanation/interpretation of Lehi's vision recorded in 1 Nephi 8.  Nephi explicitly situates these passages as such in chapter 11:

Quote

2 And the Spirit said unto me: Behold, what desirest thou?
3 And I said: I desire to behold the things which my father saw.
...
9 And it came to pass after I had seen the tree, I said unto the Spirit: I behold thou hast shown unto me the tree which is precious above all.
10 And he said unto me: What desirest thou?
11 And I said unto him: To know the interpretation thereof...

The angel goes on to provide extensive explanations/interpretations of what Nephi's "father saw" as recorded in 1 Nephi 8.

From chapter 8 of the Church's Scripture Study—The Power of the Word Teacher Manual:

Quote

1. Prophetic commentary on the scriptures is of great value.

• One of the roles of the living prophets is to explain to us the meaning of what prophets of past ages said. Discuss 2 Peter 1:20–21 with students.

• Discuss the following statement from Elder Marion G. Romney, then an Assistant to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, in which he emphasized the importance of prophetic interpretation of scripture:

  “Another fundamental to bear in mind in our search is that the manifestations of the Father’s will to this generation did not cease with what is written in the Doctrine and Covenants. He has not left us unguided to jangle over the interpretations of those revelations, nor does he leave us ignorant of his will on current issues. He has given us living prophets to interpret those revelations and to declare to us his will on present problems” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1945, 89).

• Discuss the following statements, pointing out that the prophets will always be in harmony with the scriptures:

  Elder Marriner W. Merrill, who was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, said: “The Bible is a good thing, the Book of Mormon is a good thing, and the Book of Doctrine and Covenants is a good thing. They are the words of the Lord. But I say that the living oracles of the Church are worth more than all of them. If we could have but one of them, give me the living oracles of the Priesthood for my guidance. Of course, it is proper and a good thing to have it all, because the living oracles of the Church work in harmony with what is written, and their counsel will not come in conflict with the words of the Lord in former ages. But the conditions of mankind change. The counsel that was suitable for the Saints forty years ago may not be so suitable today. Hence the importance of having in our midst the living oracles of God to guide us day by day in the performance of our labors” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1897, 6).

  Elder Anthony W. Ivins, then a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, taught: “It is not enough that we become acquainted somewhat with the cardinal principles of the gospel. It is not enough that we understand only the dispensation in which we live. But we must go back to the beginning we must understand the written word of the Lord as we have it in these sacred books, even from the beginning until the day in which we live. We must understand the harmony that exists between all these gospel dispensations, and then we will begin to understand how admirably our work fits in the time, and the place, and the manner in which the Lord has decreed that it should come about. The work that He has decreed, that He has accomplished is all in harmony with the words of the prophets which have been spoken since the beginning” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1908, 15).

2. There are various sources of prophetic commentary.

• Following are several examples that may be used to illustrate prophetic interpretation of scriptures.

  Divide the class into groups and give each group source material that contains prophetic commentary about the scriptures. Have students list and then explain to the class the insights they find. Source material could include conference addresses, Church News, and messages of the First Presidency from the Ensign.

  Matthew 13:24–30. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: “We learn by this parable [of the tares], not only the setting up of the Kingdom in the days of the Savior, which is represented by the good seed, which produced fruit, but also the corruptions of the Church, which are represented by the tares, which were sown by the enemy, which His disciples would fain have plucked up, or cleansed the Church of, if their views had been favored by the Savior. But He, knowing all things, says, Not so. As much as to say, your views are not correct, the Church is in its infancy, and if you take this rash step, you will destroy the wheat, or the Church, with the tares; therefore it is better to let them grow together until the harvest, or the end of the world, which means the destruction of the wicked, which is not yet fulfilled” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 97–98).

  Abraham 3:22–23. “God showed unto Abraham ‘the intelligences that were organized before the world was’; and by ‘intelligences’ we are to understand personal ‘spirits’ (Abraham 3:22, 23)” (“The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Twelve,” in James R. Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, 5:26; see also James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith, 466).

  Acts 10:34–35. President Joseph Fielding Smith taught: “Peter said: ‘… God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted’ by him (Acts 10:34–35), which means that the Lord will pour out his Spirit upon the faithful so they will know of themselves of the truths of this religion” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1971, 5; or Ensign, June 1971, 4).

  Doctrine and Covenants 29:17. President Spencer W. Kimball said: “The Lord teaches that he cannot forgive people in their sins; he can only save them from their abandoned sins. The Lord clearly says, ‘My blood shall not cleanse them if they hear me not.’ (D&C 29:17.) Hear in this instance means to accept and abide his teachings” (“The Gospel of Repentance,” Ensign, Oct. 1982, 5).

  Moses 7:62. President Ezra Taft Benson taught: “The Book of Mormon is the instrument that God designed to ‘sweep the earth as with a flood, to gather out [His] elect.’ (Moses 7:62)” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1988, 3; or Ensign, Nov. 1988, 4).

Of course, we are individually obligated to study the Scriptures on our own, but that study, and our interpretations, are not wholly unfettered.  "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."  (2 Peter 1:20.)  We should therefore seek to study the Gospel via study of the scriptures, listening to prophetic counsel, using our own learning and intelligence, seeking personal revelation, and using all of these to vet and strengthen each other.

On 5/2/2024 at 7:56 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

And we end up in the same place we were when the priesthood ban was lifted, when Elder McConkie pointed out "Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."

The Priesthood Ban had no revelatory provenance.  The Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity, sex (male/female), etc. are amply doctrinal.

Moreover, Elder McConkie's comment came after the canonization of OD-2.  He encouraged the Saints to "{f}orget everything ... said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation."

If the Proclamation is canonized, the Latter-day Saints will not really need to "forget" anything the Church has taught previously because the Proclamation is, in many ways, a distillation or synthesis of both scripture and modern prophetic counsel.  It is not a correction to a practice or policy lacking in revelatory provenance.

On 5/2/2024 at 7:56 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Interpretation doesn't mean a whole lot in the larger scheme of things when it comes as part of incomplete knowledge.

I think interpreting scripture and doctrine can be very important, particularly as to foundational issues such as the nature of our being.

On 5/2/2024 at 7:56 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

And we know, in this particular situation, that we have incomplete knowledge.

I don't think we have "complete knowledge" about anything.  We have sufficient information for our salvation, but that's still incomplete.

"That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day."  (D&C 50:24.)

"And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things."  (Moroni 10:5.)

These are prospective.  We ain't there yet.  And so we go with what we've got, which is "incomplete knowledge."  And we work with that knowledge using the tools the Lord has given us, which includes (but is not limited to) prophetic counsel and interpretation of scripture.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 5, 2025 by smac97

[smac97]

36 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Quote

Spirits are both "living" and made of "matter."

Sure. Let me know as soon as someone kills or weighs a spirit.

We are discussing matters of faith.  I thought that was understood.  Matters of faith are, in the main, empirically untestable.

36 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Until then, I'll just say that the chair I'm sitting on is biological because I say its alive and made of material.

Not sure what you are saying here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[teddyaware]

19 minutes ago, the narrator said:

And please find me a biologist who studies invisible, unmeasurable, unseeable, unknowable spirits.

As a faithful member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, smac97 is simply being consistent with canonized scripture. And, conversely, there isn’t any way you or anyone else can disprove that the followingl declaration of LDS scripture isn’t true.

7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;

8 We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter. (Doctrine and Covenants 132)

[the narrator]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not sure what you are saying here.

 

I am saying that the chair is biological because it is a living thing made out of matter.

[the narrator]

13 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Conversely, there isn’t any way you or anyone else can disprove that the followingl declaration of LDS scripture isn’t true.

Correct, because neither you nor anybody knows what it is even saying. It's a statement that lacks substance or material outside the religious intent of invoking purpose and intent for individuals. As the late DZ Phillips would say, a fairy tale can describe a kettle talking, but you can't step outside of the fairy tale and demand that kettles might actually be able to speak.

[smac97]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Does the phrase “biological spirit” make sense to you? (Serious question)

Yes.  We are children of Heavenly Parents, who are "alive."

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Does the phrase “physical spirit”?

In a sense, yes.  Spirits are "matter," after all.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quite right. It is an umbrella term for multiple sexes.

There are only two sexes: male and female.

There is no third sex, nor "multiple sexes" beyond male and female.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I respectfully disagree.  I assume the "small group" you refer to here is people with a DSD.  I find it no more plausible that DSDs exist outside this mortal sphere than does any other type of disorder or affliction.  If a person is born without legs, that is a disorder that will not persist after death.  I think we will find that the same will be said of those with DSD.  This is all a matter of faith, of course.  However, I think my position comports well with the doctrines of the Church.  We'll see when we get to the other side.

For the record, I agree with you. Your position that spirits are either male or female does comport well with Mormon doctrine.

What I find curious though is your belief (and correct me if I’m wrong) that it is impossible for someone with DSD to know the actual sex of their spirit.

[ZealouslyStriving]

ACCOUNT OF PHYSICAL CREATION. While it is true that all things were created 
spiritually, or as spirits, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth, this creation, 
we are informed, was in heaven. This applies to animals of all descriptions and also to plant 
life, before there was flesh upon the earth, or in the water, or in the air. 75. 12 The account of 
the creation of the earth as given in Genesis, and the Book of Moses, and as given in the 
temple, is the creation of the physical earth, and of physical animals and plants." 75. 13 I 
think the temple account, which was given by revelation, is the clearest of all of these. These 
physical creations were made out of the natural elements. 

NO REVEALED ACCOUNT OF SPIRIT CREATION. There is no account of the creation 
of man or other forms of life when they were created as spirits. There is just the simple 
statement that they were so created before the physical creation. The statements in Moses 3:5 
and Genesis 2:5 are interpolations thrown into the account of the physical creation, 
explaining that all things were first created in the spirit existence in heaven before they were 
placed upon this earth. 

We were all created untold ages before we were placed on this earth. We discover from 
Abraham 3:22-28, that it was before the earth was formed that the plan of salvation was 
presented to the spirits, or "intelligences." This being true, then man, animals and plants 
were not created in the spirit at the time of the creation of the earth, but long before. 

SPIRITUAL OR PHYSICAL, AND SPIRIT CREATIONS. The account of creation in 
Genesis was not a spirit creation, but it was in a particular sense, a spiritual creation. This, of 
course, needs some explanation. The account in Genesis, chapters one and two, is the 
account of the creation of the physical earth. The account of the placing of all life upon the 
earth, up and until the fall of Adam, is an account, in a sense, of the spiritual creation of all 
of these, but it was also a physical creation. When the Lord said he would create Adam, he 
had no reference to the creation of his spirit for that had taken place ages and ages before 
when he was in the world of spirits and known as Michael.76. 14 

Adam's body was created from the dust of the earth, but at that time it was a spiritual earth, 
Adam had a spiritual body until mortality...

From "Doctrines of Salvation" by Joseph Fielding Smith

https://archive.org/stream/JFSDoctrinesOfSalvation/JFSDoctrinesofSalvationv1-3_djvu.txt

 

 

[the narrator]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We are children of Heavenly Parents

What do you mean by that? Are we children by sexual intercourse (as described by early Utah leaders)? Adoption (as described in Abraham)? Creation (as described in Bible)?

I assume you claim the first, but why? What does that even mean for God and his wife/wives to create billions of spirit babes through copulation? Are they birthed--one by one, or millions at a time like some fish giving live birth? Is genetics involved? What does it mean for a resurrected being to create spirits? Why pick one of the many Mormon theories of premortal spirits over others? Could God have created spirit babes by shooting laser beams from his eyes? Why not?

[smac97]

43 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I would not be surprised if things go quite the other way, which is that the Proclamation ends up being canonized.

I am skeptical. It has been almost twenty years since it came out.  But then again anything is possible with the church and its fluidity and regular changing of policy and doctrine.

I am fine with the Church having "fluidity" as to its policies.  There also must be some "fluidity" as to doctrine.  The Lord has never said He would give us all knowledge all at once, or that we would fully and correctly perceive and understand and deploy such things all at once.

"For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little."  (2 Nephi 28:30.)

"We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."  (AoF 1:9.)

"That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day."  (D&C 50:24.)

 

I think the Brethren have made significant strides in improving the Church's messaging, particularly regarding difficult issues.  Its resources regarding same-sex attraction, for example, reflect a marked contrast from previously communications that were less kind, sometimes even callous. 

 

I think the Church has been working hard to provide members with meaningful and substantive resources which provide a considerably improved "narrative" of our history.  The resources Bushman has specifically credited as reconstructing the narrative (Saints, Volume 1 ("The Standard of Truth, 1815–1846"), Volume 2 ("No Unhallowed Hand, 1846–1893") and Volume 3 ("Boldly, Nobly, and Independent, 1893–1955"), the Joseph Smith Papers Project, the Gospel Topics essays - 14 in all) are freely available to the world online.  Additionally, the "Church History" section of the Church's website includes many other resources that I think Bushman would construe as even further reconstructing the narrative:

• Saints Podcast (112 episodes over three seasons, and counting)
• Historical Sources (extensive information about the Doctrine & Covenants)
• Revelations in Context ("The Stories behind the Sections of the Doctrine and Covenants")
• Joseph Smith's Revelations ("A Doctrine and Covenants Study Companion from the Joseph Smith Papers")
• Joseph Smith Papers Podcasts (14 episodes)
• First Vision (examining the various accounts of the First Vision)
• Prophets of the Restoration (extensive biographies of all presidents of the Church)
• Church History Topics (brief but annotated treatments of dozens of Church History items)
• Answers to Church History Questions (answering questions about difficult areas of Church history, such as Mountain Meadows, treatment of Native Americans, translation of the Book of Abraham, the Kirtland Safety Society, polygamy, etc.)
• Stories from Saints (discussion of various "local" stories about members of the Church and how they have influenced both the Church and history generally)
• Global Histories (extensive historical summaries of the Church throughout the world)
• At the Pulpit ("185 Years of Discourses by Latter-day Saint Women")
• The First Fifty Years of Relief Society
• Daughters in My Kingdom ("The History and Work of Relief Society")

Moreover, the Church also maintains https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/, which includes all of the foregoing historical resources plus many more:

• The Church Historian’s Press ("Search diaries, journals, discourses and documents")
• Pioneers in Every Land (various resources about members throughout the world)
• Joseph Smith (extensive resources about Joseph's life and ministry)
• The Trek West (various maps, stories, etc.)
• Museum Treasures ("Learn about the art and artifacts available at the Church History Museum.")
• Perspectives on Church History ("Explore insights on the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.")
• Experience Church History (selections from exhibits and materials housed in the Church History Museum)
• Research Church History Collections (links to the Church History Library, Church History Catalog, Church History Biographical Database, Treasures of the {Church History Museum} Collection, Pioneer Resources)
• Church History Museum ("Discover the spiritual, artistic, and cultural legacies of the Latter-day Saints.")
• Church Historic Sites

These are all improvements on how the Church has previously handled its history.  The Church is also improving in many other ways.

And yet, the Church will, in the end, never satisfy its critics.  Ever.  Both because A) they are implacably dissatisfied, and B) the Church cannot turn from its mandates, which capitulation is an intrinsic component of our critics' demands.  So the Church must "do what is right, let the consequence follow."  In a way, I find it grimly satisfying that the Brethren are saying and doing some things that, in my mind, are A) unpopular in the eyes of the World, and B) plainly in accordance with revealed truths and are themselves revelatory.  I would be concerned if the Brethren were not doing this, and were instead merely acting as sociocultural windsocks, blowing in whatever direction the prevailing winds flow.  Our lot as Latter-day Saints is not to adhere to inspired/revelatory counsel from the Brethren because it is popular.  Our lot is to adhere to such counsel because it is right.  And when doing so is right and unpopular, well . . . that's what the Spirit is for.

Thanks,

-Smac