The Family Proclamation and the NHS

[Teancum]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Not everyone.  

Ok.  Many believers.  😁

[Calm]

Just now, Teancum said:

Ok.  Many believers.  😁

[teddyaware]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Substance theology.   Look out!

=God and his Son are made of the same "substance"- Nicene Creed, but we are not". 

= "Bread and wine are different substances than flesh, but they can be changed, literally"

That kind of thinking, from our pov, caused the apostasy.   

Quick! RUN! .   Hmm.  Where did I hear that now?

 

God the Father is filled to eternal fullness with the holy material substance called light, the very same light he pours out upon his sons and daughters, to greater or lesser degrees, depending upon their faithfulness. God the Father’s only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, is also filled to eternal fullness with this very same holy material substance called light. In fact, when the Prophet Joseph Smith saw the Father and the Son in his First Vision he described them both as being so filled with light that their glory shone far above the brightness of the noonday sun! Are you actually going to deny that both the Father and the Son are filled with light, a holy substance they both have in common?

The following verses from Doctrine and Covenants make it perfectly clear that this very real holy substance called light is “in and through all things,” and if this light is in and through all things that means the Father and the Son are included because both of them are among the things that exist in the universe. Why you have a problem with acknowledging this basic gospel principle is beyond me? Whether anyone likes it or not, the Father and Son are both filled to eternal fullness with an actual holy material substance called light, and it is by the means of this shared light of truth that the Father is able to dwell within the Son, and the Son is able to dwell within the Father. 

7 Which truth shineth. This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made.

8 As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made;

9 As also the light of the stars, and the power thereof by which they were made;

10 And the earth also, and the power thereof, even the earth upon which you stand.

11 And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings;

12 Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—

13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things. (Doctrine and Covenants 88)

 

 

so filled w

Edited May 3, 2024 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

 I'm getting there man, I'm getting there. Sliding closer to your views each day. I just needed to get my reflexive acceptance of correspondence theory shaken up a bit.

For me it's a question of pure logic.  We see everything with human eyes- and so with all the senses.  What other equipment COULD we use?  Yes we have scientific instruments, telescopes, microscopes, radar etc etc ad infinitum.  But what are they intended to do? They are all enhancers of human observation!  If they were not, they would be useless!  So all we know comes from our personal senses channeled through our human brains, PLUS machines designed to enhance..... WHAT?? our human senses!  It ALL gets filtered through human eyes, ears, etc etc.

But what about "the spirit"?   How do birds navigate thousands of miles unless they have some connection built into their brains that receives some kind of signals etc- LIKE another "sense" that gives them those directions.   Same for us.  Even atheists acknowledge there is "something" out there that is "greater" than we are-and people like Oprah speak freely of the "universe" speaking to them.   Yeah we use a different name, The Light of Christ.   I think it is essentially another sense not yet defined well.

But logically we cannot EVER break through those senses to get beyond them.  Maybe someday by altering the brain?  I don't know, call me when it happens.

YES obviously there is stuff "out there" but we do not see anything without eyes , hear without ears, etc.   Enhanced senses?   Of course.   But microscopes have eyepieces, we use earphones for enhanced sound and on it goes.

What is out there is impossible to know, and then we have the second level of mystery- LANGUAGE.  Getting it into my brain is one thing, but COMMUNICATING it to others puts yet another blockage between YOUR brain and " reality as it is" even if I could say it perfectly and you could hear it perfectly.

It all boils down to some kind of idealism- I see no way it could be something otherwise.  Let's just remove a brain or two and see what they have to say about it.

I hereby predict it will be a little hard for them to communicate without a brain.

It's simple as that, for me!

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

 

This is because most people in ordinary language deal with how people present themselves. So most people talking about sex are talking about gender in the academic sense.
 

 I have never once asked for a gamete sample to determine someone’s biological sex. Have you? 

[The Nehor]

On 5/2/2024 at 9:17 PM, teddyaware said:

God the Father is filled to eternal fullness with the holy material substance called light, the very same light he pours out upon his sons and daughters, to greater or lesser degrees, depending upon their faithfulness. God the Father’s only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, is also filled to eternal fullness with this very same holy material substance called light. In fact, when the Prophet Joseph Smith saw the Father and the Son in his First Vision he described them both as being so filled with light that their glory shone far above the brightness of the noonday sun! Are you actually going to deny that both the Father and the Son are filled with light, a holy substance they both have in common?

The following verses from Doctrine and Covenants make it perfectly clear that this very real holy substance called light is “in and through all things,” and if this light is in and through all things that means the Father and the Son are included because both of them are among the things that exist in the universe. Why you have a problem with acknowledging this basic gospel principle is beyond me? Whether anyone likes it or not, the Father and Son are both filled to eternal fullness with an actual holy material substance called light, and it is by the means of this shared light of truth that the Father is able to dwell within the Son, and the Son is able to dwell within the Father. 

7 Which truth shineth. This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made.

8 As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made;

9 As also the light of the stars, and the power thereof by which they were made;

10 And the earth also, and the power thereof, even the earth upon which you stand.

11 And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings;

12 Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—

13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things. (Doctrine and Covenants 88)

The light of the sun comes from fusion. So if this “light” isn’t a metaphor then God is a fusion reactor. If the light of the sun and the light of Christ are one and the same then thick clouds block God’s power. Do people sin more on overcast days? Are you sure you want to run with this idea?

[smac97]

On 5/2/2024 at 1:14 PM, MrShorty said:

Quote

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.

This is, IMO, one of the central issues in this and similar LGBT+ issues -- this question of "disorder" (or pathology or illness or disease or whatever word we want to use for something that cannot persist after death). How do we determine what is and is not "disorder?"

A medical disorder, also referred to as a medical condition or illness, is an abnormality or disruption in the functioning of an organ, system, or body as a whole, leading to characteristic signs and symptoms. 

For example, the human body is structured/designed to be bipedal.  If a person lacks something which precludes bipedalism, I think it's reasonable to characterize that as a "disorder."

On 5/2/2024 at 1:14 PM, MrShorty said:

You draw the parallel to a person born without legs. I think I have drawn the parallel before to a person born deaf.

Moths and butterflies lack the ability to hear in the traditional sense. Instead, they communicate through other means such as visual signals and chemical cues.  So deafness is not a "disorder" for them.  Tardigrades lack ears and the ability to detect sound waves, so deafness is not a "disorder" for them, either.  Many invertebrates, such as insects, spiders, and crustaceans, do not possess ears or the biological structures necessary for hearing. Instead, they rely on other sensory organs for detecting vibrations, air currents, or other cues in their environment.  Again, "deafness" is not a disorder for them.

Human beings, however, are designed to have a sense of hearing.  

On 5/2/2024 at 1:14 PM, MrShorty said:

The reason I have used deafness is because there are some in the deaf community who adamantly believe that deafness is not a "disorder" (or disease or whatever word you might choose here), and, thus, something that does not need to be "cured" (and maybe should not be cured).

Subjectively and emotionally and sentimentally, and for themselves, these folks are entitled to that view.  But objectively and clinically, deafness is a "disorder."

On 5/2/2024 at 1:14 PM, MrShorty said:

I expect if such a person was LDS, that person might argue that they will still be deaf in the next life because deafness, as a normal (if rare) variation on what it means to be a normal human, will persist after death.

My view is that this is an understandable, but ultimately overly-sentimental and inaccurate, perception of things.  Alma 41:4 speaks of the resurrection as "all things shall be restored to their proper order, every thing to its natural frame."  The "proper order" for a human body is, in my view, to have hearing.

Alma 11:43-44 states that "{t}he spirit and the body shall be reunited again in its perfect form; both limb and joint shall be restored to its proper frame," and that "even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body."  Alma 40:23 states that "{t}the soul shall be restored to the body, and the body to the soul; yea, and every limb and joint shall be restored to its body; yea, even a hair of the head shall not be lost; but all things shall be restored to their proper and perfect frame."

I very much admire deaf people who find strength and meaning and purpose in their deafness, and I certainly don't begrudge them sentiments along the lines of what you reference above.  Again, we'll see what happens on the other side.

On 5/2/2024 at 1:14 PM, MrShorty said:

So much of LDS thought on transgenderism (and homosexuality) seems rooted in this idea that they are "disorders," which, interestingly, matches traditional societal beliefs.

I think these are more rooted in them being behaviors.  There is no moral component to having hearing or being deaf.  It's just the way things are.  Unlike deafness, a person may have same-sex attraction, which if acted upon does have a moral component.

On 5/2/2024 at 1:14 PM, MrShorty said:

Homosexuality did not begin to be depathologized in broader society until the mid to late 20th century. Transgenderism is still in the midst of trying to decide if it is a disease or not.

I am currently trending toward a notion of "sexual fluidity," which per this article posits that "people’s sexual attractions, behaviors, and identities can shift over time," and that such shifting is or can be "bi-directional (i.e. toward and away from LGB+ identities)."  I frame this issue in as pertaining to sexual attraction/orientation, not as a disease (or, for that matter, as an "identity").

On 5/2/2024 at 1:14 PM, MrShorty said:

It seems to me that our theology around these issues depends on them being some kind of disorder (even if only in the sense that they cannot persist after death).

I'm not sure about that.  Our theology does not attach moral opprobrium to having "some kind of disorder."  Rather, a sin arises by conduct, by word or act.

On 5/2/2024 at 1:14 PM, MrShorty said:

IMO, part of settling these issues once and for all is to fully and transparently explain the epistemological process we have used to determine that they are "disorders" (being very careful not to rely to heavily on "tradition," since the history of the priesthood and temple ban shows how wrong it can be to rely on tradition).

I think the Church's current stance is pretty good (though I would certainly welcome further light and knowledge on these matters).  See here:

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints acknowledges that same-sex attraction is a sensitive issue that requires kindness, compassion and understanding. The “Same-Sex Attraction” section of ChurchofJesusChrist.org reinforces the reality that, in the words of one Latter-day Saint scripture, God “loveth his children” (1 Nephi 11:17), and seeks to help everyone better understand same-sex attraction from a gospel perspective.

The Church does not take a position on the cause of same-sex attraction. In 2006, Elder Dallin H. Oaks said, “The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction.”

Feelings of same-sex attraction are not a sin. President M. Russell Ballard said: “Let us be clear: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes that ‘the experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including [those with same-sex attraction].’”

While same-sex attraction is not a sin, it can be a challenge. While one may not have chosen to have these feelings, he or she can commit to keep God’s commandments. The parent of a child who experiences same-sex attraction or identifies as gay should choose to love and embrace that child. As a community of Church members, Latter-day Saints should create a welcoming environment.

Those who experience same-sex attraction or identify as gay can fully participate in the Church. As a Church policy says, “If members feel same-sex attraction and are striving to live the law of chastity, leaders support and encourage them in their resolve. These members may receive Church callings, hold temple recommends, and receive temple ordinances if they are worthy. Male Church members may receive and exercise the priesthood. The circumstances of some faithful members do not allow them to receive the blessings of eternal marriage and parenthood in this life. They will receive all promised blessings in the eternities, provided they keep the covenants they have made with God (see Mosiah 2:41).”

There are all sorts of issues that are, in one way or another, not fully "settled," such that we must "walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Cor. 5:7).

On 5/2/2024 at 1:14 PM, MrShorty said:

Perhaps, as you say, we won't be able to tell until we get to the other side. IMO, if there is enough uncertainty in our proclamation to take a wait and see attitude, then change is needed in the here and now.

I'm not sure what you mean.  

On 5/2/2024 at 1:14 PM, MrShorty said:

We saw with the priesthood and temple ban that it is a problematic thing to deny people salvific ordinances and covenants based on incomplete knowledge.

Pretty much everything we do is "based on incomplete knowledge."  And you and I did not "deny people salvific ordinances and covenants."  

On 5/2/2024 at 1:14 PM, MrShorty said:

It won't do to continue denying people salvific ordinances and covenants (or declaring those ordinances and covenants "null and void") based on uncertain knowledge of what might happen in the next life.

It also won't do to bend to social, cultural and political pressures.  We must instead proceed by revelation.  And any purportedly needed "change" will need to be implemented by revelation to those in authority.  If that revelation comes and change is made, I will embrace it.  I don't think it will, though.  In fact, I think it's wishful thinking to hope for it or seek it, and such efforts can even become caustic when expressed through adversarial and usurpative protests, demands, "activism," etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The "proper order" for a human body is, in my view, to have hearing.

And why isn’t your version the overly sentimental one while theirs is the practical and reasonable version?

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

And why isn’t your version the overly sentimental one while theirs is the practical and reasonable version?

Because sentimentality doesn't override biology.  We have ears.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 It also won't do to bend to social, cultural and political pressures.  We must instead proceed by revelation.  And any purportedly needed "change" will need to be implemented by revelation to those in authority.  If that revelation comes and change is made, I will embrace it.  I don't think it will, though.  In fact, I think it's wishful thinking to hope for it or seek it, and such efforts can even become caustic when expressed through adversarial and usurpative protests, demands, "activism," etc.

I gladly would but where is said revelation about DSDs?

Instead we have a couple of policies and some generalized statements in a proclamation that clearly don’t apply in all cases and ignore deviations from the norm. I would have some hard choices ahead if the apostles would collectively declare the ‘word of the Lord” given to them by revelation about LGBT issues. Instead they always appeal to ‘this is the way it has always been’ when ‘how it has always been’ appears to have just been copied from the surrounding secular culture. Honestly I would respect church leadership more if  they would give such revelations even if I didn’t like what they said.

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Because sentimentality doesn't override biology.  We have ears.

Except for those who don’t.

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Because sentimentality doesn't override biology.  We have ears.

In their biology, ears do not serve the function of hearing, but serve other (more important in my view since I have lived with vertigo) functions.  There is more to the ear than hearing.  Why is that an issue?  I have hands that will never serve the function of creating music, but they serve in other ways.

We have plenty of vestigial organs.  Who is to say the outer ear can’t be viewed as vestigial due to evolving without the need to hear to survive?

Edited May 4, 2024 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

Why would Jesus cure deafness if it was not a disordering of the ideal?

 

[smac97]

38 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Except for those who don’t.

Yes.  Those without ears have a disorder.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Why would Jesus cure deafness if it was not a disordering of the ideal?

So those lazy layabout beggars would go out and GET A JOB!

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  Those without ears have a disorder.

Yes, but are they attached earlobe people or detached earlobe people. After all the Proclamation on Hearing states that ones earlobe state is a vital part of their premortal, mortal, and postmortal destiny and even has some roles attached to each. So how do the earless fit into the earlobe binary?

[MrShorty]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

For example, the human body is structured/designed to be bipedal.  If a person lacks something which precludes bipedalism, I think it's reasonable to characterize that as a "disorder."

 

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

Human beings, however, are designed to have a sense of hearing.  

 

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

But objectively and clinically, deafness is a "disorder."

 

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

The "proper order" for a human body is, in my view, to have hearing.

I think the vast majority of people across the vast majority of generations/eras would agree with you. The main thing I was looking for in my post was more than simple assertions that these things are disorders. How did we determine that they are disorders? Considering that there are some who object to calling some things disorders, how does our process of determining what is and is not disorder take into account those objections? I don't see anything "objective" about the assertion that deafness is a disorder, and I have an even more difficult time seeing any objectivity in the assertion that transgenderism is a disorder. I would go so far as to say that I am less interested in the assertion that we are making and more interested in the process behind how we came to make that assertion.

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

a person may have same-sex attraction, which if acted upon does have a moral component.

I think the same kind of discussion could be had around how we determine what is and is not immoral. How do we determine what is and is not moral?

 

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

It also won't do to bend to social, cultural and political pressures.

Why not? The priesthood and temple ban sure has the appearance of the church bending to social, cultural, and political pressures. In spite of that, just about every apologist who talks about it affirms that no one will suffer eternal consequences because the church bent to outside, uninspired pressures. It seems that we believe God has the ability to redeem people and the church when it bends to outside pressures. Why do we fear such bending?

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

We must instead proceed by revelation.

In this I am in perfect agreement with you. We must proceed by revelation. A core issue in my own faith deconstruction has been trying to understand the process of revelation. It seems to me that receiving revelation is sometimes a difficult and fraught process. We can mistake outside influence for God's inspiration. We can insist on receiving a revelation to the point that God grants it to us even if it is not right and good. We can resist receiving revelation because of the "iron gate of what we [think] we already [know]" (Elder Uchtdorf in a 2012 training meeting). We make assertions about the morality of social or medical transitions (for example), but we never describe the process of seeking and receiving and interpreting those revelations that leads to the assertion (including a discussion of how we avoiding the pitfalls that seem to be inherent in the process of receiving revelation). At one point you said that our critics will never be satisfied. I don't identify as a critic of the church, but I can understand the I think I can understand the dissatisfaction. We make moral assertions, claim that they came to us by revelation, but we never fully describe the process of seeking and receiving and interpreting those revelations.

 

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Pretty much everything we do is "based on incomplete knowledge."

If this is the final conclusion -- that we just really do not and cannot "know" with full certainty, then I think we ought to be more inclusive rather than exclusive. If we cannot be certain that a transitioned transgender woman will (again with near absolute certainty) be resurrected and "cured" as a man in body, mind, and spirit, then we need to let her participate fully in the church, go through the temple (if she desires) and let God sort it out in the end. We believe God knows how to sort out messy sealings/family ties. We believe God knows how to redeem those impacted by the church's (uninspired) racial policies. I'm inclined to believe that God knows how to redeem LGBTQ+ people even if we support and embrace them in their differences and don't claim to know what that redemption will look like.

[Rain]

On 5/2/2024 at 1:25 PM, OGHoosier said:

Are there people out there who truly believe that no cure for deafness should be pursued? 

I get not wanting such a cure for oneself - but to be against a cure in principle?

My husband worked on a chip that went into the cochlear implant.  I soon found out I had to be careful who I told as some people were not happy about it.  

[Vanguard]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

My husband worked on a chip that went into the cochlear implant.  I soon found out I had to be careful who I told as some people were not happy about it.  

Wow. I honestly don't understand that. What is the resistance about? Those who are against it won't begrudge others who want to take advantage of what the ear was obviously intended for? Haven't they seen the YouTube clips of those folks finally being able to hear through technology? : (

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Wow. I honestly don't understand that. What is the resistance about? Those who are against it won't begrudge others who want to take advantage of what the ear was obviously intended for? Haven't they seen the YouTube clips of those folks finally being able to hear through technology? : (

And what about the videos of those who have bad reactions?

Quote

She believes the videos sugarcoat the shock and horror many recipients experience. When the implant is first activated, some recipients often sob convulsively in a fearful response to the sudden flood of sensory inputs. This sort of somber reaction is seldom seen online. In the viral video “My Cochlear Implant Activation!” Ann Swartz commented, “Deaf children always seem to smile when they hear for the first time.”3 Titles such as “Hearing My Husband Say I Love You for the First Time!” may downplay the recipient’s recovery while glamorizing the activation experience, as they suggest that recipients can process and comprehend speech immediately. It takes months, sometimes even years, before cochlear implants can function fully. The brain needs time to “rewire itself before it can even comprehend the new sensory input.”4 Recipients must then undergo extensive speech therapy to learn the meaning of all the new sounds.

The most erroneous message the videos propagate is that cochlear implants fully transform deaf individuals into hearing ones. With present technology cochlear implants are a tool, not a cure. The most successful cochlear surgeries never restore full, natural hearing. Many recipients struggle to distinguish sounds, particularly in environments with a lot of background noise.5 The comments on many of these videos embrace the fallacy that cochlear implants are a one-size-fits-all solution.

This misconception may harm pediatric recipients. Some parents of children with cochlear implants believe their child is “hearing” like them, so they do not teach their child American Sign Language (ASL). Not learning sign language may delay their child’s language acquisition.6 According to the National Association of the Deaf (NAD), cochlear implants do not provide recipients with “clear and unambiguous access” to linguistic input in the same way that sign language does. For young children learning their primary language, “reliance on only spoken language input via cochlear implants may result in linguistic deprivation if sign language is excluded from [their] environment.”7

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6913847/#:~:text=Many Deaf culturalists are deeply,should be celebrated and respected.

Quote

While many people object to cochlear implant activation videos on the basis that they are sensationalizing and reductive, others oppose them for being oppressive and offensive. For these critics, deafness is not defined by the lack of ability to hear, but rather, by a distinct cultural identity of which they are proud. They believe the word “deaf ” with a lowercase “d” refers to “the audiologic lack of hearing,” while the word “Deaf ” with an uppercase “D” refers to a cultural identity.8 Members of the Deaf community share essential ingredients of culture: a language, a history, institutions such as schools and clubs, sports, art, and movies. Due to these shared establishments, many Deaf individuals primarily socialize among themselves and “have limited social interactions with people from the majority culture.”8 Ninety-five percent of Deaf marriages involve two deaf partners.8 Because their deafness allows them to be a member of this supportive community, many Deaf people report that they do not want the ability to hear.9 According to the NAD, “Deaf people like being Deaf, want to be Deaf, and are proud of their Deafness”.7

Many Deaf culturalists are deeply offended by what they perceive to be the inherently negative implication of cochlear implants: deafness is a medical disability that should be cured rather than a cultural identity that should be celebrated and respected. The comments sections of cochlear implant activation videos are often flooded by angry remarks about how Deaf people do not need nor want to be “fixed.” On a YouTube video titled, “Deaf People Hearing Sound for the First Time [Compilation],” which amassed 6.6 million views, a commenter with the username “Tzion” passionately rebuked, “Can someone say inspiration porn??? We don’t need to be fixed so it’s easier on you hearing people with a thing that causes so many issues. How about actually learning to communicate with us?10

Not only do many Deaf culturalists find the assumption that they need to be “fixed” or “cured” insulting, some contend that cochlear implant technology threatens to destroy their culture. Because 90 percent of deaf children have hearing parents, cultural transmission of Deaf culture does not occur within families, but rather, through Deaf institutions.11 As cochlear implants will inevitably lead to a decline in the number of ASL speakers, there is a fear that fewer people will participate in Deaf institutions, and eventually Deaf culture will disappear.

Believing that cochlear implant technology deprives the Deaf community of members and threatens Deaf culture, Deaf culturalists like Rob Sparrow feel that cochlear implants represent a form of minority oppression.11 Some have even gone so far as to liken the act of “curing” deafness to genocide. These individuals believe that cochlear implant technology and Deaf culture cannot coexist. In ASL, the sign for cochlear implant is a “two-fingered stab to the back of the neck, indicating a ‘vampire’ in the cochlea.”9

Would you be okay with people dismissing your concern to preserve your language, literature and art?  People who speak English probably have little conception of what it might feel like.

I wonder if a worthwhile comparison could be made to watching part of your massive home slowly burn down while you are still living in it, anticipating eventually the entire home engulfed with the loss of all your family heirlooms, homemade furniture (assume a very crafty and self sufficient family has been living there for generations, long before mass production) and irreplaceable pictures and writings/letters of dead loved ones and knowing you are unable to stop it happening, knowing the end will be your children’s or their children’s homelessness.

Maybe a long occupied family manor built on an eroding cliff is a more realistic image and the house has murals on every wall of past family with every surface carved so that it’s almost as if they are all still living with you and it’s too fragile to move without destroying it, so in the end you will just be left with static pictures and castings instead of the real, living home.

Quote

The question of whether we should preserve a culture at the expense of the individual–– and of scientific progress––is one that extends far beyond the Deaf community. The world is becoming increasingly monolingual. Ninety-four percent of the world’s population speaks only six percent of the world’s languages. It is estimated that by the year 2100, 90 percent of the world’s languages will cease to exist.14 While many members of linguistic minorities fear the loss of self-identity as their respective languages and cultures are assimilated by the mainstream, others argue that language death is inevitable and even creates new opportunities. In his controversial article “Let Them Die,” broadcaster and author Kenan Malik advocates for the existence of a universal language, claiming that “contact across barriers of language and culture allows us to expand our own horizons and become more universal in outlook.”15

 

Edited May 4, 2024 by Calm

[Vanguard]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

And what about the videos of those who have bad reactions?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6913847/#:~:text=Many Deaf culturalists are deeply,should be celebrated and respected.

Would you be okay with people dismissing your concern to preserve your language, literature and art?  People who speak English probably have little conception of what it might feel like.

I wonder if a worthwhile comparison could be made to watching part of your massive home slowly burn down while you are still living in it, anticipating eventually the entire home engulfed with the loss of all your family heirlooms, homemade furniture (assume a very crafty and self sufficient family has been living there for generations, long before mass production) and irreplaceable pictures and writings/letters of dead loved ones and knowing you are unable to stop it happening, knowing the end will be your children’s or their children’s homelessness.

 

That's good information and certainly much more nuance to the issue than I knew. Regardless, I'm sure there are many who do appreciate the opportunity.

What do you think should happen re: technno-advances with implants?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Vanguard said:

That's good information and certainly much more nuance to the issue than I knew. Regardless, I'm sure there are many who do appreciate the opportunity.

What do you think should happen re: technno-advances with implants?

I think it should happen, but I am a hearing person who knows well the benefits of hearing and who has never benefitted from being part of the deaf culture beyond watching interpreters on rare occasions and experiencing the beauty of the language without understanding it beyond the alphabet and a few signs.  In no way can I even try to be objective.

It is like asking someone who speaks English what they think should happen with regard to English being the defacto global language, there is no real downside personally for us beyond losing the opportunity to enjoy the beauty of other languages in the same way we enjoy music if uneducated in it.  We can’t measure what that loss is.

If you aren’t a fan of Gregorian chanting, you aren’t likely to miss the music if it ends up having no practitioners and you can only hear it in museums.  Who cares?  There is plenty of music to take its place.

Who knows what benefits a minority language or culture might provide to the greater community until it provides it (Native American code talkers popped into my head just now).

Edited May 4, 2024 by Calm

[OGHoosier]

@MrShorty I promised I would come back to the issue. Here are my thoughts. 

Technology, ultimately, is the root of the current moment's vicissitudes. Throughout the vast majority of human history, the roles of men and women were delineated by biological capacity. Men could not (still can't) have babies, and in an era before readily available preserved milk men couldn't even reliably feed babies. Women, in the meantime, were at a distinct disadvantage in martial roles on average, or in labor requiring the sudden application of force (for which men's bodies are primed). Furthermore, men are "reproductively cheap" whereas women are not - a woman takes 9 months to produce 1 baby whereas men (absent social conventions forbidding it) can be a lot more prolific. Complex societies formed around these facts - if you have women marching away on campaign or corvee labor you won't be able to sustain your society's population at scale. The embodied sexual binary was not merely a fact of life but an organizing fulcrum of all society - to deviate from it at scale would be nonsensical. The economics wouldn't allow it, and ideology tends to follow economics. From this milieu comes the "default position" of traditional religions - there would be no reason or option to support any other schema.

Technology, both social and mechanical, changed all of this. The levy cycle of campaigning disappeared as militaries professionalized. Modern technology has made it so most jobs can be done equally productively by men and women. If a man can buy formula he can feed a baby. Large industrial states remove the urgency to maintain population (well, for now...) Modern medical technology allows for interventions that can approximate the body to that of the opposite sex. The sex binary is less central than it once was, less "real." As scarcity recedes, society's focus is less on survival and stewardship and more on aspirational fulfillment. Only under such circumstances could the sex binary plausibly be treated as a construction as opposed to a fact. Economics have led ideology once again. 

What we are dealing with here is a fundamental reconstruction of what is "real." The idea of a premortal life with a significant connection to this one requires premortal spirits to be sexed...up until the last few decades. It was just that big a part of life. Did God just...stop doing that, now that sex isn't as important as it was? In my mind, that is what would require a revelation, not the origin of LDS gender-criticism. We have the origins of LDS belief in premortal spirits well documented; that is the null hypothesis. 

6 hours ago, MrShorty said:

If this is the final conclusion -- that we just really do not and cannot "know" with full certainty, then I think we ought to be more inclusive rather than exclusive. If we cannot be certain that a transitioned transgender woman will (again with near absolute certainty) be resurrected and "cured" as a man in body, mind, and spirit, then we need to let her participate fully in the church, go through the temple (if she desires) and let God sort it out in the end. We believe God knows how to sort out messy sealings/family ties. We believe God knows how to redeem those impacted by the church's (uninspired) racial policies. I'm inclined to believe that God knows how to redeem LGBTQ+ people even if we support and embrace them in their differences and don't claim to know what that redemption will look like.

Is that not true of the reverse as well? Can't God sort it out no matter what happens? To be honest, I see your position as calling for us to go where we need revelatory permission to tread before the fact - acting as if the null hypothesis were false before the data. If such revelation comes, I will follow - heaven knows it would ease a lot of things for myself and others. But, as I elaborate below, I wouldn't bet on it. 

At the risk of a politics violation, I don't think the current American social consensus on sex will hold over the long-term. In 2011 Dr. Eric Kaufmann published Shall The Religious Inherit the Earth: Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century, arguing that conservative religious groups have a demographic advantage and can literally out-procreate secular societies worldwide. The results of the Global Religious Futures Project, published by the Pew Research Trust and the John Templeton Foundation in 2022, largely bore Dr. Kaufmann's predictions out; the share of global population belonging to conservative religions is projected to expand, not contract, throughout the 21st century. The most important fact of the 21st century, the character of which is slowly coming into view, is this: modern, secular industrial societies just don't have kids. It's not just that industrialized countries have fewer kids than non-industrialized countries, they don't have enough to replace their own populations. There's only one "First World" state in the world with above-replacement levels of fertility (it's Israel, a unique ideological garrison state, and the growth is driven by the religiously conservative Haredi population). Some cocktail of causes in our social and economic water is a fertility shredder, one that gets worse and worse each year. Which means that the social conditions dominant across the industrialized world today are simply doomed. Only groups with strongly countercultural (countercultural to the industrialized West anyway) and pro-natalist norms surrounding sex are going to sustain themselves through the Second Demographic Transition. And those norms will have to be organic, they cannot be bespoke  - see the collapse of mainline Protestantism, which tried to be "the American establishment at prayer" and is now moribund.

God knows the fall of every sparrow, but He must also consider the fate of nations. It is a responsibility I cannot comprehend, consequently I cannot tell Him what to do. I will wait upon His word. 

And, for what it's worth, it does seem like the disintegration of the family is poised to bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. Turning and turning in the widening gyre...socioeconomic shifts this big do not pass easily. 

Edited May 5, 2024 by OGHoosier

[smac97]

23 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

The "proper order" for a human body is, in my view, to have hearing.

I think the vast majority of people across the vast majority of generations/eras would agree with you. The main thing I was looking for in my post was more than simple assertions that these things are disorders.

My point was not an assertion.  The ear not only has form, it has function.  It is intended to allow the individual to detect sound waves.  When the ear cannot perform its intended function, that is a disorder.    

23 hours ago, MrShorty said:

How did we determine that they are disorders?

Through observation, data, reasoned analysis, etc.

23 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Considering that there are some who object to calling some things disorders, how does our process of determining what is and is not disorder take into account those objections?

There is virtually nothing about which there is a universal consensus.  If someone objects to "calling some things disorders," they are free to do so.  But in the end, we must reach some conclusions about things, and those conclusions ought not be set aside because some few people object to them on emotional and subjective, rather than rational and empirical and objective, grounds.

This is not a ubiquitous thing.  We can accommodate some such objections.

23 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I don't see anything "objective" about the assertion that deafness is a disorder,

I do.  The ear is designed to facilitate hearing, the detection of sound waves.  When that function is attained, the ear is in "order."  When that function is impaired or absent, that is a disorder.

23 hours ago, MrShorty said:

and I have an even more difficult time seeing any objectivity in the assertion that transgenderism is a disorder.

"Transgenderism" is a fairly nebulous label.

A male homo sapiens who believes his is, in fact, a female is suffering from a disorder.  Something similar could be said of a homo sapiens who believes he is a wolf (Canis lupus lupus), or a a snake (Serpentes).  A person who acknowledges that he is of the species H. sapiens is correct and ordered.  A person who believes something other than this is incorrect and disordered.

23 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I would go so far as to say that I am less interested in the assertion that we are making and more interested in the process behind how we came to make that assertion.

Okay.

23 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I think the same kind of discussion could be had around how we determine what is and is not immoral. How do we determine what is and is not moral?

Morality is, IMO, distinguishable from empirically demonstrable things like biological sex.  It is more a matter of belief, preference, law, societal constraint, and so on.

For me, morality is based on both reason and revelation from God.

23 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

It also won't do to bend to social, cultural and political pressures.

Why not?

Because on matters as substantive as this, we must be guided by and follow revelation, not social trends.

23 hours ago, MrShorty said:

The priesthood and temple ban sure has the appearance of the church bending to social, cultural, and political pressures.

I think the ban originated because some early leaders of the Church were unduly influenced by "social, cultural, and political pressures."  AFAIK, the ban has no revelatory provenance.  Its end did, though.

23 hours ago, MrShorty said:

In spite of that, just about every apologist who talks about it affirms that no one will suffer eternal consequences because the church bent to outside, uninspired pressures.

I'm not sure what your point is here.  That errors in the here and now will be sorted out and resolved in the future does not mean we have license to indulge in error.

23 hours ago, MrShorty said:

It seems that we believe God has the ability to redeem people and the church when it bends to outside pressures. Why do we fear such bending?

Not fear.  Avoid.  Obedience to God should predominate.

23 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

We must instead proceed by revelation.

In this I am in perfect agreement with you. We must proceed by revelation.

So if revelation says X, and social, cultural, and political pressures says Y, we should go with X.  Even if X is unpopular.

23 hours ago, MrShorty said:

A core issue in my own faith deconstruction has been trying to understand the process of revelation. It seems to me that receiving revelation is sometimes a difficult and fraught process.  

It takes real effort, yes.  Particularly when there is substantial tension between X and Y.

23 hours ago, MrShorty said:

We can mistake outside influence for God's inspiration.

Quite so.  I think the biggest error we as an institutional church ever made was when some early leaders let then-popular societal notions of race and slavery create a basis for the Priesthood Ban.

23 hours ago, MrShorty said:

We can insist on receiving a revelation to the point that God grants it to us even if it is not right and good.

I don't think anything from God can be "not right and good." 

"I say unto you that the Lord God worketh not in darkness.  He doeth not anything save it be for the benefit of the world; for he loveth the world, even that he layeth down his own life that he may draw call men unto him."  (2 Nephi 26:23-24.)

23 hours ago, MrShorty said:

We can resist receiving revelation because of the "iron gate of what we [think] we already [know]" (Elder Uchtdorf in a 2012 training meeting).  We make assertions about the morality of social or medical transitions (for example), but we never describe the process of seeking and receiving and interpreting those revelations that leads to the assertion (including a discussion of how we avoiding the pitfalls that seem to be inherent in the process of receiving revelation).

I respectfully disagree.  The Church's position is reasoned and revelatory, not merely asserted.  

23 hours ago, MrShorty said:

At one point you said that our critics will never be satisfied.

Yes.  That is a conclusion of my own, borne of long experience.  And I am speaking of them collectively.

23 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I don't identify as a critic of the church, but I can understand the I think I can understand the dissatisfaction. We make moral assertions, claim that they came to us by revelation, but we never fully describe the process of seeking and receiving and interpreting those revelations.

I think we do.  The scriptures include some descriptions.  The Brethren have provided insights as to the process.

23 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

Pretty much everything we do is "based on incomplete knowledge."

If this is the final conclusion -- that we just really do not and cannot "know" with full certainty, then I think we ought to be more inclusive rather than exclusive.

I think we ought to be guided by revelation.  And I think the Church is trying very hard to be as inclusive as possible.  But the Church cannot be endlessly flexible as to its mandates.

23 hours ago, MrShorty said:

If we cannot be certain that a transitioned transgender woman will (again with near absolute certainty) be resurrected and "cured" as a man in body, mind, and spirit, then we need to let her participate fully in the church, go through the temple (if she desires) and let God sort it out in the end.

I think this is a matter of such import that it must be determined by those in authority.

23 hours ago, MrShorty said:

We believe God knows how to sort out messy sealings/family ties. We believe God knows how to redeem those impacted by the church's (uninspired) racial policies. I'm inclined to believe that God knows how to redeem LGBTQ+ people even if we support and embrace them in their differences and don't claim to know what that redemption will look like.

I agree.  The process may well involve resisting massive societal pressures (Y) and instead following revelatory guidance and instruction (X).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rain]

22 hours ago, Vanguard said:

Wow. I honestly don't understand that. What is the resistance about? Those who are against it won't begrudge others who want to take advantage of what the ear was obviously intended for? Haven't they seen the YouTube clips of those folks finally being able to hear through technology? : (

This was in 97 before YouTube.

It does make a difference in how young you get it.  Along with the sound of your mom's voice or a beautiful symphony, all the other noises come in as well. Growing up with them you learn to tune them out.  As you get older it is not so easy.  

 

Edited May 5, 2024 by Rain