Dan refutes Ben

[SteveO]

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It doesn't.  But in regards to our specific conversation, I'm not engaging with you on this topic because I'm trying to figure out if what the women GC speakers say is important or not.  I'm trying to figure out if you actually get up and leave when a woman speaker in GC is at the pulpit.

So if I'm understanding you correctly.  You don't actually get up when a woman speaker comes on.  You just said that to make a point about what would happen if they had gotten up and left.  

To answer the question, it would depend on their timing.  If they got up and left the second she stood up to speak when yes, there would be accusations of sexism and the like, just like you got with your statement that you refuse to listen to women speakers.  However, if they had gotten up to leave after she started on the specific topic, then people would know that it was the topic that was making them leave, not the speaker herself.

If you had said that you get up to leave when any speaker talks about immigration, then people would probably have understood your point.  Tying your leaving to the gender of the speaker muddied the waters, since the gender of the person who gave the sermon to Trump and Vance isn't what people care about.

You lost me again.  I have no idea what you mean by this. 

Re read my initial post, except do it with dripping sarcasm.

 

I was responding in a thread where the OP was posting a tic toc of political grifters, and specifically to a person who was using the term “conservative snowflakes”.  I don’t take these people seriously.

[MustardSeed]

16 minutes ago, SteveO said:

So now we’re on teams?  What are you even talking about?  I don’t even know who Teddy is.  

 

Since I am a woman, and since I have more evidence here today to show you don’t particularly respect women than otherwise, I think I’ll stop here.  Carry on, thank you for the clarity. 

[Senator]

37 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

 But be it known that when mercy overpowers and supplants the demands of divine justice you can count on the fact that mercy is actually destroyed and results will never be good.

There goes the Good News....

[halconero]

Genuine question 2x.

If POTUS attended another Church service where the sermon where the speaker urged them to protect the traditional definition of the family or safeguard the rights of the unborn, would you have a similar reaction?

If not, why not?

As far as I can tell, having mercy on the stranger and the marginalized has been a consistent Gospel message since it was first preached. I just simply don't understand why a self-declared minister of Christ preaching said mercy in their Church is somehow controversial.

I don't think this is equivalent to preaching to a captive audience. My students have way more pressures on them to attend post-secondary education than POTUS does to attend church, with incentives to follow my direction in class, which is why I take care to avoid normative recommendations in the classes I teach on public policy formation. But if I got to church of my own volition, I shouldn't be shocked nor dismayed to hear the Gospel or its principles preached.

Are we at risk of following earthly masters and worshipping at the feat of their ideologies instead of Christ crucified and the good news? Are we disciples of party and state more than him whose Kingdom is not of this world? Are we so focused on rendering to Caesar what Caesar demands that we forget to render to God what is God's?

I am sincerely baffled about all this. The apostles of old, from Paul to Peter, would have gone to extreme lengths to preach to the household of Caesar, and in fact, boasted of followers within said household in writing. Disagree with the Reverend's other social views all you want, but the part of her message attracting the greatest controversy is absolutely in-line with what our own Church has preached regarding those with same-sex attraction, transgender identity, or varying degrees of legal immigration status within the United States. She prescribed no policy, but advocated the simple attribute of mercy. I can show you half a dozen or more newsroom articles, General Conference addresses, or more where we advocate a similar principle.

And again, if I have the President, the Prime Minister, or the King of Mars sitting in my congregation and I refrain from preaching similar principles, what am I even doing at the pulpit?

[CV75]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

I posted a GC talk earlier in the thread on unity that her sermon reminded me of (absent the specific call out to Trump).  I can’t remember when it was from though.  Perhaps you missed my post?

I went back and found it -- President Nelson's talk from October 2024. He does not drill down into specific issues as Bishop Budde did, but he certainly advocates a good number of gospel principles as indicated by the subtitles: Conversion (to Christ); Covenants; Fairness, Equality, and Helping the Poor; Obedience; Meeting Together; Love; Divine Identity; and, Be One. My CFR to @SeekingUnderstanding was to show how a General Conference talk parallels Bishop Budde's by mentioning specific applications of these principles as she did. 

 

Edited January 27, 2025 by CV75

[halconero]

40 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

For the those who are in rebellion against God’s strict but loving standards of righteousness, it’s of little consequence if the implementation of their ideas provably cause a descent into moral chaos and societal collapse. Why? Because as long as the destructive policies they implement are initially motivated by “compassion” it’s unnecessary to take stock and reassess whether or not their “compassionate” ideas actually work in the real world. With these people “compassion” reigns supreme, with wisdom taking a distant second place in the running. Undeniably obvious terrible end results and cataclysmic collateral damage are of secondary importance as long as “compassion” is what precipitates the frightful plunge into moral degeneracy and the collapse of law and order. No need to worry too much if scores are murdered, thousands die of fentanyl poisoning, and tens of thousands more are trafficked as long “compassion,” even when it’s unwise and ultimately hurtful, is enthroned as the ultimate of all virtues. But be it known that when mercy overpowers and supplants the demands of divine justice you can count on the fact that mercy is actually destroyed and results will never be good.

There are plenty of ways to enforce the law in a way that is redemptive, compassionate, and merciful.

As someone who has made the analysis of immigration policy and the prescribing of solutions to some of its biggest challenges their living, I would be happy to suggest a dozen ways to enforce US immigration law in a way that balances justice with mercy.

Were a different Administration in charge that had was so focused on compassion to the detriment of justice on this topic, it may very well be appropriate to preach the need of justice and due enforcement of the law.

That is not the case however. We currently have an Administration focused on enforcing the law and administering justice at the border and within the state. They don't need more preaching of the law and justice, as they've already made that their focus. Therefore, asking them to temper (not destroy) justice with mercy seems entirely appropriate, given who is wielding power and their objectives.

Consider the preceding portions of Reverend Budde's sermon:

Quote

Those of us gathered here in this Cathedral are not naive about the realities of politics. When power, wealth and competing interests are at stake; when views of what America should be are in conflict; when there are strong opinions across a spectrum of possibilities and starkly different understandings of what the right course of action is, there will be winners and losers when votes are cast or decisions made that set the course of public policy and the prioritization of resources. It goes without saying that in a democracy, not everyone’s particular hopes and dreams will be realized in a given legislative session or a presidential term or even a generation. Not everyone’s specific prayers – for those of us who are people of prayer – will be answered as we would like...

...Let me make one final plea, Mr President. Millions have put their trust in you. As you told the nation yesterday, you have felt the providential hand of a loving God.

Before the Reverend even begins her plea, she contextualizes it within the simple fact that American constitutional democracy will concede power to a particular set of agendas and priorities, and that even among those who pray, not everyone's prayer will be answered. Likewise, she concedes the sacred trust placed in the President, and that the fact that according to Trump's own testimony (should wish to call it that), he has felt God's hand.

That doesn't sound like someone seeking overturn a particular agenda or set of priorities, but to bridle those priorities in accordance with God-given principles and covenantal obligations.

[Rain]

30 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Then why specifically talk about any one group of people at all?

For the same reasons, the scriptures talk about "one" group all throughout them.  The group of lepers.  The blind.  The lame.  The woman with an issue of blood.  The unclothed.  The hungry. The tax collectors.  The humble. The prideful. etc.  Because He loves them and recognizes their unique circumstances.  

[halconero]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Yes, I mean something else (and yes, I believe saying we should have brotherly love is ok). Using the example you just mentioned, provide a general conference talk that says we should have brotherly love towards our gay brothers and sisters

Two Great Commandments

"I have spoken of the first commandment, but what of the second? How do we keep the commandment to love our neighbors? We seek to persuade our members that those who follow lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender teachings and actions should be treated with the love our Savior commands us to show toward all our neighbors. Thus, when same-sex marriage was declared legal in the United States, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve declared: 'The gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us to love and treat all people with kindness and civility—even when we disagree. We affirm that those who avail themselves of laws or court rulings authorizing same-sex marriage should not be treated disrespectfully.'"

"Further, we must never persecute those who do not share our beliefs and commitments. Regretfully, some persons facing these issues continue to feel marginalized and rejected by some members and leaders in our families, wards, and stakes. We must all strive to be kinder and more civil."

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

 

(or any other topic Bishop Budde mentioned). You said they exist, and I would like to see a side-by-side comparison of the Budde quotes you shared and what you found in general conference talks.

Refuge from the Storm

"There are highly charged arguments in governments and across society regarding what the definition of a refugee is and what should be done to assist the refugees. My remarks are not intended in any way to form part of that heated discussion, nor to comment on immigration policy, but rather to focus on the people who have been driven from their homes and their countries by wars that they had no hand in starting."

"The Savior knows how it feels to be a refugee—He was one. As a young child, Jesus and His family fled to Egypt to escape the murderous swords of Herod. And at various points in His ministry, Jesus found Himself threatened and His life in danger, ultimately submitting to the designs of evil men who had plotted His death. Perhaps, then, it is all the more remarkable to us that He repeatedly taught us to love one another, to love as He loves, to love our neighbor as ourselves. Truly, 'pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction' and to 'look to the poor and the needy, and administer to their relief that they shall not suffer.'"

Not a GC talk, but some bonus content from 2018:

Church Statement on Separation of Families at the US-Mexico Border

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has long expressed its position that immigration reform should strengthen families and keep them together. The forced separation of children from their parents now occurring at the U.S.-Mexico border is harmful to families, especially to young children. We are deeply troubled by the aggressive and insensitive treatment of these families. While we recognize the right of all nations to enforce their laws and secure their borders, we encourage our national leaders to take swift action to correct this situation and seek for rational, compassionate solutions."

[ttribe]

I've been saying for years that for many members of the Church right-wing U.S.-centric political ideology is more important to them than the scriptures or the Church's own teachings. I never thought I'd see it so blatantly on this board. On the LDS Freedom Forum, sure, but this board not so much.

[Mark Beesley]

 

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

I've been saying for years that for many members of the Church right-wing U.S.-centric political ideology is more important to them than the scriptures or the Church's own teachings. I never thought I'd see it so blatantly on this board. On the LDS Freedom Forum, sure, but this board not so much.

Amen, Amen and Amen.

[halconero]

16 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I've been saying for years that for many members of the Church right-wing U.S.-centric political ideology is more important to them than the scriptures or the Church's own teachings. I never thought I'd see it so blatantly on this board. On the LDS Freedom Forum, sure, but this board not so much.

I suggest reading Tim Alberta's article on his father's funeral for a similar take.

Tangentially, one of my favourite Church history anecdotes was how the Church actually assigned members to the Republican and Democratic parties upon disbanding the Utah People's Party so that they wouldn't favour one over the other.

[CV75]

22 minutes ago, halconero said:

Two Great Commandments

"I have spoken of the first commandment, but what of the second? How do we keep the commandment to love our neighbors? We seek to persuade our members that those who follow lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender teachings and actions should be treated with the love our Savior commands us to show toward all our neighbors. Thus, when same-sex marriage was declared legal in the United States, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve declared: 'The gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us to love and treat all people with kindness and civility—even when we disagree. We affirm that those who avail themselves of laws or court rulings authorizing same-sex marriage should not be treated disrespectfully.'"

"Further, we must never persecute those who do not share our beliefs and commitments. Regretfully, some persons facing these issues continue to feel marginalized and rejected by some members and leaders in our families, wards, and stakes. We must all strive to be kinder and more civil."

Refuge from the Storm

"There are highly charged arguments in governments and across society regarding what the definition of a refugee is and what should be done to assist the refugees. My remarks are not intended in any way to form part of that heated discussion, nor to comment on immigration policy, but rather to focus on the people who have been driven from their homes and their countries by wars that they had no hand in starting."

"The Savior knows how it feels to be a refugee—He was one. As a young child, Jesus and His family fled to Egypt to escape the murderous swords of Herod. And at various points in His ministry, Jesus found Himself threatened and His life in danger, ultimately submitting to the designs of evil men who had plotted His death. Perhaps, then, it is all the more remarkable to us that He repeatedly taught us to love one another, to love as He loves, to love our neighbor as ourselves. Truly, 'pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction' and to 'look to the poor and the needy, and administer to their relief that they shall not suffer.'"

Not a GC talk, but some bonus content from 2018:

Church Statement on Separation of Families at the US-Mexico Border

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has long expressed its position that immigration reform should strengthen families and keep them together. The forced separation of children from their parents now occurring at the U.S.-Mexico border is harmful to families, especially to young children. We are deeply troubled by the aggressive and insensitive treatment of these families. While we recognize the right of all nations to enforce their laws and secure their borders, we encourage our national leaders to take swift action to correct this situation and seek for rational, compassionate solutions."

Thank you, this is what I'm asking for.

[smac97]

On 1/23/2025 at 11:43 AM, Damien the Leper said:

Ben Shapiro complains about Bishop Budde's sermon and Dan McClellan responds adequately. 

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT2LeFuYv/

I disliked the sermon because A) it was overtly political and politicized, B) it was showboating, C) it was to a captive audience, and D) it misappropriated the venue.

Had she wanted to go the "hearts and minds" persuasion route, she could have spoken with Trump in a private setting.  instead, she pulled a political stunt to show him up.

Kent Larsen over at Times & Seasons posted this: Questions about Bishop Budde’s Remarks

From the "Comments" section:

"The sermon given was inappropriate for that setting because it was a pointed political message with the thinnest veneer of religion. The sermon should have, and could have, made a number of the same basic points without the brazen political statements. The sermon should have been addressed to all of the leaders present, not merely the president. Attacking President Trump personally for his policies turned this from a sermon to a political attack in a service that was originally meant to rise above politics and unify the leadership and nation before God."

"If the Bishop had wanted to go after Trump politically, she should have picked a political venue. Dragging the church into politics ends badly for both politics and the church."

"For a general analysis to work, you need to change the message 180 degrees. If Bishop Budde had called on Pres. Biden to protect the unborn and cease promoting sinful lifestyles, would you still support that use of her office and opportunity (or shift from opposing to supporting it)? Pick a position that works as well for a message you support as it does for one you oppose."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[longview]

On 1/26/2025 at 10:53 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

On 1/26/2025 at 9:06 AM, longview said:

"they formally disconnected" ? Oh come on now! Only in your most feverish imaginations.

Nope, it's not in my imagination, sorry.

When you say "they formally disconnected biological sex from gender in the Proclamation on the Family", you are in effect putting YOUR words into the "mouth of the LDS Church." None of the church leaders would agree with the idea that "gender" in the pre-existence would include a broad spectrum of "identities" in addition to the straightforward MALE and FEMALE.

When you use the word "formally", you imply that current church leaders have explicitly made that distinction. CFR if you have comments by church leaders to this effect outside of the Proclamation.

Then you try to justify this by quoting James Talmage's 1922 Improvement Era article for young women. His use of the word "sex" and the occurrence of the word "gender" in the Proclamation does NOT imply a change in perspectives on the nature of sex/gender in the pre-existence and in the Eternities (putting aside the "confusion" of the mortal sphere).

On 1/26/2025 at 10:53 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

The term was changed to gender because of the awareness of the difference between biological sex and gender - an issue that we were of aware of in the 1990s, and not in the 1920s. In any case, there is clearly a disconnect between an attribute that you can have in a disembodied state and the biology that comes with mortality. And this is true whether you like it or not.

This is what YOU believe. This is what some people believe. But this is NOT what the church teaches. There is NO confusion in the Proclamation. It explicitly and repeatedly AFFIRMS the nature and roles of MALE and FEMALE and their proper relationships.

You cannot deny that the church puts limitations on homosexual marriage. It does REQUIRE adherence to the Law of Chasity, both before and after marriage. It is true that LGBTQIA+ members are allowed to participate in some activities. But they are subject to careful and somber counseling regarding certain lifestyle choices.

On 1/26/2025 at 10:53 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

On 1/26/2025 at 9:06 AM, longview said:

"Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

The problem is, as I will keep pointing out, that it is clear from the evidence here in mortality, that biological sex is not an essential characteristic of "individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

This a LIE of your own making. You do NOT speak for the Church. Your interpretation of the Proclamation is diabolical. The confusion in mortality does NOT defeat the Plan of Redemption. The Lord will make appropriate provisions, either in this world or the next. But sex/gender in the pre-existence will PREVAIL in the Eternities.

On 1/26/2025 at 10:53 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

This in and of itself should be self-evident.

So you say. But you cannot defeat the Proclamation.

On 1/26/2025 at 10:53 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

The problem that arises comes when we draw the conclusion that biological sex is always equivalent to that individual eternal gender. The problem that we face is that with our limited understanding, we aren't in a position to determine what everyone's eternal gender is simply by looking at their biology - and this is particularly true for those who are born into bodies that have an indeterminate biological sex (intersex persons). When doctors perform gender reassignment surgeries on infants, they do so using their own best judgment as to which to assign (including which gender they think will most likely work out best for the individual). But this still leaves open the question of whether or not that guess was right or not.

The "problem" does NOT negate the Proclamation. For 99% of the population it is a simple matter for people to choose to follow God's word or just go with the flow in carnal pursuits.

On 1/26/2025 at 10:53 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

On 1/26/2025 at 9:06 AM, longview said:

“The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity." - - - this is the state required for the highest degree in the Celestial Kingdom.

I am not arguing against this point. The issue is about what happens when someone is assigned the wrong biological gender at birth. Perhaps you want to suggest that this would never happen.

For the less than 1% of the population, this "problem" is amply taken care of, either in this world or the next.

On 1/26/2025 at 10:53 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

The LDS Church Handbook at least recognizes the difficulty.

As I already told you, it only addresses the birth and infant stage. It is NOT referring to later ages of "gender dysphoria."

On 1/26/2025 at 10:53 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Clearly though, it seems unlikely that you and I are ever going to come to some sort of agreement on this issue ...

Clearly. You have NO justification for twisting the Proclamation on the Family. The Church is making careful distinctions between various issues and providing guidance for the most part.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, SteveO said:

It just seems the mercy and compassion doesn’t extend to kids in any capacity.

My understanding of her sermon is she targeted groups that she was concerned wouldn’t be treated with mercy and compassion by the incoming president.

——

Breaking down the Trump section for referenced groups….

General plea: In the name of our God, I ask you to have mercy upon the people in our country who are scared now. 

1) LGBT children who are fearful:  “gay, lesbian and transgender children in Democratic, Republican and independent families who fear for their lives”

2) working immigrants, documented and undocumented who are not criminals:  “they may not be citizens or have the proper documentation, but the vast majority of immigrants are not criminals”

3) potentially deportable parents:  “children fear that their parents will be taken away”

4) refugees:  “those who are fleeing war zones and persecution in their own lands”

Another general plea for the “stranger” and to “honor the dignity of every human being”

——

Quote

If your message is that we need mercy and compassion on the highest risk groups in our society, and you leave out the mention of those immigrant kids, or the fentanyl crisis,  or the victims of violent criminals that should have never been allowed here in the first place, I think your message of mercy and compassion doesn’t mean anything. 

I think you misunderstood that part of her message.  If you look above, the groups specifically referenced were those who are at risk from Trump’s executive orders being written that place them in more difficult circumstances, such as being required to leave the US or deported because of immigrant status, those seen by Budde as being left unprotected by policies protecting LGBT rights, or refugees no longer being accepted or resettlement camps being supported.

Has Trump ever made any statement suggesting potentially making life harder for the missing immigrant kids?  Has he made any negative promises towards those suffering from the fentanyl crisis or the victims of violent illegal immigrants?

Do you think she needed to call attention to the missing children for this reason?  That Trump will ignore them or deport them if found?

Added after reading another post:

Quote

And when you browbeat a specific person and his supporters over their lack of compassion and mercy for special groups of people, and ignore their concern for the plight of (as I’ve very correctly argued) a far more consequential group of people, I can’t come to the conclusion that the message was anything but a political hack job. 

I see your point now…I think.

Is it that she only focused on what she saw as Trump doing wrong and did not use any of her time to give positive feedback?

Edited January 27, 2025 by Calm

[webbles]

1 hour ago, halconero said:

I suggest reading Tim Alberta's article on his father's funeral for a similar take.

Tangentially, one of my favourite Church history anecdotes was how the Church actually assigned members to the Republican and Democratic parties upon disbanding the Utah People's Party so that they wouldn't favour one over the other.

There actually isn't much evidence that the Church assigned members to parties.  https://www.deseret.com/2022/10/24/23349718/latter-day-saints-historic-political-party-divides/ has a run down on what probably happened.  The Republican party had been trying to wipe out the church and so many members leaned towards the Democratic party.  But the Republican party was the national party in charge (since the Civil War had really hurt the Democratic party) so if Utah wanted to be a state, it needed Republican party support.  So the church leaders actually worked to increase the Republican party membership in Utah.  Many church leaders publicly declared they were Republicans and had meetings with members to promote the Republican party.

[Calm]

13 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

it appears as though Teddy is team Steve so now I understand two of you just a little bit better.

I assume this means Teddy gave him a rep point?  I wouldn’t assume Teddy agrees with everything said in the post just because of that.  He might have been impressed by one comment enough to do so.  I have even given rep points to posts I completely disagree with because I appreciate the person taking the time to share a particular POV I felt needed to be expressed (I do not believe all POVs need to be expressed, btw, sometimes it’s better if one keeps certain ideas to themselves).

I think we should only base our judgment of a poster on what posters say themselves.

 I do use rep points as potential red flags, have even at times attempted to search for comments by the repping poster to see their position, so I am not saying ignore rep points, just be cautious on drawing conclusions from them.

Edited January 28, 2025 by Calm

[Duncan]

I like this tweet

"If your Christianity causes you to be offended by someone asking the most powerful person in the country to be merciful towards the powerless then you have profoundly misunderstood the teachings of Jesus Christ"

Rev. Benjamin Cramer

[MustardSeed]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

I assume this means Teddy gave him a rep point?  I wouldn’t assume Teddy agrees with everything said in the post just because of that.  He might have been impressed by one comment enough to do so.  I have even given rep points to posts I completely disagree with because I appreciate the person taking the time to share that needed POV.

I think we should only base our judgment of a poster on what posters say themselves.

 I do use rep points as potential red flags, have even at times attempted to search for comments by the repping poster to see their position, so I am not saying ignore rep points, just be cautious on drawing conclusions from them.

Fair enough.  

[CV75]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I disliked the sermon because A) it was overtly political and politicized, B) it was showboating, C) it was to a captive audience, and D) it misappropriated the venue.

Had she wanted to go the "hearts and minds" persuasion route, she could have spoken with Trump in a private setting.  instead, she pulled a political stunt to show him up.

Kent Larsen over at Times & Seasons posted this: Questions about Bishop Budde’s Remarks

From the "Comments" section:

"The sermon given was inappropriate for that setting because it was a pointed political message with the thinnest veneer of religion. The sermon should have, and could have, made a number of the same basic points without the brazen political statements. The sermon should have been addressed to all of the leaders present, not merely the president. Attacking President Trump personally for his policies turned this from a sermon to a political attack in a service that was originally meant to rise above politics and unify the leadership and nation before God."

"If the Bishop had wanted to go after Trump politically, she should have picked a political venue. Dragging the church into politics ends badly for both politics and the church."

"For a general analysis to work, you need to change the message 180 degrees. If Bishop Budde had called on Pres. Biden to protect the unborn and cease promoting sinful lifestyles, would you still support that use of her office and opportunity (or shift from opposing to supporting it)? Pick a position that works as well for a message you support as it does for one you oppose."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I haven't been able to find any White House protocols for this traditional event. I suspect the underlying purpose is to witness that the American people are free to enjoy plurality of meaning and purpose (in this venue, placing religious and secular spirituality as a priority) because of our form of government. Absent protocols, I think the "civic theology" you posted about in another thread could use more airplay.

[Benjamin McGuire]

2 hours ago, longview said:

When you say "they formally disconnected biological sex from gender in the Proclamation on the Family", you are in effect putting YOUR words into the "mouth of the LDS Church." None of the church leaders would agree with the idea that "gender" in the pre-existence would include a broad spectrum of "identities" in addition to the straightforward MALE and FEMALE.

And I am not saying that either. You are putting words in my mouth. What I am saying is that Gender is separated from biological sex - because there is no biology (let alone biological sex) in the pre-existence. So we have a gender long before we have the biological sex part. This separates the two of them. The only way that you could make the argument that they aren't separated is by suggesting the biological sex always reflects that eternal gender. But we know from the evidence that this simply isn't the case. So we can conclude that gender is eternal, and biological sex - at least in mortality - is temporary - and they do not have to be the same. That's all there is to it. I am not suggesting that there are all sorts of eternal genders. I am merely suggesting that you cannot look at the biological sex of a person by itself and know what their eternal gender is with certainty. That is a disconnect. I am sorry that this is so hard for you to comprehend.

2 hours ago, longview said:

Then you try to justify this by quoting James Talmage's 1922 Improvement Era article for young women. His use of the word "sex" and the occurrence of the word "gender" in the Proclamation does NOT imply a change in perspectives on the nature of sex/gender in the pre-existence and in the Eternities (putting aside the "confusion" of the mortal sphere).

There is no sex in the pre-existence if we are separating sex and gender. There is only gender. The sex part comes later in mortality. Do I think that confusion will be cleared up in the eternities? Sure. That doesn't change my point at all.

2 hours ago, longview said:

This is what YOU believe. This is what some people believe. But this is NOT what the church teaches. There is NO confusion in the Proclamation. It explicitly and repeatedly AFFIRMS the nature and roles of MALE and FEMALE and their proper relationships.

You can keep saying this, but it isn't right. Yelling - using all caps - isn't helping you make your case either. Let me ask you the simple question that the LDS Handbook currently brings up? What are we supposed to do with a person who had gender reassignment surgery as an infant and then experiences gender dysphoria - a person who had their gender chosen for them (either by parents or medical professionals) and then believes that the decision that was made is wrong - and that their biological sex doesn't accurately reflect their eternal gender? Simply saying that we have to wait until the eternities isn't really a valid answer to this. Policy can allow for exceptions - doctrine cannot.

2 hours ago, longview said:

But sex/gender in the pre-existence will PREVAIL in the Eternities.

And I don't disagree with this. I am not concerned though with the Eternities - I am concerned with the here and now, and way that people like yourself, who are hell bent on demonizing these individuals instead of displaying mercy and charity towards those who are already facing difficult issues in their lives. I am certain that you will be called to account for these actions that are anything but Christlike.

2 hours ago, longview said:

The "problem" does NOT negate the Proclamation. For 99% of the population it is a simple matter for people to choose to follow God's word or just go with the flow in carnal pursuits.

If you think that gender dysphoria is a "carnal pursuit" then you are a lost cause, who has bought into the nonsense spewed by those who have politicized this issue.

2 hours ago, longview said:

For the less than 1% of the population, this "problem" is amply taken care of, either in this world or the next.

Really, you mean in the next world. Because nothing you are suggesting is about taking care of it in this one.

2 hours ago, longview said:

As I already told you, it only addresses the birth and infant stage. It is NOT referring to later ages of "gender dysphoria."

And you missed the part about the gender dysphoria that comes later when mistakes are made, and you missed the part about how parents can choose to wait and see and make the decision of which sex to follow later when that decision can be made more appropriately. Really, I am concerned about your reading comprehension when you get all emotionally worked up. Perhaps you should try reading it with these other views in mind rather than just running with your confirmation bias ... hopefully it doesn't give you cognitive dissonance.

[Calm]

 

58 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

because there is no biology (let alone biological sex) in the pre-existence. So we have a gender long before we have the biological sex part.

just to make it really obvious….(especially if there are nonmembers who aren’t familiar with this part of our doctrine reading this thread)

Biology is the makeup and function of our physical bodies, not of our eternal intelligence or spirit (assuming the three part version here, just spirit if you see that version as more likely).  Therefore biological sex is a characteristic of our physical bodies, which bodies we did not have before mortality.**

Gender is a characteristic of our personality/self***, given revelation I assume it’s an eternal part of our intelligence and possibly part of our spirit****, which characteristic I hope we had prior to mortality.  Awfully boring for those caring for us if we didn’t.   [Yes, I am confusing two definitions of personality since technically our personality (characteristic way of thinking and feeling) may have no personality (the collection of interesting bits of our total personality).]

**for nonmembers, we believe that we are noncreated, eternally existing intelligences (what intelligence is has not been revealed) that were then given spirit bodies in some fashion by our heavenly parents, God the Father and Heavenly Mother (how spirit creation took place has not been revealed).  Our intelligence and spirit are now eternally one.  These intelligence/spirit combos (typically just referred to as spirits) were then given physical bodies through the process of pregnancy and birth (when the spirit attaches to the physical body has not been revealed, some think at conception, others when the baby moving is first felt, others at birth, and more).  When we are resurrected, our physical bodies will be eternally bond to our spirit and intelligence.  Most members think the process of eternal bodybuilding ends there, but I wonder if we have many more ‘bodies’ to add to the mix.

There is an alternative interpretation as Joseph Smith and others initially used intelligence and spirit at times interchangeably that the eternal aspect of us is spirit, that Joseph meant the same thing when he said intelligence to differentiate it from our physical bodies and all that goes with that.  In this version we became spirit children of God through adoption if I understand that correctly (it is the less common version and I am likely not aware of nuances).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/6-premortal-life?lang=eng#p48

***I am assuming even as intelligences we had characteristic ways of thinking and feeling/sensing, but who knows as I don’t believe that’s been revealed.  Maybe it was all potentially there like physical characteristics are present in our DNA but not expressed yet when the egg and sperm first collide.

****I assume our spirit body had gender associated with it from the beginning and the spirit and intelligence now align given they are now eternally wedded to each other as I understand will happen with our physical bodies as well in resurrection, but not at this point thankfully as I definitely don’t want this version eternally myself, but the upgraded version.  However, since intelligence is coupled with our spirit essence/element, I am not sure the spirit essence/element needed to have gender as well.  We talk about the physical body duplicating the spirit body, but it only does that so far since the physical body reflects the genetics of our mortal parents who wouldn’t have had influence on the forms of our intelligence or spirit…unless the evolution of our being is much more complicated than we define it currently (could God have chosen to form our spirits based in part on his foreknowledge of our mortal parents? hmmmmm…..)

Edited January 27, 2025 by Calm

[smac97]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I haven't been able to find any White House protocols for this traditional event. I suspect the underlying purpose is to witness that the American people are free to enjoy plurality of meaning and purpose (in this venue, placing religious and secular spirituality as a priority) because of our form of government. Absent protocols, I think the "civic theology" you posted about in another thread could use more airplay.

From those articles:

Quote

Rauch used the bulk of his final lecture to shine a generous light upon what he calls the “civic theology” of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because he sees within the Latter-day Saint tradition a contemporary replicable model of a healthier and mutually supportive relationship between constitutional democracy and a self-sustaining Christian faith.
...

“One of the reasons that I’m here,” Rauch said, “is that in all of Christian America, I can only think of one church that has worked out an articulated civic theology of how Christians should address politics and the public world, and you heard it here (Tuesday) from Elder (Gary E.) Stevenson” during a BYU devotional.

Elder Stevenson called on BYU students to take up the flags of peacemaking and understanding others. It was built on landmark talks by church President Russell M. Nelson (”Peacemakers Needed”) and his first counselor, President Dallin H. Oaks (”Going Forward with Religious Freedom and Nondiscrimination”).

“I believe that the discipleship that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has embarked on has national civic implications,” said Rauch, from Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., and author of eight books. “I believe that it deserves an audience outside of the church, not just inside the church. I believe the work that it is doing is to articulate not just the conclusion, which is ‘be peacemakers,’ but how you reach the conclusion, why that’s what God wants.

“That theological element is crucial, because that’s instructing the world in what it actually means to be like Christ.”
...

“A civic theology is a doctrine, a fully articulated doctrine, of how Jesus would want us to behave — not just in our community, not just rebuilding the homes when the hurricane strikes — but how we behave, for example, on social media, how we comport ourselves in politics.”

The problem isn’t the positions some Christians take, Rauch said, but the way they address their fellow citizens.

“In politics, there has been an immense gaping hole in Christianity for lack of a fully articulated civic theology, and in the absence of a civic theology of how Christians should address our common culture and politics, there has been the inrush of all these other forces we’ve seen, such as toxic polarization and partisanship,” he said.

Unfortunately, I think Bishop Budde's sermon was intended as a public criticism/rebuke of Pres. Trump, which tends to be more toward the "toxic polarization and partisanship" end of things.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

The President and Vice President, accompanied by their families, entered the house of the Lord to pray. That alone is worth reflecting on—a public act of humility, whether it was a photo-op, a tradition observed, or a genuine desire to seek God’s guidance.

It was an extraordinary moment, ripe for a message that could transcend politics and remind all in attendance of the eternal truths that undergird all human and political power.

The bishop could have spoken of kings and magistrates, reminding us of how God bends history to His will. She could have spoken about life’s brevity—which Trump so nearly learned about first hand this summer. She could have spoken about the fleeting nature of governments and kingdoms. But she didn’t.

Instead, at the end of her message she closed a door. She delivered a lecture—aimed not at the congregation, but at a single member in it. The pulpit became a podium, the sanctuary a platform for ethical and political instruction.

In that choice, she missed a moment. The people (or the person, really) who came for guidance and hope were included as subjects of the message. The subject of every sermon should always be Jesus Christ and no one else.

I understand that she feels deeply about immigration and the rights of sexual minorities. What she said would be hard to disagree with. I don’t disagree. As we sort out all of the issues that everyone knows need sorting, we must maintain mercy. We need to show mercy. Mercy is an advanced human characteristic that God loves to see in us!

What she said to him would better have been said in another place at another moment. She has been hailed as a courageous bishop speaking truth to power. She is courageous, I’ll agree. But sometimes truth needs not to be delivered in a sermon to a single man in the middle of church, but carried to him over a time of fellowship and pastoral concern.

The sermon was an opportunity—a singular, sacred one—to speak to the hearts of those gathered and to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ to those in attendance and around the world.

Had she wanted to impart religious wisdom and counsel to him, she could/should have avoided the public grandstanding, and communicated with him privately.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 28, 2025 by smac97

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

From those articles:

Unfortunately, I think Bishop Budde's sermon was intended as a public criticism/rebuke of Pres. Trump, which tends to be more toward the "toxic polarization and partisanship" end of things.  Again, had she wanted to impart wisdom and counsel to him, she could/should have avoided the public grandstanding, and communicated with him publicly.

Thanks,

-Smac

Did you mean to write privately?  Because it seems like she did communicate with him publicly.

In your opinion, what should her course have been if she wanted to impart wisdom and counsel to Trump and also everyone in attendance and watching it happen on TV?

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

ly, I think Bishop Budde's sermon was intended as a public criticism/rebuke of Pres. Trump, which tends to be more toward the "toxic polarization and partisanship" end of things. 

Not necessarily. Sometimes rebuke of public figures or government is not about changing their hearts (though I assume the hope is always there for most), but letting others see them in comparison to what is being taught in scripture.  This can be taken too far, but it isn’t a given it is in each case a public rebuke is given.

My guess is the public rebuke of Tim Ballard by the Church was made less in the hope of changing the heart of Tim Ballard and more in changing the hearts of those who were currently supporting him, for example. There are some who have interpreted it as part of the toxic partisanship, but I believe it was done to protect the innocent.

Could there not be some listening that start to rethink the government’s behaviour in regards to immigration and other things if they both listen to the sermon and the response of Trump and other officials?

Maybe we are too divided, but I can see the sermon being given in the hopes that there would be hearts of the public turned, which in turn might result in a change of government policy.

Edited January 28, 2025 by Calm