The Proclamation Is Doctrine

[Mystery Meat]

According to a new church statement hot off the presses:

 

 

 

Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We urge you to review and teach Church members the doctrine contained in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”

 

We can debate here if we think it is, but it is clear how the Church and its leaders feel about it.

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-instructs-leaders-on-same-sex-marriage

Edited January 10, 2014 by lvjd66

[EllenMaksoud]

According to a new church statement hot off the presses:

 

 

We can debate here if we think it is, but it is clear how the Church and its leaders feel about it.

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-instructs-leaders-on-same-sex-marriage

With NO intention to debate, I support the connection that Heavenly Father has with the President of the Church. With the perspective of someone who has lived almost 7 decades, I've seen a lot of things change as our knowledge increased. I can not predict what will eventually happen in the study of genetics and brain science and I depend on the church authority to guide us through the coming times. I think I know where this is all headed, but we will see.

[JDave]

Not sure what you are saying here.

 

The Proclamation to the World is doctrinal.

The Proclamation to the World contains doctrine.

The declaration of marriage only being between man and women, as described in the Proclamation to the World, is doctrinal.

 

I don't see much of a change here.  The doctrine stays the same regardless of civil laws enacted.  We look to God for our doctrine.

 

While I agree with your opinion on LDS marriage not being extended to same-sex couples, I still see the opportunity for those hoping otherwise to see it written as "His law of chastity is clear [to us at this time as meaning]:"

[Buzzard]

My humble opinion is that this statement is the first brick in the wall the church will attempt to build attempting to preserve it's tax-free status. I only hope we can build it strong and high enough. Remember the words of Daniel Webster: "The power to tax is the power to destroy". 

I can promise you our enemies are very familiar with this statement, it's implications, and that taxation will be one of, if not the primary weapon they use to attempt to coerce the church into compliance with their vision of morality. 

Mods: I am not trying to be political, my apologies if it seems I am. I do see this, as do the brethren as a moral issue transcending politics. 

Edited January 10, 2014 by Buzzard

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 I still see the opportunity for those hoping otherwise to see it written as "His law of chastity is clear [to us at this time as meaning]:"

I am not sure how that is possible. It is clear that only men and women who are married may have sexual relations. If you are unmarried sexual relations are forbidden. If you are married but not a man and a women sexual relations are forbidden. And no amount of change in civil laws are going to change that. It also appears that this is enternal and unchanging. So Iam not sure how you get around that either.

[JDave]

My humble opinion is that this statement is the first brick in the wall the church will attempt to build attempting to preserve it's tax-free status.

That makes sense to me.  It points to a much older statement, A Proclamation to the World at that, that supports that the church has long held this view.

 

I never really liked some phrases used to attack those supporting traditional marriage.  Saying things like, "They are choosing this group [gays] to discriminate against", or "They are enacting a ban on same-sex marriage".  It is those proposing to allow same-sex marriage that are drastically changing the status quo.  I am just fine with allowing same-sex unions, or polygamous unions, etc.  I don't like someone saying that if I prefer the title marriage to be preserved as that being between a man and a woman that I am suddenly choosing to discriminate.  I think marriage has religious overtones and I would have liked if the government stopped recognizing marriages at the same time it decided to recognize more unions that that of traditional marriage.  It could have decided to only recognize civil unions.  Leave marriage to the religions to define for themselves.

 

I would like to think that such an opinion does not mean that I am proposing the enacting of a ban or that I am just now deciding to discriminate against some one. 

 

This is a bit odd as I re-read it.  I don't normally post on this subject.  Feeling a bit talkative today, I guess.

[Anijen]

As a Libertarian I firmly stand with our church leaders in echoing  the need for respect and civility when we proclaim our First Amendment rights. 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

According to a new church statement hot off the presses:

 

 

We can debate here if we think it is, but it is clear how the Church and its leaders feel about it.

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-instructs-leaders-on-same-sex-marriage

Every member knows it is doctrine from the time, the Presidency and Apostles put their names to it. It is God's doctrine as well.

[ALarson]

Every member knows it is doctrine from the time, the Presidency and Apostles put their names to it. It is God's doctrine as well.

I don't know that everyone agrees that it's that clear cut.  I agree with you, but I know that others debate what actually constitutes church doctrine.  

[cinepro]

According to a new church statement hot off the presses:

 

 

We can debate here if we think it is, but it is clear how the Church and its leaders feel about it.

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-instructs-leaders-on-same-sex-marriage

 

The statement merely states what JDave points out, and we have always known: "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" contains statements that are doctrines of the LDS Church.  But what the statement doesn't say, and this is very important, is that the teachings of "TF: A PttW" are doctrinal because they appear in the proclamation.

 

In other words, it's implied that we are not encouraged to review and teach Church members the stuff that isn't doctrinal but is contained in the proclamation.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Sigh.

 

In the 1800's Joseph Smith ordains black men to the Priesthood, and we come up with Doctrine to exclude them and only them. Joseph Smith turns a Priesthood Key to the Relief Society women, and we come up with Doctrines so we can still get to feel scandalized by pants on Sunday. Joseph Smith tries to get the Saints to share all things, and we come up with Doctrines explaining why Socialism is part of the Adversary's plan. Joseph Smith tries to get people to accept the sealings of loving consensual unions of whatever number of people who are then adopted into God's family (a teaching which could quite easily be extended to homosexual marriage) and we bow to the Victorian laws of the United States and come up with convenient Doctrines that (probably just coincidentally) allow us to feel smugly Moral because it makes us look just a little bit more like the conservative evangelical post-Apostasy Christianity that never wanted or accepted us. 

"Doctrine" comes the Latin doctrina meaning a body of teaching or learning, from doctor, meaning 'teacher', from docere, meaning 'to show, teach, cause to know', originally a causative of decere, meaning 'to be fitting', which brings us to the related word 'decent'. 

When we try to shut down discussion by just giving an authoritarian pronouncement (cf. D&C 121) that This Is Doctrine, we often seem to be implying that if something is capital-D Doctrine, it is therefore unquestionable, unchangeable, static, eternal. Which seems to me the antithesis of the entire concept of continuing revelation. We're supposed to learn new things, and gather up all the good and true, let the truth come from where it may. I think we should keep that in mind when we talk about Doctrine. 

[Stone holm]

The statement merely states what JDave points out, and we have always known: "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" contains statements that are doctrines of the LDS Church.  But what the statement doesn't say, and this is very important, is that the teachings of "TF: A PttW" are doctrinal because they appear in the proclamation.

 

In other words, it's implied that we are not encouraged to review and teach Church members the stuff that isn't doctrinal but is contained in the proclamation.

I agree all it says the doctrines in. ... The same could be said of the Journal of Discourses which has doctrine in it...personally, Itend to wince every time it gets put on parade...have a thread trying to discern what it actually mean eternally...results pretty unclear.

[JLHPROF]

When we try to shut down discussion by just giving an authoritarian pronouncement (cf. D&C 121) that This Is Doctrine, we often seem to be implying that if something is capital-D Doctrine, it is therefore unquestionable, unchangeable, static, eternal. Which seems to me the antithesis of the entire concept of continuing revelation. We're supposed to learn new things, and gather up all the good and true, let the truth come from where it may. I think we should keep that in mind when we talk about Doctrine. 

 

So would you be implying that ALL revealed "truth" is subjective and that continuing revelation will change it?  There are eternal truths.  Some of these have been revealed.  These things cannot and will not change, and no continuing revelation should be expected, and if it were to appear I would doubt its authenticity.  Saying something is "Doctrine" when it is a revealed eternal truth is absolutely not antithetical to continuing revelation because:

 

 

Many true things were spoken by this personage and many things that were false. How, it may be asked, was this known to be a bad angel? By his contradicting a former revelation." Joseph Smith - TPJS p. 214.

 

and

 

 

"We never inquire at the hand of God for special revelation only in case of their being no previous revelation to suit the case..." - Joseph Smith - TPJS p.22

[Duncan]

"So would you be implying that ALL revealed "truth" is subjective and that continuing revelation will change it?  There are eternal truths.  Some of these have been revealed.  These things cannot and will not change, and no continuing revelation should be expected, and if it were to appear I would doubt its authenticity"

 

no offense,but are you moonstruck? I for one would like more information about some already revealed truth like why does homosexuality exist if it's so abominable, how do you have joy in life if you suffer from depression, why is there is there so much suffering in life, how does the atonement actually work, and a few more why questions

[JLHPROF]

no offense,but are you moonstruck? I for one would like more information about some already revealed truth like why does homosexuality exist if it's so abominable, how do you have joy in life if you suffer from depression, why is there is there so much suffering in life, how does the atonement actually work, and a few more why questions

 

I didn't say that there is no place for continuing revelation or more information.  Of course there is.

It's the idea from the other post that there should be no such thing as set in stone, capital D "Doctrine" that can't change that I completely disagree with.  Some doctrines are eternal and unchangeable and no "continuing revelation" will alter them.

 

Which ones?  Now that is the real question.

[Duncan]

I didn't say that there is no place for continuing revelation or more information.  Of course there is.

It's the idea from the other post that there should be no such thing as set in stone, capital D "Doctrine" that can't change that I completely disagree with.  Some doctrines are eternal and unchangeable and no "continuing revelation" will alter them.

 

Which ones?  Now that is the real question.

 

 

that's fair

[JAHS]

The statement says:

"the Church does not permit its meetinghouses or other properties to be used for ceremonies, receptions, or other activities associated with same-sex marriages."

 

I am just wondering which "other properties" they are talking about. The church owns all kinds of businesses, properties,  etc that have nothing to do with religion and that are patronized by more non-members than members.  Can they really enforce this policy on everything they own?

[Duncan]

 

The statement says:

"the Church does not permit its meetinghouses or other properties to be used for ceremonies, receptions, or other activities associated with same-sex marriages."

 

I am just wondering which "other properties" they are talking about. The church owns all kinds of businesses, properties,  etc that have nothing to do with religion and that are patronized by more non-members than members.  Can they really enforce this policy on everything they own?

 

 

 

and what about performing a marriage on non church property? there is no hint of a church discipline if a Bishop or something marries a gay couple on say a beach in Florida or something-mind you why anyone would want to get married by a Mormon local leader when other options are available, is beyond me

[JAHS]

and what about performing a marriage on non church property? there is no hint of a church discipline if a Bishop or something marries a gay couple on say a beach in Florida or something-mind you why anyone would want to get married by a Mormon local leader when other options are available, is beyond me

The statement does also say:

"Church officers will not employ their ecclesiastical authority to perform marriages between two people of the same sex,"

 

But no mention of what would happen if they do.  I agree that the possibility of a same sex couple insisting that a bishop marry them is pretty remote, unless of course they are doing it on purpose for media attention when the Bishop refuses. 

[Calm]

Or perhaps the Bishop is a relative or friend.

But I think it would be unkind and selfish of them now this has been issued to ask the bishop, though there would be nothing wrong with wishing the man could do it.

Edited January 11, 2014 by calmoriah

[Avatar4321]

 

The statement says:

"the Church does not permit its meetinghouses or other properties to be used for ceremonies, receptions, or other activities associated with same-sex marriages."

 

I am just wondering which "other properties" they are talking about. The church owns all kinds of businesses, properties,  etc that have nothing to do with religion and that are patronized by more non-members than members.  Can they really enforce this policy on everything they own?

 

 

Temples

[Avatar4321]

The statement does also say:

"Church officers will not employ their ecclesiastical authority to perform marriages between two people of the same sex,"

 

But no mention of what would happen if they do.  I agree that the possibility of a same sex couple insisting that a bishop marry them is pretty remote, unless of course they are doing it on purpose for media attention when the Bishop refuses. 

 

Do you need them to mention what will happen?

They would be removed from their calling and possibly face Church discipline.

 

Leaders are to be examples for the people. They need Priesthood power, not just authority and keys. Disobedience leads to a loss of righteousness and the powers of heaven are inseparately connected with the righteousness.

[LDSjock]

"Leaders were asked to share this information with their members in appropriate settings."

 

Does this mean this is to be read in sacrament meeting? Where is an appropriate setting?

[Duncan]

Do you need them to mention what will happen?

They would be removed from their calling and possibly face Church discipline.

 

Leaders are to be examples for the people. They need Priesthood power, not just authority and keys. Disobedience leads to a loss of righteousness and the powers of heaven are inseparately connected with the righteousness.

 

ideally yes, but the statement doesn't say anything about if you do marry a couple then you'd face church discipline but as I say the possibility of going to a LDS Bishop for a wedding is fairly remote

[cdowis]

Sigh.

 

In the 1800's Joseph Smith ordains black men to the Priesthood, and we come up with Doctrine to exclude them and only them. Joseph Smith turns a Priesthood Key to the Relief Society women, and we come up with Doctrines so we can still get to feel scandalized by pants on Sunday. Joseph Smith tries to get the Saints to share all things, and we come up with Doctrines explaining why Socialism is part of the Adversary's plan. Joseph Smith tries to get people to accept the sealings of loving consensual unions of whatever number of people who are then adopted into God's family (a teaching which could quite easily be extended to homosexual marriage) and we bow to the Victorian laws of the United States and come up with convenient Doctrines that (probably just coincidentally) allow us to feel smugly Moral because it makes us look just a little bit more like the conservative evangelical post-Apostasy Christianity that never wanted or accepted us. 

 

 

You use the "shotgun approach" to try to make a point -->> priesthood and race, attitudes towards women (somehow women wearing pants is a doctrinal issue), law of consecration vs socialism, public relations.

 

Could you pleeze open a new thread on each of these arguments so that we can respond appropriately.  You clearly know that we cannot respond to such a post, so please please please  (Sigh!) do not derail the thread with a blast of hot air.

 

Sorry, but your very clever tactic just doesn't work here.  We've see it before.

 

Thanks.

Edited January 11, 2014 by cdowis