Proclamation V Declaration V Revelation V Doctrine V Scripture V Canon

[Daniel2]

First, some background:

There has been no revelation from God regarding gay marriage.

Lol!!!!

Oh wait......you are serious? That is even funnier.

 I think he is serious. Trying to make his argument seem silly is not proving anything. If there is a revelation, where is it?

The family proclamation and the several GC talks on the subject. Something need not be canonized to be official or scripture.

...a communication from God need not be published or even wtten down to qualify as a revelation.

Other than the proclamation, which I do believe may have been inspired but I do not believe is "scripture," which individual apostles never speak on the issue publicly? When you figure that out you will see there are more that don't than do.

By way of clarification, in 2010, the church itself corrected a conference talk by Elder Nelson in which, from the pulpit, he had labeled the Family Proclamation to be "a revelation." In the printed version of the talk in the Ensign and online archives, the word "revelation" was replaced with the word "guide":

Guide is the new Revelation

http://www.clobberblog.com/?p=3988

Posted on October 8, 2010 by Ms. Jack

There’s some discussion happening over at 9M concerning changes to Boyd K. Packer’s most recent General Conference talk. While I find the changes to his (probable) statements on homosexuality fascinating, what I’m actually curious about are the changes concerning the Family Proclamation.

In his spoken talk, Elder Packer stated concerning the Family Proclamation:

"Fifteen years ago, with the world in turmoil, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” the fifth proclamation in the history of the Church. It qualifies, according to the definition, as a revelation, and it would do well that the members of the church [to?] read and follow."

The written talk now reads:

"Fifteen years ago, with the world in turmoil, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” the fifth proclamation in the history of the Church. It is a guide that members of the Church would do well to read and to follow."

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/cleansing-the-inner-vessel?lang=eng#2

So the Family Proclamation has been downgraded from a “revelation” to a “guide.” While a “revelation” can certainly be a “guide,” I don’t think the switch can be written off as insignificant on a technicality like that. If the Family Proclamation was truly considered a “revelation,” it makes little sense to alter that description in the printed version.

The demotion from "it qualifies as a revelation" to "it's a guide that members should follow" is significant...

See also:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=NKz2U_TeO4ycygSS84KYDA&url=http://www.mormonsformarriageequality.org/edits-to-boyd-k-packers-talk/&cd=6&ved=0CCgQFjAF&usg=AFQjCNEcjQYfNB1ft4H01zTlBjtmQLoTgQ&sig2=LIbAQpA1pignuTwiW33Aeg

My intent in mentioning the family proclamation was not to argue over whether or not it can be called a revelation, but rather to refute the rather weird notion that the Brethren are divided over how God defines marriage.

But to address your point, at the same time desiring not to derail this thread, I'll give my theory about why the wording of the conference talk was changed. While I fervently believe that issuing the proclamation was an act inspired by God, the content of the proclamation does not break any new ground, declare any new doctrine or change any existing practices in the Church. It is thus not so much like, say, Declarations 1 and 2 in the Doctrine and Covenants as it is like the First Presidency's Doctrinal Exposition on the Father and the Son, which was issued in the early 20th century and likewise reaffirmed and clarified existing doctrine and teachings as opposed to breaking new ground.To use the change in wording of the conference talk as an occasion to minimize or marginalize the family proclamation is, I firmly believe, misguided.

There have only been a handful of such proclamations issued in the history of the Church, and the fact that this one was signed by all members of the First Presidency and the Twelve underscores its vital importance and prescience.

Furthermore, I renew my prediction that it will one day be canonized as scripture.

My next post will describe the purpose of it opening this new thread...

Edited August 22, 2014 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

The posts above from another thread prompted me to start this one to see if we can get some clarification.

 

The questions I’d like to address are these:

 

· As far as they relate to the LDS church, what is the official definition of the following:

 

o  Revelation

 

o  Scripture

 

o  Doctrine

 

o  Cannon

 

o  Proclamation:

 

§ I understand that a total of 5 Proclamations have been issued by the LDS church—is that correct?

§ Can anyone identify each of the church’s previous 5 Proclamations?

§ Who is each one signed by?

§ Are they considered theologically binding on church membership?

§ Have any previous Proclamations ever been elevated to the status of Revelation, Scripture, or Cannon?

§ If so, how?

 

o  Declaration:

 

§ I understand that a total of 2 Declarations have been issued by the LDS church—is that correct?

§ What are they?

§ Who is each one signed by?

§ Were any of the 5 Proclamations adopted as either of the two Declarations? 

§ Are the Declarations considered theologically binding on church membership? 

§ Have any previous Declarations ever been elevated to the status of Revelation, Scripture, or Cannon?

§ If so, how?

 

Generally Speaking of all of the above:

 

· What are the potential similarities and potential differences between each?

 

· What are the processes by which any of the above transforms into any of the others?

 

· Which are considered ‘binding’ upon the church?

 

Edited August 22, 2014 by Daniel2

[mfbukowski]

We don't have official definitions for any of these words because we have an open Canon and believe in personal revelation.

If it is in the standard works it is as official as it can be. Regardless all is open to interpretation, as it should be.

Language itself is ambiguous and depends on context. We recognize the folly of over-definition of that which is inherently ambiguous anyway.

If you want thousands of pages of legalistic definitions, consult the IRS.

Edited August 22, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Anything linguistic can be deconstructed. Ask Derrida http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction

"A central premise of deconstruction is that all of Western literature and philosophy implicitly relies on a metaphysics of presence,[12][13] where intrinsic meaning is accessible by virtue of pure presence.[14][15] Deconstruction denies the possibility of a pure presence and thus of essential or intrinsic and stable meaning — and thus a relinquishment of the notions of absolute truth, unmediated access to "reality" and consequently of conceptual hierarchy. "From the moment that there is meaning there are nothing but signs. We think only in signs."[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] Language, considered as a system of signs, as Ferdinand de Saussure says,[24] is nothing but differences. Words have meaning only because of contrast-effects with other words. 'Red' means what it does only by contrast with 'blue', 'green', etc. 'Being' also means nothing except by contrast, not only with 'beings' but with 'Nature', 'God', 'Humanity', and indeed every other word in the language. No word can acquire meaning in the way in which philosophers from Aristotle to Bertrand Russell have hoped it might—by being the unmediated expression of something non-linguistic (e.g., an emotion, a sense-datum, a physical object, an idea, a Platonic Form).[25] Derrida terms logocentrism the philosophical commitment to pure, unmediated, presence as a source of self-sufficient meaning"

Edited August 22, 2014 by mfbukowski

[cinepro]

The posts above from another thread prompted me to start this one to see if we can get some clarification.

o  Proclamation:

 

§ I understand that a total of 5 Proclamations have been issued by the LDS church—is that correct?

§ Can anyone identify each of the church’s previous 5 Proclamations?

 

Proclamations:

 

1. A Proclamation of the First Presidency of the Church to the Saints Scattered Abroad (January 15, 1841, Nauvoo, Illinois)

 

[This document, signed by Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and Hyrum Smith, reviews the progress of the Church in spite of hardships and persecution, and speaks at length on the prospects of the settlement of Nauvoo, as the following excerpts illustrate. ]

 

2. Proclamation of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (April 6 and October 22, 1845)

 

[The Proclamation of 1845 was issued by the Twelve only, because at that time there was no First Presidency due to the martyrdom of the Prophet Joseph Smith on June 27, 1844, and a new First Presidency was not organized until December 1847. The Proclamation was apparently made in response to a revelation given January 19, 1841 ( D&C 124:1-11). It was first printed in a sixteen-page pamphlet in New York City on April 6, 1845, and again in Liverpool, England, October 22, 1845. It was addressed to the rulers and people of all nations. This document was an announcement that God had spoken from the heavens and had restored the gospel of Jesus Christ to the earth. It spoke of blessings and of punishments to come, issued a warning voice, and invited all who were interested to assist in the building of the kingdom of God on the earth in preparation for the Savior's second coming. On October 3, 1975, President Ezra Taft Benson, president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, spoke of this Proclamation and quoted portions of it in his general conference address (Ensign 15 [Oct. 1975]:32-34). Extracts from the 1845 Proclamation follow. ]

 

3. Proclamation of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles (October 21, 1865)

 

[This document was issued to members of the Church to correct certain theories about the nature of God that had been published by one of the Twelve in official Church literature, without having those statements cleared and verified by the First Presidency and the Twelve.

An apparent major purpose of this Proclamation was to emphasize the established order of the Church, that new doctrine is to be announced only by the First Presidency. A paragraph near the end of the Proclamation states: ]

 

4. Proclamation of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (April 6, 1980)

 

[This document was put forth in commemoration of the 150th anniversary of the organization of the Church. On Sunday, April 6, 1980, a portion of the Sunday morning session of General Conference was broadcast from the newly reconstructed Peter Whitmer, Sr., home in Fayette, New York. President Spencer W. Kimball spoke briefly of the organization of the Church that had occurred on that very spot of ground. He then announced that the Church had a proclamation to declare. President Kimball's concluding words were: Now, my brothers and sisters, with the future before us, and sensing deeply the responsibilities and divine mission of the restored Church on this sacred occasion, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles declare to the world a proclamation. We have felt it appropriate to issue this statement from here, where the Church began. Accordingly, I shall ask Elder Gordon B. Hinckley of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, to speak in my behalf and in behalf of my brethren, to read this proclamation to you and to the world ( CR, Apr. 1980, p. 74.)

Elder Gordon B. Hinckley then read the Proclamation from the Whitmer home in Fayette, New York, which was broadcast by satellite to the Tabernacle in Salt Lake City, and published in the April 12, 1980 Church News, in the May 1980 Ensign, and in the April 1980 Conference Report. The full text of the proclamation follows. ]

[Rob Osborn]

I know you cannot argue with those in willing ignorance. No matter how much evidence, proof, or truth that is brought to the table the other side will just willingly ignore all of it. Not sure why but it is true.

[theplains]

3. Proclamation of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles (October 21, 1865)

 

[This document was issued to members of the Church to correct certain theories about the nature of God that had been published by one of the Twelve in official Church literature, without having those statements cleared and verified by the First Presidency and the Twelve.

An apparent major purpose of this Proclamation was to emphasize the established order of the Church, that new doctrine is to be announced only by the First Presidency. A paragraph near the end of the Proclamation states: ]

 

A few questions come to mind.

 

1] Do you have any idea what these false theories taught by one of the Twelve were?  

 

2] How did it get published in an official magazine without being cleared and verified?

 

3] Why wasn't this member of the Twelve aware that new doctrine was only to be announced by

the First Presidency?

 

4] Did more of the Twelve also subscribe to the false theories until they were corrected?

 

5] Since the teachings were only 'theories', why would the First Presidency need to get involved and

change the context to one of 'doctrine' instead?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[JDave]

A few questions come to mind.

 

It wasn't all figured out at the initial moment in time that Joseph Smith had the First Vision.  It was a process.

[cinepro]

A few questions come to mind.

 

1] Do you have any idea what these false theories taught by one of the Twelve were?  

 

2] How did it get published in an official magazine without being cleared and verified?

 

3] Why wasn't this member of the Twelve aware that new doctrine was only to be announced by

the First Presidency?

 

4] Did more of the Twelve also subscribe to the false theories until they were corrected?

 

5] Since the teachings were only 'theories', why would the First Presidency need to get involved and

change the context to one of 'doctrine' instead?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

Amasa Lyman:

 

In 1860, Young appointed three of the twelve Apostles: Lyman, Charles C. Rich, and George Q. Cannon, to the presidency of the Church's European Mission. On 16 March 1862, Lyman preached a sermon in Dundee, Scotland, which all but denied the reality of and the necessity for the atonement of Jesus Christ, which was a central tenet of the LDS Church.

 

His speech appeared to have been overlooked for years. Perhaps a political challenge^{[attribution needed]} prompted Lyman's being brought before the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles on 21 January 1867 to answer for his heretical words. Lyman confessed his error and apologized to the Quorum personally. He wrote a letter of apology to the general membership, published in the Deseret News.

 

But, months later, Lyman began publicly preaching the substance of his 1862 Dundee speech. As a result of his failure to live up to his confession and apology, the church stripped Lyman of the Apostleship on October 6, 1867; he was excommunicated from the church on May 12, 1870.

 

Lyman died at Fillmore, Millard County, Utah Territory. He and seven of his eight wives were the parents of a total of 38 children. Lyman never returned to the church after his excommunication.

 

By direction of Church President Joseph F. Smith on January 12, 1909, Lyman was posthumously reinstated as a church member and an Apostle.

[Robert F. Smith]

......................................................................   

If you want thousands of pages of legalistic definitions, consult the IRS.

Or consult with a canon lawyer.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_law_(Catholic_Church)

[Robert F. Smith]

It wasn't all figured out at the initial moment in time that Joseph Smith had the First Vision.  It was a process.

And it is still a process.  And so shall it be till Kingdom Come.

[mfbukowski]

Or consult with a canon lawyer.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_law_(Catholic_Church)

Actually that is what I was thinking of...  

[Robert F. Smith]

....................................................................

rockpond, on 21 Aug 2014 - 1:02 PM, said:

There has been no revelation from God regarding gay marriage.

Jacob Milgrom, “Does the Bible Prohibit Homosexuality,” Bible Review, 9/6 (Dec 1993), online at http://members.bib-a...eID=8&UserID=0 .

[SmileyMcGee]

Trying to define what constitutes doctrine or an official position is a very frustrating exercise. The church has a definition of church doctrine on the newsroom website, but I don't know if that is the official definition since the definition contained therein would exclude the article from being defined as doctrine or an official position.

I'm not trying to be combative, but honestly, why is doctrine so difficult to define in our church? It's one of my biggest struggles.

Edited August 23, 2014 by SmileyMcGee

[Rob Osborn]

Trying to define what constitutes doctrine or an official position is a very frustrating exercise. The church has a definition of church doctrine on the newsroom website, but I don't know if that is the official definition since the definition contained therein would exclude the article from being defined as doctrine or an official position.

I'm not trying to be combative, but honestly, why is doctrine so difficult to define in our church? It's one of my biggest struggles.

Its not difficult at all. Our doctrine is pretty straight forward and well defined. Its only perceived as being so difficult to be defined because of the many who question the authority of the official doctrine. Take the whole gay marriage issue- its rather easy to determine the official position of our church on the matter- our official doctrine does not accept gay marriage and considers it a sin. Thats not hard at all to determine. Its only when you get gay supporters that start questioning it that it becomes clouded because they use so many lies and misunderstanding to spread around doubt in our church and its leaders.

[SmileyMcGee]

Its not difficult at all. Our doctrine is pretty straight forward and well defined. Its only perceived as being so difficult to be defined because of the many who question the authority of the official doctrine. Take the whole gay marriage issue- its rather easy to determine the official position of our church on the matter- our official doctrine does not accept gay marriage and considers it a sin. Thats not hard at all to determine. Its only when you get gay supporters that start questioning it that it becomes clouded because they use so many lies and misunderstanding to spread around doubt in our church and its leaders.

Please explain how something becomes doctrine.

Edited August 23, 2014 by SmileyMcGee

[Bikeemikey]

Its not difficult at all. Our doctrine is pretty straight forward and well defined. Its only perceived as being so difficult to be defined because of the many who question the authority of the official doctrine. Take the whole gay marriage issue- its rather easy to determine the official position of our church on the matter- our official doctrine does not accept gay marriage and considers it a sin. Thats not hard at all to determine. Its only when you get gay supporters that start questioning it that it becomes clouded because they use so many lies and misunderstanding to spread around doubt in our church and its leaders.

It is easy if you simply assume the official position of the church is the same as doctrine.

For many history warns against drawing such a simple equivalency.

Or at the very least recognize that historical doctrine can have no bearing on future doctrine. The blessing and curse of an open cannon and modern day revelation is that the future can legitimately contravene the past... And it is ok when it does.

As such current doctrine should also not be restrictive in what saints may hope the future could hold in terms of new revelation.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Rob Osborn]

Please explain how something becomes doctrine.

When the prophets speak and that gets published is pretty much the way it happens. Then after that, it gets regular attention. Its not a mystery.

[Rob Osborn]

It is easy if you simply assume the official position of the church is the same as doctrine.

For many history warns against drawing such a simple equivalency.

Or at the very least recognize that historical doctrine can have no bearing on future doctrine. The blessing and curse of an open cannon and modern day revelation is that the future can legitimately contravene the past... And it is ok when it does.

As such current doctrine should also not be restrictive in what saints may hope the future could hold in terms of new revelation.

Well, I guess if one wants to deny doctrine then you can argue forever and ever...

[Bikeemikey]

Well, I guess if one wants to deny doctrine then you can argue forever and ever...

I have not interest in denying doctrine. I just don't think doctrine is either as broad as your definition implies or as simple of define as you claim.

It can also change in a way that future doctrine is totally different to past or present doctrine.

But then if you want to split the hair between doctrine, policy and practice then you can argue forever and ever.

The truth is we don't have a universally accepted method for resolving this debate.

[Rob Osborn]

I have not interest in denying doctrine. I just don't think doctrine is either as broad as your definition implies or as simple of define as you claim.

It can also change in a way that future doctrine is totally different to past or present doctrine.

But then if you want to split the hair between doctrine, policy and practice then you can argue forever and ever.

The truth is we don't have a universally accepted method for resolving this debate.

Sure we do. The general overwhelming membership of the church all agree on what the main points of our doctrine are. Its not rocket science. And, it only gets debated to no end when one or more people "choose" to disagree with church doctrine. Take same sex marriage for example. It is very very clear that the official church doctrine is marriage only between man and women and that same sex marriage is a sin. Pretty much everyone in the church agrees with this. Lets take another hot topic- same sex attraction. It is official church doctrine that there is no sin in same sex attraction but that it is a sin for one to "act" upon that attraction. Lets take yet one more hot topic- women and the priesthood. Its official church doctrine that at least for now, women do not hold keys to minister in the church although they do take part in the priesthood and its powers. These are all hot topics but yet easily and clearly defined.

[Bikeemikey]

Sure we do. The general overwhelming membership of the church all agree on what the main points of our doctrine are. Its not rocket science. And, it only gets debated to no end when one or more people "choose" to disagree with church doctrine. Take same sex marriage for example. It is very very clear that the official church doctrine is marriage only between man and women and that same sex marriage is a sin. Pretty much everyone in the church agrees with this. Lets take another hot topic- same sex attraction. It is official church doctrine that there is no sin in same sex attraction but that it is a sin for one to "act" upon that attraction. Lets take yet one more hot topic- women and the priesthood. Its official church doctrine that at least for now, women do not hold keys to minister in the church although they do take part in the priesthood and its powers. These are all hot topics but yet easily and clearly defined.

So if the overwhelming majority do not agree on a point it is not doctrine?

What about when the overwhelming majority believed in a global flood? Or that the age of the earth was 6000 heads old? Or that blacks would only get the priesthood in the millennium?

While I am not explicitly stating that the idea of majority concensus is not a necessary condition for doctrine, I am simply saying it not a sufficient condition for doctrine to be determined.

There are other conditions that also must be met.

Edited August 24, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Ahab]

The truth is we don't have a universally accepted method for resolving this debate.

The truth is that there isn't any truth that is universally accepted. Even on simple things like the meaning intended with words.

[Ahab]

Sure we do. The general overwhelming membership of the church all agree on what the main points of our doctrine are.

Time to wake up, Rob. That's a nice dream but it isn't really the truth, and even if the general membership all agreed on what the main points of our doctrine are that wouldn't equate to a universally accepted method to how to find out what our doctrine is.

Its not rocket science. And, it only gets debated to no end when one or more people "choose" to disagree with church doctrine.

A lot of people disagree with our doctrine, (and by "our" doctrine I mean our Lord's doctrine, realizing all Church members are not in agreement) because they don't know or realize what our Lord's doctrine really is, thinking that what they think is his doctrine. So don't neglect to factor that in.

Take same sex marriage for example. It is very very clear that the official church doctrine is marriage only between man and women and that same sex marriage is a sin. Pretty much everyone in the church agrees with this. Lets take another hot topic- same sex attraction. It is official church doctrine that there is no sin in same sex attraction but that it is a sin for one to "act" upon that attraction. Lets take yet one more hot topic- women and the priesthood. Its official church doctrine that at least for now, women do not hold keys to minister in the church although they do take part in the priesthood and its powers. These are all hot topics but yet easily and clearly defined.

And yet some well meaning but unaware members don't realize what you and I and many other members realize and agree on, and some don't even agree or realize how to find out what is true. Not what I call universally accepted.

[Daniel2]

Its not difficult at all. Our doctrine is pretty straight forward and well defined. Its only perceived as being so difficult to be defined because of the many who question the authority of the official doctrine. Take the whole gay marriage issue- its rather easy to determine the official position of our church on the matter- our official doctrine does not accept gay marriage and considers it a sin. Thats not hard at all to determine. Its only when you get gay supporters that start questioning it that it becomes clouded because they use so many lies and misunderstanding to spread around doubt in our church and its leaders.

 

But here's the thing, Rob.... things have changed in the LDS church that were once widely accepted as "official" or "doctrine," which are now disavowed as ever having been official or doctrine.

 

Claims have been made that a Proclamation will likely be cannonized, contradicting church history, which apparently has never cannonized a previous Proclamation.

 

Claims are made that a Proclamation is "a revelation," despite the church consciously avoiding labeling it as such.

 

Claims have been made that the "Proclamation" is doctrine, followed by suggestions that it actually doesn't really say anything new, anyway.

 

What you say that "gay supporters" "use lies and misunderstanding to spread around doubt in [your] church and its leaders" is an honest effort to attempt to figure out how LDS attitudes themselves change.  For what it's worth, I don't see anyone attempting to lie or mislead in this thread--what I see is an attempt to thoughtfully and openly examine the issues.  You are just as free to correct the misperceptions, but in my opinion, resorting to slandering others' character or intentions doesn't increase understanding of the issues being discussed..

Edited August 25, 2014 by Daniel2