Buckeye Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 To keep things in perspective, we should probably look at the rate of change leading up to the previous two biggest changes in Church policy in the last 150 years: OD1 and OD2. If we're sticking with Dehlin's 40 year window, perhaps it would be helpful to look at what kind of indicators where being made in the early 1850's that signaled the coming abandonment of polygamy in 1890, and what kind of talks were being given in General Conference in the 1930's that indicated to Church members that black men would get the priesthood in 1978. Or perhaps it would be more on-point to share quotes from 40 years previous of those two monumental changes where Church leaders clearly and officially indicated that such changes were unlikely to ever happen (in this life), and reinforced the doctrinal basis for the then-current policies of polygamy and priesthood restriction. Because if such statements were being made in the1850's and 1930's, it might help us put any similar comments made this weekend into perspective as to their likelihood of applying 40 years from now. I thought the same. You expressed it better. Giving it more thought, and judging from history, I'm inclined to conclude that the best evidence that a change in doctrine will occur is the increased urgency current leaders feel to keep reiterating that the doctrine is not changing. The most stable teachings are those you do not need to repeat; everyone naturally accepts them. When an organization starts "protesting too much," that is precisely when you can start believing "hey, there is a chance that things could change."
sethpayne Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 I've already addressed this elsewhere. While I have very recently suffered a great loss of faith in the wisdom and prudence of the federal judiciary, I retain great faith in the Church of Jesus Christ to do what is right and to act in accordance with the will of Him Who founded it and Whose name it bears. I'm just playing with you Scott. And while we disagree on this issue I respect your faith.
Daniel2 Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) If only marriage between a man and a woman conforms to God's definition of marriage, it logically follows that His Church will never accept same-sex "marriage."The Proclamation doesn't contain the word "only," nor any indication that is or will always be the case. That's your interpretation and inference based on Mormonism' current cultural biases. Edited March 31, 2015 by Daniel2
Scott Lloyd Posted March 31, 2015 Author Posted March 31, 2015 I thought the same. You expressed it better. Giving it more thought, and judging from history, I'm inclined to conclude that the best evidence that a change in doctrine will occur is the increased urgency current leaders feel to keep reiterating that the doctrine is not changing. The most stable teachings are those you do not need to repeat; everyone naturally accepts them. When an organization starts "protesting too much," that is precisely when you can start believing "hey, there is a chance that things could change."I don't agree that it's a matter of "protesting too much." I see it more as a matter of the Church helping to bring stability to people who are being "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive" (see Ephesians 4:12-15). Teaching and expressing truth repeatedly to people in response to this need is, of course, the province and function of the Church of Jesus Christ. In the Church, the same teachings get repeated constantly, and not just on this matter, but a whole spectrum of principles and doctrines. It has always been so. This is hardly an indication that the Church is "protesting too much" as a prelude to change. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted March 31, 2015 Author Posted March 31, 2015 The Proclamation doesn't contain the word "only," nor any indication that is ot will always be the case. That's your interpretation and inference based on Mormonism' current cultural biases.It's the clear intent of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve who published the statement in the first place and of every general Church authority who has taught it since then. It won't do to legalistically parse words as one might wrest the scriptures. 3
HappyJackWagon Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 The Proclamation doesn't contain the word "only," nor any indication that is ot will always be the case. That's your interpretation and inference based on Mormonism' current cultural biases.Also, do we know the authorship of the Proclamation? I think knowing who wrote it could make a difference in how it is viewed. For example, if it was written primarily by attorneys, I would think it would be less likely to become cannonized scripture, which after 20 years it still hasn't. Would we say "I know the proclamation is the word of God as revealed to the prophet's attorneys and subsequently accepted by the Q15" It reminds me of another thread where JLHPROF stated the bible was written by prophets. Really? Do we know that to be true or is there ample evidence to the contrary? Are we attributing the Proclamation as a prophetic writing when it could have been meant initially to be a faith statement as part of alawsuit against gay marriage? And if it was part of a legal position is it impossible to think that it could be altered in the future in some meaningful way?
Scott Lloyd Posted March 31, 2015 Author Posted March 31, 2015 I'm just playing with you Scott. And while we disagree on this issue I respect your faith.I recognize that. I was just using your post as an occasion to reaffirm my position.
Buckeye Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 I don't agree that it's a matter of "protesting too much." I see it more as a matter of the Church helping to bring stability to people who are being "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive" (see Ephesians 4:12-15). Teaching and expressing truth repeatedly to people in response to this need is, of course, the province and function of the Church of Jesus Christ. In the Church, the same teachings get repeated constantly, and not just on this matter, but a whole spectrum of principles and doctrines. It has always been so. This is hardly an indication that the Church is "protesting too much" as a prelude to change. That may be, but sometimes protesting too much really is just protesting too much. Certainly church leaders were frequently instructing "this will not change" prior to OD-1 and OD-2. So while it's not conclusive evidence, it does have some persuasive value to notice the uptick in church leaders' need to "bring stability." They wouldn't be do that if they didn't feel the membership changing on this one, same as in 1890 and 1978.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 31, 2015 Author Posted March 31, 2015 Also, do we know the authorship of the Proclamation? I think knowing who wrote it could make a difference in how it is viewed. For example, if it was written primarily by attorneys, I would think it would be less likely to become cannonized scripture, which after 20 years it still hasn't. Would we say "I know the proclamation is the word of God as revealed to the prophet's attorneys and subsequently accepted by the Q15" It reminds me of another thread where JLHPROF stated the bible was written by prophets. Really? Do we know that to be true or is there ample evidence to the contrary? Are we attributing the Proclamation as a prophetic writing when it could have been meant initially to be a faith statement as part of alawsuit against gay marriage? And if it was part of a legal position is it impossible to think that it could be altered in the future in some meaningful way?The proclamation bears the signatures of all three members of the First Presidency and all 12 members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. That is sufficient to the moment.
HappyJackWagon Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 The proclamation bears the signatures of all three members of the First Presidency and all 12 members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. That is sufficient to the moment.Kind of like a legal document and more than can be said of the Essays. Do you have any theories on why it hasn't been canonized? I honestly find that pretty surprising.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 31, 2015 Author Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) That may be, but sometimes protesting too much really is just protesting too much. Certainly church leaders were frequently instructing "this will not change" prior to OD-1 and OD-2. So while it's not conclusive evidence, it does have some persuasive value to notice the uptick in church leaders' need to "bring stability." They wouldn't be do that if they didn't feel the membership changing on this one, same as in 1890 and 1978.I wasn't alive in the time leading up to OD1, but CFR that Church leaders were declaring "this will not change" just before OD2. I was in college then, majoring in journalism, very conscious of current events, and I remember nothing like that. Edited March 31, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
Buckeye Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 Also, do we know the authorship of the Proclamation? I think knowing who wrote it could make a difference in how it is viewed. For example, if it was written primarily by attorneys, I would think it would be less likely to become cannonized scripture, which after 20 years it still hasn't. Would we say "I know the proclamation is the word of God as revealed to the prophet's attorneys and subsequently accepted by the Q15" It reminds me of another thread where JLHPROF stated the bible was written by prophets. Really? Do we know that to be true or is there ample evidence to the contrary? Are we attributing the Proclamation as a prophetic writing when it could have been meant initially to be a faith statement as part of alawsuit against gay marriage? And if it was part of a legal position is it impossible to think that it could be altered in the future in some meaningful way? It was initially a just a statement, authored by a few of the apostles (but signed by the entire FP/Q12) in reaction to Hawaii considering adoption of gay marriage. Since then, it has become the most quoted document in our church. I honestly would not be surprised if there was a move to canonize it. I imagine it's one of the few things left of President Packer's "to-do" list. With his health issues and the current world-wide attention to the issue, now is the most likely moment for canonization, IMO.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 31, 2015 Author Posted March 31, 2015 Kind of like a legal document and more than can be said of the Essays. Do you have any theories on why it hasn't been canonized? I honestly find that pretty surprising.I've thought about it, and although I would welcome its canonization, I'm not all that surprised that it hasn't happened (yet). My reason is that, while I believe very much the issuance of the proclamation was inspired by God, the wording itself does not declare new doctrine or break new ground. Rather, it expresses truths that already had long been had among the Latter-day Saints. In this, it is similar to an earlier declaration of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, namely "The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition" issued in 1916. This, likewise, did not declare new doctrine; rather, it clarified and illuminated existing doctrine. But like the proclamation on the family, it did come from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. And likewise, I believe that its issuance was inspired of God. We have been blessed by it for nigh on a century now. A century from now, people will look back on the family proclamation and express gratitude for it as well. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted March 31, 2015 Author Posted March 31, 2015 It was initially a just a statement, authored by a few of the apostles (but signed by the entire FP/Q12) in reaction to Hawaii considering adoption of gay marriage. Since then, it has become the most quoted document in our church. I honestly would not be surprised if there was a move to canonize it. I imagine it's one of the few things left of President Packer's "to-do" list. With his health issues and the current world-wide attention to the issue, now is the most likely moment for canonization, IMO.It was never "just a statement." It was monumental. It was a call to "responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere." Early on, copies were presented to government leaders on separate occasions to express the views and position of the Church.
Buckeye Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 I've thought about it, and although I would welcome its canonization, I'm not all that surprised that it hasn't happened (yet). My reason is that, while I believe very much the issuance of the proclamation was inspired by God, the wording itself does not declare new doctrine or break new ground. Rather, it expresses truths that already had long been had among the Latter-day Saints. In this, it is similar to an earlier declaration of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, namely "The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition" issued in 1916. This, likewise, did not declare new doctrine; rather, it clarified and illuminated existing doctrine. But like the proclamation on the family, it did come from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. And likewise, I believe that its issuance was inspired of God. We have been blessed by it for nigh on a century now. A century from now, people will look back on the family proclamation and express gratitude for it as well. Or it could go the way of the 1916 declaration and other previous statements by the FP/Q12, such as the 1875 proclamation on the economy (http://www.ldscooperative.com/proclamation) 1
Scott Lloyd Posted March 31, 2015 Author Posted March 31, 2015 Or it could go the way of the 1916 declaration and other previous statements by the FP/Q12, such as the 1875 proclamation on the economy (http://www.ldscooperative.com/proclamation)What do you mean "go the way of the 1916 declaration"? I just said it has blessed our lives for almost a century. I have seen it quoted and referred to in lessons and talks. It was reprinted in the Ensign a few years ago. Much of our understanding of the term Father as applied to Jesus Christ stems from it. Next year, on the occasion of it being a hundred years since it was issued, we'll probably do a retrospective on it in the Church News, and I'll probably be the one to do it.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 31, 2015 Author Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) I have been patient in allowing this thread to be taken afield from its intended purpose, and I will continue to do so, but I remind everyone now of that purpose: This thread is where you can quote statements from the current general conference that would lend support to the notion that the Church will one day renounce the law of chastity as pertaining to homosexual behavior. So far, I've seen nothing like that in this thread. (Not that I'm holding out any great expectation for it.) Edited March 31, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Daniel2 Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 It's the clear intent of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve who published the statement in the first place and of every general Church authority who has taught it since then. It won't do to legalistically parse words as one might wrest the scriptures.If that was the clear intent, why didn't they simply say "only"...?If the intent was to limit marriage ONLY to straight couples and clarify same-sex unions would never be allowed, the word "only" is highly important and a head-scratching omission...
Popular Post Scott Lloyd Posted March 31, 2015 Author Popular Post Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) If that was the clear intent, why didn't they simply say "only"...?Probably because they didn't expect that their words would be intentionally misconstrued for political purposes. Daniel, we've been over this before. I don't take seriously your absurd and tiresome word-parsing, and your repetition of it is not going to change my mind now. Edited April 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 5
Daniel2 Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 Probably because they didn't expect that their words would intentionally misconstrued for political purposes.Daniel, we've been over this before. I don't take seriously your absurd and tiresome word-parsing, and your repetition of it is not going to change my mind now.I don't expect to change your mind, Scott. I anticipate other younger, more open, more critically-thinking minds are reading.And as with many social prejudices, I understand that older generations must pass away before true change can occur.
jwhitlock Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 I don't expect to change your mind, Scott.I anticipate other younger, more open, more critically-thinking minds are reading.And as with many social prejudices, I understand that older generations must pass away before true change can occur. Yep. Older, experienced people are prejudiced, closed-minded, and don't think critically. They don't know what's going on and need to die off before the much more enlightened younger generation can create utopia. 2
Daniel2 Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) Yep. Older, experienced people are prejudiced, closed-minded, and don't think critically. They don't know what's going on and need to die off before the much more enlightened younger generation can create utopia.On this issue within Mormonism, I think that's almost generally accurate in substance, though not in tone--but not universally true in other subjects and life lessons.We are all products of our cultural blessings and biases.Every group of people may profit from the collective wisdom from both the generation of elders preceeding them, and of the rising generation younger than them, because each has a unique perspective.Said another way... the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice, and it is built line upon line, precept on precept, here a little, there a little... Edited March 31, 2015 by Daniel2 1
Kenngo1969 Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) I thought the same. You expressed it better. Giving it more thought, and judging from history, I'm inclined to conclude that the best evidence that a change in doctrine will occur is the increased urgency current leaders feel to keep reiterating that the doctrine is not changing. The most stable teachings are those you do not need to repeat; everyone naturally accepts them. When an organization starts "protesting too much," that is precisely when you can start believing "hey, there is a chance that things could change."Right, because it's not as though the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or its leaders are reacting to anything that's happening in society, or anything. I think it's time to drop the cloak of anonymity and reveal my true identity here on the Board. Allow me to introduce myself: I'm Brother Rip Van Winkle. I've been asleep for the last 20 years. You say this thing called "gay marriage" has been legalized in quite a number of states (including Utah ), and is likely to be legalized in all (or nearly all) fifty states within, perhaps, the next couple of years or so? Edited March 31, 2015 by Kenngo1969
Kenngo1969 Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 Yep. Older, experienced people are prejudiced, closed-minded, and don't think critically. They don't know what's going on and need to die off before the much more enlightened younger generation can create utopia.I admit, I'm four-for-five, but ... who you callin' old, Boy!
Storm Rider Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 As we've discussed, there won't be a change from the current definition of marriage anytime soon. So keep your clock running but don't hold your breath. The more important thing to look at is the change in our perspective regarding homosexuality over the past 50 years and consideration of how that might continue to develop in the next 50 years (or less, per your clock). Per the world or per the laws of God? God seems to be a little stuck on one position and the mind of man seems to be quite changeable. 4
Recommended Posts