Poll: The Family: A Proclamation to the World

[Rivers]

With all the discussion on LGBT issues. I think it is important and relevant to reflect upon this document and how we feel about it.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

A mix of good and bad ideas from well-intended leaders. 

[HappyJackWagon]

I chose other because for me it's complicated. I think there are some good and inspired teachings so pieces may be doctrinal but not scripture because it's never been included in the canon. Some of it is good advice from well meaning men based upon their understandings within a specific culture and time.

I think the proclamation legally stakes out a theological position which could be useful for the church but I see it as having more of a practical purpose than an eternal one.

[CV75]

I think the choice that most accurately describes it is "Doctrinal and on the same level as scripture."

President Gordon B. Hinckley: “With so much of sophistry that is passed off as truth, with so much of deception concerning standards and values, with so much of allurement and enticement to take on the slow stain of the world, we have felt to warn and forewarn. In furtherance of this we of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles now issue a proclamation to the Church and to the world as a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history” (“Stand Strong against the Wiles of the World,”Ensign,Nov. 1995, 100).

Some may disagree with the description as scripture because it is not in our canon (the letter of the law), but it does fit the criterion in D&C 68:4, coming from those elders we sustain (the spirit of the law).

[mapman]

I selected "other." It isn't scripture since it isn't part of our canon, but it is clearly doctrinal if we're using any normal definition of the word. I believe it is inspired, more than just a mix of good and bad ideas. But I also don't think it is perfect.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

A mix of good and bad ideas from well-intended leaders. 

Ditto.

[why me]

When the proclamation was given to the lds church, the year was 1995, I believe. And if that were the case, the principles in it were not that farfetched. In fact, most people would have supported it. But with the onslaught of secular values touched with a little postmodernism have made the proclamation seemingly 'old-fashioned' for many people and groups. But this is not the church's fault. The lds church stands for very specific values and it hopes that people would begin to understand these values as the best way for the human species to follow. Looking at the proclamation, I see nothing unordinary. Rather, I see it as a beacon of light for humanity to follow. Certainly, the western world would be in better shape following the proclamation than in allowing a haphazzard values structure where almost anything goes.

Here is the proclamation:

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-student-study-guide/the-worldwide-church/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world?lang=eng

Edited December 7, 2015 by why me

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

A mix of good and bad ideas from well-intended leaders. 

Could you please tell us what you consider to be a bad idea??? And do you have any scriptural references to bolster that opinion?

 

I think that the Proclamation is doctrinal and will eventually be canonized. There may be a few more who exit the Church when that happens.

 

Glenn

[why me]

1 hour ago, Rivers said:

With all the discussion on LGBT issues. I think it is important and relevant to reflect upon this document and how we feel about it.

I think that when the proclamation was presented to the world in 1995, no one would have predicted that gay marriage would be a reality. Rather, the biggest threat to the family was divorce and broken families who have lost their way. Or that marriage was becoming old-fashioned and something that was not necessary anymore. I see nothing wrong in the proclamation. I may see something wrong with the changing values of the secular west as it embraces relatism and secularism that seems to be creating empty churches or a decline in christian values....values that had been apart of the US since its very inception, not to mention the western world.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Bad ideas:

The emphasis on marriage being solely between a man and woman is not fair to homosexuals. I don't understand how gender can somehow be an "essential characteristic" of bodiless intelligences. There is an odd sort of reticence to mention Heavenly Mother openly, while most of the implied rhetorical stance focuses on Heavenly Father as the being to whom the term 'God' is referring to. The binary division into male and female doesn't acknowledge transgender/intersex individuals. While I think rituals and ordinances are socially important constructs which give us a symbolic way to express our covenants, I don't think such rituals in themselves are 'magic'; they are not what will allow us to return to God. I don't think Adam and Eve were the first humans on earth (see Genesis 1:27, "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them" - this reads to me as creating mankind in general, not two specific individuals, which is how Cain can have a non-incestuous wife, etc.) God's 'command' to be fruitful and multiply actually reads to me more as a blessing than an order; at any rate, I don't think most people need to be commanded to reproduce in the first place. The emphasis on procreation between males and females does not address invitro fertilization or infertile couples and adoption; if invitro fertilization is viable, and if infertile couples can adopt, then why shouldn't homosexuals do the same? There is no way for a husband to 'preside' over a family while simultaneously being an 'equal partner' to his wife; Paul's opinions, while 'scriptural', were written in the context of a harshly patriarchal society, are sexist and wrong, and are not, in my opinion, evidence of 'divine design'. I think both partners should be equally responsible for the 'nurture of their children'. Remember that the Book of Mormon explicitly teaches that the errors of men can become part of the scriptural record, and so whether or not something is 'doctrinal' or 'scriptural' is not the determining factor of whether or not it is true. Scripture cannot be used as an authority; the only authority is ultimately persuasion and truth, not a static and unchanging book of fallible words. 

Good ideas:

All humans - male and female - are created in the image of God - though I'd prefer if they'd just openly say 'Gods', since we need to stop trying to look like the absolute monotheisms, and be more forward about recognizing the divine feminine. The sacredness of the physical body and the potential to become perfectly compassionate servants working to bring to pass the immorality and eternal life of all other coexisting intelligences as part of our 'divine destiny as heirs of eternal life'. The ability to maintain family relationships perpetuated beyond the grave. The recognition that sexuality - 'the means by which mortal life is [sometimes] created' - should be seen as divine, not some sort of bestial lesser-evil necessitated by the Fall. The sanctity of life and its importance. The solemn responsibility of a husband and wife to love and care for each other and for their children, provide for the physical and spiritual needs of the family, teach them to love and serve one another and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. The honoring of vows with complete fidelity. The recognition that individual circumstances may necessitate adaptation, and that extended families should lend support. The warning against abuse of spouse or offspring. 

...

The Proclamation is now twenty years old. It is, by its own admission, merely a Proclamation, not a binding Revelation. Nowhere is it stated that God dictated it or even inspired it; it is simply the best summary and interpretation that some well-meaning men (with no women in sight) could do at the time. Treating it as if it were timeless, when there have been so many advances in our understanding of the world since then, seems misguided to me. 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I think the choice that most accurately describes it is "Doctrinal and on the same level as scripture."

President Gordon B. Hinckley: “With so much of sophistry that is passed off as truth, with so much of deception concerning standards and values, with so much of allurement and enticement to take on the slow stain of the world, we have felt to warn and forewarn. In furtherance of this we of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles now issue a proclamation to the Church and to the world as a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history” (“Stand Strong against the Wiles of the World,”Ensign,Nov. 1995, 100).

Some may disagree with the description as scripture because it is not in our canon (the letter of the law), but it does fit the criterion in D&C 68:4, coming from those elders we sustain (the spirit of the law).

 

So why not canonize it?  And why when President Packer called it a revelation in a spoken conference talk was the written remarks edited to remove that?

Why is the LDS Church so afraid to proclaim a revelation?  The CoC is not so afraid.

[JLHPROF]

I went with "Inspired but not doctrinal", although I think "Inspired but not revelatory" would be a better phrasing.

[carbon dioxide]

The Proclamation is not scripture but I think pretty much everything in it is established by the scriptures.  I can't think of any aspect in it that the Lord would have a problem with.

[carbon dioxide]

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

 

So why not canonize it?  And why when President Packer called it a revelation in a spoken conference talk was the written remarks edited to remove that?

Why is the LDS Church so afraid to proclaim a revelation?  The CoC is not so afraid.

Perhaps the contents were not given by direct revelation but the instruction to give it was.  Perhaps the content itself was the leaders speaking in issues they see as important and are established by the scriptures.  Not all truth needs to be canonized.  

[Zakuska]

After reading the 45 psalm in the originals and the messiah being depicted as a polygamist.  I have to question the proclamation on the family.

 

I voted other.

Edited December 8, 2015 by Zakuska

[carbon dioxide]

6 hours ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

Bad ideas:

The emphasis on marriage being solely between a man and woman is not fair to homosexuals.

The proclamation is not about being fair but declaring truths that the Lord has declared.   God does not care about what is fair and not fair.  He cares on whether we keep his commandments and follow him.  He sets up the rules and we follow.   The scriptures say that the Lord can not look upon sin with the least degree of allowance and that no unclean thing can enter into the Celestial Kingdom.  I believe he is very serious about that and it is better to understand now than when one stands before the Lord at judgement.  People are going to find that He really was serious about this stuff and he was not playing games and at that point they have run out of time to repent. 

[Avatar4321]

It's scripture in every sense except being officially canonized. It was given by the Spirit and the Spirit is God. The Word of the Spirit is the Word of God. The Word of God is scripture.

[JAHS]

It's an official proclamation from the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve, therefore, while not canonized in the scriptures, it is doctrinal and on the same level as scripture, according to the following scripture:

"And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation." (D&C 68: 4)

Edited December 8, 2015 by JAHS

[carbon dioxide]

8 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think the choice that most accurately describes it is "Doctrinal and on the same level as scripture."

President Gordon B. Hinckley: “With so much of sophistry that is passed off as truth, with so much of deception concerning standards and values, with so much of allurement and enticement to take on the slow stain of the world, we have felt to warn and forewarn. In furtherance of this we of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles now issue a proclamation to the Church and to the world as a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history” (“Stand Strong against the Wiles of the World,”Ensign,Nov. 1995, 100).

Some may disagree with the description as scripture because it is not in our canon (the letter of the law), but it does fit the criterion in D&C 68:4, coming from those elders we sustain (the spirit of the law).

And also the part of the scriptures where it says whether be by the voice of the Lord or the voice of his servants it is the same.  It may not be a direct revelation from God word for word but the subject matter is.  I would challenge anyone who has a problem with the contents to show what aspects of it that the Lord himself would have a problem with using the scriptures.  I can't find a whole lot.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, Teancum said:

 

So why not canonize it?  And why when President Packer called it a revelation in a spoken conference talk was the written remarks edited to remove that?

 

These questions are asked repeatedly, and I have repeatedly responded to them. I willingly do so yet again.

I would like nothing more than to see the proclamation canonized. Yet I can see a good reason for not doing so.

The proclamation does not declare new doctrine; rather, it reiterates, reaffirms and reemphasizes doctrine that had long been had among the Latter-day Saints. In this, it is comparable to "The Father and the Son: a Doctrinal Exposition" issued by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve in 1916.

Thus, I don't see the proclamation as containing new revelation, but I see the formulation and issuance of the proclamation itself as having been divinely directed. Therefore, Sister Bonnie Oscarson spoke accurately when she called the proclamation a "revelatory document." And I will be so bold as to express my conviction that we as a people, collectively and individually, will sooner or later be held accountable for how we receive and heed it, whether or not it officially becomes a part of the canon.

As for President Packer, I'm quite confident he exercised his General Authority's prerogative and edited his own remarks prior to publication, probably because of reasoning along the lines of the above. I'm also confident he was not ordered to do it or pressured to do it by any of the Brethren or by the mythical star chamber that some people fancifully imagine controls the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

Quote

Why is the LDS Church so afraid to proclaim a revelation?  The CoC is not so afraid.

So what? They may run their shop as they see fit, but they are not the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 8, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Storm Rider]

An excellent document that is true.  God is fair to all sinners - he has clearly defined the laws of happiness and eternal joy.  We have the choice to either obey or not.  It is not rocket science and it is not complicated regardless of how much we like to equivocate, rationalize, and/or disagree with God.  

We each are on a road of progress.  Some of us accept truth and follow easily while others fight God every step of the way.  These have concluded that they have become far more enlightened and should be prophets unto themselves.  I am grateful that God will be the judge while we are left to condemn ourselves by our own actions and no one else's.  

[CV75]

14 hours ago, Teancum said:

So why not canonize it?  And why when President Packer called it a revelation in a spoken conference talk was the written remarks edited to remove that?

Why is the LDS Church so afraid to proclaim a revelation?  The CoC is not so afraid.

I don’t know the answers to your first 2 questions, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Proclamation is doctrinal and scriptural in the sense I pointed out.

I don’t think fear has anything to do with it. But I can see how some may fear the Proclamation as doctrine and scripture as I described it. And we know that the fearful can easily become subject to the spirit of contention.

Just speculating: Your question 1), as a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history, the doctrine contained in the Proclamation is already in our canon; your question 2) the Proclamation is a compilation of revelations already received and which are in our canon.

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

So what? They may run their shop as they see fit, but they are not the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

 

 

 

  In spite of your assertion good members of the CoC believe thay are as much the Church of Jesus Christ as you do and they have a strong a testimony of it.  One difference (among many) is they don't insist they are the only one. 

As to your "so what..." well for a church that claims continuing revelation and an open canon there has been little of the open canon part of the equation over the last 170 years.

 

 

 

[Ahab]

Doctrinal,  scripture, inspired... basically the same or in agreement with what any prophet of God would proclaim when moved by the Spirit to proclaim what a family unit is and should be.

And I am so sick and tired of some people talking as if something has to be "new" or newly revealed for it to count as revelation from God, or as if it needs to be included in some book with some other scriptures before it counts as scripture.  As if I haven't tried to correct those people on their false notions before. 

 

[Gray]

21 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Doctrinal,  scripture, inspired... basically the same or in agreement with what any prophet of God would proclaim when moved by the Spirit to proclaim what a family unit is and should be.

And I am so sick and tired of some people talking as if something has to be "new" or newly revealed for it to count as revelation from God, or as if it needs to be included in some book with some other scriptures before it counts as scripture.  As if I haven't tried to correct those people on their false notions before. 

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-harold-b-lee/chapter-7?lang=eng

 

Quote

If it is not in the standard works, you may well assume that it is speculation.