Poll: The Family: A Proclamation to the World

[Thinking]

I view the Proclamation as a reactionary document to a changing world. For years the religions of the world have had a strong influence on the secular culture. That influence is weakening. It's difficult to have some control, then watch that control begin to fade. The Church has gone hard (Prop 8), then soft (mormonsandgays.org), then hard again (Handbook 1 Update). The Church is in an interesting position.

• If the Church keeps the hard line, there will be many who won't join, and there will be many who leave.
• If the Church goes soft and allows practicing homosexuals to have full membership, then I believe that many of the faithful will leave and claim that the brethren are fallen prophets.

Either way it's going to be interesting to witness.

[Kenngo1969]

 

Quote

 

• If the Church goes soft and allows practicing homosexuals to have full membership, then I believe that many of the faithful will leave and claim that the brethren are fallen prophets.

 

Since shortly after the restoration, people have been claiming that the Lord's authorized servants are "out of the way," "fallen," et cetera.  In my opinion, if this is the time spoken of in Jacob's allegory of the olive tree, in which the servants have been sent forth "for the last time" to gather the fruit of the vineyard; if it is the time of the restoration of all things; if we believe the pattern set forth in Doctrine & Covenants 42:11 for how the Lord authorizes his servants, then we need not worry about the Brethren "falling," being "out of the way," and so forth.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

26 minutes ago, Thinking said:

If the Church keeps the hard line, there will be many who won't join, and there will be many who leave.

In addition, if the Church keeps the 'hard line', there will be many who will join, and there will be many who won't leave.

The question then becomes what kinds of people hearken to the prophets of God and which don't.

[why me]

On ‎07‎/‎12‎/‎2015 at 11:25 PM, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

Bad ideas:

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

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. 

I think that this is the problem. People are expecting fairness. But is the new testament fair? And what does fair mean? When I was a kid, and complained to my father that something wasn't fair, he would reply: well, life isn't fair. And such was the way it was. Life is not fair. Was christ fair when he chose 12 men to be his disciples? Is the new testament fair when all the gospel writers are men? And the new testament in terms of its letters were written by men? But such is life. It just isn't fair. And so we have the proclamation. It seems pretty fair between women and men. But yes, as is the case of the NT, it was written by men.

But since when does life have to be fair? Just take a look around you and you will see a lot of unfairness.

Edited December 9, 2015 by why me

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I'll admit that I've detested the cliche saying that 'life isn't fair' ever since I first heard it as a child from teachers, especially because it most often seemed to be invoked in reverently authoritarian tones meant to impress upon me the justness of why completely avoidable unfairnesses were not to be argued against. 

Yes, if someone is born with an incurable congenital disease, life isn't fair. What does that have to do with social constructs and organizational structures? We can change those unfairnesses. 

God has not clearly defined the laws of happiness and eternal joy - there are so many contradictory 'laws' and attitudes in the scriptures that one can justify completely antithetical ideas by quoting the exact same book. The Proclamation is not fair between women and men when it says that men have the divine duty to preside over their partners and then incoherently claims that such a relationship can somehow be 'equal'. 

We have no way of verifying if the leaders have been moved by the Spirit on these issues; they usually reference vague 'revelations' which are often ambiguous or nonexistent. If the Proclamation was Revelatory, why wouldn't it just say so? There is no 'thus saith the Lord' anywhere in sight. Even if some Lord did say so, a God who desires unquestioning obedience and immunity from disagreement is not a God worthy of respect. 

If life isn't fair in these things, it's because we're failing to make it fair. If the New Testament isn't fair, then it is wrong. I think the reason for the number twelve in scripture is often related to cosmological symbolism regarding the zodiac, but if Christ was deliberately excluding people for no reason, then yes, he would not be acting fairly. I think he overreacted by driving the moneychangers from the Temple, too - not because I don't completely agree that such things are wrong, but because the method used to oust them was too violent. The New Testament is definitely not fair if women writers were deliberately excluded from the canon. 

Ezekiel 18:25 says "Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal?" Part of why the authorities were so angry with Christ in John was because he had the arrogant hubris to make himself "equal with God", and even extend that to the saints, who would share his throne and be made equal with him. The book of Mosiah seems pretty concerned with equality and fairness to me. The D&C teaches that if we are not equal in earthly things, we cannot be equal in heavenly things. 

It's begging the question to just state without justification that the voice of the servants is the voice of the Lord in this; we know that the errors of men can creep into scripture, so even if we do define everything they speak as scripture, we still haven't proved that such scripture is by definition truth. According to D&C 121, the Lord only works through persuasion. Attempting to silence an argument by saying someone in 'authority' disagrees is completely beside the point; the only 'authority' that will set us free is truth, and persuasion is the only method that ever works to transmit ideas.    

[JLHPROF]

On 12/7/2015 at 4:33 PM, Teancum said:

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

Because it's not a revelation.  A revelation is the word of God.  The proclamation is the words of men based on the words of God.

We are told in the word of God that whether by the mouth of God or of his servants it is the same.  So we should treat revelation from God and inspired instruction from his servants both as binding.

When the last time God actually gave his word to the Church I don't know, but as soon as he does I am sure it will be canonized.

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Because it's not a revelation.  A revelation is the word of God.  The proclamation is the words of men based on the words of God.

We are told in the word of God that whether by the mouth of God or of his servants it is the same.  So we should treat revelation from God and inspired instruction from his servants both as binding.

When the last time God actually gave his word to the Church I don't know, but as soon as he does I am sure it will be canonized.

So I am guessing we would say that Section 138 given in 1918 and canonized in 1979 would be the last one given so far.

I don't see a whole lot of reason for God to reveal any more canonized doctrines that would be required for our salvation, except maybe the process involved in the resurrection of someone when that time comes.

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

We have no way of verifying if the leaders have been moved by the Spirit on these issues.

Do you have ways of verifying if the leaders have been moved by the Spirit on other issues?

Quote

I think [Christ] overreacted by driving the moneychangers from the Temple, too - not because I don't completely agree that such things are wrong, but because the method used to oust them was too violent.

Have you taken the opportunity to share this correction with Him? I'd be interested in His response.

[Ahab]

 

Knowing when something is a revelation from God is kinda like knowing when something is funny. Each person has to use their own senses without having to be told when something is a revelation from God, or funny,  whatever the something happens to be.

 

Edited December 9, 2015 by Ahab
ETA: If ever in doubt or confused as to which something it is I find it's helpful to work on my own sense of humor.

[Zakuska]

13 minutes ago, JAHS said:

So I am guessing we would say that Section 138 given in 1918 and canonized in 1979 would be the last one given so far.

I don't see a whole lot of reason for God to reveal any more canonized doctrines that would be required for our salvation, except maybe the process involved in the resurrection of someone when that time comes.

 

Who's to say we arent already being taught that every time we attened the temple and raise our prayers around the altar?

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, JAHS said:

So I am guessing we would say that Section 138 given in 1918 and canonized in 1979 would be the last one given so far.

I don't see a whole lot of reason for God to reveal any more canonized doctrines that would be required for our salvation, except maybe the process involved in the resurrection of someone when that time comes.

 

 

It doesn't have to be the revelation of new doctrines.

When was the last time (that was publicly revealed) that we even saw:

"1. Thus saith the Lord to the Twelve, and to the Priesthood and people of my Church.

2. Let my servants George Teasdale and Heber J. Grant be appointed to fill the vacancies in the Twelve, that you may be fully organized and prepared for the labors devolving upon you, for you have a great work to perform, and then proceed to fill up the presiding quorum of Seventies, and assist in organizing that body of my priesthood who are your co-laborers in the ministry."

or

"6 Let my servant John Taylor, and also my servant John E. Page, and also my servant Wilford Woodruff, and also my servant Willard Richards, be appointed to fill the places of those who have fallen, and be officially notified of their appointment."

 

I'd love to know if any of our current apostles were directly called like this.

 

 

[Maedros]

On 12/7/2015 at 0:34 AM, why me said:

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.

I think that it could very well be that the proclamation was presented back then to pre-empt the attack on gender roles and traditional values that are happening today and especially in this year (20 years after it was proclaimed) - the Word of Wisdom for instance was presented long before alcohol and tobacco and drugs became so widespread and destructive. 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, Gray said:

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. 

 

I'll see your Harold B. Lee quote* and raise you several more Harold B. Lee quotes selected from the same instructional manual you used that indicate we are obliged to follow the living prophet (bold emphasis mine). In fact, based on the quoted content below, I'm inclined to say you quoted him out of context, something you ought not do. It is misleading, dishonest and malicious.

 

Quote

 

Why must we follow the prophet?

Now, may this be the day for us to reflect seriously, to remember what the Lord has already told us. His prophet is upon the earth today, and if you want to know the last revelation that has come to this people, you get down the last conference report and read carefully especially what the First Presidency said. … You will have the best and the last word that has been given from our Heavenly Father. We don’t have to depend solely upon what is in the standard Church works. In addition to what the scriptures have told us, we have what the prophets today are telling us here and now, and it is for us if we want to be saved on Zion’s hill, when these perils come, to hear and obey.¹³

So often today when our brethren do speak authoritatively, we have some who rise up to challenge and say, “Now, just where can I find some authority that you can cite for what you are saying?” We are tempted to say, “You go back and read the speech of the present leader of the Church on this subject, and you have all the authority that you should look for, because this is the Lord’s way. His prophet is here, and revelation is just as needed and is just as much in evidence as it has been in any time in any dispensation of the gospel upon the earth.”¹⁴

Now the only safety we have as members of this church is to do exactly what the Lord said to the Church in that day when the Church was organized. We must learn to give heed to the words and commandments that the Lord shall give through His prophet, “as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; … as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith” (D&C 21:4–5). There will be some things that take patience and faith. You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life. But if you listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord Himself, with patience and faith, the promise is that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory” (D&C 21:6).¹⁵

To you Latter-day Saints everywhere, that promise [in D&C 21:4–6] will be yours if you will follow the leadership the Lord has placed within the Church, giving heed to their counsel in patience and faith.¹⁶

Look to the President of the Church for your instructions. If ever there is a conflict, you keep your eyes on the President if you want to walk in the light.¹⁷

If our people want to be safely guided during these [troubled] times of deceit and false rumors, they must follow their leaders and seek for the guidance of the Spirit of the Lord in order to avoid falling prey to clever manipulators who, with cunning sophistry, seek to draw attention and gain a following to serve their own notions and sometimes sinister motives.¹⁸

Now there were a lot of people in the days of the Master who did not accept Him as the Son of God. There were some who said, “Oh, He is just the son of Joseph, the carpenter.” Others said, “He is a Prince of Beelzebub,” which means the son of the devil. When He performed some of these miraculous things they said, “He is a winebibber,” meaning he had just been drinking strong wine. There were only a very few who could say, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:16.) Why couldn’t everybody see Him as the Son of God?

 

*I'm just kidding with the wagering imagery. As a faithful Latter-day Saint, as a matter of moral principle, I disapprove of gambling in any form.

Edited December 9, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Zakuska]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'll see your Harold B. Lee quote* and raise you several more Harold B. Lee quotes selected from the same instructional manual you used that indicate we are obliged to follow the living prophet (bold emphasis mine). In fact, based on the quoted content below, I'm inclined to say you quoted him out of context.

 

 

*I'm just kidding with the wagering imagery. As a faithful Latter-day Saint, as a matter of moral principle, I disapprove of gambling in any form.

Out of context... huh? How so...? Sounds to me like Gray quoted it just fine.

Quote

All that we teach in this Church ought to be couched in the scriptures. … We ought to choose our texts from the scriptures, and wherever you have an illustration in the scriptures or a revelation in the Book of Mormon, use it, and do not draw from other sources where you can find it here in these books. We call these the standard Church works because they are standard. If you want to measure truth, measure it by the four standard Church works. … If it is not in the standard works, you may well assume that it is speculation. It is man’s own personal opinion, to put it another way; and if it contradicts what is in the scriptures, you may know by that same token that it is not true. This is the standard by which you measure all truth. But if you do not know the standards, you have no adequate measure of truth.¹⁷

Sounds to me that if a prophet of God goes against scripture he isn't a true prophet Of God.

Edited December 9, 2015 by Zakuska

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

19 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

Out of context... huh? How so...? Sounds to me like Gray quoted it just fine.

Sounds to me that if a prophet of God goes against scripture he isn't a true prophet Of God.

Out of context... huh? How so...? Sounds to me like Gray quoted it just fine.

Sounds to me that if a prophet of God goes against scripture he isn't a true prophet Of God.

Well obviously, in light of the plethora of other quotes I provided from the same manual, he couldn't have meant that. Do you honestly not see that?

Again, out of context, misleading, dishonest and malicious. Stop it. You're not being impressive.

 

[why me]

9 hours ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

I'll admit that I've detested the cliche saying that 'life isn't fair' ever since I first heard it as a child from teachers, especially because it most often seemed to be invoked in reverently authoritarian tones meant to impress upon me the justness of why completely avoidable unfairnesses were not to be argued against. 

God has not clearly defined the laws of happiness and eternal joy - there are so many contradictory 'laws' and attitudes in the scriptures that one can justify completely antithetical ideas by quoting the exact same book. The Proclamation is not fair between women and men when it says that men have the divine duty to preside over their partners and then incoherently claims that such a relationship can somehow be 'equal'. 

If life isn't fair in these things, it's because we're failing to make it fair. If the New Testament isn't fair, then it is wrong. I think the reason for the number twelve in scripture is often related to cosmological symbolism regarding the zodiac, but if Christ was deliberately excluding people for no reason, then yes, he would not be acting fairly. I think he overreacted by driving the moneychangers from the Temple, too - not because I don't completely agree that such things are wrong, but because the method used to oust them was too violent.     

The definition of fairness changes over time. Now we are living in an age of artificial fairness. But lets look deeper and we will see that life is not exactly fair. Some are born into rich families and some are born into poor families. Some are born into royalty and others are born into average middle class families. So, life is unfair upon birth. Some are born with drug addicted mothers while others are born with mothers that are not drug addicted. Where is the fairness? The principles of the bible are not fair toward sinners etc. And now people claim that the lds church is not fair toward gays and lesbians. Maybe in 20 years hence, the definition of fairness will change again. What should churches do? Go with the flow of 'fairness'? The idea of gays being permitted to marry is rather new. Where has such fairness been for the last 2000 years? One can also claim that the new testament was not fair for people with a pagan lifestyle. They were asked to change their values and beliefs. Was that fair toward pagan converts? When one looks at roman and greek art from that time and further into antiquity, one can see much gay art. But it doesn't seem that the christians were in favor of such art. Why?

So, what is fairness?

Edited December 9, 2015 by why me

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

It doesn't have to be the revelation of new doctrines.

When was the last time (that was publicly revealed) that we even saw: ...

I've had similar experiences to this numerous times as I've served in various Church callings and also in my personal life. On what grounds would I assume that I have access to blessings that the authorised prophets of God do not?

[Zakuska]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well obviously, in light of the plethora of other quotes I provided from the same manual, he couldn't have meant that. Do you honestly not see that?

Again, out of context, misleading, dishonest and malicious. Stop it. You're not being impressive.

 

I know that he ment precisely what he said.  I'll see your Harold B. Lee and raise you an Isaiah.

Isaiah 8

 19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? 20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

If a spirit lead Prophet speculates beyond what the "scriptures" (aka "law and testimony") contains... we better be questioning what spirit he/she is being directed by.

 

Edited December 9, 2015 by Zakuska

[HappyJackWagon]

14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Because it's not a revelation.  A revelation is the word of God.  The proclamation is the words of men based on the words of God.

We are told in the word of God that whether by the mouth of God or of his servants it is the same.  So we should treat revelation from God and inspired instruction from his servants both as binding.

When the last time God actually gave his word to the Church I don't know, but as soon as he does I am sure it will be canonized.

It's strange that there is so little prophesy in a prophetic church.

[Deborah]

On 12/7/2015 at 4:25 PM, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

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.

The scriptures are clear that the image of God is man and woman not man and man or woman and woman.

Genisis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

It's not meant to be fair or unfair but is what it is.

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

I know that he ment precisely what he said.  I'll see your Harold B. Lee and raise you an Isaiah.

Isaiah 8

 19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? 20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

If a spirit lead Prophet speculates beyond what the "scriptures" (aka "law and testimony") contains... we better be questioning what spirit he/she is being directed by.

 

Again, it is more than obvious he couldn't have meant what you claim, when you view the quotes I posted. I don't know how that could be more clear. It's as though you are claiming it is nighttime while the sun is shining.

And your Isaiah quotation is irrelevant to the question at hand.

I have rapidly grown bored with this exchange. Bye-bye.

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's strange that there is so little prophesy in a prophetic church.

From the set of Harold B. Lee quotes I posted:

Quote

Now, may this be the day for us to reflect seriously, to remember what the Lord has already told us. His prophet is upon the earth today, and if you want to know the last revelation that has come to this people, you get down the last conference report and read carefully especially what the First Presidency said. … You will have the best and the last word that has been given from our Heavenly Father. We don’t have to depend solely upon what is in the standard Church works. In addition to what the scriptures have told us, we have what the prophets today are telling us here and now, and it is for us if we want to be saved on Zion’s hill, when these perils come, to hear and obey.¹³

Actually the prophecy (note the proper spelling) flows daily, even hourly. It doesn't have to be written down to be prophecy.

He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

 

[Zakuska]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Again, it is more than obvious he couldn't have meant what you claim, when you view the quotes I posted. I don't know how that could be more clear. It's as though you are claiming it is nighttime while the sun is shining.

And your Isaiah quotation is irrelevant to the question at hand.

I have rapidly grown bored with this exchange. Bye-bye.

Grown bored or can't respond. All the same thing. Cest la vie

Isaiah has everything to do with it. If a Prophet goes beyond scripture he is being lead by the dark spirit not the light one.

Edited December 9, 2015 by Zakuska

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I've had similar experiences to this numerous times as I've served in various Church callings and also in my personal life. On what grounds would I assume that I have access to blessings that the authorised prophets of God do not?

 

Nobody assumes the authorized prophets don't receive these.  Just that we haven't seen a new one released publicly in decades.

For some reason written revelation was replaced with inspired confirmation.  For some reason.

[Scott Lloyd]

59 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Nobody assumes the authorized prophets don't receive these.  Just that we haven't seen a new one released publicly in decades.

For some reason written revelation was replaced with inspired confirmation.  For some reason.

In the formative years of the Church of Jesus Christ in this gospel dispensation, new revelations came frequently, because that was necessary for Jesus Christ to establish the Church anew and to teach his authorized servants how it was to function. These foundational revelations were recorded and made part of a scriptural canon to guide the Church going forward.

Once things were in place, such canonical revelations were necessary only once in a while, even as the anointed servants of God continued to receive continual inspiration incidental to concerns as they arose. We don't need a new, canonized revelation for every little administrative change or innovation that takes place in the Primary or Young Men/Young Women programs.

This all seems so self-evident to me that it amazes me others seem to have a hard time grasping it.