Poll: The Family: A Proclamation to the World

[Russell C McGregor]

37 minutes ago, Stone holm said:

Gender stereotyping

And the scripture references that show this to be wrong are...?

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Scripturally, the only ordinances that were instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world are baptism (for both the living and the dead—see applicable verses in D&C 124 and 128), priesthood conferral and ordination (Alma 13:5), and the Atonement (Moses 5:57).

I don't believe that is true at all.

[CV75]

11 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't believe that is true at all.

I understand that, but what other ordinances besides baptism by immersion, priesthood conferral and ordination and the Atonement are specifically described in the scriptural canon as "instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world"? Most of the things you listed are only outgrowths of priesthood conferral and can take on various legitimate forms according to the inspiration received by the President of the Church.

[Gray]

17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've already made myself very clear by providing numerous quotes from President Lee from the very manual you yourself quoted from initially. Did you not bother to look further in the manual beyond the one cherry-picked quote?

Here they are again. What part of "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" don't you understand?

 

 

I'm aware of the additional context. But I'm wondering why you think it invalidates what he said earlier in the lesson. Am I correctly characterizing your position when I say that?

 

Did you see this quote from President Lee? I think this makes it clear that I was correctly representing his views on the matter. 

 

Quote

President Harold B. Lee, "The Place of the Living Prophet, Seer, and Revelator," The Charge to Religious Educators, p. 141. It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they speak and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works, unless that one be the prophet, seer and revelator­please note that one exception [when he is speaking as the prophet, from earlier in the paragraph]­you may immediately say, "Well, that is his own idea." And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard works (I think that is why we call them "standard" -- it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false, regardless of the position of the man who says it.

 

[CV75]

35 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm aware of the additional context. But I'm wondering why you think it invalidates what he said earlier in the lesson. Am I correctly characterizing your position when I say that?

Did you see this quote from President Lee? I think this makes it clear that I was correctly representing his views on the matter. 

Synthesize all his statements on the subject. Do more research, but taking a look at the Harold B. Lee quotes that have been offered so far:

Showing the prophets as authoritative: 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.

Showing the scriptures as their standard: 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.

Showing the redeeming bridge between the two: 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.

How the Proclamation meets the criteria for being both in addition to scripture and being couched in the standard works:  “…we of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles [meets the authoritative criterion] now issue a proclamation to the Church and to the world as a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines [meets the scriptural and standard works criterion], 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).

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Synthesize all his statements on the subject. Do more research, but taking a look at the Harold B. Lee quotes that have been offered so far:

Showing the prophets as authoritative: 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.

Showing the scriptures as their standard: 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.

Showing the redeeming bridge between the two: 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.

How the Proclamation meets the criteria for being both in addition to scripture and being couched in the standard works:  “…we of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles [meets the authoritative criterion] now issue a proclamation to the Church and to the world as a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines [meets the scriptural and standard works criterion], 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).

Right. Now where the rubber meets the road is, is the proclamation fully in line with the scriptures? That's the question, and the answer will of course depend on how you interpret scripture.

Edited December 10, 2015 by Gray

[Zakuska]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

Right. Now where the rubber meets the road is, is the proclamation fully in line with the scriptures? That's the question, and the answer will of course depend on how you interpret scripture.

And lets face it... Christs Ancestors have some pretty colorfull back stories. So if we are going to judge the "ideal family" on scripture its going to have to be broad enough to encompass them all.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Right. Now where the rubber meets the road is, is the proclamation fully in line with the scriptures? That's the question, and the answer will of course depend on how you interpret scripture.

That is not "the" question. As long as the Proclamation is couched in scripture / the standard works, which President Hinckley asserted it is, the synthesis of President Lee's criteria is satisfied. President Lee, at least in your link and anything else quoted in this thread, never brought up the concept of being "fully in line with the scriptures," I suppose because scripture can be interpreted by anyone for any purpose. Couching is permissible and expected, and because your link is an article about his thoughts on teaching the Gospel, I'm sure he means using (whether quoting, couching, likening, or otherwise applying) the scriptures as a standard in concert with the Spirit.

Now one may not think that the writers of the Proclamation heeded the Spirit in their teaching, but this has nothing to do with the criteria we've been discussing having been met.

[Gray]

30 minutes ago, CV75 said:

That is not "the" question. As long as the Proclamation is couched in scripture / the standard works, which President Hinckley asserted it is, the synthesis of President Lee's criteria is satisfied. President Lee, at least in your link and anything else quoted in this thread, never brought up the concept of being "fully in line with the scriptures," I suppose because scripture can be interpreted by anyone for any purpose. Couching is permissible and expected, and because your link is an article about his thoughts on teaching the Gospel, I'm sure he means using (whether quoting, couching, likening, or otherwise applying) the scriptures as a standard in concert with the Spirit.

Now one may not think that the writers of the Proclamation heeded the Spirit in their teaching, but this has nothing to do with the criteria we've been discussing having been met.

I'm not sure being "couched" in scripture is sufficient. The standard he lays out is anything that goes beyond scripture or contradicts scripture is opinion or else false. 

 

Quote

And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard works (I think that is why we call them "standard" -- it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false, regardless of the position of the man who says it.

Quote

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

So anything that contradicts scripture is false. Anything not found in the scriptures is speculation. That's his standard. 

[Russell C McGregor]

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm not sure being "couched" in scripture is sufficient. The standard he lays out is anything that goes beyond scripture or contradicts scripture is opinion or else false. 

 

So anything that contradicts scripture is false. Anything not found in the scriptures is speculation. That's his standard. 

You are cherry-picking, Gray. Harold B. Lee has been quoted extensively, in this very thread, saying that the living prophets have the same standing as scripture.

If you knew anything at all about LDS life and teaching,  you'd know that this is normative LDS belief.

 

[Russell C McGregor]

2 hours ago, Zakuska said:

And lets face it... Christs Ancestors have some pretty colorfull back stories. So if we are going to judge the "ideal family" on scripture its going to have to be broad enough to encompass them all.

Except that a definition so "broad" that it encompasses everything actually encompasses nothing. A country with no borders has no territory.

Not everything that wants to call itself a family (for tax purposes) is an actual family.

Sorry.

[Jeanne]

12 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm not sure being "couched" in scripture is sufficient. The standard he lays out is anything that goes beyond scripture or contradicts scripture is opinion or else false. 

 

So anything that contradicts scripture is false. Anything not found in the scriptures is speculation. That's his standard. 

And Joseph Smith made contradictions to his own scriptures time and again.  Many changes in the D &C..Book of Mormon and his own lifestyle.  That's it for me. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

I'm aware of the additional context. But I'm wondering why you think it invalidates what he said earlier in the lesson. Am I correctly characterizing your position when I say that?

 

Did you see this quote from President Lee? I think this makes it clear that I was correctly representing his views on the matter. 

 

 

I don't believe it invalidates what he said earlier; I do believe it invalidates the out-of-context spin you are endeavoring to put on it.

The earlier quote would have reference to speculative, non-doctrinal, non-authoritative uninspired comments that might conceivably be uttered even by individual General Authorities. They are, after all, imperfect, like everyone else. President Joseph Fielding Smith's infamous pre-1969 assertions that man would not land on the moon comes to mind as an example.

It would not have reference to authoritative teachings by prophets and apostles acting in the authority of their office and under inspiration from God; indeed, it cannot have reference to those teachings, because that would be diametrically opposed to the quotations from President Lee I cited that also appear in the book you drew your quotation from.

Edited December 10, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

27 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm not sure being "couched" in scripture is sufficient. The standard he lays out is anything that goes beyond scripture or contradicts scripture is opinion or else false.

You may not be sure, but your link certainly indicates that it is: "All that we teach in this Church ought to be couched in the scriptures." That is one of the standards and conditions that are to be considered, if his various quotes are to be valued at all.

27 minutes ago, Gray said:

So anything that contradicts scripture is false. Anything not found in the scriptures is speculation. That's his standard. 

You haven't established that the Proclamation contradicts scripture, and President Hinckley has established that it goes along with scripture.

It appears that you're done with anything new to add to this conversation.

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

And Joseph Smith made contradictions to his own scriptures time and again.  Many changes in the D &C..Book of Mormon and his own lifestyle.  That's it for me. 

No, he did not make "contradictions to his own scriptures time and again."

 

[Zakuska]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, he did not make "contradictions to his own scriptures time and again."

 

Lets see...  Canonized Scripture of the time... "A man should have only one wife" all the while secretly preaching section 132.

Pretty big contradiction right there Scott.

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

Lets see...  Canonized Scripture of the time... "A man should have only one wife" all the while secretly preaching section 132.

Pretty big contradiction right there Scott.

 

 

That's not a contradiction. It's in line with the instruction in Jacob about monogamy being the default directive unless the Lord commands otherwise.

[Zakuska]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That's not a contradiction. It's in line with the instruction in Jacob about monogamy being the default directive unless the Lord commands otherwise.

Its more in line with the God of the Old Testament who publicly preaches one thing while secretly doing another.

e.g.

Abraham (Sarah is thy sister) 

Moses = "Borrow" Phaorahs gold... we'll "loot it" when you guys run off into the desert.

 

Edited December 10, 2015 by Zakuska

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That's not a contradiction. It's in line with the instruction in Jacob about monogamy being the default directive unless the Lord commands otherwise.

Your justifications just blow me away.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Zakuska said:

Lets see...  Canonized Scripture of the time... "A man should have only one wife" all the while secretly preaching section 132.

Pretty big contradiction right there Scott.

 

 

If you don't understand orders of priesthood.

When operating under a lesser light the laws are not different, but limited.  Prior to the restoration of the temple order and the sealing ordinances they had no right to live polygamy.  Once those keys were restored the law could be lived.

When the original D&C section on marriage was "canonized" (which is a whole different issue) the rule wasn't against polygamy because it was wrong, it was because they had no priesthood keys and ordinances necessary to live it.  Once they were restored the law could be lived.  Just like the endowment.  They couldn't practice that law and ordinance in its fullness in Kirtland either, and if it were know about at the time it would have been forbidden at the time too.

 

It's so simple.

 

[Gray]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't believe it invalidates what he said earlier; I do believe it invalidates the out-of-context spin you are endeavoring to put on it.

The earlier quote would have reference to speculative, non-doctrinal, non-authoritative uninspired comments that might conceivably be uttered even by individual General Authorities. They are, after all, imperfect, like everyone else. President Joseph Fielding Smith's infamous pre-1969 assertions that man would not land on the moon comes to mind as an example.

It would not have reference to authoritative teachings by prophets and apostles acting in the authority of their office and under inspiration from God; indeed, it cannot have reference to those teachings, because that would be diametrically opposed to the quotations from President Lee I cited that also appear in the book you drew your quotation from.

I'm sorry Scott, but taking the totality of President's Lees views on the matter, it looks like the scripture standard applies toward all the teachings of church leaders. Those teachings would be authoritative inasmuch as they conform with the standard works. Lee's own words confirm that. 

[Gray]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

You may not be sure, but your link certainly indicates that it is: "All that we teach in this Church ought to be couched in the scriptures." That is one of the standards and conditions that are to be considered, if his various quotes are to be valued at all.

You haven't established that the Proclamation contradicts scripture, and President Hinckley has established that it goes along with scripture.

It appears that you're done with anything new to add to this conversation.

I think I've established that President Lee's standard is exactly as I've described it to be. Whether or not the proclamation conforms to scripture is another matter. I will say that the proclamation goes beyond what is established in scripture, in my opinion. 

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm sorry Scott, but taking the totality of President's Lees views on the matter, it looks like the scripture standard applies toward all the teachings of church leaders. Those teachings would be authoritative inasmuch as they conform with the standard works. Lee's own words confirm that. 

No, the "scripture standard" as you define it is not confirmed by President Lee's own words. It just isn't.

We are not biblioaters, nor are we partakers of the sola scriptura dogma.

And as that is quite obvious to any reasonable person who views the quotes I provided, I'll let the matter rest there.

Edited December 10, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Your justifications just blow me away.

Well, that remark just blows me away, so I guess we're even.

Are you familiar with the teachings in Jacob about plural marriage? How, if the Lord desires to "raise up seed" thereby, He will command His people to practice plural marriage, but otherwise, the default directive is monogamy?

 

[CV75]

15 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think I've established that President Lee's standard is exactly as I've described it to be.

Cue "California Dreamin'"

 

Edited December 10, 2015 by CV75