Poll: The Family: A Proclamation to the World

[consiglieri]

On ‎12‎/‎7‎/‎2015 at 0:57 PM, 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.

From the research I have seen, and if my memory is correct, the Proclamation was a document drafted by the LDS Church in order to give it legal standing in the gay marriage appeal in Hawaii.

[Jeanne]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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?

 

I am..but the Lord didn't say to hide it,,to write something and do the opposite.

[Russell C McGregor]

15 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

From the research I have seen, and if my memory is correct, the Proclamation was a document drafted by the LDS Church in order to give it legal standing in the gay marriage appeal in Hawaii.

That's one opinion. It might even have some utility in that direction.

Its most important function, though, is to provide a clear, unambiguous and authoritative statement of the Church's doctrine regarding men, women and families.

Which does not need to be explained away by anyone who plausibly claims to be a believing, sustaining Latter-day Saint.

 

[consiglieri]

6 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

That's one opinion. It might even have some utility in that direction.

 

 

That sounds suspiciously like an admission.

I could link to the blog that has the research demonstrating the Proclamation was written for political, not religious, purposes.

But I am just being allowed to post again and I don't want to cross any lines.

Is there a rule against linking to another blog?

[Russell C McGregor]

9 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

That sounds suspiciously like an admission.

I could link to the blog that has the research demonstrating the Proclamation was written for political, not religious, purposes.

But I am just being allowed to post again and I don't want to cross any lines.

Is there a rule against linking to another blog?

Yes, it's an admission. I'm admitting that it's an opinion.

[consiglieri]

3 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Yes, it's an admission. I'm admitting that it's an opinion.

An opinion with a great deal of evidence behind it.

[Russell C McGregor]

8 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

An opinion with a great deal of evidence behind it.

The internal evidence of the text is that it is a religious document, written by religious leaders, expressing religious doctrine in religious terms.

But hey -- why should that carry more weight than speculation?

 

[consiglieri]

 

4 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

The internal evidence of the text is that it is a religious document, written by religious leaders, expressing religious doctrine in religious terms.

But hey -- why should that carry more weight than speculation?

 

And, if memory serves, it was drafted and promulgated right after the Hawaii court of appeal had denied the LDS Church the ability to file an amicus curae brief in opposition to gay marriage legislation in that state.

The court of appeal, I believe, stated that because the LDS Church could not show opposition to gay marriage was a core tenet of its doctrine, the LDS Church had no standing.

And so the Proclamation to the World was born.

Viola!

Now the LDS Church suddenly had standing.

Edited December 10, 2015 by consiglieri

[Scott Lloyd]

Here is what President Packer said about the origin of the proclamation:

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve issued a proclamation on the family. I can tell you how that came about. They had a world conference on the family sponsored by the United Nations in Beijing, China. We sent representatives. It was not pleasant what they heard. They called another one in Cairo. Some of our people were there. I read the proceedings of that. The word marriage was not mentioned. It was at a conference on the family, but marriage was not even mentioned.

 

It was then they announced that they were going to have such a conference here in Salt Lake City. Some of us made the recommendation: "They are coming here. We had better proclaim our position."^[4]

 

This quote is copied from the FairMormon Answers entry on the proclamation.

Legal wranglings in Hawaii might have figured in the decision to some degree. I'm not familiar enough with that to say one way or the other.

But the crux of Consiglieri's argument seems to be that the proclamation was formulated and published solely and exclusively as a legal maneuver in the Hawaii case. Based on what President Packer said here, and based on the internal evidence that Russell has pointed out, I have to say that notion strikes me as outlandish.

 

Edited December 11, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[consiglieri]

41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Here is what President Packer said about the origin of the proclamation:

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve issued a proclamation on the family. I can tell you how that came about. They had a world conference on the family sponsored by the United Nations in Beijing, China. We sent representatives. It was not pleasant what they heard. They called another one in Cairo. Some of our people were there. I read the proceedings of that. The word marriage was not mentioned. It was at a conference on the family, but marriage was not even mentioned.

 

It was then they announced that they were going to have such a conference here in Salt Lake City. Some of us made the recommendation: "They are coming here. We had better proclaim our position."^[4]

 

This quote is copied from the FairMormon Answers entry on the proclamation.

Legal wranglings in Hawaii might have figured in the decision to some degree. I'm not familiar enough with that to say one way or the other.

But the crux of Consiglieri's argument seems to be that the proclamation was formulated and published solely and exclusively as a legal maneuver in the Hawaii case. Based on what President Oaks said here, and based on the internal evidence that Russell has pointed out, I have to say that notion strikes me as outlandish.

 

Do I get to post the link yet?

[why me]

9 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Do I get to post the link yet?

Since we now have the explanation, I don't know if the link is necessary. How can one refute what scott has linked? Of course, we can take a negative turn and claim that what scott posted was just a ruse. But it does seem pretty clear cut. And it seems to make sense if in china no mention of marriage was present at that conference.

But of course, one can always link something from a blog is it is permitted. But what would the blogger know and how would the blogger know it?

Edited December 11, 2015 by why me

[consiglieri]

5 hours ago, why me said:

Since we now have the explanation, I don't know if the link is necessary. How can one refute what scott has linked?

Damn the evidence, full speed ahead.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, why me said:

Since we now have the explanation, I don't know if the link is necessary. How can one refute what scott has linked? Of course, we can take a negative turn and claim that what scott posted was just a ruse. But it does seem pretty clear cut. And it seems to make sense if in china no mention of marriage was present at that conference.

But of course, one can always link something from a blog is it is permitted. But what would the blogger know and how would the blogger know it?

I've now read a blog post by Laura Compton, which I think is what Consiglieri is talking about. It seems theoretical but plausible. But even if we were to grant that it had some influence, it doesn't say that was the only thing that brought about the proclamation, which seems to be what Consig is claiming.

[consiglieri]

I have not made such a claim, Scott.  Few things are caused exclusively by one other thing.

But I do believe the evidence shows it to be at least a primary motivation.

I was thinking of a post I saw on Rational Faiths a year or so ago.

Did Laura Compton write that?

[consiglieri]

Also, I hate to say that I have to take justifications from Church leaders with a grain of salt.

The Church seems to have established something of a track record for giving explanations for Church actions that don't necessarily hold water.

Even as recently as Elder Christofferson's "interview" on the reasons for the new handbook policy.

I'm sure you understand.

[Deborah]

Consiglieri, why is it not possible it was for political and revelatory reasons. I've always been of the belief that the Lord is well aware of our circumstances and what is needed to protect his church. It sounds like from what Scott referenced that there were political happenings that inspired inspirational inquiry and action. I don't see the reason for either/or, but why not taking into consideration what was happening in the world at that time and what was foreseen to happen now and throwing in divine revelation to address the issues.

[consiglieri]

46 minutes ago, Deborah said:

Consiglieri, why is it not possible it was for political and revelatory reasons. I've always been of the belief that the Lord is well aware of our circumstances and what is needed to protect his church. It sounds like from what Scott referenced that there were political happenings that inspired inspirational inquiry and action. I don't see the reason for either/or, but why not taking into consideration what was happening in the world at that time and what was foreseen to happen now and throwing in divine revelation to address the issues.

Hi, Deborah!

I hope you have been well!

May I be frank in response to your question?

I think the recent policy change has demonstrated the leaders of the LDS Church to be devoid of any revelation or inspiration.

From Jesus, at least.

I hope that isn't too harsh, because I don't mean to upset you or anybody else.

It is just the way I see it.

And the way the Holy Ghost has witnessed it to me.

[Kenngo1969]

Something Joseph Smith once said comes to mind, but I don't wish to introduce contention into the thread.  

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Damn the evidence, full speed ahead.

What evidence is at hand? An eyewitness account from one who was present in the formative stages of the proclamation and who is one of the signatories to the proclamation. And, of course, the internal evidence pointed out by Russell of what the document itself purports to be. Aren't you damning that evidence?

What "evidence" do you have reference to? A speculative theory that is far from conclusive.

Edited December 11, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Senator]

16 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Hi, Deborah!

I hope you have been well!

May I be frank in response to your question?

I think the recent policy change has demonstrated the leaders of the LDS Church to be devoid of any revelation or inspiration.

From Jesus, at least.

I hope that isn't too harsh, because I don't mean to upset you or anybody else.

It is just the way I see it.

And the way the Holy Ghost has witnessed it to me.

Oh dear!

Houston, we have a problem

[Senator]

8 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Something Joseph Smith once said comes to mind, but I don't wish to introduce contention into the thread.  

Eh

RCM is already here.

So, fire away!!

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

I have not made such a claim, Scott.  Few things are caused exclusively by one other thing.

It was definitely the implication that came across to me. How did you put it? This and this and that happened in Hawaii, and voila! We  have a proclamation.

No acknowledgment that other factors may have been at work. No cognizance of the purport of the proclamation itself or of the intent expressed by President Gordon B. Hinckley when he introduced it.

I don't wonder that you would now want to adjust your position from what was expressed there.

Your post is there for all to read. I guess we'll have to leave it to individual readers to make of it what they will.

Quote

But I do believe the evidence shows it to be at least a primary motivation.

What evidence? A speculative theory, nothing more
 

Quote

 

I was thinking of a post I saw on Rational Faiths a year or so ago.

Did Laura Compton write that?

 

That's where I read it.

Why were you afraid to post a link? Is it an antagonistic website? Did you cut a deal with the moderators not to link to antagonistic websites if they let you back on here?

[Senator]

20 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Hi, Deborah!

I hope you have been well!

May I be frank in response to your question?

I think the recent policy change has demonstrated the leaders of the LDS Church to be devoid of any revelation or inspiration.

From Jesus, at least.

I hope that isn't too harsh, because I don't mean to upset you or anybody else.

It is just the way I see it.

And the way the Holy Ghost has witnessed it to me.

Well, consiglieri, the reunion was grand..

....but will be short lived I'm affraid.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Also, I hate to say that I have to take justifications from Church leaders with a grain of salt.

 

Up to your old tricks, I see.

A claim you make is soundly refuted, so you jump to the default position of casting aspersions on the integrity, honesty and spiritual gifts of the prophets and apostles.

I anticipated that might come sooner or later. Didn't take too long, as it turned out.

Edited December 11, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[consiglieri]

33 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What evidence is at hand? An eyewitness account from one who was present in the formative stages of the proclamation and who is one of the signatories to the proclamation. And, of course, the internal evidence pointed out by Russell of what the document itself purports to be. Aren't you damning that evidence?

What "evidence" do you have reference to? A speculative theory that is far from conclusive.

Here you go, Scott.

I will let everybody see the evidence and draw their own conclusions.

http://rationalfaiths.com/from-amici-to-ohana/

By the way, you were right.  It was the piece by Laura Compton.

Nice job!