Should The Family A Proclamation be canonized in our scriptures?

[VideoGameJunkie]

The last thing that was canonized in our scriptures was the 1978 thing that's at the end of Doctrine and Covenants. Do you think The Family, which came out in 1995 should be added to our canonized scriptures? I think so.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

No.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Why no? It's revelation from our First Presidency.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

They'd certainly like you to think so, anyway. 

As I wrote in that thread from a few months ago (I was active then, and I'm not now, but the main points still apply) :  

Quote

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. 

[Bernard Gui]

Absolutely. Even if it were not canonized it is one of the most significant statements made by Church leaders in the past 100 years. Considering the ongoing destruction of the scriptural concept of marriage, the declaration is prophetic in its gravity, prescient in its anticipation of the future, precautionary in the doctrine it defends, and resolute in its warnings - all the hallmarks of a revelation from God to his prophets.

When the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve unanimously and "solemnly proclaim" that a doctrine is central to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and give warnings about calamities to come, it would be prudent on our part to at least give them an ear. Contending about it's provenance serves no useful purpose.

Edited April 4, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Sky]

Canonized or not, it is part of LDS doctrine as understood and taught by the leaders of the Church, whom we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators.  It's not going away.  Love it or hate it, we have to come to terms with that.   

Some parts of this are not easy for me, I admit.        

[pcarthew]

Absolutely yes, it would be a wonderful addition.  What a beautiful clarifying piece of revelation. Imagine how the world would be if even 50% of the population took such revelation seriously.  Imagine how much more love and peace there would be.  Imagine how less burdened the justice system would be.  Imagine how much easier it would be for our police departments.  Imagine how much less counselling we would need.  Imagine how many more of our beautiful young children feeling safe and peaceful in their homes.  What a beautiful proclamation!! 

[Rivers]

They had a chance to canonize it in 2013 with a new edition of the scriptures. But they didn't.

[stemelbow]

Reactively I'd say no, but upon further thought I don't know why it'd matter.  There is tons of weirdo stuff that is canonized and most just pretend isn't there anyway.   I think canonizing it would solidify the Church's position regarding SSM, but that's already been done.  Years down the road they'll have to figure out how to change positions and deal with what's in the canon.   THis difficulty comes up every so often for the Church. 

[Storm Rider]

When the Brethren come forward and say something is to be added to scripture it will be added to scripture.  Until such time as that occurs nothing should be added to scripture.  

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

When the Brethren come forward and say something is to be added to scripture it will be added to scripture.  Until such time as that occurs nothing should be added to scripture.  

It's interesting because it doesn't matter either way.  IT's not as if most LDS, at least those in the active category, don't view the proc as anything but revelation.  Canonizing something now won't make a difference only in the long run in terms of recording what we view to be messages from God.  That which is canonized is largely ignored today because the views of the past, as canonized, don't really reflect God in our judgments. 

[Boanerges]

14 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It's interesting because it doesn't matter either way.  IT's not as if most LDS, at least those in the active category, don't view the proc as anything but revelation.  Canonizing something now won't make a difference only in the long run in terms of recording what we view to be messages from God.  That which is canonized is largely ignored today because the views of the past, as canonized, don't really reflect God in our judgments. 

I don't think we make a blanket statement like that as applicable to every active member. I'm active and believing and I think the PotF is a fine statement of current church belief. I do not believe it was revelation. I agree that it doesn't really matter, though - I don't believe polygamy was revelation, either.

[thesometimesaint]

Not yet. I would like more Scripture establishing the role of Heavenly Mother before the Proclamation is canonized.

[pcarthew]

4 minutes ago, Boanerges said:

I don't think we make a blanket statement like that as applicable to every active member. I'm active and believing and I think the PotF is a fine statement of current church belief. I do not believe it was revelation. I agree that it doesn't really matter, though - I don't believe polygamy was revelation, either.

Those 15 signatures at the bottom make it revelation.  15 Prophets, seers and revelators.  Polygamy was revelation too.  Whether or not people believe or not ultimately is irrelevant.  They Lord guides His church through revelation.  It is not up to the general member to pick and choose what is and isn't revelation.  We just need to get onboard and sustain and follow the brethren. 

[Gray]

It isn't that old and it's already not aging well. With a few slight revisions, though, yes. 

[Gray]

26 minutes ago, pcarthew said:

Those 15 signatures at the bottom make it revelation.  15 Prophets, seers and revelators.  Polygamy was revelation too.  Whether or not people believe or not ultimately is irrelevant.  They Lord guides His church through revelation.  It is not up to the general member to pick and choose what is and isn't revelation.  We just need to get onboard and sustain and follow the brethren. 

What makes it a revelation is if they claim that it's a revelation. So far none of them have. 

[thesometimesaint]

39 minutes ago, pcarthew said:

Those 15 signatures at the bottom make it revelation.  15 Prophets, seers and revelators.  Polygamy was revelation too.  Whether or not people believe or not ultimately is irrelevant.  They Lord guides His church through revelation.  It is not up to the general member to pick and choose what is and isn't revelation.  We just need to get onboard and sustain and follow the brethren. 

Then put it to the Church in General Conference next October.

[6EQUJ5]

17 minutes ago, Gray said:

What makes it a revelation is if they claim that it's a revelation. So far none of them have. 

President Packer declared it a revelation but the Church was forced to change his words when they went to print.  Makes me sad to see the Church cave to political correctness but I suppose it is the world we live in sad to say.

[Gray]

1 minute ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

President Packer declared it a revelation but the Church was forced to change his words when they went to print.  Makes me sad to see the Church cave to political correctness but I suppose it is the world we live in sad to say.

Perhaps they were merely trying to be accurate and truthful? 

[smac97]

48 minutes ago, Gray said:

What makes it a revelation is if they claim that it's a revelation. So far none of them have. 

Are you sure?  See here:

Quote

I had a conversation with a friend a month or two ago, regarding the subject of continuing revelation, which is, perhaps, the most distinguishing characteristic of Mormonism.  Among other issues discussed, questions arose as to what qualifies as a revelation, and how Latter-day Saints are to recognize or distinguish a revelation from an opinion.  This subject arose because of a change in wording from the discourse delivered by President Boyd K. Packer in General Conference entitled Cleansing the Inner Vessel, compared to the subsequently released printed version.  In his talk, President Packer stated that The Family: A Proclamation to the World, "qualifies according to definition, as a revelation..."  The printed version states that the proclamation "is a guide that members of the Church would do well to read and to follow."  The assumption was that President Packer's change in wording was an apparent correction, indicating that the proclamation was not a revelation, and this would be disconcerting to members who believed that it was.  Other changes in the printed version have received a degree of publicity and criticism, and there has been no shortage of speculation as to President Packer's motives.1  

...

President Hinckley introduced the proclamation in 1995, stating that "the First Presidency and 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."3  Based on this preface, we are to understand that the doctrines and principles contained therein are not necessarily new since they have been taught throughout church history.  Reflecting on the proclamation ten years after its issuance, Elder Ballard stated that "it was then and is now a clarion call to protect and strengthen families and a stern warning in a world where declining values and misplaced priorities threaten to destroy society by undermining its basic unit."  Elder Ballard goes on to say that "the proclamation is a prophetic document, not only because it was issued by prophets but because it was ahead of its time."4  Similarly, President Eyring stated that the proclamation "fits the Lord's promise when he said, Whether by mine own voice, or by the voice of my servants, it is the same (D&C 1:38).""5  Other general authorities have stated in definite terms that the proclamation is and was inspired of heaven.6

As a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Elder Ballard was present and participated in formulating the proclamation.  He described its coming forth as follows:

 

Quote

...I participated in the process of drafting “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” It was a remarkable experience for all of us. As Church leaders travel the world, we see things—both within the Church and outside the Church. We were troubled by much of what we were seeing. We could see the people of the world wanting to define the family in ways contrary to God’s eternal plan for the happiness of His children.  In the midst of all that was stirring on this subject in the world, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles could see the importance of declaring to the world the revealed, true role of the family in the eternal plan of God. We worked together, through the divinely inspired council system that operates even at the highest levels of the Church, to craft a proclamation that would make the Lord’s position on the family so clear that it could not be misunderstood.  Since the proclamation came out almost 10 years ago, time has overwhelmingly proven its prophetic insight.7

Aside from these comments, President Packer has also commented directly on "that great document," known as the family proclamation.8  He clearly stated that "the Lord has spoken to His servants, and they have framed "The Family: A Proclamation to the World."  After quoting a few paragraphs from its contents, he stated that "these lines taken from "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," to me have taken on the stature of scripture."9  Based on these comments it is apparent that President Packer believes the proclamation to be an inspired document.  The extent of revelation received in connection with the formulation of the revelation hasn't been detailed, but the degree with which the proclamation has been extolled by General Authorities provides some assurance regarding its importance.  

...

As a guide, the proclamation provides us with guidance in family living, understanding of the role of the family, and the definition of a family, and our functions within the family units.  While we can only speculate as to why President Packer changed the verbiage, there is sufficient statements and testimonies regarding the The Family: A Proclamation to the World, that we cannot mistake the source of its inspiration.

__________

1 See ABC News discussion of the matter here.

 

...

3 "Stand Strong Against the Wiles of the World," by President Gordon B. Hinckley, General Conference, October 1995, Ensign, November 1995, 101
4 "What Matters Most is What Lasts Longest," by Elder M. Russell Ballard, General Conference, October 2005, Ensign, November 2005, 41
5 "The Family," by President Henry B. Eyring, Ensign, February 1998, 10
6 For two such examples, see "Search the Prophets," by Elder L. Aldin Porter, Ensign, April 2002, 30; and "Mothers Teaching Children in the Home," by Elder L. Tom Perry, General Conference, April 2010, Ensign, May 2010, 31.  Numerous references to the proclamation as a source of truth and as a guide are continually found in General Conference addresses and other articles prepared for publication (see here).
7 "The Sacred Responsibilities of Parenthood," by Elder M. Russell Ballard, Ensign, March 2006, 26
8 "Fledgling Finches and Family Life," by President Boyd K. Packer, BYU's Campus Education Week, August 18, 2009, available through LDS Church News on August 31, 2009 (online here). 
9 "Children of God, by President Boyd K. Packer,  BYU Women's Conference, May 5, 2006 (available online here).

 

d

Elder Eugene Hansen of the Seventy repeatedly characterized the Proclamation as "modern-day revelation."  So does the Primary program of the Church.

Also, President (then Elder) Eyring characterized the Proclamation this way (emphases added):

Quote

The title of the proclamation on the family reads: “The Family: A Proclamation to the World—The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

Three things about the title are worth our careful reflection. First, the subject: the family. Second, the audience, which is the whole world. And third, those proclaiming it are those we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators. All this means that the family must be of tremendous importance to us, that whatever the proclamation says could help anyone in the world, and that the proclamation fits the Lord’s promise when he said, “Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same” (D&C 1:38).

Before we examine the words of the proclamation, let us note that the proclamation’s title tells us something about how to prepare for the words that follow. We can expect that God won’t just tell us a few interesting things about the family; he will tell us what a family ought to be and why.

FAIR has several more relevant quotes about the Proclamation here.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited April 4, 2016 by smac97

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Are you sure?  See here:

Elder Eugene Hansen of the Seventy repeatedly characterized the Proclamation as "modern-day revelation."  So does the Primary program of the Church.

I would think that some one with more authority than a seventy or a primary program leader would need to declare whether or not it is officially considered to be a revelation. Isn't this the cart leading the horse?

[HappyJackWagon]

If it was a revelation, sure. Canonize it.

However, if it really was the work of a committee, including church lawyers, written to provide the church legal standing in state SSM cases, then, NO. That doesn't sound much like scripture to me.

 

Edited April 4, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[thesometimesaint]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

If it was a revelation, sure. Canonize it.

However, if it really was the work of a committee, including church lawyers, to provide the church legal standing in state SSM cases, then, NO.

 I eagerly await its canonization in October General Conference.

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If it was a revelation, sure. Canonize it.

However, if it really was the work of a committee, including church lawyers, written to provide the church legal standing in state SSM cases, then, NO. That doesn't sound much like scripture to me.

 

The 13 articles of faith weren't given as a revelation, but they were canonized. 

[HappyJackWagon]

12 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

 I eagerly await its canonization in October General Conference.

Why October? Or are you just ready for any time in the next 20 years after all the original participants are gone?

Quote

Gray- The 13 articles of faith weren't given as a revelation, but they were canonized. 

True- but at least they were presumably written (or at least dictated) by the prophet, so that makes more sense than something written by the prophet's attorney. Something can hold value even though it's not canonized but calling a legal document "scripture" is a stretch for me.