Should The Family A Proclamation be canonized in our scriptures?

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Is all doctrinal scripture revelation?

Depends who you ask.

But no, not all scripture is revelation.  That's pretty clear just from reading it.

[VideoGameJunkie]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Depends who you ask.

But no, not all scripture is revelation.  That's pretty clear just from reading it.

If that's the case then I think The Family Proclamation should be added to scripture anyway. I don't know why it hasn't been added yet.

Edited April 4, 2016 by VideoGameJunkie

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, let's take a look at the supposed "unofficial venues" in which the above remarks about the Proclamation were given by members of the Twelve:

• Elder Eyring's remarks about the Proclamation which I cited to above appeared in The Ensign.
• Elder Ballard's remarks about the Proclamation which I cited to above also appeared in The Ensign (in three different articles published years apart, no less).
• Elder Packer's remarks about the Proclamation which I cited to above also appeared in The Ensign, and also were given during a February 2008 "Worldwide Leadership Training Broadcast" officially sponsored by the Church and available on the Church's website.
• Elder Oaks' remarks about the Proclamation which I cited to above were given as part of a "video broadcast of an Evening With a Elder Dallin H. Oaks" sponsored by the Church and available on the Church's website.

And the Church's official statement about the sources of its doctrines which I cited to above also appears on the Church's website.

So let's backtrack a bit:

First, you said that "none" of the Twelve have "claim{ed} that {the Proclamation is} a revelation."  I then provided a few links which included numerous citations to various official Church sources, including a published-in-The-Ensign statement by a Seventy (a not insignificant authority, that), an article published for the Primary Program of the Church, and also a link to a FAIR article which included numerous quotes from various General Authorities, including several members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  These remarks all characterized the Proclamation in ways that contravene your suggestion that "none" of the Twelve have "claim{ed} that {the Proclamation is} a revelation."

Second, you moved the goalposts a bit, stating: "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?"  I then provided the above citations to numerous members of the Twelve repeatedly and emphatically characterizing the Proclamation as "[making] the Lord's position . . . clear."  As "Prophetic."  "Inspired."  "Revelatory."  "Scripturelike."  As being a teaching which "[w]e are responsible to teach [the Proclamation]."  All of these quotes - each and every one - came from the general leadership of the Church and appear on the Church's website and in its official publications.  All of these remarks were also published by these leaders who were speaking in their official capacities in Church-sanctioned articles and venues.

Third, you moved the goal posts again, this time stating that these various and numerous statements by the members of the Twelve and other general leaders of the Church have been merely "hints" that have only been provided in "unofficial venues", and that these GAs did not make these statements "on record in an official capacity."  I have now pointed out that the quotations from the members of the Twelve and from the other leaders all appear in the Church's official publications, and have otherwise been given by the members of the Twelve in their official capacities.

I'm afraid if you move the goalposts again, they'll be standing outside the stadium.

With respect, may I suggest that you reconsider your position regarding how the Brethren have been characterizing the Proclamation.  While I do not dispute that the Brethren have not presented it as canonized scripture, I think there is no legitimate basis for suggesting that they have not presented it as being "revelation."  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Maybe it's a "revelation" in the same way the Book of Abraham is a "translation"?

[6EQUJ5]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

CFR that "the Church was forced to change his words when they went to print."  I do not think that is an accurate statement of the facts.  See here (emphasis added):

It appears that Elder Packer changed the printed form of his remarks.  And there is no indication or evidence that there was compulsion involved.

Thanks,

-Smac

President Packer has authority to speak under the direction of the Holy Spirit to the entire Church.  Scott Trotter does not.  So I'll take President Packer at his word.  The Proclamation is a revelation.  End of story.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

.................................................................................

With respect, may I suggest that you reconsider your position regarding how the Brethren have been characterizing the Proclamation.  While I do not dispute that the Brethren have not presented it as canonized scripture, I think there is no legitimate basis for suggesting that they have not presented it as being "revelation."  

.............................................................................................   

Well, it would have been helpful if they had titled it a "revelation," instead of a "proclamation."  Failure to define the nature of such documents could prove to be of continuing difficulty, along the lines of failure to distinguish among Papal "bull," "decretal," "encyclical," "motu proprio," etc.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

If that's the case then I think The Family Proclamation should be added to scripture anyway. I don't know why it hasn't been added yet.

It hasn't been added to the Canon because the Brethren have not been instructed by God to add it.

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, it would have been helpful if they had titled it a "revelation," instead of a "proclamation."  Failure to define the nature of such documents could prove to be of continuing difficulty, along the lines of failure to distinguish among Papal "bull," "decretal," "encyclical," "motu proprio," etc.

Revelations are only given at firesides.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It hasn't been added to the Canon because the Brethren have not been instructed by God to add it.

Really Robert?  Come on, you're not that by the book and toe the line.

If God spoke it/revealed it AND it was presented to the Church, canonization is hardly something we need additional revelation on.  Christ already provided that when he told us to live by EVERY word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
I don't recall God adding a "don't forget to include this in the scriptures" clause in each of the sections of the D&C or each epistle of Paul.

If man wrote it (even if inspired) then the Church can still vote on canonization under common consent.

Edited April 5, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Johnnie Cake]

21 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

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.

Well if you want to elevate a proclamation built from a legal brief written by Kirton and McConkie them I would say yes it should.   http://www.wheatandtares.org/15370/proclamation-written-by-lawyers/

Edited April 5, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Really Robert?  Come on, you're not that by the book and toe the line.

If God spoke it/revealed it AND it was presented to the Church, canonization is hardly something we need additional revelation on.  Christ already provided that when he told us to live by EVERY word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
I don't recall God adding a "don't forget to include this in the scriptures" clause in each of the sections of the D&C or each epistle of Paul.

If man wrote it (even if inspired) then the Church can still vote on canonization under common consent.

Most D&C sections are specifically labelled "Revelation," and are clearly in the voice of the Lord, a few are labelled "Vision," and one is labelled "The word and will of the Lord."  There are also a couple of Official Declarations.  I have no problem with any of that language, nor with the decision to include this or that item.  I assume that the Brethren were told what to include in the official corpus, as well as what to exclude -- there is a great deal which has never been included, which is fine by me, because I see nothing to be gained by including just anything in the Holy Canon.

[Judd]

Obviously the larger discussion of "what is scripture" is relevant, as we often synonymize scripture with canonization (whether for right or wrong). In any case, the proclamation is rather fascinating to me. As a youth, it meant nothing to me as I scarcely had any real idea what was in it or its significance. Over a decade ago when I started my mission, I thought it was awfully simplistic and didn't think there was a big deal. Over the past decade the content of the proclamation had become very divisive and controversial and many people struggle with it. I can now say without hyperbole that I believe this to be the most prophetic document of the 20th century.

[rodheadlee]

7 hours ago, Gray said:

I was going off of the sources you linked, which appeared to be blogs and wikis. But for example, in Elder Ballard's article he seemed to be saying that they were trying to make the Lord's position clear, not that they received additional revelation on the subject. In other words, the assumption was that existing doctrines on the family represented the Lord's position, and they wanted to put those doctrines in one place and make sure they were clearly understood. 

I don't dispute that the proclamation is doctrinal. But so far no one in authority has declared it a revelation (and there has been no follow-up move to ask members to sustain it as such). 

The world revelatory comes from a training broadcast - not exactly directed at the general membership. And revelatory is not identical to "revelation". When Pres. Packer tried to use that kind of language in addressing the general membership, it was quickly changed, indicating that there is some reluctance to declare the proclamation a revelation. 

So really all we have is innuendo and hints. I'm sure if and when they're ready they won't be shy about declaring it a revelation. 

They were just kidding and they didn't really mean it. It's not like they don't expect you to pray and ask the Holy Spirit to confirm or deny whether this is a true Doctrine. If you look hard enough for ambiguity I'm sure you can find it.

[Bernard Gui]

Contending about its provenance is not productive.

We might be wise to heed these words of Harold B. Lee...

Quote

“We have some tight places to go before the Lord is through with this church and the world in this dispensation, which is the last dispensation, which shall usher in the coming of the Lord. The gospel was restored to prepare a people ready to receive him. The power of Satan will increase; we see it in evidence on every hand. There will be inroads within the Church. … We will see those who profess membership but secretly are plotting and trying to lead people not to follow the leadership that the Lord has set up to preside in this church.

“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. … 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.)” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1970, p. 152.)

 

Edited April 5, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[stemelbow]

It's a revelation in the same sense that the output of the council of nicea is a revelation.  maybe that's the telling part of where we're at these days.

[Gray]

9 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

They were just kidding and they didn't really mean it. It's not like they don't expect you to pray and ask the Holy Spirit to confirm or deny whether this is a true Doctrine. If you look hard enough for ambiguity I'm sure you can find it.

Oh I agree that the proclamation represents official doctrine and all that. But it doesn't seem to have been received by revelation - rather it's a compendium of orthodox views on family and gender that existed at the time it was written. Perhaps those views came about by revelation in some sense, but they don't originate with the proclamation. 

Edited April 5, 2016 by Gray

[rodheadlee]

49 minutes ago, Gray said:

Oh I agree that the proclamation represents official doctrine and all that. But it doesn't seem to have been received by revelation - rather it's a compendium of orthodox views on family and gender that existed at the time it was written. Perhaps those views came about by revelation in some sense, but they don't originate with the proclamation. 

We are pretty much in agreement then. The difference is I believe they are a collection of revelations that are not just generational but eternal.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

We are pretty much in agreement then. The difference is I believe they are a collection of revelations that are not just generational but eternal.

A truth can be eternal but a revelation happens at a specific place in time. A revelation may explain an eternal truth but revelation itself is not eternal.

If the Proclamation is a "collection of revelations" it would be appropriate for the church to footnote the source of those revelations. Otherwise it seems to be as Gray described, a collection of orthodox believe at a given time and place.

I wonder what the Proclamation would have looked like had BY been the president at the time?

[smac97]

15 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Well if you want to elevate a proclamation built from a legal brief written by Kirton and McConkie them I would say yes it should.   http://www.wheatandtares.org/15370/proclamation-written-by-lawyers/

Wow.  A blog entry quoting, but not linking to, a Facebook post claiming that the Proclamation was written by a law firm.  I wonder how many levels of hearsay we would find in this "evidence."  Accepting this "evidence" takes a remarkable amount of faith.  Or, rather, an anti-faith.  An anti-faith rooted in hostility rather than hope.  Ignorance rather than knowledge.

Sad.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bernard Gui]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Wow.  A blog entry quoting, but not linking to, a Facebook post claiming that the Proclamation was written by a law firm.  I wonder how many levels of hearsay we would find in this "evidence."  Accepting this "evidence" takes a remarkable amount of faith.  Or, rather, an anti-faith.  An anti-faith rooted in hostility rather than hope.  Ignorance rather than knowledge.

Sad.

Thanks,

-Smac

An interesting tactic..... find something the prophets have said that one does not like and then dismiss it by questioning their authority to speak about that particular thing.

[cinepro]

12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Contending about its provenance is not productive.

We might be wise to heed these words of Harold B. Lee...

 

So, no pre-Adamites then?

[smac97]

37 minutes ago, cinepro said:

So, no pre-Adamites then?

Hmm.  President Lee's remarks about Pre-Adamites in that article seem rather thoughtful:

Quote

I was somewhat sorrowed recently to hear someone, a sister who comes from a church family, ask, “What about the pre-Adamic people?” Here was someone who I thought was fully grounded in the faith.

I asked. “What about the pre-Adamic people?”

She replied, “Well, aren’t there evidences that people preceded the Adamic period of the earth?”

I said, “Have you forgotten the scripture that says, ‘And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also. …’” (Moses 3:7.) I asked, “Do you believe that?”

She wondered about the creation because she had read the theories of the scientists, and the question that she was really asking was: How do you reconcile science with religion? The answer must be, If science is not true, you cannot reconcile truth with error.

Missionaries going out into the field often ask how we reconcile the teachings of the scriptures with the teachings of the scientists in accordance with the temple ordinances. In reply I occasionally refer to the revelation given to the Prophet Joseph Smith in Kirtland in 1833, concerning the great event that is to take place at the commencement of the millennial reign when the Lord shall come; the Lord said:

“Yea, verily I say unto you, in that day when the Lord shall come, he shall reveal all things—

“Things which have passed, and hidden things which no man knew, things of the earth, by which it was made, and the purpose and the end thereof—

“Things most precious, things that are above, and things that are beneath, things that are in the earth, and upon the earth, and in heaven.” (D&C 101:32–34.)

Then I say, “If you and I are there when the Lord reveals all this, then I’ll answer your questions—how the earth was made, how man came to be placed upon the earth. Until that time till we have is the support and security that we have in the scriptures, and we must accept the rest by faith.”

President Joseph F. Smith said: “Our young people are diligent students. They reach out for truth and knowledge with commendable zeal, and in so doing they must necessarily adopt for temporary use, the theories of men. As long, however, as they recognize them as scaffolding useful for research purposes, there can be no special harm in them. It is when these theories are settled upon as basic truth that trouble appears, and the searcher then stands in grave danger of being led hopelessly from the right way.” (Gospel Doctrine [Deseret Book Co., 1939], p. 38.)

Dr. Henry Eyring, one of our great scientists, in a class that I was privileged to attend some years ago, was asked, “Dr. Eyring, why hasn’t the Lord explained how these things came about?” And he said something to the effect, as I remember—“Well, I suppose it would be like trying to explain the theory of atomic energy to an eight-year-old child. The eight-year-old child couldn’t understand it. Until we come to an understanding, we will have to depend solely upon what the Lord has said.”

Dr. Eyring has written: “I have often met this question: ‘Dr. Eyring, as a scientist, how can you accept revealed religion?’ The answer is simple. The Gospel commits us only to the truth. The same pragmatic tests that apply in science apply to religion.

President Lee states that we presently do not know the specifics and particulars of "how the earth was made" and "how man came to be placed upon the earth."  He also indicates that there will come a day "when the Lord reveals all this," and that meanwhile we should rely on "the support and security that we have in the scriptures" and "accept the rest by faith."  He also quotes President Joseph F. Smith as encouraging the use of "the theories of men" as "scaffolding useful for research purposes," but not necessarily as "settled . . . basic truth."  He also proclaims that "{t}he Gospel commits us only to the truth."

This all sounds like rather sound and sensible counsel.

Thanks,

-Smac

[cinepro]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  President Lee's remarks about Pre-Adamites in that article seem rather thoughtful:

President Lee states that we presently do not know the specifics and particulars of "how the earth was made" and "how man came to be placed upon the earth."  He also indicates that there will come a day "when the Lord reveals all this," and that meanwhile we should rely on "the support and security that we have in the scriptures" and "accept the rest by faith."  He also quotes President Joseph F. Smith as encouraging the use of "the theories of men" as "scaffolding useful for research purposes," but not necessarily as "settled . . . basic truth."  He also proclaims that "{t}he Gospel commits us only to the truth."

This all sounds like rather sound and sensible counsel.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, but that's his way of explaining why there were no pre-Adamites and how to deal with it in light of scientific theories that would say otherwise.  The key point is that even the question "What about the pre-Adamic people?" is enough to call her faith into question!

If there was any chance that there might be pre-Adamites, then the article would have read like this:

 

Quote

 

I was somewhat sorrowed recently to hear someone, a sister who comes from a church family, ask, “What about the pre-Adamic people?” Here was someone who I thought was fully grounded in the faith.

I asked. “What about the pre-Adamic people?”

She replied, “Well, aren’t there evidences that people preceded the Adamic period of the earth?”

I replied, "It's entirely possible that people preceded Adam and Eve.  We just don't know, and we'll rely on God's timetable to reveal that knowledge to us.  Whether there were or not doesn't change anything about the Fall of Adam and the Plan of Salvation."

 

 

Compare that to what he actually said. 

Edited April 5, 2016 by cinepro

[CA Steve]

Recently an apostle mention at a fireside that the policy change regarding members who are in a SSM was the result of a revelation, if I have my story straight. So are we to believe that the policy change is a revelation and the proclamation is not? Or perhaps the question here is one of how a document or statement came about, in that the proclamation may have been a result of a long process which was inspired but not a direct divine command, while the policy change is believed to have been the result of a direct intervention?

 

Just musing here about the process.

[Boanerges]

4 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Recently an apostle mention at a fireside that the policy change regarding members who are in a SSM was the result of a revelation, if I have my story straight. So are we to believe that the policy change is a revelation and the proclamation is not? Or perhaps the question here is one of how a document or statement came about, in that the proclamation may have been a result of a long process which was inspired but not a direct divine command, while the policy change is believed to have been the result of a direct intervention?

 

Just musing here about the process.

Yes, President Nelson, and he alone, did refer to the policy change as a revelation. I don't believe either are a revelation.

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Yes, but that's his way of explaining why there were no pre-Adamites and how to deal with it in light of scientific theories that would say otherwise.  The key point is that even the question "What about the pre-Adamic people?" is enough to call her faith into question!

If there was any chance that there might be pre-Adamites, then the article would have read like this:

 

Compare that to what he actually said. 

I guess we aren't reading his remarks the same way.  First, I don't see that he "explain{ed}" that "there were no pre-Adamites."

Second, he encourages the study and use of scientific thought.

Third, he provides rather sensible counsel for "how we reconcile the teachings of the scriptures with the teachings of the scientists in accordance with the temple ordinances."  I think he does quite a good job.

Fourth, I think Pres. Lee was signaling that the question from the church member came in the context of skepticism, not faith.  The fact that he openly encourages members of the Church to be "diligent students" to "reach out for truth and knowledge with commendable zeal," to "adopt for temporary use, the theories of men," and to commit ourselves "to truth" in both "science" and "religion."  All of this rather strongly suggests that Pres. Lee is not the intellectual luddite you appear to want to characterize him to be.

Fifth, I'm not that interested in armchair quarterbacking vis-à-vis what a prophet should have said.  I think a reasonable, non-hostile, and with-a-seed-of-faith approach to their writings is sufficient.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 5, 2016 by smac97