Should The Family A Proclamation be canonized in our scriptures?

[Gray]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

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.

Yeah, I get that. Of course you could also describe a lot of the OT's laws as legal documents. I guess this brings up the larger question - what is scripture, anyway?

[thesometimesaint]

20 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

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.

October is one of the two yearly General Conference times. As good as any, and better than most, to get a sustaining.

[HappyJackWagon]

40 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

October is one of the two yearly General Conference times. As good as any, and better than most, to get a sustaining.

OK- I just thought it was kind of funny because it sounded like you were expecting it to be eminent. It hasn't happened yet (despite 40+ conferences being held during that time)

[thesometimesaint]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

OK- I just thought it was kind of funny because it sounded like you were expecting it to be eminent. It hasn't happened yet (despite 40+ conferences being held during that time)

I see it as eventually making it Scripture, but personally I want more information before then. Maybe a Proclamation on the Family part B.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

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?

Well, there's Elder Eyring expressly placing it within the ambit of D&C 1:38 ("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'").

And then there's Elder Ballard (who, when describing the drafting of the Proclamation, stated that "the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles ... 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") (emphasis added).  And here: "The proclamation is a prophetic document, not only because it was issued by prophets but because it was ahead of its time" (emphasis added).  And here: "To justify their rejection of God’s immutable laws that protect the family, these false prophets and false teachers even attack the inspired proclamation on the family issued to the world in 1995 by the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles") (emphasis added).

And then there's Elder Packer ("A proclamation in the Church is a significant, major announcement. Very few of them have been issued from the beginning of the Church. They are significant; they are revelatory. At that time, the Brethren issued 'The Family: A Proclamation to the World.' It is scripturelike in its power.") (emphases added).  And here: "In 'The Family: A Proclamation to the World,' an inspired document issued by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, we learn that...." (emphasis added).

And then there's Elder Oaks (This declaration is not politically correct, but it is true, and we are responsible to teach and practice its truth") (emphasis added).

And the Church's official statement on its website (emphasis added): "With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith."

In sum, D&C 1:38 has been invoked in describing the Proclamation.  It has apostolically declared as "[Making] the Lord's position . . . clear."  As "Prophetic."  "Inspired."  "Revelatory."  "Scripturelike."  An "official . . . proclamation" in which "the doctrine [of the Church] resides."  An apostle has declared that "[w]e are responsible to teach [the Proclamation]."

Is that enough horsepower for ya? 

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited April 4, 2016 by smac97

[thesometimesaint]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, there's Elder Eyring expressly placing it within the ambit of D&C 1:38 ("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'").

And then there's Elder Ballard (who, when describing the drafting of the Proclamation, stated that "the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles ... 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") (emphasis added).  And here: "The proclamation is a prophetic document, not only because it was issued by prophets but because it was ahead of its time" (emphasis added).  And here: "To justify their rejection of God’s immutable laws that protect the family, these false prophets and false teachers even attack the inspired proclamation on the family issued to the world in 1995 by the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles") (emphasis added).

And then there's Elder Packer ("A proclamation in the Church is a significant, major announcement. Very few of them have been issued from the beginning of the Church. They are significant; they are revelatory. At that time, the Brethren issued 'The Family: A Proclamation to the World.' It is scripturelike in its power.") (emphases added).  And here: "In 'The Family: A Proclamation to the World,' an inspired document issued by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, we learn that...." (emphasis added).

And then there's Elder Oaks (This declaration is not politically correct, but it is true, and we are responsible to teach and practice its truth") (emphasis added).

 

And the Church's official statement on its website (emphasis added): "With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith."

Is that enough horsepower for ya? 

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Good but not sufficient. Common Consent is needed to make it into Scripture.

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Good but not sufficient. Common Consent is needed to make it into Scripture.

I agree.  But Gray was not speaking about, and I was not responding to, the issue of canonization.  Gray stated: "What makes it a revelation is if they claim that it's a revelation. So far none of them have."  And: "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?"

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Jeanne]

Acceptance of this Proclamation may have to wait.  If the church invites all these children today to participate in the church programs and learning of the Gospel, they need to be baptized.  If they can't be baptized until some denounce their own families, this Family Proclamation will have to change.

[thesometimesaint]

No one is required to be baptized before learning the Gospel.

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Acceptance of this Proclamation may have to wait.  If the church invites all these children today to participate in the church programs and learning of the Gospel, they need to be baptized.  If they can't be baptized until some denounce their own families, this Family Proclamation will have to change.

It would be nice if you accurately represented the Church's position on this issue, and the requirements imposed on children being raised in same-sex parent households (hint: requiring such persons to "denounce their own families" ain't it).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

It would be nice if you accurately represented the Church's position on this issue, and the requirements imposed on children being raised in same-sex parent households (hint: requiring such persons to "denounce their own families" ain't it).

Thanks,

-Smac

I only put it this way because it was mentioned that in conference, the leaders told the congregation to welcome the littles ones and they made no mention of the policy either..I was being careful and thoughtful as I could be in my post.  Yeah..it would be nice if we could all just state what we mean..including the church leadership,.

[thesometimesaint]

Is that really the best you've got? The Leadership didn't say something in just they way you wanted so they were being thoughtless and careless. 

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

  Yeah..it would be nice if we could all just state what we mean..including the church leadership,.

Look at all the different ways posters here have heard what was said at conference.  There is no way to ensure that even infallible writing (which is imo impossible) is going to be understood correctly.  I have no doubt that the leadership believes they are stating what they mean in the best way possible.  And they likely are for a good deal of people.  But they cannot somehow force people to understand it a certain way anymore than you or I can.

Edited April 4, 2016 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

The division into "bad" and "good ideas" is wrong, and merely buys into evanescent culturally determined notions of political correctness (PC).

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.

None of us understands how spiritual and physical embodiment of intelligences can be assigned an eternal gender.  That does not mean that it isn't so, or that it is not a practical reality.  Is temporary, unfair Earthlife deterministic of everything?

....................... The binary division into male and female doesn't acknowledge transgender/intersex individuals.

Why would we assume eternal biological determinism for every human feature, including the full spectrum of gender consciousness and congenital defects?

..................................... 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.)

Adam & Eve are entirely symbolic terms, do refer to mankind as a species, and represent a ritual, dramatic occasion which did take place, and continues to take place -- having nothing to do with culturally determined incest rules.

.............................. 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?

Nor does the U.S. Constitution refer to modern biological technology, which is irrelevant, since it can be accommodated to modern demands, and homosexuals certainly have the same rights that polygynists may have, and for the same reasons -- as temporal, civil considerations only.

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. 

Nonsense, the final authority is the Holy Spirit, whose gender is masculine.  Temporary cultural patterns may not be applicable in the sweet bye and bye, and our politically correct opinions do not carry much weight in the eternities.

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'............................

In fact the biblical text says "gods," and we need to understand and emphasize that.

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.

Are you telling us that the Relief Society General Board (and other women) were definitely not consulted?

 

Edited April 4, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[cinepro]

I suspect they're being prudent, considering what happened the last time we canonized a statement on marriage.

[Jeanne]

21 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Is that really the best you've got? The Leadership didn't say something in just they way you wanted so they were being thoughtless and careless. 

Not at all!  I simply put things the way they did.  Actually, I was hoping for a clarification of this in conference.  I expected them to claim this policy as a revelation.

[Gray]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, there's Elder Eyring expressly placing it within the ambit of D&C 1:38 ("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'").

And then there's Elder Ballard (who, when describing the drafting of the Proclamation, stated that "the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles ... 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") (emphasis added).  And here: "The proclamation is a prophetic document, not only because it was issued by prophets but because it was ahead of its time" (emphasis added).  And here: "To justify their rejection of God’s immutable laws that protect the family, these false prophets and false teachers even attack the inspired proclamation on the family issued to the world in 1995 by the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles") (emphasis added).

And then there's Elder Packer ("A proclamation in the Church is a significant, major announcement. Very few of them have been issued from the beginning of the Church. They are significant; they are revelatory. At that time, the Brethren issued 'The Family: A Proclamation to the World.' It is scripturelike in its power.") (emphases added).  And here: "In 'The Family: A Proclamation to the World,' an inspired document issued by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, we learn that...." (emphasis added).

And then there's Elder Oaks (This declaration is not politically correct, but it is true, and we are responsible to teach and practice its truth") (emphasis added).

And the Church's official statement on its website (emphasis added): "With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith."

In sum, D&C 1:38 has been invoked in describing the Proclamation.  It has apostolically declared as "[Making] the Lord's position . . . clear."  As "Prophetic."  "Inspired."  "Revelatory."  "Scripturelike."  An "official . . . proclamation" in which "the doctrine [of the Church] resides."  An apostle has declared that "[w]e are responsible to teach [the Proclamation]."

Is that enough horsepower for ya? 

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Thanks for assembling that Smac. It seems that in unofficial venues you can find some members of the quorum making hints that it was some kind of revelation, but no one seems to be willing to go on record in an official capacity to clearly say so.

[theplains]

5 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

President Packer declared it a revelation but the Church was forced to change his words when they went to print.

How were the words changed?

Thanks,
Jim

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Thanks for assembling that Smac. It seems that in unofficial venues you can find some members of the quorum making hints that it was some kind of revelation, but no one seems to be willing to go on record in an official capacity to clearly say so.

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

 

Edited April 4, 2016 by smac97

[smac97]

6 hours 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.

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):

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   

In response to these circumstances, Scott Trotter, an LDS  church spokesman, stated that "the Monday following every general conference, each speaker has the opportunity to make any edits necessary to clarify differences between what was written and what was delivered or to clarify the speaker's intent.  President Packer has simply clarified his intent."2

___

1 See ABC News discussion of the matter here.
2 Deseret News, October 8, 2010 (available online here).

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

[VideoGameJunkie]

I think The Family should be canonized to further show the Church's position on the correct order of marriage, especially nowadays with SSM being legal in every state.

[Gray]

34 minutes 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

 

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. 

[HappyJackWagon]

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

I suspect they're being prudent, considering what happened the last time we canonized a statement on marriage.

Best line of the day!!

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

Maybe they should have just have filmed him redelivering an edited and corrected talk in the conference center with a new "audience" and pretend the first one never happened.
It worked before...

[VideoGameJunkie]

Is all doctrinal scripture revelation?