Should The Family A Proclamation be canonized in our scriptures?

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours 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

I've quoted this before, but FairMormon has this regarding the origen of the proclamation:
 

Quote

 

President Boyd K. Packer described the circumstances behind issuing 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]

The intention, then, was to proclaim the Church's official position on these matters.

 

This narrative about it having been drafted by a law firm for litigation purposes, if it has any truth at all, may be an instance of the sort of thing illustrated by the poem about the six blind men of Indostan who encountered an elephant, and, each man feeling only a portion of the elephant, said that the beast was very like a spear, or a snake, or a rope, or a leaf, or whatever part of the elephant they were feeling at the time.

Yet it is becoming the entrenched narrative among the crowd who don't like the proclamation and the importance that is attached to it.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Damien the Leper]

Nevermind.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Valentinus

[Jeanne]

Trying to get an absolute revelation since 1978 is like pulling teeth.  Slow and painful.

[Scott Lloyd]

While looking up the FairMormon article I cited in my last post, I came across a cross reference to this entry in FairMormon Answers.

It shows that the principles reiterated and reaffirmed in "The Family" a Proclamation to the World" had long been taught in the scriptures and the inspired teachings the anointed servants of God.

(Pardon me if this has already been cited; I haven't read through this entire thread.)

[Johnnie Cake]

5 hours 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

The blog post links to the amicus brief...or didn't you bother to check that out.  Sorry I was using my ipad at the time and well we know how difficult apple can be right?

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

The blog post links to the amicus brief...or didn't you bother to check that out.  Sorry I was using my ipad at the time and well we know how difficult apple can be right?

The amicus brief that was filed in Hawai'i in April 1997?  Two years after the Proclamation was promulgated by the Church?   The brief that was filed on behalf of the Church so it could articulate its position on marriage?  This, in your view, is evidence that the Proclamation was written by a law firm?

The comments section of the blog entry also reference Lynn Wardle or Richard Wilkins (law professors at BYU) as the principal author of the brief, but I've seen no competent, probative evidence of that, either.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Johnnie Cake]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The amicus brief that was filed in Hawai'i in April 1997?  Two years after the Proclamation was promulgated by the Church?   The brief that was filed on behalf of the Church so it could articulate its position on marriage?  This, in your view, is evidence that the Proclamation was written by a law firm?

The comments section of the blog entry also reference Lynn Wardle or Richard Wilkins (law professors at BYU) as the principal author of the brief, but I've seen no competent, probative evidence of that, either.

Thanks,

-Smac

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

Well how about some hearsay then...I'm sure that will convince you:  Todd Compton's mother-in-law, an attorney herself claims that someone named Richard Wilkins was the actual author of the Proclamation and Kirton-McConkie did the final revisions.  And yes it was then put into the Hawaiian amicus brief.  another interesting read is Compton's Wife's Laura's time line of how it came about
 

[consiglieri]

40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The amicus brief that was filed in Hawai'i in April 1997?  Two years after the Proclamation was promulgated by the Church?   The brief that was filed on behalf of the Church so it could articulate its position on marriage?  This, in your view, is evidence that the Proclamation was written by a law firm?

 

Hello, McFly!

Of course the amicus brief was filed after the Proclamation was promulgated.

The Proclamation was written in order to give the LDS Church standing to file an amicus brief.

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

 

From Amici to ’Ohana: The Hawaiian Roots of the Family Proclamation

by Laura Compton | May 15, 2015 | Family, Featured, History, Homosexuality, Mormonism | 15 comments

“Sherman, set the Wayback Machine to September 3, 1991; location, Honolulu, Hawaii, where a local court is hearing the state’s first same-sex marriage case, Baehr v. Lewin.”

As we join Mr. Peabody and Sherman on their journey back in time, we remind ourselves what was happening in the Mormon American West in the early 1990s. Ezra Taft Benson was the prophet and titular leader of the LDS Church, but he was in ill health, to say the least. First Counselor Gordon B. Hinckley was the public spokesman in many places (a supportive role he continued throughout successor Howard W. Hunter’s administration until he became the new president of the Church on March 12, 1995). Boyd K. Packer was the Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles since Hinckley was serving in the First Presidency rather than the larger quorum. President Packer and Spencer W. Kimball had regularly addressed the Church at large regarding issues related to gender roles, sexuality, family values, and chastity.

Our trip in time will help us to understand the context for the creation of the LDS Proclamation on the Family. While there were other places dealing with same-sex marriage and gay rights at the time, notably Colorado and Alaska, Hawaii’s issues were pivotal. Perhaps our historical insights will make a difference in how we view the document.

After September’s arguments in Baehr v. Lewin, it is only a couple of weeks before the ruling is issued. In early October 1991, Hawaii’s Regional Representative Donald L. Hallstrom picks up a newspaper to read that the first same-sex marriage case in the state has been decided. The verdict: Case dismissed for, among other things, failing to state a relievable claim, and the couples appeal to the state’s supreme court. If Hawaii’s highest court takes the case, same-sex marriage could come to Hawaii. Hallstrom makes sure his priesthood leaders are aware of the situation.

Despite the flurry of activity surrounding October’s General Conference and the illness of President Benson, within weeks the First Presidency still comes up with a letter addressing homosexuality. On November 14, 1991, their letter titled “Standards of Morality and Fidelity” reads in part:

We call upon members to renew their commitment to live the Lord’s standard of moral conduct. Parents should teach their children the sacred nature of procreative powers and instill in them a desire to be chaste in thought and deed. A correct understanding of the divinely appointed roles of men and women will fortify all against sinful practices. Our only real safety, physically and spiritually, lies in keeping the Lord’s commandments.

The Lord’s law of moral conduct is abstinence outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage. Any other sexual contact, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior, is sinful. Those who persist in such practices or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline.

Justices heard the case in October 1992, and the appellate ruling came down on May 1993: If the government planned to prevent same-sex marriages, it needed a compelling reason to do so. Otherwise, limiting who one may marry is sex-based discrimination, which is unconstitutional in Hawaii. The high court sent the case back to the trial court for review using the higher court’s guidelines, which gave the legislature time to take action during its next session in January 1994.

Legislatively, Mormons and Catholics worked to influence the outcome of bills aimed at keeping marriage between a man and a woman by providing expert testimony, hiring lobbyists and reviewing legislation, and generally working behind the scenes and out of spotlights.

Publicly, the First Presidency issued another letter dated February 1, 1994, presaging the language that would be found in the Proclamation on the Family. An excerpt from this letter appeared in the Church Handbook of Instructions beginning in 1998 and remained there until its 2010 revision:

Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God to fulfill the eternal destiny of His children. The union of husband and wife assures perpetuation of the race and provides a divinely ordained setting for the nurturing and teaching of children. This sacred family setting, with father and mother and children firmly committed to each other and to righteous living, offers the best hope for avoiding many of the ills that afflict society.

We encourage members to appeal to legislators, judges, and other government officials to preserve the purposes and sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, and to reject all efforts to give legal authorization or other official approval or support to marriages between persons of the same gender.

After another year of working with legislators, attorneys and others in Hawaii, in February 1995, the Church announced it had decided to file a petition to intervene in the Baehr case in order to “protect freedom of religion to solemnize marriages between a man and a woman under Hawaiian law.” Elder Hallstrom reinforced the importance of this move by the church, saying “There are times when certain moral issues become so compelling that the churches have a duty to make their feelings known.” The trial court eventually rejected the petition on grounds that the church had failed to demonstrate it had any “property or transaction” in the case at hand, and the Supreme Court upheld that decision.¹

Over on the Mainland, an ailing President Howard W. Hunter died. He’d served as LDS president from the time Benson died in May 1994 until March 3rd, 1995. On March 12, 1995, Gordon B. Hinckley became the president of the Church. It was still less than one month after the announcement that the Church would be intervening in the Baehr case, but before the petition to intervene was denied. Priesthood leaders were hearing reports from Hawaii about the progress of same-sex marriage cases and Area President Loren C. Dunn prepared to fly out to Hawaii and begin gathering a coalition together in the Fall.

Two weeks before the October 1995 General Conference, President Hinckley met with the General Relief Society presidency to discuss their plans for their general meeting that would be held the last Saturday in September. At that time, he informed President Elaine Jack and her counselors Aileen Clyde and Chieko Okazaki that he had a Proclamation on the Family that he was going to introduce at conference and that during the course of their meeting, he had decided that he would like to make it public during the Relief Society meeting. He also asked the General Relief Society presidency to adjust the focus of their remarks so that they would address the idea of “traditional families” rather than the diversity curriculum they had previously prepared. The audio is not strong in this video, but it is a recording of Aileen Clyde speaking at a women’s conference at Claremont Graduate University in 2011, telling this story.

Sister Okazaki also discussed how the General Relief Society presidency learned about the Proclamation when she sat down with Greg Prince in November, 2005.  Prince captured that interview in the Spring 2012 issue of Dialogue . As she recalled,

n 1995 when “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” was written, the Relief Society presidency was asked to come to a meeting. We did, and they read this proclamation. It was all finished. The only question was whether they should present it at the priesthood meeting or at the Relief Society meeting. It didn’t matter to me where it was presented. What I wanted to know was, “How come we weren’t consulted?”…

They just asked us which meeting to present it in, and we said, “Whatever President Hinckley decides is fine with us.” He decided to do it at the Relief Society meeting. The apostle who was our liaison said, “Isn’t it wonderful that he made the choice to present it at the Relief Society meeting?” Well, that was fine, but as I read it I thought that we could have made a few changes in it.

Sometimes I think they get so busy that they forget that we are there. (p. 136)

Back in Hawaii, legal work surrounding the Baehr case continued. This time, it was Baehr v. Miike and over the summer both the LDS Church and its political organization Hawaii’s Future Today filed amicus briefs for the lower court to consider. The lower court heard the case on September 10, 1996 and issued its ruling on December 3, 1996, finding that same-sex couples were entitled to receive marriage licenses.

The case was again appealed to Hawaii’s Supreme Court and this time, on April 14, 1997, theLDS Church filed an amicus brief². In this brief, the Church cited the Proclamation on the Family as evidence of the centrality of tradition marriage in Mormon doctrine and practice for the first time. One of the requirements for filing an amicus curiae, or “friend of the court” brief is that the petitioner submitting the brief must present to the court valid reasons why the court should allow the petitioner, who is not a party to the case, to be heard on the matter. Conveniently, the Proclamation ties all of the major family-related policies and teachings together in one place, making it easy to include as an exhibit in a legal brief. Two decades later, it has become quasi-scriptural for many Mormons, further confirming the notion that, as it proclaims, “the family is central” not only to “the Creator’s plans” but also to Mormon religious beliefs and practices as well.

In 1998, Hawaii’s legislature passed a constitutional amendment exempting same-sex marriage from sexual discrimination and noting that marriage in Hawaii would be between one man and one woman. LDS and Catholic lobbyists and political groups, working together under the banner Save Traditional Marriage ’98 (which grew out of the group, Hawaii’s Future Today, organized in late 1995) were influential in getting both the legal language and the grass-roots support for the amendment. When the Baehr appeal was finally heard again in 1999, same-sex marriage was found unconstitutional in Hawaii, and it remained so until December 2013.

The Proclamation on the Family began its national political role when it was read into the official records of the U.S. House of Representatives on November 17, 1995, four days after President Hinckley met with U.S. President Bill Clinton. It has been used in dozens of court cases, legislative sessions, hearings, and conventions in the United States and around the world wherever issues of same-sex marriage, gender roles, abortion, family values, or Defense of Marriage Acts have been brought up.

---

 

1 The trial court’s decision came in April 1995 and the Supreme Court upheld that position in its January, 1996 ruling.

2 Hawaii’s Future Today, the political group led by Mormons and Catholics, also submitted an amicus brief in this case on March 17, 1997 and on May 12, 1997, Utah joined an amicus brief filed by 11 other states as well.

 

[Guest]

On April 4, 2016 at 1:35 AM, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

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) :  

Truth is not fair or unfair, it is simply truth. Disagreeing with the truth is not a basis for discarding it. As far as your comment, "They'd certainly lie you to think so", are you suggesting that you know it is not? 

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Well how about some hearsay then...I'm sure that will convince you:  Todd Compton's mother-in-law, an attorney herself claims that someone named Richard Wilkins was the actual author of the Proclamation and Kirton-McConkie did the final revisions.  And yes it was then put into the Hawaiian amicus brief.  another interesting read is Compton's Wife's Laura's time line of how it came about
 

So we have you telling us that Todd Compton's mother-in-law claims that Richard Wilkins was the actual author of the Proclamation.  That's what . . . triple hearsay?  Or would it be double hearsay based on speculation/conjecture?  

Who is Todd Compton's mother-in-law?  Where has she made this claim?  How did she find out Richard Wilkins was the author of the Proclamation?  Was she a percipient witness?  And what about Lynn Wardle?

As for Laura Compton's timeline, I assume you are referencing this one.  It provides no insights as to the allegaiton that Kirton & McConkie and/or Richard Wilkins and/or Lynn Wardle wrote the Proclamation.

I've still not seen any competent, probative evidence of your claim.  I'm becoming less impressed with it as we go along.  This guy appears pretty anxious to get information about who wrote it, even going so far as to openly solicit "whispered rumors from the Church Office Building."  A commenter thereafter obliges and asserts - without evidence - that he has "good reason to believe" that "the original document was written by an outside source (i.e. lawyer) and then the 15 Brethren revised it to their standards."  Another guy ("Nigel") asserts - again, without evidence - that he "had {conversations} with some individuals connected to project (who {he} cannot name) suggest (and {he} cannot confirm this) that LDS legal team was involved in the process for a significant time leading up to the final version going to press."

This guy asserts, without evidence, that the Proclamation "was written by a committee of Seventies, headed by an Apostle" that it "was never received as a revelation."  He presents no evidence whatsoever in support of this claim.  But I suppose we must accept it because A) it's on the Internet, and B) it's written by a guy named "Loyd."

My cursory review of various online discussions in forums decidedly hostile to the LDS Church yield pretty much the same sort of pablum.  Lots of assertions.  Lots of speculation.  But no evidence.

So your assertion takes a remarkable amount of faith.  Or, rather, an anti-faith.  An anti-faith rooted in hostility rather than hope.  Ignorance rather than knowledge.  Desperation rather than inspiration.  Sad.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 5, 2016 by smac97

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Hello, McFly!

Of course the amicus brief was filed after the Proclamation was promulgated.

The Proclamation was written in order to give the LDS Church standing to file an amicus brief.

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

I am interested in evaluating the assertion that the Proclamation was written by a law firm.  I have yet to see any evidence of that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Russell C McGregor]

On ‎04‎/‎04‎/‎2016 at 2:06 AM, 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 he was "forced" to do anything.

 

[Russell C McGregor]

22 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/

So you imagine that speculation based upon rumour rises to the level of documentation of a claim, is that it?

Here's the bottom line: the popular anti-Mormon claim that the Proclamation was written by lawyers is baseless and unsupported.

Live with it.

 

[VideoGameJunkie]

I wrote the Proclamation. I was only 9 years old, but I felt it was necessary. Lawyers didn't write it.

[JLHPROF]

50 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

So you imagine that speculation based upon rumour rises to the level of documentation of a claim, is that it?

Here's the bottom line: the popular anti-Mormon claim that the Proclamation was written by lawyers is baseless and unsupported.

Live with it.

 

 

22 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I wrote the Proclamation. I was only 9 years old, but I felt it was necessary. Lawyers didn't write it.

Sounds like all the debate over who wrote the Manifesto that has been going around for decades.
And yet it got canonized...

Edited April 6, 2016 by JLHPROF

[6EQUJ5]

3 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

CFR that he was "forced" to do anything.

 

I have already answered that CFR.  I sustain(ed) Elder Packer as a prophet who spoke under the influence of the Holy Spirit.  The Spirit doesn't need to be "fixed in post production."

[Russell C McGregor]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am interested in evaluating the assertion that the Proclamation was written by a law firm.  I have yet to see any evidence of that.

Thanks,

-Smac

That's because there isn't any. IMHO, this meme has flourished because it's become a kind of anti-Mormon shibboleth.

 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

That's because there isn't any. IMHO, this meme has flourished because it's become a kind of anti-Mormon shibboleth.

 

Yep.  At one point I was going to say something like "It's too bad the critics who espouse this idea are unable to exercise that sort of faith in favor of the Church's claims," but then I realized that the sort of faith exhibited by our critics in espousing this sort of dreck is blind.  Ignorant.  Desperate.  Sad.

If you choose not to accept the truth claims of the LDS Church, I can respect that.  But to pursue that disbelief to the point of espousing unsubstantiated fabrications . . . that just ain't cool.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am interested in evaluating the assertion that the Proclamation was written by a law firm.  I have yet to see any evidence of that.

Thanks,

-Smac

And contrast it with the account given by the late President Boyd K. Packer, one who was a signatory to the issuance of the proclamation:

 

Quote

 

President Boyd K. Packer described the circumstances behind issuing 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]

The intention, then, was to proclaim the Church's official position on these matters.

 

 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And contrast it with the account given by the late President Boyd K. Packer, one who was a signatory to the issuance of the proclamation:

Scott, you dunderhead.  Don't you know that anonymous online speculation will always be more probative than testimony from a first-hand percipient witness when that witness is a Mormon?

-Smac

[smac97]

7 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Trying to get an absolute revelation since 1978 is like pulling teeth.  Slow and painful.

What is an "absolute revelation?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[cinepro]

10 hours ago, smac97 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."

 

Just so I'm clear, are you saying you believe that President Lee may have been open to the idea of pre-Adamites?

Again, here's the exchange:

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.

=============================================

And if we hear someone teaching something that is contrary to what is in the scriptures, each of us may know whether the things spoken are false—it is as simple as that. But the unfortunate thing is that so many of us are not reading the scriptures. We do not know what is in them, and therefore we speculate about the things that we ought to have found in the scriptures themselves. I think that therein is one of our biggest dangers of today.[/quote]
 

 

The question about the pre-Adamites was an example of "something that is contrary to what is in the scriptures".  That's why he was disappointed; not because of the way the woman asked the question.  And that's why he answered by quoting the scriptures (instead of simply saying "Yes, there were probably pre-Adamites"). 

The story of the woman asking the question is used to illustrate the point of the talk: that the woman would have known there were no pre-Adamites if she had simply read the scriptures.   He isn't promoting a pro-science methodology.

Edited April 6, 2016 by cinepro

[Bernard Gui]

13 hours ago, cinepro said:

So, no pre-Adamites then?

Red herring much?

[cinepro]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Red herring much?

No, just pointing out that everyone believes we should give faith and adherence to all the utterances of our leaders that they agree with.  Once the leaders say something they don't agree with, it suddenly becomes "fallible leaders...they meant something else...it wasn't a core doctrine!" and so on.

[Jeanne]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

What is an "absolute revelation?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Anything that comes directly from the Prophet, from the pulpit, and stated as such.