Dan Peterson on the family proclamation

[Scott Lloyd]

Daniel C. Peterson, arguably today's best-know Mormonism apologist, is an erstwhile contributor to this message board.

These days, he writes a blog called Sic et Non.

Once in a great while he will write something there that matches my own view so precisely that I can't resist pasting it over here.

In this case, it is a very brief remark about the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles document, "The Family: a Proclamation to the World."

Quote

 

The Church’s “Proclamation on the Family” (as it’s commonly but not quite accurately known) was briefly mentioned in Sunday school today.  And I found myself thinking about how radically things have changed since that document was first published in September 1995.  Much of what it said seemed so obvious and uncontroversial then that some actually wondered what the point was of saying it.

 

Now, though, we understand.

 

So many seemingly obvious and uncontroversial things have now become matters of bitter controversy, while those who continue to think them obviously true are marginalized as haters and bigots.

 

The Church positioned itself on certain fundamental issues before they became controversial.  That’s prophetic leadership.  Some absolutely loathe it.  Which doesn’t prove the document true or accurate, but such a reaction is certainly consistent with prophetic history.

 

A a preamble to that post, Dr. Peterson cited this passage of scripture:

Quote

“And it came to pass at the seventh time, that he said, Behold, there ariseth a little cloud out of the sea, like a man’s hand. And he said, Go up, say unto Ahab, Prepare thy chariot, and get thee down that the rain stop thee not.”  (1 Kings 18:44)

And critics charge that today's prophets and apostles don't make prophetic utterances.

See the quotes from President Nelson and Elder Andersen in my sig line.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Quote

Some absolutely loathe it.  Which doesn’t prove the document true or accurate, but such a reaction is certainly consistent with prophetic history.

I was thinking this very thought last night as I was reading the end of Ether 7: 'And it came to pass that the people did revile against the prophets, and did mock them'. As the Lord himself testified, it has always been thus: 'Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you'.

34 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And critics charge that today's prophets and apostles don't make prophetic utterances.

'He that hath ears to hear' ...

Edited May 17, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[Bernard Gui]

34 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Daniel C. Peterson, arguably today's best-know Mormonism apologist, is an erstwhile contributor to this message board.

These days, he writes a blog called Sic et Non.

Once in a great while he will write something there that matches my own view so precisely that I can't resist pasting it over here.

In this case, it is a very brief remark about the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles document, "The Family: a Proclamation to the World."

A a preamble to that post, Dr. Peterson cited this passage of scripture:

And critics charge that today's prophets and apostles don't make prophetic utterances.

See the quotes from President Nelson and Elder Andersen in my sig line.

Just last week Sister GUI said almost exactly the same thing, and we had a lengthy discussion about it. Thanks for sharing this.

 

[TheSkepticChristian]

57 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

while those who continue to think them obviously true are marginalized as haters and bigots.

Dr. Peterson also name-calls and demonizes people that disagree with him. He once said that BYU students are apostates for supporting a presidential candidate he doesn't like. They are not mad at the Family Proclamation, they are mad because conservatives don't want our secular government legalize and recognize SSM.  

57 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And critics charge that today's prophets and apostles don't make prophetic utterances.

Many in the early 1980s predicted gay marriage was going to be accepted someday, including that same presidential candidate the Dr. Peterson doesn't like. 
I am not impressed with your argument. Also, our LDS prophets never predicted the legalization of gay marriage. 

57 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Once in a great while he will write something there that matches my own view so precisely that I can't resist pasting it over here.

I think God wants us to share all gospel principles, we know that our church doesn't agree with gay marriage. 

Edited May 17, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Thinking]

Quote

Much of what it said seemed so obvious and uncontroversial then that some actually wondered what the point was of saying it.

Now, though, we understand.

So many seemingly obvious and uncontroversial things have now become matters of bitter controversy, while those who continue to think them obviously true are marginalized as haters and bigots.

The Church positioned itself on certain fundamental issues before they became controversial.  That’s prophetic leadership.  Some absolutely loathe it.  Which doesn’t prove the document true or accurate, but such a reaction is certainly consistent with prophetic history.

Please don't insult our intelligence by claiming that there was no controversy before 1995. It was starting to pick up steam, which is why Utah Governor Mike Leavitt signed into law H.B. 366 on March 1, 1995, six months before the Proclamation was released.

Gay Marriage Timeline

[TheSkepticChristian]

4 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Please don't insult our intelligence by claiming that there was no controversy before 1995. It was starting to pick up steam, which is why Utah Governor Mike Leavitt signed into law H.B. 366 on March 1, 1995, six months before the Proclamation was released.

Gay Marriage Timeline

Exactly, I also wonder why our scriptures (Book of Mormon, D&C, New Testament) that were written for our time (written for us) never warn us about "evil" gay marriage. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

15 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Exactly, I also wonder why our scriptures (Book of Mormon, D&C, New Testament) that were written for our time (written for us) never warn us about "evil" gay marriage. 

Er, for the exact same reason our scriptures never warn us about the evils of crystal meth ...

Edited May 17, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[Bernard Gui]

36 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Exactly, I also wonder why our scriptures (Book of Mormon, D&C, New Testament) that were written for our time (written for us) never warn us about "evil" gay marriage. 

This fills the bill quite well:  https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/28?lang=eng

Edited May 17, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

36 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Please don't insult our intelligence by claiming that there was no controversy before 1995. It was starting to pick up steam, which is why Utah Governor Mike Leavitt signed into law H.B. 366 on March 1, 1995, six months before the Proclamation was released.

Gay Marriage Timeline

An excellent documentation of the destruction of the social and religious institutions of marriage.

[Damien the Leper]

Meh...nothing to get excited or write home about or chronicle in a silly journal. Same ole, same ole.

[Bobbieaware]

4 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Exactly, I also wonder why our scriptures (Book of Mormon, D&C, New Testament) that were written for our time (written for us) never warn us about "evil" gay marriage. 

Is the following prophetic utterance prescient and specific enough for you?

Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord.

 25 And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;

 26 First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not know me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord. (D&C 112)

[CV75]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And critics charge that today's prophets and apostles don't make prophetic utterances.

Except it doesn't mention cake and bathrooms! So it is WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

[TheSkepticChristian]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

This fills the bill quite well:  https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/28?lang=eng

Listen dude, the Book of Mormon, D&C, New Testament specifically warn us about adultery, wars, disease, corruption, and many other subjects. 

However, they never mention evil gay marriage. 

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Except it doesn't mention cake and bathrooms! So it is WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

Religious conservatives are very worried that a man enters a restroom when a little girl is using it, and I understand their concerns.  

However, they ignore the fact that most pedophiles like both boys and girls, so how come they never say anything about separating (making separate restrooms for) adults and children? 

and how in the world are we suppose to know who enters a restroom? 

Edited May 17, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[stemelbow]

Dr. Peterson:

Quote

The Church positioned itself on certain fundamental issues before they became controversial.  That’s prophetic leadership.  Some absolutely loathe it.  Which doesn’t prove the document true or accurate, but such a reaction is certainly consistent with prophetic history.

I agree.  It really doesn't say anything about true or accurate and I think that's the big issue for readers of it.  But it's much like the whole issue of race.  Early on it was not really controversial or difficult to accept the inferiority of race because of the times and traditions that had huge impacts on the Church and it's practices.  Over time, and granted it was a long time, it was seen as impractical and stupid.  Soon the practice was changed.  So we're kind stuck when it comes to the Proclamation.  We can say to our hearts content that prophetic utterances are the best and good.  But then we know such utterances can be problematic too.  How do we proceed but with caution?  I see this as no different.  The Proclamation may very well carry with it problematic parts and pieces and some people may be right on target in eschewing those parts and pieces.  the rest of the Church may not realize it until many years down the road--or we could say many of the elect may be deceived. 

I guess we could say, sadly, that's the issue we have to face in this world.  We can say live by faith, but with that we have to accept that means we are living by uncertainty.  Instead of seeing it as sad or bad we should accept that that's the case and deal with it.  I fear too often in the Church we're expected to take the uncertain and pretend certain because we want to wage battles against others.  I'm personally not fond of this approach.

Edited May 17, 2016 by stemelbow

[Storm Rider]

29 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Dr. Peterson:

I agree.  It really doesn't say anything about true or accurate and I think that's the big issue for readers of it.  But it's much like the whole issue of race.  Early on it was not really controversial or difficult to accept the inferiority of race because of the times and traditions that had huge impacts on the Church and it's practices.  Over time, and granted it was a long time, it was seen as impractical and stupid.  Soon the practice was changed.  So we're kind stuck when it comes to the Proclamation.  We can say to our hearts content that prophetic utterances are the best and good.  But then we know such utterances can be problematic too.  How do we proceed but with caution?  I see this as no different.  The Proclamation may very well carry with it problematic parts and pieces and some people may be right on target in eschewing those parts and pieces.  the rest of the Church may not realize it until many years down the road--or we could say many of the elect may be deceived. 

I guess we could say, sadly, that's the issue we have to face in this world.  We can say live by faith, but with that we have to accept that means we are living by uncertainty.  Instead of seeing it as sad or bad we should accept that that's the case and deal with it.  I fear too often in the Church we're expected to take the uncertain and pretend certain because we want to wage battles against others.  I'm personally not fond of this approach.

Boy, there are so many leaps of logic here that it is hard to begin, but let's have a go:

• "We want to wage battles against others."  Can you support this with any references or facts?  You are creating an assumption in order to meet your own desired conclusion.
• Go back to the definition of faith found in Heb 11:1 -  "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."  This is what a disciple of Christ uses to define and support his faith.  Let's call this a positive approach to life.  All you have done is take the reverse of it - "we are living by uncertainty".  Faith is hoping for; it is not living by sure knowledge.  A person with faith knows of the uncertainty, but based upon the actions of the Holy Ghost has faith to put aside the uncertainty and doubt.  A person of no faith is overcome by doubts and uncertainties - his life is built upon sand and lives in fear - fear of not knowing anything right or wrong.
• Faith is anything but "sad".  I have never felt sad being faithful.  I have felt sad living without faith, a life of indecision, of not knowing the difference between right or wrong.  
• Some choose to live by uncertainty and others choose to live by faith based upon the witness of the Holy Spirit.  It is certain, it is true.  Alma said it best in Alma 32:21 - "And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true."

We either choose to live by guidance of the Holy Spirit or not.  That is the touchstone for any disciple of Christ.  If you are not a disciple of Christ and do not seek to be such then there is no touchstone.  

If a disciple is wage a battle it is against his own carnal, selfish desires.  The Church teaches this as something we need to do.  Waging battle against other people is a figment of your imagination and has no basis in reality. 

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Dr. Peterson also name-calls and demonizes people that disagree with him. He once said that BYU students are apostates for supporting a presidential candidate he doesn't like. They are not mad at the Family Proclamation, they are mad because conservatives don't want our secular government legalize and recognize SSM.

I know Dan well and have never heard him name-call or demonize (except as a  joke).  Perhaps you could quote him by source so that I can call him to account for that bad behavior.  You may have missed the difference between tolerating misbehavior of that kind, on the one hand (which the LDS Church does), or actively supporting it on the other.  I should have thought that Articles of Faith 11 & 12 put all that in proper context, or do you not agree?

Many in the early 1980s predicted gay marriage was going to be accepted someday, including that same presidential candidate the Dr. Peterson doesn't like. 
............................................., our LDS prophets never predicted the legalization of gay marriage. 

You may have missed Dan's point that the Proclamation on the Family was a virtual prediction of just that and other behaviors.

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

 

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Waging battle against other people is a figment of your imagination and has no basis in reality. 

You must be new to this board. 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Dr. Peterson:

I agree.  It really doesn't say anything about true or accurate and I think that's the big issue for readers of it.  But it's much like the whole issue of race.  Early on it was not really controversial or difficult to accept the inferiority of race because of the times and traditions that had huge impacts on the Church and it's practices.  Over time, and granted it was a long time, it was seen as impractical and stupid.  Soon the practice was changed.  So we're kind stuck when it comes to the Proclamation.  We can say to our hearts content that prophetic utterances are the best and good.  But then we know such utterances can be problematic too.  How do we proceed but with caution?  I see this as no different.  The Proclamation may very well carry with it problematic parts and pieces and some people may be right on target in eschewing those parts and pieces.  the rest of the Church may not realize it until many years down the road--or we could say many of the elect may be deceived. 

I guess we could say, sadly, that's the issue we have to face in this world.  We can say live by faith, but with that we have to accept that means we are living by uncertainty.  Instead of seeing it as sad or bad we should accept that that's the case and deal with it.  I fear too often in the Church we're expected to take the uncertain and pretend certain because we want to wage battles against others.  I'm personally not fond of this approach.

1. The church will deal with the Proclamation on the Family in the same way the church dealt with the Proclamation about blacks not holding the priesthood issued by the first presidency in1949.  It will be no big deal if the church ever changes it's position on gay marriage.  What was much more destructive is how the church treated black families, denying access to eternal marriage and the blessings of the priesthood for generations.  Unfortunately the same type of policy is now directed at gay families.  I also I fear too often in the Church we're expected to take the uncertain and pretend certain because we want to wage battles against others.  I'm personally not fond of this approach.  
2. This thread is an example of that tendency to wage a battle against others, with active members patting themselves on the back for prophetic insight that doesn't stand up to fact when you look at the actual timeline.  It was just a preemptive attack in the battle that will continue for years.  When it was written, the gay community had no idea the church would go one to become  the leading religion in the United States to do all they could to deny them their civil rights.

 

Edited May 17, 2016 by california boy

[california boy]

11 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Boy, there are so many leaps of logic here that it is hard to begin, but let's have a go:

• "We want to wage battles against others."  Can you support this with any references or facts?  You are creating an assumption in order to meet your own desired conclusion.

 

lol.  Yeah that is a good one.  We will just pretend the church has never attacked gay families.  There was no Prop 8.  There was no policy banning children of gay couples from being baptized.  

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

See the quotes from President Nelson and Elder Andersen in my sig line.

"Sin, even if legalized by man, is still sin in the eyes of God." -- Elder Russell M. Nelson

The sig line is a good one here, even though many misunderstand the point about sin being legalized.  We need to get away from the notion that we can legislate morality.  Preaching the Gospel is one thing, but making it a legal requirement is quite another.  We need to take very seriously Articles of Faith 11 & 12, and not try to impose our moral views on others -- except to leave open free will and choice for everyone.  Western civilization is filled with instances in which the religious establishment imposed specific moral rules by secular law, and burned people at the stake for disobedience.  In my lifetime, I have seen many Blue Laws and other secular moral laws fall by the wayside.  That is actually a good thing, and we need to be more tolerant and respectful of our neighbors.

[Storm Rider]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

lol.  Yeah that is a good one.  We will just pretend the church has never attacked gay families.  There was no Prop 8.  There was no policy banning children of gay couples from being baptized.  

LOL, yeah another spin job.  If I support the family - you know the one, that has kids, been around since humanity could be identified as humanity, with a social structure, etc.,  - am I first against gays or anything else that is not the family unit?  No, of course not.  

Is the Church against sin?  Yes of course!  Does that mean they are against Tom and Jim or Lucy and Katy?  No, of course not.  The Church is against sin not against whoever commits sin.  

This is just childish propaganda, but it is ingrained in a certain segment of society.  Why do you think that is?  

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Storm Rider said:

LOL, yeah another spin job.  If I support the family - you know the one, that has kids, been around since humanity could be identified as humanity, with a social structure, etc.,  - am I first against gays or anything else that is not the family unit?  No, of course not.  

Is the Church against sin?  Yes of course!  Does that mean they are against Tom and Jim or Lucy and Katy?  No, of course not.  The Church is against sin not against whoever commits sin.  

This is just childish propaganda, but it is ingrained in a certain segment of society.  Why do you think that is?  

I didn't realize being the child of a gay couple was a sin.

[Gray]

1 minute ago, Storm Rider said:

LOL, yeah another spin job.  If I support the family - you know the one, that has kids, been around since humanity could be identified as humanity, with a social structure, etc.,  - am I first against gays or anything else that is not the family unit?  No, of course not.  

Is the Church against sin?  Yes of course!  Does that mean they are against Tom and Jim or Lucy and Katy?  No, of course not.  The Church is against sin not against whoever commits sin.  

This is just childish propaganda, but it is ingrained in a certain segment of society.  Why do you think that is?  

If gay people tried to pass a law banning LDS temple marriage, I'd suspect you'd consider that an attack against Mormons. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Gray said:

If gay people tried to pass a law banning LDS temple marriage, I'd suspect you'd consider that an attack against Mormons. 

Obviously, gay people would just be standing against what they think is wrong. It would be nothing personal: the gays aren't against Tom and Lucy or Jim and Katy.

[stemelbow]

28 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Boy, there are so many leaps of logic here that it is hard to begin, but let's have a go:

• "We want to wage battles against others."  Can you support this with any references or facts?  You are creating an assumption in order to meet your own desired conclusion.

It feels too common sense to worry about.  We are to wage battles against sin, in that zeal it feels to me members often mistake sin for the people and extend non sin to sin in so doing. 

28 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

• Go back to the definition of faith found in Heb 11:1 -  "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."  This is what a disciple of Christ uses to define and support his faith.  Let's call this a positive approach to life.  All you have done is take the reverse of it - "we are living by uncertainty".  Faith is hoping for; it is not living by sure knowledge.  A person with faith knows of the uncertainty, but based upon the actions of the Holy Ghost has faith to put aside the uncertainty and doubt.  A person of no faith is overcome by doubts and uncertainties - his life is built upon sand and lives in fear - fear of not knowing anything right or wrong.

I'm not seeing anything to disagree with or that really challenges my point here.  Thanks.

28 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

• Faith is anything but "sad".  I have never felt sad being faithful.  I have felt sad living without faith, a life of indecision, of not knowing the difference between right or wrong.  

I agree, faith is not sad.  And good for you.  I do not challenge the notion of living by faith.  I'm merely suggesting that living by faith is often uncertainty. 

28 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

• Some choose to live by uncertainty and others choose to live by faith based upon the witness of the Holy Spirit.  It is certain, it is true.  Alma said it best in Alma 32:21 - "And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true."

I don't think witness of the Spirit, faith, revelation is a foolproof system.  That's why there remains so much variety in the world. 

28 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

We either choose to live by guidance of the Holy Spirit or not.  That is the touchstone for any disciple of Christ.  If you are not a disciple of Christ and do not seek to be such then there is no touchstone.  

If a disciple is wage a battle it is against his own carnal, selfish desires.  The Church teaches this as something we need to do.  Waging battle against other people is a figment of your imagination and has no basis in reality. 

I'm not about waging battles against people.  I do feel like it happens at Church.  Many are caricaturized in a Church setting in order to set up opposition.  When in reality these people who get caricaturized are more complex, are potentially our allies.