Dan Peterson on the family proclamation

[Hamba Tuhan]

43 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So again, the Proclamation does not speak to gay marriage.  If I'm wrong, I invite anyone to quote the part of it that does.  

'Points for persistence', as my father used to tell me!

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, canard78 said:

Just because Utah was two decades behind the curve doesn't mean the rest of the world was. 

Sometimes, and only sometimes, church policies and statements can be seen to be reactive to global movements and not just Utah/US events. 

What was happening in Europe in the early 90s? What was happening in Hawaii?

The fact that "many of us" (you included) didn't anticipate the societal changes in Utah and America didn't mean they weren't obvious to other people.

If you polled the rising generation in the 90s or if you looked at events in Europe and Hawaii, you would have realised that change was coming. You didn't need divine inspiration to see that coming... you just needed a good research team and a few legal advisers. That's what the church did in the 90s. They put a stake in the ground in reaction to the "threat" they perceived to already exist, and a clear trend towards greater acceptance. 

FWIW, at a time when they could have pushed church gently towards greater inclusion and acceptance of homosexuality, I think they made the wrong call. They spent the next 20+ years building up a huge library of anti-homosexuality statements. Ironically, what your generation currently sees as prophetic leadership will become the albatross around the church's neck. Prophetic leadership would have been to do the opposite, but that ship has well and truly sailed. 

Please see my sig line about the obligation of the Chutch of Jesus Christ not to drift with worldly trends away from the laws and commandments of God, despite how popular those worldly trends may be. 

And I disagree with your implication about this being a generational thing. I see many of the rising generation in the Church determined to serve and obey God, and it gives me cause for optimism. 

Many of my generation rejected standards that forbid sex outside of marriage. To our everlasting benefit, some of us held fast to standards of chastity. 

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

From Merriam-Webster:

The "minuscule" spelling is consistent with the word's etymology, but since the 19th century, people have also been spelling it "miniscule," perhaps because they associate it with the combining form "mini-" and words such as "minimal" and "minimum." Usage commentators generally consider the "miniscule" spelling an error, but it is widely used in reputable and carefully edited publications and is accepted as a legitimate variant in some dictionaries. 

I have never seen a scholar use anything but the correct spelling, regardless of what Merriam-Webster says of the hoi-polloi.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.slidesharecdn.com%2Famsterdamslidestalk-150121152003-conversion-gate02%2F95%2Famsterdam-speechwriters-conference-2014-talk-62-638.jpg%3Fcb%3D1429886346&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slideshare.net%2Fthecroaker%2Famsterdam-speechwriters-conference-2014-talk%2F62-Greek_majuscule_9th_3rd_century&docid=7Kr7P1mxceQ-wM&tbnid=5Kpa9sZtnQjkOM%3A&w=638&h=479&bih=773&biw=1413&ved=0ahUKEwiTkdSksuXMAhWE5oMKHQqwDJQQMwgpKAgwCA&iact=mrc&uact=8 .

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

^true that^.  In context this was not a prophecy.  It was commentary on events that were happening at the time.  Read what JS wrote.  War was not spilled out on all nations, nor did the native americans rise up and smote the U.S.

Read the content of the FairMormon link. War was indeed spilled out. It doesn't have to be directly related to the Civil War for the prophecy to have been fulfilled. 

And can you meet the challenge in the link? That is, can you show that most Americans were predicting civil war at the time the prophecy was made? 

In fact, I'll make that a CFR. 

[canard78]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Please see my sig line about the obligation of the Chutch of Jesus Christ not to drift with worldly trends away from the laws and commandments of God, despite how popular those worldly trends may be. 

And I disagree with your implication about this being a generational thing. I see many of the rising generation in the Church determined to serve and obey God, and it gives me cause for optimism. 

Many of my generation rejected standards that forbid sex outside of marriage. To our everlasting benefit, some of us held fast to standards of chastity. 

I don't disagree with you Scott. You're right that many of your generation and a few of the younger Mormon generation remain opposed to homosexual activity of any sort. 

But that's not really the question we're discussing (and I recognise my last paragraph unnessarily went off topic). We're talking about whether the POTF was prescient and preemptive or circumstantially reactive. 

What I and others have shown was that there were many so-called threats to the Mormon view of sex and marriage in the early 90s. States and countries were already discussing and accepting homosexuality. The POTF seems to obviously a reactive to the perceived threats of the day and not a stake in the ground before homoxexual acceptance was on the agenda. 

[Scott Lloyd]

56 minutes ago, canard78 said:

I don't disagree with you Scott. You're right that many of your generation and a few of the younger Mormon generation remain opposed to homosexual activity of any sort. 

But that's not really the question we're discussing (and I recognise my last paragraph unnessarily went off topic). We're talking about whether the POTF was prescient and preemptive or circumstantially reactive. 

What I and others have shown was that there were many so-called threats to the Mormon view of sex and marriage in the early 90s. States and countries were already discussing and accepting homosexuality. The POTF seems to obviously a reactive to the perceived threats of the day and not a stake in the ground before homoxexual acceptance was on the agenda. 

Here's a novel thought: Could it not have been both pre-emptive and reactive?

if so, it would fit a typical pattern of revelations from God. 

Think about it: Circumstances prompt the prophet to inquire of the Lord. Prophet receives a revelation that not only addresses present circumstances but has long-term implications that affect future events and circumstances as they arise. 

And there you have it: a revelation that is both reactive and pre-emptive. 

Edited May 19, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

From Merriam-Webster:

The "minuscule" spelling is consistent with the word's etymology, but since the 19th century, people have also been spelling it "miniscule," perhaps because they associate it with the combining form "mini-" and words such as "minimal" and "minimum." Usage commentators generally consider the "miniscule" spelling an error, but it is widely used in reputable and carefully edited publications and is accepted as a legitimate variant in some dictionaries. 

So it's a matter of an error getting committed  long enough and often enough that it eventually gains acceptance through popular and invincible ignorance. 

It's like <helpmeet>. Initially, it was not a real word, just the result of a common misreading of a phrase in Genesis of the King James Bible, where Eve was said to be a "help meet" to her husband, meaning a help suited to or sufficient for her husband. What started as a misreading eventually became an accepted noun. 

No matter. I will eschew "helpmeet" as a single-word noun, knowing its dubious derivation. And I will respect Robert for holding to the proper spelling of <minuscule.>

 

Edited May 19, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So it's a matter of an error getting committed  long enough and often enough that it eventually gains acceptance through popular and invincible ignorance. 

It's like <helpmeet>. Initially, it was not a real word, just the result of a common misreading of a phrase in Genesis of the King James Bible, where Eve was said to be a "help meet" to her husband, meaning a help suited to or sufficient for her husband. What started as a misreading eventually became an accepted noun. 

No matter. I will eschew "helpmeet" as a single word noun, knowing its dubious derivation. And I will respect Robert for holding to the proper spelling of <minuscule.>

 

Usage changes. "Minuscule" is the preferred usage. Do you eschew "flammable" because of its dubious derivation?

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Here's a novel thought: Could it not have been both pre-emptive and reactive?

It's not going to work, mate. People who dislike the content and/or implications of the proclamation simply can't allow any possibility of its having been inspired in any way. Attempts to demonstrate that it wasn't make it -- and prophets -- easier to dismiss.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

It's not going to work, mate. People who dislike the content and/or implications of the proclamation simply can't allow any possibility of its having been inspired in any way. Attempts to demonstrate that it wasn't make it -- and prophets -- easier to dismiss.

Perhaps you're right. But hope springs eternal. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Usage changes. "Minuscule" is the preferred usage. Do you eschew "flammable" because of its dubious derivation?

I do, recognizing that <inflammable> is derived from the root verb <to inflame>. 

I also eschew the improper use of the reflexive pronoun (myself, himself, herself, itself) even though said improper use is rather common. 

And some around these parts are acquainted with my contempt for the improper use of <beg the question>. 

[jkwilliams]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Here's a novel thought: Could it not have been both pre-emptive and reactive?

if so, it would fit a typical pattern of revelations from God. 

Think about it: Circumstances prompt the prophet to inquire of the Lord. Prophet receives a revelation that not only addresses present circumstances but has long-term implications that affect future events and circumstances as they arise. 

And there you have it: a revelation that is both reactive and pre-emptive. 

Of course it could have been both. Was the Word of Wisdom reactive to the circumstances (Emma's complaints about cleaning up after the men) or pre-emptive, or both?

Putting a revelation--regardless of whether you believe it actually is a revelation from God--in context does not cheapen the revelation. I'm pretty sure that most revelation comes from people asking. I remember my mission president (a religion professor at Ricks/BYUI) saying that even Paul's experience on the road to Damascus was a result of Paul's desire to do the will of God, misguided as he had been. As I mentioned yesterday, putting the Civil War prophecy in the context of the nullification crisis expands our understanding of what was going on. It doesn't diminish anything.

[jkwilliams]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I do, recognizing that <inflammable> is derived from the root verb <to inflame>. 

I also eschew the improper use of the reflexive pronoun (myself, himself, herself, itself) even though said improper use is rather common. 

And some around these parts are acquainted with my contempt for the improper use of <beg the question>. 

Funny how most writers and editors have a list of words and phrases that drive them crazy. "Miniscule" doesn't bother me, though I would always use the preferred "minuscule." Come to think of it, I don't use that word often at all.  I just don't like it when people act as if using a non-preferred, but acceptable, variant is a sign of someone's ignorance or stupidity. The other day I saw something about how pronouncing certain words "wrong" makes you look like an idiot. Invariably, the "correct" pronunciation had more to do with using standard American English instead of regional or international pronunciations. To me, it's like tomato and tomahto. 

[Scott Lloyd]

36 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Of course it could have been both. Was the Word of Wisdom reactive to the circumstances (Emma's complaints about cleaning up after the men) or pre-emptive, or both?

Putting a revelation--regardless of whether you believe it actually is a revelation from God--in context does not cheapen the revelation. I'm pretty sure that most revelation comes from people asking. I remember my mission president (a religion professor at Ricks/BYUI) saying that even Paul's experience on the road to Damascus was a result of Paul's desire to do the will of God, misguided as he had been. As I mentioned yesterday, putting the Civil War prophecy in the context of the nullification crisis expands our understanding of what was going on. It doesn't diminish anything.

You are right, of course, that putting a revelation in context does not cheapen the revelation. 

The harm comes when a bad or fallacious inference is drawn from the context -- in this case the unsupported assumption that during the nullification crisis it was a common thing for Americans to be predicting civil war. And then, based upon the faulty assumption, going on to discredit the revelation. 

To apply this to the matter at hand, it is dubious assumption that it could have been expected 20 years ago that the redefinition of marriage would have gained such rapid and widespread acceptance by now. It wasn't all that long ago that voters in California rejected it, an expression that took a judicial fiat to overturn.

Ergo, the family proclamation, at the time it was published, was prescient. 

Edited May 19, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You are right, of course, that putting a revelation in context does not cheapen the revelation. 

The harm comes when a bad or fallacious inference is drawn from the context -- in this case the unsupported assumption that during the nullification crisis it was a common thing for Americans to be predicting civil war. And then, based upon the faulty assumption, going on to discredit the revelation. 

Given that this was on the heels of the Nat Turner rebellion and nullification leaders had raised a militia of 27,000 men and had said they would secede if forced to accept federal tariffs, I don't see that this was an assumption at all, and definitely not unsupported. Two months before Joseph Smith's prediction, Andrew Jackson wrote to his Secretary of War, "The attempt will be made to surprise the Forts and garrisons by the militia, and must be guarded against with vestal vigilance and any attempt by force repelled with prompt and exemplary punishment." Given that South Carolina rejected Jackson's attempt on December 10 to compromise, tensions were high, and talk of war was everywhere. Here's the incoming governor of South Carolina the following month:

If the sacred soil of Carolina should be polluted by the footsteps of an invader, or be stained with the blood of her citizens, shed in defense, I trust in Almighty God that no son of hers … who has been nourished at her bosom … will be found raising a parricidal arm against our common mother. And even should she stand ALONE in this great struggle for constitutional liberty … that there will not be found, in the wider limits of the state, one recreant son who will not fly to the rescue, and be ready to lay down his life in her defense.

So, the press, the president, and nullification leaders were all talking about war, and it looked even more likely after December 10. 

[jkwilliams]

And here's Andrew Jackson not worrying about civil war on December 10, 1832:

For what do you throw away these inestimable blessings-for what would you exchange your share in the advantages and honor of the Union? For the dream of a separate independence-a dream interrupted by bloody conflicts with your neighbors, and a vile dependence on a foreign power. If your leaders could succeed in establishing a separation, what would be your situation? Are you united at home-are you free from the apprehension of civil discord, with all its fearful consequences? Do our neighboring republics, every day suffering some new revolution or contending with some new insurrection- do they excite your envy? But the dictates of a high duty oblige me solemnly to announce that you cannot succeed. The laws of the United States must be executed. I have no discretionary power on the subjectmy duty is emphatically pronounced in the Constitution. Those who told you that you might peaceably prevent their execution, deceived you-they could not have been deceived themselves. They know that a forcible opposition could alone prevent the execution of the laws, and they know that such opposition must be repelled. Their object is disunion, but be not deceived by names; disunion, by armed force, is TREASON. Are you really ready to incur its guilt? If you are, on the head of the instigators of the act be the dreadful consequences-on their heads be the dishonor, but on yours may fall the punishment-on your unhappy State will inevitably fall all the evils of the conflict you force upon the government of your country….the consequence must be fearful for you, distressing to your fellow-citizens here, and to the friends of good government throughout the world. Its enemies have beheld our prosperity with a vexation they could not conceal--it was a standing refutation of their slavish doctrines, and they will point to our discord with the triumph of malignant joy. It is yet in your power to disappoint them. There is yet time to show that the descendants of the Pinckneys, the Sumpters, the Rutledges, and of the thousand other names which adorn the pages of your Revolutionary history, will not abandon that Union to support which so many of them fought and bled and died. I adjure you, as you honor their memory--as you love the cause of freedom, to which they dedicated their lives--as you prize the peace of your country, the lives of its best citizens, and your own fair fame, to retrace your steps. Snatch from the archives of your State the disorganizing edict of its convention-bid its members to re-assemble and promulgate the decided expressions of your will to remain in the path which alone can conduct you to safety, prosperity, and honor….

It's interesting that Jackson notes that South Carolina will have to call on foreign countries for help. 

[rodheadlee]

On 5/17/2016 at 11:59 PM, 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. 

10 For behold, this is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off; for it is the everlasting decree of God. And it is not until the fulness of iniquity among the children of the land, that they are swept off.

 11 And this cometh unto you, O ye Gentiles, that ye may know the decrees of God—that ye may repent, and not continue in your iniquities until the fulness come, that ye may not bring down the fulness of the wrath of God upon you as the inhabitants of the land have hitherto done.

 12 Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which we have written

[jkwilliams]

Here's an excerpt from an editorial from the Washington Globe, November 29, 1832:

How then can nullification be peaceful? If the State authorities resist and overcome the Judiciary of the United States, must not the President support it? Must he not obey the laws and repel force by force? It is a mockery of common sense to call nullification a peaceful remedy. It must and will, itself, begin this work of violence. The first violence must be committed by it, in resisting the Judicial authorities of the Union. This will lead to further violence, and the flames of civil war will blaze up at once in every quarter of that unhappy state. 

Can there be a doubt of the purpose of the Nullifiers to carry it to a civil war? Why the recent language of their leadeing citizens? -- Why do we hear of pledges of life, fortune, and sacred honor, "to carry the resolves of the convention?" Why has Governor Hamilton been so assiduously courting and drilling the Militia? Why has he recently, by the most extraordinary means, procured himself to be elevated to the military rank of a BRigodier General? What is all this but a preparation for war? What does Hamilton mean, but to be the military hero of Nullification, while Hayne shall hold the civil power, and Calhoun the desperate author of the whole scheme, watch to profit by their hazards and their perils? 

This then, is Nullification: -- It is CIVIL WAR AND DISUNION! (emphasis in original)

[CV75]

13 hours ago, rockpond said:

I believe I noted that the POTF does provide a doctrinal basis for our teachings.  But it would be naive to not understand the legal purpose that it also serves. 

Similarly, the policy seems to have an application of protecting the church from legal claims.  Or do you feel the Church is not at risk of potential lawsuits from gay couples and/or their children?

Like you, I believe that lasting happiness comes through Christ and His ways.  For this reason I don't believe last November's policy was the right thing to do. I feel that it has no resemblance to Christ's ways. 

It obviously serves any purpose anyone wants it to. If it comes in handy for legal protection, wonderful; if anyone wants to sue the Church over it, “wonderful” for them! For some, "lasting happiness" for this life only is all they are willing to deal with,

Obviously you believe the Church is off the mark with regards to her doctrine and policies on the subject of gay marriage. But I’ve never seen a basis put forth to follow Him or His ways (His keys) in getting gay marriage adopted as an ordinance or a sacrament, and hence no Christ-centered rationale for advocating such. That leaves secular philosophy, politics and legalities, etc. as the means to advocate for it, and some would go so far as to feign or pervert the message of Christ and His ways through those methods.

[ttribe]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I earnestly disapprove of her publicly second-guessing the Brethren about the manner in which the family proclamation was created and introduced, and I think it unseemly for one having held the position she did. 

Beyond that, you are not justified in drawing any conclusion about my opinion of Sister Okazaki. 

Fascinating response.

[CV75]

8 hours ago, rockpond said:

So again, the Proclamation does not speak to gay marriage.  If I'm wrong, I invite anyone to quote the part of it that does.  

And thus all that is left is legalistic argument, not Christ-centered teaching.

By speaking to marriage in the following way, it speaks against any notion of gay marriage in the Gospel Plan: the first commandment is legitimately fulfilled only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

[jkwilliams]

59 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You are right, of course, that putting a revelation in context does not cheapen the revelation. 

The harm comes when a bad or fallacious inference is drawn from the context -- in this case the unsupported assumption that during the nullification crisis it was a common thing for Americans to be predicting civil war. And then, based upon the faulty assumption, going on to discredit the revelation. 

To apply this to the matter at hand, it is dubious assumption that it could have been expected 20 years ago that the redefinition of marriage would have gained such rapid and widespread acceptance by now. It wasn't all that long ago that voters in California rejected it, an expression that took a judicial fiat to overturn.

Ergo, the family proclamation, at the time it was published, was prescient. 

Putting a revelation in context does not discredit it. The nullification crisis sparked a lot of talk of civil war, foreign intervention, and so on. Pretending that isn't so doesn't help. 

No, I don't think the church could have predicted the acceptance of same-sex marriage, but I do think the debate over DOMA-type laws brought matters to a head; it was that extended debate that led to the cultural acceptance of same-sex marriage. I can't imagine anyone would dispute that.

[rodheadlee]

12 hours ago, rockpond said:

Various publications have estimated that LDS church members donated anywhere from 40% to 77% of the total Yes on 8 funds.  Even the low end of that estimate is not minuscule or miniscule. 

And then there was the propaganda produced by the Church (like Elder Bednar's video), wards and stakes organizing their members to canvas neighborhoods and hold signs on street corners.  BYU students were staffing phone banks.

How do you even begin to quantify the value of having bishops and stake presidents meet privately with members and encourage them to donate to the cause?  And the creation of the National Organization for Marriage?

Read this account and tell me again how insignificant the Church's involvement was...

http://www.millennialstar.org/elder-ballard-asks-church-members-to-step-up-involvement-for-prop-8/

Oh, and maybe you can also repeat your claim about the church's strong effort to protect the civil liberties of homosexuals.

 

 I live in California, I was born in California so I have a lot of experience with Californians. No one I knew at the time was Mormon, I was in between wards and inactive and getting ready to sail to the Marquesas Islands. Everyone I knew  voted Yes on Prop 8. So your vivd imagination is telling you something that is not true and was never true. The Church had a minor affect on Prop 8. This is not the Wasatch Front the Church has about zero influence here.To tell yourself otherwise is pure vanity. 

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If it is meant sarcastically, then it mystifies me that you can't see why I posed the question.

Apparently, you think there is no good reason to think God intervened if the occurrence can be explained naturalistically.

Not at all. 

[jkwilliams]

12 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

 I live in California, I was born in California so I have a lot of experience with Californians. No one I knew at the time was Mormon, I was in between wards and inactive and getting ready to sail to the Marquesas Islands. Everyone I knew  voted Yes on Prop 8. So your vivd imagination is telling you something that is not true and was never true. The Church had a minor affect on Prop 8. This is not the Wasatch Front the Church has about zero influence here.To tell yourself otherwise is pure vanity. 

I'm reminded of Pauline Kael's disbelief that Richard Nixon won: "I only know one person who voted for Nixon."

Although you're correct that the church has a relatively minuscule percentage of California's population (my home state, btw), it's pretty clear that the church was punching well above its weight in the Prop. 8 campaign. The church brought two major assets to the table: organization and money.

The church has long held up its organizational skills and ability to get things done as a positive thing. When there is a hurricane or tornado, this organization gets people to work quickly. Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana on a Monday. By Friday evening there were thousands of us in many towns and cities helping with the clean-up. The church used the same skills to organize for the Prop 8 campaign. BYU students were asked to staff call centers, bishops brought in members to personally call them to donate time and/or money to the cause. And of course, the church was instrumental in setting up anti-gay-marriage organizations in several states.

The other thing the church brought was money, and much of this went hand in hand with its organizational success. Bishops were told to donate (one poster here, who opposed Prop. 8, donated $5,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign because he was a bishop and was told to set an example). Members were called in individually by their priesthood leaders and asked to give money. As someone else said, conservative estimates are that church members donated at least 40% of the money to the Yes on 8 campaign.

It was interesting to me that, in the run-up to the election, a lot of Mormons I know (including people here) were expressing pride in what church members had been able to accomplish, both in terms of organization and money. When the backlash came, suddenly it was the Catholics and the black churches, and the LDS church had a minuscule role.