Dan Peterson on the family proclamation

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Yes, the same one that quotes Brigham Young saying:

 

It's also the one that said:

 

Isn't it marvelous?

The current issues regarding gender and family matters may be "very different" than the priesthood ban, but if we look at the underlying principle that Church leaders can be totally, thoroughly and colossally wrong about matters of policy and doctrine for decade after decade, even in official pronouncements, then I'm not sure we can say with certainty just how different it really is until the matter has played out over the coming decades.

 

President Packer said in the quote I provided above that the Church has issued only five proclamations in its history. Is what you are referring to above one of those five?

Please don't distort history in a demagogic effort to score cheap debating points.

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

We'll never know, will we? Most events in history are complicated and defy attempts to identify simple motivations. I suspect the proclamation is no different. 

In this instance it is compelling to weigh the eyewitness account by President Packer, a signatory to the proclamation and a participant in its creation, against the speculations of Laura Compton and her devotees.

Edited May 17, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

In this instance it is compelling to weigh the eyewitness account by President Packer, a signatory to the proclamation and a participant in its formulation, to the speculations of Laura Compton and her devotees.

I doubt Pres. Packer meant for his statement to be the definitive reason, to the exclusion of all others, for the proclamation. But again, we'll never know. I don't know about you, but I have personal knowledge of decisions at companies and organizations, including the LDS church, where the publicly stated reason for something was not the main reason. 

[oremites]

8 minutes ago, cinepro said:

The current issues regarding gender and family matters may be "very different" than the priesthood ban, but if we look at the underlying principle that Church leaders can be totally, thoroughly and colossally wrong about matters of policy and doctrine for decade after decade....

Is there any limit to Church leaders being "totally, thoroughly and colossally wrong"?  Maybe they're wrong about the Atonement and the existence of God?  Seriously, can you put trust in Church leaders at all?  What's the point of having them, anyway?

We can debate the priesthood ban all day, but it wasn't a vital doctrine of the Church or of the Gospel.  I doubt Church leaders or members at that time spent much time worrying or thinking about it (even if you think they should have). 

Marriage and eternal families are central to the doctrine of Christ and the plan of salvation.  I can safely say this is a subject that Church leaders spend an enormous amount of time on and they are certainly earnestly seeking the Lord's guidance on the issue. 

[jkwilliams]

10 minutes ago, oremites said:

Is there any limit to Church leaders being "totally, thoroughly and colossally wrong"?  Maybe they're wrong about the Atonement and the existence of God?  Seriously, can you put trust in Church leaders at all?  What's the point of having them, anyway?

We can debate the priesthood ban all day, but it wasn't a vital doctrine of the Church or of the Gospel.  I doubt Church leaders or members at that time spent much time worrying or thinking about it (even if you think they should have). 

Marriage and eternal families are central to the doctrine of Christ and the plan of salvation.  I can safely say this is a subject that Church leaders spend an enormous amount of time on and they are certainly earnestly seeking the Lord's guidance on the issue. 

I'd say the priesthood ban was a vital doctrine of the church for those people affected by it.

[Scott Lloyd]

39 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I doubt Pres. Packer meant for his statement to be the definitive reason, to the exclusion of all others, for the proclamation. But again, we'll never know. I don't know about you, but I have personal knowledge of decisions at companies and organizations, including the LDS church, where the publicly stated reason for something was not the main reason. 

Whether or not it is "the definitive reason," the clear implication from President Packer's account -- given on at least two occasions, now, that we know about -- is that other catalysts, if there be any, are ancillary to that one.

Hard to argue with that, especially if all you've got to the contrary is marginal, post hoc conjecture such as Laura Compton's piece. That and unwarranted and demagogic conclusions such as the proclamation being written by a law firm.

Edited May 17, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Whether or not it is "the definitive reason," the clear implication from President Packer's account -- given on at least two occasions, now, that we know about -- is that other catalysts, if there be any, are ancillary to that one.

Hard to argue with that, especially if all you've got to the contrary is marginal conjecture such as Laura Compton's piece. That and unwarranted conclusions such as the proclamation being written by a law firm.

I don't think we disagree all that much, Scott. I do find the legal standing aspect interesting, and frankly, it makes sense to me. I'm not going to say it was the primary motivation, but I suspect it was part of it. But the church's hosting of the conference (I'm having trouble finding that, too) was apparently a major impetus. 

[Jeanne]

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

The Proclamation on the Family was specifically written in order to give the LDS Church standing to file amici briefing in the Hawaii Court of Appeals on the gay marriage issue.

That was the point of saying it, so there is no real need to "wonder" about it.

It seems strange to conclude this was a matter of prophetic foresight rather than legal expediency.

There was something that really bothered me about the Proclamation of the Family.  Mothers are taught that they teach their chldren, that they are the heart of the home and responsible for most of the gospel that is taught in the home, by lessons and example.  Why were the RS just introduced to the proclamtion and not part of the conversation?  Sorry...I know this derails Dr. Petersens comments here.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I found this interesting article in the July 1975 Ensign about how to help our kids "accept their gender":

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1975/07/being-a-boy-being-a-girl?lang=eng

I found that very interesting.  I graduated in 1974 and the way it all sounds seems so long ago..like we were aware of things..but not. That being said, some of it was down to earth and showed patience from parent/teacher to child.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I found that very interesting.  I graduated in 1974 and the way it all sounds seems so long ago..like we were aware of things..but not. That being said, some of it was down to earth and showed patience from parent/teacher to child.

I just thought it was interesting that, even as long ago as 1975, they were concerned about children adopting proper gender roles. Some people have suggested that these issues just came out of nowhere in the last few years. I don't think that's the case.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't think we disagree all that much, Scott. I do find the legal standing aspect interesting, and frankly, it makes sense to me. I'm not going to say it was the primary motivation, but I suspect it was part of it. But the church's hosting of the conference (I'm having trouble finding that, too) was apparently a major impetus. 

I don't get that the Church hosted the conference. What I gather is that a conference was to be held in Salt Lake City and the Church leaders felt, probably due to the inevitable media inquiries, that they ought to have a document in place clearly setting forth the position of the Church on marriage and family, especially in view of past experience at other U.N. conferences.

[consiglieri]

3 hours ago, USU78 said:

How disappointing your response is:  what would possibly motivate filing amicus briefs if not "reading the tea leaves" on the implications of the Hawai'i case and similar attacks by homosexual advocacy upon the family?

How exactly has your family been attacked by gay marriage?

[consiglieri]

41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In this instance it is compelling to weigh the eyewitness account by President Packer, a signatory to the proclamation and a participant in its creation, against the speculations of Laura Compton and her devotees.

Because President Packer has already told us some truths are not useful? 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Because President Packer has already told us some truths are not useful? 

Typical drive-by cheap shot. Fortunately, being on "limited," you can only lob so many of them in the course of a day, right?

 

[Jeanne]

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I just thought it was interesting that, even as long ago as 1975, they were concerned about children adopting proper gender roles. Some people have suggested that these issues just came out of nowhere in the last few years. I don't think that's the case.

It is interesting to note the proper gender.  But I wasn't surprised.  Girls were girls..and boys were boys..and from the time i was a little girl, I knew my place, my role, and what I was supposed to be.  No..this goes way back.  Funny thing (but not) , I thought all the gays in the world lived only in San Francisco.  There was no gay..it was all queer.  Ouch..so much has changed, and if possible, it could be for the better.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I just thought it was interesting that, even as long ago as 1975, they were concerned about children adopting proper gender roles. Some people have suggested that these issues just came out of nowhere in the last few years. I don't think that's the case.

For my part, I've not said they've "come out of nowhere," only that acceptance of sexual perversion has been mainstreamed with dizzying rapidity within the last few years, to the point that those who refuse to go along with it are now branded as bigots.

And to reiterate, and come full circle to the OP, that's what makes the family proclamation revelatory. It is more applicable today than ever in defining the position of the Church and setting it apart from the changing whims of society.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Not sure what you mean.

The impact is the same: acting out of being forced by an identity crisis and acting out of being passive by an identity acceptance both entail subjecting oneself to the situation.

[ksfisher]

38 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

There was something that really bothered me about the Proclamation of the Family.  Mothers are taught that they teach their chldren, that they are the heart of the home and responsible for most of the gospel that is taught in the home, by lessons and example.  Why were the RS just introduced to the proclamtion and not part of the conversation?  Sorry...I know this derails Dr. Petersens comments here.

The Proclamation on the Family has impact on every member of the church.  While the Relief Society does represent the 18+ year old sisters of the church, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve represent and speak for the Lord to the entire church.  This would seem to be the appropriate channel for such a document to come through.

[Jeanne]

Just now, ksfisher said:

The Proclamation on the Family has impact on every member of the church.  While the Relief Society does represent the 18+ year old sisters of the church, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve represent and speak for the Lord to the entire church.  This would seem to be the appropriate channel for such a document to come through.

I agree to a point.  I was just wondering why the General RS was not consulted or asked about what they thought before the proclamation was produced.  A lot of women in the church. 

[consiglieri]

46 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

There was something that really bothered me about the Proclamation of the Family.  Mothers are taught that they teach their chldren, that they are the heart of the home and responsible for most of the gospel that is taught in the home, by lessons and example.  Why were the RS just introduced to the proclamtion and not part of the conversation?  Sorry...I know this derails Dr. Petersens comments here.

The Relief Society was used by President Hinckley to announce the Proclamation likely because the Church was scrambling to get it officially announced.

I believe it was Chieko Ozaki who said the schedule for the meeting had to be rearranged at the last minute to accommodate this request.

[consiglieri]

28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Typical drive-by cheap shot. Fortunately, being on "limited," you can only lob so many of them in the course of a day, right?

 

I am just quoting the documented words of the Lord's Anointed.

I fail to see how that constitutes a drive-by cheap shot, Scott.

 

[ksfisher]

13 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I agree to a point.  I was just wondering why the General RS was not consulted or asked about what they thought before the proclamation was produced.  A lot of women in the church. 

Were the Primary, Young Men, and Young Women consulted?

[ksfisher]

13 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

The Relief Society was used by President Hinckley to announce the Proclamation likely because the Church was scrambling to get it officially announced.

I believe it was Chieko Ozaki who said the schedule for the meeting had to be rearranged at the last minute to accommodate this request.

Because if President Hinckley had called a press conference to announce it no one would have shown up?

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

It is not funny to say that BYU students are apostates. He also loves to demonize and misrepresent Sanders as a Socialist who hates capitalism, it is a straw-man because Bernie Sanders said, "I don't believe government should own the means of production." So that means that Presidents McKay and Benson wouldn't say anything about Sanders, but Peterson tries to paint him against LDS teachings. 

Peterson wrote, ""Does anybody else out there who cares about BYU and the future of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints find this at least a little bit, umm, problematic? Does anyone wonder what our students have been taught at home, and what they’re being taught in their political science and history and American Heritage classes? I wonder what Presidents David O. McKay and Ezra Taft Benson might have said about this."

     [Feb 20, 2016]

Anyways, are our prophets a product of their time or ahead of their time? Which is it? I am confused? or only when it is convenient?  

Peterson nowhere called BYU students "apostates," and you refused to cite or quote any source making such a claim.  What Peterson did do was to cite a BYU Daily Universe article saying:

Quote

Of 735 respondents self-identifying as BYU students, 30 percent said they would vote for democratic socialist Vermont senator Bernie Sanders if the general presidential election took place today. Florida Republican senator Marco Rubio came in second at 20 percent. The poll was open from Monday, Feb. 8 through Monday, Feb. 15, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent.

It appears from this that (at that time) less than a third of BYU students liked Senator Sanders.  Nowhere did Peterson ever even suggest "apostasy", although he did call into question that group of students' judgment and wondered what they are being taught.  Since I have a baccalaureate from BYU in political science, I can say that those teaching that subject at BYU are very well-informed.  Dan (who is a Republican) does not know that, since he has never majored in that subject.  My own personal preference is Sanders, because he seems the most responsible and presidential of the lot.  However, I consider Dan a friend and would never discuss political folderol with him.

You need to avoid politics on this board, Skeptic.  It is the wrong subject for you, and should have no place here.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

While I think I know what you are trying to say, I can't agree with what you are saying. We certainly should legislate morality. We should have laws legislating certain moral limits, and we do. I think what you are trying to say is that we shouldn't have laws requiring certain moral actions or views be taken. This is why this country decided to prohibit the adoption of any particular religion so as the rights of others to pursue happiness would be preserved. However, without laws on moral limits there would be legal murder and no civil rights. Preventing the violation of other's "space" or "right to pursue happiness" is certainly a "moral" thing to do. However, I am not for laws which would allow gay couples to adopt children, etc, which I believe is a moral issue. Anyway, there are tons of examples.

You vastly missed my point.  I was not referring to agreed-upon criminal law and penalties, but to the wide practice of legislating moral codes of conduct -- making polygamy illegal, making recreational drug use illegal, making mercantile activity on the Sabbath illegal, etc.  Great harm has been done to society by the blue noses who imagine that they can legislate their next-door neighbors' private sex life, or private drinking habits.  We have all seen what that leads to, with the best of intentions, and it is not good.  We need to learn to say "no" when totalitarians come calling.