Dan Peterson on the family proclamation

[USU78]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

How exactly has your family been attacked by gay marriage?

Consig refuses to answer the friggin' question? 

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, USU78 said:

When legislators cease legislating morally only immoral legislators will legislate:  is that a good thing?

So you want to reimpose the Blue Laws?  You want legislators sniffing in your bedroom?  Do you understand the Orwellian consequences of legislating morality?  Do you even know what that  might mean?  The late Senator Frank Church correctly advised us in his famous committee report that we need to be very much afraid of the potential surveillant state.

Legislators need to legislate tolerance and restraint.  The State is not always your friend, and that is why the State is prohibited from interfering in your personal affairs without probable cause in a criminal matter.

[Jeanne]

43 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.

Thank you for the info. 

[consiglieri]

11 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Consig refuses to answer the friggin' question? 

Here is what you said:

 

4 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?

Here is what I asked:

Quote

How exactly has your family been attacked by gay marriage?

Why are you refusing to answer the friggin' question. 

 

[consiglieri]

15 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Thank you for the info. 

Correction time.

First, I misspelled Chieko Okazaki's last name.

Second, I think it was the Harold B. Lee manual that she registered some concern about being sprung on Relief Society with no input.

As to the Proclamation, her concern was that Relief Society was never consulted at all in how it was drafted, and that she felt the Relief Society could have made a "few changes."

This is from page 136 of the Dialogue interview of Sister Okazaki by Greg Prince.

http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V45N01_CO.pdf

[Jeanne]

Just now, consiglieri said:

Correction time.

First, I misspelled Chieko Okazaki's last name.

Second, I think it was the Harold B. Lee manual that she registered some concern about being sprung on Relief Society with no input.

As to the Proclamation, her concern was that Relief Society was never consulted at all in how it was drafted, and that she felt the Relief Society could have made a "few changes."

This is from page 136 of the Dialogue interview of Sister Okazaki by Greg Prince.

http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V45N01_CO.pdf

Thank you so much.  That is what i was looking for.  it is about the FAMILY!!  I will never really understand why they were left out of the construction of this policy/revelation and/or whatever they want to call it.

[Rivers]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

I wonder if the wives of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve members had any input on the Proclamation.

Edited May 18, 2016 by Rivers

[Daniel Peterson]

18 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Dr. Peterson also name-calls and demonizes people that disagree with him. 

I've only just now noticed this thread.

Curiously, actual examples of my constant name-calling and demonizing of everybody who dares to disagree with me seem to be exceedingly rare.

But the legend lives on, and flourishes.

 

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

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

No..but they are not yet heads of families nor in any general position in the church. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

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

What about the Sunday School?

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

No..but they are not yet heads of families nor in any general position in the church. 

The adult leaders of those organizations? Indeed they are. 

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, Daniel Peterson said:

I've only just now noticed this thread.

Curiously, actual examples of my constant name-calling and demonizing of everybody who dares to disagree with me seem to be exceedingly rare.

But the legend lives on, and flourishes.

 

I thought about issuing a CFR on that, but, well, I was reluctant to feed the troll. 

[Vanguard]

11 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

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. 

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? 

I resolved the issue with my son using the restroom by going in with him, you know? And my wife went with my daughters. Problem solved. And what about schools? Are you ok with your daughter going into a communal "girls" restroom with boys using it?

[Michael Sanders]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So you want to reimpose the Blue Laws?  You want legislators sniffing in your bedroom?  Do you understand the Orwellian consequences of legislating morality?  Do you even know what that  might mean?  The late Senator Frank Church correctly advised us in his famous committee report that we need to be very much afraid of the potential surveillant state.

Legislators need to legislate tolerance and restraint.  The State is not always your friend, and that is why the State is prohibited from interfering in your personal affairs without probable cause in a criminal matter.

The state is not always your enemy either and God has ordained civil authority to restrain the evil-doer.  All laws legislate morality.  Now for the saints, Joseph said I teach correct principles and allow them to govern themselves, but not all abide by law.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Rivers said:

I wonder if the wives of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve members had any input on the Proclamation.

Or the daughters. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Why weren't my wife and I consulted before the missionary age changes were announced? It meant our son was eligible a year earlier. 

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The adult leaders of those organizations? Indeed they are. 

Oh..I see what you mean.  I was assuming that KsFisher was talking about local wards.  I don't know.  I just feel like the RS represents a part of what is important to family..more than any other organization other than the top.  They should and would have had great input. 

[Jeanne]

35 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Or the daughters. 

They should have..at least the wives..and why not?  Listening to women isn't gonna kill ya!

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

The "changing whims of society"... I suppose you are referring to the greater understanding, acceptance, and people of goodwill working together to find reasonable solutions.  I'm not sure we want to be set apart from that.

It was only a little over a year ago that Elder Oaks acknowledged that the church had not had much experience with "the unique problems of a transgender situation". 

 

[TheSkepticChristian]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Peterson nowhere called BYU students "apostates," 

Okay, let me try again. Peterson said, "Is BYU in apostasy?" It is just like saying "are you drunk?"

He also 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" 

Again, he said, "Is BYU in apostasy?" "Does anyone wonder what our students have been taught at home"

How is that not offensive? that is a lack of respect. He is also insinuating that BYU students are not good Mormons. 

He didn't say it directly, but that is what he is saying! I think he can even get in trouble with BYU for saying that! 

Edited May 18, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[cinepro]

8 hours ago, oremites said:

  I doubt Church leaders or members at that time spent much time worrying or thinking about it (even if you think they should have). 

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you weren't a black member of the Church before 1978.

[TheSkepticChristian]

3 hours ago, Daniel Peterson said:

Curiously, actual examples of my constant name-calling and demonizing of everybody who dares to disagree with me

"Is BYU in apostasy?" "Does anybody else out there who cares about ... Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"  "Does anyone wonder what our students have been taught at home" - Dan Peterson 

In others words, you can't be a good Mormon if you are a Democrat. Am I wrong? 

Edited May 18, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 are pressuring the Church to change and accommodate their own acceptance of worldliness.

That is not going to happen, why not worry more about missionary work? or visiting? 

The number of people that are trying to change the church is very small, and no one cares about them, just you. 

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

seemed so uncontroversial at the time that some wondered what the point of it was. That is the very thing that makes the family proclamation a revelatory document.

I disagree. Bytheway, are prophets head of their time or a product of their time? which is it? Please answer. 

Edited May 18, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

That is not going to happen, why not worry more about missionary work? or visiting? 

The number of people that are trying to change the church is very small, and no one cares about them, just you. 

I disagree. Bytheway, are prophets head of their time or a product of their time? which is it? Please answer. 

History seems to suggest that our prophets are more a product of their time than being ahead.

Scott wants to keep claiming that the POTF was published prior to gay marriage becoming a controversy and yet the very facts (Hawaii's case, Utah's so-called "Defense of Marriage", Federal DOMA) would say that the controversy had begun prior to POTF.

[canard78]

23 hours 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.

USA is well behind the curve on gay and gender equality. 

The proclamation came out when these topics WERE on the agenda in other countries and areas. Many of us have moved on. Gay marriage is not a controversial topic any more in UK, for example. Give it 10 years and hopefully US will have got over it too. 

As for your other point. Negativity towards a religious doctrine is hardly evidence of truth. 

I'll avoid some low hanging fruit examples from the very extreme religious positions as they are probably an unreasonable comparison. 

If we were to simply to consider the pushback on the LDS black doctrine, opposed by thinking people like Dr Lowry Nelson, we'd see an example of a doctrine that was not strengthened through opposition to it.