Dan Peterson on the family proclamation

[canard78]

13 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. 

When prophets are long gone and have spoken something that today is uncomfortable (e.g. Brigham Young or others on Blacks), then they are products of their time. Any critique of them or the prophetic model is unreasonable and if you do, you're succumbing to presentism and, according to Robert, have a "fairy faith."

If, on the other hand, the living prophet opposes something that you also oppose you can confidently say that he is speaking God's truth, opposing evil and is ahead of his time. 

Once you work out how to do this it's apparently really easy to switch back and forth between the two without any problems. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

35 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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.

 

In Hawaii, Step Toward Legalized Gay Marriage

By JEFFREY SCHMALZ

Published: May 7, 1993

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/07/us/in-hawaii-step-toward-legalized-gay-marriage.html

Edited May 18, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Rivers]

4 hours 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 once started a thread asking for a examples but none were provided.

[TheSkepticChristian]

.

Edited May 18, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[canard78]

25 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

 

In Hawaii, Step Toward Legalized Gay Marriage

By JEFFREY SCHMALZ

Published: May 7, 1993

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/07/us/in-hawaii-step-toward-legalized-gay-marriage.html

"Beginning with Denmark in 1989, civil unions under one name or another have been established by law in several, mostly developed, countries in order to provide legal recognition of relationships formed by unmarried same-sex couples and to afford them rights, benefits, tax breaks, and responsibilities similar or identical to those of legally married couples."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union

#stillnotreactivethough

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Michael Sanders said:

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.

So the Politburo of Communist China is ordained by God to restrain the evil doer?  Perhaps, but I do wonder about those who insist that "all laws legislate morality:"  Whose morality?  The morality of Satan was legislated by the German Nazi Party (NSDAP) beginning in 1933.  Are you saying that those anti-Jewish laws were ordained by God?  Are you suggesting that legalized genocide was God's plan? 

Are you at all familiar with the detailed report by the committee chaired by Senator Frank Church?  Do you understand why he was so concerned with the potential for totalitarianism in America?

[Hamba Tuhan]

25 minutes ago, canard78 said:

#stillnotreactivethough

I'm 100% happy for the prophets of God to react to winds of false doctrine, the sleight of men, and the cunning craftiness that the enemy of righteousness uses as he seeks to deceive. In fact, I think that's their job. Watchmen on towers may see coming threats before the people on the ground detect the same (or their seriousness), but that's precisely what watchmen do: react to the threats they see bearing down on the innocents whom they have an obligation to warn and protect. Doing so, in fact, is by definition prophetic.*

-----

*From the OED: prophetic: 'Of, relating to, befitting, or characteristic of a prophet'; prophet: 'A divinely inspired interpreter, revealer, or teacher of the will or thought of God or of a god; a person who speaks, or is regarded as speaking, for or in the name of God'.

Edited May 18, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

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! 

I read it over carefully, and you have proven that you cannot find the quote you falsely attributed to Peterson.  You have also proven that you are unable to read for accurate comprehension.  Trying again won't help you.  Your premises are false, as are your conclusions.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Rivers said:

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

So do I.

[canard78]

8 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm 100% happy for the prophets of God to react to winds of false doctrine, the sleight of men, and the cunning craftiness that the enemy of righteousness uses as he seeks to deceive. In fact, I think that's their job. Watchmen on towers may see coming threats before the people on the ground detect the same (or their seriousness), but that's precisely what watchmen do: react to the threats they see bearing down on the innocents whom they have an obligation to warn and protect. Doing so, in fact, is by definition prophetic.*

-----

*From the OED: prophetic: 'Of, relating to, befitting, or characteristic of a prophet'; prophet: 'A divinely inspired interpreter, revealer, or teacher of the will or thought of God or of a god; a person who speaks, or is regarded as speaking, for or in the name of God'.

I'm fine with the definition you've given. If we're saying that the role of a Mormon prophet is to interpret or teaches what they (or their followers) consider to be the word of God, then that seems a reasonable definition (with certain caveats about human fallibility of course!)

The point a few of us are making is to show that the POTF is reactive, not preemptive. Like you say, a prophet can certainly be reactive, I don't have an issue with that. I took issue with the suggestion from others that POTF was preemptive. 

@Daniel Peterson (and, by endorsement, @Scott Lloyd) said:

The Church positioned itself on certain fundamental issues before they became controversial.

The POTF came out before it became controversial in Utah... perhaps USA. The move towards acceptance of gay relationships, same-sex civil unions and marriage had started before the POTF was released. As a UK teenager in the 90s, my Mormon beliefs on gay relationships was definitely controversial among my peers.

The fact that it's taken parts of USA a couple more decades to catch up and, finally, move forward doesn't alter the fact that it was happening much earlier in other parts of the world.

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm 100% happy for the prophets of God to react to winds of false doctrine, the sleight of men, and the cunning craftiness that the enemy of righteousness uses as he seeks to deceive. In fact, I think that's their job. Watchmen on towers may see coming threats before the people on the ground detect the same (or their seriousness), but that's precisely what watchmen do: react to the threats they see bearing down on the innocents whom they have an obligation to warn and protect. Doing so, in fact, is by definition prophetic.*

-----

*From the OED: prophetic: 'Of, relating to, befitting, or characteristic of a prophet'; prophet: 'A divinely inspired interpreter, revealer, or teacher of the will or thought of God or of a god; a person who speaks, or is regarded as speaking, for or in the name of God'.

I also have no problem with prophets dictating what they feel the church members should do and what doctrine is for the church. I would also say, that is their job.  

But where things start to fall apart is when there is a claim made that their insights are the best for everyone else.  

Does anyone else find it odd that the prophet thinks committed married gay couples is more wicked than gays not having such committed relations and commitment to those they are having sex with?  Does not society do better when it's citizens are in committed relationships?  Are not the legal benefits important to those gay families, especially when children are involved?  Unless a gay person is willing to commit to celibacy, I would think the next best option for society and those relationships would be to be in committed legal long term relationships. 

There is just something troubling with the church's position of discouraging committed gay married relationships at any cost.  Perhaps that is why there are many in the church who do not agree with this anti gay marriage stance.  I realize that the church believes sexual relations whether married or not is a sin.  But it still seems odd that the church discourages gay couples from committing to each other, especially when they are not members of the church and share the beliefs that homosexual relationships are sinful.

 

[jkwilliams]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

Interesting that you consider the leadership of the church's worldwide organization for women to be as relevant to church decisions as a random couple in a random ward. That really does put the role of women in perspective.

[Buckeye]

I'm also getting to this thread late. I agree with comments indicating that the PotF was very much a product of its time. Of course it was also forward-directed. But it's silly to suggest that in 1995 no one was worried about gay marriage. If anyone is in doubt, here are a few easy to find timelines showing events involving gay marriage and the church prior to the 1995 statement:

http://www.mormonsocialscience.org/2008/01/04/richley-crapo-chronology-of-mormon-lds-involvement-in-same-sex-marriage-politics/

http://rationalfaiths.com/timeline-of-mormon-thinking-about-homosexuality/

 

[Daniel Peterson]

8 hours ago, Rivers said:

I once started a thread asking for a examples but none were provided.

That's been my experience, as well.

 

Once or twice, people have supplied one or two really weak specimens that, if they're taken in the worst possible way, might perhaps possibly maybe potentially be taken as illustrations of my supposedly continuous viciousness.

 

But the legend continues, nonetheless.  It's taken on a life of its own.  Zombie-like, but still oddly living.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Daniel Peterson said:

That's been my experience, as well.

Once or twice, people have supplied one or two really weak specimens that, if they're taken in the worst possible way, might perhaps possibly maybe potentially be taken as illustrations of my supposedly continuous viciousness.

But the legend continues, nonetheless.  It's taken on a life of its own.  Zombie-like, but still oddly living.

I thought you hated everyone.

[TheSkepticChristian]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I read it over carefully, and you have proven that you cannot find the quote you falsely attributed to Peterson.  You have also proven that you are unable to read for accurate comprehension.  Trying again won't help you.  Your premises are false, as are your conclusions.

Whatever, if I tell someone here "Are you in apostasy?" and "I wonder what they are teaching you at home?" the mods will take that as an insult and will ban me. I understand that he is your friend, but if I insinuate an insult here it won't matter? 

but oh well, I guess I was wrong, he didn't directly name-call anyone.

Edited May 18, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Robert F. Smith]

11 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Whatever, if I tell someone here "Are you in apostasy?" and "I wonder what they are teaching you at home?" the mods will take that as an insult and will ban me. I understand that he is your friend, but if I insinuate an insult here it won't matter? 

Friendship is not at issue.  If he were wrong, I would take him to task, but that is not the case here.  You done him wrong and overreached, Skeptic.  You simply need to read and report more accurately.  Please don't put words in someone's mouth.  Quote them exactly, and provide complete citations.  These things you did not do.

[TheSkepticChristian]

29 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Friendship is not at issue.  If he were wrong, I would take him to task, but that is not the case here.  You done him wrong and overreached, Skeptic.  You simply need to read and report more accurately.  Please don't put words in someone's mouth.  Quote them exactly, and provide complete citations.  These things you did not do.

Like I said, I guess I was wrong because he didn't directly name-call anyone. 

[CV75]

7 hours ago, canard78 said:

The point a few of us are making is to show that the POTF is reactive, not preemptive.

It can be viewed both ways, of course, just like the faith-knowledge dynamo: You begin to believe when you hear, and you begin to hear when you believe (“So then faith cometh by hearing” and, “He who hath faith to hear shall hear.”).

While pinpointing which comes first (such as faith or knowledge and believing or hearing) might be an interesting exercise, there is always another layer to peel back. Legitimate prophetic involvement is what makes the revelation profitable, not these mechanics!

[stemelbow]

14 hours 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 dont' know about anyone else but I see three distinct instances of name calling in the above.  You just can't help yourself, can you, Dan? 

 

I cracked (pun intended) your code.

Edited May 18, 2016 by stemelbow

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

I also have no problem with prophets dictating what they feel the church members should do and what doctrine is for the church. I would also say, that is their job.  

But where things start to fall apart is when there is a claim made that their insights are the best for everyone else.

The OT prophets and Jesus had the same problem, and some people got very angry at them. 

Does anyone else find it odd that the prophet thinks committed married gay couples is more wicked than gays not having such committed relations and commitment to those they are having sex with?

Not sure that this is true at all, but the sentence is unclear in any case.

 Does not society do better when it's citizens are in committed relationships?  Are not the legal benefits important to those gay families, especially when children are involved?  Unless a gay person is willing to commit to celibacy, I would think the next best option for society and those relationships would be to be in committed legal long term relationships. 

I agree, and American society in general is quite tolerant of that idea -- which is now considered chic in some circles.  The change is remarkable.

There is just something troubling with the church's position of discouraging committed gay married relationships at any cost.  

That is not the position of the LDS Church.

Perhaps that is why there are many in the church who do not agree with this anti gay marriage stance.  I realize that the church believes sexual relations whether married or not is a sin.

I assume that you meant this to apply only to homosexual relations, but it is not clear.

 But it still seems odd that the church discourages gay couples from committing to each other, especially when they are not members of the church and share the beliefs that homosexual relationships are sinful.

Mormons, like Orthodox Jews, believe that sexual relations between same gender people is immoral and prohibited by God.  That does not mean that this applies to non-members.  Certainly the Jews couldn't care less what the Gentiles do (the late Jacob Milgrom pointed out that the biblical prohibitions on homosexual activity did not apply to the Gentiles), and the strong LDS effort to afford homosexuals of every civil liberty in access to jobs, housing, etc., belies your claim here that they are trying to prevent non-member homosexual commitment to each other.  That is nonsense.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Interesting that you consider the leadership of the church's worldwide organization for women to be as relevant to church decisions as a random couple in a random ward. That really does put the role of women in perspective.

I'm certain you recognize that I said what I did with tongue in cheek. People often do that pursuant to making a point.

The point here is that it is not incumbent upon the prophet of the Lord to have this auxiliary leader or that officer or any other entity or individual sign off on something before he conveys it to the Church as the mind and will of the Lord. He may choose to do so on occasion but he has no such obligation.

What we are discussing here is a proclamation to the world from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, of which there have only been a few in this gospel dispensation, created and refined by the only mortals on earth who bear the title and roles of prophet, seer and revelator.

It didn't have to be presented at a general Relief Society gathering. It could appropriately have been introduced at a general session of conference. Or it could have been conveyed in a written memo to general local Church leaders. Had it happened that way, one wonders whether Chieko Okazaki would have felt she had occasion to fuss over not having been consulted in advance.

Finally, this was not a proclamation just to "the Church's worldwide organization for women." It was a proclamation to every woman, man and child in the Church of Jesus Christ and, beyond that, a proclamation to the entire world. In that respect, the objections of Sister Okazaki strike me as a tad petty and presumptuous.

 

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Like I said, I guess I was wrong because he didn't directly name-call anyone. 

Maybe it is because Dan is smart ..like a fox.

[canard78]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

It can be viewed both ways, of course, just like the faith-knowledge dynamo: You begin to believe when you hear, and you begin to hear when you believe (“So then faith cometh by hearing” and, “He who hath faith to hear shall hear.”).

 

While pinpointing which comes first (such as faith or knowledge and believing or hearing) might be an interesting exercise, there is always another layer to peel back. Legitimate prophetic involvement is what makes the revelation profitable, not these mechanics!

 

I've read this comment several times and I'm still baffled as to how "reactive vs pre-emptive" is in any way comparable to "faith vs knowledge."

I know you've made the comparison by saying they are... but you haven't illustrated how they are!

[jkwilliams]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm certain you recognize that I said what I did with tongue in cheek. People often do that pursuant to making a point.

The point here is that it is not incumbent upon the prophet of the Lord to have this auxiliary leader or that officer or any other entity or individual sign off on something before he conveys it to the Church as the mind and will of the Lord. He may choose to do so on occasion but he has no such obligation.

What we are discussing here is a proclamation to the world from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, of which there have only been a few in this gospel dispensation, created and refined by the only mortals on earth who bear the title and roles of prophet, seer and revelator.

It didn't have to be presented at a general Relief Society gathering. It could appropriately have been introduced at a general session of conference. Or it could have been conveyed in a written memo to general local Church leaders. Had it happened that way, one wonders whether Chieko Okazaki would have felt she had occasion to fuss over not having been consulted in advance.

Finally, this was not a proclamation just to "the Church's worldwide organization for women." It was a proclamation to every woman, man and child in the Church of Jesus Christ and, beyond that, a proclamation to the entire world. In that respect, the objections of Sister Okazaki strike me as a tad petty and presumptuous.

I've read that it was presented at the women's conference because the brethren were in a hurry to get it out. Any idea why it was rushed like that?

I know your comment was tongue-in-cheek, but my observation stands: if the general Relief Society presidency were not worth even consulting about any of this, it does tell me something about the role of women in the church.