Dan Peterson on the family proclamation

[Scott Lloyd]

13 hours ago, canard78 said:

The POTF came out before it became controversial in Utah... perhaps USA.

And that, arguably, is what makes the family proclamation prescient and, well, prophetic. Two decades ago, I never would have imagined there would come a time when even a significant minority of Church members would seriously entertain the thought that the Church of Jesus Christ would one day embrace what it now deems as abominable: homosexual behavior. With the proclamation having been in place for the past two decades, such individuals must come to terms with the fact that they are out of harmony with the doctrines, teachings, beliefs and position of the Church, that they are in effect straddling a fence.

Societal trends were in motion back then; of course they were. What many of us did not anticipate was the steamroller, the juggernaut that would roll forth with such intensity that those who sustained traditional beliefs and values would be widely branded as bigots. I think that's what Dan was saying in his blog post, and it's certainly what I say.

Edited May 18, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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.

I don't think shutting out women would happen in today's Church on something like this.  So that's a lesson learned, we can hope. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, stemelbow said:

I don't think shutting out women would happen in today's Church on something like this.  So that's a lesson learned, we can hope. 

Reminds me of when I was working for the church and we were doing a new version of a tourist brochure with a map of downtown Salt Lake church sites. At the last moment, I got a call from the Relief Society because they were really angry that their "blurb" had been removed from the brochure and no one had told them. I was on a conference call with Elaine Jack and Michaelene Grassli (I think that was her name, anyway), who raked me over the coals, even though I was just the editor and had nothing to do with the content. They pushed hard, and they got their way, but they sure didn't like being left out of the loop.

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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.

I think Scott's comments about Sister Okazaki also tell us something about the role of women in the church.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Reminds me of when I was working for the church and we were doing a new version of a tourist brochure with a map of downtown Salt Lake church sites. At the last moment, I got a call from the Relief Society because they were really angry that their "blurb" had been removed from the brochure and no one had told them. I was on a conference call with Elaine Jack and Michaelene Grassli (I think that was her name, anyway), who raked me over the coals, even though I was just the editor and had nothing to do with the content. They pushed hard, and they got their way, but they sure didn't like being left out of the loop.

Good for those women on telling you, a man, off.  even if it seemed misplaced to you, you deserved it. 

This after or before the Proclamation fiasco? 

 

[CV75]

5 minutes ago, canard78 said:

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!

Just as faith builds upon knowledge, and knowledge builds upon faith (and so on, building upon each other)--and it it doesn't matter which we presume might be occurring first--preemption and reaction build upon each other. The anticipation precipitating a preemptive action is only a reaction to some other action that is already taking place, or has already taken place, but it is still preemptive. An preemptive action can be reactive in origin, and a reactive action can be preemptive in design.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Good for those women on telling you, a man, off.  even if it seemed misplaced to you, you deserved it. 

This after or before the Proclamation fiasco? 

This was a few years before the proclamation. I'm not sure why it would be called a "fiasco," though. I wasn't upset with them, just happened to be the proverbial "messenger" in their line of fire.

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

This was a few years before the proclamation. I'm not sure why it would be called a "fiasco," though. I wasn't upset with them, just happened to be the proverbial "messenger" in their line of fire.

Well, they were pioneers then.  I realize you were just the person on the other end hearing and/or dealing with their frustration.  Tried to be a little cheeky. 

[CV75]

I think if the Proclamation was only reactive to legislation, it would have been dropped just as Prop 8 campaigning was dropped. But it has consistently served as the basis for Church teachings that go far beyond political and legal applications.

[consiglieri]

57 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

 

[cinepro]

46 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think if the Proclamation was only reactive to legislation, it would have been dropped just as Prop 8 campaigning was dropped. But it has consistently served as the basis for Church teachings that go far beyond political and legal applications.

I'm not sure what you heard, but Prop 8 campaigning was dropped because there was an election and Prop 8 passed.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Proclamation fiasco

Say what?

[USU78]

20 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Here is what you said:

[W]hat 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?

The symbol "?" indicates that the sentence it is appended to is an interrogative one.  This question you avoided and continue to avoid.

Please to answer it instead of potshotting.

[USU78]

 

20 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.

Several things motivated my comment, but before I comment on my comment, I note in passing that the surveillant state is already here, and grossly immoral people without accountability to anyone but the grossly immoral are surveilling us all, all the time (they just don't have the manpower to read/listen to everything they gather).  Anyway, here are the comments:

1.  The frequent and strident calls for driving religion and the religious from the public square are, to me, the most frightening and ominous development of the last 20 years or so.

2.  The frequent and strident actions intended by their actors to drive religion and the religious from economic participation (increasingly successful) are, to me, the second most frightening and ominous development of the last 20 years or so.

3.  Antireligionist legislators and regulators increasingly pass/promulgate laws that, in their inevitable consequences, limit religious exercise and compel individual participation in/sponsorship of obscenity and abomination.  If nobody friendly to religions and the religious is in there fighting it out with the dangerous and increasingly numerous epiphaneses, their desires become our nightmare  ...  and we cannot rely on the judiciary to protect our religious exercise rights.  If "our guys" aren't adding actual meat to the sausage, it'll end up all gristle, guts and bone.

And you're worrying about a return of blue laws?  Seriously?

 

 

[stemelbow]

21 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Say what?

Well one day, it'll be looked back in such a way.  Just give it time, about the time gay marriages are conducted in temples, dotting the land. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

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?

No. The Brethren rarely, if ever, include me in the loop before they make their major pronouncements.

Quote

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.

I also asked, rhetorically, why they didn't consult the general Sunday School presidency first. Any thoughts on that?

That's closer example to theoretically consulting the Relief Society presidency than was my tongue-in-cheek example of them consulting my wife and me before lowering the ages of missionary eligibility.

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well one day, it'll be looked back in such a way.  Just give it time, about the time gay marriages are conducted in temples, dotting the land. 

I well know you look at it that way right now.  Shall we ask Scott to add this to the antireligionist prophesies he's keeping track of?

[USU78]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No. The Brethren rarely, if ever, include me in the loop before they make their major pronouncements.

I also asked, rhetorically, why they didn't consult the general Sunday School presidency first. Any thoughts on that?

I know!  I know!  Pick me!  Pick me!

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No. The Brethren rarely, if ever, include me in the loop before they make their major pronouncements.

I also asked, rhetorically, why they didn't consult the general Sunday School presidency first. Any thoughts on that?

That's closer example to theoretically consulting the Relief Society presidency than was my tongue-in-cheek example of them consulting my wife and me before lowering the ages of missionary eligibility.

Well, that's my point: the Relief Society has no more standing than any of the auxiliaries, which tells me something about the position of women in the church. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I don't think shutting out women would happen in today's Church on something like this.  So that's a lesson learned, we can hope. 

Women weren't shut out, any more than I was shut out because I wasn't consulted beforehand.

As far as I know, the general Sunday School presidency wasn't consulted in advance. I attend Sunday School. Every week. Should I now be fussing about having been "shut out"?

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I well know you look at it that way right now.  Shall we ask Scott to add this to the antireligionist prophesies he's keeping track of?

I believe he's already got me queued up.  But in this case, I was just putting my tongue in my cheek, or how ever that saying goes. 

Originally when I said fiasco I meant it cheekily hoping JkWilliams saw it that way.  Even he wouldn't paly along. 

[USU78]

Just now, stemelbow said:

I believe he's already got me queued up.  But in this case, I was just putting my tongue in my cheek, or how ever that saying goes. 

Originally when I said fiasco I meant it cheekily hoping JkWilliams saw it that way.  Even he wouldn't paly along. 

Poor you.  All up for fun and nobody'll play.  Wanna play "Which Marvel Superhero Movie is your favorite" or something?

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

I believe he's already got me queued up.  But in this case, I was just putting my tongue in my cheek, or how ever that saying goes. 

Originally when I said fiasco I meant it cheekily hoping JkWilliams saw it that way.  Even he wouldn't paly along. 

That's because people who have made a conscious decision to follow Satan have no sense of humor. 

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Women weren't shut out, any more than I was shut out because I wasn't consulted beforehand.

As far as I know, the general Sunday School presidency wasn't consulted in advance. I attend Sunday School. Every week. Should I now be fussing about having been "shut out"?

Sheesh...either women are part of the leadership of the Church or not.  I see it as a good thing the Church has changed.  You seem to be sticking to your guns for no reason but to stick to your guns.  Let's reason together. 

[Robert F. Smith]

16 minutes ago, USU78 said:

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

And you're worrying about a return of blue laws?  Seriously?

No, not really.  I misunderstood your terse comments, and was merely offering a reductio ad absurdum.  Ignore it.