conference today

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yeah, few things spin up the residents of the great and spacious building like the family proclamation, I suppose. 

 

I think it's also a struggle for some who are holding to the iron rod.  

[Jeanne]

Wow...just got home.  4 pages already...today must have been a good one!

[Jeanne]

Just a quick note..just started the 1st page and I wanted to thank Bluebell and Rain for doing this for me and others...thank you!

Edited October 1, 2017 by Jeanne

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I think it's also a struggle for some who are holding to the iron rod.  

Yeah. One the elements of Lehi's dream is that some of the people who had partaken of the fruit of the tree thereafter felt shame by reason of the mockery from those in the building. 

[bluebell]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Yeah. One the elements of Lehi's dream is that some of the people who had partaken of the fruit of the tree thereafter felt shame by reason of the mockery from those in the building. 

I don't think that all active members who struggle with the proclamation do so because they don't like being mocked, though.  I haven't personally talked to any who's discomfort stems from something that shallow (they are probably out there, i've just never heard that personally).

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

Headed home after our date - last chance to go before my husband leaves the country for a couple of weeks. Will need to watch the first few talks in this session later. 

 

I hope you had a good time...memories are so important.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Button Gwinnett said:

I'm all for pray, ponder and study it out in your mind and I acknowledge that it's just me, but what Elder Oaks described just came off to me as a very man made , though thoughtful, process. I've just never thought of revelation as being made by committee, studies, conducting surveys and seeking legal advice before.  I just need to process this new information. 

Revelators like Joseph Smith who can dictate the will of God as he did seem to come about once a millenia. We needed one at the beginning so he was there because there was so much revelation to unfold.

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yeah. One the elements of Lehi's dream is that some of the people who had partaken of the fruit of the tree thereafter felt shame by reason of the mockery from those in the building. 

Or the faithful may feel sorrow for those who do or who otherwise are suffering.  There is no reason to feel shame in wondering why some people have difficulties in their lives and wishing life might be easier while still achieving .God's purposes.

Edited October 1, 2017 by Calm

[The Nehor]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think that all active members who struggle with the proclamation do so because they don't like being mocked, though.  I haven't personally talked to any who's discomfort stems from something that shallow (they are probably out there, i've just never heard that personally).

While I do not doubt you I have learned that people (including myself) lie to ourselves and other about our motives a lot. Very few people are honest enough to admit that they disagree with something because it comes with social consequences or admit they went inactive primarily because they wanted to sleep in on Sunday.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

While I do not doubt you I have learned that people (including myself) lie to ourselves and other about our motives a lot. Very few people are honest enough to admit that they disagree with something because it comes with social consequences or admit they went inactive primarily because they wanted to sleep in on Sunday.

The people I know personally offline who struggle with the FP do so because they love someone who is not heterosexual and they want everything for them that their other loved ones have the potential of having.

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

While I do not doubt you I have learned that people (including myself) lie to ourselves and other about our motives a lot. Very few people are honest enough to admit that they disagree with something because it comes with social consequences or admit they went inactive primarily because they wanted to sleep in on Sunday.

This is true, but from what has been expressed, all those who I’ve spoken with who are uncomfortable with the proclamation are so because they sincerely don’t believe SSM is sinful. 

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think that all active members who struggle with the proclamation do so because they don't like being mocked, though.  I haven't personally talked to any who's discomfort stems from something that shallow (they are probably out there, i've just never heard that personally).

Whether it is shame they feel or some other emotion, and whether it pertains to the family proclamation or some other issue, some among our own people are letting or have let themselves be influenced by the behavior of those in the building, which, as is explicitly stated in the scripture, represents "the pride of the world."

I get what Calm and you have said, though, about the faithful feeling sorrow for those who have been so influenced. I don't believe that is the same thing as being influenced oneself. That would be akin to what Lehi's felt about his older sons who wouldn't partake of the fruit. 

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This is true, but from what has been expressed, all those who I’ve spoken with who are uncomfortable with the proclamation are so because they sincerely don’t believe SSM is sinful. 

Perhaps the "mists of darkness" element of the dream applies here. 

Coincidentally, President Uchtdorf is giving a masterful address in the priesthood session right now about darkness and light and the healing influence light has on spiritual sickness. 

Edited October 1, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[provoman]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Worth consideration as there is a fairly popular notion in circulation that the proclamation is merely an expansion or adaptation of a legal brief written by attorneys.

 

CFR

[SmileyMcGee]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yeah, few things spin up the residents of the great and spacious building like the family proclamation, I suppose. 

 

If that's true then they are really wasting their time...I can think of much cooler things to do in the great and spacious building

[provoman]

11 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

some of us are working and wont be able to watch live. I'd love to hear how it is going.

Official summaries on lds.org

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/talk-summaries-general-priesthood?cid=HP_SA_23-9-2017_dGC_fBCAST_xLIDyL2-1_&lang=eng

[ksfisher]

43 minutes ago, provoman said:

CFR

This is a silly CFR.  Just read this thread and your CFR will be answered.

[provoman]

22 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

This is a silly CFR.  Just read this thread and your CFR will be answered.

He can answer for himself, though wont be suprised when he doesn't. He can identify the statements made PRIOR to his posting that support his claim.

Your comment is reliance on confirmation bias.

Edited October 1, 2017 by provoman

[Okrahomer]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

CFR

https://wheatandtares.org/2014/10/30/proclamation-written-by-lawyers/ 

"My understanding is that Mckonkie et. al. didn’t have a hand in writing it but the innitial draft was largely written by one of the law professors at the Y (whose name I am spacing and whose fingerprints are apparently easy to see all over it), but expressly for the Hawaii court cases so the church could file as an interested party(probably on the council of lawyers at McKonkie. I would guess that saying the lawyers along with Elder Oaks “commissioned” the PoF is probably a pretty fair description). Certainly, final wording was massaged and approved by the 12 (probably in conjunction with a committee with some 70s with some expertise), regardless of who had the work of drafting and itterating it."

[Calm]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

CFR

This discusses it, the comments have a number of viewpoints:

https://wheatandtares.org/2014/10/30/proclamation-written-by-lawyers/

added...okra beat me!!!!

This is from the exmormon Reddit, so no link, but an easy google...the name was deleted, so it is impossible to check.

"In the early to mid-1990s my brother-in-law worked at Kirton McConkie, the LDS Church's law firm that helped the General Authorities draft the Proclamation on the Family. I can vouch that I have known for 20 years that the Proclamation was specifically created as part of an amicus brief that Kirton McConkie drafted in the Church's fight against marriage equality in Hawaii in the mid-1990s, and releasing it to the broader membership as a "proclamation" was needed to officially codify the document and give one-man one-woman marriage credence as an "official" doctrine of the church"

Here's another:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67354-should-the-family-a-proclamation-be-canonized-in-our-scriptures/?do=findComment&comment=1209610801

Edited October 1, 2017 by Calm

[Button Gwinnett]

4 hours ago, Raingirl said:

And I, along with scores of others, clearly understood what  Elder Oaks was actually saying, that the Family Proclamation was revealed to the Prophets by Heavenly Father, and most definitely not a "man-made process". Perpetual critics won't understand that, as they won't believe any revelations not given to the prophets in a manner that they demand, rather than the manner Heavenly Father chooses. Especially if the revelation doesn't meet with their own self-focused needs. 

You may want to familiarize yourself with the entire process that the family proclamation went through to become gods revealed word before you start throwing broad generalizations out. Just saying.

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

This is true, but from what has been expressed, all those who I’ve spoken with who are uncomfortable with the proclamation are so because they sincerely don’t believe SSM is sinful.

A lot of those that have expressed that sentiment on blogs etc. that I have read have family or close friends affected by that Proclamation and have been torn because they wish to see those people in a happy relationship. I can understand those feelings because my wife and I are in a similar position with one of our sons.

Glenn

[provoman]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

This discusses it, the comments have a number of viewpoints:

https://wheatandtares.org/2014/10/30/proclamation-written-by-lawyers/

added...okra beat me!!!!

This is from the exmormon Reddit, so no link, but an easy google...the name was deleted, so it is impossible to check.

"In the early to mid-1990s my brother-in-law worked at Kirton McConkie, the LDS Church's law firm that helped the General Authorities draft the Proclamation on the Family. I can vouch that I have known for 20 years that the Proclamation was specifically created as part of an amicus brief that Kirton McConkie drafted in the Church's fight against marriage equality in Hawaii in the mid-1990s, and releasing it to the broader membership as a "proclamation" was needed to officially codify the document and give one-man one-woman marriage credence as an "official" doctrine of the church"

Here's another:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67354-should-the-family-a-proclamation-be-canonized-in-our-scriptures/?do=findComment&comment=1209610801

As smac responded to the person who linked the wheatandtares blog which did not link to the facebook post.

On 4/5/2016 at 10:56 AM, smac97 said:

Wow.  A blog entry quoting, but not linking to, a Facebook post claiming that the Proclamation was written by a law firm.  I wonder how many levels of hearsay we would find in this "evidence."  Accepting this "evidence" takes a remarkable amount of faith.  Or, rather, an anti-faith.  An anti-faith rooted in hostility rather than hope.  Ignorance rather than knowledge.

Sad.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

So a blog post, with 46 comments is the basis to claim " there is a fairly popular notion in circulation that the proclamation is merely an expansion or adaptation of a legal brief written by attorneys."  I can not image any reasonable person using 46  comments on a random blog, 28 comments on reddit, out of estimated 4 billion internet users as being a "fairly popular notion in circulation."  Some people need a boogeyman, I guess.

Edited October 1, 2017 by provoman

[cdowis]

A side note == the World Church Report was amazing!

World Peace Award presented in India
RS President speaking at the UN, and she got a "shout out" for the church's efforts
Black legislators getting their family history
etc etc etc

 

Edited October 1, 2017 by cdowis

[juliann]

57 minutes ago, Calm said:

This discusses it, the comments have a number of viewpoints:

https://wheatandtares.org/2014/10/30/proclamation-written-by-lawyers/

added...okra beat me!!!!

This is from the exmormon Reddit, so no link, but an easy google...the name was deleted, so it is impossible to check.

"In the early to mid-1990s my brother-in-law worked at Kirton McConkie, the LDS Church's law firm that helped the General Authorities draft the Proclamation on the Family. I can vouch that I have known for 20 years that the Proclamation was specifically created as part of an amicus brief that Kirton McConkie drafted in the Church's fight against marriage equality in Hawaii in the mid-1990s, and releasing it to the broader membership as a "proclamation" was needed to officially codify the document and give one-man one-woman marriage credence as an "official" doctrine of the church"

Here's another:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67354-should-the-family-a-proclamation-be-canonized-in-our-scriptures/?do=findComment&comment=1209610801

Except the brief was dated two years after the Proc was released. I really don't get why claiming lawyers wrote it would be a compelling position. Why would lawyers have to write it? They certainly used it but just because something is in a brief doesn't mean the lawyer who drew it up composed every letter himself. Where does that idea even come from?  And why anybody would think that the Brethren couldn't do an adequate job is just so very odd.