Scrutinizing general conference

[Bobbieaware]

14 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Yes, we have President Hinckley's words; but you're not arguing from them, because you can't. You are arguing from what he didn't say.

Nothing Elder Oaks said contradicts anything President Hinckley said.

Of course what Elder Oaks said will be rejected by some, because that's what they do. But that doesn't make him wrong.

 

In spite of what Elder Oaks said at the last General Comference, there are some on this board who will beg to differ with you. I'm glad to say I am not one of them.

[kiwi57]

Just now, Bobbieaware said:

In spite of what Elder Oaks said at the last General Comference, there are some on this board who will beg to differ with you. I'm glad to say I am not one of them.

And I'm equally glad to know that there are still some who are not.

[JLHPROF]

26 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

The Proclamation is a revelatory document. Its contents are definitive, canonical LDS doctrine. This is not a matter of controversy.

Revelation?  Maybe.
Definitive doctrinally?  Probably.  Of the current Church position.
Canonical?  Not yet.

You're getting a bit ahead of yourself.
Until the Proclamation becomes OD3 or D&C 139 it's not canon.

[kiwi57]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Revelation?  Maybe.
Definitive doctrinally?  Probably.  Of the current Church position.
Canonical?  Not yet.

You're getting a bit ahead of yourself.
Until the Proclamation becomes OD3 or D&C 139 it's not canon.

I didn't say that the Proclamation was canonical. I said that its contents are.

The two things are not the same.

When it came out in 1995, I read it carefully, and came away a little bit puzzled. I couldn't figure out why an official proclamation from the First Presidency and the Twelve was needed for what was essentially a summary of already-known doctrine. Was it, I wondered, merely a teaching tool? We have manuals for that. Was it for proselyting? Apart from a few scant references to pre-mortal existence and heavenly parents, there wasn't much there that most Christians could disagree with. I confidently expected that it would be forgotten before too long.

My face is red every time I remember that.

But the important point is that every bit of doctrine in the Proclamation - including those bits that are so infuriating to the "progressive" elements of society - was already well-known and accepted in the Church, to the point that it was all pretty much taken for granted at the time. That's why, to me and my contemporaries, it seemed like the product of a slow news day at Church HQ.

 

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

I didn't say that the Proclamation was canonical. I said that its contents are.

The two things are not the same.

When it came out in 1995, I read it carefully, and came away a little bit puzzled. I couldn't figure out why an official proclamation from the First Presidency and the Twelve was needed for what was essentially a summary of already-known doctrine. Was it, I wondered, merely a teaching tool? We have manuals for that. Was it for proselyting? Apart from a few scant references to pre-mortal existence and heavenly parents, there wasn't much there that most Christians could disagree with. I confidently expected that it would be forgotten before too long.

My face is red every time I remember that.

But the important point is that every bit of doctrine in the Proclamation - including those bits that are so infuriating to the "progressive" elements of society - was already well-known and accepted in the Church, to the point that it was all pretty much taken for granted at the time. That's why, to me and my contemporaries, it seemed like the product of a slow news day at Church HQ.

 

I think it was issued as an inspired warning to the world.  Whether there was any prophetic foreknowledge of what was to come I don't think we know.
But the Lord wanted this document issued to the world.
It may not be a revelation in that it revealed any new doctrine, but it may well have had a divine purpose in its release.
Unfortunately because it was written as a proclamation and not a revelation, most just see it as the words of men, not of God.  We need a good "Thus Saith The Lord" if we want to really shake things up.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Unfortunately because it was written as a proclamation and not a revelation, most just see it as the words of men, not of God. 

I think you are significantly overestimating the number of Saints who quibble over such things. If I think really hard, I may personally know a few members who see the proclamation as 'the words of men', but I'm 100% confident these same members would see it that way regardless of how it might be identified because they've already predetermined what God is allowed to say on this topic. Anything else therefore must be of men.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think you are significantly overestimating the number of Saints who quibble over such things. If I think really hard, I may personally know a few members who see the proclamation as 'the words of men', but I'm 100% confident these same members would see it that way regardless of how it might be identified because they've already predetermined what God is allowed to say on this topic. Anything else therefore must be of men.

I view the Proclamation similarly to the Manifesto.

Quinn wrote an interesting timeline of the creation of the Manifesto.

• “As he entered the First Presidency’s office the morning of 24 September 1890, Wilford Woodruff told John R. Winder, then a member of the Presiding Bishopric, that he had not slept much the night before. "I have been struggling all night with the Lord about what should be done under the existing circumstances of the Church. And,” he said, laying some papers upon the table, “here is the result.” George Q. Cannon confided in his diary: “This whole matter has been at President Woodruffs own instance. He has felt strongly impelled to do what he has, and he has spoken with great plainness to the brethren in regard to the necessity of something of this kind being done. He has stated that the Lord had made it plain to him that this was his duty, and he felt perfectly clear in his mind that it was the right thing.”
  What President Woodruff presented in his own handwriting was a document of 510 words. This document was edited to create the published Manifesto’s text of 356 words.
  George Q. Cannon very carefully outlined the revision process for the Manifesto “because it is frequently the case that when important documents are framed there is a disposition to attribute their authority to one and another, and I have been often credited with saying and doing things which I did not say nor do.” He further observed that “I have not felt like doing anything connected with this document, except upon hearing it read to suggest alterations in it.”
  Counselor Cannon described three levels of revision in the Manifesto that occurred on 24 September 1890: First, the First Presidency was engaged in other deliberations that morning and they asked George Reynolds, Charles W. Penrose, and John R. Winder to “take the document and arrange it for publication, to be submitted to us after they had prepared it.”
  Second, when the document this committee prepared was read, President Cannon himself “suggested several emendations, which were adopted.”
  Third, beginning at 2:30, Wilford Woodruff’s Manifesto as already revised by Reynolds, Penrose, Winder, and Cannon was read to the meeting of the First Presidency and Apostles Franklin D. Richards, Moses Thatcher, and Marriner W. Merrill (Lorenzo Snow was not able to attend the meeting), and “one or two slight alterations were made in it.” As soon as the First Presidency and three apostles approved these final changes, George Reynolds incorporated the revised Manifesto into a telegram the First Presidency sent for publication in national newspapers….. Wilford Woodruff’s first draft of the Manifesto was substantially the same as the shortened, printed version.” (Dialogue, Vol.18, No.1, p.44 – p.45)

I would imagine the creation of the Proclamation went something like that.

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I view the Proclamation similarly to the Manifesto.

Which is perfectly fine.

I suspect based on IRL experience that very few Saints have given it much thought other than to recognise that the proclamation encapsulates divine truths of ever-increasing importance.

Edited October 13, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

Apples and oranges. It was always expected that the Priesthood ban would eventually be removed. I don't see any reason to expect that the Plan of Salvation is going to be radically changed to accommodate SSM.

Elder Oaks's statement won't be "proven wrong," either in 29 years or any other time, for the very good and sufficient reason that it isn't wrong.

Sorry.

The point is not whether Brigham Young’s failed prophecy made people believe that the temple ban was temporary, the point is that prophets, seers, and revelators claimed God’s revealed will and then later disavowed those statements. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

When?

Don't you mean If?

The Proclamation is a revelatory document. Its contents are definitive, canonical LDS doctrine. This is not a matter of controversy.

The Proclamation was never deemed revelation by the Prophet who holds the keys to declare revelation for the church. 

And the Proclamation is also not canonical.  Your claim is false - it has never been canonized. 

And, yes, I meant “when”. 

[kiwi57]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The point is not whether Brigham Young’s failed prophecy made people believe that the temple ban was temporary, the point is that prophets, seers, and revelators claimed God’s revealed will and then later disavowed those statements. 

I'm unaware of what you dogmatically declare to be "Brigham Young’s failed prophecy."

[rockpond]

40 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

I didn't say that the Proclamation was canonical. I said that its contents are.

The two things are not the same.

When it came out in 1995, I read it carefully, and came away a little bit puzzled. I couldn't figure out why an official proclamation from the First Presidency and the Twelve was needed for what was essentially a summary of already-known doctrine. Was it, I wondered, merely a teaching tool? We have manuals for that. Was it for proselyting? Apart from a few scant references to pre-mortal existence and heavenly parents, there wasn't much there that most Christians could disagree with. I confidently expected that it would be forgotten before too long.

My face is red every time I remember that.

But the important point is that every bit of doctrine in the Proclamation - including those bits that are so infuriating to the "progressive" elements of society - was already well-known and accepted in the Church, to the point that it was all pretty much taken for granted at the time. That's why, to me and my contemporaries, it seemed like the product of a slow news day at Church HQ.

 

I guess you weren’t paying attention to what was happening in Hawaii at the time. 

[rockpond]

31 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think it was issued as an inspired warning to the world.  Whether there was any prophetic foreknowledge of what was to come I don't think we know.
But the Lord wanted this document issued to the world.
It may not be a revelation in that it revealed any new doctrine, but it may well have had a divine purpose in its release.
Unfortunately because it was written as a proclamation and not a revelation, most just see it as the words of men, not of God.  We need a good "Thus Saith The Lord" if we want to really shake things up.

I don’t think it needs a “thus saith the Lord” but the document itself claims to be written in the voice of the 15 men who signed it.  They’ve taken credit for the words.  Seems odd if those were the words of the Lord. 

[kiwi57]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The Proclamation was never deemed revelation by the Prophet who holds the keys to declare revelation for the church. 

And the Proclamation is also not canonical.  Your claim is false - it has never been canonized. 

And, yes, I meant “when”. 

To repeat what I wrote above: I didn't say that the Proclamation was canonical. I said that its contents are.

The two things are not the same.

And speaking of failed prophecy, yours is going to fail. Get used to it.

 

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

I'm unaware of what you dogmatically declare to be "Brigham Young’s failed prophecy."

Do you recall when Brigham Young said that the ban would end?  I would copy/paste for you but I’m responding on my phone.  He said that the restriction would remain until all the posterity of Adam had received their blessings.  Hmmm... who is all the posterity of Adam?  The human race right?

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

To repeat what I wrote above: I didn't say that the Proclamation was canonical. I said that its contents are.

The two things are not the same.

And speaking of failed prophecy, yours is going to fail. Get used to it.

 

If the contents are canonical than I assume you can find verses in our canon to support each of the points.  I don’t think that’s possible but you can try if you’d like. 

 

[kiwi57]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Do you recall when Brigham Young said that the ban would end?  I would copy/paste for you but I’m responding on my phone.  He said that the restriction would remain until all the posterity of Adam had received their blessings.  Hmmm... who is all the posterity of Adam?  The human race right?

Yes, the prophecy was that Blacks would one day receive the Priesthood. Brigham's prophecy was fulfilled; he was just a bit out on the timing.

But hey - you spin it your way, and I'll tell it like it is.
 

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Yes, the prophecy was that Blacks would one day receive the Priesthood. Brigham's prophecy was fulfilled; he was just a bit out on the timing.

But hey - you spin it your way, and I'll tell it like it is.
 

His prophecy was that they’d receive the priesthood and be allowed in the temple at the millennium.  “The redemption of the Earth.”  It’s not about timing, it’s about all the “white” people receiving the priesthood first (his prophecy).

No spin here.  Just taking him at his word. 

But you seem comfortable with the ban and with keeping people out of the temple for a century.  I assume you are also comfortable with the Church disavowing all that now, right?

Likewise, I think we’ll have plenty of disavowals and changes regarding our doctrine with respect to homosexuality.  We’ve already had plenty of changes. I anticipate a continued movement in the direction of greater acceptance. 

[kiwi57]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

His prophecy was that they’d receive the priesthood and be allowed in the temple at the millennium.  “The redemption of the Earth.”  It’s not about timing, it’s about all the “white” people receiving the priesthood first (his prophecy).

No spin here.  Just taking him at his word. 

But you seem comfortable with the ban and with keeping people out of the temple for a century.  I assume you are also comfortable with the Church disavowing all that now, right?

Likewise, I think we’ll have plenty of disavowals and changes regarding our doctrine with respect to homosexuality.  We’ve already had plenty of changes. I anticipate a continued movement in the direction of greater acceptance. 

I'm comfortable that the Priesthood ban is receding into the irrecoverable past. I'm also comfortable that those who lived and died under it will receive all of the necessary ordinances, and that the ban will not hinder their eternal progression.

I'm additionally comfortable with the fact that the former Priesthood ban, which was always expected to come to an end, is an entirely different case than the Church's moral standards around sexual behaviour. And every attempt to conflate the two things is an argument from irrelevance.

I'm further comfortable with the fact that the Church's moral standards are true and correct.

[rockpond]

35 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

I'm comfortable that the Priesthood ban is receding into the irrecoverable past. I'm also comfortable that those who lived and died under it will receive all of the necessary ordinances, and that the ban will not hinder their eternal progression.

Likewise.

36 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

I'm additionally comfortable with the fact that the former Priesthood ban, which was always expected to come to an end, is an entirely different case than the Church's moral standards around sexual behaviour. And every attempt to conflate the two things is an argument from irrelevance.

Both the race-based temple ban and the orientation-based teachings restricted/restrict which couples could/can enter the temple and be sealed.  The temple ban that existed up until 1978 was based on teachings that have been disavowed and attributed to mortal prejudices common at the time (see the gospel topic essay).  Those teachings, the ones that have been disavowed, are the same addresses in which the prophets claimed that the temple ban would one day end.  Interesting.

All that said, trust me, I don't conflate the race-based temple ban with the current church teachings on homosexuality.  Those are separate and unique things.  Different.  What I've highlighted with respect to Oaks' conference address is that his attempt to declare the Proclamation to be the revealed will of the Lord, 22 years after its publication by a prophet who has now passed through the veil, does not in any way lock it into the realm of irrevocable doctrine.  We have other examples of such things being reversed and disavowed.

51 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

I'm further comfortable with the fact that the Church's moral standards are true and correct.

And the restoration continues...

[kiwi57]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Likewise.

Both the race-based temple ban and the orientation-based teachings restricted/restrict which couples could/can enter the temple and be sealed.

That's a word game, Rockpond. If you try hard enough, you can describe any two unlike things in such a way as to them appear to be parallel in some way.

Both football games and general elections involve finding a winning team; therefore, if someone changes the rules of football, others may confidently expect the rules for general elections to be changed in the same way.

Or maybe not.

The former Priesthood ban prevented people from receiving the Priesthood and certain Priesthood ordinances, regardless of their personal worthiness. The Church's moral standards, by contrast, mean that all who choose to conform to those standards can become worthy to receive the ordinances; and that is without any exceptions..

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

All that said, trust me, I don't conflate the race-based temple ban with the current church teachings on homosexuality.  Those are separate and unique things.  Different.  What I've highlighted with respect to Oaks' conference address is that his attempt to declare the Proclamation to be the revealed will of the Lord, 22 years after its publication by a prophet who has now passed through the veil, does not in any way lock it into the realm of irrevocable doctrine.  We have other examples of such things being reversed and disavowed.

And the restoration continues...

And as I pointed out above: the Proclamation introduced no new doctrine. It organised and to some extent elucidated doctrine which was already widely taught and not considered at all controversial among believing Latter-day Saints. There were no surprises in it.

And may I remind you that Elder Oaks was an actual participant in producing the Proclamation. It was not merely President Hinckley's proclamation, but a joint statement of the First Presidency and the Twelve.

And it is our doctrine.

We believe it.

And, just for your edification: the only place I've ever seen anyone speculating about whether (much less when) the Church is going to cave on something as absurd as SSM is here.

[smac97]

3 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

When?

Don't you mean If?

The Proclamation is a revelatory document. Its contents are definitive, canonical LDS doctrine. This is not a matter of controversy.

A small quibble: I think the Proclamation reflects and reaffirms "definitive, canonical LDS doctrine."  The Proclamation itself, however, has not been canonized.

Thanks,

-Smac

[kiwi57]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A small quibble: I think the Proclamation reflects and reaffirms "definitive, canonical LDS doctrine."  The Proclamation itself, however, has not been canonized.

As I mentioned earlier:

2 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

I didn't say that the Proclamation was canonical. I said that its contents are.

I hope this helps.

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

That's a word game, Rockpond. If you try hard enough, you can describe any two unlike things in such a way as to them appear to be parallel in some way.

Both football games and general elections involve finding a winning team; therefore, if someone changes the rules of football, others may confidently expect the rules for general elections to be changed in the same way.

Or maybe not.

The former Priesthood ban prevented people from receiving the Priesthood and certain Priesthood ordinances, regardless of their personal worthiness. The Church's moral standards, by contrast, mean that all who choose to conform to those standards can become worthy to receive the ordinances; and that is without any exceptions..

And as I pointed out above: the Proclamation introduced no new doctrine. It organised and to some extent elucidated doctrine which was already widely taught and not considered at all controversial among believing Latter-day Saints. There were no surprises in it.

And may I remind you that Elder Oaks was an actual participant in producing the Proclamation. It was not merely President Hinckley's proclamation, but a joint statement of the First Presidency and the Twelve.

And it is our doctrine.

We believe it.

And, just for your edification: the only place I've ever seen anyone speculating about whether (much less when) the Church is going to cave on something as absurd as SSM is here.

Oh... I've heard such speculation in many places.

As for my comparison, you've misunderstood.  I don't claim that because we changed our doctrine regarding race that therefore we'll change our doctrine regarding homosexuality.  I am simply saying that we have a established a methodology by which we can disavow and change previous doctrines, even those declared to be the revealed will of God.

By the way, I totally agree with you that the Proclamation introduced no new doctrine.

Finally, I recognize the Oaks was an actual participant in producing the Proclamation.  He has claimed the words as his, along with the other 14 men.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

As I mentioned earlier:

I hope this helps.

Ah.  Missed that part.  I stand corrected.

Thanks,

-Smac