Scrutinizing general conference

[kiwi57]

On 10/20/2017 at 12:52 PM, rockpond said:

You are correct that I didn't quote that part specifically but that was one of the statements I was referring to.

But that statement is true. Why should he tone it down, just because some people might feel uncomfortable about it?

[Rain]

I'm really sorry rockpond. I appreciate you telling me how you felt though.  Had a good talk about it with my daughter today. I appreciated I knew where you were coming from so I could explain to her. 

[rockpond]

12 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

But that statement is true. Why should he tone it down, just because some people might feel uncomfortable about it?

Here’s Oaks’ statement again:  

Those who do not believe in or aspire to exaltation and are most persuaded by the ways of the world consider this family proclamation as just a statement of policy that should be changed. In contrast, Latter-day Saints affirm that the family proclamation defines the kind of family relationships where the most important part of our eternal development can occur.

I’ll break it down for you to show why it is not universally true:

1.  I do believe in and aspire to exaltation. 

2.  I am not persuaded by the ways of the world. 

3.  The difference between policy and doctrine has become somewhat blurred in the LDS Church so I don’t think that’s all that relevant.  But I wouldn’t call the Proclamation a policy— I consider it doctrine.

4.  I do believe it should be changed. 

5. I am a Latter-day Saint and I affirm that the Proclamation is too limited in its definition of the kind of family relationships in which the most important part of our eternal development can occur. 

 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Here’s Oaks’ statement again:  

Those who do not believe in or aspire to exaltation and are most persuaded by the ways of the world consider this family proclamation as just a statement of policy that should be changed. In contrast, Latter-day Saints affirm that the family proclamation defines the kind of family relationships where the most important part of our eternal development can occur.

I’ll break it down for you to show why it is not universally true:

1.  I do believe in and aspire to exaltation. 

2.  I am not persuaded by the ways of the world. 

3.  The difference between policy and doctrine has become somewhat blurred in the LDS Church so I don’t think that’s all that relevant.  But I wouldn’t call the Proclamation a policy— I consider it doctrine.

4.  I do believe it should be changed. 

5. I am a Latter-day Saint and I affirm that the Proclamation is too limited in its definition of the kind of family relationships in which the most important part of our eternal development can occur. 

 

In other words, you are promoting an idea something like, “others, who do believe in or aspire to exaltation and are not most persuaded by the ways of the world, consider this family proclamation as doctrine that should be changed to expand the definition of family relationships beyond that which is described in the fourth through seventh paragraphs.”

A new doctrine on God’s plan for covenant family relationships established in mortality and designed to continue beyond the grave in exaltation would include: marriage between same-sex individuals; covenant birth and child-rearing in the covenant instituted in such marriage; and, priesthood presidency operating under the auspices of a same-sex female couple.

[rockpond]

26 minutes ago, CV75 said:

In other words, you are promoting an idea something like, “others, who do believe in or aspire to exaltation and are not most persuaded by the ways of the world, consider this family proclamation as doctrine that should be changed to expand the definition of family relationships beyond that which is described in the fourth through seventh paragraphs.”

A new doctrine on God’s plan for covenant family relationships established in mortality and designed to continue beyond the grave in exaltation would include: marriage between same-sex individuals; covenant birth and child-rearing in the covenant instituted in such marriage; and, priesthood presidency operating under the auspices of a same-sex female couple.

I think your first paragraph is accurate.  

Your second paragraph is not.  At least not for my beliefs.  I don’t believe we have a fullness of God’s plan for families revealed to us. I take from your paragraph that you probably believe differently.  And that’s fine.

[kiwi57]

31 minutes ago, CV75 said:

In other words, you are promoting an idea something like, “others, who do believe in or aspire to exaltation and are not most persuaded by the ways of the world, consider this family proclamation as doctrine that should be changed to expand the definition of family relationships beyond that which is described in the fourth through seventh paragraphs.”

A new doctrine on God’s plan for covenant family relationships established in mortality and designed to continue beyond the grave in exaltation would include: marriage between same-sex individuals; covenant birth and child-rearing in the covenant instituted in such marriage; and, priesthood presidency operating under the auspices of a same-sex female couple.

So CV, do you think such a doctrine is consistent with what God has revealed?

[CV75]

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

I think your first paragraph is accurate.  

Your second paragraph is not.  At least not for my beliefs.  I don’t believe we have a fullness of God’s plan for families revealed to us. I take from your paragraph that you probably believe differently.  And that’s fine.

In the second paragraph I am attempting to outline the changes that would have to be made, or the new doctrine that would need to be established, or what the revealed fullness might need to include in addressing the expectations of individuals holding to the position described in my first paragraph. What recommendations do you have? In other words, since you don’t believe we have a fullness of God’s plan for families revealed to us, how would you counsel the Church (let's approach this as if you are on a council and asked to share it) to set up the doctrines so that they reflect the most important changes you think should be made?

7 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

So CV, do you think such a doctrine is consistent with what God has revealed?

I first need to ascertain the anticipated doctrine from someone who identifies with my first paragraph, and then correctly understand that doctrine, before I can answer that.

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

In the second paragraph I am attempting to outline the changes that would have to be made, or the new doctrine that would need to be established, or what the revealed fullness might need to include in addressing the expectations of individuals holding to the position described in my first paragraph. What recommendations do you have? In other words, since you don’t believe we have a fullness of God’s plan for families revealed to us, how would you counsel the Church (let's approach this as if you are on a council and asked to share it) to set up the doctrines so that they reflect the most important changes you think should be made?

I first need to ascertain the anticipated doctrine from someone who identifies with my first paragraph, and then correctly understand that doctrine, before I can answer that.

Any changes I think should be made are totally irrelevant. The kind of fullness we are talking about wouldn’t come through a council.  It would need to come as a revelation to the Prophet.  My only recommendation would be that we all pray that he receives it and not presume that we already have it. 

Edited October 22, 2017 by rockpond

[kiwi57]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Any changes I think should be made are totally irrelevant. The kind of fullness we are talking about wouldn’t come through a council.  It would need to come as a revelation to the Prophet.  My only recommendation would be that we all pray that he receives it and not presume that we already have it. 

Maybe we should start by believing "all that God has revealed" and not presume that we don't already have it.

[CV75]

6 hours ago, rockpond said:

Any changes I think should be made are totally irrelevant. The kind of fullness we are talking about wouldn’t come through a council.  It would need to come as a revelation to the Prophet.  My only recommendation would be that we all pray that he receives it and not presume that we already have it. 

My suggestion to approach this conversation as a council is merely an attempt to facilitate discussion. I have the impression that you are a proponent of specific changes such as the ones I listed above, and am seeking clarification since our ideas are perfectly relevant to this conversation. As you related to the idea that the proclamation doctrine should be changed to expand the definition of family relationships beyond that which is described in the fourth through seventh paragraphs, I am wondering what you have in mind. If you can’t frame your ideas in terms of what you think the changes should be, can you frame them in terms of what should be changed?

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Maybe we should start by believing "all that God has revealed" and not presume that we don't already have it.

I do believe all that God has revealed. 

I also believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things.  Do you?

[Benjamin McGuire]

The thing about raising the authority of the Proclamation on the Family, is in the one issue where it really does introduce an old idea as doctrine in a new way - and part of what makes it a new way is the way that it interacts with our our expanded (even if still quite limited) knowledge of gender and sex. And eternal gender cannot really be substituted with the idea of biological sex. The one doesn't change (we are told), and the other can (and does).

This means, in the long run, that we are already doing certain things (even if in a very limited way). We probably have eternally gendered women who live as biological men, who have been ordained to the priesthood.

We probably already have eternally gendered same sex couples, even if they are biologically heterosexual couples.

The answer to these kinds of issues - at least for the present, is that the Church isn't really interested in focusing on how these kinds of issues will impact doctrine and policy. But, we see because of things like these issues, inconsistencies in the policies - because of the focus on choice within the policies. What I mean by that is this - gender reassignment surgery only creates barriers through policy when it occurs as a matter of choice. Children who have these kinds of surgeries don't get the permanent mark, don't get the stigma of sin - even though we may recognize that they do keep all of the uncertainties that go along with such a thing. And we currently have a growing view in the health profession that gender dysphasia is something that should be in some circumstances corrected by surgery. (We might decide in the future that we are wrong on that point, just as we have decided that same-sex attraction and gender dysphasia aren't simply some form of insanity).

At any rate, while policy can be pointed towards what is normal (and exceptions then get made in special circumstances), doctrine doesn't work that way. And if we are already forced to rely on some future knowledge to make things right - then I can see more and more of these issues pushed into that future awareness.

The second issue that the Church faces, is this problem of inclusion. We often view marriage, and temple ordinances, as the most important part of the gospel. And we talk of exaltation as requiring these things. And then we identify certain groups who because of these issues aren't really given this sort of opportunity in this life, and who are excluded from those kinds of blessings in this life. The Church has yet to articulate any real understanding of how these individuals can fit into the Church, and how they should see themselves as participating in the Church. It is this second issue that will be the motivating factor to keep us returning to the questions above.

Because of all of this, I can certainly envision a future in which the Church recognizes same-sex marriages as time-only marriages - without needing to expand the notion of eternal marriage. I can also see the Church recognizing gender reassignment surgery as not sinful when it accompanies a medical diagnosis. I also expect that some of these kinds of decisions (assuming that they occur at all) will be helped along by a growing scientific understanding of biological sex and the issues related to it. I can also see a future where no change is made at all. There are a lot of options here - and like some of the similar sorts of shifts in the past, any change like this will take a great deal of time (if it happens at all) - and that they all may not occur in my lifetime even. But, I think, as with issues like blacks and the priesthood, if change comes, it will in part require a willingness on the part of the whole Church (leadership and members) for the change to occur. When the push to lift the priesthood ban started, it was stopped by only a very few people. When they were dead, the push started again, and was successful. Perhaps our present days society's normalization of these minority groups will be a part of a future where we better understand God's plan for them, and the way that the Church should encourage them.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

I do believe all that God has revealed. 

I also believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things.  Do you?

I do. But Joseph taught we never inquire if there is already a revelation to suit the case.

Do you believe such revelation does not already exist in all scripture and inspired writing or teaching?  Has God not been plain enough so far?

[rockpond]

42 minutes ago, CV75 said:

My suggestion to approach this conversation as a council is merely an attempt to facilitate discussion. I have the impression that you are a proponent of specific changes such as the ones I listed above, and am seeking clarification since our ideas are perfectly relevant to this conversation. As you related to the idea that the proclamation doctrine should be changed to expand the definition of family relationships beyond that which is described in the fourth through seventh paragraphs, I am wondering what you have in mind. If you can’t frame your ideas in terms of what you think the changes should be, can you frame them in terms of what should be changed?

I believe I said earlier that I would like to see the Proclamation expanded to include other families.  It’s already makes a nod to circumstances that would require individual adaptation.  I think we could build on that. 

But let me be clear, I’m a proponent of God leading the prophet. I’m not a proponent of the philosophies of men being turned into something we claim is revelation.  I assume you feel the same which is why I’m a little confused by your line of questions. 

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I do. But Joseph taught we never inquire if there is already a revelation to suit the case.

Do you believe such revelation does not already exist in all scripture and inspired writing or teaching?  Has God not been plain enough so far?

God hasn’t done anything to exclude gay couples from full inclusion in the gospel and participation in all ordinances.  I believe that man has done that.  But it seems like it will take a revelation to change where we are currently at (similar to the race-based temple ban of last century). 

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

God hasn’t done anything to exclude gay couples from full inclusion in the gospel and participation in all ordinances.  I believe that man has done that.  But it seems like it will take a revelation to change where we are currently at (similar to the race-based temple ban of last century). 

The lack of a specific ban of something that God has never acknowledged as even existing or being possible since the beginning of time seems unnecessary.  God also never specifically banned marriage to many other things too.

The law against such relationship with no caveats given allowing for marital exception along with the laws given on marriage should speak volumes and suffice.  God had every opportunity to allow for the exception and never has.  Ever, not even once. 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

The lack of a specific ban of something that God has never acknowledged as even existing or being possible since the beginning of time seems unnecessary.  God also never specifically banned marriage to many other things too.

The law against such relationship with no caveats given allowing for marital exception along with the laws given on marriage should speak volumes and suffice.  God had every opportunity to allow for the exception and never has.  Ever, not even once. 

Kind of like slavery which went on for centuries under the blessing of God?  Heck, He even told us how we wee to treat our slaves.  I can't believe that idea died out.  It was such a good idea.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

I believe I said earlier that I would like to see the Proclamation expanded to include other families.  It’s already makes a nod to circumstances that would require individual adaptation.  I think we could build on that. 

But let me be clear, I’m a proponent of God leading the prophet. I’m not a proponent of the philosophies of men being turned into something we claim is revelation.  I assume you feel the same which is why I’m a little confused by your line of questions. 

Yes, you already said you would like to see the Proclamation expanded to include other families. Such expansion must include some specifics; what do you think they are or should be; what do those “other families” look like to you? My questions aren't about whether or not you sustain the prophet, or God leading him, or the philosophies of men, just getting to greater specificity.

The adaptation “clause” to which you refer is found at the end of the 7th paragraph and ties back to the first two sentences of that same paragraph (“THE FAMILY is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan”), to deal with circumstances that interfere with the execution of the respective primary parental responsibilities by the married man and woman couple. What other circumstances (than death or disability) do you see affecting THE FAMILY, and what would the adaptations be?

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

God hasn’t done anything to exclude gay couples from full inclusion in the gospel and participation in all ordinances.  I believe that man has done that.  But it seems like it will take a revelation to change where we are currently at (similar to the race-based temple ban of last century). 

When the priesthood and temple ban was in effect, there was always a contingent among the brethren who assured us that the ban, however long it might last, was only temporary.  Even such things as the 1949 and 1969 statements of the First Presidency, respectively, regardless of how certain language contained therein might have made me or anyone else cringe, contained such caveats as "at the present time."  Can you point to anything analogous with respect to the stance of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on gay marriage?

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Kind of like slavery which went on for centuries under the blessing of God?  Heck, He even told us how we wee to treat our slaves.  I can't believe that idea died out.  It was such a good idea.

The difference here is that God specifically created marriage.  He described it, gave its purpose, approval, even performed the first one as an example.  And in EVERY revelation or prophetic teaching marriage is the unification of the sexes.  God has never ever even hinted at the possibility that marriage could mean anything other than male plus female.

Marriage is defined by God.  He created it, defined it, and first performed it.  Any other definitions simply aren't marriage regardless of how man chooses to label them.  You might as well call water dry or fire cold.  It doesn't meet the definition of the one who designed it.

Edited October 22, 2017 by JLHPROF

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

The lack of a specific ban of something that God has never acknowledged as even existing or being possible since the beginning of time seems unnecessary.  God also never specifically banned marriage to many other things too.

The law against such relationship with no caveats given allowing for marital exception along with the laws given on marriage should speak volumes and suffice.  God had every opportunity to allow for the exception and never has.  Ever, not even once. 

 

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Kind of like slavery which went on for centuries under the blessing of God?  Heck, He even told us how we wee to treat our slaves.  I can't believe that idea died out.  It was such a good idea.

As CB has pointed out, cherry picking scripture can allow us to make faulty conclusions.

There are many things that are different in this dispensation and the point of a living prophet is to help us navigate them. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Yes, you already said you would like to see the Proclamation expanded to include other families. Such expansion must include some specifics; what do you think they are or should be; what do those “other families” look like to you? My questions aren't about whether or not you sustain the prophet, or God leading him, or the philosophies of men, just getting to greater specificity.

The adaptation “clause” to which you refer is found at the end of the 7th paragraph and ties back to the first two sentences of that same paragraph (“THE FAMILY is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan”), to deal with circumstances that interfere with the execution of the respective primary parental responsibilities by the married man and woman couple. What other circumstances (than death or disability) do you see affecting THE FAMILY, and what would the adaptations be?

I thought this was obvious from all our discussion so I remain a bit confused by your line of questions.  The adaptations would be for LGBT members.  The specifics are not my place to determine.  

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

When the priesthood and temple ban was in effect, there was always a contingent among the brethren who assured us that the ban, however long it might last, was only temporary.  Even such things as the 1949 and 1969 statements of the First Presidency, respectively, regardless of how certain language contained therein might have made me or anyone else cringe, contained such caveats as "at the present time."  Can you point to anything analogous with respect to the stance of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on gay marriage?

God didn’t institute the ban so any time limits placed on it were also of man. 

And, as I said, it took a revelation to end it. That was my point. 

[Kenngo1969]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

God didn’t institute the ban so any time limits placed on it were also of man. 

And, as I said, it took a revelation to end it. That was my point. 

I'm sorry, but your ipse dixit regarding the ban doesn't constitute evidence. And lifting the ban did not fundamentally alter the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with respect to the priesthood in the same way that lifting the "ban" in the Church of Jesus Christ on gay marriage would fundamentally alter its doctrine.

Thanks,

-Ken

Edited October 22, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I thought this was obvious from all our discussion so I remain a bit confused by your line of questions.  The adaptations would be for LGBT members.  The specifics are not my place to determine.  

Why are you so reticent to speak with regard to the specifics of implementation of such proposed adaptations, but not at all reticent to say that such adaptations themselves should be implemented?  It would seem to me that, as a proponent of such a  position, it is incumbent upon you to offer such support for it.