Scrutinizing general conference

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, CV75 said:

These are the types of statements that I'm most interested in exploring, and you keep not exploring them with me. Given that your own understanding has changed and will continue to change, what is your current understanding of how the Church might change, let's say, paragraphs 4 - 7 in the family proclamation. How would you write them up to better reflect what you've indicated the Lord has led you to believe in?

If you insist on replying to the following reply alone, I'll leave you to partake in whatever california boy's tangent is.

Please provide a link to the full 1949 First Presidency statement -- assuming that is where your quote from, as you didn't attribute it to anything -- so we can see that it does not refer to the restriction as a doctrine but as part of the “attitude of the Church;” a “direct commandment from the Lord;” and the “position of the Church.” What Brigham Young shared was a statement as to the “the operation of the principle,” referring to the restriction.

The only actual doctrine mentioned in that piece is “that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth.” This applies to anyone born outside of the blessings of any dispensation, for any reason—even those who are born under such circumstances today.

 

It's not my place to rewrite the Proclamation.  I also see no need for it so I wouldn't recommend rewriting it, I would recommend considering it for what it is (a document written by 12 or 15 prophets/apostles attempting to clearly state church doctrine regarding marriage) rather than the claim that it is the Lord's revealed will.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements#1949

Fascinating how you clipped three quotes from statement but left out the one I have bolded below:

"It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization..."

But regardless of what it's called - policy, doctrine, principle, attitude - these are the words of the highest ranking quorum in our church.

[Kenngo1969]

30 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It's not my place to rewrite the Proclamation.  I also see no need for it so I wouldn't recommend rewriting it, I would recommend considering it for what it is (a document written by 12 or 15 prophets/apostles attempting to clearly state church doctrine regarding marriage) rather than the claim that it is the Lord's revealed will.

 

When you say you "see no need for it [Emphasis mine]," is "it" referring to The Family: A Proclamation To The World, or is "it" referring to rewriting it?  And I'm not sure Elder Oaks would agree with you that The Proclamation does not contain the Lord's revealed will.

Quote

Prayerfully we continually pleaded with the Lord for His inspiration on what we should say and how we should say it. ... I testify that the proclamation on the family is a statement of eternal truth, the will of the Lord for His children who seek eternal life. [Emphasis mine.] It has been the basis of Church teaching and practice for the last 22 years and will continue so for the future. Consider it as such, teach it, live by it, and you will be blessed as you press forward toward eternal life.

 

Edited October 30, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

When you say you "see no need for it [Emphasis mine]," is "it" referring to The Family: A Proclamation To The World, or is "it" referring to rewriting it?  And I'm not sure Elder Oaks would agree with you that The Proclamation does not contain the Lord's revealed will.

 

It was referring to the Proclamation.

And, I am confident that Oaks would disagree with me.  No doubt.

[CV75]

48 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It's not my place to rewrite the Proclamation.  I also see no need for it so I wouldn't recommend rewriting it, I would recommend considering it for what it is (a document written by 12 or 15 prophets/apostles attempting to clearly state church doctrine regarding marriage) rather than the claim that it is the Lord's revealed will.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements#1949

Fascinating how you clipped three quotes from statement but left out the one I have bolded below:

"It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization..."

But regardless of what it's called - policy, doctrine, principle, attitude - these are the words of the highest ranking quorum in our church.

You have one more chance. My request is only an exercise in creativity based on paragraphs 4-7 so I can explore and understand what you've been alluding to so mysteriously and vaguely. How might these change?

It is not fascinating because revelation is the foundation of the doctrine of the Church. That doesn't make the revealed commandment a doctrine. And I did include that in my list. You really do mix things up. But I think you can at least be clear on your beliefs by showing how paragraphs 4-7 could be changed to align with them. Don't equivocate, let it out!

Edited October 30, 2017 by CV75

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You have one more chance. My request is only an exercise in creativity based on paragraphs 4-7 so I can explore and understand what you've been alluding to so mysteriously and vaguely. How might these change?

It is not fascinating because revelation is the foundation of the doctrine of the Church. That doesn't make the revealed commandment a doctrine. And I did include that in my list. You really do mix things up. But I think you can at least be clear on your beliefs by showing how paragraphs 4-7 could be changed to align with them. Don't equivocate, let it out!

I don't believe I mixed anything up.  I just pointed out that you did not include this part of the quote:  "on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization".

As I said, you can play around with all the different definitions but a letter from the First Presidency certainly should constitute official teachings of the church.  If that is not your definition of doctrine, please share what definition of doctrine you are operating from, so that I can understand you better.

I have no interest in attempting to edit or rewrite the Proclamation, regardless of how many "chances" you give me.

 

[CV75]

rcockpond said:

"I don't believe I mixed anything up.  I just pointed out that you did not include this part of the quote:  "on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization".

"As I said, you can play around with all the different definitions but a letter from the First Presidency certainly should constitute official teachings of the church.  If that is not your definition of doctrine, please share what definition of doctrine you are operating from, so that I can understand you better.

"I have no interest in attempting to edit or rewrite the Proclamation, regardless of how many "chances" you give me."

There you have it folks (see above), a LDS who has strong feelings that the doctrines laid forth in the family proclamation could change to match what the Lord has led him to believe about ssm, but will not help me understand by using the family proclamation as a convenient means to illustrate those points clearly.

Instead, we get pages and pages of the same old debunked justifications for misunderstanding only tangentially related objects of his confusion.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

rcockpond said:

"I don't believe I mixed anything up.  I just pointed out that you did not include this part of the quote:  "on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization".

"As I said, you can play around with all the different definitions but a letter from the First Presidency certainly should constitute official teachings of the church.  If that is not your definition of doctrine, please share what definition of doctrine you are operating from, so that I can understand you better.

"I have no interest in attempting to edit or rewrite the Proclamation, regardless of how many "chances" you give me."

There you have it folks (see above), a LDS who has strong feelings that the doctrines laid forth in the family proclamation could change to match what the Lord has led him to believe about ssm, but will not help me understand by using the family proclamation as a convenient means to illustrate those points clearly.

Instead, we get pages and pages of the same old debunked justifications for misunderstanding only tangentially related objects of his confusion.

Yes, I am not willing to rewrite the Proclamation for you.  Go ahead and criticize me for that.

I am happy to answer questions on my beliefs.  But I won't do something that doesn't fit those beliefs, namely, rewriting the Proclamation.

[nuclearfuels]

Haters gonna hate.

For me at least, Conference seemed to have a theme about trusting the leaders of the Church, local and in HQ, sticking to your calling (even if you despise scouting and are on your 4th tour of duty), and things like that.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Elder Oaks also referred to the attraction as sin just not as great a sin as the act.

 

He certainly didn't say it warranted excommunication. Not even close.

And I still say that what Elder Oaks was referring to was impure thoughts, entertaining fantasies and lust, just as it would be sinful for one with a heterosexual orientation to do that. That's not the same thing as merely feeling an attraction.

Quote

Regarding the Christofferson quote:  You'll recall that this is exactly what I said would happen.  I noted that if I were to look and find evidence you would dismiss it because it would be one-sided due to the church's confidentiality of disciplinary councils.

I'm dismissing it because it is directly contradicted by the Dallin H. Oaks quote provided by your cohort, Benjamin McGuire.

And again I say, the confidentiality of disciplinary councils is not necessarily honored by the one being disciplined. You know that as well as I do.

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

 

So yeah. This isn't the first time the church has declared something a revelation that wasn't.  Just because you have amnesia doesn't mean that the entire church does.  We have heard all the arguments over this policy.  But the facts don't support the claim for many.  Can you think of a single revelation from God where only a single church leader called it a revelation and no one else supported that statement?  Just one time?  Is that doctrine still taught?  Heck this policy has less support from church leaders than banning blacks from holding the priesthood because of the color of their skin and now that revelation is called "a practice or restriction".  You are not arguing from a position of much strength.

I'm denouncing the above as malarky as well.

The statement by President Nelson was given during a satellite broadcast transmitted to a far-flung area, and it was well publicized in the media.

Furthermore, as president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, President Nelson can speak authoritatively on behalf of the entire quorum, especially when talking about a shared experience they all had. Moreover, assuming arguendo that your fanciful notion were true and President Nelson had gone off the rails, there has been ample time now for the First Presidency to have reigned him in and disavowed what he said in that talk. But they have not done that. Nor has any member of the Quorum of the Twelve. Not. a. single. one.

For you to conclude that, because each and every member has not spoken about the policy at every single opportunity that this denotes they don't support it is beyond absurd. It is a blatant example of the argument-from-silence fallacy.

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

He certainly didn't say it warranted excommunication. Not even close.

And I still say that what Elder Oaks was referring to was impure thoughts, entertaining fantasies and lust, just as it would be sinful for one with a heterosexual orientation to do that. That's not the same thing as merely feeling an attraction.

I'm dismissing it because it is directly contradicted by the Dallin H. Oaks quote provided by your cohort, Benjamin McGuire.

And again I say, the confidentiality of disciplinary councils is not necessarily honored by the one being disciplined. You know that as well as I do.

 

 

I made no claims about excommunication.  That was you.  And, yes, I know that confidentiality is not always honored by the one being disciplined - we've already agreed on that point.  My point was that you are unlikely to believe a one-sided source.  And your dismissal of the Christofferson comment is further evidence of that.

I made the comment early on in this "sub-thread" that pulling quotes out of context would prove to be a waste of time.  You have to take the documents as a whole and look at what the meaning and intent behind them was.  Do you think that the text from "Hope for Transgressors" could be placed on LDS.org and be a good fit with current teachings?

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Furthermore, as president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, President Nelson can speak authoritatively on behalf of the entire quorum, especially when talking about a shared experience they all had. Moreover, assuming arguendo that your fanciful notion were true and President Nelson had gone off the rails, there has been ample time now for the First Presidency to have reigned him in and disavowed what he said in that talk. But they have not done that. Nor has any member of the Quorum of the Twelve. Not. a. single. one.

I'll add that Oaks and MormonLeaks have now given us a glimpse into what that revelation may have been like.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

rcockpond said:

"I don't believe I mixed anything up.  I just pointed out that you did not include this part of the quote:  "on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization".

"As I said, you can play around with all the different definitions but a letter from the First Presidency certainly should constitute official teachings of the church.  If that is not your definition of doctrine, please share what definition of doctrine you are operating from, so that I can understand you better.

"I have no interest in attempting to edit or rewrite the Proclamation, regardless of how many "chances" you give me."

There you have it folks (see above), a LDS who has strong feelings that the doctrines laid forth in the family proclamation could change to match what the Lord has led him to believe about ssm, but will not help me understand by using the family proclamation as a convenient means to illustrate those points clearly.

Instead, we get pages and pages of the same old debunked justifications for misunderstanding only tangentially related objects of his confusion.

I have no problem rewriting the Proclamation on the Family to include all of God's children.  First the church will announce that marriage is a sacred ordinance between God and man.  The time has come that all of God's children will now be allowed all worthy members to participate in that ordinance.

 

The Proclamation on the Family will be changed by a vote of church leaders under revelation from God to now read.

A PROCLAMATION TO THE WORLD

The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

WE, THE FIRST PRESIDENCY and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

ALL HUMAN BEINGS—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.IN THE PREMORTAL REALM, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshipped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize their divine destiny as heirs of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.

THE FIRST COMMANDMENT that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We acknowledge that all married couples can not always bear children through no fault of their own.

WE DECLARE the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.

PARENTS have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalm 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. All parents—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

THE FAMILY is ordained of God. Marriage is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by parents who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities.

WE WARN that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

WE CALL UPON responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

 

Done!

[california boy]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm denouncing the above as malarky as well.

The statement by President Nelson was given during a satellite broadcast transmitted to a far-flung area, and it was well publicized in the media.

Furthermore, as president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, President Nelson can speak authoritatively on behalf of the entire quorum, especially when talking about a shared experience they all had. Moreover, assuming arguendo that your fanciful notion were true and President Nelson had gone off the rails, there has been ample time now for the First Presidency to have reigned him in and disavowed what he said in that talk. But they have not done that. Nor has any member of the Quorum of the Twelve. Not. a. single. one.

For you to conclude that, because each and every member has not spoken about the policy at every single opportunity that this denotes they don't support it is beyond absurd. It is a blatant example of the argument-from-silence fallacy.

I take that as a firm NO, there has never ever been a revelation from God where only one member of top 15 has declared that revelation.  

Hummmm.

Personally I really don't care one way or another.  Maybe It was a revelation.  Maybe it was just a decision by those that were present.  I am only pointing out that this type of declaring a revelation has NEVER in the history of the church ever happened like this.  

If I had my way, every single member of the quorum and the first presidency would make the same declaration.  That this policy of forbidding children from baptism came from God through revelation.  Then it would be crystal clear where this policy came from.  Right now we have just one Apostle.  14 more to go.

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

I take that as a firm NO, there has never ever been a revelation from God where only one member of top 15 has declared that revelation.  

Hummmm.

Personally I really don't care one way or another.  Maybe It was a revelation.  Maybe it was just a decision by those that were present.  I am only pointing out that this type of declaring a revelation has NEVER in the history of the church ever happened like this.  

If I had my way, every single member of the quorum and the first presidency would make the same declaration.  That this policy of forbidding children from baptism came from God through revelation.  Then it would be crystal clear where this policy came from.  Right now we have just one Apostle.  14 more to go.

So true (IMO).  I don't think anyone was more surprised than the first presidency and apostles heard that this was a revelation....at a fireside.

[kiwi57]

14 minutes ago, california boy said:

I have no problem rewriting the Proclamation on the Family to include all of God's children.  First the church will announce that marriage is a sacred ordinance between God and man.  The time has come that all of God's children will now be allowed all worthy members to participate in that ordinance.

Marriage is a sacred ordinance between God and a man and a woman. And all worthy members - "worthy" means "commandment-obeying" or "covenant-keeping" - can already participate in that ordinance.

No change is needed.

No change is anticipated.

Nobody should be waiting for a change to be made.

We should be living according to the covenants and commandments we have, not according to the ones we wish we had because they would be more convenient for us.

[california boy]

27 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Marriage is a sacred ordinance between God and a man and a woman. And all worthy members - "worthy" means "commandment-obeying" or "covenant-keeping" - can already participate in that ordinance.

No change is needed.

No change is anticipated.

Nobody should be waiting for a change to be made.

We should be living according to the covenants and commandments we have, not according to the ones we wish we had because they would be more convenient for us.

The question was asked.  I am just giving my opinion.  I know it is meaningless.  And frankly, I really don't care if it ever changes.  But that doesn't mean that it couldn't change.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I made no claims about excommunication.  That was you.  And, yes, I know that confidentiality is not always honored by the one being disciplined - we've already agreed on that point.  My point was that you are unlikely to believe a one-sided source.  And your dismissal of the Christofferson comment is further evidence of that.

 

You continue to ignore the fact that the quoted comment from Tom Christofferson is directly contradicted by the statement made by Elder Oaks that was given precisely the same year that  Tom was talking about, the statement that was quoted by Ben McGuire. The reason I am dismissing that comment as evidence is because of the contradiction by Elder Oaks, who was and is in a position to speak authoritatively on what does and does not constitute grounds for excommunication.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I take that as a firm NO, there has never ever been a revelation from God where only one member of top 15 has declared that revelation.  

Hummmm.

Is the "Hummmm" an indication that you are sticking your fingers in your ears and humming so as to ignore what I said? Because your response does not address it.
 

Quote

 

Personally I really don't care one way or another.  Maybe It was a revelation.  Maybe it was just a decision by those that were present.  I am only pointing out that this type of declaring a revelation has NEVER in the history of the church ever happened like this.  

 

I submit that you don't know nearly enough about the procedures by which Church presidents and apostles have received and implemented revelations over the years to say with any competence whether or not it has happened like this in the history of the Church.

Quote

If I had my way, every single member of the quorum and the first presidency would make the same declaration.  That this policy of forbidding children from baptism came from God through revelation.  Then it would be crystal clear where this policy came from.  Right now we have just one Apostle.  14 more to go.

I have serious doubts that things happened in the way you describe here, it wold not make one iota of difference to your receptiveness to it.

And by the way, children are not forbidden from baptism under this policy; their baptism is delayed until they are in a better position to receive it -- just like children in households where polygamy prevails. But you don't seem to care about those children, just as smac97 has pointed out.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

So true (IMO).  I don't think anyone was more surprised than the first presidency and apostles heard that this was a revelation....at a fireside.

I don't think you know what you're talking about.

 

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You continue to ignore the fact that the quoted comment from Tom Christofferson is directly contradicted by the statement made by Elder Oaks that was given precisely the same year that  Tom was talking about, the statement that was quoted by Ben McGuire. The reason I am dismissing that comment as evidence is because of the contradiction by Elder Oaks, who was and is in a position to speak authoritatively on what does and does not constitute grounds for excommunication.

Yep, as I said. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

Marriage is a sacred ordinance between God and a man and a woman. And all worthy members - "worthy" means "commandment-obeying" or "covenant-keeping" - can already participate in that ordinance.

No change is needed.

No change is anticipated.

Nobody should be waiting for a change to be made.

We should be living according to the covenants and commandments we have, not according to the ones we wish we had because they would be more convenient for us.

You should be aware that California Boy did follow the commandment and marry a woman even though it was decidedly NOT convenient for him.  

[CV75]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I have no problem rewriting the Proclamation on the Family to include all of God's children,

<snip>

Done!

I see where the hang up is. You don’t have to rewrite the proclamation; that was just a suggested convenience to an end. My real interest is to understand how the doctrines laid forth in the family proclamation (notably those in paragraphs 4-7) could change to match @rockpond 's understanding what the Lord has led him to believe about ssm. This was my original request way back last week, but as he refused to engage in that a few times, I tried various approaches to make it simple of more palatable for him:

- Suggested doctrinal points to consider illuminating in terms of his faith: Posted October 21

- Offering and explaining suggestions taking a council approach: Posted October 21

- Reflective listening Posted October 22 to which I got an interesting response

- Other subsequent examples here and there but I gave up for a few days and entertained his tangents and vague concept of teachings and doctrine… well, you get the drift; I saw another opportunity.

So with all these efforts rejected, some 10 days later I attempted this writing exercise as a means to answer my original questions on his beliefs, which he hasn’t done for 10 days. But it was apparently more important to him to have the last word.

You have the same invitation. I’d rather hear you elucidate on the doctrinal changes you believe could/should/will come, so I haven’t read your edited proclamation (it’s my 5^th and least favorite suggestion). Plus, unless you feel personally led by Christ on the doctrinal ramifications, it might not be worth your time, as this is what makes rockpond's claims interesting to me.

Edited October 30, 2017 by CV75

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

So true (IMO).  I don't think anyone was more surprised than the first presidency and apostles heard that this was a revelation....at a fireside.

It’s interesting that we heard from three apostles and the prophet in the week after the policy was modified and published in Handbook 1.  Elder Christofferson was the first to speak publicly about it in an interview with church public affairs aimed at explaining the policy.  He didn’t mention that it was a revelation. 

Then, the First Presidency issued a letter a week later when the “revealed” policy had to be amended.  In that letter which specifically addressed the policy, God’s mouthpiece on earth did not mention that it was a revelation. 

I think the common response to this is that it should be assumed that it was revelation and so there was no need for any of those apostles or the prophet to mention such.  

For me, however, Oaks talk and rhe MormonLeaks copies of the policy being implemented in a slightly different form have helped me understand how the Quorum may understand the idea of revelation. 

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I see where the hang up is. You don’t have to rewrite the proclamation; that was just a suggested convenience to an end. My real interest is to understand how the doctrines laid forth in the family proclamation (notably those in paragraphs 4-7) could change to match @rockpond 's understanding what the Lord has led him to believe about ssm. This was my original request way back last week, but as he refused to engage in that a few times, I tried various approaches to make it simple of more palatable for him:

- Suggested doctrinal points to consider illuminating in terms of his faith: Posted October 21

- Offering and explaining suggestions taking a council approach: Posted October 21

- Reflective listening Posted October 22 to which I got an interesting response

- Other subsequent examples here and there but I gave up for a few days and entertained his tangents and vague concept of teachings and doctrine… well, you get the drift; I saw another opportunity.

So with all these efforts rejected, some 10 days later I attempted this writing exercise as a means to answer my original questions on his beliefs, which he hasn’t done for 10 days. But it was apparently more important to him to have the last word.

You have the same invitation. I’d rather hear you elucidate on the doctrinal changes you believe could/should/will come, so I haven’t read your edited proclamation (it’s my 5^th and least favorite suggestion). Plus, unless you feel personally led by Christ on the doctrinal ramifications, it might not be worth your time, as this is what makes rockpond's claims interesting to me.

How would the doctrines laid forth in the family proclamation need to change to match my understanding?

That’s easy... just remove the gender specific references.