LDS SSA Policies in Context

[Gray]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure what you mean.  You mean the leaders of the Church?  How do you account for this 1996 statement by Elder Scott:

Or this remark published in the December 2000 Ensign:

Or this entry in a 2002 manual:

Or this remark published in January 2004:

Or this statement in a 2004 publication by the Church:

Or this remark published in the Ensign in September 2009:

Pres. Hinckley originally presented the Proclamation as "a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history."  I'm not sure how you can argue that this necessarily precludes inspiration/revelation.

Lots of revelations "restate existing teachings."  That does not invalidate their status as revelations.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks for the timeline - I appreciate the effort. Note that not one of your examples applies the word "revelation" to the proclamation. Which fits nicely with what I was saying. I don't think there's any question that most church members have long felt that the release of the document was inspired. I recall that being the case when it first came out.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is false. I saw it as revelatory from the very first. So did many others.

These official proclamations with imprimatur of the First Presidency and Qourum of the Twelve, bearing their personal signatures, are not published very often. When it happens, it is an occasion of great moment.

You should rejoice that your folk doctrine has finally filtered upward through church hierarchy, I guess. But I was referring to how church leaders saw it, not how you saw it.

Many previous official proclamations have been largely forgotten, by the way.

 

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Copies of this one were delivered to leaders of government and other dignitaries. I don't see how it could not be considered revelatory in its purport. You are entitled to your opinion on that, but don't impute it to everybody else.

 

To me that testifies of its role as a political document.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Gray

[Tacenda]

44 minutes ago, california boy said:

I don't think being gay and allowing gay couples to marry is profoundly important part of society.  In fact one of the strongest reasons that gay marriage was ruled legal is because none of the legal team fighting against gay marriage could point to ANY evidence that gay marriage would affect society.  

Religious beliefs about homosexuality claim to be based on a handful of scriptures in the Bible.  They use that as a sure sign from God that gay couples should not marry or have sexual relationships within the bonds of marriage.  But has been already pointed out, those same religions including the Mormon church completely ignores very explicit verses that prohibit things like divorce or wearing make up.  People believe what they want to believe.  It has little to do with God or society.

And to add one more thing, did the church end up causing gay marriage to become legal, in their fight against it, bringing it up to the forefront. I've read that it inadvertently did. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

This is a great example of a continuation of the long tradition of bottom-up revelation, aka folk doctrine. This finally filtered upwards to the general authority level.

You are making this up as you go along.

This is the first I've heard of this notion that it was not regarded as revelatory until later.

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You are making this up as you go along.

This is the first I've heard of this notion that it was not regarded as revelatory until later.

It obviously wasn't. If it had been regarded that way, they would have said something about it. It's a significant omission that tells us the talk about revelation is applied retroactively.

But to get back on topic, do you think the leaked pamphlet in the OP was produced by revelation? Why or why not?

 

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You are making this up as you go along.

He's just doing what every other human and human organization does.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I was referring to how some students were threatened with expulsion from school unless they "volunteered" to undergo these treatments to cure them.  Many tell the same story about this happening.

It's the circumstances regarding how students were spied on and turned in, etc. that draws more interest to this story, IMO.  Some reportedly even committed suicide (including one BYU professor who was "outed" during that time).  There are stories behind just the fact that some believed these treatments could cure a person of being gay.

This is what draws attention to what took place at BYU from what I've found in my reading.  That's why it's different from other locations where these treatments took place.

I can't imagine the pain the following story had on gay students that day. 

c/p from the article here: http://www.vihrearouva.net/m/kirjoitukset/private_pain_odonnell.shtml

In 1965, then BYU president Ernest Wilkinson told the entire studentbody, "We [at BYU] do not intend to admit to our campus any homosexuals. If any of you have this tendency and have not completely abandoned it, may I suggest that you leave the university immediately after this assembly; and if you will be honest enough to let us know the reason, we will voluntarily refund your tuition. We do not want others on this campus to be contaminated by your presence." While written thirty years ago, this is still the prevailing attitude at BYU regarding Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual people."In 1965, then BYU president Ernest Wilkinson told the entire studentbody, "We [at BYU] do not intend to admit to our campus any homosexuals. If any of you have this tendency and have not completely abandoned it, may I suggest that you leave the university immediately after this assembly; and if you will be honest enough to let us know the reason, we will voluntarily refund your tuition. We do not want others on this campus to be contaminated by your presence." While written thirty years ago, this is still the prevailing attitude at BYU regarding Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual people.

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

No, I'm saying no claim of revelation says nothing about its legitimacy or church leaders' responsibility for its contents.

Therefore, what does this say about the legitimacy of this pamphlet as "revelation" and "dogma"?  This is silly.  Is every pamphlet, policy, and practice of the church "dogma" because it came from the church?  If it was dogma received by revelation, wouldn't that be incontrovertible?  Well, it obviously was controvertible and pulled out of circulation and practice.  It was a policy which has been changed.

Who said anything about responsibility?  Of course the leaders are responsible for anything they put into policy and practice.  You are missing my point and the point of californiaboy.  He called it "revelation" and "dogma" to place doubt in our revelators.  That is not fair.

[smac97]

43 minutes ago, Gray said:

Thanks for the timeline - I appreciate the effort. Note that not one of your examples applies the word "revelation" to the proclamation.

But all of them apply the word "inspiration."

I can understand the reluctance to use the "R" word prior to one of the Brethren using it.  But I'm not sure there is a qualitative difference between "inspiration" and "revelation" in this context.

Quote

Which fits nicely with what I was saying.

Well, not really.  I think you're sort of splitting hairs in a legalistic way.

The Proclamation has been popularly construed by the Latter-day Saints as "inspired."  Elder Oaks has now described it as having been the result of a "revelatory process."  I don't think that's revisionist.  I think it clarifies what most of us have already been contemplating for 20+ years.

Quote

I don't think there's any question that most church members have long felt that the release of the document was inspired.

Hmm.  I'm not sure there is a material distinction between "inspired" and "revelatory" in this context.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 20, 2017 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

You should rejoice that your folk doctrine has finally filtered upward through church hierarchy, I guess. But I was referring to how church leaders saw it, not how you saw it.

I'm denouncing this as nonsense. There is no way you can competently assert that Church leaders did not view it as revelatory from the very first.

Quote

Many previous official proclamations have been largely forgotten, by the way.

There haven't been many in the first place, much less "many" that are "largely forgotten."

 

 

[CV75]

17 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm sorry to hear not everyone agrees with that statement. 

Well, if it helps, every person is human, with human failings so we should expect disagreement with that statement and be grateful when someone agrees with us. And sometimes it is worth settling out the semantics (and sometimes not!).

[Jeanne]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I can't imagine the pain the following story had on gay students that day. 

c/p from the article here: http://www.vihrearouva.net/m/kirjoitukset/private_pain_odonnell.shtml

In 1965, then BYU president Ernest Wilkinson told the entire studentbody, "We [at BYU] do not intend to admit to our campus any homosexuals. If any of you have this tendency and have not completely abandoned it, may I suggest that you leave the university immediately after this assembly; and if you will be honest enough to let us know the reason, we will voluntarily refund your tuition. We do not want others on this campus to be contaminated by your presence." While written thirty years ago, this is still the prevailing attitude at BYU regarding Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual people."In 1965, then BYU president Ernest Wilkinson told the entire studentbody, "We [at BYU] do not intend to admit to our campus any homosexuals. If any of you have this tendency and have not completely abandoned it, may I suggest that you leave the university immediately after this assembly; and if you will be honest enough to let us know the reason, we will voluntarily refund your tuition. We do not want others on this campus to be contaminated by your presence." While written thirty years ago, this is still the prevailing attitude at BYU regarding Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual people.

Edited to add...so grateful the church has come a long way since 1965....a ways to go..and I believe and hope for more change in the future..this isn't a revelation..it is a proof of good people working for good things in the teachings of the Savior.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Jeanne

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

It obviously wasn't.

Not obvious to me.

Quote

If it had been regarded that way, they would have said something about it. It's a significant omission that tells us the talk about revelation is applied retroactively.

This sounds very much like a rationalization for dismissing it because you don't like it.

 

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Well, if it helps, every person is human, with human failings so we should expect disagreement with that statement and be grateful when someone agrees with us. And sometimes it is worth settling out the semantics (and sometimes not!).

I don't have any words to respond to this. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

But all of them apply the work "inspiration."

I can understand the reluctance to use the "R" word prior to one of the Brethren using it.  But I'm not sure there is a qualitative difference between "inspiration" and "revelation" in this context.

Well, not really.  I think you're sort of splitting hairs in a legalistic way.

The Proclamation has been popularly construed by the Latter-day Saints as "inspired."  Elder Oaks has now described it as having been the result of a "revelatory process."  I don't think that's revisionist.  I think it clarifies what most of us have already been contemplating for 20+ years.

Hmm.  I'm not sure there is a material distinction between "inspired" and "revelatory" in this context.

Thanks,

-Smac

In fact, I would aver that a dichotomony between "inspired" and "revelatory" is contrived in any context. If anything, inspiration is a sub-genre under the broader heading of revelation.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, pogi said:

Therefore, what does this say about the legitimacy of this pamphlet as "revelation" and "dogma"?  This is silly.  Is every pamphlet, policy, and practice of the church "dogma" because it came from the church?  If it was dogma received by revelation, wouldn't that be incontrovertible?  Well, it obviously was controvertible and pulled out of circulation and practice.  It was a policy which has been changed.

Who said anything about responsibility?  Of course the leaders are responsible for anything they put into policy and practice.  You are missing my point and the point of californiaboy.  He called it "revelation" and "dogma" to place doubt in our revelators.  That is not fair.

I think all the distinctions being made are more or less artificial. The church teaches things. Some of them turn out to be true, others turn out to be false.

[Gray]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not obvious to me.

It's a significant and puzzling omission to make when announcing a proclamation to the world, to forget to say that it was a revelation from God. That it's being reframed now as a revelation is probably to do with the ongoing political tensions regarding this issue. It's a way of bolstering one's political position on gay marriage.

 

Quote

This sounds very much like a rationalization for dismissing it because you don't like it.

 

This sounds very much like a rationalization for dismissing a good argument because you don't like it.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm denouncing this as nonsense. There is no way you can competently assert that Church leaders did not view it as revelatory from the very first.

Yes I can. They never once referred to it as a revelation. That's a significant omission if they really thought, as you anachronistically assert, that it was one.

 

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There haven't been many in the first place, much less "many" that are "largely forgotten."

 

 

Most have been largely forgotten.

[Gray]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But all of them apply the work "inspiration."

I can understand the reluctance to use the "R" word prior to one of the Brethren using it.  But I'm not sure there is a qualitative difference between "inspiration" and "revelation" in this context.

Well, not really.  I think you're sort of splitting hairs in a legalistic way.

The Proclamation has been popularly construed by the Latter-day Saints as "inspired."  Elder Oaks has now described it as having been the result of a "revelatory process."  I don't think that's revisionist.  I think it clarifies what most of us have already been contemplating for 20+ years.

Hmm.  I'm not sure there is a material distinction between "inspired" and "revelatory" in this context.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think there has long been a material distinction between inspiration and revelation in the church. For example, non-LDS religious figures like Martin Luther and Muhammad are often described as "inspired" in church literature. Revelation is a word with more significance and weight, usually reserved for LDS prophets or prophets in the canon.

But perhaps in these days of declining spiritual gifts, the distinction becomes less and less meaningful.

[Thinking]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Would you prefer a specific one?  I'm not sure I understand your point.

The nonspecific admission of fallibility is like the member who stands up in testimony meeting and says "I'd like to apologize to anybody I might have offended."

 

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Gray said:

You should rejoice that your folk doctrine has finally filtered upward through church hierarchy, I guess. But I was referring to how church leaders saw it, not how you saw it.

I'm not sure there has been any change in "how church leaders saw it."  

In any event, we have first-hand testimony from a percipient witness to the origins of the Proclamation.  And yet you seem to be disputing his recitation.  And that dispute does not seem to be based on competent, probative evidence, but on . . . something else.  Am I wrong?

10 minutes ago, Gray said:

Many previous official proclamations have been largely forgotten, by the way.

Hmm.  From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (emphasis added):

Quote

Proclamations of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
Author: Matthews, Robert J.

In performance of their calling as apostles, prophets, seers, revelators, and spokesmen for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have from time to time issued formal written proclamations, declarations, letters, and various public announcements. These have been addressed sometimes to the members of the Church (as a type of general epistle) and sometimes to the public at large. All such declarations have been solemn and sacred in nature and were issued with the intent to bring forth, build up, and regulate the affairs of the Church as the kingdom of God on the earth. Subject matter has included instruction on doctrine, faith, and history; warnings of judgments to come; invitations to assist in the work; and statements of Church growth and progress.

Only a few of the many formal declarations have been labeled "Proclamations." Others have been characterized "Official Declarations," "Doctrinal Expositions," or "Epistles." Some have the signature of the First Presidency, some of the First Presidency and the Twelve, and some of the Twelve only. This article considers four documents: (1) Proclamation of the First Presidency on January 15, 1841, at Nauvoo, Illinois; (2) Proclamation of the Twelve Apostles on April 6, 1845, in New York City, and on October 22, 1845, in Liverpool, England; (3) Proclamation of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles on October 21, 1865, in Salt Lake City, Utah; and (4) Proclamation from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, April 6, 1980, issued from Fayette, New York.

Let's look at the four listed above:

(1) Proclamation of the First Presidency on January 15, 1841, at Nauvoo, Illinois

From the EOM: "This document, signed by Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and Hyrum Smith, reviews the progress of the Church in spite of hardships and persecution, and speaks at length on the prospects of the settlement of Nauvoo, as the following excerpts illustrate."

You seem to think it is problematic for the Church in 2017 to not give much attention to an 1841 proclamation about, among other things, the settlement of Nauvoo.  But surely you can see that some proclamations are designed to have, proverbially speaking, a "limited shelf life"?

(2) Proclamation of the Twelve Apostles on April 6, 1845, in New York City, and on October 22, 1845, in Liverpool, England

From the EOM: "The Proclamation of 1845 was issued by the Twelve only, because at that time there was no First Presidency due to the martyrdom of the Prophet Joseph Smith on June 27, 1844, and a new First Presidency was not organized until December 1847. The Proclamation was apparently made in response to a revelation given January 19, 1841 ( D&C 124:1-11). It was first printed in a sixteen-page pamphlet in New York City on April 6, 1845, and again in Liverpool, England, October 22, 1845. It was addressed to the rulers and people of all nations. This document was an announcement that God had spoken from the heavens and had restored the gospel of Jesus Christ to the earth. It spoke of blessings and of punishments to come, issued a warning voice, and invited all who were interested to assist in the building of the kingdom of God on the earth in preparation for the Savior's second coming. On October 3, 1975, President Ezra Taft Benson, president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, spoke of this Proclamation and quoted portions of it in his general conference address (Ensign 15 [Oct. 1975]:32-34). Extracts from the 1845 Proclamation follow. "

So I could see how this Proclamation could have a longer shelf life.  However, I can also see reasons why the Brethren presiding today would not give it emphasis.  The day may come when the leaders of the now-worldwide Church may choose to re-publish and emphasize remarks about "blessings and of punishments to come."  But can you accommodate the possibility that  they may have perfectly valid reasons to not emphasize such things now?

(3) Proclamation of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles on October 21, 1865, in Salt Lake City, Utah

From the EOM: "This document was issued to members of the Church to correct certain theories about the nature of God that had been published by one of the Twelve in official Church literature, without having those statements cleared and verified by the First Presidency and the Twelve.  An apparent major purpose of this Proclamation was to emphasize the established order of the Church, that new doctrine is to be announced only by the First Presidency."

Hmm.  This seems to have been re-stated in various ways over the lifetime of the Church.

And the Proclamation, having been announced by the First Presidency, seems to fit within its intended message.

(4) Proclamation from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, April 6, 1980, issued from Fayette, New York

From the EOM: "This document was put forth in commemoration of the 150th anniversary of the organization of the Church. On Sunday, April 6, 1980, a portion of the Sunday morning session of General Conference was broadcast from the newly reconstructed Peter Whitmer, Sr., home in Fayette, New York. President Spencer W. Kimball spoke briefly of the organization of the Church that had occurred on that very spot of ground. He then announced that the Church had a proclamation to declare."

This one seems to be more about memorializing an event then propounding a significant point of doctrine.

More information on "proclamations" by the LDS Church is available here.

10 minutes ago, Gray said:

Quote

Copies of this one were delivered to leaders of government and other dignitaries. I don't see how it could not be considered revelatory in its purport. You are entitled to your opinion on that, but don't impute it to everybody else.

To me that testifies of its role as a political document.

Well, in a sense.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism states that only a few of the declarations over the years have been labeled "proclamations." Brother Brandt explained the difference between declarations and statements, and proclamations. Generally, declarations and statements are directed at Church membership, whereas proclamations are meant to reach beyond the scope of Church membership. They are proclamations "to the world," he added.

So if by "political document" you are referring to a message "meant to reach beyond the scope of Church membership ... 'to the world,'" then I quite agree with you.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Thinking said:

The nonspecific admission of fallibility is like the member who stands up in testimony meeting and says "I'd like to apologize to anybody I might have offended."

I still don't understand.  An admission of fallibility is, in your view, a bad thing?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's a significant and puzzling omission to make when announcing a proclamation to the world, to forget to say that it was a revelation from God.

 

Then why are you the only one I've seen who is fussing over it?

It was self-evident and axiomatic from the very first to those of us who were receptive to it that it was prepared and given out under inspiration from God.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think there has long been a material distinction between inspiration and revelation in the church. For example, non-LDS religious figures like Martin Luther and Muhammad are often described as "inspired" in church literature. Revelation is a word with more significance and weight, usually reserved for LDS prophets or prophets in the canon.

But perhaps in these days of declining spiritual gifts, the distinction becomes less and less meaningful.

Hmm.  And yet when Elder Oaks describes the origins of the Proclamation as "revelatory," critics and gainsayers throw a collective hissy fit.

"Revelation" has now been applied to the Proclamation, and yet faultfinders abide in their position.  

For me, I am persuaded that the Brethren are not declining in their "spiritual gifts" at all.  To the contrary, I think they are doing a very good job.

However, I am also persuaded that there are some other folks in the Church who seem to be demonstrating "declining spiritual gifts."  I will keep such assessments to myself and those within my stewardship.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think all the distinctions being made are more or less artificial. The church teaches things. Some of them turn out to be true, others turn out to be false.

Artificial, as in no such thing as revelation from God? 

What do you mean by "turn out to be true"?   Were they not true to begin with?  Can a man reveal truth to the world except by the Spirit?  Is that not revelation?  Do you really believe that this pamphlet was received by the spirit?  Was it claimed to be revelation or dogma by the Church?  Is it still in use?  If not, how can that claim be justified?  It is nonsense. It is simply a device to chip at the trust that we place in the abilities of our revelators. 

Just to be clear, you agree that distinguishing this pamphlet as "revelation" and "dogma" is not fair, right?

Edited December 20, 2017 by pogi