New Article Marking 25 Years Since Family Proclamation

[Scott Lloyd]

It has been 25 years since “The Family: a Proclamation to the World.” The Church has released insightful content marking this occasion. 
 

I think it impressive that the Church has not backed down from any of the precepts in the proclamation, notwithstanding some rather dramatic changes in the political and societal landscape over the past 25 years. 
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2020/09/seeing-yourself-in-the-family-proclamation?lang=eng&fbclid=IwAR3Dx2L968S0dePH_2JLTWf29xw5Z_ADcnACSEmkXYOJGdxyMZn9gsEmeR0

Edited September 24, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

Did a search on “preside” and “presiding” in the article due to me not seeing either in the September Ensign that referenced “equal partners” quite often.

This was one of the ones I didn’t see it in. Is the language changing on description of fathers’ roles in the family (and mothers’ when there is no father)?

For example from this article:

Quote

“Husbands and wives are equal partners. They have different but complementary responsibilities. The wife may bear children, which blesses the entire family. The husband may receive the priesthood, which blesses the entire family. But in family council, wives and husbands, as equal partners, make the most important decisions. They decide how the children will be taught and disciplined, how money will be spent, where they will live, and many other family decisions. These are made jointly after seeking guidance from the Lord. The goal is an eternal family.”

Elder Quentin L. Cook of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, “The Lord Is My Light,” Liahona, May 2015, 64.

“Preside” is a vague term imo when it comes to family behaviour unlike in church organization where it is spelled clearly out. I have heard a variety of ideas from members, but in terms in church materials in more recent years its concrete behaviours appear to be leading spiritually through directing family prayers and family councils.  
 

It is intelligent imo to shift to simply using actual behaviours or putting greater emphasis on partnerships, which imo is what parents tend to have greater difficulties with as most people I know find it easier to work on their own than with someone...given that requires effective communication, compromise, negotiation and more and all of that can take significant time. 

Edited September 24, 2020 by Calm

[Duncan]

I think the landscape is much more open and that isn't a bad thing. There is that article from meridian magazine about a former MP who is gay and was exed and came back

"Elder Ballard told him, “The road back into full fellowship with the church will be long and hard.  We need you.  You need us.  Seek the Lord’s spirit.”  He offered his help and also somewhat comically added that he (Elder Ballard) wasn’t getting any younger!  At one point in the conversation, Steve expressed an emotional question as to why he had been called as a mission president given the personal challenge he had carried so silently throughout his life.  Elder Ballard’s simple profound answer was, “Heavenly Father knew who you were when he called you.”

https://latterdaysaintmag.com/the-journey-home-for-a-mission-president-who-was-excommunicated/

[Scott Lloyd]

15 hours ago, Duncan said:

I think the landscape is much more open and that isn't a bad thing. There is that article from meridian magazine about a former MP who is gay and was exed and came back

"Elder Ballard told him, “The road back into full fellowship with the church will be long and hard.  We need you.  You need us.  Seek the Lord’s spirit.”  He offered his help and also somewhat comically added that he (Elder Ballard) wasn’t getting any younger!  At one point in the conversation, Steve expressed an emotional question as to why he had been called as a mission president given the personal challenge he had carried so silently throughout his life.  Elder Ballard’s simple profound answer was, “Heavenly Father knew who you were when he called you.”

https://latterdaysaintmag.com/the-journey-home-for-a-mission-president-who-was-excommunicated/

There may be some openness in some respects, but as I said, the precepts pertaining to eternal marriage, the nuclear family and the law of chastity have remained unchanged. 
 

It is worth noting that by the time the proclamation was published, it had been many years since the sexual revolution of the 1960s. The Church and the restored gospel it promulgates had been unswayed by changing attitudes in the roughly 25 years since then and remains so to this day, after another quarter-century has passed. Fifty years have gone by, and the Church continues to provide for good people everywhere a polar star by which they can navigate their journey through mortality. 

Edited September 24, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

Are you suggesting the church is inspired because it hasn't changed it's position on something in 25 years?  (although both Duncan and Calm point out something has changed).  

Of course there was a time when the divine celestial order of marriage, on the Church's position, was polygamy.  That changed, of course, as the Church was forced to change by "the world".  With this celebrating post one must wonder when the next "revelation" comes as "the world" forces the Church to change again and what that will mean.  The Church seems to have always been in the position of being right until it is shown by others it is wrong.  Reason tends to beat out revelation given enough time and given enough demonstration. 

 

[Duncan]

The Mission President, from Utah, here told us the Church changes, it has to change otherwise it would go all the way of the horse and buggy. I don't think he was suggesting that it gives up it's beliefs of the Gospel or Jesus being the Christ or anything. If your "business" doesn't change then you get left behind. I was at a youth fireside I dunno, 18 months ago with a member of the 70. It was a QA. the first question was about abortion. The GA's wife said she had had 3 D&C's in her life. I was saying to some other parents afterwards, whom i've known for many years, we weren't thinking about abortion when we were teens, it was "I accidentally touched a girl's hand I feel so guilty!!!!!!" such a different mindset. 

[CV75]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Did a search on “preside” and “presiding” in the article due to me not seeing either in the September Ensign that referenced “equal partners” quite often.

This was one of the ones I didn’t see it in. Is the language changing on description of fathers’ roles in the family (and mothers’ when there is no father)?

For example from this article:

“Preside” is a vague term imo when it comes to family behaviour unlike in church organization where it is spelled clearly out. I have heard a variety of ideas from members, but in terms in church materials in more recent years its concrete behaviours appear to be leading spiritually through directing family prayers and family councils.  

It is intelligent imo to shift to simply using actual behaviours or putting greater emphasis on partnerships, which imo is what parents tend to have greater difficulties with as most people I know find it easier to work on their own than with someone...given that requires effective communication, compromise, negotiation and more and all of that can take significant time. 

I think the emphasis and how things are described in articles and talks, etc. inevitably shift, but true principles remain the same. The best teacher of course is the Holy Ghost, and Church articles are intended to help us hear Him so that we correctly pick up on the Lord's messages given our personal idiosyncrasies.

Here is an article that speaks to principles of “equal partnership” of the marriage and principles of proper presiding of the husband within that equal partnership: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2001/06/questions-and-answers/what-does-presiding-in-the-home-mean?lang=eng

How does a couple make a joint decision when one partner presides? The same way a council does (as taught in D&C).

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

 

Are you suggesting the church is inspired because it hasn't changed it's position on something in 25 years?  (although both Duncan and Calm point out something has changed).  

 

 

I am not claiming position has changed, rather language. Instead of using a vague term, what behaviours are identified with spiritual leadership of fathers (and mothers in the absence of a father) are described instead. 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I am not claiming position has changed, rather language. Instead of using a vague term, what behaviours are identified with spiritual leadership of fathers (and mothers in the absence of a father) are described instead. 

Thanks for clearing that up, Calm.  I certainly did not mean to suggest you are claiming the position changed, just that something did--that is the seeming move away from the vague term.  I meant to include something like "as little as those seeming changes may be"--thinking the change is small and or perhaps insignificant.  

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Are you suggesting the church is inspired because it hasn't changed it's position on something in 25 years?  (although both Duncan and Calm point out something has changed).  

Of course there was a time when the divine celestial order of marriage, on the Church's position, was polygamy.  That changed, of course, as the Church was forced to change by "the world".  With this celebrating post one must wonder when the next "revelation" comes as "the world" forces the Church to change again and what that will mean.  The Church seems to have always been in the position of being right until it is shown by others it is wrong.  Reason tends to beat out revelation given enough time and given enough demonstration.

The question I would ask is whether any particular change is actually a change in doctrine, or a change in tactics and strategy.  Polygamy, for example, remains a strong doctrinal position of the LDS Church.  An indication of that strength is the anger of Carol Lynn Pearson in attacking it as a current doctrine, and not just historical commitments and actions.  Polygamy was not only practiced with God's approval over a very long time by biblical and post-biblical figures, but it was also a powerful 19th century practice of the LDS community.  It was also a Book of Mormon practice which had to be condemned and stamped out (Jacob 2:22 - 3:5).

Historians tend to agree that the cessation of polygamy by Mormons was due to attacks from the Federal Govt which virtually disestablished the Church.  It became an existential matter, and accommodation inevitable.  In that process of accommodation, LDS Church members have become more "American" than most Americans.  Despite that, Mormons are still distrusted and held in contempt, such that an LDS candidate for President cannot be elected.  Consequently, you are quite right to observe that even when Mormons are right, they are still wrong.

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The question I would ask is whether any particular change is actually a change in doctrine, or a change in tactics and strategy.  Polygamy, for example, remains a strong doctrinal position of the LDS Church.  An indication of that strength is the anger of Carol Lynn Pearson in attacking it as a current doctrine, and not just historical commitments and actions.  Polygamy was not only practiced with God's approval over a very long time by biblical and post-biblical figures, but it was also a powerful 19th century practice of the LDS community. 

Ok great.  I'd like to see polygamy preached as an eternal principle, the true order of heaven, and it being God's own marital status these days in Church.  I mean I'd like to see it just for the reaction of believers who think polygamy is insidious and can't imagine it was ever really GOd ordained.  

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It was also a Book of Mormon practice which had to be condemned and stamped out (Jacob 2:22 - 3:5).

I think it's pretty tenous to claim it was practiced.  First off, the peoples of the BOM never were.  It's but fiction.  But also even if they were, the passage condemns them for whoredoms and then condemns David and SOlomon for having many wives and concubines.  It suggests they practiced whoredoms which is condemned in Jacob 2:23, but also warns them about practicing polygamy because practicing it is an abomination.  

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Historians tend to agree that the cessation of polygamy by Mormons was due to attacks from the Federal Govt which virtually disestablished the Church.  It became an existential matter, and accommodation inevitable.  In that process of accommodation, LDS Church members have become more "American" than most Americans.  Despite that, Mormons are still distrusted and held in contempt, such that an LDS candidate for President cannot be elected.  Consequently, you are quite right to observe that even when Mormons are right, they are still wrong.

uh...THis is all silly sounding "Mormon are still distrusted and held in contempt" all because Mitt Romney couldn't win?  That's a silly overgeneralization.  He couldn't win because he was up against a political giant in comparison, not because of his religion.  He was never as articulate nor likable as Barak Obama.  He was never as smart or politicalyl savvy as Barak Obama.  That hardly means he wasn't elected because of his religion.  There are millions of considerations in presidential support.  

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

...............the nuclear family .......................

The citation in your OP is worth reading, and it speaks of multigenerational (extended) families -- which, in my opinion, are far more likely to be successful than nuclear families.

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

............. many years since the sexual revolution of the 1960s. The Church and the restored gospel it promulgates had been unswayed by changing attitudes in the roughly 25 years since then and remains so to this day, after another quarter-century has passed. Fifty years have gone by, and the Church Continued to provide for good people everywhere a polar star by which they can navigate their journey through mortality. 

What faces us today is far more dangerous than any imagined sexual revolution of the 60s.  The danger today is anomie, the growing absence of family.  Any kind of family.  Stats show us a diminishing interest in marriage, a lack of reproduction.  People in America today live alone more than at any time in our history.  Not only are they not marrying, but they are not even living together, or having babies.  While fertility levels among orthodox Jews and among Latter-day Saints may be at replacement levels, this is not the case generally.  America only gains population now via immigration.  This is a feature not only of the West (Europe), but also of Japan -- which doesn't really accept immigrants well, and which has a diminishing population.

We need to examine the causes of this torpor in Western and Japanese society.  Can it be arrested?  If so, how?

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The citation in your OP is worth reading, and it speaks of multigenerational (extended) families -- which, in my opinion, are far more likely to be successful than nuclear families.

What faces us today is far more dangerous than any imagined sexual revolution of the 60s.  The danger today is anomie, the growing absence of family.  Any kind of family.  Stats show us a diminishing interest in marriage, a lack of reproduction.  People in America today live alone more than at any time in our history.  Not only are they not marrying, but they are not even living together, or having babies.  While fertility levels among orthodox Jews and among Latter-day Saints may be at replacement levels, this is not the case generally.  America only gains population now via immigration.  This is a feature not only of the West (Europe), but also of Japan -- which doesn't really accept immigrants well, and which has a diminishing population.

We need to examine the causes of this torpor in Western and Japanese society.  Can it be arrested?  If so, how?

Electronics and Social Media....could these replace human interactions? Western/Japanese societies are pretty much embroiled in them.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Ok great.  I'd like to see polygamy preached as an eternal principle, the true order of heaven, and it being God's own marital status these days in Church.  I mean I'd like to see it just for the reaction of believers who think polygamy is insidious and can't imagine it was ever really GOd ordained.

Most LDS members today would not want to practice plural marriage.  I thought both you and I understood that.  There is no likelihood that anyone in the Twelve or First Presidency is going to preach it anew.  I thought you and I both understood that.  The reason why Carol Lynn Pearson is angry is precisely because it remains part of the formal doctrine of the Church.  You apparently do not understand that.

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think it's pretty tenous to claim it was practiced.  First off, the peoples of the BOM never were.  It's but fiction.  But also even if they were, the passage condemns them for whoredoms and then condemns David and SOlomon for having many wives and concubines.  It suggests they practiced whoredoms which is condemned in Jacob 2:23, but also warns them about practicing polygamy because practicing it is an abomination.

There is nothing tenuous in claiming that the Book of Mormon (fiction or not) claims polygamy was being practiced.  Your position is tantamount to claiming (falsely) that there are no dragons in "Game of Thrones."  Moreover, scholars understand the Book of Mormon text to be anti-Davidic.  The text is produced by (fictional or factual) Manassites, part of the northern tribes which rejected the Judaic House of David.  Biblical scholars immediately key on that, whether the Bible is fiction or fact.

The reason something is condemned is because it is being practiced (fictionally or not).  Also you failed to read the entire text I cited:  Jacob makes it clear that Lehi had given the order not to practice polygamy.  Jacob also notes that God alone can decide whether polygamy can be practiced (Jacob 2:30).  Even fictional texts make specific claims.

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

uh...THis is all silly sounding "Mormon are still distrusted and held in contempt" all because Mitt Romney couldn't win? 

You got it backwards, good buddy, probably partly because you are one who holds Mormons in contempt.  Romney had no chance to win precisely because the entire evangelical community openly condemned him, just as they had openly condemned and booed his father (George Romney) at the 1964 Republican National Convention.  I know because I was outside participating in a peaceful demonstration against racism by the SCLC and NAACP.

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That's a silly overgeneralization.  He couldn't win because he was up against a political giant in comparison, not because of his religion.  He was never as articulate nor likable as Barak Obama.  He was never as smart or politicalyl savvy as Barak Obama.  That hardly means he wasn't elected because of his religion.  There are millions of considerations in presidential support.  

Yeh, "silly" if you are a Mormon hater.  The real question is why you are in denial.  I did not vote for Romney, and I recognize the political skill of Obama (didn't vote for him either), but I do not engage in purely partisan explanations for American political preferences.

[Robert F. Smith]

19 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Electronics and Social Media....could these replace human interactions? Western/Japanese societies are pretty much embroiled in them.

So, should we blame gaming?  At least in part?  Also, could we find fault with the tendency to make education so expensive that young people are saddled with huge debt and cannot afford to get married, not to mention have children?  Besides, women tend to have contempt for any man who is not a good earner.  Women now outnumber men in colleges, and frequently make more money.  What do they need a man for?

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Most LDS members today would not want to practice plural marriage.  I thought both you and I understood that.  There is no likelihood that anyone in the Twelve or First Presidency is going to preach it anew.  I thought you and I both understood that.  The reason why Carol Lynn Pearson is angry is precisely because it remains part of the formal doctrine of the Church.  You apparently do not understand that.

I understand all of that, and I actually read Pearson's book on Ghosts of Eternal Polygamy and using the descriptor "angry" doesn't capture it.  If course the Ghosts is that old teaching impact us in many ways.  

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There is nothing tenuous in claiming that the Book of Mormon (fiction or not) claims polygamy was being practiced. 

Yes.  There is.  

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your position is tantamount to claiming (falsely) that there are no dragons in "Game of Thrones."

Not so.  

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

  Moreover, scholars understand the Book of Mormon text to be anti-Davidic.  The text is produced by (fictional or factual) Manassites, part of the northern tribes which rejected the Judaic House of David.  Biblical scholars immediately key on that, whether the Bible is fiction or fact.

Well it's a waste of time of course since it is precisely because of the BoM peoples veneration of David that they justified their whoredoms, again not specifically condemned for polygamy.  The followers in the BoM didn't reject the Judaic House of David.

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The reason something is condemned is because it is being practiced (fictionally or not).  Also you failed to read the entire text I cited:  Jacob makes it clear that Lehi had given the order not to practice polygamy.  Jacob also notes that God alone can decide whether polygamy can be practiced (Jacob 2:30).  Even fictional texts make specific claims.

And that's the problemo one must read the notion of Nephites having actually been polygamous into the text.  They were condemned for whoredoms.  Are we to say god also thinks David's many wives was a practice of whoredoms?  That would contradicting god in the Dand C.  

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You got it backwards, good buddy, probably partly because you are one who holds Mormons in contempt.  Romney had no chance to win precisely because the entire evangelical community openly condemned him, just as they had openly condemned and booed his father (George Romney) at the 1964 Republican National Convention.  I know because I was outside participating in a peaceful demonstration against racism by the SCLC and NAACP.

Yeh, "silly" if you are a Mormon hater.  The real question is why you are in denial.  I did not vote for Romney, and I recognize the political skill of Obama (didn't vote for him either), but I do not engage in purely partisan explanations for American political preferences.

The point is far more complicated then saying mormons are held in contempt therefore the mormon candidate lost to Obama.  

[cacheman]

34 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You got it backwards, good buddy, probably partly because you are one who holds Mormons in contempt.  Romney had no chance to win precisely because the entire evangelical community openly condemned him, just as they had openly condemned and booed his father (George Romney) at the 1964 Republican National Convention.  I know because I was outside participating in a peaceful demonstration against racism by the SCLC and NAACP.

???  The same percentage of white evangelicals voted for Romney and GW Bush (78%).  McCain got only 74% in 2008.   Certainly, there were some who did not support him due to his religion.  But, he ended up faring pretty well with that group. 

[Duncan]

Gay marriage in Canada didn't undo no gay marriage in Canada. I know non members who get married who have kids. I think reluctance to get married has always been around. People have kids whether they were planned or not

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The citation in your OP is worth reading, and it speaks of multigenerational (extended) families -- which, in my opinion, are far more likely to be successful than nuclear families.

What faces us today is far more dangerous than any imagined sexual revolution of the 60s.  The danger today is anomie, the growing absence of family.  Any kind of family.  Stats show us a diminishing interest in marriage, a lack of reproduction.  People in America today live alone more than at any time in our history.  Not only are they not marrying, but they are not even living together, or having babies.  While fertility levels among orthodox Jews and among Latter-day Saints may be at replacement levels, this is not the case generally.  America only gains population now via immigration.  This is a feature not only of the West (Europe), but also of Japan -- which doesn't really accept immigrants well, and which has a diminishing population.

We need to examine the causes of this torpor in Western and Japanese society.  Can it be arrested?  If so, how?

If my memory (not a stable ally lately) serves me correctly, the downward spiral in reproduction is mainly in the white population. Latinos and Blacks still seem to be reproducing at higher than maintenance levels.

 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So, should we blame gaming?  At least in part?  Also, could we find fault with the tendency to make education so expensive that young people are saddled with huge debt and cannot afford to get married, not to mention have children?  Besides, women tend to have contempt for any man who is not a good earner.  Women now outnumber men in colleges, and frequently make more money.  What do they need a man for?

I disagree wholeheartedly with the bold. And the comment about not needing a man? They may not need a man, but those that are not gay, would want a man as long as that man wouldn't have ego issues that she is making more than him. IMO, this comment has a sort of chip on your shoulder feel. 

[smac97]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Of course there was a time when the divine celestial order of marriage, on the Church's position, was polygamy. 

Which is a difference of degree, not kind.  Polygamous marriages were between a man and a woman.  The women married to the same man were not married to each other.

Quote

That changed, of course, as the Church was forced to change by "the world". 

The doctrine is still there.  The enactment of it changed, as contemplated in scripture (see Jacob 2:30).

And the "change" came from God, in response to "the world."  See the excerpts from addresses by Pres. Woodruff appended to OD-1.

A revelation is still a revelation, including those given as a consequence to events in the world.  Consider Matthew 2 (emphases added):

Quote

1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judæa in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
3 When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.
4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.
5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judæa: for thus it is written by the prophet,
6 And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.
7 Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, inquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.
8 And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.
9 When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.
10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.
11 ¶ And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.
12 And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.
13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
14 When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:
15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
16 ¶ Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.
17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,
18 In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.
19 ¶ But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt,
20 Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child’s life.
21 And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.

God gave guidance (revelation) to Joseph through a dream to take his family and flee into Egypt.  Because Herod was a threat.

God later gave further guidance (revelation) to Joseph through another dream in which an angel appeared and told Joseph to return to Israel.  Because Herod was no longer a threat.

These revelations were given as a consequence to events in the world.  Many similar instances of such revelations are found throughout the scriptures.

So if God can give revelation responsive to events in the world, isn't it possible that He gave a revelation responsive to, say, the circumstances of the 19th-century Saints in relation to polygamy (and governmental intervention in, and prosecution of it)?

And if God can give such responsive-to-events-in-the-world revelations, then OD1 could be both revelation and responsive to actions taken by the federal government under the Edmunds-Tucker Act in the late 19th century.

Quote

With this celebrating post one must wonder when the next "revelation" comes as "the world" forces the Church to change again and what that will mean. 

Herod "forced" Joseph to take his family and flee into Egypt.  That does not negate the revelation given to Joseph.

I've never understood this line of reasoning from critics.  God gives revelations to His children for their benefit.  Those revelations will often pertain to the particular circumstances in which they find themselves while living in this mortal sphere.  Joseph and his family fled to Egypt because Herod was a threat.  Lehi and his family left Jerusalem because, in part, of a threat (Jerusalem was going to be destroyed).  Noah built the ark in response to a threat (the flood).  Moses parted the waters because of a threat (the Egyptians).  Joseph of Egypt interpreted dreams predicting a threat (seven years of hard times).  Omer was warned by revelation about, and was able to avoid, a threat (Akish).

And on and on.  The circumstances of this world will obviously figure in to the Lord's revelations to His children.  That's a feature of the Plan, not a bug.

Quote

The Church seems to have always been in the position of being right until it is shown by others it is wrong. 

That's no so at all.  The Church has never claimed infallibility.  To the contrary, its doctrines acknowledge and require quite the contrary proposition.  

Nephi acknowledged his own weaknesses. 

The author of the Title Page to the Book of Mormon (presumably Moroni) acknowledged "faults" and "mistakes."

Joseph Smith repeatedly acknowledged his own flaws.

The Gospel Topics essays about "Race and the Priesthood" and the "Peace and Violence among 19th-Century Latter-day Saints" acknowledge errors by members and leaders.

Pres. Uchtdorf acknowledged mistakes made by members and leaders in an October 2013 General Conference address.

God Himself appears to have acknowledged the flaws and mistakes of His people in D&C 1:31.

Latter-day Saints are frequently reminded that they and their leaders are not infallible (that is, that they make mistakes).

And on and on and on.

It will never be enough, though.  That's the pernicious thing about faultfinding: You will always be able to succeed at it if you try hard enough.

Quote

Reason tends to beat out revelation given enough time and given enough demonstration. 

I have the two work in marvelous harmony together.  Consider these remarks by Michael Ash:

Quote

In a previous installment I explained that Roman Catholics take a three-legged tripod-like approach to determining truth—Scripture, Tradition, and the Pope. I believe that we Latter-day Saints are asked to take a four-legged approach to truth, like the four legs of a stool. These would include: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. By utilizing the methodologies for all four of these tools, we have a better chance of accurately determining what is true.

The other legs of the stool (scripture, prophets and reason) function well in "vetting" personal revelation.  Utilizing all four "legs" is, in my view, a far more reliable mechanism for discerning truth than relying on just one of them exclusively.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited September 24, 2020 by smac97

[Tacenda]

I wonder if they ever celebrated this proclamation, that I didn't know existed until a week or so ago. Or will the family one go almost non-existent as this one.

[Calm]

CFR, Tacenda, that the above was issued as a proclamation to the world in the same fashion as The Family was as well as 5 others. 
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.deseret.com/platform/amp/faith/2020/4/5/21208843/church-proclamations-history-mormon-lds-latter-day-saints-gordon-b-hinckley-russell-m-nelson

Not saying the above doesn’t exist as a Statement, but to present it as something that it is not is deceptive. 
 

https://www.thechurchnews.com/archives/1999-11-06/proclamations-declarations-clarify-reaffirm-lds-doctrine-121422

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

 

Edited September 24, 2020 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

39 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I disagree wholeheartedly with the bold. And the comment about not needing a man? They may not need a man, but those that are not gay, would want a man as long as that man wouldn't have ego issues that she is making more than him. IMO, this comment has a sort of chip on your shoulder feel. 

I understand what you are saying, but these attitudes are well-known among women.  It is a fact that women are just not as likely to marry a man who is not a good earner.  What is she to do when she gets pregnant and has a child, and needs to take some time off of work?  These considerations make a woman hesitate to marry until at least her mid-thirties, and then the prospects are not as good, and pregnancy tends to be less likely.  Time is a huge factor.

[Robert F. Smith]

48 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

If my memory (not a stable ally lately) serves me correctly, the downward spiral in reproduction is mainly in the white population. Latinos and Blacks still seem to be reproducing at higher than maintenance levels.

There small sectors of the population which reproduce at higher levels than others (as with the Mormons and Orthodox Jews I mentioned), but they are too small a part of the population to reverse the trend.  Only immigration can make up the difference.