This week’s “Come Follow Me” lesson on the family proclamation

[Scott Lloyd]

This quotation was given as the prologue for this week’s lesson in the manual “Come Follow Me’ for Individuals and Families”:

President Dallin H. Oaks said: “I believe our attitude toward and use of the family proclamation is [a test] for this generation. I pray for all Latter-day Saints to stand firm in that test” (“The Plan and the Proclamation,” Ensign or Liahona, Nov. 2017, 31).

As I read that, I thought of the occasional gainsaying of the family proclamation I see on the Internet, some of it from those who profess to be among our own people. I also thought of the baseless narrative being propounded that it is only a matter of time before Church leaders repeal the law of chastity as pertaining to same-sex marriage. 
 

President Oaks is right about the proclamation being “[a test] for this generation.” 

[bluebell]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

This quotation was given as the prologue for this week’s lesson in the manual “Come Follow Me’ for Individuals and Families”:

President Dallin H. Oaks said: “I believe our attitude toward and use of the family proclamation is [a test] for this generation. I pray for all Latter-day Saints to stand firm in that test” (“The Plan and the Proclamation,” Ensign or Liahona, Nov. 2017, 31).

As I read that, I thought of the occasional gainsaying of the family proclamation I see on the Internet, some of it from those who profess to be among our own people. I also thought of the baseless narrative being propounded that it is only a matter of time before Church leaders repeal the law of chastity as pertaining to same-sex marriage. 
 

President Oaks is right about the proclamation being “[a test] for this generation.” 

He might be right (and I'm fine if he is, though I don't necessarily agree with your interpretation of what he meant when he said it).  I'm not convinced though.  I appreciate that he used the words "I believe" here, instead of I know or something else that implies such a claim definitely comes from the Lord.

[Scott Lloyd]

43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

He might be right (and I'm fine if he is, though I don't necessarily agree with your interpretation of what he meant when he said it).  I'm not convinced though.  I appreciate that he used the words "I believe" here, instead of I know or something else that implies such a claim definitely comes from the Lord.

Well, if you’re implying that I’m taking his words out of context, perhaps I should provide the context here:

The family proclamation begins by declaring “that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.” It also affirms that “gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” It further declares “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.”
The proclamation affirms the continuing duty of husband and wife to multiply and replenish the earth and their “solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children”: “Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.” It solemnly warns against the abuse of spouse or offspring, and it affirms that “happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Finally, it calls for the promotion of official “measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.”
In 1995 a President of the Church and 14 other Apostles of the Lord issued these important doctrinal statements. As one of only seven of those Apostles still living, I feel obliged to share what led to the family proclamation for the information of all who consider it.
The inspiration identifying the need for a proclamation on the family came to the leadership of the Church over 23 years ago. It was a surprise to some who thought the doctrinal truths about marriage and the family were well understood without restatement. Nevertheless, we felt the confirmation and we went to work. Subjects were identified and discussed by members of the Quorum of the Twelve for nearly a year. Language was proposed, reviewed, and revised. Prayerfully we continually pleaded with the Lord for His inspiration on what we should say and how we should say it. We all learned “line upon line, precept upon precept,” as the Lord has promised (D&C 98:12).

During this revelatory process, a proposed text was presented to the First Presidency, who oversee and promulgate Church teachings and doctrine. After the Presidency made further changes, the proclamation on the family was announced by the President of the Church, Gordon B. Hinckley. In the women’s meeting of September 23, 1995, he introduced the proclamation with these words: “With so much of sophistry that is passed off as truth, with so much of deception concerning standards and values, with so much of allurement and enticement to take on the slow stain of the world, we have felt to warn and forewarn.”
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. 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.
Forty years ago, President Ezra Taft Benson taught that “every generation has its tests and its chance to stand and prove itself.” I believe our attitude toward and use of the family proclamation is one of those tests for this generation. I pray for all Latter-day Saints to stand firm in that test.
I close with President Gordon B. Hinckley’s teachings uttered two years after the family proclamation was announced. He said: “I see a wonderful future in a very uncertain world. If we will cling to our values, if we will build on our inheritance, if we will walk in obedience before the Lord, if we will simply live the gospel, we will be blessed in a magnificent and wonderful way. We will be looked upon as a peculiar people who have found the key to a peculiar happiness.”
I testify of the truth and eternal importance of the family proclamation, revealed by the Lord Jesus Christ to His Apostles for the exaltation of the children of God (see Doctrine and Covenants 131:1–4), in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

[bluebell]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, if you’re implying that I’m taking his words out of context, perhaps I should provide the context here:

The family proclamation begins by declaring “that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.” It also affirms that “gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” It further declares “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.”
The proclamation affirms the continuing duty of husband and wife to multiply and replenish the earth and their “solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children”: “Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.” It solemnly warns against the abuse of spouse or offspring, and it affirms that “happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Finally, it calls for the promotion of official “measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.”
In 1995 a President of the Church and 14 other Apostles of the Lord issued these important doctrinal statements. As one of only seven of those Apostles still living, I feel obliged to share what led to the family proclamation for the information of all who consider it.
The inspiration identifying the need for a proclamation on the family came to the leadership of the Church over 23 years ago. It was a surprise to some who thought the doctrinal truths about marriage and the family were well understood without restatement. Nevertheless, we felt the confirmation and we went to work. Subjects were identified and discussed by members of the Quorum of the Twelve for nearly a year. Language was proposed, reviewed, and revised. Prayerfully we continually pleaded with the Lord for His inspiration on what we should say and how we should say it. We all learned “line upon line, precept upon precept,” as the Lord has promised (D&C 98:12).

During this revelatory process, a proposed text was presented to the First Presidency, who oversee and promulgate Church teachings and doctrine. After the Presidency made further changes, the proclamation on the family was announced by the President of the Church, Gordon B. Hinckley. In the women’s meeting of September 23, 1995, he introduced the proclamation with these words: “With so much of sophistry that is passed off as truth, with so much of deception concerning standards and values, with so much of allurement and enticement to take on the slow stain of the world, we have felt to warn and forewarn.”
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. 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.
Forty years ago, President Ezra Taft Benson taught that “every generation has its tests and its chance to stand and prove itself.” I believe our attitude toward and use of the family proclamation is one of those tests for this generation. I pray for all Latter-day Saints to stand firm in that test.
I close with President Gordon B. Hinckley’s teachings uttered two years after the family proclamation was announced. He said: “I see a wonderful future in a very uncertain world. If we will cling to our values, if we will build on our inheritance, if we will walk in obedience before the Lord, if we will simply live the gospel, we will be blessed in a magnificent and wonderful way. We will be looked upon as a peculiar people who have found the key to a peculiar happiness.”
I testify of the truth and eternal importance of the family proclamation, revealed by the Lord Jesus Christ to His Apostles for the exaltation of the children of God (see Doctrine and Covenants 131:1–4), in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Nope, wasn't implying that.

[Freedom]

I see two concerns that are in my opinion quit valid. Gender is a social construct and is not as cut and dry as the proclamation implies. Gender is how you identify. There are people born with male genetalia who identify as of the female gender. Also, the notion of the man being the breadwinner and the woman beimg the caregiver is a very modern construct and not valid across cultures or throughout history. Historically family was not community and not a husband and a wife. 

Jesus himself challenges this construct. He was nomadic and referred to his disciples as his family. Although we try to argue jesus must have been married with children, the evidence shows otherwise. He had no source of income, provided no home, spend no time with a wife and had a very different notion of family

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, Freedom said:

Although we try to argue jesus must have been married with children, the evidence shows otherwise. He had no source of income, provided no home, spend no time with a wife and had a very different notion of family

CFR

I find no evidence to support these claims.  Quite the opposite in fact.

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

22 hours ago, bluebell said:

I appreciate that he used the words "I believe" here, instead of I know or something else that implies such a claim definitely comes from the Lord.

I think when an apostle uses the phrase “I believe” in a forum such as general conference, it amounts to more than a mere garden-variety expression of opinion. 
 

Further, I would point out that he spoke as one of only seven surviving apostles of the original 15 who issued the proclamation, and he attested that for nearly a year in drafting it, they “continually pleaded with the Lord for His inspiration on what we should say and how we should say it,” that in doing so, they “all learned ‘line upon line, precept upon precept,’ as the Lord has promised (D&C 98:12).” He characterized it as a “revelatory process.” 
 

I draw from this that the proclamation and the issuing of it are consistent with the mind of the Lord, and I’m inclined to take President Oaks seriously when he warns that it will be a test for this generation. 

Edited December 20, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Freedom]

48 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

CFR

I find no evidence to support these claims.  Quite the opposite in fact.

 

 

There is absolutely no reference to him being married, nor any reference to him having children. He states in Math 8:20 that he has 'nowhere to lay his head' which, barring any comments to the contrary, suggest that he was nomadic and without house and home. 

 

Matthew 12: 46-50 he broadens the definition of family to include anybody who lives the gospel to be qualified as a bother, sister or mother. One does not have to be biologically related to be someone's parent. His notion of family is quite broad. Nowhere in the Gospels do we have any notion to the late 20th century nuclear family, but an embracement of anything but such a family

[rpn]

1 hour ago, Freedom said:

.... Gender is a social construct and is not as cut and dry as the proclamation implies. ...

Jesus himself challenges this construct. He was nomadic and referred to his disciples as his family. Although we try to argue jesus must have been married with children, the evidence shows otherwise. He had no source of income, provided no home, spend no time with a wife and had a very different notion of family

Or maybe it IS.

I think the best evidence that Jesus was married is that He identified Himself to Mary Magdelene first at the tomb ---- before any of His ecclesiastical duties or relationship.   That is what we do with spouses, not random friends of ours.

[JLHPROF]

34 minutes ago, Freedom said:

There is absolutely no reference to him being married, nor any reference to him having children. He states in Math 8:20 that he has 'nowhere to lay his head' which, barring any comments to the contrary, suggest that he was nomadic and without house and home. 

 

Matthew 12: 46-50 he broadens the definition of family to include anybody who lives the gospel to be qualified as a bother, sister or mother. One does not have to be biologically related to be someone's parent. His notion of family is quite broad. Nowhere in the Gospels do we have any notion to the late 20th century nuclear family, but an embracement of anything but such a family

I remain unconvinced by the claim of missing explicit statement.

There are those who consider him the groom at Cana.  And I happen to believe Mary Magdalene, Mary and Martha to have been his wives based on his interactions with them.  The many mentions of them in scripture show relationships with Christ far beyond those of mere adherents.

I also find it ironic you don't find this a reasonable view but are willing to make assumptions concerning Junia in the other thread based on far less evidence.

Edited December 19, 2021 by JLHPROF

[BRMC]

1 hour ago, Freedom said:

Gender is a social construct and is not as cut and dry as the proclamation implies.

Not according to the Prophet.  The Handbook spells out what God means in 38.6.23

[Freedom]

9 minutes ago, rpn said:

Or maybe it IS.

I think the best evidence that Jesus was married is that He identified Himself to Mary Magdelene first at the tomb ---- before any of His ecclesiastical duties or relationship.   That is what we do with spouses, not random friends of ours.

He presented himself to her because she was the only one there. By this argument, then all the women he visited must have been his wives since he visited a number of women before presenting to his ecclesiastical duties. If he presented himself to a man, would that indicate that he was married? I think this argument is an appeal to emotion - no respecting man would go to anybody but his wife when he is resurrected. You are assuming he was married, and that he was married to Mary, and to add to this you assume that he would have gone to her because that is what any self respecting husband would do. 

If he was not married, however, would this not also apply? That he would first go to his most closest of friends or do singe men have no respect and would not care about any of their friends no matter how beloved? I just do not think who he came to when he was resurrected as any bearing on the question of whether he was married or single. 

 

I think the story is even greater than this. What a message it is to consider that, although marriage is perhaps ideal, even the greatest among us was not married. Perhaps he was widows, perhaps as part of his schooling to be the least among us he suffered from mental illness or some medical condition that made marriage difficult. Perhaps to complete his ministry marriage was not an option for him as it is not an option for many worthy temple going latter day saints. Why do we judge the single if perhaps our own savior was single. 

 

What if, among his many mortal trials and experiences, he was not attracted to women? What if he suffered from depression and anxiety, or schizophrenia?  He condescended to truly become one of us and learned grace by grace how to have a fullness of compassion towards us. This is the God that I worship. 

[Freedom]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I remain unconvinced by the claim of missing explicit statement.

There are those who consider him the groom at Cana.  And I happen to believe Mary Magdalene, Mary and Martha to have been his wives based on his interactions with them.  The many mentions of them in scripture show relationships with Christ far beyond those of mere adherents.

I also find it ironic you don't find this a reasonable view but are willing to make assumptions concerning Junia in the other thread based on far less evidence.

You are welcome to draw conclusions, but drawing a conclusion is far different than having evidence. There is no evidence he was married, no reference to spouse or children, and clear evidence that he was homeless. Why does Jesus have to have been married?

 

I think my comments regarding Junia are not assumptions but proof. She was a woman and she was referred to as an apostle. 

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, Freedom said:

You are welcome to draw conclusions, but drawing a conclusion is far different than having evidence. There is no evidence he was married, no reference to spouse or children, and clear evidence that he was homeless. Why does Jesus have to have been married?. 

Again, I think there is.  You are welcome to believe what you will. 

In the ordinances of the restored gospel the anointing of Christ by Mary is an ordinance performed for a husband by a wife.  My religion is this restored gospel of Jesus Christ.

That alone is sufficient evidence for me.  The wedding, the housework complaint, Lazarus, the women at the crucifixion and tomb and resurrection provide ample additional implicit evidence for me.

Edited December 19, 2021 by JLHPROF

[Freedom]

8 minutes ago, BRMC said:

Not according to the Prophet.  The Handbook spells out what God means in 38.6.23

This is current policy, not what God means. If church policy is akin to scripture then we have problems because it was Gods will that blacks to not get the priesthood. 

 

Gender is a social construct. When the proclamation was written, it was well established that 'gender' meant, and that it did not refer to biological sex, yet this error found its way into this document. 

[Freedom]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Again, I think there is.  You are welcome to believe what you will. 

In the ordinances of the restored gospel the anointing of Christ by Mary is an ordinance performed for a husband by a wife.  My religion is this restored gospel of Jesus Christ.

That alone is sufficient evidence for me.  The wedding, the housework complaint, Lazarus, the women at the crucifixion and tomb and resurrection provide ample additional implicit evidence for me.

Fall for sources. You are welcome to your implied evidence, but implied evidence is not implied. You are free to believe he was married but believe is not required in our doctrine and is wishful thining in my opinion. 

[BRMC]

4 minutes ago, Freedom said:

This is current policy, not what God means. If church policy is akin to scripture then we have problems because it was Gods will that blacks to not get the priesthood. 

 

Gender is a social construct. When the proclamation was written, it was well established that 'gender' meant, and that it did not refer to biological sex, yet this error found its way into this document. 

Policy, huh?  Again, the Prophet disagrees.

 

Quote

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

 

Edited December 19, 2021 by BRMC

[Chum]

11 minutes ago, Freedom said:

 There is no evidence he was married, no reference to spouse or children, and clear evidence that he was homeless. Why does Jesus have to have been married?

It's Jesus's choice and I respect it. Whatever it was.

[JLHPROF]

32 minutes ago, Freedom said:

You are welcome to draw conclusions, but drawing a conclusion is far different than having evidence. There is no evidence he was married, no reference to spouse or children, and clear evidence that he was homeless. Why does Jesus have to have been married?

The same reason he had to be baptized as he himself stated.

Marriage is a commandment, the first commandment given actually.  Christ obeyed all his Father's laws and commandments.

The ordinances apply to all equally.  He could not receive exaltation and eternal increase, and the highest glory in a single state.

Edited December 19, 2021 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, Freedom said:

What if, among his many mortal trials and experiences, he was not attracted to women? What if he suffered from depression and anxiety, or schizophrenia?  He condescended to truly become one of us and learned grace by grace how to have a fullness of compassion towards us. This is the God that I worship. 

Do you also include the possibility that one of his mortal experiences could have been separation from his wife and possibly children while fulfilling his mission, much like his time teaching in the temple at Passover when 12 rather than fulfilling the typical role expected of a son to Mary and Joseph?  It is unlikely all the apostles were unmarried or widows, but they were traveling besides him.

Perhaps his wife is living with her family or she stays with Grandpa Joseph caring for the children and Joseph stays at home as well to provide income to support her and her children as well as providing Mary traveling expenses when she feels the need to catch up with her son.

 I would like to know where his mother, Mary, was typically given how she and his brothers show up here and there in the narrative.

‘Nowhere to lay his head’ seems to me to refer to putting aside ownership and all that meant back then rather than actually forced homelessness as many seemed eager to invite him in to their homes and as you say, many saw him as family and thus would always have a place for him if he needed it.

I think seeing him as nomadic and considering why he made that choice is very important, almost as important as who he called his family (while also being aware it is never suggested he was neglectful of his mother or brothers in actual need as opposed to just wanting to be an automatic top priority for his attention).

Edited December 19, 2021 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

51 minutes ago, Freedom said:

You are welcome to draw conclusions, but drawing a conclusion is far different than having evidence. There is no evidence he was married, no reference to spouse or children, and clear evidence that he was homeless. Why does Jesus have to have been married?

 

I think my comments regarding Junia are not assumptions but proof. She was a woman and she was referred to as an apostle. 

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 
 

And the notion of Junia being a female holder of the apostolic office as we understand it is far less definitive or conclusive than you make it out to be — certainly not proven. 

Edited December 19, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Freedom]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 
 

And the notion of Janis being a female holder of the apostolic office as we understand it is far less definitive than you make it out to be — certainly not proven. 

i think that goes both ways. There is no evidence he was married. 

[Freedom]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you also include the possibility that one of his mortal experiences could have been separation from his wife and possibly children while fulfilling his mission, much like his time teaching in the temple at Passover when 12 rather than fulfilling the typical role expected of a son to Mary and Joseph?  It is unlikely all the apostles were unmarried or widows, but they were traveling besides him.

Perhaps his wife is living with her family.

 I want to know where his mother, Mary, was typically given how she and his brothers show up here and there in the narrative.

‘Nowhere to lay his head’ seems to me to refer to putting aside ownership and all that meant back then rather than actually forced homelessness as many seemed eager to invite him in to their homes and as you say, many saw him as family and thus would always have a place for him if he needed it.

I think seeing him as nomadic and considering why he made that choice is very important, almost as important as who he called his family (while also being aware it is never suggested he was neglectful of his mother or brothers in actual need as opposed to just wanting to be an automatic top priority for his attention).

he may well have been married but there is no evidence he was and being married is not a requirement in our doctrine. 

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Freedom said:

he may well have been married but there is no evidence he was and being married is not a requirement in our doctrine. 

It is for exaltation (ie, to be/become a God).  What doctrine says otherwise?

[Freedom]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

And the notion of Junia being a female holder of the apostolic office as we understand it is far less definitive or conclusive than you make it out to be — certainly not proven. 

I did not suggest it was proven, I was just resenting what I have found on the subject, but i would be interested in your evidence to the contrary. rather than your simply dismissing it out of hand