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

[kimpearson]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m not persuaded that your comparison of official proclamations to Church-published curriculum materials and to general conference talks is apt. 

Even though they are not canonized, their nature and character give them substantially greater solemnity and stature than Church manuals and conference talks. 
 

For one thing, they are rare. Relatively few have been issued throughout the history of the Church. 
 

For another, they bear the official imprimatur of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve acting as a united body. 
 

Whenever such proclamations are issued, the occasion is treated as momentous, an event of considerable magnitude. 
 

Such proclamations are typically formulated and drafted prayerfully and with unusual care. President Oaks characterized the process with regard to the family proclamation as “revelatory.” I find great significance in that. 
 

Only two such official communications have ever been given canonical status. They are Official Declarations 1 and 2 in the Doctrine and Covenants. What do they have in common that makes them different from proclamations that have not been canonized? The answer is obvious. They were more than just a restatement, renewed emphasis, summation or clarification of doctrine. They each altered the practice of the Church in a rare, significant and impactful way, one by ending the practice of plurality of wives and the other by extending priesthood and temple worship availability  without regard to race. None of the other official proclamations or declarations have been so impactful. 
 

And so I say that though I would be delighted to see the family proclamation canonized, I don’t expect it to happen, nor do I see a compelling need for it. But that doesn’t diminish its stature to any degree. 

[Peacefully]

50 minutes ago, BRMC said:

I understand that.  I just don't have the same compulsion at this point.

I don’t know how old you are or how long you have been a convert, but it took me 30 years as a convert to start asking about the “whys.” I feel like I am  better for it instead of following with blind faith. I believe I am supposed to be a member of this church and I grow closer to my Heavenly Father by being a member. This forum and the discussions from different points of view cause me to look at the whys and evaluate why I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Telling people they don’t belong here because they don’t agree with you is not a good look, btw. I haven’t been here as long as Teancum and others, so I respect their longevity on the board. Just chill and get to know the group. 

[CV75]

36 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Haha  I am not following. But it is probably not worth chasing. Merry Christmas to you.

Thank you -- and for all those red marks you gave me to complement the green ones for the holidays! Nice decorating!

[BRMC]

9 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

I don’t know how old you are or how long you have been a convert, but it took me 30 years as a convert to start asking about the “whys.” I feel like I am  better for it instead of following with blind faith. I believe I am supposed to be a member of this church and I grow closer to my Heavenly Father by being a member. This forum and the discussions from different points of view cause me to look at the whys and evaluate why I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Perhaps it is something I should re-evaluate.

Quote

Telling people they don’t belong here because they don’t agree with you is not a good look, btw. I

That isn't what I've done.  If it appears that way, there is a communication breakdown.  My point was that this is a religious forum.  Because of that, calling Heavenly Father "she" is incredibly insulting to some.  Additionally, taking offense when the answer to something is "because it was relayed from God through His Prophet" and suggesting that answer isn't good enough is disingenuous.   If you can't accept the answer that God or His Prophet said so and that is why I/we do something, then maybe it's not the forum for that person.  Sometimes the answer is simply "because God commands it".  In fact, just about everything (when examined back far enough) leads to "because God commands it".

Quote

I haven’t been here as long as Teancum and others, so I respect their longevity on the board.

I don't respect someone for how long they've been on a message board, particularly when most of the post I've seen have been antagonistic towards the Church.   We all have different criteria, though.  Mine are just different than yours.

Edited December 22, 2021 by BRMC

[CV75]

10 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

You did not include the typical disclaimer: "Note: The image above is designed to resemble the family proclamation."

The purveyors of this equivalent of porn intentionally misrepresent a statement as a proclamation. This kind of explains your sources, source of bias and depth of research. If you posted it to be humorous, many of my jokes fall flat too.

[Peacefully]

14 minutes ago, BRMC said:

Perhaps it is something I should re-evaluate.

That isn't what I've done.  If it appears that way, there is a communication breakdown.  My point was that this is a religious forum.  Because of that, calling Heavenly Father "she" is incredibly insulting to some.  Additionally, taking offense when the answer to something is "because it was relayed from God through His Prophet" and suggesting that answer isn't good enough is disingenuous.   If you can't accept the answer that God or His Prophet said so and that is why I/we do something, then maybe it's not the forum for that person.  Sometimes the answer is simply "because God commands it".  In fact, just about everything (when examined back far enough) leads to "because God commands it".

I don't respect someone for how long they've been on a message board, particularly when most of the post I've seen have been antagonistic towards the Church.   We all have different criteria, though.  Mine are just different than yours.

Agreed. Just some friendly suggestions from one convert to another but you do you:)

Edited December 22, 2021 by Peacefully

[california boy]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

You did not include the typical disclaimer: "Note: The image above is designed to resemble the family proclamation."

The purveyors of this equivalent of porn intentionally misrepresent a statement as a proclamation. This kind of explains your sources, source of bias and depth of research. If you posted it to be humorous, many of my jokes fall flat too.

I have never seen this before.  Was this really a proclamation.  I get that you object to the format it is printed in.  But are the words accurate?

[JustAnAustralian]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

You did not include the typical disclaimer: "Note: The image above is designed to resemble the family proclamation."

Correct. It's not actually a proclamation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proclamations_of_the_First_Presidency_and_the_Quorum_of_the_Twelve_Apostles

  

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

Was this really a proclamation.

No

Edited December 22, 2021 by JustAnAustralian

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

I have never seen this before.  Was this really a proclamation.  I get that you object to the format it is printed in.  But are the words accurate?

Not exactly a proclamation. It was apparently drawn up by the First Presidency as a standard response to inquiries about the status of black people according to church doctrine. 

https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_examination/aug-2020-church-historian-communication-on-1949-first-presidency-statement/

[SeekingUnderstanding]

20 minutes ago, california boy said:

I have never seen this before.  Was this really a proclamation.  I get that you object to the format it is printed in.  But are the words accurate?

It started IIRC as a letter addressed to a particular church member signed by the first presidency in 1949. It was then circulated by the church in some limited role. 
 

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements

 

 see also here where a bold member corrected the lord’s anointed and generated the statement:

http://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/lowry-nelson-exchange/

Edited December 23, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Thank you -- and for all those red marks you gave me to complement the green ones for the holidays! Nice decorating!

You are a person with good humor.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, BRMC said:

I don't respect someone for how long they've been on a message board, particularly when most of the post I've seen have been antagonistic towards the Church.   We all have different criteria, though.  Mine are just different than yours.

But you don't set the parameters for the board. So your antagonism towards me as a non believer is out of line. And you may not understand the purpose of this board. I do not think it is intended to just be a place for believers to discuss Mormonism.

[BRMC]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But you don't set the parameters for the board. So your antagonism towards me as a non believer is out of line. And you may not understand the purpose of this board. I do not think it is intended to just be a place for believers to discuss Mormonism.

I've had no antagonism towards you.  If you look at your posts, it's the other way around.  You've been extremely rude.  I believe you to be trolling.  Otherwise, what is even the point of this post?  It addresses no topic.  It furthers no discussion.  It serves only to be rude and antagonistic.

Edited December 23, 2021 by BRMC

[Teancum]

22 minutes ago, BRMC said:

I've had no antagonism towards you.

Umm sure......😏

22 minutes ago, BRMC said:

 

 

 

 If you look at your posts, it's the other way around.  You've been extremely rude.

Rude?  How so? I am a critic.  That is notnecessarilyy rude.

22 minutes ago, BRMC said:

 

 

 I believe you to be trolling.

Well you believe incorrectly.

22 minutes ago, BRMC said:

 

 

 Otherwise, what is even the point of this post?  It addresses no topic.  It furthers no discussion.  It serves only to be rude and antagonistic.

My post was in response to your aggressive approach that this is a discussion board that it really just for true believing Mormons. That is not the case.  As noted, the mods can ban me from the board if they wish. I have been banned from a few threads here and there.  So why don't you and I just move on from this issue and leave it be?

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

As noted, the mods can ban me from the board if they wish.

I hope that never happens! Your posts are often an important reminder for me why I never want to leave the Church. 

[BRMC]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Umm sure......😏

Rude?  How so? I am a critic.  That is notnecessarilyy rude.

Well you believe incorrectly.

My post was in response to your aggressive approach that this is a discussion board that it really just for true believing Mormons. That is not the case.  As noted, the mods can ban me from the board if they wish. I have been banned from a few threads here and there.  So why don't you and I just move on from this issue and leave it be?

I My approach ISN'T that this is for active members.  My statement was that if this is a board about the Church, then not accepting "because the Prophet said" as a legitimate answer is going to be very frustrating for you.   Because, if someone asks me why I can't drink hot drinks, that is the answer.   Your claim to want a scientific discussion on the matter just isn't going to be fulfilled.

When you call someone a "jerk", I consider that to be rude.  If you don't, then our values are so different we likely won't agree on many basic things.

I'd already moved on.  It's not personal.  I comment and move on. You appear a little obsessive.  I guess what happens from here will tell.

Enjoy your Christmas.

[Teancum]

5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I hope that never happens! Your posts are often an important reminder for me why I never want to leave the Church. 

Well I am glad I am helping out!  Many posters here help me remind me how glad I am to not be a true believing Mormon any longer.  So we bless each other.😁

[Teancum]

4 minutes ago, BRMC said:

I'd already moved on.  It's not personal.  I comment and move on. You appear a little obsessive.  I guess what happens from here will tell.

Enjoy your Christmas.

Great! I am happy to move on.  Merry Christmas to you as well!

[Hamba Tuhan]

Just now, Teancum said:

Many posters here help me remind me how glad I am to not be a true believing Mormon any longer.  So we bless each other.😁

Symbiosis!

[Calm]

2 hours ago, BRMC said:

you can't accept the answer that God or His Prophet said so

It might be more precise to write “the answer for many here” to be clear in your point…that is assuming I understand it correctly, if I do I agree with it as asking a religious person about important aspects of their life and dismissing a faith based answer is unproductive at the very least.
 

 It is like going to a Russian topic board run by Russians that has many Russians posting and insisting everyone speak English.  If this hypothetical board’s rules allowed for speaking English, posters shouldn’t be complaining about English posts either.  Hopefully most, if not all understand both languages and are willing to define more obscure words in their own posts and ask for clarification rather than getting offended when they don’t understand a particular word. 

Edited December 23, 2021 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Great! I am happy to move on.  Merry Christmas to you as well!

There is good and bad in everyone, in and out of the LDS church. 

[Teancum]

Just now, Hamba Tuhan said:

Symbiosis!

Indeed!  By the way I had a dream last night that I went back to activity in the church. And who knows. I could do that some day. I am open to wherever my seeking path leads. My wife wants to have here name removed. I don't.  She think I have an attachment issue. Maybe.  There really is much I miss.

Enjoy the Christmas season!

 

[Teancum]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

There is good and bad in everyone, in and out of the LDS church. 

You are a wonderful person Jkwilliams.  Merry Christmas to you and yours also. I may be driving through your neck of the woods next June.  If so let's catch up.

[kimpearson]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

You did not include the typical disclaimer: "Note: The image above is designed to resemble the family proclamation."

The purveyors of this equivalent of porn intentionally misrepresent a statement as a proclamation. This kind of explains your sources, source of bias and depth of research. If you posted it to be humorous, many of my jokes fall flat too.

Sorry that my source offended you.  How about this one from FAIR?  I can't spot any differences but I understand the format I originally posted would upset some members of the Church.

First Presidency statement (President George Albert Smith)

August 17, 1949

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. 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, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have."

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, 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. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

The First Presidency ^[1]

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Teancum said:

Indeed!  By the way I had a dream last night that I went back to activity in the church. And who knows. I could do that some day. I am open to wherever my seeking path leads. My wife wants to have here name removed. I don't.  She think I have an attachment issue. Maybe.  There really is much I miss.

Enjoy the Christmas season!

 

I have a recurring dream that I’m somehow back in my old job at the Church Office Building. I do miss a few things, but I can’t imagine going back.