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

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Freedom said:

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

So if there’s no evidence either way, why are you using your unsubstantiated assumption that He wasn’t married as a contention for denouncing the family proclamation?

[InCognitus]

35 minutes ago, Freedom said:

There is no evidence he was married, no reference to spouse or children, and clear evidence that he was homeless.

In Mathew chapter 8 (and Luke 9), Jesus was travelling in his ministry, first to Capernaum, and then to Bethsaida (Peter's house).  In that context, I would hardly consider the statement in Matthew 8:20 to be definitive evidence that Jesus was completely homeless and it is even a greater stretch to take that as solid evidence that he was not married.   Travelling in the ministry was common for Jesus and the apostles, and they relied on local support for their accommodations, and we have evidence that some of the apostles were married (even the apostle Paul).  

[Freedom]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

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

so people who do not get married in this life go to hell? You keep presenting conjecture but no evidence. 

[Freedom]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So if there’s no evidence either way, why are you using your unsubstantiated assumption that He wasn’t married as a contention for denouncing the family proclamation?

there is no evidence he was married, and the modern family construct was not endorsed by him. There is no evidence he he was married and no requirement that he was married. Nothing in our scriptures indicate he was married so to say he was without any evidence is more problematic than saying he was not married. 

[BRMC]

Just now, Freedom said:

there is no evidence he was married, and the modern family construct was not endorsed by him. There is no evidence he he was married and no requirement that he was married. Nothing in our scriptures indicate he was married so to say he was without any evidence is more problematic than saying he was not married. 

What does that have to do with The Family?

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Freedom said:

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 

You did indeed suggest it was proven. Here’s what you said:

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

I don’t want to derail my thread with a discussion about Junia supposedly being a female apostle, but if you want to start a separate thread, I might contribute to it  

 

 

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Freedom said:

so people who do not get married in this life go to hell? You keep presenting conjecture but no evidence. 

D&C 131:1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;
2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];
3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.
4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

D&C 132:17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

Not hell, but not exalted.  Even Christ, had he remained single by choice, could not be exalted.

And yes, that's our doctrine.

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Freedom said:

there is no evidence he was married, and the modern family construct was not endorsed by him. There is no evidence he he was married and no requirement that he was married. Nothing in our scriptures indicate he was married so to say he was without any evidence is more problematic than saying he was not married. 

You are 100% wrong.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Freedom said:

there is no evidence he was married, and the modern family construct was not endorsed by him.

I take it you don’t believe in the latter-day gospel restoration. I ask, because to believe what you have asserted here, you would have to reject the doctrine of Christ having restored the gospel in latter days and of Him leading His restored Church through prophets today. 

[Freedom]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I take it you don’t believe in the latter-day gospel restoration. I ask, because to believe what you have asserted here, you would have to reject the doctrine of Christ having restored the gospel in latter days and of Him leading His restored Church through prophets today. 

that is the most patently absurd comment i have read and frankly quite offensive. in essence if people do not agree with your narrow interpretation of our doctrine, they reject the gospel. 

[Freedom]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You are 100% wrong.

in your  opinion. I can just as easily say you are 100% wrong. What does that accomplish? Dealing in absolutes lead to a lot of terrible practices in our religion

[Freedom]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

D&C 131:1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;
2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];
3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.
4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

D&C 132:17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

Not hell, but not exalted.  Even Christ, had he remained single by choice, could not be exalted.

And yes, that's our doctrine.

it is absolutely not our doctrine that people who do not marry in this life are bared from exaltation. 

[BRMC]

1 minute ago, Freedom said:

that is the most patently absurd comment i have read and frankly quite offensive. in essence if people do not agree with your narrow interpretation of our doctrine, they reject the gospel. 

To be honest, I'm not sure what your offense is.  He's 100% correct.   We had a very similar discussion above.   The Family is very direct.  You stated gender is a social construct.   I showed you where the Church officially stated gender, as stated in The Family, was sex at birth.  You said that was policy.  I showed you where the Church stated The Family was absolutely not policy.   Yet you continue to make the same argument.  

Either I'm failing to understand your point, which is possible, or you're just disagreeing with the Church.   If it's the former, I'd love it if you'd explain it better.  If it's the latter, then he is absolutely correct.

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Not hell, but not exalted.  Even Christ, had he remained single by choice, could not be exalted.

Is there a requirement this had to happen to him in mortality as opposed to being given the opportunity later as it is for anyone single (including by choice since it includes at least those choosing not to marry outside the faith when they could have) as taught by prophets?

Edited December 20, 2021 by Calm

[Freedom]

3 minutes ago, BRMC said:

To be honest, I'm not sure what your offense is.  He's 100% correct.   We had a very similar discussion above.   The Family is very direct.  You stated gender is a social construct.   I showed you where the Church officially stated gender, as stated in The Family, was sex at birth.  You said that was policy.  I showed you where the Church stated The Family was absolutely not policy.   Yet you continue to make the same argument.  

Either I'm failing to understand your point, which is possible, or you're just disagreeing with the Church.   If it's the former, I'd love it if you'd explain it better.  If it's the latter, then he is absolutely correct.

policy is not doctrine. It is policy. our doctrines are found in our scriptures. the proclamation is problematic and based on social constructs of the time. The family being a husband and wife is a rather modern construct. Gender, also, is a social construct that, despite being understood when the proclamation was written, still is included in it. The leadership then had to qualify this because, despite being 'inspired' contained a word that did not mean what they thought it meant. Men can be caregivers, and women can be the bread winner. Lesbians can raise children a there is no evidence that such a family dynamic is detrimental to the children. They fair just as well as children being raised by a mother and father. 

 

We do not believe that scripture in inerrant. it is ok to see flaws and to discuss them. It is more healthy to have an open discussion and to consider why so many are leaving the church due to the hardlines that I am reading here. 

 

 

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, Freedom said:

it is absolutely not our doctrine that people who do not marry in this life are bared from exaltation. 

That's literally what the scripture provided says.

If you're going to ignore scripture I'm not sure what else can be accomplished.

[BRMC]

1 minute ago, Freedom said:

policy is not doctrine. It is policy. 

I LITERALLY just quoted where the Church says it is NOT policy.   You can't just ignore that as though it doesn't exist, UNLESS you don't believe in the restoration as was previously stated.

Edited December 19, 2021 by BRMC

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, Freedom said:

that is the most patently absurd comment i have read and frankly quite offensive. in essence if people do not agree with your narrow interpretation of our doctrine, they reject the gospel. 

The latter-day Restoration by Jesus Christ and ongoing revelation from Christ through living prophets are by no means a narrow interpretation; they are essentials. 
 

Are you a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? (Serious question)

Edited December 19, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[InCognitus]

Just now, Freedom said:

the proclamation is problematic and based on social constructs of the time.

I see people today that try to explain away some of the wording and other things stated in the Family Proclamation as the very reason the Family Proclamation was written when it was written.  The foundational principles needed to be defined and set in stone at that time, so that when the winds of change and personal opinion would try to change the meaning of "family" and other terms, the church's position would already be made clear.

[BRMC]

2 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I see people today that try to explain away some of the wording and other things stated in the Family Proclamation as the very reason the Family Proclamation was written when it was written.  The foundational principles needed to be defined and set in stone at that time, so that when the winds of change and personal opinion would try to change the meaning of "family" and other terms, the church's position would already be made clear.

They doubled down on it this year with the handbook changes and Come Follow Me manual.   That's why it's odd to me that someone is still claiming otherwise.

Edited December 19, 2021 by BRMC

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I see people today that try to explain away some of the wording and other things stated in the Family Proclamation as the very reason the Family Proclamation was written when it was written.  The foundational principles needed to be defined and set in stone at that time, so that when the winds of change and personal opinion would try to change the meaning of "family" and other terms, the church's position would already be made clear.

 

6 minutes ago, BRMC said:

They doubled down on it this year with the handbook changes and Come Follow Me manual.   That's why it's odd to me that someone is still claiming otherwise.

And amazingly, this very thread has already turned out to be stark indication of the verity of President Oaks’s statement that I quoted in the OP: 

“I believe our attitude toward and use of the family proclamation is [a test] for this generation.”

[JLHPROF]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is there a requirement this had to happen to him in mortality as opposed to being given the opportunity later as it is for anyone single (including hy choice since it includes at least those choosing not to marry outside the faith when they could have) as taught by prophets?

Yes and no.

The entire reason for work for the dead requires ordinances be done by those in mortality. 

I suppose we could proxy seal Christ to Mary.

But again, if we believe Joseph restored ordinances then Mary's anointing of Christ in one of them is proof she was his wife.

I think it requires denial (or at least ignoring) some of the restored gospel to believe Christ didn't marry.

[BRMC]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

And amazingly, this very thread has already turned out to be stark indication of the verity of President Oaks’s statement that I quoted in the OP: 

“I believe our attitude toward and use of the family proclamation is [a test] for this generation.”

Just the FACT that it was included in scripture study supports this.   That wasn't enough, though.  They definitively stated IN the manual that this is not just a policy.

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, Freedom said:

The family being a husband and wife is a rather modern construct

How would you identify the commandment to leave parents and cleave unto one’s spouse?

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

But again, if we believe Joseph restored ordinances then Mary's anointing of Christ in one of them is proof she was his wife.

Assuming that anointing was done solely by wives.  There are overlaps between ordinances and it is possible this was a variation we are not aware of or are reading more into it, though I like the interpretation a lot.

Edited December 20, 2021 by Calm