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

[CV75]

4 hours ago, 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.” 

That line was discussed in our class today, and I understand him to mean that given the social and political pressures to the contrary, the family proclamation consists of  revealed essential doctrines (and a warning), and not policies that can change. The pressures constitute the test.

Edited December 19, 2021 by CV75

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

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

It depends how much faith and stock we place in the laws and ordinances Joseph restored.

Either Joseph made them up based on Bible stories.  Or they are ordinances given in both time periods.

The anointing with hair was specifically practiced by wives in this dispensation.  If Joseph didn't take creative license with the ordinances then it only stands to reason Mary was Christ's wife.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

depends how much faith and stock we place in the laws and ordinances Joseph restored.

Why?  Believing there could be additional ordinances does not indicate lack of faith in Joseph, IMO.  He taught continuing revelation.  I put huge faith and stock in that.

Did he ever say all things had been restored by him and it was just new knowledge that would be revealed by others?  Serious question as my memory and interpretation says he anticipated more being restored, such as when the Jews offer sacrifice in the last days.

Edited December 20, 2021 by Calm

[california boy]

2 hours 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.

Wow.  This is a pretty big leap.  There is actually MORE evidence that Christ was in a relationship with John.  The Bible repeatedly refers to John as the one Jesus loved.  If John was a woman, you would definitely be proclaiming that he was married to John.  

When you make assumptions that have NO support, all kinds of things can be assumed.  lol.

[JLHPROF]

21 minutes ago, california boy said:

Wow.  This is a pretty big leap.  There is actually MORE evidence that Christ was in a relationship with John.  The Bible repeatedly refers to John as the one Jesus loved.  If John was a woman, you would definitely be proclaiming that he was married to John.  

When you make assumptions that have NO support, all kinds of things can be assumed.  lol.

😂 I love my brothers.  Doesn't mean I want to marry them.  I have a beloved son too, just as Christ is beloved of the Father.  Beloved is not a romantic term.  Scripture says he loved Lazarus too.  SSM as polygamy?

Edited December 20, 2021 by JLHPROF

[InCognitus]

32 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I suppose we could proxy seal Christ to Mary.

The idea that there could be anything lacking in the things pertaining to this life that Jesus did while he was alive, is probably the most compelling reason to speculate that Jesus was likely married while in mortality, in my opinion.  Why was Jesus baptized?  Not because he needed to be baptized, but "to fulfill all righteousness".   Jesus fulfilled all that the Father had commanded of him (and us) and was "made perfect" and has been "highly exalted" by his Father.  I can't imagine anything that there could be left for him to do to receive his exaltation otherwise (and being married is definitely one of the requirements of full exaltation). 

[Chum]

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

There is actually MORE evidence that Christ was in a relationship with John.  The Bible repeatedly refers to John as the one Jesus loved.

I think the whole Love Is An Euphemism For Sex thing is a recent development.

[california boy]

48 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

😂 I love my brothers.  Doesn't mean I want to marry them.  I have a beloved son too, just as Christ is beloved of the Father.  Beloved is not a romantic term.  Scripture says he loved Lazarus too.  SSM as polygamy?

 

44 minutes ago, Chum said:

I think the whole Love Is An Euphemism For Sex thing is a recent development.

My comment was more about the assertion that JLH was making 

 

Quote

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.

If relationship listed in the Bible is conclusive evidence that Christ was married, then certainly there i more evidence that it is John who Jesus loved.

No I don't think the Jesus and John were an item.  And no I don't think that Jesus talking with Martha and Mary is any kind of proof that he was married to them.  It is a ridiculous assumption based on NOTHING but speculation.  Just like saying Jesus and John had a relationship based on sticky speculation.

[halconero]

7 hours ago, 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.” 

I bolded one word above.

This is what my wife and I focused on this week. I know it is a proclamation to the world, meaning it has implications for wider society and those who do not belong to the Church, but I was worried that Sunday School would quickly turn into a one-hour session of lamenting the state of the world without focusing on what the document says to us as Latter-day Saints.

We found a lot in the Proclamation to inform our family life - how we work together, how we'll raise our kids, how we'll treat each other and our relationship to God. It was good.

[Chum]

1 minute ago, halconero said:

I was worried that Sunday School would quickly turn into a one-hour session of lamenting the state of the world without focusing on what the document says to us as Latter-day Saints.

This is what I can live without forever.

[rodheadlee]

4 hours ago, Freedom said:

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. 

He would have to be married to be qualified for the highest level in the Celestial Kingdom. Isn't that what we teach? We are created in His image male and female. His Father is married, He is married, we are married. Genesis 1:26 Let us make in our image,  after our likeness.

[rodheadlee]

3 hours ago, Freedom said:

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

 

 

Only if you consider the 1st century AD to be modern times. I just got through reading the lineage of the husbands and wives of the Caesars. 

[Duncan]

4 hours 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.

what if he, like many singles in the church, get married in the next life? Some have zero chance of marriage here for whatever reason that God only knows

[JLHPROF]

36 minutes ago, Duncan said:

what if he, like many singles in the church, get married in the next life? Some have zero chance of marriage here for whatever reason that God only knows

I already said that's possible.  Somehow I doubt that's the case.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Only if you consider the 1st century AD to be modern times. I just got through reading the lineage of the husbands and wives of the Caesars. 

Lineage is not the same as family though. Think of what was meant by being part of the imperial family and in the line of succession.
 

And using the Caesars as an example of family is highly problematic given how marriage and divorce and adoption and murder of each other or at least rumors of murder were used for political power.

http://historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistoriesResponsive.asp?historyid=ac57

A family may have been seen as what we would refer to as extended family today or it may have been seen as anyone under the care of the patriarch, including foster children, what we would see as servants.  For example, Abraham’s servant or right hand man, Eliezer, was set to be his heir before Abraham had children of his own according to Genesis 15:3:

”And Abram said, Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?

3 And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.”

Family could be defined as being under the covenant of Abraham where those born in his house or purchased by him also were required to be circumcised as any male biological children were. 
 

https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Born-In-One~s-House

Edited December 20, 2021 by Calm

[rodheadlee]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

Lineage is not the same as family though. Think of what was meant by being part of the imperial family and in the line of succession.
 

And using the Caesars as an example of family is highly problematic given how marriage and divorce and adoption and murder of each other or at least rumors of murder were used for political power.

http://historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistoriesResponsive.asp?historyid=ac57

A family may have been seen as what we would refer to as extended family today or it may have been seen as anyone under the care of the patriarch, including foster children, what we would see as servants.  For example, Abraham’s servant or right hand man,  Eliezer, was set to be his heir before Abraham had children of his own according to Genesis 15:3:

”And Abram said, Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?

3 And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.”

Family could be defined as being under the covenant of Abraham where those born in his house or purchased by him also were required to be circumcised as any male biological children were. 
 

https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Born-In-One~s-House

Yeah I really got to watch what I say around here. It was a story of the family life of a couple of those Ceasars . Not just lineage. But yeah nasty families. 

Edited December 20, 2021 by rodheadlee

[Nevo]

Not sure if anyone here has had a chance to read Christopher Blythe's article, "Was Jesus Married?"

Among other things, he quotes a 2006 statement from Church spokesman Dale Bills: "The belief that Christ was married has never been official church doctrine. It is neither sanctioned nor taught by the church. While it is true that a few church leaders in the mid-1800s expressed their opinions on the matter, it was not then, and is not now, church doctrine."

Further, Mark D. Ellison has noted that "during his ministry Jesus had no home of his own (Matthew 8:20; Luke 9:58), and it is not unreasonable to guess that his sacrifice of home and property extended also to marriage so that he might give single-minded devotion to his atoning mission (see Luke 12:50). Certainly in the period following the New Testament, early Christians remembered Jesus as celibate."

[JustAnAustralian]

Matt 4:13 has him settling in Capernaum, and since he hadn't started his ministry at that point he wouldn't have a bunch of followers to stay with. It seems reasonable to me that he had a house of his own.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, halconero said:

I bolded one word above.

This is what my wife and I focused on this week. I know it is a proclamation to the world, meaning it has implications for wider society and those who do not belong to the Church, but I was worried that Sunday School would quickly turn into a one-hour session of lamenting the state of the world without focusing on what the document says to us as Latter-day Saints.

We found a lot in the Proclamation to inform our family life - how we work together, how we'll raise our kids, how we'll treat each other and our relationship to God. It was good.

That’s certainly a good “use” of the family proclamation. 
 

But another good — and important — use of it is as a means of being grounded, forewarned and guided in finding truth lest we be “tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine” as societal whims change like shifting sands. 
 

I continue to marvel at the wisdom of President Oaks’s statement I quoted in the OP. The family proclamation is indeed a test for our generation. That testing is in full swing, from what I can tell. 

Edited December 20, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

Not sure if anyone here has had a chance to read Christopher Blythe's article, "Was Jesus Married?"

Among other things, he quotes a 2006 statement from Church spokesman Dale Bills: "The belief that Christ was married has never been official church doctrine. It is neither sanctioned nor taught by the church. While it is true that a few church leaders in the mid-1800s expressed their opinions on the matter, it was not then, and is not now, church doctrine."

Further, Mark D. Ellison has noted that "during his ministry Jesus had no home of his own (Matthew 8:20; Luke 9:58), and it is not unreasonable to guess that his sacrifice of home and property extended also to marriage so that he might give single-minded devotion to his atoning mission (see Luke 12:50). Certainly in the period following the New Testament, early Christians remembered Jesus as celibate."

To me, the question of whether or not Jesus was married has little-to-no bearing on the verity of the inspired family proclamation. One day, our questions will all be answered. For now. it’s enough to recognize that, as the Great Mediator of mankind, Jesus has a different role to play than do the rest of us, and it is not necessary for Him to have been married for the family proclamation to contain divine truth. 

Edited December 20, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Stormin' Mormon]

I teach Gospel Doctrine in my ward, though my lessons are more of a moderated discussion than an actual lesson. The majority of my lesson prep is simply developing good discussion questions about practical application of doctrine in our every day lives. 

With yesterday's lesson, I dove headfirst into the Proclamation, reading paragraphs #2 and #4, and writing the two controversial doctrines that they contain on the board.  Paragraph #2 teaches (among other things) that gender is an eternal characteristic of our spirits and paragraph #4 teaches (among other things) that procreative powers are only to be used between a man and a woman.

I then lead off with the discussion question: how do we teach these truths without alienating our LGBT brothers and sisters (both inside and outside the Church)?  Or, conversely, how do we create a welcoming and loving atmosphere for our LGBT brothers and sisters without compromising our commitments to the doctrines taught in the Proclamation.

A very healthy and open dialogue ensued.  I heard a number of stories from people who had close friends or family members who have come out (as either gay or transgendered) who had simply assumed that their Mormon relatives would no longer love and accept them.  The members of my class who shared such stories had expressed over and over again how much they love their friends, and had reached out to them, and tried to be welcoming.  In many of these stories, though, the friend simply rejected this outreach, because of the Mormon-ness of their loved ones. 

One member of my class I think hinted at the ideal for which we should all strive when she told of her gay cousin (a returned missionary) who continued to attend church meetings with his husband, and they were both loved and accepted by their ward members. 

In moderating this discussion, I drew upon much of what I have read here from board members over the last few months, from all sides of this issue.  So a hearty thank you to everyone who has been so open about your own experiences, both good and bad.

After the lesson, I was approached by one sister who told me that she never thought she would be in a church discussion like that one, and was filled and uplifted by the positive energy and the eagerness to love all of God's children.  While I don't think these doctrines are likely to change much in the future, nor for temple ordinances to open up to same-sex sealings, I think there is much hope and love and openness on the horizon for LGBT members of the Church. 

Edited December 20, 2021 by Stormin' Mormon

[Chum]

47 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

heard a number of stories from people who had close friends or family members who have come out (as either gay or transgendered) who had simply assumed that their Mormon relatives would no longer love and accept them.  The members of my class who shared such stories had expressed over and over again how much they love their friends, and had reached out to them, and tried to be welcoming. 

In many of these stories, though, the friend simply rejected this outreach, because of the Mormon-ness of their loved ones. 

I bring or leave varying amounts of Churchiness into my relationships. It primarily depends on what works for the other person.

I'll clarify that this isn't a path to compromise. The Church has shaped who I am. Profoundly awful things also shaped who I am. I can interact with others and not include the awful things; Yet, I will always be the person who was shaped by them. The same goes for my Church attributes.

[Scott Lloyd]

18 hours 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.”

 

18 hours ago, BRMC said:

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.

Kind of shoots down comparisons to the priesthood ban, which many people contend WAS just a policy. 

[Nacho2dope]

22 hours ago, Freedom said:

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

I completely disagree with all of this.  

[bluebell]

23 hours ago, Freedom said:

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

I don't know why you are getting so much pushback on this since it seems pretty basically accurate.

The church agrees with you that the proclamation uses the word gender in the wrong way, and should have used sex instead, and the confusion is acknowledged in the handbook.  Likewise, clearly Christ did not lead a life that matches the proclamation either.  Whether He was married or not (and the idea of Him having children that were then 1/4 divine is a whole other issue), He definitely falls under the 'exceptions' mentioned.  

Now, do either of those things mean anything as far as whether or not the proclamation is of God?  No.