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

[Scott Lloyd]

52 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

Not that I dispute you on this, but can you save me some time by citing the relevant passage?

Added later: If Church leaders acknowledge that the term is used erroneously in the proclamation, do you have any thoughts on why it has not been corrected? It would not be unprecedented. Within my lifetime, there have been slight revisions to the wording in the Articles of Faith. 

Edited December 20, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

37 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.  

I can’t speak for others, but he’s getting pushback from me because it makes no sense to claim that Jesus Christ, the Creator of “worlds without number,” including this one, has not endorsed the concept of the family when He has in fact inspired living prophets to declare and teach the fundamental character of the family unit in the plan of salvation. The claim would seem more internally consistent, I acknowledge, if one were to disbelieve in the divinity of the Church of Jesus Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — which is why I asked Freedom if he is a Church member. 
 

Incidentally, for the record, I take no position on the matter of whether Jesus was married. To me, the question is irrelevant to the subject at hand. 

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not that I dispute you on this, but can you save me some time by citing the relevant passage?

It's in section 38.6.23

"Gender is an essential characteristic of Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness. The intended meaning of gender in the family proclamation is biological sex at birth." 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I can’t speak for others, but he’s getting pushback from me because it makes no sense to claim that Jesus Christ, the Creator of “worlds without number,” including this one, has not endorsed the concept of the family when He has in fact inspired living prophets to declare and teach the fundamental character of the family unit in the plan of salvation. The claim would seem more internally consistent, I acknowledge, if one were to disbelieve in the divinity of the Church of Jesus Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — which is why I asked Freedom if he is a Church member. 

Where did Freedom state that Jesus does not endorse the concept of the family?  I did not see that so must have missed it.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

It's in section 38.6.23

"Gender is an essential characteristic of Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness. The intended meaning of gender in the family proclamation is biological sex at birth." 

I don’t see this as a concession that the word was used “in the wrong way,” only a clarification necessitated by semantic changes in general public discourse in more recent times. 
 

Care to address the question I added to my prior post: If the word was used “in the wrong way,” why has there been no revision made?

Edited December 21, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

44 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Where did Freedom state that Jesus does not endorse the concept of the family?  I did not see that so must have missed it.

Second page of this thread, fourth post down: 

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

Maybe Freedom meant that there was no endorsement of the “nuclear family,” but if so, I think that’s quibbling. There definitely has been such endorsement by living prophets acting under inspiration and authority from Christ. 
 

And besides, the mortal Jesus Himself was reared in a “nuclear family” with father, mother and siblings. He was so solicitous of His mother that while suffering on the cross, He tenderly commended her to the care of His beloved disciple John. 

Edited December 20, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t see this as a concession that the word was used “in the wrong way,” only a clarification necessitated by semantic changes in public discourse. 
 

Care to address the question I added fo my prior post: If the word was used “in the wrong way,” why has there been no revision made?

This seems like quibbling to me.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This seems like quibbling to me.

 

To challenge an assertion that there was an admission of error when there was, in fact, no such admission?
 

What if somebody claimed you admitted error when you hadn’t done so? Would you think it quibbling to reject such a claim? 

[kimpearson]

On 12/19/2021 at 10:56 AM, 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.” 

Please explain in detail how you believe the family proclamation is to be "used".  Please explain in detail what you believe our attitude should be toward the family proclamation.  Please explain what you believe are the details of the test for this generation.  Please explain in detail what you believe are the most serious threats to families in this world.  Please explain in detail how same-sex marriage is a threat to the family.

 

I believe the family proclamation should be used as the foundation in this world today to create an environment where everyone can benefit from family relations.  Those who are single for whatever reason should be included in family relationships whether by blood or by association.  I believe the proclamation should be used to heal broken families by encouraging such families to move forward with the promise that the more they do to follow all the teachings of the proclamation the best they can, that they can achieve many of the blessings of a fully intact loving nuclear family.  I believe the proclamation should be used to reach out to any and every person in this world to say you are my sibling and I will do everything I can to make your life better.  I believe the family proclamation is not a doctrine definition and rules that makes anyone that doesn't meet that definition less than those who do.

Our attitude toward the family proclamation is how do we use it to build a better life for every person in this world regardless of their own family situation.  Our attitude should be how do we use the proclamation to heal and comfort those who's families are broken or damaged or help individuals to form healthy loving families.

I believe the test for this generation related to the family proclamation is will we use it to heal and grow families or will we use it a tool of division.  Will we use the proclamation as a test to look down on or judge those who don't have the family described in the proclamation.  Will we use the proclamation as a tool against things that are no threat to families and ignore those things that are truly destroying families.

The most serious and only threats to the family are those things that cause a family to break apart or not be a place of safety and love.  Some of these are abuse in any form, infidelity, money problems, arguing, substance abuse, lack of commitment, conflicts over family responsibilities and marrying too young.

I can find no evidence anywhere that same sex marriage is a threat to the family.  In fact same sex marriage allows the formation of family units that all research shows has the same benefits and risks as heterosexual family units as discussed in the above sentences.

So please tell me what you think and explain how you disagree with my beliefs.  

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

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.  

Obviously, there is nothing "clear" about this, as you also seem to acknowledge in the rest of your paragraph, i.e. "Whether He was married or not".  We simply don't know if he was married and had a family or not.  So how can it be said, "clearly Christ did not lead a life that matches the proclamation"?  Whether or not he was married is certainly not clearly observable in scripture, if that's what you mean.  

I also don't take a hard position on whether or not Jesus was married.  But I do find doctrinal (even basic biblical Christian doctrine) reasons to think that he may have been married, and none of the arguments that people use to assume he was not married are persuasive at all.  I look forward to the day when we get the full scoop on all these fun questions  

[BRMC]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

This seems like quibbling to me.

 

In this instance, I agree with him.   I don't think it's a concession of misuse, but a doubling down on what it does mean.   I wonder if our perspectives are biased by our world views?

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

So how can it be said, "clearly Christ did not lead a life that matches the proclamation"? 

The earliest he might have married is mid teens, so it is possible if he was married that his kids, if he had any, were teens. Highly unlikely in my view, but covering the possible range. 
 

If there were a wife and kids somewhere, he does not appear to be matching the instruction here:

Quote

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families.

But then neither did most of early church leaders nor many members when they went on missions leaving their wives on their own to care for kids and often to provide or find help to provide for herself and and children.

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Obviously, there is nothing "clear" about this, as you also seem to acknowledge in the rest of your paragraph, i.e. "Whether He was married or not".  We simply don't know if he was married and had a family or not.  So how can it be said, "clearly Christ did not lead a life that matches the proclamation"?  Whether or not he was married is certainly not clearly observable in scripture, if that's what you mean.  

I also don't take a hard position on whether or not Jesus was married.  But I do find doctrinal (even basic biblical Christian doctrine) reasons to think that he may have been married, and none of the arguments that people use to assume he was not married are persuasive at all.  I look forward to the day when we get the full scoop on all these fun questions  

I was just reflecting that arguments based on the fact that the Bible doesn’t recount Jesus saying or doing this or that are ultimately meaningless. No where does the Bible claim to have a full and complete account of all that Jesus said and did. In fact, the very last verse in the book of John states just the opposite:

 

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen (John 11:25)

It is sheer folly to think the Bible contains a complete account of Jesus’s life and teachings. That’s the very reason for the principle of ongoing revelation. 
 

[JustAnAustralian]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Care to address the question I added fo my prior post: If the word was used “in the wrong way,” why has there been no revision made?

Presumably because the church was by far from the only ones using gender as a substitute for sex at the time.

https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/japplphysiol.00376.2005#T1

Quote

Number of articles titles from 1960 to 2004 examined by the authors in which the term gender was used as an equivalent term for sex in sex-based research publications in the Journal of Applied Physiology.

It's pretty clear that around that time there was a shift to using gender instead of sex.  We don't see a clamouring to update old articles.

 

If we're going to get into it though, what word was used in the translation into non-english versions of the proclamation?

Edited December 20, 2021 by JustAnAustralian

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, BRMC said:

In this instance, I agree with him.   I don't think it's a concession of misuse, but a doubling down on what it does mean.   I wonder if our perspectives are biased by our world views?

It is language, language changes and what once was clear can now be confusing. By choosing the more ambiguous term that is now used by the majority to mean something else, the Proclamation is not as clear as it could be.  A clarification is offered in the handbook. I don’t think it needs to be labeled as an error or misuse, but it is not the best term to use.

Also I think it would make more sense to have the clarification on the Proclamation itself if they don’t want to alter the language as few will check the Handbook. For clarity, best practice imo would be to use the current precise phrase even if a little clunky. Since it is meant to be used as a public statement by any member imo, it should be as clear as possible without needing additional information. 
 

The fact that clarification was seen as important enough to be added to the Handbook tells me it is not as clear as it could be and therefore not as effective in use as it could be.  
 

And I can see why some would label that an error, me more of a misstep not to change it now, especially with the distraction discussing the appropriateness of the term is. 

Edited December 20, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

1 minute ago, JustAnAustralian said:

It's pretty clear that around that time there was a shift to using gender instead of sex. 

Got to wonder why this happened. Perhaps at the time they thought “sex” was heading to be used more as a label of behaviour and wanted a label strictly tied to attributes. 
 

Is there one for the last 15 years by chance?

[BRMC]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is language, language changes and what once was clear can now be confusing. By choosing the more ambiguous term that is now used by the majority to mean something else, the Proclamation is not as clear as it could be.  A clarification is offered in the handbook. I don’t think it needs to be labeled as an error or misuse, but it is not the best term to use.

Also I think it would make more sense to have the clarification on the Proclamation itself if they don’t want to alter the language as few will check the Handbook. For clarity, best practice imo would be to use the current precise phrase even if a little clunky. Since it is meant to be used as a public statement by any member imo, it should be as clear as possible without needing additional information. 
 

The fact that clarification was seen as important enough to be added to the Handbook tells me it is not as clear as it could be and therefore not as effective in use as it could be.  
 

And I can see why some would label that an error, me more of a misstep.

I mostly agree.  To the degree that I disagree is merely semantics, and certainly not worthy of argument since the outcome is the same.

Thanks.

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, BRMC said:

In this instance, I agree with him.   I don't think it's a concession of misuse, but a doubling down on what it does mean.   I wonder if our perspectives are biased by our world views?

I'm not sure what you are saying.  

They clarified that the word 'gender' actually means sex in the proclamation.  I'm not sure why anyone would argue about that clarification.  Is there some push for the proclamation to be infallible that I'm not aware of?

[JustAnAustralian]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is there one for the last 15 years by chance?

I haven't been able to find a follow up, but it looks like Academic Journals (or at lease the big publishers) have policies on how/when to use the terms now.

https://genderedinnovations.stanford.edu/sex-and-gender-analysis-policies-peer-reviewed-journals.html

[JustAnAustralian]

26 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

If we're going to get into it though, what word was used in the translation into non-english versions of the proclamation?

Answering my own question, the german versions uses "Geschlecht".

[CV75]

1 hour ago, kimpearson said:

Please explain in detail how you believe the family proclamation is to be "used".  Please explain in detail what you believe our attitude should be toward the family proclamation.  Please explain what you believe are the details of the test for this generation.  Please explain in detail what you believe are the most serious threats to families in this world.  Please explain in detail how same-sex marriage is a threat to the family.

 

I believe the family proclamation should be used as the foundation in this world today to create an environment where everyone can benefit from family relations.  Those who are single for whatever reason should be included in family relationships whether by blood or by association.  I believe the proclamation should be used to heal broken families by encouraging such families to move forward with the promise that the more they do to follow all the teachings of the proclamation the best they can, that they can achieve many of the blessings of a fully intact loving nuclear family.  I believe the proclamation should be used to reach out to any and every person in this world to say you are my sibling and I will do everything I can to make your life better.  I believe the family proclamation is not a doctrine definition and rules that makes anyone that doesn't meet that definition less than those who do.

Our attitude toward the family proclamation is how do we use it to build a better life for every person in this world regardless of their own family situation.  Our attitude should be how do we use the proclamation to heal and comfort those who's families are broken or damaged or help individuals to form healthy loving families.

I believe the test for this generation related to the family proclamation is will we use it to heal and grow families or will we use it a tool of division.  Will we use the proclamation as a test to look down on or judge those who don't have the family described in the proclamation.  Will we use the proclamation as a tool against things that are no threat to families and ignore those things that are truly destroying families.

The most serious and only threats to the family are those things that cause a family to break apart or not be a place of safety and love.  Some of these are abuse in any form, infidelity, money problems, arguing, substance abuse, lack of commitment, conflicts over family responsibilities and marrying too young.

I can find no evidence anywhere that same sex marriage is a threat to the family.  In fact same sex marriage allows the formation of family units that all research shows has the same benefits and risks as heterosexual family units as discussed in the above sentences.

So please tell me what you think and explain how you disagree with my beliefs.  

Maybe there is a softer word than “threat”; perhaps the synonyms “pitfall” or “stumbling block” describe the difficulty more palatably, though the effects are just as damaging.

In the context of religious practice, the “threat” to individual Church members comes from popular and political pressure to compromise their understanding of correct doctrine or their spiritual integrity by substituting this or other non-covenant unions for the Church’s covenant union, which is the foundation of eternal families, a basic religious tenet. This can potentially become divisive, confusing or conflicting among the members, and even undermine their or the Church’s religious freedom should societal and political pressure against doctrine and practice increase. So identifying a "threat" has to do with protecting and preserving individual and group religious conscience, doctrine, practice and tradition -- all of which work in a freely-functioning, stable community -- against pressures to the contrary. But the key concept here is "eternal family", not all the various forms of families that might be recognized and supported for the sake of the most vulnerable (children and protected classes).

I suppose a “threat” could be seen in the warning at the end of the proclamation, and often a warning attitude is also conveyed by proponents of same-sex marriage toward the Church and its members.

Edited December 20, 2021 by CV75

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

To challenge an assertion that there was an admission of error when there was, in fact, no such admission?
 

What if somebody claimed you admitted error when you hadn’t done so? Would you think it quibbling to reject such a claim? 

I don't think the church cares one little teeny tiny bit--not one single "jot or tittle"--if someone says that they clarified in the handbook or says that they used the wrong word and explained what they actually meant in the handbook.  At the very most we are talking about an error of semantics after all, nothing nefarious in any way.

I don't think the church is that petty or has the ego that would make squabbling about such an insignificant thing important to them.

 

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

Obviously, there is nothing "clear" about this, as you also seem to acknowledge in the rest of your paragraph, i.e. "Whether He was married or not".  We simply don't know if he was married and had a family or not.  So how can it be said, "clearly Christ did not lead a life that matches the proclamation"?  Whether or not he was married is certainly not clearly observable in scripture, if that's what you mean.  

I also don't take a hard position on whether or not Jesus was married.  But I do find doctrinal (even basic biblical Christian doctrine) reasons to think that he may have been married, and none of the arguments that people use to assume he was not married are persuasive at all.  I look forward to the day when we get the full scoop on all these fun questions  

Because if He was married the little we know about His life doesn't appear to be following what the proclamation says a husband and father should be doing either.   

 

[bluebell]

49 minutes ago, Calm said:

The earliest he might have married is mid teens, so it is possible if he was married that his kids, if he had any, were teens. Highly unlikely in my view, but covering the possible range. 
 

If there were a wife and kids somewhere, he does not appear to be matching the instruction here:

But then neither did most of early church leaders nor many members when they went on missions leaving their wives on their own to care for kids and often to provide or find help to provide for herself and and children.

It seems really apparent to me that the proclamation is guidance for our time.  As you've outlined, many of the men in the early church wouldn't have been living by its precepts either, at a prophet's request. 

 

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Answering my own question, the german versions uses "Geschlecht".

Meaning?