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

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

Meaning?

Answering my own question, Google says “gender”, but an online dictionary says “sex; gender” and then uses three examples of “sex”.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/german-english/geschlecht

So it also looks like it can mean lineage, which would make an interesting nuance in the Proclamation. 
Also:

https://en.langenscheidt.com/german-english/geschlecht

Edited December 20, 2021 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

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?

You didn’t say clarification. You said they used the word in the “wrong way.” Most words in English have varying definitions. It’s not wrong to intend one standard definition rather than another, especially when the meaning is reasonably clear from context, as it is in this instance. 
 

And it’s not arguing for infallibility to disagree that a word was used improperly. 

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You didn’t say clarification. You said they used the word in the “wrong way.” Most words in English have varying definitions. It’s not wrong to intend one standard definition rather than another, especially when the meaning is reasonably clear from context, as it is in this instance. 
 

And it’s not arguing for infallibility to disagree that a word was used improperly. 

I agree.  You can disagree with my word choice of "wrong" all you want.  

[Craig Speechly]

On 12/19/2021 at 11:56 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.” 

I'm a real person and have chosen not to post anonymously.  Anyone interested can easily google my name probably find my picture, address etc.  I do that because I have chosen to be transparent instead of masquerading behind some anonymous aviator/name.

I have a very dear transgender friend.  We served together on our missions, she was married in the temple to her wife, served in her bishopric and as her ward's elder's quorum president before she started presenting as female. She is a delightful, talented, gifted, wonderful woman and I am thrilled to be able to call her my friend.  When she came out, she first approached her stake president about attending relief society.  Her stake president told her that he would fully support her and would attend and sit next to her and my friends wife the first day that they attended relief society.

The proclamation on the Family does not account for women like my friend nor does it offer a place in heaven for her.  In that regard I believe it to be a flawed document and in need of an update to accommodate and have a place for all transgender members within and out of the church. 

My friend wants to be part of the church and her ward and continue to feel welcome, fortunately her Orem ward is very welcoming, the church on the other hand continues to send less than inviting messages.

It is my hope that the proclamation on the family will be updated to accommodate the reality that gender, while perhaps being eternal, may not be evident in the sex assigned at birth.

If anyone is interested in listening to BJ's story, I invite you to listen here

[Teancum]

On 12/19/2021 at 1:56 PM, 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.” 

It is intriguing to me that many true believing Latter day Saints believe that this small marginal sect that is such a small part of the world have a major impact on the world.  What does it even mean to be a test for this generation? What generation?  Who is included?  Who is "our when referring to attitude?   How many humans have even heard of this obscure document?  I would guess not very many.  Are they part of the  "our" generation?  Latter-day Saints have an outsized ego when it comes the the impact they think their religion has on the world.  

[Teancum]

On 12/19/2021 at 3:08 PM, JLHPROF said:

CFR

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

 

 

Do you have evidence Jesus had a home, spouse and children?  CFR for you then.

[Teancum]

On 12/19/2021 at 4:44 PM, JLHPROF said:

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.

Utter proof texting and reading your Mormonism into something that just is not there. CFR for Mary, Mary and Martha to having been Jesus's wives, outside of LDS 19th century GAs.

[kimpearson]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

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.

Please explain to me how the proclamation on the family identifies the threat you are talking about?  I just don't see it in the proclamation although I agree totally that is how President Oaks and several other general authorities want to use it that way.  Please explain the concept of eternal family other than relationship.  Children will not continue to live with me and my wife in the eternities.  I will not continue to be responsible for their teaching and guidance.   I would argue the proclamation on the family is only about families during our mortal existence.  It reveals nothing about the eternities other that stating there will be men and women in the eternities and the bonds we form as families in this life can continue in the eternities.

Please explain to me where you have seen evidence of the Church being forced by popular or political pressure to change their doctrine.  I have heard of many who hope for a change.  I have heard of no one, no organization or no group who is publicly demanding that the Church change or some action will be taken.  I know of no law or purposed law demanding the Church to change its beliefs.  Instead the laws I have seen purposed simply ask for equal treatment by the law not churches.  Yes many are leaving because of the Church's doctrine but that isn't pressure, that's free agency.  Yes many publicly disagree with the Church but that is not a threat or pressure.  99.9% of the world disagree's with many doctrines of the Church.  Why is the one you stated above such threat to the Church or the family as opposed to any other disagreement with doctrine?

[Teancum]

On 12/19/2021 at 4:57 PM, 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.

So in other words you have no evidence other than reading your Mormonism into the NT.  No surprise there.

[Teancum]

On 12/19/2021 at 5:25 PM, JLHPROF said:

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.

Allegedly Jesus was already God and exalted before he was born.

[Teancum]

On 12/19/2021 at 6:13 PM, 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.

I would rather really on science to determine gender truths rather than those that think God it telling them "truth."  Just because someone thinks God is telling them something is a poor reason for others to follow it. 

[Teancum]

On 12/19/2021 at 6:50 PM, 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.

why not canonize it then?

[JLHPROF]

50 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So in other words you have no evidence other than reading your Mormonism into the NT.  No surprise there.

You say that like it's a bad thing. 😂

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours 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 not to change it now, especially with the distraction discussing the appropriateness of the term is. 

As I said earlier the intended meaning of the word as used in the proclamation is reasonably clear from context. Furthermore, my sense is there are still enough of us who regard gender as a synonym for biological sex that to change it now would amount to fixing what ain’t broke. Worse, it would be genuflecting at the altar of political correctness, which I detest. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Craig Speechly said:

I'm a real person and have chosen not to post anonymously.  Anyone interested can easily google my name probably find my picture, address etc.  I do that because I have chosen to be transparent instead of masquerading behind some anonymous aviator/name.

There are others of us here who post under our real names. And still others who use handles but make no secret of their real names, such as Smac97 (Spencer McDonald) and Kenngo (Ken Guordin). 

[InCognitus]

 

2 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

The context of the quote is as follows (with my emphasis):

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. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

As stated above, the "divine design" is that fathers are to provide the necessities of life, but "other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation".   And certainly, the "present distress" of preaching the gospel, as Paul put it in 1 Cor 7:26, is one of those circumstances.  Paul even refers to it as a "necessity" (1 Cor 9:16), one which would (using the Proclamation language) "necessitate individual adaptation".  But it was a "present" necessity, a temporary situation, and such was the case for the calling of missionaries in the early church and the three-year ministry of Jesus.  Those called on missions in the early church were fulfilling their family obligations prior to and after the time they were called to serve.  And I see no reason to suppose that Jesus was not doing the same (if he was indeed married and had a family).  

So I don't believe for one moment that the early church leaders, or the New Testament apostles, or even Jesus, would be "not following the proclamation" because they were called to serve for a period of time.  It was a temporary or unique situation that required adaptation.

I don't see this as a modern construct, I think it is intended to indicate the "divine design" from the beginning.

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

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.   

The fact that there is "little we know about His life" is one of the very reasons we should not suppose that he was not "following what the proclamation says a husband and father should be doing".  We simply don't know if he was or wasn't.   As Scott has already pointed out, the Bible says there were "many other things which Jesus did" that are not written.  We just don't know.

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

 

The fact that there is "little we know about His life" is one of the very reasons we should not suppose that he was not "following what the proclamation says a husband and father should be doing".  We simply don't know if he was or wasn't.   As Scott has already pointed out, the Bible says there were "many other things which Jesus did" that are not written.  We just don't know.

"A very great deal more truth can become known than can be proven.”

I think that there is enough information in the scriptures to know that He wasn't working to support a family.  He states Himself that He had no home.  I don't know why admitting that is seen as controversial.

[InCognitus]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

"A very great deal more truth can become known than can be proven.”

I think that there is enough information in the scriptures to know that He wasn't working to support a family.  He states Himself that He had no home.  I don't know why admitting that is seen as controversial.

I don't think it's controversial, it just doesn't prove anything one way or the other.  As I indicated earlier, saying that he has no place to lay his head while out travelling in his ministry (because that's what he was doing at the time when He said that) is a far cry from him saying "He had no home" whatsoever.   And, he had plenty of time to support his family prior to his three-year ministry.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

I don't think it's controversial, it just doesn't prove anything one way or the other.  As I indicated earlier, saying that he has no place to lay his head while out travelling in his ministry (because that's what he was doing at the time when He said that) is a far cry from him saying "He had no home" whatsoever.   And, he had plenty of time to support his family prior to his three-year ministry.

I get that some people think that a father and husband can be absent from their family for three years and it still counts as fulfilling everything that it says fathers have a divine mandate to fulfill in the proclamation.  I just don't think that.

 

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I get that some people think that a father and husband can be absent from their family for three years and it still counts as fulfilling everything that it says fathers have a divine mandate to fulfill in the proclamation.  I just don't think that.

What proof do you have that he was totally gone from them (if he had a family) for all three years?  (This is what it always comes back to).

Edited December 21, 2021 by InCognitus

[Chum]

4 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

I'm a real person and have chosen not to post anonymously

Me too! Although I'm not sure who I'm named after or why I never got the family surname.

Also they said I was a memorable baby but never explained what that meant.

[Peacefully]

4 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

I'm a real person and have chosen not to post anonymously.  Anyone interested can easily google my name probably find my picture, address etc.  I do that because I have chosen to be transparent instead of masquerading behind some anonymous aviator/name.

I have a very dear transgender friend.  We served together on our missions, she was married in the temple to her wife, served in her bishopric and as her ward's elder's quorum president before she started presenting as female. She is a delightful, talented, gifted, wonderful woman and I am thrilled to be able to call her my friend.  When she came out, she first approached her stake president about attending relief society.  Her stake president told her that he would fully support her and would attend and sit next to her and my friends wife the first day that they attended relief society.

The proclamation on the Family does not account for women like my friend nor does it offer a place in heaven for her.  In that regard I believe it to be a flawed document and in need of an update to accommodate and have a place for all transgender members within and out of the church. 

My friend wants to be part of the church and her ward and continue to feel welcome, fortunately her Orem ward is very welcoming, the church on the other hand continues to send less than inviting messages.

It is my hope that the proclamation on the family will be updated to accommodate the reality that gender, while perhaps being eternal, may not be evident in the sex assigned at birth.

If anyone is interested in listening to BJ's story, I invite you to listen here

Thank you for sharing. I believe there is a place in Heaven for your friend and I hope the church can find a place for her, also:) 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

 

 

It’s important to me and, conceivably, to others who might be interested in separating fact from fancy.
 

When you said the Church in its handbook stated that a word in the proclamation had been used “in the wrong way,” my attention was aroused, because the message I got was that the Church had admitted to misusing a word in an important document and had not yet revised it to correct the error. When you responded to my request by providing a quote from said handbook, I immediately saw that’s not what happened. Rather, the word was used correctly to convey one of a variety of valid meanings, a point that the Church has now made clear in its handbook entry for the benefit of anyone who might be confused. (Frankly, I don’t see why anyone would be, as the intended meaning is already clear from context.)

Edited December 21, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[BRMC]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

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?

I'm saying I agree with him that it isn't a concession for incorrect use.  I agree it's a clarification.   A clarification doesn't mean it's a concession.  In this case I believe it means "you're trying to twist my words to your world view, so let's just nip that in the bud right now"

[BRMC]

11 hours ago, Teancum said:

I would rather really on science to determine gender truths rather than those that think God it telling them "truth."  Just because someone thinks God is telling them something is a poor reason for others to follow it. 

Then I'd argue you may be in the wrong place to have this discussion.  

Edited December 21, 2021 by BRMC