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

[BRMC]

10 hours ago, Teancum said:

why not canonize it then?

I'm not sure.  I'd say including it in scripture study is pretty telling.   

[CV75]

14 hours ago, kimpearson said:

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?

As a proclamation, it needn’t provide the background information such as that provided in the general authority talks and articles published in the December 13 – 19 Come Follow Me “Learn More” links, but a general “threat” was detected, and President Hinckley led the drafting of this simplified doctrinal review to address it.

The eternal family, in my mind, is the covenant linking of all the children of God through their mortal generations back to Adam and then to Christ. The first link is between a man and a woman, and then with their children – going forward and backward in time, the hearts of the fathers and children turn to each other with an eye toward unity with Christ. This eternal perspective, forward and backward in time, can coexist with our mortal, temporal experience.

I didn’t say “forced.” You can argue (“press”) your perspective while correctly reflecting mine.

I addressed marriage because you specifically asked about same-sex marriage.

[CV75]

15 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

The proclamation is a summary of key doctrinal points concerning marriage and family. It applies to all people ("...to the World"), and the Lord meets everyone where they stand in relation to the covenant path.

[california boy]

17 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?

Isn't a little ironic that a proclamation to the world needs the Church's handbook to decipher what it means?

[Scott Lloyd]

57 minutes ago, california boy said:

Isn't a little ironic that a proclamation to the world needs the Church's handbook to decipher what it means?

I don’t believe it does. I think the meaning is quite clear from context to readers of average-or-greater intelligence. 
 

There are, I suppose, legalistically minded individuals who might try to practice lexical duplicity and the clarification is there to prevent the authors of the proclamation from being made “offenders for a word.” Inherent lack of clarity is not necessarily the only reason to publish a clarification. 

Edited December 21, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[teddyaware]

On 12/19/2021 at 3:58 PM, 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. 

There may be no historical evidence that he was married, but there’s very strong doctrinal evidence, based on sound logic and reason ,  that he was and is now married.

First, the Savior testified that he can only do those things that he has seen the Father do before him. And since we know God the Father is married for time and all eternity to our heavenly mother, who is a divine queen and heavenly priestess, that can only mean it is incumbent upon Christ to follow in his Father’s footsteps and also be married for time and all eternity to his own heavenly queen and priestess. In addition, we also know that the ordinance of eternal marriage can only be performed before the resurrection, and since Christ was resurrected on Easter Sunday that can only mean he would have had to have been sealed to his heavenly bride prior to rising from the dead…

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also the doeth the Son likewise. (John 5:19 

In addition to the above, we also have the powerful testimony found in Doctrine and Covenants 132 that the only way for any man or woman to inherit the highest degree of glory in the celestial kingdom — something we know Christ most certainly succeeded in doing — is to be sealed to a spouse for time and all eternity prior to the resurrection. Therefore, in order for LDS doctrine and theology to be consistent, Christ must now be eternally married to a divine female counterpart, for when it comes to inheriting exaltation in the highest degree of glory in the celestial kingdom it is as the apostle Paul said: “Man is not without the woman, and woman is not without the man in the Lord.”

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. (Doctrine and Covenants 132)

Can you imagine the Savior issuing such a strict and inflexible edict to the sons and daughters of God as a requirement for exaltation, and yet somehow be personally exempt from having to obey the same law? Preposterous!

 

 

 

Edited December 21, 2021 by teddyaware

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, InCognitus said:

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).

If it always comes back to the fact that neither one of us can prove our opinions, why do you still keep bringing it up? 

All we can point to are the scriptures that deal with this period of time.  Clearly, there is zero support in the scriptures that Christ was married, had children, and spent time being a father and husband during His ministering years.  If you disagree with that, then all you need to do is provide the scripture references that suggest otherwise.

There is some support in the scriptures that says the opposite (which has already been brought up multiple times).

But there is no proof for either assertion.

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.)

What we are having is a disagreement on interpretation.

I disagree with the bolded and stand by what I said.  From my perspective, when someone says "when I use the word gender, I meant sex" that is the same as saying "I should have used the word sex".

I get that your perspective is different, but it's not the default correct one.  

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, BRMC said:

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"

We'll just agree to disagree then.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Isn't a little ironic that a proclamation to the world needs the Church's handbook to decipher what it means?

I don't know that it's ironic, but as language usage changes sometimes clarification is necessary.  Gender and sex were used more interchangeably in the past than they are now.  

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, BRMC said:

17 hours ago, Teancum said:

why not canonize it then?

I'm not sure.  I'd say including it in scripture study is pretty telling.   

I would love to see it canonized, and, like you, I’m not sure why it isn’t. But I can suggest a possible reason. 
 

The proclamation, though it is a vital document in view of today’s political and social landscape, does not really plow new ground. Rather, it is a reiteration and emphasis of doctrinal principles and precepts that the Lord’s covenant people have had for many generations. As I said earlier, it keeps us grounded in a world of changing societal whims and attitudes. 
 

There have been other such proclamations issued over the years by the First Presidency and Twelve that have never been canonized but are nevertheless true and doctrinally sound. Like the family proclamation, they summarized and clarified key points of doctrine that had long existed. One example is “The Father and the Son: a Doctrinal Exposition,” issued in 1916. 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2002/04/the-father-and-the-son

A more recent example is “The Living Christ,” published in 2000 (and one of the subjects of last week’s “Come Follow Me” lesson). 
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/the-living-christ-the-testimony-of-the-apostles/the-living-christ-the-testimony-of-the-apostles

Edited December 21, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

35 minutes ago, bluebell said:

when someone says "when I use the word gender, I meant sex" that is the same as saying "I should have used the word sex".

No, it is not the same as saying that if the two words are synonymous, which they are in this instance. And in this instance, the intended meaning is clear from context. The word was not used “in the wrong way.”

The word sex has more than one meaning as well. It could mean gender, as it does in this instance, or it could mean sexual relations. So if the word sex had been used in the proclamation, that might have necessitated a later clarification as well, even though it would not have been used “in the wrong way.” 

Edited December 21, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't know that it's ironic, but as language usage changes sometimes clarification is necessary.  Gender and sex were used more interchangeably in the past than they are now.  

They are still, in large measure, interchangeable. 

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

If it always comes back to the fact that neither one of us can prove our opinions, why do you still keep bringing it up? 

All we can point to are the scriptures that deal with this period of time.  Clearly, there is zero support in the scriptures that Christ was married, had children, and spent time being a father and husband during His ministering years.  If you disagree with that, then all you need to do is provide the scripture references that suggest otherwise.

There is some support in the scriptures that says the opposite (which has already been brought up multiple times).

But there is no proof for either assertion.

I am simply uncomfortable with the any statement that makes assumptions about the life of the Savior based on things we simply do not know about his life (i.e. "clearly Christ did not lead a life that matches the proclamation"), or compares and uses those assumptions to criticize the language in the Family Proclamation or to promote celibacy (or some other life style) as a more desired life choice (you haven't done these later things of course, but I have certainly encountered people outside this board that do that very thing).  I'm sorry if I've been picky about it.  I like you and your posts, so it's nothing against you personally.    

[Scott Lloyd]

We’ve somewhat gotten off into the weeds in this thread on the matter of whether Jesus was married. There’s no conclusive proof either way, and we’re not going to resolve that here. As I said earlier, I think it irrelevant to the thread topic anyway. 
 

The question stemmed from Freedom’s misguided assertion that Jesus never endorsed the modern “construct” of the family. I assume he meant by that the nuclear family, defined as consisting of a father, mother and siblings. 
 

But as I pointed out earlier, it is quite clear that Jesus was reared in a nuclear family, with a devoted father and mother and with siblings. 
 

Furthermore, there are plenty of passages in the scriptures that allude to nuclear-family relationships. For example: A man shall leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh. Honor thy father and thy mother that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. Fathers, provoke not your children to wrath. Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it. Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it. 
 

I would ask Freedom and his sympathizers this question: If such passages do not pertain to the nuclear family, what kind of “family” do they pertain to?
 

And of course, all scriptural truths stem ultimately from Jesus Christ, as do the inspired teachings from living prophets and apostles on the family and other subjects. 

We live in an age when the family ideal has become somewhat corrupted (a good reason for the existence of the family proclamation) but let’s not ascribe that to Christ and the scriptures. 

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

You say that like it's a bad thing. 😂

Yes it is a bad thing. You live in a world of total confirmation bias where hard evidence is ignored.

[Teancum]

8 hours ago, BRMC said:

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

Why?  Can you not deal with actual evidence rather than your fuzzy good feelings?  Are you afraid of a former true believing Mormon who no longer believes?  Do my comment challange a fragile "testimony?"

[Teancum]

8 hours ago, BRMC said:

I'm not sure.  I'd say including it in scripture study is pretty telling.   

It is still not scripture. When I was a true believer I thought it should be canonized. The fact that after 25 years from its publication it is not is telling.

Edited December 21, 2021 by Teancum

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t believe it does. I think the meaning is quite clear from context to readers of average-or-greater intelligence. 
 

There are, I suppose, legalistically minded individuals who might try to practice lexical duplicity and the clarification is there to prevent the authors of the proclamation from being made “offenders for a word.” Inherent lack of clarity is not necessarily the only reason to publish a clarification. 

Well Scott, it seems like you are wrong even among how members of the Church define what is being said even when knowing Church doctrine on this issue.  How can you possibly believe that the rest of the world would understand what is meant.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't know that it's ironic, but as language usage changes sometimes clarification is necessary.  Gender and sex were used more interchangeably in the past than they are now.  

But according to the data shown by JustAnAustralian, even back when the proclamation was issued, the majority of the world did not define gender the way the proclamation does.  So the Church writes a proclamation that is confusing from the very beginning.  It seems like if you were writing a proclamation to the world you would use words with the meanings they would understand what you were saying.  

20 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

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

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?

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I would love to see it canonized, and, like you, I’m not sure why it isn’t. But I can suggest a possible reason. 
 

The proclamation, though it is a vital document in view of today’s political and social landscape, does not really plow new ground. Rather, it is a reiteration and emphasis of doctrinal principles and precepts that the Lord’s covenant people have had for many generations. As I said earlier, it keeps us grounded in a world of changing societal whims and attitudes. 
 

There have been other such proclamations issued over the years by the First Presidency and Twelve that have never been canonized but are nevertheless true and doctrinally sound. Like the family proclamation, they summarized and clarified key points of doctrine that had long existed. One example is “The Father and the Son: a Doctrinal Exposition,” issued in 1916. 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2002/04/the-father-and-the-son

A more recent example is “The Living Christ,” published in 2000 (and one of the subjects of last week’s “Come Follow Me” lesson). 
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/the-living-christ-the-testimony-of-the-apostles/the-living-christ-the-testimony-of-the-apostles

Do you think it is a revelation??

[esodije]

It’s clear to me that 1995 was, literally and metaphorically, in the last century. I don’t know what church policies will be in force ten or twenty years from now, but I’m fairly certain that the Proclamation On the Family would not, at least in its final form, have been promulgated today. In another generation, will church leaders be disowning portions of it?

I still believe that if the church reverses itself on homosexual relationships and same-sex marriage, it will seal its own doom. One, any argument that such a reversal is anything but doctrinal in nature will fall flat, as what is more LDS-doctrinal than man-woman marriage, binary gender, and the sinfulness of gay sex acts? And two, it will be apparent to most members that the church has been following in the wake of the world all along, and widespread disillusionment is sure to follow.

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, california boy said:

Do you think it is a revelation??

I think it was drafted through a revelatory process as described by President Oaks in his general conference address that I quoted at length in my second post on this thread. 
 

And I believe it highlights, reiterates and summarizes revealed doctrine. 

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well Scott, it seems like you are wrong even among how members of the Church define what is being said even when knowing Church doctrine on this issue.  How can you possibly believe that the rest of the world would understand what is meant.

I can’t make sense of this post. 

[BRMC]

52 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Why?  Can you not deal with actual evidence rather than your fuzzy good feelings?  Are you afraid of a former true believing Mormon who no longer believes?  Do my comment challange a fragile "testimony?"

Because this is a faith-based forum.  What God tells us through His Prophets actually matters.