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

[BRMC]

54 minutes ago, Teancum said:

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.

Only if you want your bias confirmed.   It's not telling of anything.   It was important enough to include in scripture study.  

Edited December 21, 2021 by BRMC

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.” 

I disagree with you Scott.  You're just going to have to be ok with it because there isn't anything you can do force me to see things your way.

[bluebell]

38 minutes ago, california boy said:

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.  

But is being wrong the same thing as being ironic?  

[california boy]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

But is being wrong the same thing as being ironic?  

Well it is Church doctrine.  So not wrong for Mormons.  The number of people outside of Mormondom that are even aware of this "world" proclamation is so small, it is probably irrelevant that the language is not precise.  Mormons get it.  Isn't that all that really matters?

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I disagree with you Scott.  You're just going to have to be ok with it because there isn't anything you can do force me to see things your way.

I’m not trying to force you into anything, just reason with you and to highlight the flaw in your reasoning for onlookers who might be interested. 
 

As my mother used to say, “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”

[california boy]

27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I can’t make sense of this post. 

That is probably why you also don't get Bluebell's position.

[california boy]

27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I can’t make sense of this post. 

That is probably why you also don't get Bluebell's position.

[Scott Lloyd]

45 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well it is Church doctrine.  So not wrong for Mormons.  The number of people outside of Mormondom that are even aware of this "world" proclamation is so small, it is probably irrelevant that the language is not precise.  Mormons get it.  Isn't that all that really matters?

You know, there’s a minuscule element of truth in what CB says here. Latter-day Saints do “get it.” 

Of course, the rest of his post is quite false. 

I disagree that the language is all that imprecise. I believe the meaning is quite clear from context, even for “outsiders.”
 

And I earnestly disagree that Church members grasping it is “all that matters.” It is, after all, as stated in the title, “A Proclamation to the World.”

Edited December 21, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

That is probably why you also don't get Bluebell's position.

Oh, I get her position just fine. I just think she’s wrong. 
 

Your post, on the other hand, is scarcely intelligible. 

Edited December 21, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well it is Church doctrine.  So not wrong for Mormons.  The number of people outside of Mormondom that are even aware of this "world" proclamation is so small, it is probably irrelevant that the language is not precise.  Mormons get it.  Isn't that all that really matters?

I wonder if it is considered doctrine, since it's not canonized?

[JustAnAustralian]

58 minutes ago, california boy said:

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.

You have it back to front.

When the proclamation was written, more articles in the journal of physiology were using gender as a substitute for biological sex, and the numbers of them doing so increased over the next 10 years.

So at as far as that journal was concerned, the church was following the trend.

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m not trying to force you into anything, just reason with you and to highlight the flaw in your reasoning for onlookers who might be interested. 
 

As my mother used to say, “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”

And I believe that I've highlighted a flaw in your thinking, which is the impasse that we now find ourselves. 

I have no interested in continuing to repeat my arguments, because it does not matter to me if you ever come around to my perspective or not.  Any onlookers will have already chosen sides in the issue long ago, and will not likely be swayed to the other perspective.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, JustAnAustralian said:

You have it back to front.

When the proclamation was written, more articles in the journal of physiology were using gender as a substitute for biological sex, and the numbers of them doing so increased over the next 10 years.

So at as far as that journal was concerned, the church was following the trend.

This is how I read your graph as well.  It seems like the church was using the word gender in the normal way at the time.  

[JustAnAustralian]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

.  It seems like the church was using the word gender in the normal way at the time.  

The article even suggested why it might be the case.

Quote

Notably, in the last 5 years the Journal has included more sex-based research articles in the journal than in the last 50+ years. However, this increase in sex-based research is connected to the appropriation of the term gender as a synonym for sex and has led to misuse of that term in physiology. The increase in frequency of the use of the term gender in the American Physiological Society journals is highlighted in Table 1. In the journals of the American Physiological Society, gender was first introduced into a title in 1982, whereas sex had been used since the early 1920s. It was not until the mid-1990s that use of the term gender began to exceed use of the term sex in APS titles, and today gender more the doubles that of sex (Table 1). The term gender appears to have undergone appropriation by some scientists as a politically correct way to talk about sex. This may be because some scientists are sensitive to the verity that discussing sex often means discussing difference and gender may be construed as a less loaded term.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I wonder if it is considered doctrine, since it's not canonized?

Seriously? You don’t think the General Authorities in conference teach doctrine unless they are reading or quoting directly from scripture? They can’t paraphrase and summarize and have it be considered doctrinal? You don’t think the First Presidency can issue a signed statement and have it be considered consistent with doctrine?

Apparently you missed one of my posts. I’ll paste it in right here for convenience:

I think [the proclamation] 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. 

[Stormin' Mormon]

39 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As my mother used to say, “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”

Huh.  I thought my mom was the only one who said that.  Did your mom also say: If a game has once begun, never leave it till it's done?

That was a teaching honored more in the breach than the observance.  We would yell at it whatever sibling had rage-quit the latest game of Monopoly. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Huh.  I thought my mom was the only one who said that.  Did your mom also say: If a game has once begun, never leave it till it's done?

That was a teaching honored more in the breach than the observance.  We would yell at it whatever sibling had rage-quit the latest game of Monopoly. 

No, I’ve never heard the latter one. 
 

And I never claimed nor thought the former was original with my mom. 

[Vanguard]

12 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Huh.  I thought my mom was the only one who said that.  Did your mom also say: If a game has once begun, never leave it till it's done?

That was a teaching honored more in the breach than the observance.  We would yell at it whatever sibling had rage-quit the latest game of Monopoly. 

Ha! My mother was the one to always quit before the game was over. "Oh, I have laundry to do" would be her go to excuse. ; )

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

No not really. Most of the world has never heard of it and don't really care about the obscurity that Mormonism is. As noted, Latter-day Saints have an over inflated ego about their influence on the world. 

[Freedom]

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

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.

 

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!

 

 

 

preposterous to you perhaps, but not to me. This is wishful thinking on your part. Based on the text, there is no evidence he was married; and based on the text the savior had a much more expansive view of what constitutes a family then the nuclear one that emerged in 1950s america. to play devils advocate, you would think that if this doctrine were so critical as you state that he would have not only taught it but his biographers would have mentioned it.

Back to my original comments, I will again post the following:

"The Relief Society [general] presidency was asked to come to a meeting. We did, and they read this proclamation. It was all finished," the late Chieko Okazaki told Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. "The only question was whether they should present it at the priesthood meeting or at the Relief Society meeting. It didn't matter to me where it was presented. What I wanted to know was — how come we weren't consulted?"

https://www.sltrib.com/news/mormon/2015/10/14/after-20-years-mormonisms-family-proclamation-is-quoted-praised-parsed-and-politicked/

 

I accept that the proclamation is inspired, and that we can consider it doctrine; but I also accept that being inspired is not the same as word perfect as God intended. Had they brethren consulted with the general relief society on the wording, we would no doubt have a very different text. Scripture is inspired, not perfect, and profitable but not necessary. The scriptures are filled with problematic passages in the bible, in the book of mormon, and in the Doctrine and Covenants. Consider the following podcast interview the Givens where they discuss their book "All Things New" :

 

https://faithmatters.org/all-things-new-terryl-and-fiona-givens/

 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, BRMC said:

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

Dude I have been here a LONG time. Much longer than you. I used to be a defender but came to the point that I could no longer do apologetics with integrity. The massive problems with the LDS church truth claims and the horrible defenses at least for me became untenable. But this forum is not just for believers. At least it used to not be and there were a lot of posters here that were disaffected Mormons like I am now as well as other posters that were evangelical believers and so on.  But there are very few non true believers here now so yea it is a bit of an echo chamber. But you don't run the board. If I am ever asked to leave or banned so be it. I do get kicked out of some thread periodically because my frankness about criticizing some things that deserve it must offend some and they complain.

And let me help you with your comment.  "What I/We true believers think God tells us through His Prophets actually matters."  That is a much better approach.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, BRMC said:

Only if you want your bias confirmed.   It's not telling of anything.   It was important enough to include in scripture study.  

I have no skin in the game. I just like discussion Mormon things.  still it is not canonized. Why do you think that is?  Plenty of time to do it.

[bluebell]

57 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Seriously? You don’t think the General Authorities in conference teach doctrine unless they are reading or quoting directly from scripture? They can’t paraphrase and summarize and have it be considered doctrinal? You don’t think the First Presidency can issue a signed statement and have it be considered consistent with doctrine?

Apparently you missed one of my posts. I’ll paste it in right here for convenience:

 

I think [the proclamation] 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. 

Seriously.  And I'm sure I've missed lots of your posts, but thanks for sharing your thoughts on the subject.

My question stands though.  Just because something contains doctrine doesn't mean it is doctrine.  GC talks contain doctrine but they are not considered to be doctrine, right?  Being consistent with doctrine and being doctrine are two different things.  

I don't have a problem if it is doctrine, I'm just sincerely not sure if it's considered doctrine or not.  If it is, then we do have to contend with the issue on why it hasn't been canonized yet.  I think we've had 6 (or maybe 7?) proclamations throughout church history but none of them have ever been canonized, have they?  

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You know, there’s a minuscule element of truth in what CB says here. Latter-day Saints do “get it.” 

Of course, the rest of his post is quite false. 

I disagree that the language is all that imprecise. I believe the meaning is quite clear from context, even for “outsiders.”
 

And I earnestly disagree that Church members grasping it is “all that matters.” It is, after all, as stated in the title, “A Proclamation to the World.”

But the world could not care less.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

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

I walk by faith, not by sight.

2 Corinthians 5:7

And I don't ignore hard evidence, I ignore faithless interpretation of available evidence.  I accept the same evidence you do, but I see different meaning in it.