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

[Teancum]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

Faith comes into play without and in spite of evidence.  You do ignore hard evidence even if you protest that you do not.

[Peacefully]

10 minutes ago, Teancum said:

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.

I would hate to see this board as a complete echo-chamber but I sense there are a few who want it to be that way. Please don’t leave, Teancum, I don’t always agree with you but I appreciate your input:)

[Teancum]

Just now, Peacefully said:

I would hate to see this board as a complete echo-chamber but I sense there are a few who want it to be that way. Please don’t leave, Teancum, I don’t always agree with you but I appreciate your input:)

Thank you.

[CA Steve]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And I don't ignore hard evidence, I ignore faithless interpretation of available evidence.

Labeling the interpretations of evidence by others as faithless is question begging.

 

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Labeling the interpretations of evidence by others as faithless is question begging.

 

I took him to mean that they prefer secular reasoning that does not include the use of faith in any way (which in my mind is the same as faithless), rather than him using the term as a value judgement.  But maybe I misunderstood him.

[JLHPROF]

22 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Faith comes into play without and in spite of evidence. 

Not at all.  That is a mischaracterization of what faith actually means.

[JLHPROF]

21 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Labeling the interpretations of evidence by others as faithless is question begging.

 

See below.

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I took him to mean that they prefer secular reasoning that does not include the use of faith in any way (which in my mind is the same as faithless), rather than him using the term as a value judgement.  But maybe I misunderstood him.

You understood perfectly.

[JLHPROF]

24 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

I would hate to see this board as a complete echo-chamber but I sense there are a few who want it to be that way. Please don’t leave, Teancum, I don’t always agree with you but I appreciate your input:)

I most certainly wouldn't want an echo chamber.  Healthy discussion and even debate is good for the soul.
But at the same time, this board is for discussion of a religion.  To expect to discuss a religion based on science, proof, social norms, cultural shifts is only one tiny aspect of what this board is about.
It HAS to be a place to also discuss from a view of belief, faith, testimony, and acceptance of the tenets of that religion.  Otherwise, what's the point.

There has to be room to be a believer every bit as much as there should be room for the skeptic.  Being denigrated for believing or not believing serves absolutely no purpose.

[Calm]

Quote

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

And now it seems like it is the reverse. Got to love human language with all its inconsistencies, lol. 

[Scott Lloyd]

46 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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?  

It goes back to the post I made earlier wherein I suggested a possible reason why this and other such proclamations  have not been canonized, though they do reflect true doctrine. For convenience, and to avoid paraphrasing myself (a rather tedious task), I’ll go back and find and copy my post and paste it here: 

I would love to see it canonized, and … 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

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I most certainly wouldn't want an echo chamber.  Healthy discussion and even debate is good for the soul.
But at the same time, this board is for discussion of a religion.  To expect to discuss a religion based on science, proof, social norms, cultural shifts is only one tiny aspect of what this board is about.
It HAS to be a place to also discuss from a view of belief, faith, testimony, and acceptance of the tenets of that religion.  Otherwise, what's the point.

There has to be room to be a believer every bit as much as there should be room for the skeptic.  Being denigrated for believing or not believing serves absolutely no purpose.

Very well stated (out of points and don’t want to wait to show my appreciation 👏 )

[Teancum]

17 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Not at all.  That is a mischaracterization of what faith actually means.

You wish it were so. Critical thinkers disagree. Your reading Mormon polygamy and marriage for godhood into Jesus and the NT is a fine example of the irrationality and bias of your in spite of evidence faith.

[Teancum]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

There has to be room to be a believer every bit as much as there should be room for the skeptic.  Being denigrated for believing or not believing serves absolutely no purpose.

And being degenerated for not believing serves no purpose as well.  But I really should spend less time here. It really is not productive.

[BRMC]

57 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Dude I have been here a LONG time. Much longer than you.

So?   My point stands.

[BRMC]

50 minutes ago, Teancum said:

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.

Beats me.   I don't worry about things that don't really matter.  The only people that concern themselves with things of that nature are antagonists or those trying to circumvent God's law.

[BRMC]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

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

Does it have to be?   Is anything presented in it new, or is it a reaffirmation?

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You wish it were so. Critical thinkers disagree. Your reading Mormon polygamy and marriage for godhood into Jesus and the NT is a fine example of the irrationality and bias of your in spite of evidence faith.

Merry Christmas!

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, BRMC said:

Beats me.   I don't worry about things that don't really matter.  The only people that concern themselves with things of that nature are antagonists or those trying to circumvent God's law.

Not really. Plenty of members are curious about choices made by leadership and why. 

[Peacefully]

26 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I most certainly wouldn't want an echo chamber.  Healthy discussion and even debate is good for the soul.
But at the same time, this board is for discussion of a religion.  To expect to discuss a religion based on science, proof, social norms, cultural shifts is only one tiny aspect of what this board is about.
It HAS to be a place to also discuss from a view of belief, faith, testimony, and acceptance of the tenets of that religion.  Otherwise, what's the point.

There has to be room to be a believer every bit as much as there should be room for the skeptic.  Being denigrated for believing or not believing serves absolutely no purpose.

Hmm, did anything I said imply otherwise? 

[Rain]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

 

 

You have me thinking about this now.  Knowing that Heavenly Father was his spiritual and biological Father and that Joseph was a sort of foster or step father then it does make me wonder about the nuclear family idea. It's definitely not a typical nuclear family. Is the nuclear family Heavenly Father, Mary, Jesus and Joseph's kids?  With Joseph adopted in somehow? Or is the family Mary, Joseph, Jesus and the siblings with Heavenly Father being the most important mentor in the world?  Or just how does this fit the nuclear family idea?  

 

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

 

 

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. 

Quote

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. 

The context isn't clearly biological sex because there is a whole lot of gender roles throughout it. The proclamation has tied those roles to biological sex, but they are not the same thing.  

 

 

[BRMC]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not really. Plenty of members are curious about choices made by leadership and why. 

Interesting.  Why is that?  Nobody in my circle does.  To what end would you worry about why something is or isn't canonized?  

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, BRMC said:

Does it have to be?   Is anything presented in it new, or is it a reaffirmation?

No, but I think it would be useful when it is used as a constant reference of our doctrine and intended to be used with nonmembers to teach for it to be canonized.
 

But you are right, there is nothing new in it and I suppose we could look on it like a very short manual on the family and we don’t canonize manuals. Still we also don’t go around pointing to manuals generally when teaching people.  We use manuals to teach ourselves how to proselyte, but then use scripture in the teaching; at least that is how I was taught, but I never went on a mission.  Do they have investigators reading from the Preach My Gospel manual rather than scriptures?

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

Hmm, did anything I said imply otherwise? 

No.  Just responding to the inevitable "there's no room for critics here" posts.

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, Freedom said:

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/

 

So you believe that though the Savior (under his Father) is the ruler of the highest degree of glory of the celestial kingdom, that he’s somehow the only individual in said kingdom, including the Father, who for some inexplicable reason doesn’t have to comply with the new and everlasting covenant of eternal marriage in order to be exalted and have a “continuation of the seeds forever? How, pray tell, did he escape an immovable obligation that he himself said was absolutely necessary to obey in order to be exalted? Do you believe God the Father is eternally married to an exalted heavenly wife and mother?

Edited December 21, 2021 by teddyaware

[Freedom]

4 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

So you believe that though the Savior (under his Father) is the ruler of the highest degree of glory of the celestial kingdom, that he’s somehow the only individual in said kingdom, including the Father, who for some inexplicable reason doesn’t have to comply with the new and everlasting covenant of eternal marriage in order to be exalted and have a “continuation of the seeds forever? How, pray tell, did he escape an immovable obligation that he himself said was absolutely necessary to obey in order to be exalted? 

We are talking about his mortal ministry here dude. And are suggesting that the holy ghost can be exempt but nobody else? Again, this is wishful thinking. It must be so and therefore it is. 

Edited December 21, 2021 by Freedom