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

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, Freedom said:

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. 

Who said the Holy Ghost is exempt?

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, BRMC said:

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

Curiosity is not worry. I hang out with people who are very curious usually. I got my degree in Psychology because I was curious about why people make the choices they do, was going to be strictly research and teaching (the latter only if I had to).

Precision is not worry.

I am a member of FAIR, though not active this past year much, and we are always dissecting the histories and motivations, etc of current and historical leaders, debating what is and isn’t doctrine, what interpretations they are, the intersection of faith and reason, etc. All from a faithful POV and many have been doing it for decades. 
 

One of our major responsibilities in presenting defenses and explanations of the Gospel and Church is to be accurate, not to rely on assumptions.  I think this is one of the reasons church leadership is comfortable enough with us to use us as a resource for additional learning on their “additional resources” for a couple of their topics as well as allowing us to be used to help missionaries and other church leaders help with members who are struggling or to teach difficult subjects. 
 

Being accurate on what is and isn’t doctrine, what is and isn’t revelation is one of our starting points in constructing our materials in my experience and documentation of such is essential in much of our work. 

Edited December 21, 2021 by Calm

[BRMC]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Curiosity is not worry. I hang out with people who are very curious usually. I got my degree in Psychology because I was curious about why people make the choices they do, was going to be strictly research and teaching (the latter only if I had to).

I am a member of FAIR, though not active this past year much, and we are always dissecting the histories and motivations, etc of current and historical leaders, debating what is and isn’t doctrine, what interpretations they are, the intersection of faith and reason, etc. All from a faithful POV and many have been doing it for decades. 
 

One of our major responsibilities in presenting defenses and explanations of the Gospel and Church is to be accurate, not to rely on assumptions.  I think this is one of the reasons church leadership is comfortable enough with us to use us as a resource for additional learning on their “additional resources” for a couple of their topics as well as allowing us to be used to help missionaries and other church leaders help with members who are struggling or to teach difficult subjects. 

I guess I just don't have that curiosity.   I focus on things that affect my eternal salvation for the most part.  I'm pretty black and white.   I have something on FAIR, but I lack the interest to research things I don't have an end goal with beyond "I wonder why".   

[Rain]

35 minutes ago, BRMC said:

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

No one does or you know of no one who does?  Two different things and likely you would not know of anyone who actually are curious.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

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. 

Ha-ha funny! 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.

Your comment is more about your rejection of former beliefs and practice (including the proclamation), your obscurity and your ego, than an accurate description of members of the Church on the whole (which comes across as very prejudiced).

Edited December 21, 2021 by CV75

[BRMC]

Just now, Rain said:

No one does or you know of no one who does?  Two different things and likely you would not know of anyone who actually are curious.

Sure.  It's possible, but I highly doubt anyone in my circle would keep it a secret.   After years of meetings, discussions, and scripture study it has never come up.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, BRMC said:

focus on things that affect my eternal salvation for the most part.

Faith crises affect many people’s religious lives and losing faith affects eternal salvation in many members’ views (I tend to view mortality as more of a sandbox and believe the Lord will provide time and teaching for us after death to get things straight and make our decisions about how much we want to accept from him in terms of salvation).

FAIR members are often willing to spend much of their free time working for and with those struggling or those who have loved ones who are struggling because we believe in the importance of faith in people’s lives and have seen how misunderstandings and misinformation can lead to doubt and pain. 
 

The Church has invested much money and effort into providing historical info online and at Temple Square as well as in teaching materials to inform people about many things not directly tied to our eternal salvation for a very good reason, imo, not just as a way to fill the commandment to keep records. 

Edited December 21, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, BRMC said:

Nobody in my circle does.

If you stick around the Board long enough that we become part of your circle, you won’t be able to say that any more.   

[Freedom]

30 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Who said the Holy Ghost is exempt?

the goodhead have distinct rolls so we cannot impost the standards of mortals upon them. There is nothing in our doctrine that states the being with this title will be born, it is just assumed because we impose rules for us on a god. 

[BRMC]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Faith crises affect many people’s religious lives and losing faith affects eternal salvation in many members’ views (I tend to view mortality as more of a sandbox and believe the Lord will provide time and teaching for us after death to get things straight and make our decisions about how much we want to accept from him in terms of salvation).

FAIR members are often willing to spend much of their free time working for and with those struggling or those who have loved ones who are struggling because we believe in the importance of faith in people’s lives and have seen how misunderstandings and misinformation can lead to doubt and pain. 
 

The Church has invested much money and effort into providing historical info online and at Temple Square as well as in teaching materials to inform people about many things not directly tied to our eternal salvation for a very good reason, imo, not just as a way to fill the commandment to keep records. 

I think that's awesome, but I'm unsure how it relates to my statement.

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, Freedom said:

the goodhead have distinct rolls so we cannot impost the standards of mortals upon them. There is nothing in our doctrine that states the being with this title will be born, it is just assumed because we impose rules for us on a god. 

Again with the "in our doctrine" phrasing.
What do you actually consider "our doctrine"?
Do you go back to what is considered "official" as being our doctrine only?  Because you certainly advance ideas that aren't "official".

Joseph Smith said the Holy Ghost will one day receive a body. He said: “The Holy Ghost is yet a spiritual body and is waiting to take to himself a body, as the Savior did.” The Words of Joseph Smith, p. 382

Edited December 21, 2021 by JLHPROF

[Craig Speechly]

8 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.

Actually it marginalizes certain people.  By stating that "gender is an essential characteristic of  pre-mortal, mortal and eternal identity and purpose" it then failes to address those genders born into a body that does not align with their gender.  Will my friend be resurrected male or female?  Being resurrected male for eternity would be eternal hell for her.

[BRMC]

2 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

 Being resurrected male for eternity would be eternal hell for her.

When viewed through mortal eyes, sure.   With an eternal prospective and a loving God?  Of course it wouldn't.   It doesn't marginalize anyone any more than any other law does.

Edited December 21, 2021 by BRMC

[Chum]

3 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

Being resurrected male for eternity would be eternal hell for her.

Perhaps they will be infused with non-consensual happiness.  I'm actually a little fuzzy on the inner-workings of the afterlife.

[CV75]

Just now, Craig Speechly said:

Actually it marginalizes certain people.  By stating that "gender is an essential characteristic of  pre-mortal, mortal and eternal identity and purpose" it then failes to address those genders born into a body that does not align with their gender.  Will my friend be resurrected male or female?  Being resurrected male for eternity would be eternal hell for her.

You do realize you are making a tired, old argument. Being born into a body we cannot relate to (or vice-versa, who can tell?) happens on all fronts of human experience, and not every person in the same way to to the same degree. Each circumstance is not a marginalization in God's eyes, and He will save each child. He can assuage our misery to a great degree in this life, even if (typically) not the temporal issue at hand. It is unwise to judge better than God can, and especially before He does, and before we've finalized our journey to resurrection (that last one is both unwise and unfair).

[JLHPROF]

26 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

 Being resurrected male for eternity would be eternal hell for her.

That would depend on whether the cause of her discomfort as male remained.  There is a lot about the cause of the dysphoria that we still don't understand.

We all have traits I don't expect to continue into eternity.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, BRMC said:

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

No, but I do think that something that is considered doctrine is probably held to a higher standard than something that just contains doctrine.  Again, I'm thinking of how we view GC talks for example.

[echelon]

45 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

Being resurrected male for eternity would be eternal hell for her.

If it is for the figure or bearing of children I can understand that, otherwise I don't see any reason why a person can't be true to themselves regardless of the body they are in, free to choose the idealized roles found in the family that suites them best since biological makeup is not a requisite for any of them. 

[Freedom]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Again with the "in our doctrine" phrasing.
What do you actually consider "our doctrine"?
Do you go back to what is considered "official" as being our doctrine only?  Because you certainly advance ideas that aren't "official".

Joseph Smith said the Holy Ghost will one day receive a body. He said: “The Holy Ghost is yet a spiritual body and is waiting to take to himself a body, as the Savior did.” The Words of Joseph Smith, p. 382

our doctrine is found in our scriptures, this quote is not a source of doctrine and was Joseph expressing his opinion. 

[kimpearson]

Please read the following thorough discussion of the history behind the proclamation on the family.     https://wheatandtares.org/2017/10/14/historical-context-of-the-family-proclamation/

The driving force behind the proclamation was the Church's efforts to fight gay marriage and the fear that the Church would somehow be found liable in its teachings against gay marriage.  There was absolutely no input or thought related to transgender individuals.  The proclamation was put together by committee with much of the original language apparently from President Oaks.  It appears only the first presidency and quorum of the 12 were involved in the actual wording but lawyers were consulted as the proclamation was part of the Church's legal filings in the Hawaii gay marriage lawsuits going on at the time.  The "revelatory process" of the proclamation is summarized here.  https://thefamilyproclamation.org/the-history/

Please note that the revelatory process described is extensive discussions among the 15 apostles with some final changes by President Hinckley.  Then a vote occurred to approve it and all the apostles approved it.   There was no vision.  There was no angelic visit.  There was no voice from heaven.  The words of those participating don't even indicate a strong feeling of the Holy Ghost guiding them but rather just the concerns, feelings and understanding of the apostles was the basis for the proclamation.  This is the counsel process used currently by the Church as the revelatory process.  It is nothing like the revelatory process used by Joseph Smith, the prophets of the Book of Mormon nor the Bible including Jesus Christ.  I am not saying there is no revelation involved but merely pointing out the process and it's difference from the past.

The Church's effort to stop gay marriage has failed in every case it has tried to stop it.  The latest being Mexico.  No serious legal scholar believes the Church is in any jeopardy of being found liable in its teachings against gay marriage.  So where does that leave the proclamation of the family today.  To me it seems to have become a banner along with the religious freedom discussion for the Church to wave prominently in its public relations efforts that highlights some important teachings of the Church.  The Church also seems to use both the proclamation and religious freedom as justification for its treatment of queer members of the Church.  Since this treatment has rather harsh results with almost universal damage to its queer members, the Church is now introducing another justification by using the two great commandments to basically say "we love our queer members" but if they act on their feelings we will come down on you like a hammer on a nail with no real compassion as supposedly justified by the first great commandment.

It seems to me the great test mentioned by the original poster is, are members willing to say they love queer members but still hammer them if they act on their feelings.  Also the test seems to be are members willing to allow the suffering, injury and harm to queer members because of the Church's teachings to continue on with feelings of complete acceptance that this is what God wants.

Edited December 22, 2021 by kimpearson

[sunstoned]

4 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

Actually it marginalizes certain people.  By stating that "gender is an essential characteristic of  pre-mortal, mortal and eternal identity and purpose" it then failes to address those genders born into a body that does not align with their gender.  Will my friend be resurrected male or female?  Being resurrected male for eternity would be eternal hell for her.

If I could upvote this I would.  BTY, welcome to the forum.

[sunstoned]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

You do realize you are making a tired, old argument. Being born into a body we cannot relate to (or vice-versa, who can tell?) happens on all fronts of human experience, and not every person in the same way to to the same degree. Each circumstance is not a marginalization in God's eyes, and He will save each child. He can assuage our misery to a great degree in this life, even if (typically) not the temporal issue at hand. It is unwise to judge better than God can, and especially before He does, and before we've finalized our journey to resurrection (that last one is both unwise and unfair).

The argument is valid and logical.  The tired old part is the rehashing of out dated 19th century religious biases.

[sunstoned]

18 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

Please read the following thorough discussion of the history behind the proclamation on the family.     https://wheatandtares.org/2017/10/14/historical-context-of-the-family-proclamation/

The driving force behind the proclamation was the Church's efforts to fight gay marriage and the fear that the Church would somehow be found liable in its teachings against gay marriage.  There was absolutely no input or thought related to transgender individuals.  The proclamation was put together by committee with much of the original language apparently from President Oaks.  It appears only the first presidency and quorum of the 12 were involved in the actual wording but lawyers were consulted as the proclamation was part of the Church's legal filings in the Hawaii gay marriage lawsuits going on at the time.  The "revelatory process" of the proclamation is summarized here.  https://thefamilyproclamation.org/the-history/

Please note that the revelatory process described is extensive discussions among the 15 apostles with some final changes by President Hinckley.  Then a vote occurred to approve it and all the apostles approved it.   There was no vision.  There was no angelic visit.  There was no voice from heaven.  The words of those participating don't even indicate a strong feeling of the Holy Ghost guiding them but rather just the concerns, feelings and understanding of the apostles was the basis for the proclamation.  This is the counsel process used currently by the Church as the revelatory process.  It is nothing like the revelatory process used by Joseph Smith, the prophets of the Book of Mormon nor the Bible including Jesus Christ.  I am not saying there is no revelation involved but merely pointing out the process and it's difference from the past.

The Church's effort to stop gay marriage has failed in every case it has tried to stop it.  The latest being Mexico.  No serious legal scholar believes the Church is in any jeopardy of being found liable in its teachings against gay marriage.  So where does that leave the proclamation of the family today.  To me it seems to have become a banner along with the religious freedom discussion for the Church to wave prominently in its public relations efforts that highlights some important teachings of the Church.  The Church also seems to use both the proclamation and religious freedom as justification for its treatment of queer members of the Church.  Since this treatment has rather harsh results with almost universal damage to its queer members, the Church is now introducing another justification by using the two great commandments to basically say "we love our queer members" but if they act on their feelings we will come down on your like a hammer on a nail with no real compassion as supposedly justified by the first great commandment.

It seems to me the great test mentioned by the original poster is, are members willing to say they love queer members but still hammer them if they act on their feelings.  Also the test seems to be are members willing to allow the suffering, injury and harm to queer members because of the Church's teachings to continue on with feelings of complete acceptance that this is what God wants.

Additionally, the PoF was never voted on by the church to become scripture.  And, only one of the original 15 GAs (It was Packer) has ever labeled the Proclamation “a revelation”, and this was redacted from the official version of his talk. (Oct 2010 GC, Boyd K. Packer, Cleansing the Inner Vessel)

 

[JustAnAustralian]

1 hour ago, kimpearson said:

It is nothing like the revelatory process used by Joseph Smith,

D&C 9:7-9

Quote

7 Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.

8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

Looks like what they did to me. By your own words

Quote

Please note that the revelatory process described is extensive discussions among the 15 apostles with some final changes by President Hinckley.  Then a vote occurred to approve it and all the apostles approved it.   There was no vision.  There was no angelic visit.  There was no voice from heaven.  The words of those participating don't even indicate a strong feeling of the Holy Ghost guiding them but rather just the concerns, feelings and understanding of the apostles was the basis for the proclamation.  

From your link

Quote

Prayerfully we continually pleaded with the Lord for His inspiration on what we should say and how we should say it.

 

If that process was good enough for receiving revelation to translate scripture, it should be enough for writing down a set of church teachings.

 

 

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Freedom said:

our doctrine is found in our scriptures, this quote is not a source of doctrine and was Joseph expressing his opinion. 

Oh, a sola scriptura believer.  That makes it both harder and easier.

Because scripture doesn't contain all truth about the gospel, that allows us to wrest "our doctrine" to match whatever we want.  Much as you're doing with the Junia verse.  Our doctrine says that there aren't female Apostles, but the way you read Romans lets you make that match your view.

If only there was a way to know truth not fully detailed in scripture...

Edited December 22, 2021 by JLHPROF