Family proclamation founded on irrevocable doctrine: President Oaks

[Scott Lloyd]

He just said it in Sunday PM session. He affirmed the proclamation is not just “changeable policy.”

I think this needs to be re-emphasized from time to time. I welcome President Oaks’s affirmation. 

Edited April 7, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Bernard Gui]

On 4/3/2022 at 4:28 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

He just said it in Sunday PM session. He affirmed the proclamation is not just “changeable policy.”

I think this needs to be re-emphasized from time to time. I welcome President Oaks’s affirmation. 

We’ll hear more about this address.

Edited April 5, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

We’ll hear more about this address.

I just corrected a rather distracting typo in my post. Would you mind making the same correction in your quotation of my post?

[jerryp48]

I hope this ends the “well they changed the policy on the priesthood” comparison.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, jerryp48 said:

I hope this ends the “well they changed the policy on the priesthood” comparison.

Hope springs eternal — but don’t hold your breath.  😉 

[jerryp48]

Now can we move on to discussing if “boundary lines can exist without becoming battle lines?”  How can we move forward with love and tolerance for one another?  This is my sincere desire.

[Buckeye]

My sense is that President Oaks has never been a proponent of the doctrine/policy dichotomy. So I don’t see that part of his address as anything groundbreaking, but rather a reemphasis that the church’s teaching of marriage being only make-female is not going to change under his watch. At least for me, I have always thought the acceptance of SSM will come after his service ends, so again nothing new there. 
 

What may be new is the context of framing the marriage discussion with the three degrees of glory. This may be a harbinger of a push by the church to teach that those in SSMs have a place in Gods kingdoms, just not the highest degree. I’m not sure how that gets implemented in practice, but I certainly support anything that would help to provide a place in the church for gay and lesbian members who choose to form families. Maybe something like allowing them to pray and serve in limited capacities while not being permitted in the temple. I’m not predicting anything, just hoping for some movement to make more space in our congregations for these wonderful saints. 
 

Another thing that would be extremely helpful - but I’m not holding by breath - is a clear explanation of the eternal differences between genders. Is it just pregnancy and nursing? The POTF sets different expectations as to nurturing, presiding, providing and protecting, but those differences have been eroding under church policy changes since 1995 (a development I welcome). There will simply be no unity among the saints in understanding what the the eternal differences are until church leadership provides details. Every man and woman will apply their own belief and the doctrine will remain largely worthless apart from being the basis to reject SSM. 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

My sense is that President Oaks has never been a proponent of the doctrine/policy dichotomy. So I don’t see that part of his address as anything groundbreaking, but rather a reemphasis that the church’s teaching of marriage being only make-female is not going to change under his watch.

When he said “unchangeable” he wasn’t referring just to “his watch.”

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, jerryp48 said:

Now can we move on to discussing if “boundary lines can exist without becoming battle lines?”  How can we move forward with love and tolerance for one another?  This is my sincere desire.

Maybe we all could practice observing that in this very thread. 

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

When he said “unchangeable” he wasn’t referring just to “his watch.”

 

46 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Hope springs eternal — but don’t hold your breath.  😉 

I wouldn’t hold my breath. I expect this will conclusively end this as much as President George Albert Smith’s declaration that the Priesthood Ban was not a matter of policy.

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Maybe we all could practice observing that in this very thread. 

Considering the thread is a pretty deliberately placed honeypot to attract and rally “battle liners” I doubt it.

[Ragerunner]

I have said this before but I thought I would repeat it again.

I think that members of the church that face SSA (at least some of the ones I know) are looking for revelation and guidance on how they fit into the Plan of Salvation.

Those that are heterosexual have been clearly told that if they don’t find a companion in this life, can’t have children or have experienced divorce will have a chance for a companion and children in the next life. No such knowledge have been provided to those experiencing SSA.

I think most of us would struggle in the gospel if we had no clear doctrine how we fit into the Plan of Salvation.

[bluebell]

28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

When he said “unchangeable” he wasn’t referring just to “his watch.”

Do we have a quote yet on what was actually said?

[jerryp48]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Do we have a quote yet on what was actually said?

“We affirm that the Family Proclamation, founded on unchangeable doctrine, defines the kind of family relationships where the most important part of our eternal development can occur.”

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, jerryp48 said:

“We affirm that the Family Proclamation, founded on unchangeable doctrine, defines the kind of family relationships where the most important part of our eternal development can occur.”

Thanks.  It's interesting that he does not say that the Family Proclamation is unchangeable doctrine, but that it is founded upon it.  (Not interesting in any nefarious way, I just think it's interesting).

I would love to know which unchangeable doctrine Pres. Oaks is referring to, not to argue but just to know rather than to have to assume.  There's a lot in the proclamation; it would be helpful (in a thread like this, built for discussion) to be able to pinpoint what doctrines are being specifically spoken of.

[jerryp48]

6 minutes ago, Ragerunner said:

I have said this before but I thought I would repeat it again.

I think that members of the church that face SSA (at least some of the ones I know) are looking for revelation and guidance on how they fit into the Plan of Salvation.

Those that are heterosexual have been clearly told that if they don’t find a companion in this life, can’t have children or have experienced divorce will have a chance for a companion and children in the next life. No such knowledge have been provided to those experiencing SSA.

I think most of us would struggle in the gospel if we had no clear doctrine how we fit into the Plan of Salvation.

Agreed it would be very nice if a specific revelation would given on how members with SSA fit into God’s plan.  On the other hand, there are so many questions that remain unanswered as to the details of post-mortal life.  My question is can and do those with SSA receive a personal witness that God indeed loves them and knows them by name without a specific answer as to how they fit into the plan and is that enough for them to carry on with faith?

[Buckeye]

42 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

When he said “unchangeable” he wasn’t referring just to “his watch.”

Of course not. But his authority ends at his death. He has no power to direct policy or doctrine after that. Future leaders are no more bound by his words than current leaders are by past leaders who spoke under lesser light. The restoration rolls on. 

[jerryp48]

26 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

 

I wouldn’t hold my breath. I expect this will conclusively end this as much as President George Albert Smith’s declaration that the Priesthood Ban was not a matter of policy.

Considering the thread is a pretty deliberately placed honeypot to attract and rally “battle liners” I doubt it.

Is it settled that the priesthood ban was not doctrine?  Sincere question.  If so I’m not aware of the church saying otherwise.  Maybe they did, I’m just not aware of if.

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Do we have a quote yet on what was actually said?

 

10 minutes ago, jerryp48 said:

“We affirm that the Family Proclamation, founded on unchangeable doctrine, defines the kind of family relationships where the most important part of our eternal development can occur.”

Thanks. 
 

I wasn’t taking notes, nor do I (yet) have a transcript but the context of the quote was a reference to attempts to minimize the proclamation as being “changeable policy.” (Quite sure that phrase is a direct quotation.)

The sense I got was that the entire document is based on unchangeable doctrine. 

[Ragerunner]

21 minutes ago, jerryp48 said:

Agreed it would be very nice if a specific revelation would given on how members with SSA fit into God’s plan.  On the other hand, there are so many questions that remain unanswered as to the details of post-mortal life.  My question is can and do those with SSA receive a personal witness that God indeed loves them and knows them by name without a specific answer as to how they fit into the plan and is that enough for them to carry on with faith?

Some that I know have clearly felt God’s loves for them and they know he knows them by name.

But I think most of us would still want to know how we fit into the plan of salvation and what our future opportunity/potential will be.

I have prayed many times that greater Light and knowledge will be give to these wonderful friends in the gospel.

Edited April 3, 2022 by Ragerunner

[The Nehor]

14 minutes ago, jerryp48 said:

Agreed it would be very nice if a specific revelation would given on how members with SSA fit into God’s plan.  On the other hand, there are so many questions that remain unanswered as to the details of post-mortal life.  My question is can and do those with SSA receive a personal witness that God indeed loves them and knows them by name without a specific answer as to how they fit into the plan and is that enough for them to carry on with faith?

Yes, all of them. Every single one.

Wait, no, I just learned that it didn’t work for someone. Nope, it doesn’t work for anyone.

Wait, just got told someone said it sort of works for them.

Gonna go with the Facebook relationship status of: “It’s complicated”

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

But his authority ends at his death.

But he has authority, while living, to teach truth, including truth that pertains to futurity. 

[Fether]

33 minutes ago, Ragerunner said:

 

Those that are heterosexual have been clearly told that if they don’t find a companion in this life, can’t have children or have experienced divorce will have a chance for a companion and children in the next life. No such knowledge have been provided to those experiencing SSA.

 

To be clear, this was directed to everyone. Hetero- and homosexual members will all find  partners in the afterlife if they did not find it in this life. This, of course, comes with the assumption that the person lives in accordance to the gospel.

Thise who don’t live in accordance to the eternal truth of the gospel will find themselves happily living in a lower kingdom (as retaught by Pres Oaks today)

Edited April 3, 2022 by Fether

[JLHPROF]

24 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Of course not. But his authority ends at his death. He has no power to direct policy or doctrine after that. Future leaders are no more bound by his words than current leaders are by past leaders who spoke under lesser light. The restoration rolls on. 

Exactly.  We don't actually believe anything other than what current teachings dictate we believe.  Future teachings are permitted to revoke and disavow everything we currently believe.  😂

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, Ragerunner said:

Some that I know have clearly felt God’s loves for them and know that he knows them by name.

But I think most of us would still want to know how we fit into the plan of salvation and what our future opportunity/potential will be.

As well they should (feel God's love for them and that He knows them). They are HIs children as much as anyone is.

I think that the answer (much to the chagrin of gay advocates) is that homosexuality will be gone in the resurrection --- that it is purely an element for some in mortality. I know that many gay people don't believe this (they feel like this is immutable a part of who they are as anything), and this will be a "Will you also go away?" issue for some. 

[Buckeye]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But he has authority, while living, to teach truth, including truth that pertains to futurity. 

He has authority to teach and a responsibility to teach what he believes is true. I have no doubt he sincerely believes he is teaching truth. But he has no authority to decide what is actually true.  Truth exists outside of even God.  And he has no power to bind future leaders, only to persuade.  Frankly, I’m much more interested in teachings from Elders Gong and Christofferson  and the subject.  Their families are directly invested in finding a place for LGBT saints.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 3, 2022 by Buckeye