Family proclamation founded on irrevocable doctrine: President Oaks

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

Irrevocable has the connotation of a law being given and never meant to be rescinded, impossible to do so in fact rather than an eternal state of being. It is an interesting choice, imo.  The root word is from vocare, to call, re is back; so revoke is to call back. Ir is not and able is ability; so irrevocable is the inability to call back while unchangeable is the inability to alter according to its roots. Irrevocable has the sense of an agent being involved to me, in this case it is God since it is God’s law Pres Oaks is speaking of. 

I agree with your analysis of the word irrevocable. Do you have any speculation on the reason for the change in President Oaks’s word choice? Does it strengthen or diminish his point? 

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, pogi said:

noted that it still says that it is "founded upon" irrevocable doctrine, and not that the document itself is irrevocable doctrine. 

I don’t think that has been in dispute here. It strikes me as a distinction without a difference though. 
 

As I remarked here earlier, the proclamation itself is probably changeable in that theoretically there could be be additions to it or the wording could be refined to give it more precision. Such things could be done without altering or revoking the doctrines on which it is based. 

Edited April 7, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[the narrator]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree with your analysis of the word irrevocable. Do you have any speculation on the reason for the change in President Oaks’s word choice? Does it strengthen or diminish his point? 

"Unchangeable" precludes modification. This way the Church can modify/adapt/change it as they see fit (to the point of modifying it into obscurity if they so chose).

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 Do you have any speculation on the reason for the change in President Oaks’s word choice? Does it strengthen or diminish his point? 

Nope and think that depends on the person. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t think that has been in dispute here. It strikes me as a distinction without a difference though. 

“Founded upon” (rather than is)  means there could have been additions in the Proclamation to what is the irrevocable doctrine referred to.

Example:  the Scandinavian decorating style is founded on practicality, but there is more to it than that (preferences for light woods, neutral colors, wood floors, simple lines, lots of light, etc)

Edited April 7, 2022 by Calm

[the narrator]

42 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

I believe it’s likely the change was made to underscore the fact that there can be no wiggle room nor expectation of modification in principles set fort in the Proclamation. 

It's the exact opposite. "Unchangeable" says that it can't be modified. "Irrevocable" leaves open the possibility of changes while its essence remains in place (and allowing that essence to be whatever they want it to be). See celestial marriage, for example.

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am also confident that there will not be a unanimous consent if that happens.

Given the dissension that is present within the Church membership, I don’t think there is unanimous consent on much of anything these days. But there doesn’t have to be. The stock expression is common consent, not unanimous consent. 

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, the narrator said:

It's the exact opposite. "Unchangeable" says that it can't be modified. "Irrevocable" leaves open the possibility of changes while its essence remains in place (and allowing that essence to be whatever they want it to be). See celestial marriage, for example.

Like I said, strengthening or diminishing depends on the person. To me it feels stronger as it comes across as a choice of God…who would make a choice irrevocable because he knows it is ultimately the best where unchangeable is something imposed by nature and God might ultimately adjust things to make it work better for an individual just as he removes the natural man that prevents us without his help from eternal progression.  The natural man was unchangeable until God set up the Plan of Salvation in order to change it.  Nothing is impossible with God means to me he can change the unchangeable. But he won’t back out on/revoke his word if he says he won’t. 

Edited April 7, 2022 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

If I am following this correctly, may I opine that the primacy of eternal heterosexual marriage was not known to the world until the 1830s when it was revealed as part of the Restoration? Our work in the temples is partly to make up for lost time, so to speak.

THAT sir, is a VERY interesting way to see it, and the Restoration in general.

Gotta ponderize that one.

 

Edited April 7, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, the narrator said:

It's the exact opposite. "Unchangeable" says that it can't be modified. "Irrevocable" leaves open the possibility of changes while its essence remains in place (and allowing that essence to be whatever they want it to be). See celestial marriage, for example.

Nah, I don’t buy this at all. To water something down, which is what you’re implying here, is, in a de facto sense, to revoke it. 
 

What matters is what President Osks meant, not what you or I think he meant, but taken in context, your construction makes no sense. 

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As I remarked here earlier, the proclamation itself is probably changeable in that theoretically there could be be additions to it or the wording could be refined to give it more precision. Such things could be done without altering or revoking the doctrines in which it is based.

But what is or isn’t irrevocable doctrine isn’t necessarily identified in the Proclamation.

[Scott Lloyd]

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

“Founded upon” (rather than is)  means there could have been additions in the Proclamation to what is the irrevocable doctrine referred to.

Example:  the Scandinavian decorating style if founded on practicality, but there is more to it than that (preferences for light woods, neutral colors, wood floors, simple lines, lots of light, etc)

Are there such additions, though? Not that I can tell. It seems to me the content of the proclamation has all been taught before in the Church. 
 

Besides, if there were such additions, “founded upon” implies they would have to be consistent with, not departing from, the foundational doctrines.
 

For example, permitting marriage between persons of the same sex would be antithetical to, not founded upon, the doctrine of marriage being between a man and a woman. 
 

Blurring the definitions of male and female would likewise be antithetical to the doctrine that “gender is an essential characteristic of individual pre-mortal, mortal and eternal identity and purpose.”

Edited April 7, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

But what is or isn’t irrevocable doctrine isn’t necessarily identified in the Proclamation.

But it IS identified by President Oaks in his talk. 

[the narrator]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Nah, I don’t buy this at all. To water something down, which is what you’re implying here, is, in a de facto sense, to revoke it. 

In LDS tradition all sorts of doctrines and policies have been modified or changed without being revoked. See Celestial Marriage, priesthood ban, word of wisdom, all sorts of things related to "the law of chastity" (such as oral sex and same-sex attraction), etc.

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What matters is what President Osks meant, not what you or I think he meant, but taken in context, your construction makes no sense.

Precisely, and Oaks is a smart legal dude who knows that the difference between the two words. He knows that the rules/laws/doctrines of celestial marriage, priesthood restrictions, the word of wisdom, and chastity have all changed over time without being revoked. You should know this as well. 

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

Nope and think that depends on the person. 

Does it really depend on the person? One person’s misunderstanding of President Oaks’s talk does not alter his intended meaning. 

[Calm]

And it turns out there is even a more willing obedience rather than engaging in version of the quote available due to the recent transcribing of the original Pittman shorthand:

https://debunking-cesletter.com/prophets-1/is-polygamy-required-for-exaltation/
 

 

Some additional ones talking about the Celestial Kingdom and some might say that doesn’t automatically mean exaltation as there are three levels of glory, but it has been taught that exaltation is the only glory where eternal marriage continues, so if a man has a wife in heaven or a woman a husband it requires that they are exalted.

It is not unusual for Celestial Kingdom to be used interchangeably with exaltation now and I am guessing it is the same back then, but don’t want to go looking for explicit examples unless I have to. 
 

Same link as above.
 

Quote

Wilford Woodruff recorded in his journal on February 12, 1870, that a Church member, John Holement, “made a long speech upon the subject of polygamy. He contended that no person could have a Celestial glory unless he had a plurality of wives.” In response, President Brigham Young clarified that “there would be men saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God with one wife.”  

On February 10, 1873, in the Salt Lake School of the Prophets, a question was raised regarding the truthfulness of the claim that “no man who has only one wife in this probation can ever enter Celestial Kingdom.” Wilford Woodruff “expressed disagreement and John Taylor said ‘he did not believe [it].’” 

In 1884, First Presidency Counselor, George Q. Cannon, stated that, “He believed there would be men in the Celestial Kingdom that had but one wife.”  First Presidency Counselor John Henry Smith recalled in 1900 that “President Young once proposed that we marry but one wife.”

 

 

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Are there such additions, though? Not that I can tell. It seems to me the content of the proclamation has all been taught before in the Church. 

And all when taught were identified as irrevocable doctrine?

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But it IS identified by President Oaks in his talk. 

Not if he just says “founded on irrevocable doctrine”.

[the narrator]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It seems to me the content of the proclamation has all been taught before in the Church.

Taught, yes, but not in a clear and official way that would count it as "official doctrine" as now defined by the Church. The Proclamation was created so that the Church could claim that the possible legalization of same-sex marriage in Hawaii directly ran counter to Church teachings as part of its amici brief in opposition to the potential legalization. In fact, it seems very much the case that the reason why Hinckely at the last minute demanded that it be presented at the Relief Society General Meeting (to the chagrin of the RS general presidency) was so that it could be included before the end of Sept '95 deadline.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It strikes me as a distinction without a difference though. 

Big difference.

Every single Christian sect is "founded upon" irrevocable doctrines in the Bible.  Does that mean everything that every sect builds on that irrevocable foundation, or teaches, is irrevocable doctrine of God? 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

Big difference.

Every single Christian sect is "founded upon" irrevocable doctrines in the Bible.  Does that mean everything that every sect builds on that irrevocable foundation, or teaches, is irrevocable doctrine of God? 

The Church of Jesus Christ is not “every single Christian sect.” 

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Church of Jesus Christ is not “every single Christian sect.” 

I think you missed my point.  The point is that what is "built upon" irrevocable doctrine does not necessarily constitute irrevocable doctrine. 

One can build a straw house on top of a rock. 

Edited April 7, 2022 by pogi

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not if he just says “founded on irrevocable doctrine”.

I invite you to review the talk, which I have now copied and pasted in this thread in its entirety. He first talks about the doctrine itself before mentioning the proclamation as “a uniquely valuable teaching” of that doctrine. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think you missed my point.  The point is that what is "built upon" irrevocable doctrine does not necessarily constitute irrevocable doctrine. 

One can build a straw house on top of a rock. 

No, I got your point. I’m saying that in this case, the proclamation is indeed founded upon irrevocable doctrine. It doesn’t matter how others may have misused or applied that expression in the past. I suggest you read President Oaks’s words for comprehension, not parse them according to how others may have applied similar words in the past. 

Edited April 7, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[pogi]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, I got your point. I’m saying that in this case, the proclamation is indeed founded upon irrevocable doctrine. It doesn’t matter how others may have misused or applied that expression in the past. 

So one can't build a straw house atop of a rock?  There is more to the integrity of a structure (or document) than its foundation, FYI. 

Edited April 7, 2022 by pogi