Family proclamation founded on irrevocable doctrine: President Oaks

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, the narrator said:

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.

I don’t embrace conspiracy theories about the supposed origin of the proclamation. 
 

And the fact that Chieko Okazaki was miffed that she wasn’t consulted beforehand in the drafting of the proclamation doesn’t equate to the presidency being chagrined that it was presented at the meeting. 

Edited April 7, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In comparing the published text of President Oaks’s talk with the partial transcription I made and posted in this thread early Monday morning, I note that a word has been changed. Where President Oaks in the spoken version said, “… the family proclamation, founded on unchangeable doctrine …” the wording in the written text has been changed to read, “… the family proclamation, founded on irrevocable doctrine, …”. 
 

So the change, presumably made by President Oaks himself as conference speakers are routinely permitted to change their own texts for publication, substituted the word irrevocable for the word unchangeable. I don’t know why he would make this change (I suppose one would have to ask President Oaks himself to know) but I don’t see that it matters materially, as irrevocable and unchangeable are synonymous. 
 

To be sure that I had not made an error in my transcription, I just now reviewed the YouTube video of President Oaks giving the talk in the Conference Center. I found he did indeed use the word unchangeable in the spoken version. 

Would it be fair to say that by claiming the "doctrine" in the proclamation is unchangeable or irrevocable, that he is claiming the doctrine is perfectly stated and perfectly understood through the proclamation?

[the narrator]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t embrace conspiracy theories about the supposed origin of the proclamation. 

Just because this is another thing you are ignorant of doesn't make it a conspiracy theory.

 

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And the fact that Chieko Okazaki was miffed that she wasn’t consulted beforehand in the drafting of the proclamation doesn’t equate to the presidency being chagrined that it was presented at the meeting. 

I heard it from Aileen Clyde.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Would it be fair to say that by claiming the "doctrine" in the proclamation is unchangeable or irrevocable, that he is claiming the doctrine is perfectly stated and perfectly understood through the proclamation?

I’ve already allowed that the wording in the proclamation could theoretically,  at some future time, be rendered with greater precision albeit not in a way that altered the irrevocable doctrine, and thus the proclamation itself is not unchangeable. Which, I suppose, is why President Oaks characterized the doctrines, not the proclamation, as being irrevocable. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Just because this is another thing you are ignorant of doesn't make it a conspiracy theory.

 

I heard it from Aileen Clyde.

Oh, I’m not ignorant of it. I’ve heard it before and rejected it as less than credible. 
 

And I’m not inclined to accept without documentation your hearsay rendition of what Aileen Clyde allegedly said. 

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Oh, I’m not ignorant of it. I’ve heard it before and rejected it as less than credible. 
 

And I’m not inclined to accept without documentation your hearsay rendition of what Aileen Clyde allegedly said. 

Not saying this is what he is referring too, I just love this little piece. 
 

There is another interesting quote from her:

Quote

In a 2011 interview, Clyde characterized women’s domains within the church as a “playpen,” saying, “[male leaders] don’t care what we do over here in our playpen as long as we stay in our playpen and are good to each other”

https://juvenileinstructor.org/22946-2/

It is from this book on page 154. There is an additional quote of Sister Clyde’s that suggests at least significant disappointment to me, but can’t copy/paste it. She doesn’t come right out and say they were disappointed or angry or anything negative, but says (not an exact quote, but close) she was thinking in a conversation with Pres Oaks about the honor it was to have it announced in their session ‘how do you think we felt not even being told about it when they were working on it for a year?’

https://books.google.com/books?id=SLhwDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA154&lpg=PA154&dq=clyde+"don’t+care+what+we+do+over+here+in+our+playpen+as+long+as+we+stay+in+our+playpen"&source=bl&ots=7GP02xpTnD&sig=ACfU3U3sLPsnll6QsLdFK9xXORVu8ORJyA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwivzPOMxYL3AhX1KEQIHdtRCFkQ6AF6BAgREAI#v=onepage&q=clyde "don’t care what we do over here in our playpen as long as we stay in our playpen"&f=false

Edited April 7, 2022 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

Here’s the recollection of Mary Ellen Efdmunds, who was on the Relief Society general board at the time. Obviously SHE wasn’t chagrined;

 

I’ll never forget the evening of Saturday, 23 September, 1995. I was serving as a member of the General Board of the Relief Society and President Elaine L. Jack had told us a few weeks earlier that President Gordon B. Hinckley was deciding whether to read the “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” in General Conference or in the General Relief Society meeting. She announced to us shortly before the General Relief Society meeting that he had decided to read it that evening. We were thrilled! We could feel the importance of the Proclamation—only the fifth to be issued by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles! (Please see below for a list of all five official proclamations).

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ve already allowed that the wording in the proclamation could theoretically,  at some future time, be rendered with greater precision albeit not in a way that altered the irrevocable doctrine, and thus the proclamation itself is not unchangeable. Which, I suppose, is why President Oaks characterized the doctrines, not the proclamation, as being irrevocable. 

Thanks.

Like Pogi has mentioned, having something as a foundation doesn't guarantee that the end product will match the structural integrity of the foundation. It seems more like a statement of intent to base the proclamation on unchangeable doctrines (as they are currently understood by certain people).

I remember when the movie, Clueless came out and it stated it was based on the novel Emma. I don't know that anyone would claim Clueless is a perfect elucidation of Emma. But then I guess that's not really the point. 

For Pres Oaks to claim that something is unchangeable or irrevocably correct he would need to perfectly understand those doctrines beyond his time, culture and personal intellect. I think it has been well established that there are many issues for which the church doesn't claim to have a complete understanding so it would be strange for Pres. Oaks to say he does have a complete and perfect understanding. But then maybe his grand proclamation of unchangeable/irrevocable doctrines is simply hyperbole.

Why would greater precision be needed except to alter the understanding in some way?

[the narrator]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not saying this is what he is referring too, I just love this little piece. 

Yes, I was at that conference (and helped with its organization.) I also heard Clyde expand on that further following the panel.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Why would greater precision be needed except to alter the understanding in some way?

To see that the words more perfectly conveyed the original intent, of course, and to preclude ambiguity. And I’m not saying that would ever happen; it’s only theoretical. 

[the narrator]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Here’s the recollection of Mary Ellen Efdmunds, who was on the Relief Society general board at the time. Obviously SHE wasn’t chagrined;

 

I’ll never forget the evening of Saturday, 23 September, 1995. I was serving as a member of the General Board of the Relief Society and President Elaine L. Jack had told us a few weeks earlier that President Gordon B. Hinckley was deciding whether to read the “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” in General Conference or in the General Relief Society meeting. She announced to us shortly before the General Relief Society meeting that he had decided to read it that evening. We were thrilled! We could feel the importance of the Proclamation—only the fifth to be issued by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles! (Please see below for a list of all five official proclamations).

Following Nelson's request that we all forgive someone before Easter, I am choosing to forgive you for this silly response.

[Scott Lloyd]

56 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Like Pogi has mentioned, having something as a foundation doesn't guarantee that the end product will match the structural integrity of the foundation.

And as I have responded, “founded upon” implies that whatever arises therefrom will be true to and consistent with the original, not depart from it. 
 

Do you sincerely believe President Oaks meant to imply in his talk that anything in the proclamation is inconsistent with the irrevocable doctrines it was founded on? 

Edited April 7, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Following Nelson's request that we all forgive someone before Easter, I am choosing to forgive you for this silly response.

What’s the silly nonsense? That Sister Edmunds wrote this? I copied and pasted it from a guest blog that she wrote. 
 

Or is it the content of her blog post? Why would you think I would need forgiveness from you for something she wrote? 

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And as I have responded, “founded upon” implies that whatever arises therefrom will be true to and consistent with the original, not depart therefrom. 
 

Do you sincerely believe President Oaks meant to imply in his talk that anything in the proclamation is inconsistent with the irrevocable doctrines he referred to? 

I sincerely believe that Elder Oaks is making the kind of hyperbolic claims that would require him to have a perfect understanding and knowledge of those things. If he does have a perfect understanding and knowledge he is really holding out on us

I don't believe he has a perfect understanding or knowledge. I think he's talking BIG to make his point. I don't think any prophet or apostle has ever taught a doctrine they believed to be in error, or incomplete, or changeable. So by him claiming something as unchangeable he is placing himself above past prophets and apostles as if to say, the others may not have taught or understood a certain doctrine perfectly but I am. I don't know if it's ego or just really trying to make his point so that people won't question him, but these kinds of statements are indefensible in a church that claims continuing revelation.

[the narrator]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What’s the silly nonsense?  

That you would offer up a comment from someone in the general board as some kind of point of argument that the actual members of the presidency were wrong about their own feelings on the matter.

[Teancum]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

The law of Moses is literally called a temporal law.  It was never meant to be permanent followed.  Comparing it to eternal polygamy sealings is apples and oranges.

I imagine most practicing Jews would disagree with you.  The OT calls the Law of Moses Everlasting.  

http://www.hadavar.org/critical-issues/anti-missionary-arguments/additional-issues/the-law-of-moses-is-eternal/

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, the narrator said:

That you would offer up a comment from someone in the general board as some kind of point of argument that the actual members of the presidency were wrong about their own feelings on the matter.

I offered it for what it was, the recollection of a prominent woman in the Church who was on the R.S.general board at the time in question. 
 

I regret that my posting of her opinion angers you, but I don’t regret doing it, and I’m not seeking your forgiveness. 

Edited April 7, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[rongo]

2 hours 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? 

To me, irrevocable is stronger than unchangeable. "Cannot be revoked" seems a little stronger than "unable to be changed." Maybe mileage varies --- they are similar in meaning. 

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, rongo said:

To me, irrevocable is stronger than unchangeable. "Cannot be revoked" seems a little stronger than "unable to be changed." Maybe mileage varies --- they are similar in meaning. 

I agree with you. Irrevocable carrie’s the connotation of authority — that the doctrines came from God and that He, the Author of them, won’t be rescinding them. 

Edited April 7, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[pogi]

56 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And as I have responded, “founded upon” implies that whatever arises therefrom will be true to and consistent with the original, not depart it. 

No, it doesn't.  It simply means it has a strong foundation - which is important to the integrity of a structure, but not exclusively so.  Again there is a difference between saying the foundation is true, and the structure upon the foundation is true.   

The Church (structure) is founded upon Christ (foundation), and is an imperfect and temporal (as in temporary) organization.  The organization is imperfect, the foundation is not.  Christ is eternal, the Church is not.  The foundation is true, not everything that comes out of the Church is true.  In fact, the entire Church has been under condemnation at times according to scripture, the foundation has never been under condemnation.  They are not always "consistent".   There is a difference that you seem unwilling to acknowledge. 

 

Edited April 7, 2022 by pogi

[Calm]

nvm

Edited April 7, 2022 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

No, it doesn't.  It simply means it has a strong foundation - which is important to the integrity of a structure, but not exclusively so.

I totally disagree with regard to the connotation of founded upon. But since it appears y neither of us will be swayed, I’ll leave it at that. 

[pogi]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I totally disagree with regard to the connotation of founded upon. But since it appears y neither of us will be swayed, I’ll leave it at that. 

Ok, lets not talk about the "connotation".  Lets talk about things that require no connotation.   Can you agree with the rest of what I said about the Church and Christ how they are not always "consistent"? 

[Scott Lloyd]

43 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I sincerely believe that Elder Oaks is making the kind of hyperbolic claims that would require him to have a perfect understanding and knowledge of those things. If he does have a perfect understanding and knowledge he is really holding out on us

I don't believe he has a perfect understanding or knowledge. I think he's talking BIG to make his point. I don't think any prophet or apostle has ever taught a doctrine they believed to be in error, or incomplete, or changeable. So by him claiming something as unchangeable he is placing himself above past prophets and apostles as if to say, the others may not have taught or understood a certain doctrine perfectly but I am. I don't know if it's ego or just really trying to make his point so that people won't question him, but these kinds of statements are indefensible in a church that claims continuing revelation.

I notice you didn’t answer the question, which was, “Do you sincerely believe President Oaks meant to imply in his talk that anything in the proclamation is inconsistent with the irrevocable doctrines it was founded on?”  
 

Ah well. You may regard it as a rhetorical question if you like. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

Ok, lets not talk about the "connotation".  Lets talk about things that require no connotation.   Can you agree with the rest of what I said about the Church and Christ how they are not always "consistent"? 

I choose not to go down rabbit holes at this point. Why don’t you want to talk about connotation?  Is it because you know the answer to the question I posed to HJW? 
 

“Do you sincerely believe President Oaks meant to imply in his talk that anything in the proclamation is inconsistent with the irrevocable doctrines it was founded on?”