There are many opinions about the Proclamation, even among the top leaders of the church. What do you think?
[poll id=”440″]
Discuss.
Agency, Apostasy, Blind Obedience, Church Policy, Criticism, Culture, Faith, Feminism, Freedom, gender equity, LDS, Morality, Mormon, Mormon Belief, Mormon Culture, Politics, Uncategorized
What is the Proclamation on the Family? (Weekend Poll)
Who said that opposing the prophets changes the very ground you stand on,
At the turn of the previous century evolution was a hotly debated topic in many parts of the world. There were strongly held differing opinions throughout the church on the subject, including among the Quorum of the 12.
In 1909 the church published a document signed by the First Presidency which starts as follows:
“Inquiries arise from time to time respecting the attitude of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints upon questions which, though not vital from a doctrinal standpoint, are closely connected with the fundamental principles of salvation. The latest inquiry of this kind that has reached us is in relation to the origin of man. It is believed that a statement of the position held by the Church upon this subject will be timely and productive of good.”
I think that the document in question is of the same genre, ie: An official statement dealing with issues that are debated hotly and widely enough (throughout current cultural and intellectual society in many nations) to warrant an official church response in hopes of clarifying the primary principles involved and the church’s general stand on the issues discussed.
So I vote, “church statement”, a infrequently seen but historically precedented genre of semi-legal official church publication aimed at clarifying church principles that apply to a subject that is becoming an issue of widespread debate.
Internet polls have what effect on church doctrine and the laws of God:
A) 0%
B) 0%
C) 0%
What respect would we have for a church that followed the prevailing wisdom of Teh Interntez, home of Lolcats and #Gamergate:
A) 0%
B) 0%
C) 0%
The results of this poll are very very sad. It is clear given the frequency of citations to the proclamation in General Conference that those responsible for it truly believe that it is inspired. By rejecting the inspired nature of the proclamation, you are effectively saying that all of the apostles and the first presidency are wrong.
Daniel, yes, it is a bit telling and sad that there are so few who see it as revelation or God’s will, when it has been repeatedly stated as such.
My own perspective, contradictory as it may seem, is that it IS a revelation of God’s will, but also an imperfect and incomplete summary. I take Chieko Okasaki’s point: “There were things we could have done to improve it, but we were never asked.”
God approves of revelations which are imperfect and incomplete. Joseph Smith revised many of his revelations after he had recieved them as greater light and knowledge came to him.
If the Proclamation were to be revised, now that the crusade against Gentile SSM is over, I would suggest reframing it, not as a proclamation to the world, but specifically LDS. My personal take on prophesy and proclamation, is that it should be done by way of invitation to the world, and by way of crying repentance and issuing curses to the Saints.
At the same time, I appreciate the Pope’s recent messages, and his crying repentance to the nations of the earth in general, particularly corruption, etc.
But with regards to gender roles and SSM, these are “controversial” issues which Elder Oaks specifically suggested should be discussed with respect and without contention. Warning of calamaties upon Gentiles because of these controversial gender roles is not in that spirit in my opinion. But warning of calamaties upon political corruption, murder, and other less controversial issues is more appropriate.
“By rejecting the inspired nature of the proclamation, you are effectively saying that all of the apostles and the first presidency are wrong.”
I think really this sentence should read:
By rejecting the inspired nature of the proclamation, you are effectively saying that all of the apostles and the first presidency are wrong again.
Nate and Daniel,
Elder Packer settled this long ago. The PoF is not revelation it is inspiration. We learn two things from Elder Packers clarification. The first thing we learn is inspiration is not equal to revelation. The second thing we learn is revelation has to meet a higher standard than inspiration.
Now that we know this, we can ask the pertinent question. What counts as inspiration? The PoF teaches us that the writings of a committee with a political goal, counts as inspiration.
There is somebody in the church that can either force or convince the most senior apostle, Boyd K. Packer, that he should edit his claims that the Proclamation is revelation. The only bodies that could possibly exert that kind of influence are the First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as a whole. So I am quite heartened that so many people have been blessed with a spirit of discernment that leads them to the same conclusion rather than being blown about by every wind of doctrine.
Daniel,
I think the PoF fits the very definition of being “blown about by every wind of doctrine.” It’s strange that it uses “Man and Woman” to define marriage when we all know that it’s really “Man and Women.” This can be confirmed in D&C 132 and it has been recently confirmed by the essay on Polygamy by the Prophet Joesph Smith.
I’m reading the same, tired complaints about the things in the POTF that have made the rounds for almost 20 years now. I don’t believe the POTF, in and of itself, is doctrine, any more than The Living Christ is doctrine. Both are brief summaries of our doctrine. I’m grateful our leaders were inspired to draft it well in advance of the struggles we face today.
“I’m reading the same, tired complaints about the things in the POTF…”
What complaints are you reading? Please list, as I haven’t read any here. Is believing it is inspiration rather than revelation a complaint?—even when an apostle says likewise? Is believing it is inspired by the mores of our Leaders day a complaint?—when even the Brethren state that the cultural mores of any prophet’s time influence the ways they look at things.
Someday there will be another proclamation that will be influenced by the mores of today or tomorrow, with inspiration to add to those leaders’ views and gospel understanding. There are some sorrows in this proclamation that deeply hurt a small minority who are excluded, having no words of welcome or belonging. Is this complaining to recognize their exclusion and pain? Are we as members guilty of not fellow-shipping these few? Is this complaining to be concerned for them? Is love for all our brothers and sisters complaining?
There are some timeless ideals in the POTF…..and there are some sorrows. If you do not have loved ones bearing those sorrows you might, indeed, characterize some comments as “tired, old complaints.” That’s a shame, because it truly speaks to not bearing another’s life-long burden, nor having much love for those who suffer. If we all walked six months in another’s shoes, perhaps we’d become more loving in our language in proclamation’s. Then, maybe we wouldn’t be so tired of “hearing” what each one has to say.
The proclamation is living proof that the spirit of prophecy is alive and well in the church.
The POF was released in 1995 just a couple years after the pioneering attempts to legalize same sex marriages in this country. It is hard not to see it as a deliberate, if indirect, response to that situation since the church had already released a statement opposing any such possibility in 1994 after Hawaii’s Supreme Court ruled the previous year that discrimination against gay Hawaiians violated the state constitution. The First Presidency followed that the next year with the POF.
Since that time both the POF and the church’s aggressive and unChristlike attempts to enshrine discrimination into civil law have caused untold pain to individuals, stressed out families and alienated family members, and caused more resignations from the church than anything else in our life time.
I can not think of that as revealed or prophetic in any way.
dba.brotherp,
I think you may have misunderstood my comment. While we may have a difference of opinion on the eternal nature of polygamy, I think we agree that the people who can correctly identify that the Proclamation is NOT revelation are NOT being blown about by every wind of doctrine. I could have made that a little more explicit in the original comment.
It’s interesting to note that the twenty year to thirty year old generation thinks it’s used to keep women in their place–they did not know it orginated over SSM. All they hear is the men’s role and the women’s role.
#15
I don’t think homophobia in the POF precludes misogyny in the least. In fact, the church drew the line in the sand between all goodly Mormons and the evil feminists back in the ERA era of the 70s. The first stirrings of the movement for full civil rights for gay Americans may have been what occasioned the writing of the POF. It may have had establishing heterosexuality as the only possible outcome as one objective but, in codifying that, they relied on the limited image of the “ideal” family that they wanted to enshrine. That happened to be a patriarchal model that still reduces women to child bearers and care takers.
I can see 20-something and 30-something women having a problem with that. I’m a 60-something woman who has never gotten past the church’s political action against the ERA back then.
The POF may contain a manifesto of a valid sort of marriage. It’s in holding it out as the only legitimate form that it goes way off and creates friction between the church and those with alternative personas and goals. As you point out and I forgot, that includes a lot of women too. And that’s assuming all Mormon men may be fine with it. They may be. They may not all be. I don’t know about that.
Someone please ask Mirabel out so she’ll shut up.
Not revealed or inspired, but rather like the advice you might get on your wedding day from a loving grandfather. Reflections on time-honored principles, bound up with his own generational, political, and gender biases. You love him for it because he’s family, even if you’re rolling your eyes a little bit as you try to get out of a handshake that’s lasted almost four minutes.