I saw a Facebook post that went something like this. The person stated that the Proclamation on the Family was specifically created as part of an amicus brief that Kirton McConkie (Church’s law firm) drafted in the Church’s fight against marriage equality in Hawaii in the mid-1990s. The Church decided to release it to the broader membership as a “proclamation” because it was needed to officially codify the document and give one-man one-woman marriage credence as an “official” doctrine of the church, since prior to that, there were essentially no official writings in the Church that made that claim. Another person chimed in that a Seventy had told them that the Proclamation was an attempt to set the Church’s opinion legally before they entered the full court battle. A third person wrote that the Baptists came out with a copycat proclamation for the same reason that was even worse, titled that wives should submit to their husbands.
How much truth do you think there is to this? Was it lawyers, or apostles who wrote the proclamation? (Are you glad you’re not Baptist?)
Wheat & Tares 
I have heard this before. The wording of the proclamation was supposedly attached as an exhibit to a request the Church made to be included as a defendent in the legal challenge to Hawaii’s court case regarding same sex marriage. Since the church had very little to reference in the standard works or in previous pronouncements from the Brethren during our history, they needed something official to justify their request to be named as a co-dependent. Therefore, they wrote the wording which later was issued as the PoF. That would also explain why they never involved the Relief Society Presidency in drafting the language. It was not meant to be anything other than a legal document.
However, I have not seen any proof of this story. Perhaps someone can find the church’s petition to the Hawaii court and see if the exhibit is attached. If you watch the movie Prop 8 you will also learn of the amazing details of the Hawaii court case and our involvement in it.
I forgot to add that there was supposedly a committee comprised of 70s under the direction of an apostle which finalized the wording. The church lawyers worked with the committee.
My understanding is that Mckonkie et. al. didn’t have a hand in writing it but the innitial draft was largely written by one of the law professors at the Y (whose name I am spacing and whose fingerprints are apparently easy to see all over it), but expressly for the Hawaii court cases so the church could file as an interested party(probably on the council of lawyers at McKonkie. I would guess that saying the lawyers along with Elder Oaks “commissioned” the PoF is probably a pretty fair description). Certainly, final wording was massaged and approved by the 12 (probably in conjunction with a committee with some 70s with some expertise), regardless of who had the work of drafting and itterating it.
For Mormons who believe it was written by the finger of God or dictated word or word from the mouth of the Lord, the real story is a problem.
For Mormons comfortable with the idea that inspiration can work through a bureaucratic, cooperative process where the approval of the 12 as a unified body means the Proc qualifies as inspired this is much less of a problem. Even the 12 insisted in changing Packer’s verbal claim in conference that the proclamation was “revelation”. Rather they chose “inspired guide” or something similar. I think the vast majority of Mormons (even those who currently tend to assume direct revelation) are ultimately fine with this counting as inspiration and even revelation, especially if directly asked to do so by the leaders.
For the minority of Mormons deeply skeptical of the Proc as anything more than codification of comfortable (for a certain generation) 1950s gender norms and especially its current almost canonical usage in the church, its origins seem to be the best barrier to stop its official cannonization. In some ways I am surprised that the leadership hasn’t brought it up to a vote to add to the D&C. I would speculate that there are apostles for whom its origin make them feel it should not be brought to a vote but others (lke Elder Packer) that would happily do so.
Here’s to hoping for continued innertia on the subject keeping it from official cannonization.
People who believe the Constitution is an inspired document better not have a problem with inspired writing by committee. I don’t have a problem with the Proc. Areas that seem to have a great deal of flexibility to me bother others.
What is the scriptural basis for declaring gender as eternal? And what does that actually mean? Is it biological or is it reflective of differences in disposition or does it refer to roles and responsibilities?
And, if it is eternal, that means it applies to us as intelligences, does it not?
Who came up with these conclusions?
Joseph,
D&C 76:24 “begotten sons and daughters unto God” is pretty much the only thing we can find in scriptures talking about eternal gender. Of course, one might argue that it doesn’t necessarily reference to premortal life, but if one believes that God is the father of our spirits, it is quite natural to understand that as a reference to premortal gender. References to postmortal gender one can find for example in the temple.
People who believe the Constitution is an inspired document better not have a problem with inspired writing by committee.
Agreed, but too many people seem to equate “inspiration” and “revelation.”
That said, many of the revelations in the D&C were edited and revised after the fact, in some cases “by committee.” In addition, given the number of times the idea has been bandied about, I have to think there’s a reason we’ve never been asked to sustain the Proclamation as D&C 139.
I suspect that rah has it about right. As for canonization, that train left the station when the Church announced a new print edition of the scriptures last year. Recall that the previous edition was issued shortly after the canon was expanded to include Sections 137, 138 & OD2. If the Proclamation was going to be canonized, it would have happened before the 2013 edition was announced.
“too many people seem to equate “inspiration” and “revelation.”
What is the difference? And why would a document written by lawyers and approved as a “revelation” by apostles be any different than a revelation they wrote themselves? Revelations can come in all sorts of ways.
I have a hard time understanding why liberal Mormons have the same romantic ideas about what a “revelation” is that conservative Mormons do. If the Proclamation were sustained as a Standard Work, why would that increase its legitimacy? The Standard Works are full of scriptures far more problematic than the Proclamation, including a number of sections in the D&C.
Brigham Young had a much more practical and nuanced view of what revelations were:
“I do not even believe that there is a single revelation, among the many God has given to the Church, that is perfect in it’s fulness. The revelations of God contain correct doctrine and principle, so far as they go; but it is impossible for the poor, weak, low grovelling, sinful inhabitants of the earth to receive a revelation from the Almighty in all its perfections.”
“We all live by the principle of revelation. Who reveals? Everybody around us; we learn of each other. I have something which you have not, and you have something which I have not; I reveal that which I have to you, and you reveal what you have to me. I believe that we are revelators to each other.”
Ask and ye shall receive:
http://www.qrd.org/qrd/usa/legal/hawaii/baehr/1997/brief.mormons-04.14.97
Nate,
The general definition tends to be that revelation (in the theological context) is to reveal something that was previously unknown or hidden. Such items tend to come directly through spiritual channels from the Holy Ghost. While such revelations can be revised or better worded by the original receiver the core of the revelation is pure in its message. It is the limitations of language which create some challenges in conveying the message.
Inspiration is a wholly different item. Inspiration comes as a human mind tries to use reason, faith, prayer and study to gain spiritual knowledge. There is a thought process involved and conclusions are drawn based upon the scriptures, observation, discernment and tradition.
When something is presented as “inspired” within our church there is rarely, if ever, an accompanying explanation of how the conclusion was reached. There is nothing to guide the Latter-day Saint in determining if it is in accordance with the scriptures and our ability to test the truthfulness of the conclusion is negated. We are forced to either accept it based upon authority or reject it at our peril as incompatible with the existing canon. Remember there was only one apostle who challenged Brigham Young on Adam-God. The others all accepted it based upon Brigham’s authority.
When something is presented as a “revelation” from the heavens, it is received directly from the Lord and will generally be in sync with the existing body of revealed knowledge. Joseph’s Sermon in the Grove and King Follett discourse show how Joseph tied the new revelation of the Lord’s sacrifice and the heirarchy of the Gods directly to the existing New Testament scriptures.
Likewise, there are very specific instructions for the church on receiving revelation from the Lord through the Lord’s anointed representative on the earth. Adding to the canon has very specific steps which includes involving the membership of the Kingdom.
The problem comes when something is presented as “inspired” without any accompanying explanation but is expected to be received as revelation by the body of the church.
Most of Joseph’s most cherished revelations (D&C 76, D&C 88, the book of Abraham…) can be classified as pure revelation and convey truth in a more sublime manner than is found in the ordinariness of the church governance chapters of the D&C.
NOTE: I realize I am classifying the book of Abraham as a revelation and not as a translation from Mr. Chandler’s papyri. That is how I view it.
Brad,
You made my day. Thanks.
R,
The Constitution of the United States was a document inspired using reason, faith, prayer and study. There are numerous phamplets and books which provide the reasoning and logic behind that document as well as incorporating eternal spiritual truths into the mix. It took years to perfect and time to get it ratified. Even then the people demanded the addition of the Bill of Rights before accepting it. No one was asked to accept it without understanding the foundation for drafting it.
I hear it was drafted by an over-exuberant Mia Maid Class Secretary, and was appropriated up the chain.
Brad (10) – you might convince more people if the reference came from something more authoritative than the Queer Resource Directory. Aside from that, I like the version in the appendix of this better; no presiding mentioned.
There’s hardly a verse in our Standard Works that hasn’t been written, reviewed, and redacted, so exactly who drafted or how the POTF came about is not a big concern to me. I am confident that if President Hinckley had presented it at conference a week after introducing it at the Women’s meeting, it would have been accepted by the general membership of the church. References to the POTF have made their way into the church handbooks, instructional material, etc. I don’t know the exact reasons why it hasn’t been made part of the standard works, but I doubt it’s because of some lingering dispute among church leaders as to its content.
#13 I didn’t recognize the origins of Brad’s URL until you drew attention to it. I wonder why you felt you needed to do that when — whoever archived it — it is a legal document and does have the proclamation as an attachment.
I wonder if you’re more interested in the truth or smearing an uncomfortable one.
Thanks, Brad. This version of the proclamation in the brief is so, so much better than the one we all use when it comes to the roles of parents (i.e. the parents are both responsible to care for each other and their children).
Alice (15) – I feel the need to bring it up for the same reason people bring up sources of anti global warming articles. The progeny makes it suspect, being both on a gay rights site and being part of an email, which could have been adjusted at any time in any way. If you want to convince people, you have to come up with primary sources. If you’re just looking for “see, look what the nuts did now!”, this’ll do.
Sure, this can be part of the provenance. It could also be a pared down version of the original, written after the original was conceived.
RAH @ 3:
Do you mean Lynn Wardle?
The brief was written in 97. the Proclamation in 95. How does this prove the argument that the proc was written by the Church’s lawyers?
I don’t know anything about Hawaii’s same sex battles, so I did a quick google search to learn more. Apparently there was a lawsuit Baehr v. Miike (originally Baehr v. Lewin) where the Supreme Court of Hawaii initially found the state’s refusal to grant same-sex couples marriage licenses discriminatory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Hawaii#Baehr_case_.281991.E2.80.931999.29
No doubt the church was well aware of this lawsuit and wanted to challenge it. Putting out the proclamation in 1995 was interesting timing at least. In 1996 Judge Kevin K.S. Chang ruled that the state did not meet its evidentiary burden. It did not prove that the state had a compelling interest in denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples and even assuming that it had it had not proven that HRS § 572-1 was narrowly tailored to avoid unnecessary abridgement of constitutional rights.
The Kirton-McConkie brief was put out in 1997.
On December 9, 1999, the Hawaii Supreme Court, following the passage of a constitutional amendment empowering the Hawaii State Legislature to limit marriage to mixed-sex couples, ruled that “The passage of the marriage amendment placed HRS § 572-1 on new footing. The marriage amendment validated HRS § 572-1 by taking the statute out of the ambit of the equal protection clause of the Hawai’i Constitution, at least insofar as the statute, both on its face and as applied, purported to limit access to the marital status to opposite-sex couples.
I don’t know if it was written by lawyers, but I would say it is at least very curious timing. It’s sure seems the 1991 Hawaii lawsuit played a role in the drafting of the proclamation.
Joseph (no. 5),
There is no scriptural basis — that was new doctrine starting with the proclamation.
I love a good conspiracy story, don’t you?
Nate W,
Yes Lynn Wardle. He was a major player for the church during the Hawaii court battles and the Proc contains a lot of languagearguments that has parrallels in his prior legal writings. I admit I am dregding from my memory here and not sources. So take it with a large grain of salt until sources appear.
Interesting, I’ve never heard this before. An April 1994 statement by the First Presidency opposing SSM definitely confirms that it was on their mind prior to the introduction of the Family Proclamation:
https://www.lds.org/ensign/1994/04/news-of-the-church/first-presidency-statement-opposing-same-gender-marriages
Although Lynn Wardle has certainly been involved in a major way with the church’s efforts against same-sex marriage going way back, I believe the person said to be the primary author of the Proclamation was Richard Wilkins.
#5 Joseph, #6 Niklas, and #21 ji – Gender, when it is described as a premortal characteristic, seems most often tied to spirit bodies. Associating it with intelligences (prior to the Proclamation on the Family) seems to me a bigger stretch doctrinally, but you can determine for yourself based on the references. Both Dallin H. Oaks and Boyd K. Packer address gender as a premortal characteristic in the October 1993 General Conference:
Dallin H. Oaks: “Modern revelation makes clear that what we call gender was part of our existence prior to our birth. God declares that he created “male and female” (D&C 20:18; Moses 2:27; Gen. 1:27). Elder James E. Talmage explained: “The distinction between male and female is no condition peculiar to the relatively brief period of mortal life; it was an essential characteristic of our pre-existent condition” (Millennial Star, 24 Aug. 1922, p. 539).”
Boyd K. Packer: “Apostles and prophets speak of us in premortal life as sons and daughters, spirit children of God.(1) Gender existed before, and did not begin at mortal birth.(2)”
Packer’s Footnote 1 – See D&C 76:24; see also Num. 16:22; Heb. 12:9
Packer’s Footnote 2 – See D&C 132:63; First Presidency, “Origin of Man” (Nov. 1909), in James R. Clark, comp., Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965–75), 4:203; see also Spencer W. Kimball, Ensign, Mar. 1976, p. 71; Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, Nov. 1983, p. 83.
The Origin of Man statement uses the Brother of Jared’s vision to indicate that Christ’s gender was set prior to mortality.
Packer’s citations of Pres. Kimball and Pres. Hinckley are interesting. I can’t look up page numbers online, but here’s the most supportive statement from Kimball in that Mar. 1976 article: “The role of woman was fixed even before she was created…” Here’s the statement from Hinckley in that Nov. 1983 article: “I know of no doctrine which states that we made a choice when we came to earth as to whether we wished to be male or female. That choice was made by our Father in Heaven in his infinite wisdom. ” Both Kimball and Hinckley’s talks are addressed to Relief Society sisters in the General Women’s Meetings (not sure if that makes a difference to anyone).
Gender as an eternal characteristic definitely comes from Talmage:
“We affirm as reasonable, scriptural, and true, the eternity of sex among the children of God. The distinction between male and female is no condition peculiar to the relatively brief period of mortal life; it was an essential characteristic of our pre-existent condition, even as it shall continue after death, in both the disembodied and resurrected states….
“There is no accident or chance, due to purely physical conditions, by which the sex of the unborn is determined. The body takes form as male or female, according to the sex of the spirit whose appointment it is to tenant that body as a tabernacle formed of the elements of earth, through which means alone the individual may enter upon the indispensable course of human experience, probation, and training….
“These Scriptures attest a state of existence preceding mortality, in which the spirit children of God lived, doubtless with distinguishing personal characteristics including the distinction of sex, for “male and female created he them,” spiritually, “before they were [created] naturally upon the face of the earth….
“With such definite word as to the actuality of a bodily resurrection, which shall come to all, righteous and sinners, is it conceivable that the essential differences of sex shall be eliminated? Children of God have comprised male and female from the beginning. Man is man, and woman is woman, fundamentally, unchangeably, eternally. Each is indispensable to the other and to the accomplishment of the purposes of God…”
James E. Talmage, “The Eternity of Sex”, Millennial Star, August 24, 1922, pages 539-540
https://archive.org/stream/millennialstar8434eng#page/538/mode/2up
Steven B.
I have heard both. Either way it is certainly a collaborative effort between members of the 12 and outside collaborators.
‘Gender as an eternal characteristic definitely comes from Talmage:
“We affirm as reasonable, scriptural, and true, the eternity of sex among the children of God. The distinction between male and female is no condition peculiar to the relatively brief period of mortal life; it was an essential characteristic of our pre-existent condition, even as it shall continue after death, in both the disembodied and resurrected states….’
I’m not sure the term “gender” as it’s used in the PoF should be equated with sexual orientation which is the whole point behind same sex marriage.
I think it is very telling that no one, among the general authorities, has offered to tell the story of how we got the PoF. After all the times it has be paraded before the saints, no one has mentioned how so-and-so sparked a conversation or received the inspiration, or felt that a codified statement about marriage and the family was needed.
My guess is the reason is that it was indeed connected with the efforts to stop same-sex marriages in Hawaii. You will recall the church was concerned that being visible might hurt the efforts in Hawaii and hid their activity behind front groups. That tale of subterfuge hardly makes for an inspiring Ensign entry or heart-warming conference talk to further promote the PoF.
Years ago people began circulating the idea that the POF was written by a committee. I have seen no evidence to suggest there is any truth that that. It has been 20 years now and no one has come out to say that they were on such a committee.
Rather, what we have heard are accounts, albeit often second and third-hand accounts, of those who worked at the law firm when the document was being prepared, or who were friends with Richard Wilkins and confirmed him to be the principle author. There is the story of Boyd K Packer speaking at the funeral of Claire Johnson who, with two other sisters, Packer remarked, were consultants on the PoF. Then there were those with connections who similarly confirmed that the PoF was written to provide a written statement of LDS doctrine for use in legal briefings and that Elder Oaks presented it to the Q12.
These tidbits of information all seem to point not to a committee, but to a coordinated and collaborative effort involving participants both inside and outside the Q12.
“I’m not sure the term “gender” as it’s used in the PoF should be equated with sexual orientation which is the whole point behind same sex marriage.”
No it should not. Nor should the general authorities have used the euphemism “gender confusion” to refer to homosexuality at that time. Could it be that they thought gays were actually confused about whether they were men or women? Or about how men and women should act and what roles they should perform?
Is that why they felt the need to point out that gender is eternal?
“There is the story of Boyd K Packer speaking at the funeral of Claire Johnson who, with two other sisters, Packer remarked, were consultants on the PoF.”
Really? Really?!!! Got to wonder sometimes why we have have the auxilliary presidencies, since Chieko Okazaki went on record that the general RS presidency were not involved until they were ready to present the document to the church in the general RS meeting.
Didn’t the same thing happen with the “Daughters in my Kingdom” book? Commission women to put it together but don’t tell or consult those called to leadership. Oh no! It’s going to be a nice surprise for them!!!!
Nice surprise! I’d have thrown it at them.
“Gender” isn’t even consistent from one contemporary culture to another. How then can it be eternal?
Yes, the story I have heard is based on the Claire Johnson funeral. Written by lawyers at the behest of some of the Q12 in order to give the church a doctrinal foundation (that we didn’t have in one clear place) to oppose gay marriage. The fact that BKP was so closely involved in it, based on his own remarks, and he is the one calling it revelation (which is a very odd use of that term in that nothing was revealed – it was cobbled together by lawyers for legal reasons). No wonder his words were redacted. Others in the Q12 don’t see that as revelation.
It’s an interesting problem, I guess, and it probably goes to the heart of revelation. Is it revelation if you have the idea and tell a group of lawyers what you want, and they draft it, and you edit it? It looks incredibly bureaucratic and political, not prophetic. But then I am in that generation that doesn’t see gay marriage as a great evil. And when I read the OT, prophets were incredibly political and bureaucratic, jockeying for power and control over governmental matters. They come off a little better in the BOM than in the OT, but perhaps that was due to a heavy-handed editing job.
The quote of Chieko Okazaki has been cited many times as if 15 prophets seers and revelators should have “consulted” her before or during the drafting of the POTF. Leaving aside the propriety of that for a moment, did President Okazaki go on to explain how it would have read differently had she and/or other sisters had input? What doctrinal principles or concepts would have been different? Did she sit down and draft a similar document, and if so, where might I find it?
“IDIAT on October 31, 2014 at 9:16 AM
The quote of Chieko Okazaki has been cited many times as if 15 prophets seers and revelators should have “consulted” her before or during the drafting of the POTF. Leaving aside the propriety of that for a moment, did President Okazaki go on to explain how it would have read differently had she and/or other sisters had input? What doctrinal principles or concepts would have been different? Did she sit down and draft a similar document, and if so, where might I find it?”
Now, now, no need to get snarky about it. She just said they weren’t consulted and were expected to be grateful that it was introduced in RS first as though they’d had some input.
IDIAT, why would she waste her time drafting such a document after the fact? I was simply ticked off, since it would seem women did in fact get some input, but not the general RS presidency. Maybe those who did were the lawyers, I don’t know. Got to wonder precisely what the remit of the general RS presidency actually is, since they seem to be sidelined on these things.
Simple gospel teachings would be God spoke to the prophets who wrote them down and told the people what God said, which become very profound and prophetic when the people need to hear that message at a given time in history.
Reality seems to be revelation can come through various ways that bubble up the issue somehow, forcing the prophet to wrestle with the Lord until versions are read and agreed in councils and recorded with scrutiny and positioned for distribution in the best way.
Having it start from a real issue in Hawaii and with lawyers involved doesn’t disqualify it from a revelatory process any more than having it source from Emma and cleaning floors, or even seer stones in a hat, or funerary scrolls, for that matter.
To use the same words from essay on the Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham:
‘The truth of the book of Abraham [substitute: The Family: A Proclamation to the World] is ultimately found through careful study of its teachings, sincere prayer, and the confirmation of the Spirit.’
The problem Heber 13 is that it does not hold up over time, as revelation should.
The Proc infers that men should be the bread winners, and women home nurturing like they did in the 50s. 0ver 60% of women of working age work – in Utah, and I think in the rest of the world.
30% of women in Utah never marry.
It says nothing about gay marriage, but most members interpret it as opposing it.
So hopefully it is not revelation or God got it wrong. I see it as a statement of the Prejudices of the conservative members of the 15, whether written by themselves or lawyers. There does seem to be plausible deniability built in.
I heard this theory quite a while back. I stumbled across this timeline in my research back then.
http://www.mormonsocialscience.org/2008/01/04/richley-crapo-chronology-of-mormon-lds-involvement-in-same-sex-marriage-politics/
“It says nothing about gay marriage, but most members interpret it as opposing it.”
While it doesn’t specifically use the words “gay marriage”, it states quite specifically that “marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God” which implies marriage between a man and man or woman and woman is not ordained of God. The whole language in the proclamation is very hetero-centric, and conference talks condemn same sex marriage. So I think it is not a stretch for members to interpret the purpose of the proclamation is to oppose same sex marriage. Parsing the proclamation to say that it doesn’t oppose gay marriage is pretty unrealistic.
Why would faithful church members want to dissect this? Some do not like the doctrines taught in the Proclamation on the Family, it’s as simple as that. There will be wild claims that it was “written by lawyers” and not inspired to diminish and downplay (or even degrade the authority of prophets, seers and revelators). Those who attack “the inspired proclamation” are “false prophets and false teachers”
Elder M. Russell Ballard:
“False prophets and false teachers are also those who attempt to change the God-given and scripturally based doctrines that protect the sanctity of marriage, the divine nature of the family, and the essential doctrine of personal morality. They advocate a redefinition of morality to justify fornication, adultery, and homosexual relationships. Some openly champion the legalization of so-called same-gender marriages. To justify their rejection of God’s immutable laws that protect the family, these false prophets and false teachers even attack the inspired proclamation on the family issued to the world in 1995 by the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles.”
Great resource on this from Fair Mormon:
Some claim that it is not “scripture” or not “official doctrine.” What have Church leaders said on this matter?
Church leaders have repeatedly taught that:
The Proclamation is official doctrine.
It was written and endorsed by all members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.
It does not teach new doctrine, but merely reiterates and emphasizes principles long taught in the Church.
It is and inspired, prophetic, and vital instruction for our day.
Members have a duty to hold it up, teach it, and live its principles.
Those who wish to claim that the Proclamation is not official are either ignorant of these teachings, or are seeking to deceive their audience.
President Hinckley announced that the Proclamation was a reiteration of doctrine
The Proclamation was first read by President Gordon B. Hinckley at a General Relief Society Meeting on 25 September 1995. Before reading it, he said:
With so much of sophistry that is passed off as truth, with so much of deception concerning standards and values, with so much of allurement and enticement to take on the slow stain of the world, we have felt to warn and forewarn. In furtherance of this we of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles now issue a proclamation to the Church and to the world as a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history. I now take the opportunity of reading to you this proclamation….[3]
President Hinckley did not regard the doctrine within the Proclamation as radical or new—it was intended to be a reconfirmation and reiteration of doctrines long taught by “the prophets, seers, and revelators of” the Church.
http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_prophets/Mormonism_and_The_Proclamation_on_the_Family/Claims_is_not_official_doctrine
“Those who attack “the inspired proclamation” are “false prophets and false teachers””
This is what I so do not miss about the church. This is the mindset my in-laws have about our family. We are not all humans trying to seek happiness in our own way. No. There are saints and sinners. The saints know of their pure hearts and pure intents and are able to judge the sinners by their god’s sure word that has been given to them.
They aren’t honest enough, however, to acknowledge that, if they had been born in the Middle East they would be just as sure of god’s message but would be condemning us for altogether different reasons.
Geoff#40 “The problem Heber 13 is that it does not hold up over time, as revelation should.”
I’m with you on agreeing how it does not hold up over time, actually doesn’t even holdup in time right now, across all cultures and all situations individuals have. It just doesn’t. But that doesn’t dismiss it as revelation, just makes it problematic revelation for us to struggle to understand what we do about it.
Perhaps my point is revelation is messier than we think. If the topic is that it is troublesome that lawyers were involved at some point in the process, or it originated with a social issue in Hawaii and that revelation is only revelation when it starts with God and a prophet, that I think that is an erroneous assumption on revelation. My point is just that we would have problems with almost all revelation if that was what we assume about revelation. We have multiple examples of revelations coming after councils are involved, and social issues push the questions.
So…determining if it is revelation is done through careful study, prayer and the Holy Spirit (according to the church). And we have to realize there are times when what is given to us by leaders as revelation doesn’t always standup over time, or to that process, and we have to choose to have faith in it or be patient and wait for the personal revelation to confirm it to us. It’s messy.
The revelatory process is not as simple as we were taught in primary. So we can’t compare this issue to a simplified view of revelation and then say this doesn’t fit. We should start with understanding what revelation is, and has been, and not what we think it should be.
Polygamy doesn’t stand up over time, so there is new revelation. Old testament to New Testament. Jacob 2 to D&C 132 to the Manifesto. Priesthood ban to essays acknowledging racism. Out understanding of God’s will changes, and revelations are not clear cut and never changing.
If the Proc doesn’t stand up over time, there will be new revelation to clarify past revelation or add unto it with new light and knowledge prophets will receive in the future. That shouldn’t scare us.
It’s just the way the process works, to me. And that should be remembered in this discussion.
You liberals never cease to clutch at straws, don’tcha? Either the PoF IS inspired scripture or it’s NOT. If you say it’s NOT, then resign your membership and start your own Church, but please quit trying to steady the Ark! (II Samuel 6:1-7). Believe me, I know all about ‘Ark-Steadying’, and at some point you get tired of getting zapped in the butt by lightning bolts!
President Hinckley first read “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” at the General Relief Society Meeting in September 1995 (“Stand Strong against the Wiles of the World,” Ensign, November 1995).
In 1997, the Church included the text of the Proclamation in an amicus brief to petition the Hawaii supreme court to reject same sex marriage. The Church, like anyone else, is going to use lawyers when petitioning the court. Apostates have seized on this to claim that lawyers wrote the Proclamation on the Family.
When President Hinckley read the Proclamation back in 1995, he stated that it was “reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history,” which means everything in the Proclamation had already been revealed to the prophets leading the Church and all of it had been “repeatedly stated throughout its history.” There was no new doctrine in the Proclamation on the Family.
Lawyers did not write the Proclamation.