A Glimpse into How and Why the Proclamation Came to Be
Posted by Michelle on June 6th, 2007Last week, I was doing some research and came upon a powerful talk by Elder Ballard. I think he says some things that are very relevant to discussions that have already taken place and that reinforce the position we take in this series: that the Proclamation is a divinely-inspired document.
From Elder Ballard:
As a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, I participated in the process of drafting “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” It was a remarkable experience for all of us. As Church leaders travel the world, we see things—both within the Church and outside the Church. We were troubled by much of what we were seeing. We could see the people of the world wanting to define the family in ways contrary to God’s eternal plan for the happiness of His children.
In the midst of all that was stirring on this subject in the world, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles could see the importance of declaring to the world the revealed, true role of the family in the eternal plan of God. We worked together, through the divinely inspired council system that operates even at the highest levels of the Church, to craft a proclamation that would make the Lord’s position on the family so clear that it could not be misunderstood.
Note the phrases that I italicized. The Lord was directly involved in the creation of the Proclamation. It is not simply a political or social document; it is an inspired, prophetic declaration and warning. The fact that all fifteen of our prophets and apostles worked on this together and signed it in a spirit of unison and declaration to the world is tremendously significant and highly unusual.
Why was it written? Elder Ballard shares a brief and profound comment that we should keep in mind anytime we discuss the Proclamation or the progress or lack thereof relative to family life.
“The family is not just the basic unit of society; it is the basic unit of eternity.”
We are not simply considering what might work or be nice or good for mortality. The prophets have taken a firm stand on 1) the definition of marriage and the ideal family and 2) what the purpose of life is relative to our eternal potential. As prophets, one of their key responsibilities is to keep us focused on what matters most eternally, not just what might be popular socially or politically.
Elder Ballard elaborates further and more specifically on the issues we face in our society:
[T]he adversary is using differing lifestyles in an attempt to replace the marriage of one man to one woman. It would be well for all people of the world to read the full text of the proclamation.
It is absolutely essential to remember that the definition of marriage itself is fundamental to God’s plan. No matter what policy or society says, undermining marriage as defined by God will undermine God’s plan. This can affect individuals in their personal spiritual progress and also obviously have repercussions for society and for the world (note the warnings at the end of the Proclamation).
If there is one point on which the Proclamation has been desperately needed, it is regarding the definition of marriage and why the Church is so adamant about the need to keep marriage between a man and a woman. Elder Ballard says that “we must stand firm” on this issue. It is essential to the plan of God. Once again, this isn’t a social or political issue; it is an issue central to our very purpose on this earth.
Elder Ballard continues with some of the other concerns our leaders have and why the Proclamation is such an important guide for our day:
The attacks on the family also undermine the value of life—particularly the life of the unborn. Life is being trivialized and subjected to the vacillating whims of convenience and political correctness….
Far too many people view marriage as a “couples relationship,” designed to fulfill the emotional needs of adults rather than an institution for rearing children. Children are considered a choice rather than a blessing. About one million children per year experience parental divorce and its aftermath, and about one-third of all children in America are born out of wedlock. Almost every trend indicates that we are on a slippery slope downward from God’s plan for His children. The family [remember, this is to be seen as defined by God], once universally hailed as the cornerstone of society, is losing its essential role.
…When Satan truly wants to disrupt the work of the Lord, he attempts to confuse gender and he attacks God’s plan for His children. He works to drive a wedge of disharmony between a father and a mother. He entices children to be disobedient to their parents. He makes family home evening and family prayer inconvenient. He suggests family scripture study is impractical. That’s all it takes, because Satan knows that the surest and most effective way to disrupt the Lord’s work is to diminish the effectiveness of the family and the sanctity of the home.
Look at what he accomplishes when he does that. Couples unhappy in their marriages tend not to give appropriate gospel instruction in the home. They are less likely to be committed to gospel principles in their own lives. Some drift from the Church. Apathy can overcome even active members, keeping them away from the temple and weakening their capacity to be effective leaders and teachers—thus leaving countless lives untouched and slowing the Lord’s work. And the Internet when not properly used is a vicious influence in the home. So we know, without question, Lucifer is the enemy of the family!
In one of the threads, questions were raised about evidence of the adversary’s attack on the family. Here, Elder Ballard has discussed several issues that show the adversary is hard at work. Some are societal and some are more at the personal, familial level.
In his talk, he also mentions other issues, such as divinely designed roles of men and women, the need for greater peace in our homes, partnership in marriage, the problem of materialism, the need to build our families on eternal gospel principles, the need for scripture study and prayer.
Myriad talks by our leaders have addressed many other concerns, such as the rising average age for marriage and growing tendency for young adults to delay adult responsibilities; the declining birthrate; a sex-saturated culture; men who won’t support their families; ease of divorce; cultural pressure to be so “busy” that families have less time together…. Had I the time, I could continue with a list and with references and quotes. But suffice it to say that we see evidence of the attack on the family at multiple levels and in both egregious and more subtle ways. This is one reason why the Proclamation is so important, lest we cry “all is well” and get pulled away from what is most important about life.
The Proclamation was given to us by prophets of God. They have testified of its divinity (President Packer said that he considers that it has “taken on the status of scripture” (link forthcoming…computer I’m using won’t let me link it)). Our leaders quote from it constantly. It is not a document to be taken lightly, except at our peril.
Elder Ballard concludes his talk by saying:
To parents everywhere, my counsel is simple: Get a copy of “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” Read it and strive to align your marriage and your family to its inspired, revealed direction from the Lord. Then be the very best and act the very best you can. God will give you strength beyond your own as you strive daily to fulfill the most sacred mortal responsibility He gives to His children. Listen to the voice of the Spirit and the counsel of the living prophets. Be of good cheer. God did not place you on earth to fail, and your efforts as parents will not be counted as failure unless you give up.
As a sort of postscript, I think it’s worthwhile to note that not only does Elder Ballard reinforce again that the Proclamation contains “inspired, revealed direction from the Lord” but he also acknowledges that all we can do is our best. For those whose lives don’t fit the ideal right now, heed Elder Ballard’s counsel to do your best and be of good cheer and to not give up. In issuing the Proclamation, our leaders are not unaware of those who struggle with less than ideal situations. They address this often. I will include one other quote alone those lines from Elder Scott:
After Adam was placed on earth, God said, “Let us make an help meet for the man, for it is not good that the man should be alone” (Abr. 5:14). Eve and Adam formed the first family. God declared, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife” (Moses 3:24). They had children who also formed families. “And Adam and Eve, his wife, ceased not to call upon God” (Moses 5:16). The pattern of families essential to Father’s plan of happiness was established, and our need to continually “call upon God” emphasized. You are in the midst of living that plan. Through the restored gospel we learn there is an ideal family. It is a family composed of a righteous Melchizedek Priesthood bearer with a righteous wife sealed to him and children born in the covenant or sealed to them. With a mother in the home in an environment of love and service, the parents teach their children, through example and precept, the ways of the Lord and His truths. They fulfill their divinely appointed roles mentioned in the family proclamation. Their children mature by living teachings instilled from birth. They develop characteristics of obedience, integrity, love of God, and faith in His holy plan. In due course, each of those children seeks a companion with similar ideals and aspirations. They are sealed in the temple, bear children, and the eternal plan continues, with generation strengthening generation.
Throughout your life on earth, seek diligently to fulfill the fundamental purposes of this life through the ideal family. While you may not have yet reached that ideal, do all you can through obedience and faith in the Lord to consistently draw as close to it as you are able. Let nothing dissuade you from that objective. If it requires fundamental changes in your personal life, make them. When you have the required age and maturity, obtain all of the ordinances of the temple you can receive. If for the present, that does not include sealing in the temple to a righteous companion, live for it. Pray for it. Exercise faith that you will obtain it. Never do anything that would make you unworthy of it. If you have lost the vision of eternal marriage, rekindle it. If your dream requires patience, give it. As brothers, we prayed and worked for 30 years before our mother and our nonmember father were sealed in the temple. Don’t become overanxious. Do the best you can. We cannot say whether that blessing will be obtained on this side of the veil or beyond it, but the Lord will keep His promises. In His infinite wisdom, He will make possible all you qualify in worthiness to receive. Do not be discouraged. Living a pattern of life as close as possible to the ideal will provide much happiness, great satisfaction, and impressive growth while here on earth regardless of your current life circumstances (emphasis added).
No matter where we are in life right now, the Proclamation can give us guidance and perspective and reminders about what matters most in this life and the next. We can have confidence that it is guidance from the Lord, because it came through our living prophets and apostles and they testify of its inspired and eternal nature. It can give us guidance regarding important societal issues, and also give us guidance about what to do in our personal and family life. Embracing and living its doctrine (to the best of our ability as has been said above) can lead to happiness, in this life and beyond.
I want to add one more thought. While sociological and other studies can often validate the prophetic warnings and declarations we have received with regard to the family, we should not rely on such measurements to gauge the validity of the Proclamation or its divinity. Ultimately, part of following prophets really is having faith in what they teach (particularly when united in this way), even if what we can see with our natural eyes (or what we think we see) might “contradict” what they say. It would make no sense to have prophets at all if we could simply figure everything out by reading studies and newspapers and reasoning on our own. I think evidence of the prophetic Proclamation abounds, but ultimately, our belief in this document needs to center on faith. We have watchmen on the tower for a reason, and especially when it comes to what is central to God’s plan, we need to look to them first and foremost for guidance.
Comment # 1 left by Michelle on June 6th, 2007
Outstanding work Michelle! Very well done.
Comment # 2 left by Eric Nielson on June 6th, 2007
Michelle, I think we just have to agree to disagree about the relative weight we give to authoritative pronouncements and the careful application of our human powers of reasoning and discernment. You have a decidedly neo-orthodox view, and mine is closer to earlier humanist strains in Mormon thought. I think both ways of thinking are legitimate and faithful. (I suspect you do not believe this and there’s no chance of me convincing you.)
As for the origins of the proclamation, you may be interested in this timeline, produced by a USU anthropologist, who looks at one aspect of the “troubling” things Elder Ballard mentions: http://cc.usu.edu/%7Efath6/ldschron.htm
Comment # 3 left by Kristine on June 6th, 2007
Just a quick comment — in your first block quote from Elder Ballard, there’s nothing that directly or implicitly claims that God was actually involved in the conception, inspiration, or writing of the Proclamation. The paragraph does identify the actors, all of whom hold leadership positions in the church. It also claims that the existence of those church leadership positions is divinely inspired, but not that the decisions made by people in those positions must automatically be divine. Finally, the text states the actors’ intention to declare the position that they understood to be the Lord’s. There is no claim of special revelation explaining the Lord’s position, however.
This doesn’t mean that the Proclamation was necessarily not inspired, just because Elder Ballard didn’t actually say it was. But we should be careful not to read things into texts just because we want to see them there.
Comment # 4 left by RoastedTomatoes on June 6th, 2007
Michelle, I know this gets brought up all the time, and I don’t want to be obnoxious, but Elder Ballard talks about one man and one woman, and you amplify this as the ideal family for eternity. I think we really do have to be careful with such assertions, given the church’s (apparent) continuing commitment to the possibility of polygynous sealings.
Comment # 5 left by Kristine on June 6th, 2007
RT says:
Elder Ballard said:
What Elder Ballard says above seems both direct and implicit to me. What am I missing here?
And as far as giving weight to to authoritative pronouncements– life is short. Does any individual have time to completely reinvent the Mormon wheel through his own discernment in a lifetime? It seems to me that if we don’t at least start with a generous assumption of confidence in GA inspiration, we are starting at square one with every idea, doctrinal statement, and proclamation.
If the FamProc is indeed inspired and is in reality the Lord’s position on the family, it is a big deal. To start with the assumption that it is not (or even may not be) inspired seems destined to put us at square one thinking. I don’t have time for that. My life is happening right now. My kids need guidance right now.
Comment # 6 left by C Jones on June 6th, 2007
The council system is an interesting matter of study. Richard Bushman discusses its importance in Rough Stone Rolling, where he documents the transition from Joseph’s “Thus saith the Lord” revelations to the council system of common consent and divine guidance in the early church.
Certainly the pattern is followed today, and the fact that these ordained prophets, seers, and revelators met in council to craft this document does not mean that the Lord didn’t have a hand in it.
C’mon, don’t you think that if the fifteen prophets guiding the Lord’s church were going to issue a proclamation to the entire world on a matter of eternal import, that He wouldn’t make His will known and offer guidance and direction?
Comment # 7 left by Connor on June 6th, 2007
“The fact that all fifteen of our prophets and apostles worked on this together and signed it in a spirit of unison and declaration to the world is tremendously significant and highly unusual.”
LOL!!! First of all, you must be unaware that any major decision at those levels is made with unanimity of the First Presidency and the Twelve. There’s nothing “unusual” about this at all. Second, if 11 of the 12 apostles disagreed with the statement, and the president of the church approved it, those 11 would immediately silence any and all opposition, choosing instead to back the president. Several members of the FP and 12 have commented on this process publicly. Your characterization of the process Ballard describes is simply without foundation.
Comment # 8 left by Nick Literski on June 6th, 2007
Connor, RT didn’t say that the Lord didn’t have a hand in it, only that Elder Ballard had not explicitly made the claim that Michelle makes.
Comment # 9 left by Kristine on June 6th, 2007
Connor,
Read Quinn’s Mormon Hierarchy. He goes into great detail discussing the council system and the illusion of unanimity it creates. He documents several accounts where apostles voted for unanimity, but privately disagreed. In one account that stuck out to me, an Apostle wrote in his diary something to the effect of voting with the rest of the brethren and voting against the spirit.
Furthermore, as the history of the church well teaches, hoping to understand the Lord’s will and understanding the Lord’s will are two very different things.
Comment # 10 left by the narrator on June 6th, 2007
Nice write-up, Michelle. Obviously there is a spectrum of opinion on just what the Proclamation is and what motivated LDS leaders to issue it when they did, but it’s nice to read Elder Ballard’s comments. It never hurts to hear from a participant in the process, although since LDS leaders feel perfectly justified in telling us only what they think we need to know, as a general rule such public descriptions are only part of the story. The chronology sketched out in the link provided by Kristine adds some additional political context to the story.
Comment # 11 left by Dave on June 6th, 2007
Timing is everything, Connor. If the FamProc had been issued, say, in 1985 instead of 1995, I’d be more inclined to see it as a “prophetic” statement rather than a reaction to political events. That being said, there’s no reason why God would not have prompted or inspired the FP and Q12 to issue this statement in response to political events in 1995. (God prompted the FP to issue OD1 in 1890 to prevent the Church from being disincorporated and destroyed afterall). If the FamProc were issued in response to political events, however, it’s probably more of a PR statement than a prophetic statement (along the lines of OD1).
Comment # 12 left by ECS on June 6th, 2007
Michelle,
Thank-you so much for this added perspective! This was great, really! Much needed, thank-you thankyou!
While I don’t have the quotation you were looking for handly, I do know that, at least to some degree, the Proclamation is functioning in the church as scripture, as in the Primary Theme handbook for this year, one of the monthly scriptures comes from the Proclamation.
I’ve been released as Primary secretary, and so I no longer have my copy handy, but if anyone does, it’d be great to have you share specifically which paragraph was cited and in what context.
Comment # 13 left by Naiah Earhart on June 6th, 2007
…don’t you think that if the fifteen prophets guiding the Lord’s church were going to issue a proclamation to the entire world on a matter of eternal import, that He wouldn’t make His will known and offer guidance and direction?
And yet. The apostle in the quotation above didn’t see fit to explicitly say that the Lord did in fact offer guidance or direction. That omission is the point of my comment. For most of the epoch-defining decisions in church history, we do in fact have explicit descriptions of the revelatory experiences behind them. We know, for example, that the end of the priesthood ban was driven by a revelation in which participants received a powerful, and according to many descriptions Pentecostal, expression of the Holy Ghost. We know that the Manifesto was driven by a revelation in which Woodruff had a vision of the future without the Manifesto. And so on and so forth. The historical parallels suggest that, when major decisions are made through revelation, we will receive fairly specific accounts of the revelation in question. Until that happens, it seems unclear that we should just assume that revelation in fact took place. We obviously can’t assume that it didn’t, either.
Comment # 14 left by RoastedTomatoes on June 6th, 2007
Whether it was received in a full-on revelation or puzzled out and spiritually confirmed point-by-point seems to me irrelevant. Men whom I sustain to be prophets, seers, and revelators have given us these words saying that this is the way it is. I take that at face value; end of story.
I sustain our leaders, and they have given us this for our benefit.
The prophetic scope of it may not be evident, as it may not yet have come to pass. I can see hints of the deep foundation of safety in such words as they give us in the Proclamation, but even that which we can see it this point may not be full scope of what is yet to come. It is not about the world from 1995-2007.
The point was made that it might have been seen as ‘more prophetic’ if it had been delivered in 1985. Hardly. I, myself, was already a child of a broken home in that year. Remember that, in every age, the philosophers decry society as morally declining over previous generations. There is no point back to which we can say that this could have been given that it would actually preceed the difficulties that it addresses. There is always moral decay. (Unless of course you’re in the City of Enoch…)
We have been warned; we know not yet specifically why we have been warned. It is so hard to accept that you might not see it all, but none of us can yet; it’s a big old slice of humble pie, but the fact is we don’t have the full set of facts, let alone the brains to process it, and therefore we cannot presume to know the full will of God in any pronouncement.
We have been warned, by men we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators, and that, alone is good enough for me. I will heed.
Comment # 15 left by Naiah Earhart on June 6th, 2007
Re #13, July’s theme is based on the Proclamation:
My family can follow Jesus Christ in faith.
“Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved
when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus
Christ” (“Proclamation,” paragraph 7).
Comment # 16 left by Justin on June 6th, 2007
Naiah, I appreciate the faith involved in your comment #15. And it seems a coherent position to decide that the decisions of our leadership, whether specifically inspired or not, are trustworthy. At the same time, the conversation in this thread has really been about whether Elder Ballard claimed that the proclamation was inspired — which he did not do in the opening paragraphs. We may in faith treat it as inspired, and there may indeed be reasons to do so, but the opening paragraphs of the text by Elder Ballard that forms the basis for this post is not one of those reasons.
There is a part of the talk that does make such a claim, by the way. Elder Ballard says:
This still falls far short of the historical standard of describing the nature and mode of revelation, which we have usually received. But it is at least a direct claim that the proclamation — or at some portion of the advice and doctrine in it — were revealed. The opening paragraphs lack such a claim.
Comment # 17 left by RoastedTomatoes on June 6th, 2007
Thanks, Justin!
Comment # 18 left by Naiah Earhart on June 6th, 2007
President Packer’s comments on the Proclamation are available here.
Comment # 19 left by Justin on June 6th, 2007
Hahaha, RT, my comment #15 was a response to what I see to be a pointless distinction to make–not specifically to whether Elder Ballard’s words said what Michelle said they did or not.
She’s not with computer access right now, and so, on her behalf, I’ll take a stab at what I think she’d say, minus the lengthy GA quotations that she always has on the tip of her tongue. (Yes, she’s like that in person; it’s not just the search function on lds.org. Most of that is in her head already. It’s wild.)
I think she’d say that while it does not make a specific claim to an overt revelatory experience, it does say that they have “ma[d]e the Lord’s position on the family so clear that it could not be misunderstood.” The implication being that what is in the Proclamation is an expression of the Lord’s position and therefore is the Lord’s will revealed, and therefore is to be considered a revelation.
I’m not sure when Michelle will be able to check in. In fact, I was really surprised that she even posted this last night…Not sure how she did that…So, she’s not ignoring you, she’s on vacation.
Comment # 20 left by Naiah Earhart on June 6th, 2007
Naiah, if it’s pointless what Elder Ballard actually said, then the post here is pointless, isn’t it?
The implication being that what is in the Proclamation is an expression of the Lord’s position and therefore is the Lord’s will revealed, and therefore is to be considered a revelation.
This is really going well beyond the text. The text says that the authors’ intent was to express the Lord’s point of view. I think most of us try to do that when we write about religion. Assuming that someone has succeeded in that intent because they’ve had a revelation — well, that’s begging the question.
As I noted, though, there is another phrase in the talk that says there was revelation. Justin’s link to the talk by Elder Packer is also on point: the text contains a sentence stating that the Lord has spoken regarding the proclamation. These two statements do say that the proclamation was inspired, although they depart from historical precedent in terms of the detail and explicit description we’ve usually received regarding other important revelations.
Comment # 21 left by RoastedTomatoes on June 6th, 2007
Dear Brother and Sisters,
It causes my great anguish to have to speak with such plainness, lest the very elect be deceived.
Do none of you recall these prophetic words, uttered in General conference, by a man we sustain as prophet? In a very inspiring talk entitled Alternate Voices, Elder Dallin H. Oaks warned and forewarned us about participating in “… magazines, journals, and newspapers and at lectures, symposia…”
It pains me greatly to see that you, of all people, have succumbed to temptation and are taking on the slow stain of so-called symposia.
Of course, you may think that you are an exception. I teach the rule, not the exception, but you surely realize, do you not, that your little enterprise here may be the camel’s nose under the tent flap that will result in calamities of symposia all over the bloggernacle. Your rationalizations will sound hollow when you realize that you have led so many astray. I plead with you - follow the path of simple obedience. My only goal is to keep the doctrine pure.
Elder Stephen Erasmus Knudsen III
Comment # 22 left by Elder Stephen Erasmus Knudsen III on June 6th, 2007
Elder Knudsen,
If you are a real missionary and serious, I think you are awesome.
If you are a real missionary and sarcastic, I think you are equally as awesome (though in either scenario, I don’t think you should be online).
If you are just a fake, well you’re pretty funny as well.
Comment # 23 left by the narrator on June 6th, 2007
Elder Steven Erasmus Knudsen III is from here
Comment # 24 left by Naiah Earhart on June 6th, 2007
RT,
I don’t see the need as you do to have some certain description of the revelatory process regarding how the Proclamation came to be to have confidence in it. I think Elder Ballard’s words (in addition to the constant preaching of its doctrines by prophets of God) to be MORE than sufficient to have confidence that it is from the Lord.
Kristine, why does that timeline matter to you? What does that say to you? I sense that you hold the Proclamation at bay a bit. I suspect some may do this because there are elements of the Church’s teachings that they (you?) don’t agree with? If this is the case, that is their (your?) choice, of course, but there are some things we can’t all be right on, and the Proclamation and our prophets have outlined some of those things. I suppose time can only tell because we won’t be able to convince each other about our particular beliefs, I suspect.
I tend to agree with C Jones. Life is too short. The restoration happened to allow us to have divine guidance through prophets. Putting them on trial every time they speak really does feel like reinventing the wheel. I will say again what I said in my first comment. It makes little sense to have prophets if sometimes we won’t be expected to take their words on faith even when it doesn’t make sense to our brains. Not accepting their words can put us on dangerous ground. There is no way to get around that. Either they are inspired or they are not, especially on points of doctrine such as the family, marriage and the like.
My experience with the Proclamation is not simply standing back and believing from a distance that it is true because it was given by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve (although that in and of itself demands attention — such a proclamation to the world indeed is rare). The Spirit has confirmed to me that it is the Lord’s doctrine on the family and on key elements of the plan of salvation, and that we need to cling to and live that doctrine to avoid the continuing onslaught of opposition against God’s plan. The more I read and study this inspired document, the more clarity and peace I feel in my life. It is not simply an isolated document that has never been revisited. Its doctrines have become central to everything we are taught regarding the family. Sure, we have agency about whether or not to follow and embrace it, as we do with anything, but how we exercise our agency doesn’t change what is True.
Comment # 25 left by Michelle on June 6th, 2007
Hear, hear! Great comment, Michelle.
You know, part of me wonders how various people will react when the Prophet starts instructing us on specific preparations for the second coming, whether it be moving to New Jerusalem, living the law of consecration, or whatever. If some are so quick to label their words as a political reaction now, what will be the response when things get harder?
These words, as Michelle says, are scripture. They are spoken by a Prophet, given to the entire world as a proclamation of our beliefs and doctrines, and taught repeatedly as such. To me, that’s about as prophetic as anything.
Comment # 26 left by Connor on June 6th, 2007
Naiah,
Actually, Stephen Erastus Knudsen III is from the site you referenced, and when this comment was written he was still deeply engrossed in his morning prayer. I don’t know about this “Erasmus” character.
By the way, the “t” in Erastus stands for “truth” so clearly we have an imposter who has chosen a different path.
Comment # 27 left by Glenn on June 6th, 2007
RT, I suppose if it were it would be but since it isn’t it’s not.
As for going beyond the text in this instance, it may be, and Michelle herself has since chimed in. So, you can deal with her directly now about what she was thinking.
As for my feelings on the matter of whether something must be received in a grand a glorious vision from the Lord to be given the weight of His will in my thinking, I think I’ve refined my thinking about it a little. Check me on this…
There’s a question here of what “revelation” means. Is it confined to those visions and truths revealed in explicit divine revelation? That question leads me to ask why revelation is important. The answer for me to that is that it is the Lord’s will made known.
That’s where I see the waters muddy here in our discussion. If the prophet says that something represents the Lord’s will, isn’t that just as valid even if the prophet, himself, did not receive it in vision?
I was just thinking that, for me, it’s about how it is presented by the prophet as opposed to how it is received. Do you see what I mean?
I realize that this is a complete meta-issue given the other quotations that do clearly state that the Proclamation was divinely inspired, but I think it’s really interesting. What do you think?
Comment # 28 left by Naiah Earhart on June 6th, 2007
Naiah,
I suspect you may have hit on something that we sometimes see in the ‘nacle. Some seem to want a certain process to have taken place and been made explicit for prophetic words to be really noteworthy.
Incidentally, I am on vacation and my computer time is really limited, so I won’t be able to chime in as much as I can at home, but for now, hubby is swimming with the kiddies so I have a window.
Comment # 29 left by Michelle on June 6th, 2007
Naiah #28, you’ve framed this really well. I think answers to your questions are hard to work through and depend a lot on how we look at Mormonism — historically or in day-to-day life. In historical terms, we often want to say that a prophet having said that the Lord thought something doesn’t mean the Lord actually thought that thing. The leading example is obviously Brigham Young, who told us that the Lord thought less of black people than of everybody else — and who told us, by the way, that the Lord was Adam. Not to mention a bunch of other things we mostly don’t want to take seriously any more. So people who think apologetically about the past often want to distance themselves from having to accept statements by leaders that aren’t accompanied by descriptions of a revelatory process.
On the other hand, in contemporary life, your approach certainly provides a basis for reminding us to take such statements by church leadership seriously — as we certainly should do.
Comment # 30 left by RoastedTomatoes on June 6th, 2007
RT,
Don’t you see a difference, though, when we are talking about 15 prophets and apostles speaking in unison, signing their names to a proclamation to the world, and continuing to preach that unified, consistent doctrine as one of the key elements of the plan of salvation? I think we need to realize that not all statements are created equal and consider more than just historical precedent or the times that folklore might have developed (which, in the end, in comparison to doctrine that has remained constant since the restoration, such as the importance of marriage, procreation, chastity and family). It seems that your comment doesn’t want to recognize that the consistency and clarity of doctrine that has remained the same in and of itself gives a different weight to (and can inspire confidence in) what is taught, regardless of “how” the truth was received. To me, the council system and all 15 prophets working together in unison is as good as a vision, because they won’t move on something unless they are unified and feel the confirmation to move forward. Visions aren’t necessary to know truth. If that were the case, none of us could know what we know. But we do, right?
I guess I still can’t help but feel you want to create a loophole in the Proclamation that shouldn’t be there. Am I misunderstanding you?
Comment # 31 left by Michelle on June 6th, 2007
One other point that I think is worth making is to consider how many times the Brethren essentially declare what God thinks and what is divine and what is essential to fulfill our purposes here on earth. Again, when the prophets speak in a unified way about divine things, and about the plan of God, they are fulfilling key elements of their role. If we can’t trust them wholeheartedly on such topics, I fail to see what we can trust them on.
Comment # 32 left by Michelle on June 6th, 2007
Michelle, the full 15 top leaders did unite in publicly accepting Brigham Young’s Adam/God theory; indeed, Orson Pratt nearly lost his apostleship when he disagreed, and was later convinced to repent and state public agreement with the doctrine.
I don’t know that I’m trying to create loopholes. In fact, very little that the Proclamation says speaks to my family life as a member of an involuntarily childless family, so it’s really not clear what good a loophole would do me. Instead, I suppose, my point of view is that it’s useful to bear in mind the differences between canonized and non-canonized texts, and between various levels of claimed revelatory authority. There is surely some degree of claimed revelatory authority for the Proclamation, but not of the same scope or quality as, say, for OD-1 or most of the sections of the Doctrine and Covenants. That in combination with the Proclamation’s official but non-canonical status suggest to me that we should take the text seriously but nonetheless place it in a second doctrinal tier for the time being, perhaps comparable with the once-canonized Lectures on Faith, for example.
Comment # 33 left by RoastedTomatoes on June 6th, 2007
1. Spoken by a Prophet
Joseph Smith said he was only a prophet when acting as such. Was Hinckley speaking as a prophet or as the president of the church? These are not synonymous terms. (Scripturally, especially in the OT and BofM, the prophets were not the priests or high priests, but were usually laymen outside of the organization priesthood leadership. Samuel the Lamanite is a prime example). As a calling, it seems that President Hinckley is the president of the church. When he is sleeping, eating, going for a walk, speaking in a meeting, or on Larry King, he is the president of the church - just as I am still a student while I am doing these things. Joseph Smith made it clear that being a prophet was different. One is not always a prophet. It’s not a calling, per se. It’s a descriptive title of one who is in the act of prophesying. So the question that needs to be asked is whether or not President Hinckley was acting in the role of a prophet when he delivered the Proclamation. As RT has shown, there is no clear evidence or admission that such is actually the case. Claiming that the Proc was read by the President of the Church (or Prophet*) still begs the question of whether or not President Hinckley was actually acting as such.
2. given to the entire world as a proclamation of our beliefs and doctrines, and taught repeatedly as such.,
While this may affirm it’s current authoritative status (another proclamation could theoretically change things - it happens all the time), it only speaks of organizational authoritativeness… not prophetic origins.
Comment # 34 left by the narrator on June 6th, 2007
I like this idea. Though I think most scripture should be understood in this manner… works in progress subject to adjustment by both ecclesiastical revelation and the collective revelation of the church.
Comment # 35 left by the narrator on June 6th, 2007
As for prophetic origins:
In the talk that Justin linked above Elder Packer said, “The Lord has spoken to His servants, and they have framed “The Family: A Proclamation to the World””
He further says “These lines from “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” to me have taken on the stature of scripture.”
And, as RT quoted above, Elder Ballard said: “Read it and strive to align your marriage and your family to its inspired, revealed direction from the Lord.”
That’s really an end on it in my eyes. We have been presented this as guidance for our time, and for times to come by our authorized, sustained priesthood leaders. I sincerely do not understand how something so plain and straightforward garners such resistence from so many, so many arguments to somehow relegate it to some kind of ‘lesser’ place. We have been given it by our sustained and supported church leaders, and we have our agency to accept it or not. If one chooses not to accept it, that is their choice, and let them justify it as they need to psychologically make it comfortable for them.
I, for one, not only accept it, but am profoundly grateful for the guidance and clarity it affords. As a wife and mother, I am grateful for every paragraph. the reminder of our divine heritage, the eternal perspective, the reminder of the sanctity of life, guidance for how family life should be lived and valued. My life is better for having the Proclamation, and it continues to get better as we as a family strive to live by its precepts.
Comment # 36 left by Naiah Earhart on June 6th, 2007
Shoot, I was in editing my previous comment (accidentally posted it before I was done), and I just deleted a comment that had come in since. I’m so sorry. I’m not sure if it was on this thread, but if it was, please do repeat yourself! Sorry sorry sorry. My hand twitched and I hit return when the dialog box came up without thinking, and then the comment above mine turned red and disappeared…Yipes!
Comment # 37 left by Naiah Earhart on June 6th, 2007
“We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.”
That, and who exactly signed the proclamation tells me this is Scripture; plain and simple. In fact, there have been a lot of proclamations over the years and I see each and every one of them as revelations to the Church and binding.
Comment # 38 left by Jettboy on June 6th, 2007
“Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.”
This is one of the aspects of the Proc that puzzles me. The Book of Mormon was supposedly written for our day, but it does not paint this picture at all. In fact, the scriptures rarely relate apocalyptic calamties to the disintegration of the family (at least in the context of the Proc). Rather the BofM ties those calamities to economic disparity - the growing gap between the rich and the poor.
Or maybe the BofM was written, not for our day, but for the 19th and early 20th century when economic disparity was much more stressed by church leaders - with explicit claims of revelation.
Comment # 39 left by the narrator on June 6th, 2007
Jettboy, that’s an untenable position. We have pretty clear precedent for what makes things scripture in the church. There must be some reason why the Brethren have not yet presented it according to that pattern.
Comment # 40 left by Kristine on June 6th, 2007
Kristine,
What is that process? I actually don’t know.
Comment # 41 left by Naiah Earhart on June 6th, 2007
Naiah - according to the D&C (26:2; 107:27-31), official actions of the church are done by common consent. This is also, it appears, how Joseph Smith and his successors believed scripture was canonized. The Doctrine and Covenants (in the form of the Book of Commandments), was presented to the body of the Church in 1831 to be accepted as binding scripture; the same occurred in the case of the Pearl of Great Price in 1880 and Joseph F. Smith’s vision of the dead and other such additions to the D&C.
This has not, to date, occurred with regards to the Proclamation on the Family (or its predecessors, like the 1909 Proclamation on Man or the 1875 Proclamation on the Economy). That’s why, I suspect, some are skeptical of naming it the equivalent of scripture.
Comment # 42 left by Matt B on June 6th, 2007
“We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.”
I’m not sure that anything in this paragraph is new or different from what was taught prior to the Proclamation. We will stand accountable before God? I thought we would for all of our actions, family-related or not, anyway. The calamities foretold? I agree that ancient prophets have rarely, if ever, mentioned the disintegration of the family (and you really have to strain to see the scriptural Jesus saying anything about nuclear families) - although perhaps chastity violations are occasionally mentioned when cities are ripening in iniquity, but didn’t we know that already?
This would have been the perfect document to lay out what some of the foretold calamities are, since it was signed and proclaimed by modern prophets, after all. Instead, all we get is an oblique reference. The Proclamation may or may not be canonized, but I don’t see the difference - it doesn’t add any new words of warning or pronounce any new calamities.
This is the primary reason why I think it is worthwhile to at least explore the possibility that the Proclamation had some PR value at a time when the church was spending tithing dollars making political contributions. In addition, I would like to know why the Proclamation is more than simply a useful summary of current church policy and doctrine regarding proper family life and relations.
Instead, what I have learned from these posts is that a lot of members take comfort when church leaders issue official statements confirming their pre-existing majoritarian worldview. Some even seem to use the Proclamation as a rallying call to a sort of parochial triumphalism - i.e. the more we seek to elevate the importance of the Proclamation, the more we are in the inner circle of righteousness, or some such bizarre thought.
Comment # 43 left by lief on June 6th, 2007
Lief,
I’m sorry but your last statement seems entirely unfair to me. This isn’t a competition; it’s about finding our ground on which to stand in a world of shifting values, conflicting priorities, and enticing worldly philosophies. If the Proclamation doesn’t float your boat, you are entitled to your opinion.
To you and others who have brought up the political implications and possible purposes — Incidentally, I for one don’t see that the Proclamation is without political value and motivation; in fact, the document itself calls for governments to institute policies that strengthen and protect the family. So we ought not talk about that as though it is some hidden agenda that must be unveiled, but rather accept that as part of the purpose — but only part. Only part.
Comment # 44 left by Michelle on June 6th, 2007
Michelle,
Fair enough - I don’t think my last comment applies to everyone. I’m just not the type to try and make the Proclamation into a more authoritarian document than it purports to be.
I agree that the Procalamtion is inherently and overtly a political document, in the sense that it makes reccomendations for social change.
Comment # 45 left by lief on June 6th, 2007
BTW, RT, I see this proclamation to the world as different from “publicly accepting” a doctrine (that really has less bearing on a day-to-day life and political and social and philosophical climate.
I appreciate your willingness to clarify your thoughts; I still don’t think it makes that much difference to draw a line between canonical and non-canonical. There is certainly stuff in scripture that doesn’t apply much to me and my life and our society that I find less binding and important to me than the Proclamation. I also think that debating about what is canon and what isn’t doesn’t acknowledge scriptures in the canon that define what scripture is. It isn’t just common consent that can determine what scripture is. “And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.” The description Elder Ballard gave of the inspiration that was used in the council system tells me the Holy Ghost was directly involved in this proclamation’s creation. The spirit I feel when I read, study, ponder, and act upon its principles also tell me it was written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. It’s scripture to me and so at some point, the idea of a tier system seems inappropriate. I realize not everyone shares this view, but that’s mine.
Comment # 46 left by Michelle on June 6th, 2007
I’m grateful for the Proclamation. Whether or not it is scripture, its counsel comes from the Lord’s Prophet and Apostles, and we would be wise to follow it. As a child, I’ve experienced the effects of divorce. As a brother to siblings who have not followed its counsel, I’ve seen the devastating effects on them and their children. As a husband and father, I’ve enjoyed the great blessings promised. I know it’s true.
Comment # 47 left by David on June 7th, 2007
Okay, let me get this straight….
(1) The church public relations department, as well as the BYU religion faculty, have recently become fond of openly denying commonly-accepted Mormon doctrines which make so-called mainstream christians upset. They have done this by releasing public statements that “_____ has never been the doctrine of the church. While some [apostles and prophets!] may have speculated on this subject, it has never been the teaching of the church.” So, no matter how many presidents of the church have taught something on the record, it’s not “scripture.”
(2) Now, the Proclamation Against Most Families is being treated as scripture, because it was signed by the First Presidency and the Twelve, despite never having been accepted by the sustaining vote of the membership in general conference (the required procedure for canonization of scripture).
Interesting contradiction (though naturally, I’ll now get flamed, and everyone will post about how it’s no contradiction at all, and how dare I question anything the church does….)
Comment # 48 left by Nick Literski on June 7th, 2007
Nick,
)
Arguing that all attempts to refute your argument are based on personally disliking you (which is what I assume you mean by being “flamed”) is what we call poisoning the well. It’s bad form (perhaps inspired by some sort of persecution complex
Comment # 49 left by HP on June 7th, 2007
That’s not what I said at all, HP.
Comment # 50 left by Nick Literski on June 7th, 2007
Nick:
It’s no contradiction at all. How dare you question anything the church does?
I think one might need to take a case by case on your proposals. I think some of the things you might be referring to in 1) are isolated statements on doctrinal matters. And I think statement 1) is not a denial as much as it might be a ‘we don’t know everything about this yet.
I am not familiar with the Proclamation that you site in 2). But the one we are talking about here was signed by the current and united church leadership. It does and should carry a lot of weight amongst current saints.
Comment # 51 left by Eric Nielson on June 7th, 2007
It’s been 12 years since it was introduced. How much more shelf life does it have? If it can pass and fade away into oblivion over time, can it be considered scripture? Does truth fade?
Comment # 52 left by the narrator on June 7th, 2007
Because the democratic functionality of sustaining and opposing has faded, I doubt the Proc on the Family will ever be proposed for scripture. There will just be too much opposition that is incompatible with the formality of a sustaining.
Comment # 53 left by the narrator on June 7th, 2007
It seems to me that even if there were a description of angelic dictation straight from God to the FP and QOT in the document, people would still be trying to find reasons it is not scriptural, particularly because a certain cynicism in our day would write it off as plain loony with such a claim. This just might be part of the reason the GAs hint at what is the mind of the Lord rather than state it flat out.
It might be plausible deniability and political astuteness as I am certain many a cynic here can point out, I also agree with Eric that much of the BYU faculty claims could be seen reasonably and less cynically to represent a stressing of the fact that many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God yet remain to be revealed by the Lord.
Brother Literski,
I find most opinions on the Proclamation are often highly colored by our own side of the fence. We love the commandments that are no problem for us. That the proclamation poses certain challenges to yourself beyond anything I personally have experienced seems evident to me. It is not my desire to say anything hateful, hurtful, or judgemental. I am coming from a position where it seems relatively easy to embrace the Proclamation as scripture. Perhaps I would not see it as such in your position. I will make (and truly hope you have made) it a matter of prayer. Certainly your argumentative tone will not invite the best of feelings in this forum.
As far as Kristine’s argument invalidating the process, I just don’t see it. Over 150 years ago, Emma went to Joseph fed up with having to clean tobacco juice off the floors of the School of the Prophets in the Newell K. Whitney store. As a result he made an honest inquiry of the Lord, receiving the revelation now known as the word of wisdom, which remains sound advice, regardless of how you slice and dice it, 150 years down the road. I see that with the priveleged view afforded by 150 years of time and current medical training. However, health fads have come and gone and the WOW remains very good advice. All this coming from a desire to please your wife leading to conversing with the Lord.
I cannot imagine that the events in Hawaii did not lead the FP and QOT to the same kind of honest inquiry. Those on the other side of the spectrum may be sorely tempted to call it prejudice and fear that lead to this prayer, and perhaps fruits of a poisoned tree. However, what good on Earth are modern day prophets if proclaiming in prophetic voice where disregard for the family will lead is invalid because of (shared and united) prejudice.
If you don’t hold to their authority that is one thing, but if you do sincerely believe them prophets, seers and revelators, it is quite another.
Comment # 54 left by Doc on June 7th, 2007
Re #35, that the Proclamation will probably not be brought to a sustaining vote because, “There will just be too much opposition that is incompatible with the formality of a sustaining.”
Since the Proclamation was issued 12 years ago, I have lived in six different countries, and in all that time I have never met anyone who had the problems that some commenters on the Bloggernacle seem to feel are common to a large part of the membership of the Church. Even among people who have broken families, or who are unmarried, I heard great respect for the doctrine in the Proclamation, a desire to reach for the ideals it states, and gratitude for the blessings one receives when trying to live those ideals as much as possible.
I stand with Michelle and Naiah 100% in believing that it is an inspired, prophetic document.
Comment # 55 left by RoAnn on June 7th, 2007
I stand with Michelle and Naiah 100% in believing that it is an inspired, prophetic document.
And Connor.
Comment # 56 left by Connor on June 7th, 2007
Absolutely, Connor! Forgive my failure to include you, or anyone else who sided with that position. There may be others who have posted in a similar vein on this thread, but after reading 54 comments, I was not exactly sure of who had written what.
Comment # 57 left by RoAnn on June 7th, 2007
Forgive my failure to include you, or anyone else who sided with that position.
I was just kidding around, but thanks.
You know, part of me wonders how representative the ‘nacle is of the membership at large. While here we see those of a dissenting opinion or varying perspective, I wonder what the thoughts are of the non-’nacle member. Oh well, another post for another day. I’m glad to see that there are those out there who stand by the affirmation that this document comes from God (doesn’t everything that is good come from Him?) and should be obeyed as much as scripture.
Comment # 58 left by Connor on June 7th, 2007
RoAnn #55:
That is my experience as well (just not the moves part). I would guess that if the PotF were to be brought to a sustaining vote to the membership of the church as to whether it should be sustained as scripture, the voting would appear to be unanimous in the affirmative.
Comment # 59 left by Eric Nielson on June 7th, 2007
I suppose i do run in different circles.
Comment # 60 left by the narrator on June 7th, 2007
I too stand 100% with Michelle, Naiah, Connor, and RoAnn in believing that it is an inspired, prophetic document.
Comment # 61 left by David on June 7th, 2007
Doc,
I would be interested in more (preferably non-anecdotal) details about your findings that “most opinions on the Proclamation are often highly colored by our own side of the fence.” After all, making moral judgments about which side of which fence others are on based on a few lines in an internet forum is not to be taken lightly. I can see where it’s a tempting rhetorical device, however. By dismissing someone’s righteousness, one wouldn’t have to respond to his argument.
Regarding the Word of Wisdom, it’s hardly a slam-dunk invalidation of Kristine’s argument that there is a social context to the proclamation, evolving as it (the WoW) did from 19th century moderation to 20th century abstinence with little additional input from the Lord and a lot of social context like the politics of Utah prohibition in the meantime.
Comment # 62 left by Peter LLC on June 7th, 2007
“As far as Kristine’s argument invalidating the process, I just don’t see it.”
Just for the record, I made no such argument.
Comment # 63 left by Kristine on June 7th, 2007
I think whether or not there was political motivation in some part of the process of the Proclamation at some point is irrelevant. If it was a political question, or social questions, or doctrinal questions (I suspect it was a combination of a lot of things and that is what I hear Elder Ballard saying), what we have is wonderful, solid, reliable and a prophetic, inspired guide for this crazy time in which we live. I believe it’s a sort of iron rod to help us through the mists. The prophets’ teachings on these topics have changed my life and guided my thinking and actions in various ways. And it just keeps on giving. The more I study and live it, the more I believe it.
Comment # 64 left by Michelle on June 7th, 2007
I realize I never responded to Kristine’s comment about one man and one woman. If you note the Proclamation, it leaves some wiggle room in this regard, leaving room for eternal marriages as they stand right now. Elder Ballard is talking about current policy and social/political issues, I believe. There is a difference between what our prophets say about what should be social and political policy right now and what might happen in the afterlife. In both situations, “marriage between man and woman” (as the Proclamation says) is at the foundation.
Comment # 65 left by Michelle on June 7th, 2007
Doc #54,
First, I appreciate your gracious tone. We clearly disagree, but it’s nice to see someone disagree agreeably.
Your example regarding the Word of Wisdom is important, but also incomplete. Yes, we’ve all heard the story about Emma being sick of cleaning up tobacco spittle, not to mention Joseph walking into a room thick with smoke. I’ve been in the *tiny* room where the Kirtland School of the Prophets met, and I can just imagine what that room would be like stuffed with smoking and chewing men–yuck!
Still, the Word of Wisdom had a context. Temperance movements were popular at the time, as was a variety of similar health advice. There really was nothing “new” in the Word of Wisdom. That doesn’t mean Joseph didn’t receive inspiration, but we shouldn’t ignore the totality of the circumstances, either.
In the case of the Proclamation, there is little or nothing that is new. I don’t see Elder Ballard’s comment as an indication that a “fresh revelation” was received, but rather that these men produced a document which expressed the already-established will of deity as they understood and agreed upon it. I see no reason to believe that the Hawaii court rulings caused the First Presidency and the Twelve to newly ask deity whether or not homosexuality was okay. Rather, I think they saw this as a question already answered, and they prepared a document reflecting that.
In contrast, look at the priesthood revelation of 1978. We have documentation that various church leaders were, at least in private conversations, telling others that they were distressed with the situation to some degree, and that they were actively asking deity for direction on the subject. David O. McKay said that he asked, but didn’t receive permission–and he later received strong inspiration that he should drop it, because it wasn’t going to change during his time as president. In the case of Spencer W. Kimball, others at least knew that something was bothering him, and that he was going to the temple often at night and on weekends to seek direction.
I’m going to go out on a limb here, and suggest that the Proclamation was motivated, at least in part, by the Hawaii court decision, and that it is largely a condemnation of homosexuality. We don’t see any indication that the brethren were praying about whether homosexual relationships had a place in the plan of salvation. Rather, we see a document crafted to express what these leaders already believed to be the will of deity.
That said, I still expect you’ll see the Proclamation canonized at some point in the LDS church.
Comment # 66 left by Nick Literski on June 8th, 2007
In the case of the Proclamation, there is little or nothing that is new.
Nick, you actually raise an important point and since I wrote the post, I want to clarify that I don’t think anyone has tried to imply that somehow this was something new or earth-shattering (all the more reason why we probably don’t need a detailed explanation about how they came about writing it because they really weren’t receiving “new” information but rather organizating and presenting what had already repeatedly been taught by prophets before as well. These doctrines have essentially been taught throughout the history of the latter-day church. The point of the Proclamation, as Elder Ballard said, was to make the position on marriage and family clear so no one would wonder. It’s a concise, contained document that has bundles of truths that have basically always been in our doctrine, bringing them to the forefront. So, in other words, I agree with you. In that light, it really doesn’t matter in my mind what may have motivated them to write it. Elder Ballard said that in their travels and awareness of what was going on in the world (and Pres. Hinckley explained that “sophistry” (his word) and philophies of the world spurred it) they decided to come together and make our position on these issues clear.
But what is important to me is that the prophets have been and continue to be the ones who keep us focused on truth. To be honest, without their guidance, I’m sure I would have different points of view on some things. There are a lot of voices out there, and we need anchors to ground us. This is what the Proclamation is to me.
Comment # 67 left by Michelle on June 8th, 2007
Peter LLC (#62),
Two quick points,
1) I am referring to the text of the WOW itself. this is what I meant by the slice it how you will statement. I am aware that the change in emphasis and meaning of the text over time. Whichever interpretation you hold to as a Doctor, I will tell you it is time tested good advice.
2) I was trying to be subtle so those to whom I was addressing my comments would know what I was speaking about while respectiing privacy. I apologize if it came accrosss as a overgeneralization. While obviously untrue as a blanket statement, I have little doubt that those who personally are in favor of Gay marriage might have issues with the validity of the Proclamation. Clearly there is a tension there. It is just as convienient to find technical arguments for its lack of revelatory status as it is to use others political views as a blanket dismissal of their opinions. I merely offered an opinion of some hidden factors that may lay behind our opinions that bear consideration. I think you make a valid point as well.
Comment # 68 left by Doc on June 8th, 2007
The Proclamation does not expressly address whether or not a government (as distinct from the Church or God) should permit or recognize same sex marriage or civil unions or domestic partnerships.
Comment # 69 left by DavidH on June 9th, 2007
I’ve been reflecting on this thread and realizing that at times I think I have been too confrontative and/or defensive. I just wanted to say that I apologize to all and especially to those individuals with whom the interactions were less than ideal.
I also just now realized that I totally missed comment #11. Thanks, Dave. I agree with you on all counts.
Comment # 70 left by Michelle on June 9th, 2007
The significant item listed in Crapo’s chronology is the document issued by the First Presidency on 14 Feb 1994, as part of the LDS efforts against gay marriage in Hawaii, which included the line, “We encourage members to appeal to legislators, judges, and other government officials to preserve the purposes and sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, and to reject all efforts to give legal authorization or other official approval or support to marriages between persons of the same gender.“ In my opinion, the language clearly links the two documents, and seems to indicate that the POF is an expansion of the earlier anti-SS-marriage document.
When I first read Elder Ballard’s address over a year ago, I was surprised to find that the Brethren (at least Ballard, in this case) still think that gay people are merely confused about their gender. “Gender confusion” has long been a euphemism for homosexuality used by LDS leaders in public addresses and articles.
Perhaps it was Elder Ballard who inserted into the POF the bit about gender being eternal. More likely it was Elder Oaks (there are those who consider Oaks the primary architect of the Proclamation). Oaks first linked “gender confusion” to eternal gender in his October 3, 1993 General Conference address:
I have always considered the line about eternal gender in the Proclamation to be an indirect attempt to address the issue of homosexuality (gender confusion). To see Ballard repeat the
euphemism in his retrospective on the POF confirms my suspisions. If a portion of the Proclamation is based on the assuption that gay people are confused about their genders, I do not consider it solid and reliable policy or doctrine.
Comment # 71 left by Steven B on June 12th, 2007