- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Packer — “Fifteen years ago, with the world in turmoil, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued “The Family” A Proclamation to the World,” the fifth proclamation in the history of the Church. It qualifies according to scriptural definition as a revelation, a guide that members of the Church would do well to read and follow.” Oh really?
Interesting.
I don’t recall ever voting on the Proclamation. Isn’t that part of the churches own rules when making official doctrine? Is Elder Packer challenging the church, or perhaps asking the leadership to “bring it to a vote?” Brings up a second question. What will “I” do if that happens?
It does not fit the model of canonized revelation. So he can say that all he wants, but it isn’t. It’s a revelation, I suppose. Joseph Smith and had many “revelations” that were not included in the D&C. So they aren’t canon. The King Follet sermon is probably the most famous of those. It’s contains truly amazing and far out theology, but I guess nobody was comfortable enough with it. It never made it into canon.
What Brian said. It might be revelation (and I have no real issue with that designation), and members might do well to see it as a “guide” (and I have no real issue with that word choice), but it certainly isn’t scripture. Old-Timer wrote:What Brian said. It might be revelation (and I have no real issue with that designation), and members might do well to see it as a “guide” (and I have no real issue with that word choice), but it certainly isn’t scripture.
Consider the fact that Mormons can vote in favor of same-sex marriages if they want, even though the Proclamation specifically mentions marriage is between a man and a woman. In fact, the Church encourages people to make up their own minds about where they stand on exercising their rights to vote. So, just how “doctrinal” can that proclamation be given these liberties granted to us? (a rhetorical question).
I remember ten years ago, someone saying it would probably end up in D&C. Maybe it will. I don’t understand why stuff isn’t added much to D&C these days. The CoC certainly does.
I hope the Proclamation never makes it into the D&C. The Church would still not prevent people from voting in favor of same sex marriages, but it would certainly make it harder to lighten up or change The Church’s position on it if they decide to at some point in the next millenium. I watched the history of Christianity and saw how the Catholic Church published the Infallibility of the Pope doctrine. Ouch! Talk about limiting yourself and also turning yourself into a target for scrutiny etcetera. Maybe I’m alone in this, but I never really thought of this as an anti-gay thing, so much as a family stability thing. Does the proclamation make this sort of scenario impossible? Same-sex marriage becomes legal in most if not all states/countries in the next 15-20 years. The church recognizes SSM as being legal marriages but those marriages cannot be sealed in the temple nor can any children adopted into these marriages be sealed to either partner. Basically, it’s like looking at these marriages as member to non-member marriages. They are legal so the partners are not engaging in un-chastelike behavior so they could participate in the church in any capacity except temple. The partners would know they are making a compromise and yet would still have the agency to choose.
Of course, they would certainly be limited in what sort of callings they’d receive. If you aren’t sealed in the temple very likely you would not be a Bishop, SP or the like. I’m trying to figure out in my mind how this would all flesh out.
So?
If you are ‘legally and lawfully married’, what’s the problem? I know I’m missing something obvious, but as I recall there are no TR questions that specifically ask the question, nor is there anything in the endowment that would specifically disqualify a gay-but-legally-married person from participating. Speaking from a west coast perspective, I’m thinking that both of those things (TR interview and the endowment itself) would have to change in the eventuality of SSM becoming the law. But of course it’s already legal in other parts of the world, so what gives? SamBee wrote:Maybe I’m alone in this, but I never really thought of this as an anti-gay thing, so much as a family stability thing.
I think it’s both. In my experience, the most ardent supporters of prop 8 typically have an agenda. I used to think ‘homophobia’ was a really lame made up word, but the more I see, the more I think it’s descriptive of a lot, though certainly not all, such people.
Etymologically, the word “homophobia” is a nonsense, since “homo” = “same” (nb – NOT man in this case, as many people think) and “phobia” means “fear” in Greek, so it means “fear of the same”. “Homosexual” makes sense because it means “same-gender/sexual” more or less. Similarly “bisexual” properly means hermaphrodite, it should be “ambisexual”, as in “ambidextrous”…
I hope no one misunderstands what I’m saying here!
The prophet, President Gordon B. Hinckley read it from the pulpit in September of 1995 and all who sustained him as prophet seer and revelator basically sustain that document as true. When it came out I essentially reduced the photocopy and glued it into my scriptures; It is as good as doctrine to me and I will sustain it as much as I sustain the Prophet. jamison wrote:The prophet, President Gordon B. Hinckley read it from the pulpit in September of 1995 and all who sustained him as prophet seer and revelator basically sustain that document as true…
Okay. So does that mean that all who sustain Elder Boyd K Packer as the senior apostle in the Lord one and only true church on the face of the earth, the next in line to become prophet, seer and revelator of said church, basically sustain his Oct 2010 General Conference talk which will soon be out in print, as true?
Just asking why one would make a comment like this? Is it because it’s the way it is and needs to be and demanded to be, or is it the way you personally choose to believe it from your cultural experience?
jamison wrote:When it came out I essentially reduced the photocopy and glued it into my scriptures;
It is as good as doctrine to meand I will sustain it as much as I sustain the Prophet. I think you clarified this nicely, finding personal value and meaning in the Proclamation on the Family. It isn’t the same as demanding that everyone else have the same reaction.
I guess now instead of calling it doctrine we can call it a guide.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.