Family Proclamation - like Articles of Faith or Official Declaration 2?

[Shoot_The_Moon]

Was the Family Proclamaction more like the Articles of Faith where it was a summation of existing beliefs and doctrines, or more like Official Declaration 2 where there was an "adjustment" as it were to the Church's official position about a point of doctrine?

[Traveler]

Was the Family Proclamaction more like the Articles of Faith where it was a summation of existing beliefs and doctrines, or more like Official Declaration 2 where there was an "adjustment" as it were to the Church's official position about a point of doctrine?

I would say it is more like the call from Noah to join with him in boarding the ark.

The Traveler

[Shoot_The_Moon]

I guess what I'm trying to ask is did it make any counsel on the family and family roles and responsibilities from the Prophets / Apostles prior to 1995 that was not specifically included in the Proclamation null and void, or was it a formal restatement of existing doctrine?

[Traveler]

I guess what I'm trying to ask is did it make any counsel on the family and family roles and responsibilities from the Prophets / Apostles prior to 1995 that was not specifically included in the Proclamation null and void, or was it a formal restatement of existing doctrine?

Again like the call of Noah - I believe the Proclamation to the World is a warning specific to our era and time. A warning to avoid a coming flood (I am using flood symbolically or metaphorically) that may not have been as important 100 years ago for obvious reasons. I see it as a specific warning for right here and now.

The Traveler

[Backroads]

Was there any definite written/spoken doctrine on the matters prior to the Proclamation?

[Traveler]

Was there any definite written/spoken doctrine on the matters prior to the Proclamation?

Concerning marriage and family? Are you really asking if marriage and family is a covenant instituted by G-d?

The Traveler

[LittleWyvern]

Was the Family Proclamaction more like the Articles of Faith where it was a summation of existing beliefs and doctrines, or more like Official Declaration 2 where there was an "adjustment" as it were to the Church's official position about a point of doctrine?

Well, it's like neither in the sense that the Family Proclamation isn't canonized like the Articles of Faith or Official Declaration 2 are (if so, it would be Official Declaration 3 or at least printed somewhere in the Pearl of Great Price or the Doctrine and Covenants). As far as what it attempts to do, I'd say it's more like the Articles of Faith in that it mostly summarizes the teachings and practices of the Church regarding the family.

[Vort]

Well, it's like neither in the sense that the Family Proclamation isn't canonized like the Articles of Faith or Official Declaration 2 are (if so, it would be Official Declaration 3 or at least printed somewhere in the Pearl of Great Price or the Doctrine and Covenants). As far as what it attempts to do, I'd say it's more like the Articles of Faith in that it mostly summarizes the teachings and practices of the Church regarding the family.

Unlike e.g. the Catholic Church, we do not have formal canonization process. It is arguable whether we even have a formal "canon" in the sense that e.g. Catholicism does. On the contrary, we have an "open canon".

It is true that new revelation that applies to the Church as a whole is announced to the body of Saints and formally accepted by covenant. But A Proclamation to the World is not newly revealed doctrine. It is a clear statement of belief, based on already-revealed doctrine, and signed by the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve Apostles. As such, it is as much "doctrinally binding" as any scripture or belief we have.

[Shoot_The_Moon]

I had someone tell me that many of the counsels about the family prior to the Family Proclamation (anything pre 1995) had to take a back seat to what was stated in the proclamation, (I guess they believed it went along with "following the living prophet").

That struck me as a little off. Does that mean that anything in the Eternal Marriage Student Manual written prior to 1995 that isn't specifically stated in the proclamation isn't correct doctrine?

Does the living Prophet need to repeat everything said in the past in order for it to still be considered doctrinally correct?

Edited September 27, 2012 by Shoot_The_Moon

[LittleWyvern]

Unlike e.g. the Catholic Church, we do not have formal canonization process.

On the contrary, there's a very formal process for accepting new revelations into our Standard Works. Consider the steps taken during the addition of D+C section 137 and 138:

President Kimball has asked me to read a very important resolution for your sustaining vote. At a meeting of the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve held in the Salt Lake Temple on March 25, 1976, approval was given to add to the Pearl of Great Price the two following revelations:

First, a vision of the celestial kingdom given to Joseph Smith, the Prophet, in the Kirtland Temple, on January 21, 1836, which deals with the salvation of those who die without a knowledge of the gospel; and second, a vision given to President Joseph F. Smith in Salt Lake City, Utah, on October 3, 1918, showing the visit of the Lord Jesus Christ in the spirit world and setting forth the doctrine of the redemption of the dead.

It is proposed that we sustain and approve this action and adopt these revelations as part of the standard works of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

And the steps taken during the approval of Official Declaration 2:

Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as the prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord. All in favor please signify by raising your right hand. Any opposed by the same sign.

This process has been followed anytime something is added to the standard works: the material in question is presented in General Conference and brought before a sustaining vote.

It is arguable whether we even have a formal "canon" in the sense that e.g. Catholicism does. On the contrary, we have an "open canon".

Just because a box doesn't have a top, doesn't mean it can't have a bottom.

Does that mean that anything in the Eternal Marriage Student Manual written prior to 1995 that isn't specifically stated in the proclamation isn't correct doctrine?

The way I understand it, if there is a contradiction between something 2 prophets have said, we accept the thing that the new prophet said as correct. This doesn't diminish the old prophet, it simply is a realization that continuing revelation helps even prophets understand more about things over time.

Edited September 27, 2012 by LittleWyvern

[Vort]

On the contrary, there's a very formal process for accepting new revelations into our Standard Works.

But I didn't say we don't have a process for accepting new revelations into standard works. Clearly, you missed that I said:

It is true that new revelation that applies to the Church as a whole is announced to the body of Saints and formally accepted by covenant.

We do not have scriptural "canon" in the sense that other Christian denominations understand the word. We believe the Bible to be the word of God -- but only as far as it is "translated" (which probably essentially means "transmitted") correctly. We believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God, yet the Book of Mormon itself admits to having errors. We take no book of scripture to be "inerrant", which is the fundamental idea of "canon". We do not define "canon" as other denominations do. In fact, you don't really see the word "canon" used in LDS circles, except in a sort of academic context.

A Proclamation to the World is "binding scripture" as much as any other written document is "binding scripture". It is based on pure, revealed doctrine, and was authored and signed by every member of the two leading quorums of the Church. That it has not been "canonized" by being formally presented to the body of the Church for a sustaining vote is utterly irrelevant.

[LittleWyvern]

We do not define "canon" as other denominations do. In fact, you don't really see the word "canon" used in LDS circles, except in a sort of academic context.

A Proclamation to the World is "binding scripture" as much as any other written document is "binding scripture". It is based on pure, revealed doctrine, and was authored and signed by every member of the two leading quorums of the Church. That it has not been "canonized" by being formally presented to the body of the Church for a sustaining vote is utterly irrelevant.

I guess making that distinction (in/not in the Standard Works) can be important to some people and not useful to others. So, when I say canon, just think "in the Standard Works" and you'll get what I mean :)

[Shoot_The_Moon]

The way I understand it, if there is a contradiction between something 2 prophets have said, we accept the thing that the new prophet said as correct. This doesn't diminish the old prophet, it simply is a realization that continuing revelation helps even prophets understand more about things over time.

So if Old Prophet says "A is important ... B is important (but not as important as A) ... C is important (but not as important as A or B )", and New Prophet says "B is important", does that mean "A" and "C" are no longer important?

[mikbone]

What is Official Mormon Doctrine?

[SanctitasDeo]

I like the conception of the Proclamation as a warning call.

So if Old Prophet says "A is important ... B is important (but not as important as A) ... C is important (but not as important as A or B )", and New Prophet says "B is important", does that mean "A" and "C" are no longer important?

No.

Prophets often speak on what is relevant, not what is most important. That New Prophet speaks about something may say more about the state of the church that it does about some kind of hierarchy of doctrine.

I would add: This is where personal revelation comes in. Perhaps you really have a problem with C. You might really need to pray about C, start doing C again, or stop doing C, depending on what C might be. So for you, A and B, with which you have no problem, might be less important.

I have no clue what your friend might think was superceded by the Proclamation. As far as I know, everything in there is doctrinal and has been. I could see some kind of cultural idea (that is, something not doctrinal) getting displaced, though.

[Backroads]

Concerning marriage and family? Are you really asking if marriage and family is a covenant instituted by G-d?

The Traveler

No, just if anything had ever been preached on it, as "This is our laws on..." as the Proclomation does.