A New Proclamation to the World

[UtahDan]

Saw this today and thought it was interesting. Interesting, at least from my perspective, that you can take out all of the religious teachings from it and you still have a really good (arguably better) message. Obviously a believer would prefer God be back in it, but apart from that, what is out that you really miss? Eternal gender identity? Roles of men and women? The commandment to multiply? Seems like most of the stuff that came out is not really stuff progressive Mormons would miss much.

I just saw it and thought of a lot of you, because I think this document is symbolic of how some of you approach the gospel and why many of you stay. There is good stuff there if you are willing to drill down to get it.

[UtahDan]

Sorry, but I don't have the original memorized... here they both are side by side:

I get the intent... going for something secular, OK fine... but why remove the sentence about parents' fidelity?

And is there a lot of disagreement about the family as the fundamental unit of society?

cheers.

Not sure, hadn't picked up on that one. I'm not too sure people question the centrality of family as much as they do whether it must consist of particular ingredients/roles.

[BigPiney]

We declare that children multiply in force.

They are like gremlins.

Don't feed them after midnight...

[UtahDan]

They are like gremlins.

Don't feed them after midnight...

Getting them wet is what you really want to avoid if you don't want them to multiple. Feeding them after midnight just turns them into teenagers more or less.

[TripletDaddy]

I'm puzzled by the intent of this redacted version. You can take out much of the religious specificity of the 10 Commandments and still have a pretty good set of social mores. You could probably do the same with any scripture. One, why is this a novel observation? And two, what is the point in excising religion?

My understanding of the proclamation was that is was not intended to promulgate a radical set of new teachings but to underscore that religion and religious values are still viable and important in our modern society. Redacting all the religion from the Proclamation defeats the purpose of making the proclamation.

[wally]

Saw this today and thought it was interesting. Interesting, at least from my perspective, that you can take out all of the religious teachings from it and you still have a really good (arguably better) message. Obviously a believer would prefer God be back in it, but apart from that, what is out that you really miss? Eternal gender identity? Roles of men and women? The commandment to multiply? Seems like most of the stuff that came out is not really stuff progressive Mormons would miss much.

I just saw it and thought of a lot of you, because I think this document is symbolic of how some of you approach the gospel and why many of you stay. There is good stuff there if you are willing to drill down to get it.

After some minor editing of your post, I think that you are a closet mullah

[Surfah]

I'm puzzled by the intent of this redacted version. You can take out much of the religious specificity of the 10 Commandments and still have a pretty good set of social mores. You could probably do the same with any scripture. One, why is this a novel observation? And two, what is the point in excising religion?

My understanding of the proclamation was that is was not intended to promulgate a radical set of new teachings but to underscore that religion and religious values are still viable and important in our modern society. Redacting all the religion from the Proclamation defeats the purpose of making the proclamation.

The image is hosted at thankgodiamanatheist.com.

[il Padrino Ute]

Is that a copyright infringement?

[UtahDan]

I'm puzzled by the intent of this redacted version. You can take out much of the religious specificity of the 10 Commandments and still have a pretty good set of social mores. You could probably do the same with any scripture. One, why is this a novel observation? And two, what is the point in excising religion?

My understanding of the proclamation was that is was not intended to promulgate a radical set of new teachings but to underscore that religion and religious values are still viable and important in our modern society. Redacting all the religion from the Proclamation defeats the purpose of making the proclamation.

I can't speak conclusively to the intent and had not been to that site before today. But what I took away from it is that you can deliver substantially the same message without God in the mix, plus you get the benefit of discarding what some people view as antiquated teachings about gender roles, etc. As to the point of excising religion, again I don't know, but maybe to make the (perhaps obvious) point that atheists and non-religious people value family, children etc., and that religion didn't invent that.

EDIT: From MY perspective, I see it as "we have this in common regardless of that other stuff."

[UtahDan]

After some minor editing of your post, I think that you are a closet mullah

Very clever. But people are the same kind of non-believer that they are believer. I was not a zealot either then or now.

[TripletDaddy]

I can't speak conclusively to the intent and had not been to that site before today. But what I took away from it is that you can deliver substantially the same message without God in the mix, plus you get the benefit of discarding what some people view as antiquated teachings about gender roles, etc. As to the point of excising religion, again I don't know, but maybe to make the (perhaps obvious) point that atheists and non-religious people value family, children etc., and that religion didn't invent that.

EDIT: From MY perspective, I see it as "we have this in common regardless of that other stuff."

I can see that point, but it seems to be illuminative only if you believe that religion is the font of all morality and family values. I personally don't agree that religion is the source of all morality and certainly not the exclusive domain of family values. I'm not convinced that the LDS Church touts that as a belief, either. I would hope not, as it would be a silly assertion and very easily disproved.

Again, if the core message is, "hey, we have a lot in common," then I think most would already agree.

[UtahDan]

I can see that point, but it seems to be illuminative only if you believe that religion is the font of all morality and family values. I personally don't agree that religion is the source of all morality and certainly not the exclusive domain of family values. I'm not convinced that the LDS Church touts that as a belief, either. I would hope not, as it would be a silly assertion and very easily disproved.

Again, if the core message is, "hey, we have a lot in common," then I think most would already agree.

A lot of people do believe that if you are not religious then you are utterly without a moral foundation. Believe me. I think Mormon theology allows for the idea that people can be good without the gospel through the idea of the light of Christ, though in my experience that idea has not been internalized uniformly.

[TripletDaddy]

A lot of people do believe that if you are not religious then you are utterly without a moral foundation. Believe me.

I believe you.

Like I previously stated, I don't believe that...which is probably why I'm puzzled by this redacted Proclamation.