Monday, 21 August 2006
What about the Proclamation?
by Christian Y. Cardall
In the discussion that followed my query as to why the Lord forbids the expression of same-sex attraction on a ‘for-time-only’ basis in now-recognized cases of a lifetime absence of opposite-sex attraction, I wondered if Church leaders’ evolving understanding of the nature of homosexuality might be evidence that the Lord hasn’t actually expressed a strong opinion on the matter. What, it may then be asked, about The Family: A Proclamation to the World? Is this not a clear statement of the Lord’s view?
The existence of the Proclamation and the way it is presently being used clearly show that the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are united in the position that active homosexuality is sinful. For all practical purposes this is enough to make it binding upon the Church at the present time. Unity in the leading quorums also entails a strong presumption on the part of believers that this position is in accordance with the will of the Lord, or at a minimum not irreparably contrary to his will, at least at present.
I would note two factors that might allow for future backtracking from this stance. The first is that the Proclamation’s language does not imply that the text itself has been directly revealed, nor has the document (regardless of its textual style and compositional origin) been officially presented to and sustained by the Church as the will of the Lord—that is, it has not been canonized. The second factor is more subtle, having to do with the precise wording of the operative phrase whose current interpretation forbids same-sex relationships even ‘for-time-only’: “We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.”
For most of human history, the term “powers of procreation” has been functionally synonymous with sexual expression, and present implementation of the Proclamation makes clear that this is in fact the euphemistic textual intention of the current leaders; however, recent decades have seen the advent of reliable and safe methods of birth control that sever this connection. History may well look back on this as a watershed in the evolution of human culture: once one recognizes that the adverse social effects of illegitimacy were likely one strong impetus to the creation of sexual morality in the first place, it seems quite natural, even inevitable, that society’s standards will change on this front—as indeed they rapidly have—to the extent once-adverse effects are mitigated. (Another impetus to sexual morality—the disruptive social effects of adultery—is likely to be more resistant to change. This is because jealousy, evolved for obvious reasons, seems to be a deeply rooted response not automatically removed by a technology like birth control. This explains why ‘responsible’ (i.e. non-reproductive) premarital sex has become widely accepted, while the near-universal testimony of even secular and ‘worldly’ literature and cinema continues to be that betrayal of a partner is a Bad Idea.)
Along with this technological control over fertility comes recognition of other facets of and rationales for sexual expression. Indeed this process of recognition has already made inroads into Church policy: initial denomination of birth control as sinful has given way to ceding such decisions to the couple and the Lord, as well as official recognition that a valid purpose of sexual relations “is to express love for one another—to bind husband and wife together in loyalty, fidelity, consideration, and common purpose.”
Society’s recognition and validation of this loving and binding function as a stand-alone purpose for sexual expression has had the side-effect of making its denial to those with same-sex attraction seem increasingly immoral in recent years. Large numbers are still in sync with the Church’s position against gay marriage, but recent trends in opinion polls suggest that this may change in the not-too-distant future, perhaps to the point of significant conflict.
What will happen if the issue of gay rights ever becomes a crisis of epic proportions for the Church—say, on the order of polygamy or the denial of priesthood based on race? These latter were resolved by what some would call ‘progressive misreading’ of past texts and statements: by some combination of denial of revelatory status, minimalist and legalistic interpretation, and creative and revelatory readings that ignore original context, the leaders managed to introduce enough change to satisfy society’s demands while retaining sufficient continuity to maintain credibility with Church members (most of whom were by then rooting for the changes in any case): we no longer consider polygamy essential for exaltation, and those of African descent no longer have to wait for the Millenium for priesthood ordination and temple blessings. (Interestingly, acknowledgment of same-sex attraction as (for some) a lifetime ‘disability’ introduces a new sort of ‘Millenium solution,’ which many will still find similarly unsatisfying.)
Should pressures of similar magnitude be brought to bear in connection with gay marriage, the (perhaps inspired) specificity of “the powers of procreation” being restricted to employment between man and woman could provide a way out. Creative and inspired future leaders may notice that, regardless of original intent, the bare text could be read as protecting the need of children for a traditional nuclear family by forbidding childbearing out of wedlock, donation to and use of sperm banks, and so forth, without necessarily restricting other forms of responsible and non-reproductive sexual expression for already-recognized purposes. In this way ‘for-time-only’ unions between same-sex couples might be sanctioned, while still preserving the doctrinal expectation in eternity of reproductively functional male-female exaltation, whose revision would bring an unacceptable loss of credibility.
(8 votes, average: 3.63 out of 5)
Loading ...
Exploratory deployment of two Mormon imperatives—“prove all things; hold fast that which is good,” and “awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words”—from perspectives unfamiliar: secular, scientific, humanistic, and cultural (high and low).
I like the way you think…
Here’s hoping that you are the next prophet! (I raise my glass in a toast to you)
I think it is quite apparent that celibate SGSA afflicted persons already hold the priesthood, and are endowed in the temple. What others want is an endorsement for a sin. What kind of precedent is there for that?
Remember the ERA? One of the arguments against it was that the Church would no longer be able to make any distinction based on gender. For example there could not be sex-segregated missionary companionships. Men and women would have to sleep in the same quarters. There could be no more male and female restrooms, no preference for heterosexuality and so on.
Ultimately this is a liberty issue, on which contemporary liberals have vacated the premises. Why not just have the state tell you who to marry, by some sort of lottery or social engineering scheme? Isn’t wanting to marry someone of the opposite sex a vile predjudice of some sort?
Mark,
what does SGSA mean?
Also, I’m not sure ERA analogies are totally appropriate, since that dealt with a political issue (amendment to the Constitution), and the topic Christian addresses is broader than that (i.e. how does the church view homosexuals, and what does it allow for?)
Re #2—OSA attracted males who fornicate or commit adultery also hold the priesthood. I haven’t heard that they take away the priesthood from everyone who commits a sin. In fact, they’re excommunicating fewer and fewer. I know plenty of OSA sinners who still hold temple recommends.
APJ, SGSA = Same Gender Sexual Attraction, a term I prefer to same gender attraction, which to me sounds like brotherly or sisterly love, which is a commandment, not a perversion.
There are aspects of your reasoning that seem flawed to me. Following are some of my thoughts.
1. The standards related to sexual sin don’t seem comparable to polygamy or to blacks and the priesthood. The ideas that were later changed had only been around for a very short time, and weren’t based on dispensations of teachings. The standards regarding sexuality (only in God-sanctioned relationships) have always been taught.
2. The Proclamation discusses much more than just sexual relationships. If you back up to the beginning, you see that marriage is central to the plan we learned about in the premortal realm. This is something the prophets have been called to teach about since the beginning. No social force or trend in the world can change that plan. Society may end up trying to thwart God’s plan, but I don’t think God could thwart the plan even if He wanted to. (He wouldn’t want to, though, because the whole purpose of our existence centers around that plan. Indeed, the earth would be wasted without families — and that is doctrine that He wants taught to and lived by all of His children.)
3. Sex for bringing-a-couple-together purposes only makes sense within a marriage relationship, given #2. It is against God’s purposes to support any other sexual relationship than that which strengthens a marriage. Again, marriage is central, and sex is a gift for that relationship, — and that relationship alone. Any other use of sexual bonds is counter to His plan, and also without an eye single to His glory. Illicit sexual relationships do nothing toward God’s glory. They are based on temporary relationships and temporary pleasure, when considered in light of His eternal purposes. (Ideally, everything we do should be with an eye single to His glory with no desire for our own gain or pleasure. We would have to also adjust such doctrine as well if sex were allowed for time only in non-marital relationships.)
4. I am not aware of anywhere in holy writ that says we should only listen to prophetic voices if they are canonized. On the other hand, there are plenty of scriptures that simply and clearly say we should follow what comes from our prophets. To have 15 prophets, seers and revelators come together for only two messages — a testimony of the Savior and doctrine on the family and God’s plan — is very significant, IMO. (There are plenty of societal forces that want to change the definition of God and Christ and other unchangeable truths. Do we bend on those things too, just because society doesn’t like the doctrine our prophets teach?)
5. A for-time allowance for sexual freedom without marital commitment flies in the face of doctrine about the importance of this life in terms of judgment and how the eternities will be spent. It seems completely against the nature of God to allow for behavior that will condemn people in the hereafter. Again, sexual sin is something that has been preached for millenia. That is the standard by which we all will be judged.
6. It seems bordering on the ludicrous to think that somehow our prophets would do an about-face from teaching boldly against and warning about the degradation of society (esp. with relation to the unhealthy focus on sex for pleasure without any appreciation for the sacred nature of sex) to then say, “hey, well, let’s jump on society’s bandwagon and forget what prophets have taught for millenia and let people eat, drink and have sex since society is pressing for such allowance.” Really, what are prophets for if they just follow the societal crowd? Scriptural precedent is clear. They are rarely popular with the crowd; less so as societies fall further and further into degradation. Prophets are firm, solid voices against that degradation, not voices that will make allowances for it.
7. I would ask that last question again…what are prophets for if we are somehow destined to follow society anyway and have a completely short-term focus on what feels good now? The whole reason we have prophets is to help us maneuver our lives with as little damage as possible from the harmful philosophies and practices of society — to keep us on the path to eternal life. And yet, this idea you present seems to use society as the voice to follow. Such an approach easily leads people to follow the god of this world. Prophets help us follow the God of Israel, the God of our salvation, the God who can give eternal life — and who sets the standards for its reception. And so I say, who gives a hoot what society says?
Thanks, everyone, for your thoughts. M&M (#6), I’ll respond as a have time during the day.
Mark (#2), regarding sin, I think I can simply point you to my previous comment here.
M&M (#6), I don’t think your first point is defensible. The rationales for both polygamy and denial of priesthood based on race go all the way back to the earliest part of the Old Testament, the patriarchal narratives: Abraham in the case of polygamy, and the curse of Cain in connection with the priesthood. Further, priesthood was restricted to a particular lineage throughout the Old Testament, and I don’t know how long it was before the Jews embraced monogamy. I can’t think of any Old Testament scripture forbidding polygamy, though David and Solomon are portrayed as having sinned in connection with it.
Christian, the sin is two fold. First is in actual sexual activity contrary to the commandment of God. The second is in the willing development of sexual desires that can never be fulfilled in righteousness. A person may develop (realistically) a platonic regard for his brothers or sisters and not sin at all, as long as the regard is not focused inappropriately on one person, like some sort of fixation, or a friendship that develops sexual overtones.
The model of non-sexual friendship is the relationship that Jesus Christ has with his Father. Or what about the relationship that our Father in heaven has with his sons or with his daughters. That is no sexual relationship. God is not incestuous.
No amount of biological abnormality can ratify a sexual desire, let alone sexual activity, contrary to the use and purposes envisioned and established in the plan of salvation. If that were not the case, God would have to smile upon incest, statutory rape, pedophilia, child pornography, fornication, sadomasochism, exhibitionism, and lasciviousness of all sorts.
Some may say - well those are real perversions. Well I say, how do you tell the difference? People have real biological proclivities for all of those things. Since when does nature make something right? On the contrary, the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been since the Fall of Adam, and will be forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.
Now many SSA afflicted persons simply want an exemption from this commandment. They want God to endorse the natural man. They do not want to put it off, let alone be willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon them. How can we be sure that SSA is not an effectual test of loyalty and self discipline. Every other person has to discipline their natural desires. Why should SSA persons get a free ride?
An equation of nature == righteousness would give a license for every sort of licentiousness and sin imaginable. As with everyone else, until SSA persons learn to discipline their natural desires, and become submissive and obedient to the law of God, they cannot be saved, not in any degree of glory. Salvation is a gift, and God sets the terms and conditions thereof. I am not about to tell him that the terms and conditions that he has chosen are unjust or unmerited. We could be called to go through far worse in faithfulness and fidelity to qualify for eternal life, though I dare not ask for it. My afflictions are deep enough already.
M&M (#6, continued), regarding your second and third points… Nowhere have I suggested that God’s eternal plan be thwarted, or that male-female marriage and reproduction are not central to that plan, or that those with same-sex attraction should expect anything other than heterosexual inclinations and practice in eternity. And contrary to what you say, the Church does not seem to want all to live this in mortality: it is now discouraging those with same-sex attraction and lack of opposite-sex attraction from marrying.
As I pointed out in the previous post, the Church already sanctions marriages, often beyond reproductive age, with no eternal expectations because the woman is already sealed to someone else. It would seem that such are, to use your phrase, “temporary relationships and temporary pleasure, when considered in light of His eternal purposes.” Why, then, do you think the Church allows them? It is difficult to argue, I think, that it strengthens the primary sealed relationship, the one with eternal expectations; nevertheless, there are legitimate reasons for it. I emphasize that I am not here advocating that believers undertake now what presently are considered illicit relationships, or even theoretically considering anything outside of a lifetime commitment. My question is why for-time-only same-sex unions are considered illicit, when they might serve the same legitimate functions that post-reproductive for-time-only heterosexual marriages do.
I think the difference is that a proper male-female relationship (even if sexual feelings are minimal) builds and preserves the type of habits and feelings we should have, while a homosexual relationship builds and preserves the type of habits and feelings we should be trying to get rid of. In other words marriage is in similitude of the true and the chaste, and homosexual relationships are in similitude of the false and the perverse. And the difference between the chaste and the perverse in this case is none other than God’s long term purposes in salvation.
M&M (#6 continued again), I should have included your point 5 in my comment #10. You say “It seems completely against the nature of God to allow for behavior that will condemn people in the hereafter”, but note that God allows a woman remarried for time only to have sexual relations with a man to whom she is not sealed—a behavior that (at least according to conventional wisdom) would condemn her in the hereafter. This demonstrates that there are some allowances for mortal exigencies.
This is also a convenient place to respond to Mark’s #11 about a ’similitude’ aspect to a for-time-only relationship. I think this is a relevant and valuable thing to consider; but this time (for once!) it may be my turn to say the focus is too much on the physical aspect in what Mark says about it. There is a lot involved in an intimate relationship beyond the particulars of the physicality—patience, longsuffering, charity, kindness, loyalty, commitment, fidelity, and so forth. These kinds of habits might even be considered more important to develop in this life than towards which sex one is biologically attracted. Same-sex unions would allow development of these traits and habits in a way celibacy would not; and if there is a biological correction to be made in the resurrection, these habits and traits could then be deployed in a new male-female relationship that would then be the biologically natural one.
Christian, I agree that those traits should be developed, but the character differences between men and women are there to be learned to be understood and appreciated. Pursuing a sexual attraction towards another person of the same sex warps the character God intends for us to develop. Masculinity and femininity are designed to complement each other.
I think the Church would be gravely mistaken to sanction time-only gay marriage, with the rationale that these spouses would otherwise remain single and miserable in life. I know I’ve been harping on this topic a lot recently, and it’s sort of embarrassing to come back to it all the time, but this suggestion shows a real misunderstanding of women’s sexuality, which is far more malleable and contextual than men’s. If same sex marriage were a viable, socially acceptable option—even if it implied some ultimate limitation to exaltation—many women who could very likely marry heterosexually in other circumstances would choose the (in many ways) easier path of same sex marriage, particularly given the gender imbalance among LDS singles. And of course it would be absurd to allow only homosexual men, most of whose sexual preference is irrevocably hard-wired, to marry while prohibiting women from doing so.
Nice point, nicely tailored.
Even with a reasonably restrained imagination, lots of paths beyond the Proclamation can appear, assuming a will to move beyond it exists.
An ill-developed thought that puts the Proclamation into a technological context of its time:
Our society seems on track to master the fundamentals of manipulating DNA in the foreseeable future. The Proclamation can be reasonably read as a document that emphasizes the divine importance of families. It was penned at a time when the only manner of engendering offspring was through heterosexual conception. If the core value of the Proclamation is understood as the fostering a culture in which children can be engendered and acculturated to divine principles, then the rejection of non-heterosexual lifestyles and relationships is relatively easy to understand in a technological development context that does not allow other forms of engendering children.
Once tek allows two parents of the same gender can contribute their DNA to the conception and birth of a child, however, the Proclamation’s inferred linkage between heterosexuality and reproduction no longer need apply.
And once technology advances (again, not beyond foreseeable levels) to the point that an embryo or fetus is demonstrably healthier if gestated in biotek environments outside a woman’s uterus, it may well be that we look at “natural” engendering and gestating with the same blend of historical curiosity and ethical revulsion that we now apply to consider what 50% infant mortality rates must have been like.
At any rate, whether we adopt such practices widely or whether they remain laboratory curiosities, at some point after the tek has been demonstrated, someone is going to ask this question:
If we have figured out how to engender (engineer) new persons without heterosexual genetic contributions, surely Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother figured out how to do the same for spirits a long, long time ago. They must be better technologists than we. Once our tek allows us to perform the same creation for bodies that They can for spirits, the reasons for sticking solely to heterosexual marriage drop away. The core value of the Proclamation — providing for engendering and divine acculturation of offspring — is enabled even in same-sex marriages. They need not be treated as second-class/for-time-only marriages. Worlds without end.
Assuming the Church leaders decide they want to move past the Proclamation, I don’t think the word-working will be the hard part. Look how far we’ve moved past the Proclamation on the Economy.
The tek is the hard part, but we’re clearly on a path that will lead to the tek changes I’ve outlined. God must be a better techologist than we. Otherwise, who’s God?
My #15 was commenting on Christian’s main point, though it is now posted following Rosalynde’s #14, and appears to be directed toward hers.
I’d rely more on the undefined status of the Proclamation than on parsing its phrasing looking for a rhetorical loophole. Many people are putting an implied “thus saith the Lord” in front of every sentence of the Proclamation, but you could play the same game with the CHI. But we all agree that the CHI isn’t a revelation, it’s just a policy handbook that can be freely revised anytime they want. Same goes for the Proclamation, I think. It makes revelatory sounds, but it’s just a policy statement.
A cynic might even say that the Proclamation amounts to a declaration of ideas about which the Big 15 all feel very strongly but which they just can’t seem to get confirmed by an explicit revelation.
M&M (#6, final installment), on your points 4, 6, and 7… I stated in the main post that the united position of the leading quorums at any given time is binding upon the Saints, and I argued that the text of the Proclamation could be kept intact.
I agree that the prophets would be very resistant to change this, and on the more direct protecting family aspects (out-of-wedlock births, easy divorce, etc.) they would continue to do so in any case. But in some cases in which opposition to them was essentially universal, including polygamy and civil rights, the Church has indeed shown itself to be “destined to follow society.” It may well turn out here that, like the ERA, public support for gay marriage bottoms out with a significant minority remaining against it, so that it never comes to a crisis of epic proportions. In this case the Lord and the prophets won’t have to budge.
I will try to make some further responses later this evening.
I think that we can be quite sure that if society rose to the level of sexual or gender transparency that a worst case ERA implementation implied, the Lord’s foreordained response would be something quite different than dumping the heterosexual order of things. More like fire from heaven - aka a forcible transfer to spiritual remedial school.
In a post-Holocaust world, whence such surety?
Dave(#17)
Are policy statements usually addressed to World leaders as a declaration?
Doc, while the title says it is a proclamation “to the world” (not to world leaders), it was actually delivered as part of an address to a meeting of the General Relief Society — not even in General Conference! The essential characteristic of a policy (as opposed to a canonized text) is that the policy can be changed at any time without any theological gymnastics, whereas a revelation or canonized text requires careful “reinterpretation” if it is to be modified. The Proclamation has not been canonized … so what exactly is it if not a statement of LDS doctrinal policy? How is it any different than an article by a GA in the Ensign?
I take it as, well, a Proclamation to the World.
The title seems to assert a certain sense of authority, much as the Savior did when he taught differently that the scriptural exegesis of his day. The encouragement of displaying it in our homes seems to indicate an idea that it should be propagated. I feel that if ever anything in the past 25 years were to be canonized this would be it.
I don’t KNOW that this is the case, and at any rate I’m getting off topic for the post. I just have a hard time categorizing it in the manner in which you do.
Doc,
Every one of the points you make in your comment # 23 apply to the statement The Living Christ as well.
I don’t understand why we emphasize the Proclamation at the expense of The Living Christ.
Mark (#9), good grief, not the ‘all natural urges’ straw man again! I thought we disposed of that with Blake on the last thread—and I also thought both you and he were smarter than that. In no way would God have to smile upon every item in your torrid list, with their more obvious socially deleterious effects, especially the non-consenual ones and those involving minors.
Peaceful society requires that some biological urges be restrained absolutely, or nearly so; others cannot avoid being fulfilled, such as eating, drinking, and breathing. The powerful need for intimacy occupies a messy middle ground; hence all the discussion, negotiation, and formal and informal social legislation. The least that can be said, as scripture has it, is that it is not good for man to be alone, and “whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God” (D&C 49:15). I do not think God—the Mormon god, at least, and as long as he is using men as mouthpieces—will ever be found glorifying and celebrating celibacy, even for the noble purpose of trying to create space for gays. To the extent men make a serious go of it, it tends to result in what might be called ‘holy perversions’ of internalized self-hatred and externalized misogyny—priests minutely examining womens’ bodies for signs of witchcraft and then burning them at the stake; a counselor in a Stake Presidency, without a hint of humanity or charity, ranting at length and in detail against all the immodestly dressed and well-endowed young women he apparently could not help focusing on at a Stake Dance, and indeed wondering aloud if swimming activities were even appropriate at all in mixed company of young men and young women (a spectacle I was ashamed and embarrassed to observe this past Sunday in a stake leadership meeting). And the Church wonders why they are raising a generation with so many ill-adjusted young single adults who cannot seem to pair off.
Oh, and let’s not forget the twisted hyper-religiosity of the righteous OB/GYN who, in order to dissipate the self-loathing that follows his internal response to handling women day in and day out, can only bring himself to feel pure again by the ridiculous overcompensation of insisting that abstinence is the One True Way of family planning (which, by the way, shouldn’t even really be done at all, since sex is only to be useful and not pleasurable…)
Christian, I too have been wondering whether anyone is making the connection between the increasingly heated LDS rhetoric demonizing anything related to sexuality and the more frequent laments of leadership that LDS singles just don’t seem to get together the way they used to. What exactly do they think LDS teenagers and singles are supposed to do or learn in response to the kind of overzealous counsel they now hear from the pulpit?
Mark,
For the record, I don’t.
see here.
http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/06/the-new-mormon-theology-toward-a-shared-religion/#comment-56376
…and perhaps I should also mention the Seventy who, sitting on the stand in a conference in the mission my wife served in, had the mission president get my wife and her companion to move out of the very front row, so he wouldn’t have to see their bare calfs… I kid you not.
All right, down off my soapbox.
Rosalynde (#14), while I suspect it’s not the only reason you prefer the ‘celebrating celibacy’ option for accommodating gays (sorry, guess I’m still on my way down from the soapbox), as it so happens, in my first comment on the previous post I agreed that the dynamic you point out would be a real difficulty. (No need to apologize, however; being one of those, you know, evil men, I’ll probably never tire of hearing women talk about the malleability and contextuality of their sexuality.) Could the differences you describe be understood sufficiently widely, I don’t think a gender difference in same-sex allowances would be unreasonable in theory; indeed, were it not for the weight of history and tradition, it would not be any more absurd than gender-based priesthood ordination; nevertheless I agree that in this era of sensitivity to equal opportunity, the establishment of a new gender-discriminated ‘right’ would be politically untenable in practice. Perhaps occasional same-sex unions could be allowed while avoiding gender distinctions, however, by taking a tack similar to that employed with another serious threat to marriage and family, to wit, divorce: preach strongly its ultimate incompatibility with the Lord’s plan, but as a necessity of imperfect mortal conditions not forbid it absolutely; while making plain that the Lord will hold people responsible for their decisions in such matters, he knowing their degree of opposite-sex attraction and viability for heterosexual marriage.
I just don’t think celibacy is a good thing. I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy, let alone upon my brothers and sisters in the Church.
The Proclamation to the World is first and foremost an anti-SSM document. It was conceived and drafted in order to state, in writing, the position of the church on gay marriage. The addition of the bit about child abuse helps the Proclamation to serve double duty as a general positive and feel-good statement about the importance of the family. But its primary function is to encourage opposition to SSM. Had it really been prepared to address the family in general we would expect it to include many of the social issues that affect families; poverty, health and nutrition, education, and so forth. As a proclamation against gay-marriage, it is a political document, and a statement of current church policy and doctrine.
There is a guy named, I think I have it right, Richard Wilkins, who was a part of a UN conference on families who would beg to differ with you, Steve. Many countries around the world celebrate the traditional family, without condemning homosexuality. There are many ways the family is being run down in the world. For instance, the problem of abortion in China. I wish I had the reference for you, but it’s a good story.
I am reading a book now, however, by a local woman who taught in China for three years. She’s devoutly Mormon, but she is re-thinking her view on abortion and feels sympathy to the Chinese population problem.
I don’t see it as a blanket statement against gay marriage, but I wouldn’t object if it were.
“I don’t understand why we emphasize the Proclamation at the expense of The Living Christ.”
Good question. My answer (based on my view of the Proclamation as an anti-SSM document) is that same-sex marriage is a bigger concern these days than the Adam God Doctrine.
I have been gone all day and don’t have time to read everything right now, but wanted to respond to a couple of points.
My question is why for-time-only same-sex unions are considered illicit, when they might serve the same legitimate functions that post-reproductive for-time-only heterosexual marriages do. …
It is difficult to argue, I think, that it strengthens the primary sealed relationship, the one with eternal expectations; nevertheless, there are legitimate reasons for it.
I obviously haven’t expressed myself well enough. I never said anything about strengthening a sealed relationship. The Proclamation is not addressing the requirement to be sealed. It is teaching about the plan of salvation and how marriage and stable family life is the central hope and focus of that plan. There is mention of eternal destiny, but we rejoice in any marriage that is strong and good, not just the sealed ones.
A homosexual relationship can never serve the same purpose as a marriage between a man and a woman. Man and woman were created to complement each other, and in a marriage, that is the most true. Our biology obviously attests to that fact, and God intended husband and wife to be helpmeets. (Read Elder Bednar’s talk from the Leadership Training session…he is pretty clear on this stuff.) Gender roles are also important and are nullified with a same-sex relationship.
EVen a post-childbearing, non-sealed marriage is a unit of society and a foundation in a family. A grown family receives great benefit from having a patriarch and matriarch — the impact of our parents on my children is incalculable, and the impact on the extended family is also extremely significant. They are a uniting force in our family. God does not just think of family in terms of a young dad and mom who can make babies. Families are linked through generations and, in the ideal, serve one another throughout their stages of life. Marriage provides stability at the personal and generational levels, regardless of age or stage of life. I don’t see a SS relationship having the same impact at all. It serves a selfish purpose only for the two parties involved. Any positive impacts end there (and present negative eternal consequences), and there are also plenty of temporal negatives as well.
If you believe sex to be a privilege, then perhaps that explains some of your train of thought. I see sex completely as a gift, blessed only for married couples. Any other use of that gift is offensive to the Giver. I lived nearly a decade of my life as a single adult, so I know celibacy is hard. But what Elders Oaks and Wickman remind us of is that such difficulty is only temporary. Faith is needed to endure that challenge, yes, but it can be done.
“It seems completely against the nature of God to allow for behavior that will condemn people in the hereafter”, but note that God allows a woman remarried for time only to have sexual relations with a man to whom she is not sealed—a behavior that (at least according to conventional wisdom) would condemn her in the hereafter.
Uh, where do you get the notion that a MARRIED woman who has sexual relations with her husband, regardless of sealing (or lack thereof), is under condemnation? There is nothing taught by our leaders of which I’m aware that says such is the case. The requirement to allow sexual relationships is legal and lawful marriage, not sealed marriage. I don’t follow your reasoning that a widow who remarries would be under condemnation.
p.s. Christian, per your argument against my comment about blacks and the priesthood, your original post seemed to be addressing comments in this dispensation about blacks and the priesthood, and that was what I responded to. I think we have seen enough change in the specifics of how priesthood is distributed that it still doesn’t compare with laws regarding sexual purity. Polygamy has come and gone more than once. On the other hand, there has never been an exception to the “no sex unless you are in a relationship (always male-female) that is sanctioned by God” situation in all of the dispensations. The expectation of sexual purity (with sanctioned sex to be only between a man and a woman) has been a constant standard in God’s plan.
Mary Alice (#3),
If there is any unrepentant fornicator who holds a temple recommend, that is a serious breach of discipline. Such a person should at a minimum be disfellowshipped, and if he does not repent, should be cut off from the Church, (i.e. excommunicated) until he does. No unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of God.
Greenfrog (#20),
If the Lord can by any means persuade people to repent, or to use earthly agencies to accomplish his work, then I agree that he will do so. With regard to the Holocaust, that is exactly what he did - he sent the Allied armies against Germany, until the perversion of National Socialism was effectively wiped from the earth. It is hard to say why he did not act sooner - it seems that he is teaching us a principle of social responsibility - that if we let evil flourish we shall suffer the consequences, if only that of extinguishing the evil we let fester in the first place.
Now the scenario I had in mind was where the whole world had become equally wicked such that there was no nation or agency that the Lord could leverage to make things better. Turning evil doers against evil doers usually only works when one of the latter has acquired the spirit of death and destruction. An urbane sort of evil, like that say of Babylon is harder because they usually do not deserve death, but on the other hand their society is going spiritually downhill in a hurry, frustrating the plan of salvation. So what to do?
Normally speaking, not very much. However, my statement is based on the idea that the Second Coming is not far at hand, which means raising the world from a telestial to a terrestrial state, which seems to entail a significant spiritual change of the sort that one way or another makes it harder for evil doers to prosper, to the extent that all who will not repent and abide a terrestrial law, will not abide the day of his coming. The Lord’s strange act it is called, for he shall hasten his work in his time.
Perhaps some of my commentary last night was unwise in its personal specificity and strong rhetoric. If anyone feels offended or aggrieved, please feel free to let me have it publicly or privately. Maybe I should have stuck with a generic statement, something like: While I’m all for reducing and preventing genuinely deleterious social effects of inappropriately experienced and expressed sexuality, there comes a point when Pharisaic and Puritanical approaches pushed too hard not only yield diminishing returns, but actually become counterproductive in terms of building a happy and well-adjusted society.
Mark #37
Wow, buddy. Wiping from the face of the earth people who love their own gender; and those who sympathize with their plight? Equating them with a group of people who hated and exterminated those who were different than they? Excommunicating somone who is weak and misguided, but still desires to commune with the Lord through Temple worship? At last, I understand why women don’t hold the Priesthood.
39
I’m not sure I agree with Mark’s view of the Holocaust, but you can’t read scripture or prophecy without realizing that the Lord reaches points where destruction of evil people is the only option. We are warned that the disintegration of the family will bring calamities to the earth. How else can we read that except to realize that rampant sexual sin and other things that undermine families are inviting God’s wrath? It all seems pretty clear that people and societies can’t do what they want against God’s laws and warnings without serious consequence (either personal — like not being able to attend the temple while committing serious sin — or general, like calamities affecting societies and nations). That’s really what I hear Mark reiterating.
Obviously the discussion here got beyond my ability to answer all individual comments, but let me address in a general way something several comments touched on: the nature and possible future use of the Proclamation should the Lord and/or the prophets decide changes are necessary at some point.
Of the two factors mentioned in the post that might allow changes in policy, I’d guess that denial of revelatory status was leaned on most heavily (behind the scenes of course) in connection with the priesthood change, while creative/legalistic misreadings were most heavily invoked in the polygamy change. These paths were relatively easy to choose because the respective texts in question were, say, Brigham’s solo opining in the JD in one case and a canonized revelation in the other. As a formal public (but uncanonized) statement of the leading quorums, the Proclamation seems to be somewhere in between individual (albeit prophetic) speculation and canonized revelation, so what the path to change would not be as clear. I think its public and much-ballyhooed nature give it more permanency than the Church Handbook of Instructions.
I think the leaders would be loathe to overturn a previous formal statement, and would go for progressive misreading if it became necessary. An example of this reluctance is the 1909 First Presidency statement on the origin of man: rather than supercede it or completely ignore it in the face of evidence for evolution, it is still relied upon when necessary—though, unlike the Proclamation, without much enthusiasm and without additional comment—which relative silence probably reflects the general strategy of trying to sweep the issues of evolution and death before the fall under the rug, though it may also signal ambivalence about its contents and the interpretation thereof. Interest in gay rights will probably have a much larger constituency than those interested in evolution, however, such that it probably will never be possible to sweep the issue (or the Proclamation) under the rug.
Bored in Vernal (#39),
You have read a lot of things into my position that I did not say, nor did I properly imply. On the major issue, I have to wonder whether you have read or take seriously the scriptures refering to the judgments preceding the Second Coming, let alone prior precedents, notably the Flood.
On the issue of fornication, the key words is unrepentant. I refer you to D&C 42:23-26 and 42:77 which establishes even a higher standard than I have outlined. This is not my law - this is God’s law.
Also, I did not introduce the Holocaust into this discussion - the Holocaust was introduced as a suggested example of where the Lord did not come down in vengeance upon the wicked. I suggest that he did, by the hand of the Allied forces.
And you are correct, that if women do not or cannot have the stamina to execute a strict law not of their own authorship without compromising their femininity then certain offices will be forever barred to them. Can the average woman really be a good soldier? Perhaps. I think women can make excellent legislators, but soldiers I am not so sure. Soldiery is a judicial function and women are much more attuned to mercy. I am sufficiently conservative that I cannot imagine female sword bearing angels, as a rule, the example of Joan of Arc to the contrary.
M&M (#35), don’t worry, I’m not in the least condemning sealed widowed sisters who remarry. My point was that some things are allowed in mortality (i.e. she can be married to a different man) that she presumably will not be allowed to continue once she gets into eternity. This is an instance where a mortal exigency gives rise to a mortal allowance.
I agree that biology has a significant imprint on gender roles; but Church leaders seem to be acknowledging now that in some cases something goes terribly awry with the biology. It is difficult for us to emphathize with this—heck, it can even be difficult for ‘normal’ men and women to sympathize with each others’ biology, it would seem—but it would nevertheless seem incumbent upon us to allow them to make their lives the most they could possibly be. Of course, there is disagreement on just what this would be.
The current official Mormon view is that they can make the most of their lives separately and singly rather than as couples. But your paragraph that begins “EVen a post-childbearing, non-sealed marriage is a unit of society and a foundation in a family” doesn’t say much at all that is gender specific, except that they may have posterity. Yet many infertile heterosexual couples can contribute in important ways to extended kin networks in roles similar to those you describe—presumably Ardeth Kapp does, for instance—and I’m not sure why same-sex couples could not also do so. I’m definitely interested in hearing more about the “plenty of temporal negatives.” I think I’ve only heard one so far, that is, that women who could go either way might feel too free to go the same-sex route; but as I said in #31, perhaps this danger could be handled in a way similar to the dangers of divorce.
It is very simple - a man and a woman are designed for each other, and together they make a better and more effective union than two of the same sex. This includes parenthood, grandparent-hood, and so on, even if all the children are adopted.
The Lord does not support SSA couple adoptions for a variety of reasons, notably the fact that they will not be able to be preserved in the eternities when an SSA couple returns to normality, also the fact that such a child is likely to have his own sexuality warped in the process.
Christian,
Thanks for the clarification. I agree with Mark that legitimized same-sex relationships would increase the possibility of gender confusion (I can say I had my own experience with this as a teen when finding out that my uncle was gay. The confusion was devastating to my already confused, puberty-raged, hating-boys-who-were-jerks, insecure self.) Thank goodness high school came around and showed me I liked boys.
Also, there is something irreplaceable about having a father AND a mother — both genders represented. Even social science has found there is great benefit for boys to have male role models, for example. I would presume the same goes for girls to have female role models. As much as I love my children’s grandpa, for example, I would not want two of him to be an influence on my children.
(Obviously hyperbole, for a hypothetical partner would be a different person, but he would still be a man and wouldn’t know what being a girl is like!) Grandma provides a tremendous balancing force to his character and example. While some of those differences are simply based on personality, there are those clearly tied to gender. My girls learn so much from Grandma about being a woman — and woman of God. No matter how great Grandpa is, he can never do that. For that matter, she is an irreplaceable person in my life and fills a place that Grandpa never could. “Male and female created he them.” That sums up the way God wants things to be.
I also am of the opinion that there is a detrimental affect to our society when any illicit sex is institutionalized at any level. Legitimized gay sex would also legitimize homosexuality with a force that I am not sure we can really contemplate. The subtle underpinnings of society that still reinforce marriage and family as we know it would unravel. Children would be taught about all sorts of “family” and sex, because it would be required to be “fair” and “non-discriminating.” (That is already in progress.) Billboards and ads and other media would celebrate these things in ways that would make marriage and family as God has designed it really just become nothing of consequence…nothing to be fought for or cared about above any other relationships. It would become an even more anything-goes society. Do you really think the degradation of society would just stop? I don’t. And I don’t want to give the adversary any more power than he has. He is the one pushing society in this direction. None of this is from God. That seems to be clear from what our leaders are saying. Whatever inclinations exist come from the natural, fallen man and are not consistent with God’s desires and hopes for us.
I believe more allowance for more sexual sin could also make it more difficult to teach the plan of salvation. Especially if the Church were to allow for-time gay sex, imagine what kind of mental gymnastics we would have to do there to teach about God’s plan and laws and requirements for celestial glory.
Other effects I see as possibilities: I could see this having an effect on efforts to curtail divorce. After all, divorce works for them, who are we to say what is and isn’t good? What’s good for society could easily take a back seat to what ’s good for individuals. (I think we already see that happening to a degree.) I only see same-sex sex benefitting those who get to participate, and maybe those few who are their cheerleaders. But as for family structure and solidarity, and thus the fabric of society, I simply see a Pandora’s box that will spiral downward. I really think our prophets are trying to keep that downward spiral at bay. Call me a pessimist if you will, but I think they are really in the role of watchmen on the tower on this issue trying to prevent the calamities they warn about (with this and other family-threatening issues — hypersexuality, pornography, divorce, child abuse, etc. etc. etc…this certainly isn’t the only issue, but it’s a key issue). With all the desire I have to be compassionate (I have struggled more that I could share to work through this because I do have compassion for those with homosexual tendencies who struggle to find a place, who desire love and companionship but are denied that in approved ways), I simply believe that we have to remember that there is more to life than just “letting people have as much enjoyment as possible.”
The fact that there is so much conversation and political strife over this issue proves to me that what two people do in their bedroom and life can and does indeed affect more than just them. I dont’ see that effect disappearing if suddenly gays got what they want. No, I think that would only be the beginning in a way.
Besides, we really can’t ignore the idea that wickedness isn’t happiness, even with biological tendencies. In the end, I believe those in the Church who pursue that course will not truly be happy. Ignoring the voice that says who we really are would probably have its temporal effects as well as spiritual.
I also have read those on both sides of this issue foresee a tremendous threat to (especially religious) free speech if gay rights gain much more momentum. We have seen glimmers of that in Europe as mentioned by Elder Oaks, and also in Massachusetts. Massachusetts has also seen parental rights threatened and society’s influence strengthened. I don’t want society to have any more pull on my children than it already does!
Ugh. On one hand, I really don’t like sharing my thoughts on this because it makes me sound like a gay hater to some, I’m sure. I am really not. I can think of no other trial except maybe mental illness that could be its equal, especially in the Church, but even in society that is conflicted on the subject. I really hope we see the day when people with these tendencies can openly share their struggles and we can rally to their support and love and acceptance as they choose the life God asks them to live in spite of their inclinations. But because I believe sooo strongly in the doctrine taught by our leaders, I could never fathom wanting to give them something that I believe would only hurt them and society as a whole. It’s because of my deep concern that I rant so.
Sorry that was so long and sorta stream-of-conscious-y….
M&M, you get a minus rating for using the phrase “gender confusion.” I didn’t even need to think twice.
Youch. My first rating. Thanks a lot, Steve.
If I weren’t such a nice person, I’d give you a minus for giving me a minus.
M&M (#45), thanks for your thoughts. A couple of points.
First, I’m a little dismayed at your use of full quotation marks in characterizing my position as “letting people have as much enjoyment as possible,” when what I actually said was “it would nevertheless seem incumbent upon us to allow them to make their lives the most they could possibly be. Of course, there is disagreement on just what this would be.” These two statements could be read very differently. It’s always important to portray someone’s position accurately, but especially when using full quotation marks.
Second, I’m not capable of doing it but I would be interested to see thoughtful discussions that compare and contrast the apocalyptic warnings about racial integration, miscegenation, etc., and justifications of the (I acknowledge separate, but not completely unrelated) status quos of segregation and denial of priesthood and temple blessings, with the predictions of societal meltdown of the sort you give here if same-sex unions were unleashed. It seems that the sky has not fallen since the 1960s; I gather that in large majorities people have stuck to their natural biological bias, in this case, to be attracted to their own race; and that what racial intermarriage there is hasn’t caused any large-scale breakdown of society. I can’s say for sure of course, but I tend to think that the urge to heterosexually pair off and have children is not in any danger of disappearing from the earth. I’m guessing this is a deeply rooted aspect of most of our evolved natures, with same-sex attraction resulting from some particular genetic mutations and/or biological development pathways, that, like other known ‘abnormalities,’ seem to be ‘errors’ that recur with some frequency even if they are not reinforced by natural selection. (I hate to use the words ‘abnormalities’ and ‘errors’—many traits exhibit continuous ranges—but it seems that in some cases, perhaps most often in men, there is something discrete going on.)
Dave: evidence for increasingly heated rhetoric re: anything to do with sexuality? (excluding pornography)
(nursing, thus telegraph style)
That people as conservative as Dick Cheney have their views changed on this when they experience it in their own family should, at the very least, make us think. (One of Cheney’s daughters is in a long-term same-sex relationship.)
That was not intended as a response to Rosalynde, but was an accidental coincidence of bytes passing each other in the night of cyberspace.
But as long as she’s around, I should perhaps put my unfairly cryptic opening remark in #31 out on the table in case she wants to disabuse me of incorrect suspicions. I suspect those who find male desire—it being relentless, and so easily brought to fruition—repugnant, might appreciate the ‘celebrate celibacy’ route to welcoming gays into the Church because it would exemplify and even glorify the sort of complete male self-mastery that should easily be “adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all [male] saints, who are or can be called saints.”
The interesting irony of the manifest failure of most of the male half of humanity to meet the desired standard and thus disqualify themselves from exaltation is, however, that it may be the very mechanism by which a significant gender imbalance is created in the celestial kingdom—one that may well bring on polygamy as described in D&C 132 (unworthy David’s wives being given to another etc.), such that those who do succeed will be the ones who end up living out a fuller extent of the male nature in eternity. Who knows, this could even motivate the self-mastery of some righteous Mormon men—a sort of Mormon version of what might be called the ‘dark-eyed-houri-motivated-martyrdom-lust’ afflicting fundamentalist Islam.
Consider yourself disabused, Christian. And now consider me depressed, re that last paragraph.
Just to be sure, by considering myself disabused I am to understand that my suspicion was wrong? (I want to make sure because I always delight in the marvelous privilege of having a testable prediction shot down by empirical evidence… It’s the best way going to find out ‘things as they really are,’ or technically, as Popper would tell us, ‘things as they really are not’…)
Sorry to have made you feel depressed. Perhaps the stories/myths/revelations might have turned out very differently had they been generated by (or come through, take your pick) women. On the other hand, perhaps it wouldn’t be ‘and now for something completely different.’ There likely are limits to what we can reasonably accomplish with the hands dealt us by earthbound deep history and/or backwardly eternal cosmic realities (again, take your pick, or find a satisfying amalgam of the two that as far as I can tell has so far eluded everyone else). That doesn’t mean that we, speaking collectively of course, shouldn’t try hard to do our best to and for each other.
I know it’s not pretty. Nevertheless, please try to not shoot the messenger. (Deliberately esoteric, that.)
48
Christian,
Sorry. That was sloppy of me. It was late and I was simply lazy. Sorry for the misuse of full quotation marks.
I will say, however, that even with the words you used that I should have quoted, a focus on “for-time” sex for gays still feels more about the pleasure than anything else. I suppose my sloppiness reflected the sentiment I’m left with when we talk about for-time sex — although I must clarify that I know gays want more than just sex — e.g., companionship, intimacy, etc. (That’s another way my heart goes out to them — esp. in the Church, because they are not just denied sex to be in good standing…there could be no closeness, hand-holding, etc…other more casual closeness. Tough stuff.)
Still, I don’t know how we can provide them as much as whatl life could be without some serious ramifications — for them and for society. Besides, in the end, we really can’t just focus on for-time aspects of things anyway, since that would have to ignore the whole plan of salvation and purpose of life. That is part of why I could never see the Church going this way…because we would have to abandon the focus on eternal perspective, etc.
Per your second paragraph, I actually agree that I don’t see a meltdown of heterosexual drives as a result of homosexuality. I worry about further degradation that we HAVE seen since the 1960s that then affects children and families (unrelated to race but related to a relaxing of sexual standards in society). The battles my children face to stay pure and true, to have a healthy view of sex and its sacredness, to understand the plan of salvation and have a long-term view vs. short-term view — these are all battles that are much harder now than even when I was growing up. We can’t watch a movie or TV without worrying about what they might see (which is why we don’t watch TV!) We have to worry about porn infiltrating their lives on all sides. I can’t even go to the grocery story without my son (age 7) feeling the need to turn magazines backwards because of the junk on them. Our society is being boiled slowly without really realizing it. The more we let illicit sexual relationships become normalized, the worse the atmosphere and culture will get and the harder it will be to keep our families safe and intact. Such a focus on sex also reinforces this instant-gratification-filled society we live in, which makes commitment to marriage, God, faith, fidelity, etc. harder. This affects children and adults alike. It will be continually harder to keep Babylon out (think Elder Stone’s talk). (Elder Eyring warned us that it is going to be harder to keep our covenants as we go along, not easier. I think this whole sexual revolution thing that has been going on for the past few decades is part of why that is true.) Think of what we have seen in our own lifetimes in terms of the forces trying to knock us off the path and thwart God’s plan. My thought is that unless we support and follow His plan to a ‘T’, (even if we are unable to live all elements of the plan, we can still support them) we will in a sense be allowing forces to fight against it.
As for other gloom-and-doom predictions, I just see the Proclamation and its warnings as of a different ilk than basically any others we have seen. I am not familiar with the specific warnings related to race, for example, but I don’t think there has ever been the kind of unified, focused teaching and warning that we have seen with relation to the concern for marriage and family and chastity. Also consider the active role our leaders have played in encouraging legislation on these issues. We don’t see that often, either. I just don’t think we can compare with past situations and concerns. There just wasn’t the force (from what I know anyway) and continuity and such that we see with Proclamation-related issues. Am I making sense?
OK. Enough for now. Sorry again for my sloppiness. Thanks for your patience with me.
We have been afflicted with enough divinity as despotism in our culture already, and suffered greatly for it. I tend to think it is much more a consequence of the photocopier theory of exaltation than anything else, but whatever the case is, it shall not stand. Jesus Christ came in part to demonstrate what divine character was really like, and self-seeking non-responsive do this and do that is not part of the program. Only the society of divinity as a whole can have that kind of self-derived authority.
M&M, I also thank you for your patience with me and your willingness to thoughtfully engage here.
We’re probably at about the point where we’ll have to agree to disagree (amicably, I hope and expect). However I will confess to the hair starting to stand up on the back of my neck when I start hearing the desperate circling the wagons sort of rhetoric, the ‘we must follow things to a ‘T’ or we’re completely doomed,’ etc. It’s just that it’s the kind of thing one can imagine hearing in an anti-Mormon pamphlet, a fundamentalist madrassa, or coming out of Osama Bin Laden’s mouth in a terrorist boot camp. Please don’t misconstrue this potentially offensive and inflammatory remark—I’m not calling you a terrorist, and I know the particulars and degree are very different—I’m referring more generally to certain kinds of habits of thought and styles of worldview. I worry it is very easy to lose the functionally useful, workable forest for fixation on certain individual ideological trees. This is not you, but it is possible that people become so self-righteously focused on certain particulars (often of anise- and cummin-tithing smallness in the great scheme of things) that weightier matters fall by the wayside.
I know it cuts against the grain of a peculiar people dead set on not being of the world, and I myself am not going to pretend that at certain times about certain things I am not elitist; but at the same time I have something of an abiding faith in the baseline competence of common humanity. (Perhaps I should say hope. We do have enough technological prowess that the margins for error, the opportunities to recover from drastic errors brought on by our technologically multiplied powers, may be diminishing.) Through stumbling and slow but wide experience I think that humanity largely manages to sort through what works and what doesn’t in response to the inevitable changes brought on by technology and deeper human self-understanding. Do modern families and their children face serious difficulties, some of them new and unique? Sure. But I also tend to think that children in the modern Western world have a better lot than those of practically any other time and place in the history of the world.
Christian,
I agree that with the challenges, our children have wonderful opportunities. I don’t mean to minimize those.
I don’t know if it makes any difference, but when I spoke of following to a T, I meant specifically those things surrounding marriage, sex and family. I shouldn’t have been that extreme, though, because a lot of times all we can do is our best, which often falls short of the ideal. Still we are encouraged to work toward that ideal as much as we can. (I’m thinking of a couple of talks — one by Elder Scott and one by Elder Bednar.)
I do feel that our prophets’ warnings on these topics are anything but cummin-tithing smallness. What is central to God’s plan is anything but insignificant. The only other thing I can see more central is the Atonement.
But maybe I misunderstood your comment.
I have appreciated this discussion. Thank you.
In my opinion, marriage and family are such a vital part of the At-one-ment, that it would almost certainly fail without them.
Mark, are we conflating the Atonement with the Plan of Exaltation? After all, people are saved into the Telestial Kingdom through of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, but, obviously, do not require Celestial Marriage.
Steven B, That is a complex question. Considering that no mortal society has ever prospered without the institution of marriage, I would say that even where temporary it is a necessary part of the salvation of all mankind. As to the distinction, I am one inclined to conceive of the At-one-ment in the widest possible terms.
There are much neglected scriptures in the New Testament and D&C that support this idea: Rom 8:16-17, D&C 86:10-11, Heb 2:11, 1 Cor 12:27, D&C 121:46 and so on.
Christian, all guns holstered, I promise!
As a formal public (but uncanonized) statement of the leading quorums, the Proclamation seems to be somewhere in between individual (albeit prophetic) speculation and canonized revelation, so what the path to change would not be as clear. I think its public and much-ballyhooed nature give it more permanency than the Church Handbook of Instructions.
Do you consider the manner in which the Proclamation on the Economy has receded from prominence to be different in kind from what could occur regarding the Proclamation on the Family, of course all in the event that leaders wanted such an outcome?
I heard it on the best authority that the Proclamation was written by Church lawyers because of the approaching vote on legalized SSM in Hawaii. The Church has no scripture defining marriage, because it never needed one, but in 1994, it needed one, and in writing. After the lawyers wrote this, they sought Dallin Oaks’ approval, and he re-edited it slightly and decided to show it to the Quorum, and put it out publicly as a “Proclamation.”
Nothing makes me feel as bad about the Church and the Brethren as when I read someone proclaim the “Proclamation” to be revealed truth, direct from God. The wording of the Proclamation isn’t exactly incendiary, or new, but it still makes me feel bad.
If Mark Butler is right in #58, I find it interesting that marriage and family are barely mentioned in the New Testament an Book of Mormon, and the few places they are mentioned often seem to imply something quite different from what modern Mormonism teaches. (The verses Mark lists in #60 don’t even mention marriage at all.)
In fact, it seems to me that current Mormon understanding of the role of marriage and family didn’t really develop until the 20th century.
63
D., that is not anywhere close to the story I have heard about the Proclamation. But in the end, what matters is that the prophets were acting in their role as prophets when they signed that document. And they repeatedly teach as prophets when they teach from it. That said, I’m sorry it makes you feel bad.
Ed,
I have wondered about this as well. One of the thoughts I have had is that if our scriptures had everything in them, we wouldn’t really need prophets as much. This last dispensation requires both scripture and living prophets for us to fully understand what God wants us to know and do.
p.s. We also don’t know if any of the marriage and family stuff was part of the plain and precious knowledge…??? I dunno.
greenfrog (#62), I agree that things fade from significance with the passage of time without mention. The Proclamation on the Economy must be an example, as I’m not sure I’ve heard of it. Was this related to Brigham wanting to keep capital in Deseret? Tell me about it and its subsequent fate.
The second factor is more subtle, having to do with the precise wording of the operative phrase whose current interpretation forbids same-sex relationships even ‘for-time-only’: “We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.”
Although this is the operative phrase that is used to forbid homosexual behavior, should the day come that the brethren change their position on SSM and homosexual behavior, this phrase may actually be the loophole to preserve the proclamation intact. After all, homosexual partners do not “procreate.” Strictly speaking, the Proclamation demands that children be born within the bonds of matrimony. It does not specifically forbid non-procreative unions, whether civil unions or actual marriages.
Nor does the Proclamation strictly forbid SSM. Instead it holds that marriage between “man and woman” is central to God’s plan for mankind. Who could argue with that? And it describes the ideal family model. But nowhere does the Proclamation forbid families that fall outside of that ideal. We further read that “[d]isability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation.”
“Disability.” Hmmm, where have we heard that word recently?
The call for citizens and government “to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family” can actually be interpreted in favor of marriage for homosexual families. Certainly most gay people would hold any advocation to “strengthen the family” as being afirmative to SSM.
In conclusion, should the church change its position on homosexuality and SSM (or polygamy, for that matter), it could do so without changing a single word of the Proclamation.
Steven, your first paragraph that follows the quotation, and the last sentence, are what I intended as a central point of the main post. Sorry if I didn’t make it lucidly enough!
Your point about the “[d]isability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation” phrase is interesting. Of course, it’s not textually linked to marriage between a man and a woman. But there is precedent for new applications of old loopholes: In justifying the end of the practice of polygamy, Pres. Woodruff appealed to the verse in D&C 124 releasing the Saints from the requirement of building a temple in Zion (Jackson County) because their enemies made it impossible.
Christian, you are right. One of the reasons I blog is to help me become a better writer (something you are very acomplished at, BTW). Perhaps my comprehension skills will improve too.
[…] As I touched on in my recent thread on the Proclamation on the Family, the time to publicly misread is when genuine doctrine—undeniably official teachings of the Church—have to be adjusted. Perhaps the necessity of polygamy for exaltation is an example: I seem to remember reading in Carmon Hardy’s Solemn Covenant that this was publicly addressed by the leaders at some point in an explication of D&C 132 that highlighted the text’s reference to a man marrying a woman and so on. (This is not to say, of course, that the Church has ever suggested there will be no polygamy in the hereafter!) Sometimes false beliefs that never were doctrine may need public disavowal, but only if they are gaining in currency among members or causing clear and present public relations dangers. I suspect old teachings relating the curses of Cain and Ham to the status of racial groups in the premortal life do not meet either of these criteria. Aside from the fact that there don’t seem to be any official texts to misread on this point, those teachings are increasingly unpopular and uncommon within the Church and have not proven to be a prominent and recurring public relations problem. Hence it may be best to let the scriptural passages from which those inferences were made speak for themselves. (7 votes, average: 4.57 out of 5) Loading … […]