- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
On second thought, I deleted a comment that is unrelated to the purpose of this topic. Sorry, Ray.
Thank you, MisterCurie. I really appreciate it.
Quote:What do you think is the rationale for requiring men to preside?
Age and tradition?
I think it simply is a matter of language and culture with this one – and concern that if they say that men aren’t expected to preside that many men will backslide into just providing and not share the other responsibilities. In a nutshell, I think it’s a basic distrust of the “natural MAN”. Is that sexist? Yeah, maybe reverse sexism – but it has a pretty good historical basis, so it’s not unfounded or naive.
I also have heard enough statements from the apostles over the past 15 years or so about how spouses need to make ALL important decisions together that I believe they are moving away from the traditional meaning of “preside” (“rule over and control”). I’d love to hear that concept (men preside) scrapped completely in favor of an explicit recognition that when a man and a woman are married, they become ONE – and that the ideal is when that new ONE presides unitedly.
Honestly, I believe most of the current Q12 view it that way in practical terms – but I do think they maintain a theoretical concept of “preside” if for no other reason than that’s the language with which they were raised, and their own presiding doesn’t include ruling over and controlling. (Anyone who doubts that has never listened to Camilla Kimball or Majorie Hinckley.
😆 ) When they don’t dictate to their wives and children (when their personal definition of presiding in the home isn’t about old-fashioned control and subservience), I’m not sure they can ditch it totally (or understand completely why others feel it needs to be ditched), so I can wait.MWallace posted a comment in the wrong thread that should have been posted here. Actually, it should not have been posted here, and, upon further consideration, I have posted it into a separate thread for the admins and moderators to discuss privately. MWallace,
please send me a private message that includes a link to the site you are referencing. Also, please send me a link to anything that substantiates the claims in your comment. If there is legitimate reason to post your comment in a separate thread to discuss the issue it raises, I will do so. I think the “preside” part can be a problem for many, many women and even men. The men preside because they have the priesthood. I do not have all that my husband has-I’m not truly one with him-if I have to say I don’t have the priesthood.
There are no circumstances that I have ever heard of where a woman is allowed to preside over her family
with the priesthoodwhen her husband is unable to. So, if a father is unable to bless or baptise his own children the responsibility is not deferred to the mother. It is deferred to another man who may not even be related. And maybe those are not responsibilities of a father, maybe they are “blessings” or an honor.
Sometimes it just seems so strange. GBH said we walk side-by-side as co-equal partners in marriage. How come when we are in the temple all the men sit together on the right side and the women all together on the left? Why can’t we sit with our eternal companions? Is the seperation symbolic? Negative or positive or even necessary? Maybe it’s like that because that is just how BY wanted it to be-a tradition.
I do believe men and women are equal but different. However, I feel like our society (church) has imposed some artificial differences that don’t need to be there. I see presiding as an artificial gender role. Maybe they were helpful to those who lived in a different time and place. But today, I just see it as doing more harm than good.
Thank you, Ray, and everyone for continuing this discussion. It’s difficult and laced with tons of emotion, not the least of which, mine. 😳 I do get what you’re saying, Ray, about the responsibility of fathers in this day and age. And, I agree completely. And, I’m sure that was a part of the intention of the proclamation. Again, using historical context, the timing of the release of the proclamation and the recent re-emphasis on it, happens to coincide with political machinations to thwart gay marriage: marriage amendment in the 90’s, Prop 8 last year.
That’s why I find it troubling when stark, well-defined language is used to define gender, gender roles, etc. While I agree with what you’re saying, I guess I disagree with what the intention of the proclamation was: you see it as a “call-to-arms” for fathers to take responsibility; I see it as a political action by the church to rally it’s members to a cause.
And, I think that that intention clouded the judgment of the writers and signers to codify language that has and will in the future damage the emotional well-being of many people. And, I think that that was avoidable. One can still make an argument without collateral damage.
swim, I am talking about one part of the document here; you are extrapolating my point to the document as a whole. Please, be careful of doing that, since I haven’t addressed the proclamation as a whole once in this thread. I really do want to keep this thread tightly focused. Thanks, valoel. It is easy to get dogmatic when discussing ANY issue that is as charged emotionally as this one – for someone with any number of views, myself included.
Ray: In my postings, at least in my own mind, I am focused solely on the intended paragraph. I know I’m making general statements about the whole proclamation but I mean it to apply to this specific paragraph. I just don’t think that you can divorce one paragraph of the proclamation from the original intent of the writers. It wasn’t written in a vacuum. There were multitudinous ideas which affected every sentence of this document. And, I have no doubt that your parsing of this section was intended at some level, in the exact way with which you have described your interpretation of it. But, one can’t pretend that there aren’t other potential interpretations or that there wasn’t unfortunate consequences of using certain words or phrases, whether intended or not. I happen to interpret this paragraph as just that: an unfortunate use of the phrasing, “Fathers…are responsible to provide the necessities of life…” I have no problem if someone interprets this same phrasing as inspired. I understand the consequences of the opposite phrasing which is exactly why I feel that this particular concept should be treated with more care than the black/white phraseology imbibes.
And, I understand the possibility for exception and the charity, therein. But, again, that charity extends only to those who seem forced into the exceptional circumstance (death, disability), not those who actually choose it.
And, I’m not extrapolating the whole document but staying focused on this one paragraph. Which begins with the “eternal” nature of monogamous heterosexual marriage. And, it is this context within which the rest of the paragraph unfolds. So, I think it is fair to inspect the context of those specific sentences and phrases which we are discussing.
Having said that, I believe that the unfortunate terminology used in said phrasing could have been avoided, but the insistence upon defining gender roles in the greater context of defining monogamous heterosexual marriage negatively influenced the writers’ concept of how that phrase could be perceived/received.
And, I’m trying to be charitable by not bringing up the hypocrisy of that second sentence, even though the concepts we’re discussing are, in fact, the supporting claims of that exact initial concept/conceit.
Thanks for that clarification, swim. I understand better now, but I still want to limit this to the responsibilities of spouses – and to do that I simply can’t tackle the whole sexual orientation aspect. I’ve already said I see one of the purposes of the Proclamation as being the bolstering of heterosexual marriage. I’m not arguing against that. I think it’s impossible to argue against that without twisting and distorting meaning. Iow, I don’t think the document can be “parsed” accurately to reach anything but that conclusion. I just am not addressing that aspect in this post, because I want to focus narrowly on what this passage says about spousal responsibilities – granted, within a heterosexual marriage. I believe the conclusions can apply to a partnership of any two people, but I realize that the document itself speaks only of heterosexual marriages. Having said that, let me try one more time to focus closely on what the sentences in question say – from a slightly different angle.
First, in all seriousness, I want to thank you, swim and MisterCurie, for keeping this discussion alive long enough for me to reconsider what I have written thus far, since, ironically, I have taken one more careful look at the passage in question and re-evaluated my previous assertion that the “initial ideal” (the base standard from which individual adaptation occurs) is a father working outside the home and a mother working inside the home. I now believe that such a construct is NOT consistent with what this passage actually says, possible conscious intent notwithstanding – and that conclusion has surprised me tremendously. It was in looking at the sentence about individual adaptation that a simple parsing epiphany struck me for the very first time – and I honestly and sincerely owe that epiphany to the two of you.
I understand totally that what I am about to write will seem radical and probably a stretch upon first reading, so all I ask is that you read it more than once, if necessary, to see what I mean.
Remember, if one grants the possibility of inspiration in the wording of this passage relative to spousal responsibilities – even if one still reserves the right to not view the entire document as inspired (or even this particular passage as totally inspired) – perhaps the will of God in this particular issue can be found despite one’s misgivings or disagreements concerning the rest.I know what I am requesting is hard, but please read what I am about to write slowly and carefully. It has taken me a LONG time and considerable contemplation (soul-searching, really) to write it.
The third and fourth sentences say:
Quote:In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation.
When you look closely at how this entire passage is phrased, these two sentences stand out – for two reasons. I have mentioned already the critical aspect of the first sentence above, but I want to reiterate it to set up my second point:
1) “THESE sacred responsibilities” is plural – but only ONE responsibility is assigned to the wife. For the partners to act as equal partners in THESE responsibilities, that sentence simply MUST refer to the responsibilities assigned to BOTH husband and wife, since that is the ONLY way to make what is listed plural. It simply can’t refer only to the mother’s responsibility to nurture, since it is singular. Therefore, the ONLY way to parse this passage fairly when it comes to the performance of assigned responsibilities is to grant that the father and mother are obligated to help one another as equal partners in ALL of the listed responsibilities – NOT just the one responsibility listed as primarily that of the mother.
We can talk about possible intent all we want, but this is the only parsing that is consistent with the actual text.2) The sentence that mentions “individual adaptation” discusses situations (“disability, death, or other circumstances”) where ONLY ONE partner is available to perform “these sacred responsibilities, and it follows directly the injunction for fathers and mothers to help each other as equal partners in the performance of their sacred responsibilities. Therefore, the most straightforward and logical parsing of that sentence is that it refers to situations where the “ideal” must be abandoned and only one partner must shoulder the responsibilities that the couple together normally would be obligated to perform as equal partners – circumstances where the couple is unable to work together as equal partners in the performance of “these sacred responsibilities”.
I understand completely that there is a radically different way to read this sentence – since I have argued that reading up to this point in this thread. I have read the individual adaptation as “permission”, per se, to break from the traditional delineation of responsibilities. What I have overlooked completely, however, is that the third sentence flat-out dictates that each couple work together to perform “these sacred responsibilities” as equal partners. If this means they choose to construct a “traditional” family, where he works outside the home and she doesn’t, great. If this means they choose a different structure, great.
The key is that they make that choice by working together as equal partners.When that is not possible (when they cannot work together as equal partners in the performance of their sacred responsibilities), due to disability or death or other circumstances rendering EITHER partner incapable of participating as an equal (since neither is singled out in the relevant sentence), then and only then can individual adaptation be made and only one partner be authorized to make unilateral decisions regarding the performance of “these sacred responsibilities”. When I stopped and parsed these two sentences, I reached the extremely surprising conclusion (for me) that this passage explicitly FORBIDS the husband (or the wife, for that matter) from making unilateral decisions in normal circumstances about ANY of the sacred responsibilities listed– that the ONLY instances where he OR she is authorized to make unilateral decisions is where the other is incapable of working together in partnership. My own parents are a great example of such circumstances. My mother’s schizophrenia constituted a situation where she simply could not participate “equally” in the performance of any of the responsibilities my parents shared. Therefore, my father was required to be the lone parent who made nearly every important decision for their family. He made them, and my mother accepted them (since she simply could not worry about anything without having a breakdown) – but, without her individual disability, that construct would not have been consistent with this particular passage from the Proclamation. He would have been obligated to work with her as an equal partner in the performance of those responsibilities – even if that meant that they decided she needed to work outside the home.
Ray, that is a beautiful construct in the realm of partnership and parenting. And, at least in my mind, it fits a loose construct of “inspired” as well. As such, it is a huge step forward from the church’s previous stances of ideological purity: man works, woman rears the kids. I accept that parsing 😳 while not relinquishing the idea that there is potential harm for those who would read it within the traditional context of the church’s previous directives and the current cultural norms around that subject.Which, I presume, is the expected adjustment that current “inspiration” or “enlightenment” would make, rather than a radical re-configuring of the potentialities within the subject paradigm.
My own emotional responses, of course, are a result of my hope/expectations
😳 around an even more profound charity extended first, to heterosexual couples who choose a different lifestyle regardless of ability, and second, to same-sex couples who, generally, would have to make these choices from a personal, co-equal partnership, completely disregarding the gender specifications of the responsibilities. Therein lies the rub. Without assigning these responsibilities to a gender, the whole paragraph could read as a simple treatise for parents to share all responsibilities as co-equals. Which I see as the most charitable way to present this concept. Hence, my “gut-level” resistance to the presentation of the concept in it’s current form.And, thank you, Ray, for continuing this as well, I’m not sure I had conceptually worked out in my own mind why I felt that “gut reaction” in the first place. Now, I know: Co-dependency!!
😳 🙄 😆 The Savior usually taught in parables. It was easy for the common man to understand. Please indulge me if I share a family story. It has a point. My brother Bill lived in a same gender relationship for twenty-five years (until his death at age 51). He has been gone now for over twenty years, so adopting children was not an option. Nephews and nieces were very important to them though. Bill compensated by bringing home strays, three large dogs and seven cats as I recall. His partner Jim hated pets. However, because of Bill’s love, Jim put up with them. When Bill died rather suddenly, I thought there would be a quick trip to the local animal pound. But Jim kept every single animal and lovingly cared for them until the last one died, maybe eight/nine years later. Early on Monday, most weeks of the year, Jim visits Bill at Forest Lawn Cemetery. Twice I took my mother & we found him there. No advance planning, he was simply spending time with a memory and thrilled when we drove up. I think swimordle (tying this back the thread), that I agree with your statement regarding the personal, co-equal partnership for couples who choose a different lifestyle. Certainly I realize “The Proclamation to the World” was not written to my brother nor his friend. Their partnership was only found in their hearts, and in the hearts of those who knew and observed them. I believe, I hope, the Savior saw it too.
I like the conclusion you have drawn from your parsing, Ray. I have a couple of questions related to it though, since you admit that it may seem a bit radical:
(1) Do you think the GAs had this meaning in mind when they issued the proclamation?
(2) If yes, why is it so difficult to arrive at the “correct” interpretation and most people arrive at the incorrect conclusions? Couldn’t they have been more clear?
(3) If no, can this passage be inspired if it goes against the intent of the authors?
(4) Related to my parsings post, is it better to use parsing to arrive at a personally agreeable conclusion, or to arrive at original intent?
For some reason, I ended up reading this thread tonight and realized I never answered Mister Curie’s questions. I don’t know why I feel the need to do so almost eight years later, but I am going to give my answers – and hope this thread helps someone who will read it now. 1) Honestly, I don’t know – but I am positive they understood the changing world and the reality of so many women needing to work outside the home. For this reason, I tend to think they meant exactly what their words said: The foundational position is to help each other, as equal partners, in all responsibilities. This doesn’t mean split everything 50/50; it simply means there are no exclusively assigned roles for everyone.
2) Culture and tradition are powerful – and few people have the desire or ability to parse complex statements differently than how their natural assumptions and previous learning lead them to understand something. Also, I’m not sure the statement could have been clearer when they were addressing radically different situations around the world in a reasonably concise manner.
3) Yes. Absolutely. “All men are created equal” and the 2/5 rule for slaves are irreconcilable – but the first statement is inspired, even if the writers and signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution don’t appear to have believed it unanimously.
4) It depends. If parsing leads to a distorted conclusion (neither accurate nor in line with original intent), it is nothing more than apologetic justification for what the interpreter wants to believe. However, I parse so carefully and meticulously for one reason: I hate it when people assume they know what I meant to say and, therefore, misunderstand and criticize what I actually say. If I hate being the recipient of such inaccurate interpretations, I owe it to others not to do it to them. I owe it to them to interpret ONLY what they actually say, not what I assume they must have meant. (I still can allow for liars to make false statements, but, unless there is strong evidence of that practice, I need to be charitable and interpret as if they mean what they say.)
I’m excited to see this old post get resurrected. I’ll chime in with my thoughts as well. Quote:I am positive they understood the changing world and the reality of so many women needing to work outside the home.
I think this is true for some, but not ALL of the Q15. But as time goes on, they are starting to see that beating women up, albeit rhetorically, for the facts of the economy, is not the moral high ground. It’s taken us a while to get here, and in 2009, I would say we were even less “here” than now. It’s really hard for people who think they are protecting frail womanhood by cherishing and venerating the financially-vulnerable SAHMs to get their heads around the fact that they’ve been giving women disastrous advice for decades in a dual-income economy. It’s very hard to own up to the damage we do to other people despite having good intentions.
Quote:For this reason, I tend to think they meant exactly what their words said: The foundational position is to help each other, as equal partners, in all responsibilities. This doesn’t mean split everything 50/50; it simply means there are no exclusively assigned roles for everyone.
I agree, this is saying that marriages are adaptive and communicative in nature.
Quote:Culture and tradition are powerful – and few people have the desire or ability to parse complex statements differently than how their natural assumptions and previous learning lead them to understand something. Also, I’m not sure the statement could have been clearer when they were addressing radically different situations around the world in a reasonably concise manner.
This is a valid point. In some countries, and in poverty situations, there are often very unequal marriages in which the man feels he has the cultural right to exert his will on his wife, to force her to work or to force her not to work, but to make all decisions unilaterally.
Statements can have a meaning that differs from the understanding of their authors, a meaning that is greater than they imagined, that is more wise than they generally are wise. Trying to merely get back to the author’s original intent is just one part of understanding a text. Writing exists beyond the author. That’s my opinion. Call it the collective unconscious if you will. But a thing written by multiple authors is another thing indeed. It’s not truly the effort of one single viewpoint, so it’s even more prone to multiple interpretations.
Quote:If parsing leads to a distorted conclusion (neither accurate nor in line with original intent), it is nothing more than apologetic justification for what the interpreter wants to believe.
There are several different possible outcomes to interpreting text: 1) accurate AND in line with the author’s intent, 2) accurate yet contradicting the author’s intent, 3) inaccurate yet in line with the author’s intent, and 4) inaccurate and not in line with the author’s intent. The best texts are those that lend themselves to interpretations 1 and 2 while making 3 and 4 difficult. When all 4 are easily accomplished, it’s probably a case of “slippery writing” or political wiggling to allow multiple contradictory interpretations rather than to challenge wrong thinking that is popularly believed.
When it comes to the idea that men are responsible for the finances and leadership while women are responsible for the nurturing, I like to think of it thusly: -This is generally how skills and preferences tend to naturally work out. They aren’t always this way, but it will work out this way more often than not.
-I see being ‘primarily responsible’ as presiding over that task. You can delegate, even permanently, much like a bishop will delegate duties to his counselors. It is not a failure on a father’s part if his wife is the primary breadwinner because it’s perfectly acceptable for him to delegate that duty. Likewise, a mother is not a failure if her husband is the primary caretaker. That’s just how it works out sometimes- they may even prefer it- and that’s okay. The husband is simply in charge of making sure that the providing is happening while the wife is in charge of making sure the caretaking is happening.
-I think this is a perfectly acceptable system. Leadership tends to work out better when people have clear, though not necessarily set-in-stone, responsibilities. Duties sometimes get missed when you expect a set list of responsibilities to get divided up between a group of equal-authority leaders. In some cases, you get situations where the husband thinks a particular thing is his wife’s job and vice versa, so nobody is actually doing it. Assigning duties specifically helps to reduce this problem. (though I guess that’s kind of a moot point for two things that are unavoidably fundamental)
I think a more important aspect to be focusing on is contributing equally to the marriage and family. This is fortunately way less of a problem for my generation than past generations, but I’ve noticed that some men in the older age brackets tend not to help much around the house. Some men don’t cook either.
I had written the thoughts below as part of a response to a recent thread but It was not really on topic for the post. I decided to post it here as it is very much on the topic for this thread….. It strikes me as interesting that men (according to the Family Proclamation) are to be the primary providers of “protection for their families.” I know that historically the two functions of “provide and protect” have been linked. Surely in former times when there was a good chance of men being called upon to defend the village from roaming marauders this would make sense. I can’t help but think the the modern function of protecting the family (using seat belts, making sure smoke detectors are installed, reading product labels to minimize harmful products/drug reactions, making decisions about where our children can go based on appropriate supervision, etc.) is a non-gendered role.
What would it mean if the Family Proc. said something to the effect of fathers are to primarily provide, mothers are to primarily nurture, both are responsible for the physical and spiritual protection of their families? Would that be seen as a radical change?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.