[MisterCurie]

Is it better to parse in an attempt to arrive at a conclusion that is personally palatable (so that one can stay LDS), or to parse in an attempt to understand the original intent?

[MisterCurie]

Welcome to the forum. I hope you will find what you are looking for here.

[MisterCurie]

Ray, I agree with you on the facts that many men abandon their responsibilities as fathers and leave their kids’ mothers with the responsibility of raising their children. I think reiterating that fathers have responsiblities is also an “inspired” aspect to the proclamation. However, I’m not sure that the specific roles needed to be assigned to the genders separately, rather than simply stating that parents should 1) Preside, 2) Provide, and 3) Nuture as equal partners with individual adaptation as necessary to fulfill parental responsibilities.

EDIT: On second thought, I deleted a comment that is unrelated to the purpose of this topic. Sorry, Ray.

Ray, you make a good case for why leaders would want to reiterate the need for men to provide. What do you think is the rationale for requiring men to preside?

[MisterCurie]

Old-Timer wrote:

I am asking you to produce ONE statement by an apostle after the Proclamation was published that says a wife cannot work outside the home – ONE example of someone who was excommunicated for working outside the home – ONE example of a directive that forbids a woman who works outside the home from holding a ward or stake calling – ONE example of anything that says those who signed the Proclamation meant it to say that women must stay home and not work outside the home.

You win. Without really searching, I conceed that you are most likely correct that there is not a black and white statement produced by an apostle that absolutely forbids a women to work outside the home and which cannot be parsed in some manner to give a woman some wiggle room in the decision. However, I don’t know that I’m convinced such a statement can be produced for any time prior to the Proclamation either.

[MisterCurie]

Old-Timer wrote:

What an impossible standard you have set. I hope nobody ever holds you and your words to that same standard. I mean that sincerely, and I hope you understand that you would condemn anyone who said that about your own words.

I think there is a big difference between an individual’s words and a church organization that publishes a Proclamation to the WORLD. I believe the church meant the statement to be interpreted in the way that it is largely being interpreted in the world. If the statement is being misperceived and misinterpreted, I stand by my initial comment that the church should issue at least one clarifying statement. If I ever am in the unlikely position that my words will have an impact on a significant number of people, and if my words are being misinterpreted, I would feel absolutely obligated to issue a clarifying statement. I just don’t think that the church feels its bold proclamation is being misinterpreted.

Old-Timer wrote:

1) Your response doesn’t address my comment to swimordie at all.

I believe my comment clearly documented how some may interpret the proclamation to absolutely build the case to take “same-sex couples’ kids away from them.” I admit that I must have misinterpreted you comment that “the Proclamation establishes marriage as a heterosexual construct.” I’m sorry that I misunderstood what you were saying.

Old-Timer wrote:

2) You essentially called the men who signed the Proclamation liars and deceivers – and that won’t fly here in this thread.

Sorry for the heat in my wife’s post. As I said, this is one of her top issues of her disaffection with the church. I will edit the post to remove her words. I’m sorry to have quoted something unacceptable, although I’m not sure how it calls the brethren liars and deceivers, my wife and I both accept their words as accurate representations of what they believe. The majority of the post is quotes from them in General Conference (which I believe you asked to have documented in your initial response to my post), the post was meant to provide documentation that a particular parsing of their words is not, in fact, what they meant. The post was not meant to mean that they do not believe the Proclamation on the Family.

Old-Timer wrote:

Everyone, I am on the verge of shutting down this post and deleting it for ONE very simple reason:

I said right at the beginning that I was NOT going to write about lots of issues – that I was focusing on ONE concept and only that concept. This post is NOT about the Proclamation as a whole; it is NOT a dumping ground to rail against the Proclamation; it is NOT about homosexuality; it is NOT about the LDS Church leadership; it is NOT a place to call that leadership deceitful liars. It is about what the Proclamation says about ONE issue – spousal responsibilities. There is a HUGE difference between what I addressed in this post and what the comments have addressed. I also said very clearly that I did NOT want to digress into accusations that the Proclamation essentially is a lie – that those who signed it didn’t really mean what it says.

As bluntly as I can say this, each comment thus far has totally ignored my actual post and used this thread as a gripe session about other parts of the Proclamation – and as a place to claim that it doesn’t really mean what it actually says.

I appologize for losing the purpose of your original post and getting distracted by my own issues with the Proclamation. You are right, you were quite clear in the scope of your initial post. And again, I did not mean any of my posts to “claim that it doesn’t really mean what it actually says.” I was attempting to provide an academic refutation that a particular parsing of their words is not what they meant, as evidenced by other contemporary quotes in GC. I believe the brethren absolutely meant what they said in the Proclamation. I just do not believe that they meant it in the particular way it was parsed in this post.

[MisterCurie]

Old-Timer wrote:

Quote:

what has become obviously the intent of the proclamation: to reject same-sex couples’ rights/privileges to raise their own children.

You think that is the obvious intent of the proclamation? ONE intent of the proclamation obviously is to bolster marriage as a heterosexual construct, but taking same-sex couples’ kids away from them? I guess all I can say is that I disagree.

I think it is fairly accurate to say that the Proclamation on the Family is anti-gay marriage

Quote:

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.

and that the church would say that a same sex partnership with children is not what God views as a family

Quote:

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.

While this quote clearly attempts to bolster marriage as a heterosexual construct, it further declares that homosexual parents are non-ideal. In fact, it states:

Quote:

Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

Remember, gays raising kids isn’t a family, according to the proclamation. I think it is pretty clear the the Proclamation on the Family is anti-gay.

At some point, I think it becomes less important what one can parse from statements by the church and it is more important how those words are used and perceived by others. The Proclamation on the Family has been used to justify anti-gay Prop 8 and other same-sex marriage initiatives, and it has been used to combat feminism. I think this is particularly important with the Proclamation to the WORLD. How are these statements primarily received by the world? If it is being misperceived, it clearly is up to the church to issue a clarifying statement.

As an alternative example, it reminds me of the careful parsing JS did to mislead the government about his involvement in polygamy. While he wasn’t technically lying, if you knew the careful, personal meanings he attached to the words he chose, he was clearly acting with the intent to deceive.

[MisterCurie]

Old-Timer wrote:

MisterCurie, you’re going to have to be specific. “They didn’t mean it” won’t work with me. I said that clearly in the post.

As I said, this was one of the major reasons my wife became disaffected with the church. She is currently writing a series of posts on the Proclamation on the Family at her blog at: http://thirdwavemormon.blogspot.com/2009/10/thoughts-on-proclamation-on-family.html” class=”bbcode_url”>http://thirdwavemormon.blogspot.com/2009/10/thoughts-on-proclamation-on-family.html”

[EDITED to remove the actual post.

I believe her post provides a specific (as requested by Ray) refutation that the particular method of parsing the words of the Proclamation in the OP is not, in fact, what the brethren meant the Proclamation to say. I absolutely believe the brethren meant what they said in the Proclamation. I do not particularly believe what the Proclamation says. I prefer the Proclamation to say how it was parsed in the OP.]

[MisterCurie]

goodtruebeautiful,

I loved your thoughtful introduction. Thanks for sharing.

I just recently became disaffected with the church, but I am currently in medical/graduate school. I also had another medical school friend in the ward who became disaffected. Must be something about medical school . . .

I hope you are able to find what you are looking for here.

[MisterCurie]

Ray, I love the parsing. My wife and I have similarly parsed it over the years. Unfortunately, I hate that our (yours, mine, and my wife’s) interpretation is not what was originally intended by the leaders of the church and not the interpretation that quotes from the Proclamation are being used to justify in General Conference or other direction from the church leaders. In fact, it is precisely what was originally intended by the Proclamation (and what is currently being preached with regard to the Proclamation) that drove DW out of the church and pulled me along with her.

[MisterCurie]

MapleLeaf wrote:

[But the crucial point to note is that Constantine made changes in the 300s AD, while we can date the gospels back to 100-150 AD. We can date the Pauline Epistles back to the 50s AD! So we know a Christian church was well established in that time without the influence of the Roman Empire. The Jesus story was thus already in circulation looooong before Constantine got his hands on it.

Here is an interesting website that gives some history as to the writing of the NT http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm” class=”bbcode_url”>http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm and some parallels with paganism. I think that at least some of the points are valid. It does appear that there are conflicting stories about Christ’s geneology, birth stories, etc. even within the different gospels, as well as a lack of historical corroboration with concurrent non-biblical texts (such as the star appearing, fleeing to Egypt to escape Herod, etc.). It also appears that there was an attempt to integrate biblical narratives into the Jesus story.

[MisterCurie]

I also have a problem with the theocratic ethics. Prop 8 is a recent example that has disturbed a lot of people I know. I have found some peace by taking the cafeteria approach and ignoring those teachings that I find disturbing.

[MisterCurie]

I think most TBMs would find this concept repulsive and a sure sign of apostasy, but since when does Stage 3 understanding bother someone in Stage 5?

[MisterCurie]

Glad it went well for you.

[MisterCurie]

Rix,

Your post made me think of Hitchin’s book “God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.” I have not read his book and find him to be a polemical athiest, but I think some of his arguements follow a similar line of reasoning as yours.

[MisterCurie]

Daisy wrote:

So the question is…why does a woman place her hands on my head and bless me yet she doesn’t have the priesthood to do so?

I do not know if women receive any additional authorization or authority when they are set apart. I suspect that it is largely due to how the endowment and initiatory evolved historically. There is much evidence that women participated in priesthood ordinances early in the church, both within and outside the temple. Obviously the initiatory ordinances are much more comfortable for women when they are performed by other women (particularly how they were performed until recently without the sides of the shield sewn up and having the garment actually placed on you by another person). Over time the church has taken much of the responsibility from women for priesthood ordinances (such as anointings for childbirth), but I suspect the privacy issues of the initiatory have kept women in the initiatory. My wife thinks that with all of the changes in the initiatory, it won’t be long before men perform initiatories for women, which would resolve this question, right?

[Author]

Posts