The Proclamation to the World: Spousal Responsibilities

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.

Let me add one more thing that I believe is important:

This document is titled a proclamation to the WORLD, not just the LDS Church. I have worked extensively in areas of this country where the VAST majority of the women would fall on their knees and praise God without ceasing if the men in their lives would embrace even the “lower” standard of upholding the traditional, primary roles assigned to them in this document – even if they didn’t strive for the “higher” model of individual adaptation for other circumstances and truly equal partnership in marriage. They would cry for joy if the biological fathers of their children would see them as equal partners in ANY way, much less show it by helping them in the raising and nurturing of their children and helping ease their financial burdens as they currently are required to provide nearly ALL care for their children.

Iow, sometimes (often, frankly), the traditional roles are an important first step and need to be articulated for many. I believe this section of the Proclamation was worded very carefully to address multiple situations that exist within the WORLD, including the higher law that my parsing highlights. It’s easy to lose sight of those who need to stretch to live a standard we find constricting and forget that they, as part of the world to whom this is addressed, need a standard they can reach in the here and now before they can strive to reach the higher standard I’ve outlined. Both standards need to be found in a document like this one, and both can be found in the passage I’ve parsed in this post.

The real issue, imo, is that those who should be able to understand and strive to live the higher standard too often allow themselves to remain stuck in the intermediary standard – but I can’t blame those who crafted this passage for the members who fail to understand and live it.

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.

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

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

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Why not add a paragraph to the proclamation stating that another ideal is for the wife to work and provide the essentials for living while the husband stays home to primarily nurture the children? While you argue that the proclamation doesn’t explicitly deny this option, what’s the point of establishing clearly the responsibilities of each gender?

Every society in the western world holds both parents responsible for the care-taking of a child, even if un-wed. So, the church feels the need to remind dads of their sacred duty, even though it’s the law of the land? Or, the proclamation is going to guilt some dads into marrying their baby-mamas?

swim, this will be quite long, but I believe the historical context is important:

The short answer is, “because of the stark reality of much of the world, including areas within the United States of America and the rest of the western world.”

Mothers are stuck when they have a child. When we move beyond the narrow focus of the relatively rich (and, by that, I mean beyond the majority of the United States, where even many of the mid-level poor [like the guidelines for free and reduced lunch in the schools] are rich by outside standards), the issue gets relevant very quickly. There is NO doubt as to who the mother is for every baby born on this earth, and the ONLY way a mother can abandon her own “primary” responsibility (which, by the way, is based solidly in biology) in many instances (especially in situations where modern luxuries like formula are not available – and that is a luxury) is to openly abandon her child in the full glare of public understanding.

This is not the case with fathers. In areas where paternity tests are not available (and this includes many areas where they exist but cost too much for the mother to pay for them), fathers are totally free from their historical responsibilities if they choose to be so – since there is no public proof of their parenthood. The ONLY restraint on their activities is internal – an acceptance of responsibility for their actions. Therefore, ABSOLUTELY “the church feels the need to remind dads of their sacred duty, even though it’s the law of the land.” Laws are only laws if they are enforced, and paternity laws tend to be enforced only among the non-poor populations of the world.

This is why laws regarding paternity suits even exist – that it is such a wide-spread, HUGE, historical issue. Members of the LDS Church can become complacent in their worldview, since the vast majority of the active male members take responsibility for providing for and protecting their children, but that is not the case in many places in the world – including many places in the US. In some areas of the US, the illegitimacy rate is at 80% or higher – and the one thing that would change those areas radically for the better would be the men embracing their paternal responsibilities, internalizing the core principles of the Gospel, viewing the women in those areas as potential equal partners and then evaluating “individual circumstances” to see if “individual adaptation” is necessary.

Much of the world is still based on subsistence farming. Much more still consists of an economic situation where the ONLY way to rise above abject poverty is to have two incomes for a family – or to employ children in providing for the family at an early age. Even then, many people barely can survive. This situation is exacerbated and, in many cases, caused almost fully by men who won’t take financial responsibility for their sexual activities. The FIRST need (and it is a desperate one) is for those men to confine their sexual activities to one woman each, actively provide for the children they produce and help their wives nurture those children. Once that basic foundation is established, they are in a position that includes the luxury of being able to consider “individual adaptation” – and too many who have that luxury forget about those who don’t.

One of the most heart-wrenching things I have experienced in my entire life is the hopelessness that exists for many women even here in the US when they finally give up and no longer even hope that a man will love and care for them in any way – that a man will view them as equal partners in ANY way. I’ve seen it first-hand; I’ve dealt with its effects with children my wife and I have helped raise; I’ve seen daughters who grow up not even dreaming or hoping to find a loving husband who will see them as equal partners and with whom they can begin to consider “individual adaptation”. They pretty much know that they are going to end up as single mothers. There is a deadness to their lives that literally made me cry on a regular basis when I left work and went home to my own wife and kids, and that deadness is the heart of the passage I’ve parsed in this post, imo.

I’m NOT saying that an employed husband and a stay-at-home mom is the ideal for which all should strive. I’m saying that until a couple reaches the point where that is a legitimate option, there is no REAL choice – and that in many places in the world the responsibility for reaching the point where that is a legitimate option rests on the shoulders of the husband, assuming first that the man has shouldered the root responsibility of being a husband and not just a baby-daddy. AFTER that foundational responsibility has been shouldered, individual adaptation can be considered.

My point in parsing the passage in question is to view the overall issue in real and practical terms that include ALL the world, since it is addressed to the world. My point is that the words of this passage can be inspired even if there are other things in the same document that someone feels are not.

Why isn’t the responsibility to provide not qualified for men? Because too many of them in the world have abrogated that responsibility so totally that they need to accept it fully and not have any excuse to continue to push it off onto the women who bear their children. Once that is done, once the man has accepted his basic responsibility for his family, then and only then can their unique circumstances be subject to individual adaptation – and that can happen before or right after marriage in individual cases. Part of shouldering that responsibility at the individual level, imo, is to consider non-traditional options – but, communally, there simply has to be an acceptance of individual responsibility to do one’s utmost to provide before that responsibility can include serious and sincere discussion with an equal partner about how to best help each other do so.

The default simply MUST be, “I will do all I can,” NOT, “How much can you do?” Ideally, those two co-exist and are worked out individually among couples, but, historically, that has not been and still isn’t the case in many places throughout “the world”.