14 Fundamentals of Falsifying the Prophet

I am going to ask to do that also.

That a church leader would repudiate something in private while allowing it to be taught publicly is disturbing. However, I want primary sources!

I found something regarding George Albert Smith’s response to the phrase “When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done.” The source is the George A. Smith Papers (Manuscript no. 36, Box 63-8A), Special Collections, Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. The text of the letter is posted at Fairmormon.

I understand the bit by Edward L. Kimball was not included in the final version his book, maybe by request of Deseret Book. It was part of a “Working Draft.” That quote is also part of a Fairmormon page.

Anyway, I think there’s enough evidence to show that the “follow the prophet” doctrine is out of control.

Here’s a quote from the 14 Fundies included in the new lesson manual:

If we want to know how well we stand with the Lord then let us ask ourselves how well we stand with His mortal captain—how close do our lives harmonize with the Lord’s anointed—the living Prophet—President of the Church, and with the Quorum of the First Presidency.

No, thanks. I will instead consider my relationship with God directly.

I am so dang tired of hearing “The prophet will never lead the Church astray.”

Shawn,

From the POF:

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. 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.

The Family: A Proclamation to the World

http://www.lds.org/manual/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world?lang=eng

When I have a daughter who comes home from YW on Sunday and asks me why I am the primary breadwinner and dad is not, because they have discussed this POF, we all know how it is being taught. Yes, there are exceptions, but it states first that fathers are to provide the necessities and mothers are to nurture. Yes it says to “help one another as equal partners”, but they have assigned gender roles by their first statements. If they really meant that the roles should be shared equally, they would never have assigned roles, they would have said parents should work together to provide the necessities of life…..etc. But we all know what they see as “normal”, and those of us who are the “adapters” often feel a bit like an outsider. I had to explain to my daughter that in our family, we have adapted the POF to fit our needs. And, it seems, to adapt is to find some way of doing something outside of the ideal. That’s how my daughter sees it, and that is how it is generally taught, at least to our young women. And that just perpetuates a woman’s guilt for working and not being home with her children. I say, enough guilt. Let’s strike the paragraph or have it reworded. Now who wants to write SLC a letter and request that? 🙂

That might be what President Benson taught, and that might be what too many members still believe and teach, but it is not what the Proclamation actually says.

That wording is important, and, linguistically, it makes no sense whatsoever to say it reinforces strict, distinct, exclusive roles. Someone can’t help someone else in a responsibility without participating somehow in that responsibility. We understand now, generally, and teach, explicitly, that men should help with the nurturing of children – and, generally, that includes household duties and diaper changing and all kinds of things.

I appreciate your thoughts, Ray and Shawn. I read that thread linked. And just to be clear, I am grateful for the emphasis the church puts on the importance of fatherhood not just equating to resource-earner. I love that fathers are encouraged to “provide” in more ways than protection and resources. I really appreciate how much the church supports families (at least, the “traditional” kind of families). I’m not really disagreeing with what you’re saying but I also feel there is clear doublespeak going on in the proclamation in regards to the roles of men and women. Yes, what it says doesn’t make sense to reinforce strict gender roles, but at the same time, it does. And in my opinion, the proclamation directly contributes to the kind of discussions Eternity4me is referring to. It isn’t just about church culture or President Benson’s talk, or any previous church President’s talk on the matter (just to be clear: I’m not insinuating that’s what you implied, I’m just making a separate point). I feel the proclamation directly contributes to the perpetuation of distinct gender roles in the church. I also think the doublespeak creates confusion in members about what it actually is saying about the roles of men and women.

As the proclamation says, husband and wife are to be “equal” partners but the husband “presides.” How does that even work in an equal relationship? How are the husband and wife to be equal partners when the husband “presides?” I know some may interpret this differently, but “preside” is defined as “to be in the position of authority in a meeting or gathering.” That is also how it is used in church hierarchy. The Bishop of the ward, who has the most authority, “presides.” People can choose to interpret “preside” in different ways, but it still does carry the connotation of authority to many. The Bishop of the ward is not supposed to not be a tyrant, but he still has authority over the rest of the ward. He may be “equal” to the Relief Society President in worth, but not in authority. In the case of power dynamics, there is clearly a disparity between the Bishop and Relief Society President. In that regard, they are not “equal.” I think one reading of the proclamation can present a similar power disparity between husband and wife.

I’m grateful that more members are now having discussions about what “preside” means but to me its place in the proclamation is doublespeak. So husband and wife are equal but the husband is the leader of the home? I do think that most members of the church and church leadership believe that husband and wife are “equal” in worth. But when it comes to power dynamics, members interpret the proclamation meaning different things. And thus there’s that confusion and the perpetuation of the “stay home and do the dishes” talk.

Over half of Mormon women (even married women) now work outside the home, and there hasn’t been anything from the General Conference pulpit or in the Ensign (or which I’m aware) for decades that forbids it – so, generally, we understand the difference between exclusivity in roles and real life mixing / helping / adaptation / etc.

I understand completely that our culture absolutely still bears the effects of President Benson’s talk about mothers staying home, but the Proclamation doesn’t say men are supposed to be the exclusive paid workers and women are supposed to stay home and do the dishes – and the younger generations in the Church (from my own age of about 50 down) understand it much, much more than the older generations.

Thank goodness it doesn’t forbid it! That just wouldn’t be practical. The church would probably get a lot of pushback from wives that need to work out of necessity, and I believe that pushback is what led them to chance their stance to begin with. However, what the proclamation does say is,

“Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.”

Disability and death are pretty extreme circumstances. I’m glad that they left the door open for other circumstances but the proclamation definitely sets the tone for what circumstances are “acceptable” for adaption. There also have been several conferences talks even in recent years about how the woman’s greatest role is in the home and how “the world” tries to disparage this. I think the Proclamation, and the attitude of church leadership, as well as our history on the subject, has resulted in many members concluding that the ideal place for the woman is in the home and she should only work out of economic necessity or other extenuating circumstances. If she’s working and there’s not a “significant enough” reason for her to, she’s being selfish. I also think their conclusion, based on the proclamation, is not unreasonable (I don’t agree with it but I think it’s a logical conclusion for them to come to, based off the Proclamation and church teachings). Speaking as someone who wasn’t in the Youth program too long ago, I know it’s often taught that way to girls.

I guess the point for me is I have a complex relationship with the Proclamation. It endorses much of what I believe but also things that are deeply troubling to me. It mirrors my feelings for the church. In some cases, it’s held up as doctrine to perpetuate misguided human judgments, in my opinion. I wish it wasn’t doctrine but my understanding is that for our church, people usually take whatever is repeated by the Apostles and Prophets as doctrine. It may not be “official” but is doctrine in the hearts and minds of most members, so might as well be, and it’s really only a matter of time before it becomes official. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to share how I feel about this.

I didn’t mean to come off as if I was disputing your views, Ray. I apologize. I think trying to read the document divorced from historical understandings and current mainstream interpretation can be valuable for people. Most of my post stemmed out of me coming to terms with the Proclamation and how I need to deal with it as “doctrine.” That document is something I spent a lot of energy trying to make work for me. When I started my faith transition I spent a lot time trying to reason certain phrases in my head so: 1.) Maybe it really didn’t mean what I thought it meant or I could make it work and maintain my traditional testimony or 2.) I would have a leg to stand on if someone asked me how my evolving views were still in line with the gospel. I’ve come to a place now where I can accept, for myself that some of the Proclamation is problematic for me as it written and that some of the intentions behind the proclamation are problematic for me, as well. I’m not going to be able to reason it out to make it work for myself, and probably not for others. You’re right; “other circumstances” is completely open-ended. No restrictions. But it is paired with two extreme circumstances: death and disability. To me, that sets the tone for what are acceptable circumstances for people to deviate from the formula. And it reads that way to me. At this point in my journey, it’s best for me to just acknowledge how it’s interpreted because of how it’s written and cultural factors associated and try to let go for the time being. Since I dislike the document as doctrine, I can only empathize with other people who do as well and tell them it’s okay to feel that way.

I think the Proclamation is problematic as it is written and even a close-reading of it really says is still going to render it problematic for me. That’s where I was coming from.

And I am definitely interested in your blog. I’ll look at it. Thanks.

P.S. Sorry for taking this thread more off in a tangent

IMO, the individual adaptation clauses that exist are evidence that the brethren were not in lock step 100% in the document, that they acknowledged that there are some differences of opinion about how families work, that some families can’t do it the way they are prescribing, etc. However, it does make it sound (IMO wrongly) that this is the “ideal” and anything else is a compromise. IMO, this ignores our economy, the last 40 years of history, and the way agency works in marriage. Marriage is voluntary (and that is significant because it was far less voluntary when the Q12 got married – divorce laws have changed dramatically, for the better for those who are in bad marriages). Even if nobody suffers a disability, your spouse could cheat on you, divorce you, be abusive to you. Setting up a so-called ideal in which women are 100% financially dependent on their husbands is to set them up to be abused every which way if their husband is so inclined. Obviously the church advocates against being a bad husband, but there are abusers out there, and crap happens. Women who leave the workforce will struggle to ever make a decent living wage again. It’s not easy to re-enter the workforce after several years out, far less easy if the woman did not complete her higher education. From where I’m sitting, it’s recklessly bad advice to give our YW. For a church that cares so much about providential living, we fail to teach our women to truly be prepared to support themselves and their families. In many ways, I think we do better at teaching men to nurture than we do at teaching women to provide, but that’s probably because the church is run by men.