14 Fundamentals of Falsifying the Prophet

Public forum for topics that don't fit into the other categories.
User avatar
DBMormon
Posts: 806
Joined: 18 Aug 2012, 04:42
Location: Ohio near Kirtland
Contact:

Re: 14 Fundamentals of Falsifying the Prophet

Post by DBMormon » 17 Jan 2015, 14:08

I offered my HPGL to teach this lesson and offer an alternative view. He gave the go ahead. This to me is a great way to combat this. I will share multiple Leader quotes that counter this view and leave it up to each member to choose their own conclusion.

User avatar
LookingHard
Posts: 2902
Joined: 20 Oct 2014, 12:11

Re: 14 Fundamentals of Falsifying the Prophet

Post by LookingHard » 17 Jan 2015, 15:49

I am going to ask to do that also.

dash1730
Posts: 295
Joined: 17 Oct 2009, 14:21

Re: 14 Fundamentals of Falsifying the Prophet

Post by dash1730 » 17 Jan 2015, 21:18

Thanks Eternity,

I read right past "Official Declarations" reading only what I wanted to read. :o I agree with you that the Proclamation on Families has not been sustained by the Church membership, and therefore is not part of Official Doctrine.

Furthermore, it has not been inserted into the Standard Works, including the electronic version on LDS.org. So I would say the LDS Newsroom was speaking out of church. ;)

That will obviously be not in the lesson I teach.
I may not walk the straight and narrow, but I try to cross it as often as I can.
---J Golden Kimball

User avatar
Shawn
Posts: 707
Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 14:22
Location: Utah

Re: 14 Fundamentals of Falsifying the Prophet

Post by Shawn » 22 Jan 2015, 12:25

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.”

User avatar
Shawn
Posts: 707
Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 14:22
Location: Utah

Re: 14 Fundamentals of Falsifying the Prophet

Post by Shawn » 22 Jan 2015, 12:57

Eternity4me wrote:So this one is basically telling us the the Proclamation on the Family is now considered doctrine, yet I don't recall it being voted on by the membership of the church and canonizing it. I can't agree that it is the doctrine of our Heavenly Father that men are supposed to support the family and woman are supposed to stay home and do the dishes.
For what it's worth, the Proclamation on the Family does not say that. Check out what Ray and I said here: http://www.staylds.com/staylds/forum/vi ... f=9&t=5129

Eternity4me
Posts: 76
Joined: 25 Aug 2014, 10:21

Re: 14 Fundamentals of Falsifying the Prophet

Post by Eternity4me » 23 Jan 2015, 00:19

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- ... d?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? :smile:

Curt Sunshine
Site Admin
Posts: 16517
Joined: 21 Oct 2008, 20:24

Re: 14 Fundamentals of Falsifying the Prophet

Post by Curt Sunshine » 23 Jan 2015, 09:43

Eternity4me, just curious: Did you read the thread to which Shawn linked?

Nobody here is claiming that the Church doesn't teach primary responsibilities based on sex. Shawn was responding to this statement you made:
I can't agree that it is the doctrine of our Heavenly Father that men are supposed to support the family and woman are supposed to stay home and do the dishes.


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.
"In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners."


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. 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.
I see through my glass, darkly - as I play my saxophone in harmony with the other instruments in God's orchestra. (h/t Elder Joseph Wirthlin)

Even if people view many things differently, the core Gospel principles (LOVE; belief in the unseen but hoped; self-reflective change; symbolic cleansing; striving to recognize the will of the divine; never giving up) are universal.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." H. L. Mencken

university
Posts: 150
Joined: 15 Mar 2014, 17:19

Re: 14 Fundamentals of Falsifying the Prophet

Post by university » 23 Jan 2015, 11:08

Ray DeGraw wrote: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.
Ray DeGraw wrote: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.

Curt Sunshine
Site Admin
Posts: 16517
Joined: 21 Oct 2008, 20:24

Re: 14 Fundamentals of Falsifying the Prophet

Post by Curt Sunshine » 23 Jan 2015, 11:56

I understand all of that, university - and I don't even disagree with what you are saying. I just think it's really hard to separate what we grew up hearing (or what we still hear too often in church) from what the document itself says only in the words themselves.

For example, "other circumstances" is completely open-ended. It has, literally, no restrictions. That's important, but it tends to get read in a restrictive manner based on all of the cultural crap we've inherited and the views of so many older members.

I think the leadership absolutely believes still in an "ideal" that is a caricature of the 50's affluent population. I get that the proclamation gets read through that lens. I get that the dominant view supports that reading. I'm just saying the proclamation itself doesn't say what that reading insists it says.

If you are interested, I wrote the following post on my personal blog a couple of months ago. Someone asked a good question about "by divine design", and my answer to that question includes what I just said about "other circumstances".

http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2011 ... ities.html
I see through my glass, darkly - as I play my saxophone in harmony with the other instruments in God's orchestra. (h/t Elder Joseph Wirthlin)

Even if people view many things differently, the core Gospel principles (LOVE; belief in the unseen but hoped; self-reflective change; symbolic cleansing; striving to recognize the will of the divine; never giving up) are universal.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." H. L. Mencken

university
Posts: 150
Joined: 15 Mar 2014, 17:19

Re: 14 Fundamentals of Falsifying the Prophet

Post by university » 23 Jan 2015, 12:31

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 :)

Post Reply