I thought for Friday I’d try to lighten it up a bit and talk about some contradictions I see in the doctrines and practices we are taught and how people are sometimes promoted and revered within the Church culture. 
This may be mainly a US thing, but I suspect for the WW audience, it has some applicability.
Sports and Sabbath
As a Church, we uphold a rather strict interpretation of how we observe the Sabbath. We attend Church to worship but refrain from everyday activities like shopping, entertainment, family recreational activities. We are expected to devote our day to the Lord and family.
On the other hand, members of the Church are also sports fanatics especially many of those who have attended BYU and other Utah-based schools.
The Church makes a pretty big deal out the fact that BYU does not play sports games on Sunday and is willing to forfeit if that were to be necessary. Church publications tout the decisions of members to forego competition on Sunday to honor the Sabbath.
But, should an athlete turn professional and become famous, that completely changes. Most professional sports play on Sundays. In the case of American Football, 90% of the games are on Sunday. No mention of those athletes giving up their sport because of the Sabbath issue. I can only remember one BYU football player who gave up a professional career specifically for this reason. Otherwise, these athletes are honored and revered in the Church as great examples for our Faith. Even though they break a fundamental principle for a career that is not necessary to society like a doctor, nurse, safety official, etc. As a Church, we turn a blind eye to this prohibited Sabbath activity.
A corollary to that is the mission. We hear all the time about the star college athlete who leaves school to serve a mission. It is written up in the Church publications and in the mainstream media as well. As it should be. Serving a mission is a sacrifice that should be recognized for all young people who are willing to serve, male and female.
But what of the star athlete that does not serve. No mention is made of that! I am thinking of the current superstar BYU senior basketball player, Jimmer Fredette. He is very famous at BYU, in college basketball in general and a leading candidate for NCAA player of the year. But he didn’t serve a mission. In fact, a BYU student started a bit of controversy because she questioned “Jimmer Worship.” Since he has been a BYU for the past four years, there should be no outward reason why he wouldn’t be eligible to serve a mission. Just didn’t want to I guess.
Women and their Professional Lives
According to the “The Family: Proclamation to the World”, “Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.” This has long been interpreted by church leaders and members that mothers should not work outside the home and raise their children. Prophets and Apostles have long spoken that, where possible, women should be at home with their children. Sister Julie Beck gave a very controversial talk in General Conference which pretty much stated this. It is clearly perceived as a fundamental teaching of the Church. This seems to have been taught in large measure since the ‘50s.
In some cases, women work outside the home, whether by choice or necessity. This is a decision they must make, whether as a result of circumstance or with their spouse.
The contradiction occurs when we read about a prominent woman in the Church who is a judge, a lawyer, a member of Congress, a politician, a doctor or some other high profile profession. The article typically addresses how the woman balances her professional life with her family life and caring for her children. It is never critical of her choice. And you seldom read that about men who are profiled in the same way.
So, if you are famous or have a great profession it seems ok to work outside the home. For the average woman in the Church; a grocery clerk, a nurse, a teacher, a secretary, she is perhaps feeling she is doing something very wrong by choosing to work outside the home given what is taught in Church on a weekly basis and at General Conference.
These are but two examples. I could go on and on with the contradictions that I see. But I’d rather hear from you. What other contradictions do you perceive these days?
Wheat & Tares 
See, few absolutes in life. 🙂
Apparently, we are more willing to extend “judge not” to successful people.
Jeff:
Sports and Sabbath
That is why God gave us Iphone’s – you can watch and worship at the same time. Now we just need to get cup holders in the pews.
Women and their Professional Lives
After they are done with their responsibilities in the home, I don’t see why they can’t get in the work force. When the kids are young, however, they should be at home where they belong.
I think this is very true. A perfect example is Sheri Dew. She is an amazing woman who has accomplished a lot. She has written multiple books, including biographies of prophets. She is President and CEO of Deseret Book. Etc.
Would she have been able to do this if she had followed the “traditional” LDS model for women of preparing for temple marriage in YW, marrying young, starting a family before meeting educational goals, having children underfoot for 20+ years, and not working the whole time so there was a parent in the home?
Will,
particularly in the kitchen, right? Certainly not the living room when you’re watching sports on your iPhone.
Dan,
Get it right.
“Particularly in the kitchen, right?”
She is a good cook, but I can manage by myself. She does it because she loves me and the kids, not because she has to.
“Certainly not the living room when you’re watching sports on your iPhone.”
Big screen. I-Phone is for church (that was a joke, lighten up people). 😉
Look, it is what God intended. He intended for the man provide for the family and the wife to raise the kids. It works. It creates good kids. Again, we do it because we want to, because we love each other.
“Look, it is what God intended.”
Try to stay on the topic here. Respond to the contradiction between what you think God intends and what is promoted by the Church in its publications.
“Try to stay on the topic here”
And how is that not on the topic of Women and thier Professional Lives?
Will: As a father, I take exception when people say that I can’t nurture my kids, or that I should be gone 24/7 while my wife is nurturing them. That is very specific part of the proclamation that I disagree with and think is demeaning to fathers. As a general rule, perhaps I understand what you’re trying to say, but individually, it’s not in my “genes” to give up the nurturing just because I’m male.
Jeff:
As to the contradictions, I think there is a very important point made by Course Correction above. When we see something successful – and by successful that’s principally defined as prominence, money and wealth – we’re much more willing to give that person a pass than a woman, for example, who feels it her “calling” to teach 2nd grade. Though this woman has felt guided in her choices, and works even though she could stay home, we judge her as abdicating her nurturing role.
We are much more likely to overlook contradictions when we see some monetary or popular reason for doing so – being a teacher, a secretary, a mailwoman, etc. – simply isn’t as “important.”
In my mind, it comes down to “appearances.” That which looks good and acceptable in the eyes of the world and gives the Mormons a better name, we’re all for it. That which seems trivial, or menial, or bothersome is cast aside. And in the process we forget that God speaks to all of us individually…blanket statements (i.e. “women belong in the home”) only serve to make those who don’t feel that same “belonging” inferior, unworthy and culturally ostracized in some manner.
Hmmm.
I do remember that we used to hear more often from professional sports members in Gen’l PH meeting for a while, but that seems to have stopped.
And I remember hearing of an LDS Rugby player in New Zealand in the 1990’s (professional) who would not play on Sunday; his team accepted those terms.
“Otherwise, these athletes are honored and revered in the Church as great examples for our Faith.” I guess I haven’t observed this first hand for quite some time.
Who judges a woman who works as a cashier or teacher??? I mean, really? A cashier? That’s about economic survival, not some grand career-before-family motivation. The brethren have regularly taught that individual circumstance will guide those choices.
I think there is a contradiction between always honoring and praising church leaders and then telling people not to aspire to the honors of men. It’s just not good psychology.
Try to stay on the topic here. Respond to the contradiction between what you think God intends and what is promoted by the Church in its publications.
The new CHI mentions that members have made solemn covenants to wear their garment of the holy priesthood in accordance with the instructions given them in the temple ordinance —
— then it goes on to give additional instructions for wearing the garment.
jeff, great post. as I have studied early mormonism, there seems to be contradictions between then and now. in the early days, women were much more independent because they had to be. women were encouraged to go into the workforce, especially medicine. but in the 1950s that changed to a woman’s place isd in the home. I am sure that the nuclear family is the ideal model now, rather than the polygamy model, so that has something to do with woman’s changing role. clearly there is a contradiction between today’s ideal female role, and smith and young’s ideal role for women.
There are no contradictions, outside your faithless minds. If you had the Spirit, you would see how these things are all perfectly consistent. You’re all going to hell.
#14 Thomas
I couldn’t tell if this comment is meant as a serious one or a sarcastic one.
Mike, if you were righteous enough to merit the gift of discernment, you wouldn’t have any trouble telling. You heathen.
#12 Justin — what you characterize as additional instructions are simply a restating of the instructions provided elsewhere. Where is the contradiction?
Paul: “What you characterize as additional instructions are simply a restating of the instructions provided elsewhere. Where is the contradiction?”
From the CHI:
So — unless the “additional instructions” that you refer to are simply a restating of the instructions provided in the ceremony, they are beyond the covenant obligations.
In the post I linked to in my previous comment [#12], I listed what the ceremony instructed me [Note: post-2005], to quote my linked post:
How do the following instructions “restate” the above?
* That the garment is to be worn as “underwear”
* That the garment must be purchased as made/sold by LDS Distribution ServicesTM — instead of making one’s own per D&C 42:40-41
* That the garment cannot be removed for periods of nudity
* That the garment should be kept off the floor
* That the garment should not be displayed or exposed to the view of people who do not understand their significance
* That “cleanliness” of the garment is related to its laundered whiteness
* Etc.
The contradiction I mentioned lies within the CHI’s statement that, “Church members who have been clothed with the garment in a temple have taken upon themselves a covenant obligation to wear it according to the instructions given in the endowment,” and the instructions in the following paragraphs that are not given in the endowment.
But, of course, they always put in the
”
for good measure. Lol.
Further, reading the linked post in #12 [along with its comments] might have helped you answer your question without using space on Jeff’s post, but I hope that clarified what I meant.
Justin,
The instructions I have received in the temple (as part of the endowment ceremony and part of instruction outside the endowment ceremony) are consistent with the instructions in the CHI. I can’t speak for your experience.
I don’t doubt that outside the ceremony you were instructed according to Oral Law — but are you saying that as part of your ceremonial initiation you were told something different than:
* The officiator is under proper authority
* The garment is now authorized
* The garment is to be worn throughout life.
* The garment represents what was given to Adam/Eve when found naked in the garden.
* The garment is called the garment of the holy priesthood.
* Inasmuch as the garment is not defiled — meaning the wearer is true and faithful to the covenants — it will be a shield and a protection against the power of the destroyer until the earthly probation is finished.
I’m certainly in agreement that the mother is primarily responsible for the nurturing of a child, even if she works.
She nurtures. I say “toughen up and walk it off”. Good cop; bad cop. Some days my daughter needs me; some days my daughter needs her. Most of the time she’s now beyond needing either of us.
My point is that nurturing is about helping your children grow toward God’s purposes in their lives — not just being in or out of the home.
Firetag,
Extremely well said.
#3: “Now we just need to get cup holders in the pews.”
And guys who will wander up and down the ailes who can sell you a hot dog in the middle of Sacrament Meeting.
“Now we just need to get cup holders in the pews.”
In case nobody caught it, that was a joke…
And somehow we can’t have a 50/50 relationship here (i.e. equal responsibility to “[help] children grow toward God’s purposes in their lives”)? Not seeing any logic there.
My favorite contradiction: the Sacrament. Very little that happens during the actual Sacrament happens as laid out in the scriptures. Some of it has been necessarily streamlined, some of it has happened as a result of pure ignorance and misunderstandings.
Whether it’s about being filled, using morsels of HFCS, white bread garbage, water even when we can make wine ourselves, no longer kneeling, how the Aaronic priesthood has taken over all responsibility for it… very little of it is scriptural any more. See this and this for a more in-depth discussion on the differences.
We content ourselves with a watered down (literally and figuratively) version of the Sacrament. Take the bread. More often than not, it’s the cheapest, store bought, freezer burnt bread. We put no love into this ordinance. Nothing whole grain, nothing home made. We get a tiny morsel of highly processed hfcs filled foam. Does anybody recognize the value of making something with love? What better time to put love into food than for the sacrament, why not show the Lord that we care for this ordinance?
I read this the other night and couldn’t help notice a few things:
Justin,
Just for the record, there have always been additional instruction on the garment not given during the endowment, but given the first time garments are purchased, potentially during instructions that might be given by the Temple President or Matron at the time of one’s own endowment and finally, at the renewal of a Temple Recommend. Those latter instruction are pretty much the same as in the handbook.
so what is the big deal?
Thomas,
I like that playful side of you…. 🙂
Apmex,
I agree that some take the sacrament very lightly, but I would say that it is out of inattention rather than the symbols themselves.
As Christ said, “This is in remembrance of my body…” it is the act of partaking of the bread and the remembering of His body, which He laid down for us that is the important and critical piece, not the bread itself.
And while I would love homemade whole grain bread rather than the semi-frozen, semi-stale stuff we usually get, I try to look past that to the real intent of the Sacrament Service. Not how the symbols themselves are represented.
Jeff,
Who says I’m playing, you stiffnecked impious reprobate son of Belial you? 🙂
🙂
Jeff: there are times you make absolutely no sense to me – I simply can’t make heads or tails of what you say.
The whole “representation” should point us towards Christ – I totally agree. The problem is, it doesn’t. It’s been streamlined (on occasion) and violates scripture. It’s not just a “seeming contradiction,” it is a contradiction.
You can go ahead and “look past” those contradictions all you want, but that still leaves the big divot in the manicured green. I would suggest you read those two hyperlinks I provided. What we physically do should point to the spiritual in every aspect, and yet we don’t put any love into the ordinance. And not just this ordinance, but many others. Whether it’s bragging about the number of sealings such-and-such temple did this day, or the number of baptisms for the dead we were able to do… we can take that as a “representation” of our productivity and efficiency, or we can take that as a sign that we give no thought or love to the ordinances themselves. To put it simply, it’s going through the motions and is indicative of much more than mere “inattention.”
Take 3 Nephi 18. It seems quite likely that for enough bread to have been procured (notice there was no miraculous multiplication of bread in this instance), those who “were gone” for the bread and wine would more than likely have had to make some. Do you think they had the local Wal*Mart to go to do buy the first white bread loaf they could find for $0.79? If not, did they make it as fast as they could in order not to miss something? Or did they put a little thought into what they were doing, cognizant of what exactly was happening?
Then, once back with the group, they all ate AND drank until they were filled. That portrays an experience that certainly took longer than the 1 second we get for bread, and 1.5 seconds for water. Contrast that with spending 20 minutes masticating on a good portion of bread until being full, and then drinking the wine until you’re full.
Our Sacrament – start to finish – is roughly 5 minutes, during which time all of 2.5 seconds is actually spent on the symbols themselves. Breaking a fast with a morsel of bread and a thimble full of water serves what purpose, exactly, other than efficiency?
The issue (to me) is not in looking past the stale, frozen white bread itself, it’s in incorporating the method already delineated in the scriptures… then there’s no need to look past anything because it’s there before your eyes the entire time. The symbolism multiples exponentially.
Re: Jeff
You’re doing the same thing you just noted in your earlier response to me. Justin’s points highlight the *difference* in where we place the symbolism.
I was never instructed as to how to care for my “garments” properly when I received them, but my wife was told to “never let them touch the ground,” while a good friend was told to make sure “you don’t wash them with any other article of clothing.” Someone else was told there was no issue in wearing them on the outside of their clothing (only 1 person I know of related this to me, and he could be found mowing his lawn every Saturday with his garment top as a t-shirt). Others (myself included) were told they needed to keep them on, even when exercising, while several good friends were told that was “defiling” them.
Now, we relate defilement with dirtying them. We take that as a strictly physical interpretation, taking no note of the spiritual implications of what “defilement” means. When a temple president or matron instructs you to “never let them touch the floor”, she is going above and beyond what the actual endowment presents.
When the CHI suggests:
… Where exactly is any of this found in the temple ceremony itself?
But, I suppose that’s normal. We do like to “add” to the commandments…
Apmex:
I’m sorry. I was too subtle for my own good. Nurturing can mean physical care — which I think is what may be intended in the physical role division of the 1950’s nuclear family. It can mean comforting, which my wife is exceptional at. Or it can mean helping your children become their best, where I do think we have a 50-50 relationship, even if I am no longer able to fulfill the traditional role of family breadwinner.
Jeff: “Just for the record, there have always been additional instruction on the garment not given during the endowment.”
Apmex [#32] essentially beat me to it — but exactly, and that’s my point.
The contradiction lies in the fact that the CHI states that the only covenant obligation is to wear the garment according to the instructions given in the endowment — yet, as you’ve placed on the record, there are additional [therefore non-binding] instructions given outside the ceremony, including in the following paragraphs of the CHI.
Per this scripture, we are to make our own garments. We often interpret the word garments in this revelation to refer to clothing [such as those worn by people who have never attended the temple] — “clothing” being something worn to cover nakedness. However, as the intention of the garment of the priesthood is to cover [or clothe] one’s nakedness [the Adam/Eve symbolism], the priesthood garment is also “clothing”.
Prior to entering the initiatory, our clothing [garments] is the same as those worn by other non-LDS people. After the initiatory ordinances of the temple, we receive a new type of clothing called the garment of the holy priesthood, or “garments.” We learn what it is that converts normal garments [normal clothing] into priesthood garments [priesthood clothing]: i.e. the marks on the garment.
Coming out of the temple, we again read section 42 and understand that we are to make our own priesthood garments [clothing], for these are the garments we are to wear throughout our lives to cover our nakedness, as per the endowment’s intructions.
Now, typically, people comply with these instructions by having two sets of clothing [garments]: normal, everyday garments [such as those worn by non-LDS people], and a set of priesthood garments [that have the marks of the priesthood in them]. We then wear two sets of clothing — while complaining about poor fit, difficulty finding working sizes, and about how they get in the way of everything, especially when it’s hot.
But there is another way to comply with the instructions found in the temple and in section 42, and that is to simply take all the garments that we typically wear to cover our nakedness and make them into priesthood garments. In this way, the priesthood garment you wear will conform to the environment and customs you find in your area, but will still be recognized by the Lord because of the instruction you received when you were authorized to wear them.
Besides, no one complies with section 42:40-41 anyway because everyone buys clothing from stores [including their priesthood garments] — operating as I described above would bring one into compliance.
If garments are intended to cover one’s nakedness, then it is the intention that the garment or covering be seen instead of what is below the covering [nakedness]. The two sets of garment interpretation removes this function of the priesthood garments b/c it’s the upper set of garments that’s doing the covering — not the priesthood garment.
Apmex [#31]:
My family [and at least three others that I know of] has begun taking the sacrament weekly as a tribal ordinance.
We are able to partake of bread and wine, under tribal priesthood authority — in which we are all filled, in which the entire family knells during prayer [instead of remaining seated], in which priests do not administer in the presence of elders — in other words, more closely aligning with the scriptures than what is found at the church meetinghouse.
Amen.
Justin,
“The contradiction lies in the fact that the CHI states that the only covenant obligation is to wear the garment according to the instructions given in the endowment”
The answer is yes and yes. The instruction in the endowment is designed to give the member the reasons why we wear the garment.
The additional instruction does not add to it but only supplements it in a practical sense. If we are not to defile the garment, then throwing it on the floor and not deposing of it properly wold be defiling it. the additional instructions helps the member to live up to the covenant to wear and care for the garment properly that was made in the endowment.
Will have you woken u
p on the wrong side if the “blog” today your tone stinks.
The contradiction I struggle with most is wealth vs charitable giving, the scriptures, conference talks and other materials are clear, we should feed the poor clothe the naked shelter the homeless. Whilst those who amass a great personal wealth are praised, admired & quoted in books.
The notion of “Keeping up with the Jones'” is so powerful it has infiltrated almost every aspect of weston culture and many other cultures for that matter.
I find this a personal contradiction, and one I truly struggle with, should I buy a new car with all mod cons or a 4th hand cheap run around, and donate the difference? Likewise with most electronic equipment.
Don’t get me wrong I believe the wealthy do a great deal of good, much has been done to build the kingdom and help the needy, but the example of the widows small offering comes to mind, how much as a poportion of my income should I be willing to donate?
The additional instruction does not add to it but only supplements it in a practical sense.
How very Catholic of you.
OK, here’s the war post.
Contradiction:
We are told to denounce war but we praise warmongers (Mitt Romney, Glenn Beck, etc). Even members praise warmongers, e.g., Bush & Obama.
As a mormon culture we also praise war, e.g., Iraq and Afghanistan.
Really? Putting a garment, even accidentally, on the floor “defiles” [“to taint, in a moral sense; to corrupt; to vitiate; to render impure with sin.”] it? Can’t say I agree with that…in the least. Seems like the old Pharaisical laws – i.e. “if you take 4 steps sideways, 2 back and 1 forward, in succession, you have violated the Sabbath and shall be stoned.”
Don’t forget about Cheney, or the Rothschilds. 😉
@Troy,
I forgot to mention the most holy of holies too. FDR.
Yeah, I love that quote, wish more people took it to heart.
Justin, if the only scripture we had was D&C 42:40-41, then I could see your point. But we don’t. We have all the verses preceding and following those, which make clear the Lord is not talking about the temple garment in those verses.
Further, we have continuing revelation which allows for continuing instruction on important matters (including the one you have cited as a contradiction).
Justin,
“Putting a garment, even accidentally, on the floor “defiles” [“to taint, in a moral sense; to corrupt; to vitiate; to render impure with sin.”] it? Can’t say I agree with that…in the least.”
I can’t say that I disagree here really. Because is the garment itself sacred or the representation of what it symbolized…?
Here we go again. How it is handled depends on just how legalistic you want to get.
Put it on the floor with the rest of the dirty laundry is certainly no different than putting it in the hamper with the other dirty clothes. Should they be washed separately? And do we have a separate drawer in the dresser for the garment? Do we remove them for intimate relations?
Is the only thing that makes the garment sacred are the marks? Otherwise it is just cloth?
I think in the long run it is about how we feel about wearing it as a sign of our covenant and treating it respectfully and not defile it (for whatever we think that means).
When I first took out my endowments (on the day I was married), the sister giving instructions concerning the garments suggested that we cut up our wedding dresses (this was long before wedding dresses were rented) and use the fabric to line the drawer where we kept our garments.
“How very Catholic of you”
Is that Catholic as in the Roman Catholic religion sense or catholic as in the orthodox sense?
Jeff #43 — that wasn’t me you were quoting, it was troy in #40.
Jeff #45 — I meant Roman [hence my capitalization of the word in #38] — and by that I was referring to the viewpoint that the scriptures are only the basis and then Church tradition tells you how to properly apply the basic things.
Paul #42:
Re: D&C 42:40-41, here are the three verses preceding:
and the three verses following:
And this tells me that we are referring to worldly clothing rather than priesthood clothing, how?
My exposition of verses 40-41 in comment #34 on the existence of only two kinds of garments [clothing] should suffice for an explanation on this principle.
Re: “Further, we have continuing revelation which allows for continuing instruction on important matters (including the one you have cited as a contradiction).”
Where is this canonized revelation that you speak of — that I may read it? If you are referring to the Oral Law [which you indicated you were instructed in #19], then on what basis are you claiming that it is binding on the saints?
Also, Paul, I asked you in #20:
I’m curious if you were given instructions as a part of the ceremony that were different than the above. I’m genuinely interested in knowing if there is variation in the actual ceremony as well as in the Oral Law.
After raising my children and observing those who were strictly obedient to every practice and principle of the Church and those who were more lenient, I observed that those who were nurturing, who took great care of themselves (whether it was staying home or working–whichever they enjoyed more), and who had fun with their children (whether it was watching sports on Sunday or not) seemed to raise happier, better-adjusted children.
I was a stricter parent and followed the brethren’s counsel carefully. Looking back, I think my family would have been happier and I would have been less stressed if I had tried to live the letter or the law less and the spirit of it more, which I’m doing now!
If I woman wants to work, she has every right to work. Please note the women in general Church auxiliary presidencies who have been successful mothers and also worked full-time when their children were raised.
I find the attitude towards adoption an interesting contradiction, why is one happy comitted couple better than another simply based on gender.
Today at church the subject of homosexual adoption came up, and the statements made were alarming, the tone had lost any amount of love, compassion or logic.
” also worked full-time when their children were raised.”
I don’t think I was referring to AFTER the kids are raised. No one would have an issue with that either before or after. It is during where the contradiction appears.
Justin #46 — where is the canonized scripture which contains the temple ordinances and endowment? The scriptures I have only refer to it but do not provide details.
Paul, I’m still curious if you were given extra instructions as a part of the initiatory ceremony that were different than the quoted in [#46].
I’m still genuinely interested in knowing if there is variation in the actual ceremony as well as there being variation in the Oral Law.
Just some notes about a few comments I’ve read here that take the Proclamation out of context. When someone says they take issue with, or disagree with a portion of or all of the Proclamation, they are disagreeing and taking issue with revelation. They take issue with prophets, seers, and revelators –and with God’s intentions.
Before I get jumped on and electronically stoned, please understand that the key to understanding the Proclamation, as well as any revelation, is the Spirit of Revelation. You need a testimony of it, and you need to ponder its meanings. Find out the entire context, including related scriptures such as the concept of “the ox in the mire”, and other similar “spirit of the law” applications that allow us to be free and not Pharisaical in our application of God’s word.
Having said that, there is nothing in the Proclamation that says the man must not nurture, or can’t nurture. There is nothing demeaning to men or women in it. It does not say the man must be away “24/7” -as one individual put it- and it doesn’t say the mother must alone raise the kids, do the dishes, and cook the food. Not even in a “letter of the law” sense is any of that true -I can’t even see how anyone could construe such from it. The Proclamation about the family is about the role of men and women in the Plan, and spoken in general terms, not absolutes. There will be differences when the Spirit directs it so, and determined by many circumstances, and we are supposed to refrain from condemnation-like judgment, because we probably don’t ever know all the circumstances or context in anyone else’s life. In general, if we strive to follow the role we come to understand by the Spirit that is explained in the Family Proclamation, we will be happier and more effective in life, and we will be fulfilled better than any material success can bring us.
Also note that the church has always promoted women getting educations, so that they can teach their children well and be prepared for a career if it becomes necessary by circumstances. All the seeming contradictions are just that: SEEMING. People judge or don’t judge because of imperfections ; that will contradict with hat the prophets teach because despite their imperfections as humans, they receive the revelation from God perfectly.
“Contrast that with spending 20 minutes masticating on a good portion of bread until being full, and then drinking the wine until you’re full.”
You can get kicked off the BYU basketball team for masticating.
Back on topic.
How about claiming to keep the Sabbath day holy and then working, recreating on the Sabbath, being Saturday?
Sunday is NOT the Sabbath folks.