I was serving a mission in 1995 when President Hinckley announced to the church the new Proclamation on the Family. I was serving in an area where we did not get any sort of live broadcast of General Conference and instead had to wait for VHS tapes to show up several months later. Unfortunately, the women’s session of General Conference wasn’t usually part of those tapes (at least, I don’t recall it being part of them – I may be incorrect) so I don’t remember watching President Hinckley’s address.
I returned from my mission and was busy with college, marriage, and, some years later, family, so wasn’t, shall we say, “fully engaged” with the Church. I largely ignored what is now colloquially referred to as the Proclamation on the Family until several years later when my heart was turned regarding LGBT and women’s issues (perhaps I’ll detail that process another time). With that said, there is one aspect of the Proclamation on the Family I have found particularly interesting: it’s status as quasi-scripture.
As I understand things, text we consider binding and which we categorize as scripture has usually been submitted to the church body for ratification through common consent (I know there have been some exceptions to this, such as when the Lectures on Faith were removed, but by and large we have followed the trend, including with the inclusion of Official Declaration 2). It is interesting to me that the Proclamation on the Family has never been submitted to the church for ratification yet we treat it as if it has. We act as if the text is binding on the church members, or represents some sort of community statement, yet it has never undergone the process to achieve such status.
I don’t intend to cover the history of the Proclamation or its content. There are already all sorts of fantastic articles doing a much better job than I could ever hope to do, but as I have considered this over the years I have come to the conclusion that the Proclamation on the Family isn’t so much scripture or policy as it is a creed, and I submit that Elder Oaks’ talk in this past General Conference proved my conclusion to be correct.
A creed is a defined system of religious (often Christian) belief; a formal statement of belief; or a set of beliefs that guide someone’s actions. Probably the most famous creed is the Nicene Creed, which was a result of the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. The primary purpose of the creed was to provide an official, authoritative statement of correct doctrinal belief, or orthodoxy, regarding the nature of God. The Nicene Creed was thought necessary given the many disputes within Christianity regarding the nature of God, and it was intended to stamp out heresies such as Sabellianism (i.e. modalism), various forms of Gnosticism, Arianism, and Manichaeism. To that end it was very effective as most of the texts from those sects have been lost (were destroyed) and those subsequently heretical adherents were run out of the Christian communities. Creeds are used to enforce orthodoxy and orthopraxy, which is why Joseph Smith rejected them, and subsequent Church leaders have used the Nicene Creed as the prime example of the apostasy of early Christianity – referred to as the Great Apostasy.
Let’s see what Joseph Smith said about creeds:
“I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations, because they all have some things in them I cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth. I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things: but the creeds set up stakes, and say, ‘Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further’; which I cannot subscribe to.”
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976), 327“… Mormonism is truth, in other words the doctrine of the Latter-day Saints, is truth. … The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men, or by the dominations of one another, when that truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we have the highest degree of evidence of the same.”
Letter from Joseph Smith to Isaac Galland, Mar. 22, 1839, Liberty Jail, Liberty, Missouri, published in Times and Seasons, Feb. 1840, pp. 53–54; spelling and grammar modernized.“I will endeavor to instruct you in relation to the meaning of the beasts and figures spoken of. I should not have called up the subject had it not been for this circumstance. Elder Pelatiah Brown, one of the wisest old heads we have among us, and whom I now see before me, has been preaching concerning the beast which was fall of eyes before and behind; and for this he was hauled up for trial before the High Council.
I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammelled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine.”
History of the Church, Volume 5, page 340
As Joseph Smith suggested, creeds were used as a cudgel to enforce the confession of orthodox beliefs within Christian religious communities. Either accept the creed or you were ostracized from that particular community. Creeds served as a sort of marker for boundary maintenance within the community, so as a result could be limiting in some fashion, potentially preventing one from seeking greater truth and instead “setting up stakes”, as Joseph said. Creeds were used to separate the orthodox from the heretical; those who belonged, and those who didn’t.
So, it was particularly interesting to me when, in this past General Conference, Elder Oaks, after first using inductive logic to compare those of “the world” with those who follow God, made the following statements:
The restored gospel of Jesus Christ and the inspired family proclamation, which I will discuss later, are essential teachings to guide mortal preparation for exaltation. Even as we must live with the marriage laws and other traditions of a declining world, those who strive for exaltation must make personal choices in family life according to the Lord’s way whenever that differs from the world’s way.
…
Inevitably, the actions of those who try to follow God’s plan of salvation can cause misunderstanding or even conflict with family members or friends who do not believe its principles. Such conflict is always so. Every generation that has sought to follow God’s plan has had challenges…But whatever the cause of conflict with those who do not understand or believe God’s plan, those who do understand are always commanded to choose the Lord’s way instead of the world’s way.
…
Those who do not believe in or aspire to exaltation and are most persuaded by the ways of the world consider this family proclamation as just a statement of policy that should be changed.
…
Converted Latter-day Saints believe that the family proclamation, issued nearly a quarter century ago and now translated into scores of languages, is the Lord’s reemphasis of the gospel truths we need to sustain us through current challenges to the family.
…
I testify that the proclamation on the family is a statement of eternal truth, the will of the Lord for His children who seek eternal life.
[Emphases mine]
As you can see, after using inductive logic to setup a “world” vs. “followers of God” dichotomy, Elder Oaks then goes on to stress that those who truly seek eternal life, exaltation, or are converted will accept the Proclamation on the Family, while those who are weak, don’t want exaltation, or are enticed by “the world” only view it as a policy, and thus open to change. One perspective closes off future possibilities, while the other holds open the possibility of future change as more light is received. Elder Oaks calls the latter perspective as unconverted. He is binning members into those who are orthodox (e.g., adhere to the Proclamation and view it as revelation) and those who are heretics (e.g., do not fully accept the Proclamation or view it as a policy statement rather than revelation). He is using the Proclamation as a creedal statement to “set up stakes”, and to circumscribe, dominate, and trammel others.
It is concerning to me that the Proclamation on the Family is being used in this way. It is not scripture. It is not binding on the church. It has not been ratified as such by common consent. Were it to be presented for ratification I have no doubt it would be approved (though I’d raise my hand in opposition), but even if it was approved, I believe using it as a creed to sniff out heresy and belittle the faith of those who disagree with it would be a mistake.
Elder Oaks’ language is concerning to me, not just because I don’t particularly like the Proclamation, but because I am very leery of one group making a claim that they definitively know the will of God on a matter like this and then using that “knowledge” to trammel those who disagree. It’s creedalism and our past history indicates that we should be very hesitant to claim knowledge of God’s will (e.g., priesthood ban, shifting views on homosexuality, etc.). Joseph Smith had some wise counsel regarding creeds and I believe we would also be wise to follow it.
What do you think?
- What do you see as the status of the Proclamation on the Family? Scripture? Policy? Doctrine? Creed?
- Do you agree with Joseph Smith that creeds are, by their nature, limiting? If not, why?
- How do you think we can avoid becoming Balkanized as a community on this topic?
Wheat & Tares 
I pretty much agree with your concerns, and have spoken up in class before now when others have described the proclamation as scripture. Creed is probably a good way to categorise it, and I’m not happy about that. The creeds though, as I understand it, were the result of at least some debate amongst those of differing opinions. We haven’t seen that about the proclamation before it was issued.
A related concern is the apparent categorising of general conference talks as canon, without canonising vote. Only the other week it was mentioned by someone in discussion that we hear the talks and they become canon, and with the new curriculum will be the subject of study for the 6 months following conference. By all means lets study them, if we must, but please lets not designate them canon…
The 1st edition of the Doctrine and Covenants received an approving vote for the entire book rather than section by section. Both the LDS and RLDS have made additions and deletions in its content since then. The RLDS was very concerned with modern revelations being properly authorized. An RLDS prophet could give inspired messages anytime; but unless it was submitted to the General (World) Conference for a vote to include it in the D&C it had no authority.
The LDS thought seems to be that:any messages from the Prophet (or Counselors and the Q12) should be regarded as scripture; although I don’t know if that has been stated specifically.
In Sunday School class students were once asked what items should be considered to be added to the D&C. The Proclamation was suggested as well as “The Living Christ” (January 1st, 2000)
On a creedal tangent:
There are a number of versions of the “Mormon Creed”. Most include the phrase “mind your own business.” The history of the Mormon Creed goes back to Joseph Smith. See https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/minding-business-note-mormon-creed
A print of one version available from Amazon has been said to have hung in the Logan Temple for many years. https://www.amazon.com/Mormon-Creed-Brigham-Young-Nauvoo/dp/B01861YAQ4
Another version was used in the masthead of John Taylor’s newspaper.
Of course, there have been a variety of views as to what constitutes “your own business.”
Perhaps some version of this historical “Mormon Creed” could still be useful.
We are having a national vote on gay marriage in Australia. I have questioned some of the arguments being put by members against gay marriage on social media, and been told I can not be a member of this church and not oppose gay marriage, let alone support it. But this is by the extreme people.
I am comforted that Elder Oaks was the only conference talk on this subject, but he did seem to be making it a line in the sand. I can not see it changing while he is an Apostle, and has power of veto.
If we didn’t have the statements by Christopherson about members being allowed to agree with gay marriage, I would not have a TR.
Yes Elder Oaks wants to make it a creed of the Church but hopefully it will not be supportrd by the 14, and he will be left out to dry, like Elder Nelson was on the pox being revelation.
If he becomes President still holding this view, the church will really have problems, with relavence, and trust, especially to the young.
I am attending a grandsons temple wedding this weekend, and do not understand why the plan of salvation can’t include a temple wedding for gay couples. My bishop is in a mixed race marriage and we opposed those vehemently not that long ago, so change is possible. Hope.
Markag, you have pointed out one common LDS thought, but not “the LDS thought.” As I pointed out elsewhere, J. Reuben Clark, Jr, a usually very conservative member of a former first presidency, took a very different approach as follows:
“…even the President of the Church, himself, may not always be ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost,’ when he addresses the people. This has happened about matters of doctrine (usually of highly speculative character) where subsequent Presidents of the Church and the people themselves have felt that in declaring the doctrine, the announcer was not ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost.’ How shall the Church know when these adventurous expeditions of the Brethren into these highly speculative principles and doctrines meet the requirements of the statutes that the announcers thereof have been ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’? The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the Brethren in voicing their views are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest.” http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/ClarkWhenAreWritings.pdf
I know of no reason not to cite his authority as “scripture” to those who insist that whatever the FP or Q12 members say is “scripture.” Fundamentally, his very LDS thought was “it ain’t necessarily so.”
Perhaps I should have added a reference the song from Gershwin’s now politically incorrect opera Porgy and Bess. If you can tolerate it’s non-literalism and innuendos, listen to Cab Calloway, the original Sportin’ Life sing it sometime: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBOgH5f36cQ
It’s disheartening how various leaders of the Church have attempted to “trammle” God over the centuries by announcing pseudo-creeds as immutable and unchanging. It began with Peter and the Mosaic Law — certainly a stifling creed that dictated appropriate behaviour for anyone “converted” and “seeking exaltation.” It took a dream and the Lord chastising Peter for him to discard the creedal position that the gospel was reserved for the Jews. Let’s hope Elder Oaks has his own dream.
Another creedal dictate was the necessity of accepting and practicing polygamy in order to be a “converted” disciples on the road to exaltation. Just read statements by apostles and prophets like Brigham Young, John Taylor, and George Q. Cannon that were no less authoritative than the Elder Oaks’ screed. It took a special revelation to President Woodruff — and the impending destruction of the Church — to put an end to that generation’s Proclamation on the Polygamous Family.
Finally, the now-discredited and discarded Negro Doctrine at one time achieved creedal status and became the litmus test if you were truly converted. Then the Revelation came and Elder McConkie — who’s dreadful Gospel Doctrine became a quasi-official creed — had to say everything ever previously written or said about the Doctrine (actually a horrible practice) was ” wrong.”
The Lord will eventually give some prophet (Oaks?) his/her own Peter dream or Woodruff/Kimball revelation to “fix” the Proclamation. The sad irony is there are many commendable aspects of the Proclamation that are undermined by the anti-gay marriage interpretation the Church has embraced. This creed could be easily modified to exalt the institution of marriage for all people, not just between a man and a woman, in a world that increasingly rejects it.
Meh. Putting doctrine to a vote has been very rare, done only in the times when the leadership wasn’t asking for a vote but to make sure everyone listened and understood it was binding. You can attack just about anything in the Church with a “but it wasn’t voted on”. It’s the basis for most splinter groups.
For calling something a creed, again it’s just putting a label on something you don’t like. The 10 commandments is a creed. The Articles of Faith is a creed. The Temple recommend interview is basically confirming you’re following a creed. The label is too often used, every time with the “aha! it’s a creed! JS was specifically against creeds! heretics!”
L:ook, I’m not a great fan of the PotF. It’s a line in the sand, a “this is what we understand right now” policy that used too often to say “See? I’m right and you’re sinning”. But this post is like people who criticize a book they’ve not read, piling on reasons that don’t really have anything to do with the material.
For what it’s worth, most of the historic Christian creeds were approved by some assembly or another, not just imposed by fiat.
Frank Pellet – While it is clear that Cody doesn’t believe certain elements of the PotF (I’m with him in this), I think Cody’s post is more about criticizing HOW the proclamation is being used by Dallin Oaks, rather than a criticism of the material itself. Oaks is doing more than just stating what the church believes. He is using careful language that drives a wedge between church members and will foster and encourage further estrangement of those faithful members who happen to have taken Christofferson on his word that members of the church are free to believe what they wish regarding same-sex marriage.
Great post Cody. I can see where you’re coming from.
However, I think one of the problems (and benefits) with Joseph Smith is the fact that he was an innovator. It was great to be able to change theology on the fly, which he did often. You could argue that Jesus did the same thing. However, for an organization to survive, leaders have to adopt a more conservative line. They have to come up with rules. Even Joseph had to do this to a limited extent. When Hiram Page made a revelation, Joseph said it was not binding and that revelations flowed through Joseph for the church, not Hiram. Any organization that wants to survive has to have rules or creeds. Christianity got the Nicene Creed among others, and by making these rules on orthodoxy, it helped Christianity survive. Mormonism isn’t really that different. Early Christianity said lots of things that have been discarded (as you mentioned Marcionism, Gnosticism, etc) Creeds helped do that. For Mormonism, Correlation has helped do that.
When the Proclamation came out, I was a big fan, and I still think it has some benefits. I didn’t realize that it was a weapon against gay marriage at the time, (but to be honest, back in the 1990s I was with the majority and against gay marriage at the time.) My views have changed and evolved on the topic now. I don’t like it being weaponized for opposing gay marriage, and as Hawkgrrrl has said many times, the PoF position on gender and marriage has some big problems. I recognize the problems now that I didn’t see before.
I have been vocal in the notion of retiring apostles (see my post on Monson retiring and apostles retiring. If church leaders listened to me (especially regarding Monson), I’m not sure that would help and may even hurt in the short term, given that Nelson and Oaks, the two most senior apostles are still digging in their heels on gay marriage. They may try to canonize the PoF, and I think that would be a bad thing. It almost feels like we have to wait for these 3 men to die (which is an awful thing to say) to avoid further entrenchment on gay marriage. Perhaps it is a good thing that Monson doesn’t retire just yet, but I feel terrible for his weakened memory and faculties, and in a perfect world, I’d let him coalesce in peace and let a more able-bodied person lead the church. But the options don’t seem very appealing right now either unless some sort of new succession could take place, and I don’t see that happening either, unless Nelson and Oaks suddenly fall ill or are suddenly seriously injured. I think Nelson and Oaks most recent 2 conference addresses on the PoF are cringeworthy.
I found Oaks’ comment about some viewing the PoF as a “policy” to be confusing. A policy, while distinguished for being non-doctrinal, is also procedural, like the Nov 5 policy. The Proclamation is a non-revelatory doctrine with varying levels of inspiration behind it. It’s very flawed in that it conflates terms like sex and gender and also leaves so much open that it’s really not very instructive. There’s no actual “policy” in there, in that it doesn’t tell you how to do things or if you do this or that what will happen. For example, it says men “preside,” but that husbands and wives are equal. It says that fathers should do these things, wives should do these other things, then caveats that those only apply unless circumstances differ, in which case do whatever. So how is that a policy? (Hint: it’s not).
Angela C, thanks for hitting the nail on the head. I’ve often wondered at that inconsistent language. It’s always felt to me that the PoF is ultimately saying something like: “Do it this way because that’s the best way, unless you decide to do it another way, which is okay because there are different circumstances.” Aside from doing measurable harm with its demonstrably untrue conception of gender, it seems to be saying a whole lot of confusing stuff. It’s one reason that I know it’s not of God. God is much more clear than this, even allowing for human shortcomings when it comes to translating inspiration into language.
From Oxford Living Dictionaries re: “gender” — “The sense denoting biological sex has also been used since the 14th century, but this did not become common until the mid 20th century.” Though “gender” is now increasingly used with respect to characteristics of persons other than biological characteristics, I suspect “sex” and “gender” were simply synonyms for the writers and signers of the Proclamation (mostly with mid 20th century education).
The only demonstrably “untrue conception of gender” (as a synonym for “sex”) I have so far found in the Proclamation is its completely ignoring hermaphrodites — those with some combination of sex-relevant genes other than XX or XY while still purporting that binary male/female sex or gender is an essential characteristic of mortal life. Understanding the Proclamation may require acknowledging that its writers and signers were using “sex” and “gender” as synonyms, even though “gender” also has other meanings. But still, despite what they said, I don’t think the writers/signers meant to be declaring hermaphrodites inhuman.
Note: One of my MD friends tried once to explain to me how the existence of hermaphrodites doesn’t invalidate anything in the Proclamation. I failed to understand his explanation; I cannot even paraphrase it. Anyone else want to try to make me understand that?
Other than my quibble about whether it “conflates” the terms “sex” and “gender” or simply uses them as synonyms (an old usage and a common usage, even if not the only usage), Angela C. does seem to me to have correctly described what the Proclamation is. With the “different circumstances” qualification, it becomes difficult to see how any heterosexual marriage partners are not following its counsel regardless of how they may split up or share family responsibilities. In that case, as a “policy” it is reduced to little more than a statement against same-sex marriage. What did I miss?
We have a archeological problem with the definition of the family. Beings who, if dressed in a 3 piece suit, could pass as human on a New York subway have lived on this earth for somewhere close to 2 million years. If brought into the modern age with a time machine they are thought to be able to produce fertile offspring with modern humans. The agricultural revolution happened (as a process more than an event) at different times and different places over the course of a few hundred years, no earlier anywhere than about 10,000 BC.
Monogamy and marriage are an outgrowth of the agricultural revolution. Before that, DNA studies indicate people generally had children with multiple partners. Studies of modern primate social structures also bear out the variety of reproductive arrangements. In comparison the modern human nuclear family is very narrow indeed. Even as late as the previous century the extended family was the rule and women (usually) left their biological family and joined their husbands family. The problem with last names is a vestige of it. So this basic idea of family did not even exist for 99.5% of human history.
In the last half century we have sort of redefined what it means to be human. We once had a Biblical story of a first human couple in a garden (agriculture implied) only a few thousand years ago. Humans were everyone who descended from them and nothing else. With abandonment of the literal Biblical time line, we have not defined when hominoids became human children of our Heavenly Father and Mother. We once had super and subhumans and a few grades between based on race. Not any more.
We once had a fairly tolerant attitude towards women killing their children in the first year of life and abortions before that. Some cultures didn’t bother to even give children a name until after they survived and a high portion died in that first vulnerable year and were not memorialized at all. But the general trend has been to clearly define a boundary now; at 12 weeks gestational age a human with full civil rights comes into existence. Before that the developing human fetus is not even given the protection afforded animals and after that almost any interfering with life is criminal. Except for fetal tissue culture in the name of research.
At the other end of life we have two definitions of death; when the heart stops the traditional one, but also a more complex definition that requires two specialists to conduct several medical tests 24 hours apart to meet exacting criteria for brain death. And this is subject to further refinement as medical technology changes.
Arrogant but ingenious engineers in the field of artificial intelligence say they will soon build robots that can do just about anything a human can do only better. I sat by one on a transcontinental flight recently. He is confident that within his lifetime his doctor and lawyer will be robots. A robot will one day declare him dead. Also (perhaps especially) they will build better prostitutes.
I asked about his pastor and he said that one will be easy. I replied: but what if God actually does exist.? Can you build a robot that can pray to a real God? Or maybe one that can atone for our sins before this really hacked off God on more favorable terms than the Man from Galilee gave us? I suppose you will also build ghosts and goblins and elves and trolls and sasquatch and werewolves and all manner of demons. Will your descendants build God to rule the universe as a robot in whom you have little belief at this point?
The LDS church has sort of stumbled along with the general trends, perhaps lagging by up to a generation. Our prophets have seldom been leading out on these fundamental questions and have not defined in a comprehensive way (that has a decent chance of standing the test of time) what a human being is any more. And without that basic definition our declarations of how a family is to function as the most basic human social structure are merely backward-looking, working guidelines that probably will not stand the test of time. Follow them as it seems like the best option for you, but no further.
So, let’s talk about gender vs. sex for a minute. The Proclamation says: “Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.”
JR points out that traditionally, gender = biological sex. This phrasing isn’t just an intersex problem (but it sure is that). That phrasing also points to a problem acknowledging transgender individuals (which we are actually, work with me here, are slightly more doctrinally forward-thinking about than we are for homosexuals). Gender can refer to any of these things: biological sex (archaically synonymous, but very imprecise to the point of being almost euphemistic), gender identity (the sex one “feels” one is, regardless of biological sex), cultural role division (which varies based on context, country, history, etc.). The sentence is conflating all three of these into the same thing which is just poor parsing given that they don’t mean the same things for everyone. If there’s a venn diagram, we’ve left out some not-insubstantial quantity of people who are born with either gender dysphoria or ambiguous genitalia, but what’s more, we’ve lumped in all human cultures as if gender roles–which vary greatly from culture to culture–are eternal and essential.
We don’t have to look far to find the source for this imprecision. It’s conservative American politics. It’s the “biology equals destiny” crowd. To wit: “The attempt to explain important features of society in evolutionary or genetic terms—biological determinism—has two goals. First, it tries to convince us that the social order is a consequence of unchanging human biology, so that inequality and injustice cannot be eliminated.”
I am incapable of believing that God views his creations through the lens of the GOP and its pseudo-science. There’s too much conflation with status quo and preservation of privilege for me to believe that it’s also coincidentally what God wants. The God in the New Testament wants us to transcend these human concerns, to love better, to change our hearts, not to preserve our privilege and congratulate ourselves on our “God-given” good fortune.
On the upside, though, these supposedly eternal and essential gender roles (purpose) aren’t spelled out, so while there might be some who imagine that girl spirits were doing all the housework in the pre-existence, others will imagine that they were matriarchs of their families, directing everyone’s activities as they do in some cultures.
Elder Oaks and all the apostles expect to be held accountable, mega accountable to God for how they lead His church. That’s an enormous responsibility. Uchtdorf has acknowledged that mistakes have been made so they know leaders make mistakes and will be held accountable for them. When they speak for Him, especially on this issue, they must know it would be their damnation to be wrong. Which is why I believe what Elder Oaks said is from the Lord.I think it would be easier to go along with SSM than be against it.
JR, “One of my MD friends tried once to explain to me how the existence of hermaphrodites doesn’t invalidate anything in the Proclamation. I failed to understand his explanation; I cannot even paraphrase it. Anyone else want to try to make me understand that?” Since I’m married to someone who works often with intersex individuals, I’ll give it a go. The human body functions best when all cells are uniformly XX or XY. Any variation in that can have far-reaching consequences dependent on the particular syndrome. Now, most intersex individuals are *not* uniform across all cells, so that’s what factors into some of the variation. If the gonads are affected (not uniformly XX or XY), they are non-functioning and are typically removed (there is a very high likelihood for them to become cancerous). So recognize that most intersex individuals are infertile. Those that are fertile have at least one gonad where all cells were fully XX (ovary) or XY (testicle). And it *is* technically possible for the same individual to have a functioning testicle *and* a functioning ovary, though it is obviously rare. Anything that could possibly happen in embryo *does* (at some point) happen. So an MD who would argue that it isn’t against the proclamation is essentially saying that the “ideal” is for a body to be fully one chromosomal sex or the other, but mortality brings flawed systems that can result in cells not dividing the way they are supposed to, which then causes people to be intersex.
Now, that’s all fine and dandy from a theoretical point of view, but in reality there are a whole lot more complicating factors (for example, I was only talking about *chromosomal* issues). A good article to read on intersex individuals in a Mormon context is from Dialogue called “Intersexes in Humans: An Introductory Exploration” by Duane E. Jeffery (February 1979). Even though it’s old, the concepts are still very applicable. If you google it, you can easily find the PDF to download. And since the author is an expert (rather than just the spouse of one), he can obviously explain this better than me.
Pair-bonding (bypassing the duration and social vs sexual monogamy) was most likely the norm for the majority of humans during the Pleistocene. It was with the recent invention of agriculture, breeding stock, and the concept of property that lead to polygyny.
Humans lived in small social groups and engage in cooperative breeding. Ethnographic studies show that in hunter gathering groups, women giving birth have their mothers and other close kin there providing support. So here’s a shout out to the Grandmother Hypothesis.
And also all those gay uncles.
As for the Proclamation on the Family, I see it as a parochial viewpoint from those obsessing over the ideals of a white middle class America from the golden age of 1950’s.
As for other reproductive strategies. I vote for slime molds being way cool, especially the Dictyostelids. So let’s proclaim the grex.
Thanks, Mary Ann, That’s a fair summary of relevant chromosomal issues (the only ones I brought up). I’m familiar with Duane Jeffreys’ work. What I do not grasp, however, is my MD friend’s argument that such intersex individuals are not inconsistent counterexamples to the Proclamation’s claim that “ALL HUMAN BEINGS [are] male [or] female…. {and that such]. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual …mortal… identity …” Of course, I have assumed that for the writers and signers of the Proclamation “sex” and “gender” were synonyms. Though “sex” is never used in the Proclamation (perhaps because for mid-20th century-educated, white, middle-class Americans it was a less sophisticated word for “gender” or had other “dirty” connotations), the Proclamation’s focus on bearing and raising children and its assumption that all human beings are either male or female strongly suggest such synonymous usage. If such synonymous usage were not intended, but instead “gender” was intended to refer in the Proclamation to the various other meanings Angela C. has pointed out, then the Proclamation makes even less sense to me — at least until you reach the “other circumstances” clause. That is not to say that the assumed use of “gender” as a synonym for “sex makes good sense of its claims as to “ALL HUMAN BEINGS” .
What does the Proclamation have to say about those intersex persons with both a functioning testicle and a functioning ovary? Are they male or female? Is their intersex status an essential characteristic of their premortal and eternal identities as well as their mortal identity and purpose? Are they inhuman? It seems to me that the Proclamation simply ignores intersex individuals or was written by persons ignorant of the existence of intersex individuals. As a result, it seems the Proclamation demonstrably overstates its claim of universal applicability in a way that cannot be shrugged off by those who shrug off gender role and transgender issues as mere salvos by satanic forces engaged in the culture war. My MD friend argued otherwise. I could not understand his argument.
JR, the idea is that any deviation from the norm (solidly one sex or the other) is merely flaws of a mortal body, and should not be taken to reflect an intersex spirit. It is a male or female spirit in a somewhat defective body, but those defects will be resolved in the resurrection to match the spirit. It’s the same argument used by a lot of church leaders for LGBT members – these are flaws or challenges of mortality/biology that didn’t exist in the preexistence and won’t exist in the afterlife. (Which is one reason why I’m skittish about people pushing for a “pure” biology explanation for LGBT identity.) You are having problems because you do not see the Proclamation as *descriptive* of reality. But these friends of yours don’t have the same issues because they see the Proclamation as *prescriptive.* It is pushing an ideal to strive for.
My experience was remarkably similar to MH, in that I did not realize that the Proclamation Against Certain Families was targeting gay marriage. For years I thought it was primarily about strengthening marriages and reducing divorce.
Yes, it feels to me like the family proc is being used to separate the True Believers from the Members In Name Only. A very few recent comments on W&T suggest that one cannot be faithful or pass a TR interview without fully supporting the family proc, but I think in most of the wards I have been in that would be the majority opinion, or at least no one would be willing to speak against it. It’s unfortunate, because, while I make no claim of being “Faithful” myself, there are many faithful members who are uncomfortable with it.
Mary Ann quoted:
“….merely flaws of a mortal body, and should not be taken to reflect an intersex spirit. It is a male or female spirit in a somewhat defective body, but those defects will be resolved in the resurrection.”
I vaguely recall blabbering on not very long ago about the wife of a friend who was infertile and diagnosed with testicular feminization now called androgen insensitivity syndrome. She was born looking exactly like a normal girl. She was raised and everyone including herself thought she was a girl. She was married in the temple and was sexually active for a few years as a totally normal woman. I don’t know if she had female reproductive cycles, possibly not, but nobody talked about those things then.
During the course of a medical evaluation she was diagnosed with this condition, a “flaw of a mortal body,” if you will. She had infertile testes in her belly approximately where ovaries belong. She was genetically XY which is male. But she was physically and mentally and emotionally female, all the way all her life, up to that point and probably,I presume, to the grave.
Her husband considered remaining married to her and I would suggest that part of the traditional marriage vow, “through sickness and health” might include this problem. But after prayer and counsel with the bishop, the husband could not get over being married to a genetic male who might have been a male in the pre-existence (and in the resurrection?). So he divorced her and married a fertile woman and presumably had a family with her. We all have our rights to be married or unmarried to whomever we choose.
What if this woman with testicular feminization doesn’t want to be a man? Is she going to be resurrected a man against her will and contrary to decades of life experience as a woman? Was her husband right? What about other women with this condition who do stay married in the temple for up to half a century and live faithful in every other way? This condition is rare but I looked it up and it occurs in about 1:20,000 people. So out of 16 million baptisms into the LDS church that would be about 800 people with this problem. Pretty small and not earth shattering, but several times the number of handcart pioneers who died in the Willey and Martin companies for perspective.
These are important questions because the answers relating to this uncommon problem reveal principles with much wider application and reveal flaws in the traditional thinking of some in positions of influence. The way I see it, only a cruel and unfair God would force this ex-wife of my friend with testicular feminization to be a man in the next life. Same applies to other situations. Could I go so far as to say that we might NOT have all the answers to every complex situation and should proceed with humble curious caution not dogma?
Mary Ann, The descriptive/prescriptive distinction may explain part of my difficulty understanding whatever the argument was that the existence of intersex persons does not establish the lack of true universality in the Proclamation. However, it seems to take either a lack of thought or some extraordinarily flexible definitions of “gender” and “essential” to make anything prescriptive out of “Gender is an essential characteristic of individual … mortal … identity and purpose.”
It seems to require a GOP mindset to understand/accept the document, which I don’t have. To my fellow members it is obvious that “marriage between a man and woman is ordained of God”‘means God opposes gay marriage.
The faithfull/unquestioning member knows it is true, but is not willing to examine it to find out what actually sais, like thay do scripture.
I f you can’t just accept it, like me you fail the test.
I’m a Democrat (and fairly liberal), and I “accept the document.” Just a counterexample. I believe both that God does oppose gay marriage, and also that we should accord rights to do all kinds of things that God opposes. And I literally laugh aloud at the thought that it’s the GOP that’s pushing hard determinism. If so, we really need to help them re-examine their economic and criminal justice policies.
Personally, I’ve always understood the line “Gender is an essential characteristic…” to be speaking in terms of Lockean metaphysics, not sexual politics. That is, part of the essence of an eternal being is gender, in the same way that part of the essence of an apple is dimension (think extension in space). It is a necessary property. That doesn’t mean it can’t change, nor that there are a finite number of options. In fact, it suggests the opposite on both counts (apples change, and people change).
Gadflown, I like your interpretation of “Gender is an essential characteristic…” But I think the Brethren who authored and signed the Proclamation and a number of their successors have amply demonstrated that it is not what they had in mind. It reminds me of another friend’s question “What is essential about essential oils?” That question could only arise because “essential” has at least two different meanings. Your choosing a possibly unintended meaning of “essential” does make some descriptive sense out of the quoted statement from the Proclamation. It also seems to make that statement largely irrelevant to, rather than the intended foundation, of most the rest of that “guide that [some say] members of the Church would do well to read and to follow.” It may even reduce the gender issue to one of the “other circumstances” that may “necessitate individual adaption.” If so, it makes more sense than I have otherwise been able to make out of the Proclamation relative to observed mortal reality — even though I think that sense is not at all what its drafters and signers intended. Thanks for the insight.
I regularly attend a Methodist church, and I have studied a bit of the history of Methodism. I don’t think the JS quote cited accurately reflect Methodism as a whole. I shared it with a retired Methodist minister and he didn’t think so either. Methodists are not very committed to creeds. They are more focused on the process of becoming Christian. They have never claimed to be “the true church”. For the first few decades of their history they were not even a church, just a movement focused on helped people be better Anglicans. It is very un-Methodist like to cast somebody out because they don’t adhere to a creed. JS’s view must have been the result of some experience in a particular time and place.
Also, I agree with JS and with the post that creeds are not good. But on the other hand they reflect a consensus view from multiple people. Proclamations are associated with edicts from kings. In my view a creed is preferable to a proclamation because it is more democratic.
Mike – “The way I see it, only a cruel and unfair God would force this ex-wife of my friend with testicular feminization to be a man in the next life.”
The question is if she was a man in her previous life, and has it been cruel of God to force her to be a woman in this life. There are many, many, many things suffered in this life that seem to denote a cruel God for having Their children go through. We will be reconciling two lives as we move into our third, and as I’ve said before, we’re all likely to need some serious PTSD counselling just to get over it, even if our mortal lives seem perfectly joyous (perhaps especially so).
This is the whole reason that Transgender issues have been a sticking point for the Church. It’s easy to declare that everyone was and will be heterosexual, not so much to say that an individuals gender is precisely what it was and will be, much less any other aspect we cling to as “essential to who we are”
This discussion makes me think of Native American two-spirit people. The exact word and meaning are different between Native groups, and I don’t claim to be an expert so I strongly recommend further research. My understanding of two-spirit people is that they fill a third or fourth gender role—I.e. they’re not just male or female, they’re both. It’s not about intimate or sexual relationships, though that can be connected. It’s about recognizing that biological sex at birth does not always have to define socially dictated gender roles. In some Native communities there’s a lot of fluidity so a person can do activities that are commonly seen as both masculine AND feminine.
One of the most meaningful parts of being LDS for me is openness to truth no matter where we find it. I see the recognition of two-spirit people’s existence as a bit of truth coming from Native American perspectives. I think there’s some truth in the Proclamation, along with some other stuff.
Frank: “We will be reconciling two lives as we move into our third, and as I’ve said before, we’re all likely to need some serious PTSD counselling just to get over it, even if our mortal lives seem perfectly joyous (perhaps especially so).” Now that’s an insight I can easily adopt, though I’d likely never have articulated it so well myself. But will counseling be enough? Maybe we’ll need pharmaceutical help, too, but I haven’t found any doctrine about pharmaceuticals in the hereafter.
In 1847?, a Methodist church excommunicated John van Zandt. Methodists might not excommunicate in modern times, but they did in the old days.
Oh, and wasn’t it a Methodist sect that excommunicated Vincenzo di Francesca of “How Rare a Possession” fame?
Hi ji. Thanks for the response. You are very knowledgeable.
I looked it up, and John van Zandt was excommunicated for helping slaves escape not for heresy. Vincenzo di Francesca was stripped of his position at pastor, which is different than excommunicating a lay person.
I’m sure there are examples of various Methodist groups (there are quite a few of them!) punishing people for “heresy”. JS probably witnessed or heard about this happening. After all, at the time of JS, Methodism might well have been the dominate religion in his region.
That said, I don’t think the movement has ever been centered in doctrinal purity, or excessive veneration of the creeds. Methodism is about personal holiness, not about having all the right answers.
And.. I think JS’s vision of Mormonism is that would even be less creed-centered than the Methodists, even more focused on the personal path of holiness, sanctification, and encountering God.
Methodism today might be all about personal holiness, but historically, Methodism had been about a methodical approach to biblical holiness for the group so gathered — the “methods” for which Methodism is named are methods for the group at worship.
The split between the Wesleyan Methodists and Primitive Methodists happened early during Joseph Smith’s lifetime, and reverberations lasted for years.
Yes, Joseph was aware that certain Methodists of his day cared deeply how other Methodists felt about matters of faith and worship. Today’s Methodists are not a good comparison to Methodists in those days.
Yes, we agree — Joseph Smith certainly was not creed-centered.
Some of the reasons that the existing creeds were an abomination to God in 1820 are that they taught incorrect principles about Him and that they pointed worship away from Him. It is abundantly clear that the top leaders of the church are quite comfortable with the Family Proclamation teaching correct principles and allowing/promoting proper worship. For most members, orthopraxy when it comes to family formation and living is the primary emphasis that the top church leaders have given.
I would be very surprised if some of the general authorities have not contemplated, if not taught, that the ‘Lockean metaphysical’ explanation that Gadflown put forth is one possible interpretation of the eternal gender concepts. There is a wide variety of philosophical schools of thought among the leaders of the church. This is not usually discussed and is hard to see when they teach the correlated message of the gospel that we are used to hearing.
Folks of different theological persuasions might certainly differ on whether the historic creeds teach incorrect principles about God, but pointing worship away from Him? Hogwash. Citations, please.
2 of the 3 major creeds, the Apostles creed and the Constantinople creed, specifically mention the catholic church as the one and only faith. The veneration of dead saints as intermediaries between humans and God is definitely pointing worship away from Him.
Catholic in that sense means universal, not Roman Catholic. Many protestants recite the apostle’s creed (including reference to the holy catholic church) without being papists and without endorsing veneration of saints. Indeed, in this sense of the word, Latter-day Saints could recite the apostle’s creed. Catholic =/= Roman Catholic.
“The veneration of dead saints as intermediaries between humans and God is definitely pointing worship away from Him.”
But if this is true, why do faithful Catholics have deeply spiritual experiences (and prayer’s answered) while worshiping intermediaries? Also, I think we need to define ‘worship.’
“…the goal of our veneration of the saints is to remind them, who are worthier than we, to pray to God for us and for our salvation.” —St. Nikolai Velimirovich, The Prologue from Ochrid, Volume III, p. 18.
The idea of departed saints as “worthier than we” is direct from the New Testament: “…the spirits of just men made perfect… ” Hebrews 12:23 They are a part of the “body of Christ” as are the living saints. As RJH noted a few years ago “My point is that Mormons, Protestants, and Catholics all enlist the help of others to raise their prayers to God. … Catholics saints are just dead others.”
I would be more worried about Mormon veneration of GAs distracting from worship of Christ. “veneration” — respect or awe inspired by the dignity, wisdom, dedication, or talent of a person. Merriam-Webster