I taught lesson 45 in LDS Sunday School yesterday on marriage and family. Having heard from a friend who sat through the same lesson last week and was offended and walked out, my goal for the class (I wrote it on the board) was to have no one be offended and leave the room. My theme for the lesson (wrote this on the board too) was that everyone in the room would leave the class thinking their family (of whatever arrangement) and their marriage (of whatever type) could be strengthened or improved by following gospel principles and the good advice kicked around during the class discussion. How did the topic of marriage get so politicized or polarizing within the Church that some teachers manage to offend or discourage some class members?
I’m guessing most readers already have an idea how this happens, so I’ll just summarize a few points I covered that helped, I think, to broaden the discussion and make it applicable to all families and all marriages rather than to just those lucky folks who find themselves in an Ideal Mormon Marriage with an Ideal Mormon Family.
1. Let’s talk about actual families in all their variety, not just the Ideal Mormon Family. Imagine questions in the manual like “how can living the gospel improve your relationship with your ex?” or “what have you learned by being a single parent?” rather than a succession of questions on how to make an Ideal Mormon Family just a little happier. Even the traditional family arrangement offers variants that fall outside the standard Mormon circle off approval (interfaith marriages, interracial marriages, unmarried couples with kids who never formally married). Farther outside that circle of approval are non-traditional families (single-parent families, blended families, various post-divorce custody and visitation arrangements). I taught the lesson so as to make that broader range of marriage and family part of the positive discussion of marriage and family. Fewer people would feel marginalized or offended if LDS manuals would adopt the same broader approach.
2. In praising temple marriage, Mormon lessons often implicitly denigrate regular civil marriage. Even the lesson says “marriage and family are ordained of God,” not “temple marriage is ordained of God.” In 2017, there are a lot of civil marriages in the Church. A lot of older Mormon couples (pillar of the ward types) have civilly married children. We really need to learn to say nicer things about civil marriage.
3. Stop telling kids that sexual activity makes them “morally dirty.” The manual has this statement: “What can parents do to help children understand the importance of moral cleanliness?” I suggested that what they should NOT do is teach children or youth the avoidance of moral dirtiness because the way this is generally done in LDS settings tends to deny the possibility of repentance (chewed bubble gum never becomes clean new bubble gum) and omits any consideration of capacity or consent. I noted how some bishops are reliably reported as telling young women who have been the victims of sexual assault that they need to repent. Everyone seems to get that this is wrong except the bishops who do it, which suggests how heavily the title “Judge in Israel” weighs on otherwise decent men and sometimes makes them do or say stupid things (because some of them apparently think it’s their job to judge people, regardless of facts, law, or culpability). A class member conveniently volunteered the experience of Elizabeth Smart and her excellent work to educate the general public and Mormons in particular about this problem.
4. I avoided quoting the Proclamation on the Family. First, because I promised to not offend people and it is a potentially offensive document. Second, because as a teacher I avoid presenting false or misleading material, whether in the manual or whatever. LDS manuals consistently omit any discussion of the origins or context of the Proclamation. Knowing that the document was drafted and adopted as part of LDS participation in Baehr v. Miike, a Hawaii same-sex marriage case from the 1990s, does not really detract from it as a statement of LDS policy and doctrine circa 1995. Quite the opposite. But presenting the Proclamation as some sort of uncanonized revelation out of the blue that President Hinckley just decided to deliver to the Relief Society in 1995 in one of their meetings misrepresents it. Why do they do this?
On a positive note, a lot of Mormon marriages and families are successful and stand the test of time. Regularly discussing in LDS classes how to be a better parent or how to have a stronger marriage is a good thing. It just seems like the LDS curriculum could make a good thing into a better thing by acknowledging the diversity of actual families represented in LDS wards and branches, and offering counsel and encouragement to all, whatever their family or marital circumstances.
Very thoughtful presentation. Thank you David B.
This is really interesting. Thank you for sharing, I’m going to keep this article in mind, while I prepare my lesson; The Family is Ordained of God.
-Linda
Sounded like a great ;Lesson
While you are free to have your opinion on the proclamation, your opinion does not harmonize with the reality of what the proclamation is. Consider the following statements given just two months ago by Dallin H. Oaks. He makes explicit statements that show that:
a) the proclamation is more than the policy document you portray it as, and
b) confirms that the proclamation was a result of inspiration and a revelatory process.
“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. In contrast, Latter-day Saints affirm that the family proclamation defines the kind of family relationships where the most important part of our eternal development can occur.”
“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.”
“The inspiration identifying the need for a proclamation on the family came to the leadership of the Church over 23 years ago. It was a surprise to some who thought the doctrinal truths about marriage and the family were well understood without restatement. Nevertheless, we felt the confirmation and we went to work.”
“During this revelatory process, a proposed text was presented to the First Presidency, who oversee and promulgate Church teachings and doctrine. After the Presidency made further changes, the proclamation on the family was announced by the President of the Church, Gordon B. Hinckley.”
“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. It has been the basis of Church teaching and practice for the last 22 years and will continue so for the future. Consider it as such, teach it, live by it, and you will be blessed as you press forward toward eternal life.”
“how can living the gospel improve your relationship with your ex?” or “what have you learned by being a single parent?”
I wish you taught in my ward.
JTH, you might want to check out Mary Ann’s well-researched post on the Family Proc: https://wheatandtares.org/2017/10/14/historical-context-of-the-family-proclamation/
Great post and great lesson. The myth about the Proclamation has really crept into the Church and it drives me crazy. I heard several people say it last week in a lesson. It goes something like this: “President Hinckley presented the proclamation when no one was even talking or thinking about these issues, so it was prophetic because it is so relevant today.” As has been pointed out here and elsewhere, this is not true. It was drafted as a weapon in the war on gay marriage and used as such from the beginning. Any suggestions on a diplomatic way to stop people from perpetuating the myth?
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
JTH, I suppose you can treat the Proclamation as a revelation if you want. Members and leaders are fairly loose with the term when it is convenient to do so. Lots of members and leaders treat Lorenzo Snow’s couplet as a revelation, and the King Follett discourse as a revelation, and their patriarchal blessing as a revelation, and the words and counsel given in a priesthood blessing as revelation. Some Mormons treat John Taylor’s 1886 revelation that polygamy was everlasting and would always be practiced by God’s people as a revelation. The protection that members of the Church have from having to acknowledge every loose claim to “revelation” as binding on them is canonization. The Proclamation is not canonized. Period. It’s not like canonization confers infallibility on a proposed revelation any more than the apostleship confers infallibility on LDS senior leaders, but at least canonization provides a bright line for the general membership.
felixfabulous, I guess one response to the increasingly mythical story about the Proclamation is to ask, “so why hasn’t it been canonized and added to the D&C?” As the story gets embellished year after year (and as senior leadership, including Elder Oaks as quoted by JTH above, remain intentionally vague about the details) I think members tend to transfer the background story to the 1978 priesthood revelation to the Proclamation. Somthing like this: well, leaders *must* have given this serious reflection, and they *must* have gathered in the temple to seek God’s confirmation, and they *must* have received the words of the Proclamation from God, because it is a revelation and that’s how revelation, like the 1978 revelation, works. According to the actual factual accounts of how the text was drafted and promulgated, none of that is true. If it was, they would canonize it, wouldn’t they?
I’m certainly not arguing they should canonize the Proclamation and put it in the D&C. That would just create more problems in 20 or 30 years when they will need to change the policy.
Thank you for the summary. We had this lesson last Sunday, and I wish these talking points could have been included. Instead, we got a lesson in which the teacher emphatically declared that the Proclamation “will never change” and further asserted that birth control (or really any form of prudent family planning) was “selfish”, as it prevents deserving spirits from being born into righteous families. While many gray heads nodded in agreement, I threw up a little in my mouth.
Let’s also not forget another huge group of stigmatized members, who often feel alienated by these lessons; Single, never married, no children. These lesson are often very painful to them as well.
I applaud your efforts but as a never-married childless woman, I don’t think this would help me much. I think I’d still walk out.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
BL and Lily, in the lesson matrix I put up on the board, I also had a third category: “No family at the moment” or something like that, for singles, divorced, and widowed. I noted that the US definition of “family” is the nuclear family, a fairly small unit. But in other cultures that I have lived in, “family” means the whole kinship network, broadly including grandparents, aunts and uncles, and a wide array of cousins. Living arrangements are generally rather fluid, not defined by nuclear families in distinct households. In these cultures, no one is isolated; everyone is part of a family clan, regardless of their current marital status. In the West and in the Church, we think too narrowly about family.
I also amended the first subtopic title (“The family is central to God’s plan”) to be: The family is central to God’s plan, but not so central that singles and divorcees aren’t full participants in our wards and church community. As with so many potentially positive concepts or doctrines, the idea of family salvation too often gets presented in such a way as to make singles (of whatever type) feel marginalized or simply ignored. (That’s ignoring for the moment the theological point that “family salvation” is a uniquely Mormon doctrine, not a Christian or biblical one.)
Great post. I heard a statistic (that I can’t remember the source) that 61% of women in RS are unmarried, either single, divorced or widowed. That sounds about right. Being sensitive to people’s current family situations should be part of our effort to be compassionate Christians.
I teach Gospel Doctrine in my ward. I am an openly gay member. I serve in the temple, home teach, and sing in the choir. I am my wards official Christmas Elf every year—probably my favorite ‘calling.’ Teaching this lesson posed a real challenge for me. At first I decided to get a substitute since my conclusions about the Proclamation don’t match those in the lesson manual. Then, rethinking that decision, I felt that I should ask my new bishop if I could teach the lesson from the viewpoint of an active gay member who faces contradictions but soldier’s on despite misgivings. He agreed as long as I didn’t spend time on autobiographical details from my storied past as an excommunicated gay activist. The bishop is a good man, kind and loving, but I concluded that since he also is employed by the Church, he would tolerate no unorthodox diversions. In the end I chose to center my lesson around the histories of the four Official Proclamations preceding the fifth in 1995. My commentary included a reference to the first Proclamation of the First Presidency of the Church January 15, 1841 issued in Nauvoo. I pointed out that this document also lays bear a political motivation just like the one of 1995. I quoted the final paragraph of this Proclamation as evidence for their consideration.
“We wish it likewise to be distinctly understood, that we claim no privilege but what we feel cheerfully disposed to share with our fellow citizens of every denomination, and every sentiment of religion; and therefore say, that so far from being restricted to our own faith, let all those who desire to locate themselves in this place, or the vicinity, come, and we will hail them as friends, and shall feel it not only a duty, but a privilege, to reciprocate the kindness we have received from the benevolent and kind-hearted citizens of the state of Illinois.”
Signed, Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, Hyrum Smith, Presidents of the Church From History of the Church. Volume 4.
“A lot of older Mormon couples (pillar of the ward types) have civilly married children. We really need to learn to say nicer things about civil marriage.“
I’ll say something nice about civil marriages:
First, they don’t exclude non-temple worthy/non-Mormon family members.
Second, having 2 children who were married civilly and another married in the temple—hands-down the civil marriages were better—more intimate, more personal etc. (Prior to experiencing the civil marriages of my children I had wondered if the civil marriages would seem inferior to the temple marriages).
Thanks Dave for sharing your teaching strategy. We need more with your sensitivity and broad, inclusive approach.
Dave B, thanks for taking to time to share your thoughts.
“The Proclamation is not canonized. Period. It’s not like canonization confers infallibility on a proposed revelation any more than the apostleship confers infallibility on LDS senior leaders, but at least canonization provides a bright line for the general membership.”
That’s a really interesting point of view to me, as it’s quite different from my perception of general membership. I think there are some cultural axioms that, purposefully or not, muddy this line:
1) “Continuous revelation”‘ and “a living prophet” are major selling points of the Mormon church. Ensigns are often compared in importance to scripture and are said to contain the current-day revelations of our Apostles. This projects a certain infallibility in church publications that extends to manuals and especially proclamations posted in everyone’s homes. A side of effect of this (I think) is that no one expects the D&C to ever be expanded again. If a revelation were to be destined for all members, would they reprint all the scriptures or just post it on lds.org?
2) “The gospel is perfect, the people aren’t”. This asks for patience and tolerance when it appears that the church has caused harm. It shifts blame away from the doctrine (which itself is muddied b/c of 1 above) and institution itself, onto those who have to implement policy to the best of their (very) limited abilities. I personally think that the concept of “leadership roulette” unfair to local leaders who, lacking clear instruction, fall back to their personal prejudices and shortcomings.
The combination of these two things puts church leadership/doctrine in a position of being beyond criticism, which I guess is my original point. I think members are asked to swallow everything that’s published and to be patient (but not criticize!) whatever offends them. Viewed solely as an organization of people, these two policies prevent progress.
I know that to generalize all is to marginalize some. My experiences in culture this far from the motherland may differ. Also I’ve had some of these thoughts percolating for a while so I apologize if they’re not as on topic as they should be. Thanks again!
Dave,
I still have some concerns about your thoughts on singles “No family at the moment” is a category that I resent being placed in. As a single, never married, woman with no kids, I am often told that I should be available to attend church meetings at awkward times or participate when others are allowed to beg off “because you don’t have a family.” I do have a family. I have siblings, parents, and nieces, nephews and other friends that I am close to. These meetings and participation are as disruptive to my family life as they are to others with a spouse or children in the home. As you say, other cultures accept these relationships as family bonds, but our culture does not, partly because there are lessons and people in the church that place us in the “no family” category. Please don’t use that label for me.
Additionally, I value your modification of the first point in the lesson to “The family is central to God’s plan, but not so central that singles and divorcees aren’t full participants in our wards and church community,” with one exception- this should read “but not so central that singles and divorcees shouldn’t be full participants” We should be able to be full participants in the ward and church community. But we aren’t, and lessons of this kind highlight that fact.
I think it is good that you are talking about this. The more we are aware of others around us, particularly those that don’t fit into an ideal, the better we can reach out and meet their needs.
Thank you for this. There have been times I have returned home offended after a lesson either in SS or in RS but my faith remains. People are human and sometimes just teach what THEY believe to be true