I am perplexed by the idea of Divine Design.
Not the HGTV show; Candice Olson has very good taste. I'm talking about how Mormonism asserts that there are characteristics, talents, abilities, responsibilities, and roles that are unique to males and unique to females. As I understand it, this means that there are things that only a male can and should do, and there are things that only a female can and should do.
The Family: A Proclamation to the World eludes to divine design. Gender is a defining characteristic of the spirit. Gender determines eternal destiny and eternal purpose. An interesting idea, to be sure, but what does that really mean?
To me, this proclamation seems to use this idea of divine design to promote what, to the Mormon culture, is the perfect family: a patriarchal household where the father provides and the mother stays home and nurtures the children. Family is a man, a woman and their children. The idea that males and females are designed by God to be so different isn't really pushed farther than to encourage the sons and daughters of God to conform to gender stereotypes.
Maybe I'm missing a vital piece of information, and that's why I hold this opinion, but the seemingly deliberate vagueness of the Proclamation has always struck me as off. If males and females are designed by God to have gender unique gifts and duties, then shouldn't the human race be privy to the knowledge of our gifts as well as our duties?
But perhaps I am being unfair. I understand that I am to discover my talents and abilities with the time I've been given. I just have a hard time finding a part of me (besides the obvious anatomical differences) that can be specifically characterized as male.
To truly flesh out its doctrine, the Church needs its gay members. Often (but not always) gay people do not conform to gender stereotypes, and have traits and gifts commonly associated with the opposite gender. I, for example, have been told by female friends that I think like a female... A fairly subjective assessment to be sure, but take it for what it is.
What I'm trying to say is that perhaps by embracing gay members and every aspect of what and who they are, the Church as a whole can more fully understand what they mean when they proclaim gender is a defining characteristic of the spirit. Perhaps full acceptance of brothers and sisters of all orientations would facilitate the stripping away of gender stereotypes, and our inherent, gender specific gifts would be revealed.
If the Church truly has the authority to act in God's name, then it cannot be exclusive. It must welcome all; if it doesn't then the Good News isn't really good news, is it? To truly understand the spiritual spectrum of the human race, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints needs to openly love and support their gay members. We are unique, and we are real. And any ignorance or hostility in the Church towards its gay members, intended or not, precludes the Church from a substantial and encompassing understanding of eternal identity.
PROFOUND: "If the Church truly has the authority to act in God's name, then it cannot be exclusive. It must welcome all; if it doesn't then the Good News isn't really good news, is it? To truly understand the spiritual spectrum of the human race, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints needs to openly love and support their gay members."
ReplyDeleteThank you for articulating this. Sometimes, the obvious is left unspoken. That you for speaking it.
Hmmm, very interesting. I liked it.
ReplyDeleteAnd I did gasp at the beginning when I thought you were perplexed by the HGTV show... :)
True.
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I think that the promotion of completely different gender roles is bad. Is there such a thing as knowledge that is limited to only men or only women?
Do you think there is anything that Heavenly Father can't do or know because he is a man? Change a diaper? Interior design? Nurture a child? Of course not. Omniscience means just that. I believe that He transcends gender roles, and he expects us to do the same.
Knowledge and experience is not gender specific. We are to develop ALL our talents, not just the ones that are socially acceptable for men or women. Our quest for knowledge should not stop at some gender boundary.
Women should experience the work-force. Men should experience the home. Equal partners. I disagree when the Proclamation is used to justify separating a married couple into spheres. It's unhealthy.
The conditioned eagerness of rank & file Mormons to ascribe divine inspiration and revelation to any "official" document or statement from senior church leadership virtually guarantees that the membership will also ignore or remain completely oblivious to the actual process by which such documents or statements are created.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, the Proclamation was the result of a long process of committee meetings, negotiations, wrangling over word choices, etc., much more like a political platform than a direct revelation of the type penned by Joseph Smith. And with the current make-up of the senior leadership, you can bet there was plenty of energetic discussion and debate, with some probably valid opinions and perspectives losing out to majorities who went the other way.
When you also consider that even (or perhaps especially) within the top 15, protocol almost guarantees that the senior members' views will prevail, we see a recipe for preserving the status quo and keeping change restricted to a glacial pace. Bombshells like SWK's 1978 statement will be the rare exception.
Result: Victorian ideas of gender roles will persist as "revealed" LDS doctrine long after everybody else has realized it ain't necessarily so. And eventually even the LDS Church will catch up as its leadership changes. That's kind of an odd pattern for a religion that claims revelation and which therefore presumably ought to be out in front proclaiming expanding truth, no?
This is a very interesting and perceptive essay. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteI've always struggled with the Proclamation. In MY life, gender roles were used to keep me submissive. The fact that I could make more money than my (now ex) husband was irrelevant. I was the wife, so that made me the nurturer, the housekeeper, etc.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate what you've written, because I have been so blinded by own anger, I haven't been able to articulate my thoughts very well.
If it's any help, my Strengthening Marriage and Family professor has expounded this part of the Proclamation just perfectly. He emphasizes "equal partners" more than anything else.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, the "nurture" and "preside provide protect" roles aren't meant to be hard and fast rules, rigidly defined or restrictive. Personal circumstances vary, and even if they don't the Proc does still say that dads are supposed to nurture too.
I have my problems with that document, don't get me wrong. But I think it's easy to read way too far into it and take "multiply" as "have 20 kids" and crap like that which isn't true in the slightest. And it's easy to listen to other people read too far into it and then freak out because we think they might be right.
Regardless, the truth is that “the fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”
Oh, and anyone who uses this to justify gender roles like trucks vs. barbies or blue vs. pink is an idiot.
ReplyDelete