Question about the Proclamation
 

Another thing popping into my head during our long drive home from Utah....an angle that I have not yet personally heard discussed (although perhaps it is already old news)...

Is it possible that the Proclamation is, indeed, 100% inspired and accurate....but that we (as a Church) are currently misinterpreting it?

I keep going over it, and frankly, I can definitely see an argument for the anti-gay position, but I can also see an argument that the Proclamation does not exclude gays or gay marriage.

The passage in question and my brief thoughts on each clause:

1. The family is ordained of God. (since "family" has yet to be defined, this statement is not prohibitive nor permissive of gay marriage).

2. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. (this one is pretty clear...or at least it seems to be. However, upon further reflection, why does this exclude gay marriage? Heterosexual marriage will continue to exist and procreation will also continue. God's eternal plan can carry on largely unaffected. The heterosexuals that were going to marry prior to gay marriage legislation are still going to get married after gay marriage legislation. While gays cannot procreate, their being married does not preclude the essential heterosexual element of God's eternal plan).

3. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony (gays will never bear children as a result of their union, so I am unclear as to how this phrase applies to homosexuals and homosexual marriage. It is a moot point.)

4. and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. (given that gays cannot birth their own children, their main option is to adopt. Focusing solely on that pool of available children that are not going to be adopted by heterosexuals, is the Church's implicit stance that it is better for children to go unadopted for 18 years than to be adopted by a loving gay couple? Admittedly, there is also the issue of artificial insemination and surrogate motherhood.)

5. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. (agreed...this would also include compassion, love, etc...some of which is listed in the next clause)

6. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. (agreed again, but this does not preclude gay marriage.)

7. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. (what about single parent LDS and non-LDS homes? Why is that situation better than a loving and committed gay couple?)

8. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. (if the root of a healthy relationship is the common yoke shared by an equal partnership, then again, why can't gay marriage be included?)

9. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed. ("other circumstance"....what are they? couldn't gay marriage be included in that exception clause?)

The more I read the Proclamation, the more I wonder whether it is a less exclusive and more inclusive document than we currently understand it to be.

Thoughts, comments, and even derision is fine. I am really looking for some sort of clarifying explanation on this difficult issue, so I won't reject any feedback, positive or negative.

I think I would have more respect for the church position on gay marriage, if I felt they were instituting an effort to help the family in many different areas, politically-speaking.

Like someone in church said yesterday: "The family is under attack."

Ok, I can agree with that, as a general statement. Human, we are clannish, we have always been under attack from outside forces, as well as inside forces.

If the family is under attack, what is the best way to defend it?

Sorry, gay marriage is not the first thing that pops into my mind.

Good points. I have nothing original to add to your analysis.

Maybe we should say that we'll start opposing gay marriage as soon as LDS teaching stops advocating de facto single-parenthood as the governing principle of the cosmos (I know LDS claim to believe in a mother-in-heaven, but it's not something people teach, let alone discuss.)

Make "it" stronger. And this is incredibly difficult. Especially from the pulpit with generally lame talks. Most talks at the stake and ward level are very general, very rehashed and not very motivating. Say what you will above that level.

I see a lot of parents who are very mean to their children. Because I have a daughter, I see the dynamics of her friend's families. There are parents who refuse to say enough positive things to their kids. These kids come over for sleep overs and we talk to them, laugh with them, compliment them, don't yell at them to quit giggling at 3AM and they eat it up. By their behviour you can tell they are starved for positive
attention. Especially from males (fathers). And these are some active families with active leadership-calling priesthood holders. I've seen this in multiple wards in multiple states. These girls are going to get positive male attention one way or another, and if dad doesn't give it to them, they'll find someone who gladly will.

Have we ever had a very specific talk about these kinds of very specific problems? Holland tried with his talk on taming the tongue a few years ago, but those talks are few and far between. And they mostly get passed off as "I don't have an issue with that." And they are not nearly as specific as they need to be, IMHO.

This has to happen one person at a time, and that's very difficult to orchestrate. Maybe impossible.


I agree. If that's our pressing issue, then we're in pretty good shape, as all the others have been solved.
But it's simple. It's an easy us-vs-them battle. And everyone gets to feel like they are doing "something".

A little quibble I have with the Proclamation is the misuse of the word "gender," when "sex" is being referenced:

"All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

Gender is a cultural construct. Masculine and feminine are genders. Male and female are sexes, (their differences are not cultural, but are instead biological, physical, genetic).

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but "sex" seems to be the more accurate word choice for the intended meaning.

Maybe this allows for the possibility that some "feminine gendered" spirits might be assigned a body of the male sex.

I am not sure that it is a mistake. I think it means gender as you define it. I had assumed this is the point. If only biological, it seems to me it would make no sense to reference pre-mortal life.

Good point. It seems like a pretty glaring oversight.

I've been thinking about the same points you raised, but I struggle a bit with 4. What you wrote seems to presume that heterosexual couples are higher on the adoption hierarchy than homosexual couples. And that may be the case in certain areas, but for better or worse. we're heading toward an equalization of adoptive rights when it comes to gay vs. straight couples.

I'd be interested in seeing some good studies comparing the success (how to define?) of gay vs. straight couples in raising children, but I'm too lazy to dig in the available literature, assuming there is any.

Since gays have been allowed to adopt, thousands of Americans have been killed or injured in Iraq. Just remember that, when you're thinking about this issue.