Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

It's not canon! So I less agree.

Portia, I couldn't disagree with your interpretation more. The problem here is timetables, not primary responsibility. The Proclamation makes no claim whatsoever about that. We aren't asking whether it is moral for a mother to stay at home and raise the children while a man goes out and provides an income, we are asking in a given educational situation what ought to happen on a temporary basis.

But the root point remains the same; it isn't the meat of the message so much as the presentation. If I were to say "Portia, you are breaking the commandments and need to stop drinking tea. Your terrible decisions are only hurting you in the long run." I would be in line with church doctrine with respect to the Word of Wisdom. However, I'd also be an ass. And that's not something for a good Mormon to be.

Waldorf and Sauron wrote:It's not canon! So I less agree.

I as well have never considered it to be canon. I find the changes made to President Packer's talk a couple conferences ago to be quite telling as to the proclamation's current standing:

Fifteen years ago, with the world in turmoil, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” the fifth proclamation in the history of the Church. It qualifies according to the definition as a revelation and it would do well that members of the church read and follow it.

was changed to

Fifteen years ago, with the world in turmoil, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” the fifth proclamation in the history of the Church. It is a guide that members of the Church would do well to read and to follow.

I'm not saying that in another fifteen years it won't be canon (much like the Word of Wisdom has moved from being good advice to being a temple requirement)--but at the moment, it's still not included in the standard works, it hasn't been voted on by the membership of the church, so I really don't see how it qualifies as canon. Blowing it up really big and putting it in a nice frame on the wall and having lessons about it during combined priesthood/relief society meetings doesn't make it canon.

But I agree with the rest of Portia's point (I think).

Yarjka wrote:Blowing it up really big and putting it in a nice frame on the wall and having lessons about it during combined priesthood/relief society meetings doesn't make it canon.

What?!

Katya wrote:

Yarjka wrote:Blowing it up really big and putting it in a nice frame on the wall and having lessons about it during combined priesthood/relief society meetings doesn't make it canon.

What?!

Every ward I've been in has had a really big copy of the Family Proclamation framed on the wall of the relief society room. It has been the focus of many lessons (and has even made its way into the Sunday School manual). Is this not a common practice elsewhere? A lot of families have it in a nice frame in their home as well.

Yarjka wrote:

Katya wrote:

Yarjka wrote:Blowing it up really big and putting it in a nice frame on the wall and having lessons about it during combined priesthood/relief society meetings doesn't make it canon.

What?!

Every ward I've been in has had a really big copy of the Family Proclamation framed on the wall of the relief society room. It has been the focus of many lessons (and has even made its way into the Sunday School manual). Is this not a common practice elsewhere? A lot of families have it in a nice frame in their home as well.

Oh, it's definitely a common practice. I was just expressing (mock) shock at the idea that framing something doesn't make it canon.

Katya wrote:Oh, it's definitely a common practice. I was just expressing (mock) shock at the idea that framing something doesn't make it canon.

Too bad! Dragon Lady and Heartless Siren used to have a big copy of one of Shakespeare's plays (Hamlet?) up on their wall. It would be very amusing if that were then considered canon...what sorts of doctrinal contortions would it inspire? (I'm not sure where it ended up; this was when they were both single.)

Katya wrote:Oh, it's definitely a common practice. I was just expressing (mock) shock at the idea that framing something doesn't make it canon.

Ah, I see. That was well performed.

Laser Jock wrote:

Katya wrote:Oh, it's definitely a common practice. I was just expressing (mock) shock at the idea that framing something doesn't make it canon.

Too bad! Dragon Lady and Heartless Siren used to have a big copy of one of Shakespeare's plays (Hamlet?) up on their wall. It would be very amusing if that were then considered canon...what sorts of doctrinal contortions would it inspire? (I'm not sure where it ended up; this was when they were both single.)

Oh, I remember that. It was really cool! Also, I suppose that would canonize the text on big fancy framed diplomas.

Yarjka wrote:

Katya wrote:Oh, it's definitely a common practice. I was just expressing (mock) shock at the idea that framing something doesn't make it canon.

Ah, I see. That was well performed.

A little too well, apparently.

Laser Jock wrote:

Katya wrote:Oh, it's definitely a common practice. I was just expressing (mock) shock at the idea that framing something doesn't make it canon.

Too bad! Dragon Lady and Heartless Siren used to have a big copy of one of Shakespeare's plays (Hamlet?) up on their wall. It would be very amusing if that were then considered canon...what sorts of doctrinal contortions would it inspire? (I'm not sure where it ended up; this was when they were both single.)

(It belonged to Heartless Siren. So I assume it's with her.)
And man, why didn't we frame our poster of "Wisdom According to [bismark]"??!! It could have been doctrine! <regret>

Okay, just to stir the pot a little bit (you know you love me, Marduk... and you know what I'm talking about), I agreed with Phaedrus. I was also happy to see that he spoke up as he did; I think a lot of times the more liberal writers outshine the more conservative ones, which I think is a problem, even as a more liberal member of the Church (but not as liberal as I used to be).

I think that God is allowed to make rules that bother us mortals, and me specifically. Although I'd like things to be otherwise, I'm okay accepting that women can't have the priesthood, MBAs are the dominant demographic among the General Authorities, and that God can call leaders to preside over us. This post at Times & Seasons explains it better than I can: http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/20 ... -behavior/

Marduk wrote:Portia, I couldn't disagree with your interpretation more. The problem here is timetables, not primary responsibility. The Proclamation makes no claim whatsoever about that. We aren't asking whether it is moral for a mother to stay at home and raise the children while a man goes out and provides an income, we are asking in a given educational situation what ought to happen on a temporary basis.

But the root point remains the same; it isn't the meat of the message so much as the presentation. If I were to say "Portia, you are breaking the commandments and need to stop drinking tea. Your terrible decisions are only hurting you in the long run." I would be in line with church doctrine with respect to the Word of Wisdom. However, I'd also be an ass. And that's not something for a good Mormon to be.

And that's the interesting thing: there's orthodoxy & fundamentalism, and there're beliefs. I have certainly not ceased being an opinionated and sometimes dogmatic person merely because my views have changed, hence my attraction to economists like Paul Krugman ("economically liberal policies are always superior! the Obama administration must do more!") or writers like Christopher Hitchens, or more mildly, Steven Pinker ("evolutionary biology and scientific-based reasoning is the correct viewpoint! Religions are WRONG!") Not that I spout their views mimetically, but it definitely aligns with how my brain works. I was never a very shades-of-gray Mormon, and I value ideological consistency and integrity very, very highly. A lot of people can be "liberal, stay-at-home-dad Mormons" or "non-crazy Republicans in this day and age" or "evangelical Christian scientists" but I find it much easier to line up my actions with my beliefs (and vice versa). The economist in me sees how thinking one thing and acting another way could maximize your utility, often, but the philosopher in me thinks that all people should act non-hypocritically, always.

The Dear Abby-ish nature of the Board changes things, because people are seeking advice and not just The Correct Way to Do Things. (And there is always a way for things to be "Just So" trust me!). I think the (more recent) response about Portland was meaner than Phaedrus's though. Making fun of cutters (and possibly half-Japanese people?!) is just a low blow.

Hrmm, I don't find Krugman to be as dogmatic as you portray him to be.

On topic, again, I think you're misconstruing both what I've said and what the doctrine is. The Proclamation is much more squishy than, say, certain aspects of the word of wisdom. It is very simple to see when someone partakes of tobacco, for example. It is not so easy to define a particular set of actions as allowing a mother to take a primarily nurturing role. I for one think that a mother who denies herself an education when she has the opportunity to get one is reduced in that nurturing and educating role; hence, to shortchange an education in favor of starting a family earlier would be a failing with regards to what the Proclamation teaches us. And I don't think that's being "shades-of-gray" or "ideological(ly) (in)consisten(t)" or failing in my integrity. You say that so doing means that I'm "thinking one thing and acting another way" and you know what? You're dead wrong in that.

On the other side, you are also wrong in the way in which things are construed. Part of the doctrine of the church is that we ought not to judge unrighteously, and when we seek to chastise those over whom we have no direct authority or misunderstand the situation, we are failing in the doctrine. And I don't care how many times someone tells me to act Christlike, when they do so in an un-Christlike fashion, the failing is theirs, not mine.

Marduk wrote:Hrmm, I don't find Krugman to be as dogmatic as you portray him to be.

On topic, again, I think you're misconstruing both what I've said and what the doctrine is. The Proclamation is much more squishy than, say, certain aspects of the word of wisdom. It is very simple to see when someone partakes of tobacco, for example. It is not so easy to define a particular set of actions as allowing a mother to take a primarily nurturing role. I for one think that a mother who denies herself an education when she has the opportunity to get one is reduced in that nurturing and educating role; hence, to shortchange an education in favor of starting a family earlier would be a failing with regards to what the Proclamation teaches us. And I don't think that's being "shades-of-gray" or "ideological(ly) (in)consisten(t)" or failing in my integrity. You say that so doing means that I'm "thinking one thing and acting another way" and you know what? You're dead wrong in that.

On the other side, you are also wrong in the way in which things are construed. Part of the doctrine of the church is that we ought not to judge unrighteously, and when we seek to chastise those over whom we have no direct authority or misunderstand the situation, we are failing in the doctrine. And I don't care how many times someone tells me to act Christlike, when they do so in an un-Christlike fashion, the failing is theirs, not mine.

So why is it okay to say it's perfectly fine for two parents / just the mother to work outside the home, but it's okay to (more or less) attack someone who doesn't want to get married in the temple, maybe ever? Genuine question. Both seem to me to be in direct contradiction to advice/counsel/commandments/culture of the Church.

My answer is that one attitude has liberalized faster than the other, not that either point is more or less "doctrinal." Do you believe in Gordon B. Hinckley, Thomas S. Monson, as prophets and revelators or not? I am always genuinely surprised when Latter-day Saints seem to regard any pronouncement given in the 20th century or later as somehow more up for debate. Isn't continuing revelation . . . not nice, fuzzy advice, but God Telling You to Do Something Through His Mouthpiece, a very important tenet of the Church, maybe in the top 3? Or am I way off-base?

Another point on these same lines, which I think could strengthen the argument for the Proclamation as doctrine, is it's pretty clearly subtitled "to the world." The Church not only puts out ideas, but lots of money and feet on the ground to advocate specific marriage policy (Prop 8, for example) which would affect EVERYONE, not just Mormons/Christians/Theists. They certainly don't tell everyone to get married in the temple; obviously, they keep non-recommend holders out. So there is an argument which I don't see as either facile or even combative that the Church is making a broader policy impact when it comes to nuclear family, stay at home mom, working dad, children, and should be the one we feel no problem with telling our own people that that is what they need to be working for. If not, then why bother cold-calling Californians to stop gay marriage, if you don't want to save what has been termed "traditional marriage"?

TheAnswerIs42 wrote: I think I can see what you are saying about the "rebuke" paragraph, Hypatia, because the asker really was just trying to defend himself against the "no woman should ever work" judgemental type of people. But to me, the big thing is looking at how small that paragraph is, and how supportive Phaedrus was in the rest of his answer. I was impressed by how encouraging and supportive he was, even though I have to say my first thought was "well, that seems like a bad idea." So maybe he put a disclaimer style paragraph towards the end to make sure they weren't taking things too far. So what. Sometimes I need reminders that answers from sources I dismissed are actually the right answers after all. (Here I'm referring usually to judgemental people that drive me crazy, not nessesarily the actual document.) We don't know this guy enough personally to tell.

A lot has been said already, but I thought I'd chime in. So I'm a new writer, and was bummed to discover this thread and read that my comments were interpreted as insulting. Definitely not my intention. TheAnswerIs42 seemed to understand exactly what I was trying to convey. I hope the question-asker felt supported rather than insulted. His unique situation had so many unmovable parameters that I felt like he knew there wasn't a "fix all" answer, which is why I themed my response to be supportive of his prayerful feelings instead of offering specific solutions.

"Rebuke" was definitely the wrong word choice, so I regret that. Reading it again, I should have just taken out the sentence "Now for my rebuke." But, what follows isn't unwarranted. I do think it unwise to dismiss the family proclamation as a tool for guidance. I included this not because I knew he was dismissing it, but rather because (as quoted above): "Sometimes I need reminders that answers from sources I dismissed are actually the right answers after all."

It's important to note that the question-asker did not write "please don't quote the proclamation in an attempt to criticize my wife." The copy-pasted quote is "please don't cite the Family Proclamation and tell me to have my wife quit her education." It was apparent that this would not work for their unique situation. However, if advice was offered to delay education to be a mother, that isn't negative criticism, and should not be considered belittlement. Recommending a drastic schedule adjustment to accommodate motherhood in place of higher education is not sexist. The only way that this could be interpreted as belittling is if motherhood is somehow perceived to be sub-par when compared to pursuing education.

That being said, everything was open to interpretation. Marduk summarized the back-and-forth perfectly. Tact all around. Now that I've stirred the pot and had the greatness of my guy-hood discussed, I feel thoroughly initiated.

Sorry for any contribution I made to the discussion of your guy-hood. I was pretty sure before that you're a guy, but I didn't want to jump to conclusions. (I've been wrong before.)

Jumping to gender conclusions can be sooo awkward.
"Excuse me, sir?"
"Mam."
"Ohohhhh..."
Also pregnancies. Just assume obesity unless they are explicitly clear.

That's funnier because Defy V is pregnant.

Also, Hi Phaedrus. This is a fun place.