Comments on: Privilege and the Family

By: Cameron N.

Cameron N. — Sat, 11 Apr 2015 15:53:24 +0000

Bias goes both ways in studies, and ‘equal partnership’ is as much a part of family rhetoric as anything else, so I don’t think there is much that would surprise anyone about these studies. Social science is quite soft at any rate, but the natural tendency of all soft sciences is to seek more concreteness.

By: rah

rah — Sat, 11 Apr 2015 10:53:43 +0000

I really like this post because it uses good social science and plays in the space of evidence rather than ideology. I hope to see continued expansion and reliance on good social science in our discussions of families and the causes and consequence for their stability (instability). However, a warning to those looking for full vindication of current Mormon rhetoric and claims – doing so really is, in many ways, an indictment of the both the emphasis and many of the claims of LDS leaders on the family. For example. the research on the outcomes of strict gender roles does not generally support the conclusion that they are important or even particularly effective in helping families. The emerging evidence on the impact of stable gay marriages on the outcome of children etc. appears very positive toward including them in this stabilizing structure. So kudos for a reality based approach, lets just remind ourselves not to be too…uh…selective about employing it.

By: WalkerW

WalkerW — Sun, 05 Apr 2015 13:10:25 +0000

For gender and parenthood, see the aptly-titled volume ‘Gender and Parenthood: Biological and Social Scientific Perspectives’ (Columbia University Press, 2013).

By: mirrorrorrim

mirrorrorrim — Sat, 04 Apr 2015 20:48:05 +0000

I don’t see how that follows at all. Sometimes, reversals can happen just to give people greater experience and empathy. Better or worse doesn’t come into it at all—you are creating an inequality where one doesn’t exist. Remember that to God, all are alike—he doesn’t think women are greater than men, masters better than slaves, one race or culture superior to another, the poor better than the rich—those are all classifications we as people invent.

Valleys are useful; mountains are useful. Sometimes God finds it worthwhile to make a valley a mountain, or a mountain a valley. Christ is Lord of all, but God found it useful to make him Servant of all, in order to bring about salvation. Jesus was no less in God’s eyes while on earth than when in heaven—you would be no less in God’s eyes if He made you female out of your present male.

That lesson alone might make such a reversal useful for many of us, female and make alike.

But again, that’s not doctrine—just a possibility.

By: Frank Pellett

Frank Pellett — Sat, 04 Apr 2015 20:30:38 +0000

Why couldn’t gender be one of those reversals?
Then you’d have to decide which is lesser, which is certainly not something I’m willing to do.

By: mirrorrorrim

mirrorrorrim — Sat, 04 Apr 2015 18:51:56 +0000

Frank, I don’t consider The Family: A Proclamation to the World to be scripture, for many reasons, one of which is that President Thomas Monson has never mentioned it in a general conference talk since he became the prophet, who is the one person authorized to speak for God to the entire church at this time. Other individual church leaders may talk about it, but to me, it means something that the prophet himself has not. Some counsel is eternal, and some is limited to a particular time and place. I feel The Family was limited to President Gordon Hinckley’s time as prophet, at least until President Thomas feels it is appropriate for him to re-invoke it, which may or may not ever happen. I feel what the current prophet is saying to the whole church is more important than what previous prophets said to the people during their administrations.

But I understand others view the matter differently.

Regardless, in this case it doesn’t matter either way, because The Family says, “gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” Even if that is true (and I think it quite probably is), what the The Family is saying is that gender is essential, not unchanging, and the latter does not necessarily follow the former. When I read Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount, I am inspired by the societal reversals Jesus outlines that will happen in the kingdom of God. Why couldn’t gender be one of those reversals?

I’m not saying it is or isn’t either way: I think the scriptures are silent on that point, and it’s a matter for each person to ask for herself or himself, if he or she feels it is important. But the scriptures are so full of promises of valleys being turned into mountains and mountains into valleys that I don’t think we should dismiss the possibility out of hand. We should also remember that at at least two instances, Jesus’s body looked so different after his resurrection that his closest disciples could no longer recognize him. It seems clear that physically, resurrected bodies don’t have the same unchangeable restrictions our current bodies have.

Again, I’m just saying that there isn’t doctrine one way or the other. This idea isn’t necessarily true; it just isn’t necessarily false, either, and I feel it is a mistake to think that we know more than we really do.

By: Frank Pellett

Frank Pellett — Sat, 04 Apr 2015 03:11:35 +0000

I’m kind of surprised (and kind of not) at no thought to the Proclamation on the Family. I know some react to any mention of it as “it’s not cannon”, but considering all the attention it has been given by all the leaders since, I think it’s close enough for now. To wit:

Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose

I an so grateful for the discussion, even if we don’t agree. I’m of the opinion that if you only listen to those you agree with you have no chance to grow and learn.

By: mirrorrorrim

mirrorrorrim — Fri, 03 Apr 2015 22:32:55 +0000

Frank, it seems you and Aunt M and Steve Smith have thoroughly analyzed the pros and cons of your approach, and I don’t think I have anything beneficial to add that hasn’t been raised and discussed, except maybe this:

I do not think there is any doctrine that says gender is unchangeable or eternal. I think that’s a valid viewpoint a Latter-day Saint can take, but I think it comes from a person’s own understanding, not established doctrine.

Correct me if I’m wrong, though—I know the scriptures pretty well, but I do not know them perfectly. And I definitely do not know all interpretations of them: it’s quite possible you have read a certain book of scripture to say something that is different than what I got out of it.

With that said, I know colloquially this is frequently stated as known doctrine. There just isn’t any basis for it, as far as I know in anything I would consider doctrine. Some members do accept any statement ever given by a General Authority to be doctrine; if that is your definition, then there may very well be such statements. While I disagree with that definition, I can respect it.

By: Steve Smith

Steve Smith — Fri, 03 Apr 2015 21:56:28 +0000

Frank, if that means you concede defeat, I accept.

By: AuntM

AuntM — Fri, 03 Apr 2015 21:56:16 +0000

Frank (71) – I appreciate how direct and civil you have been in our discussion. I also wish to note that I completely disagree with you.

I think families with at least one responsible, caring adult and with a supportive community are “better for children to grow up in” regardless of the gender of the adult(s).

I think society should support same sex marriages and opposite sex marriages as society benefits from the social stability provided by family formation (even if the families have no offspring).

I think gender, if it is eternal, is not as limited and clear-cut as we sometimes describe it in the here and now.

I think if God is God, then God can distinguish between me and every other woman and thus all women are not the same in eternity. Ditto for men.

Thank you for the discussion.

By: Frank Pellett

Frank Pellett — Fri, 03 Apr 2015 21:41:04 +0000

AuntM (69) – that’s the trouble – we don’t know what part of us even could be eternal, or even what we’d want to be eternal. There is so much of us that changes as we get older. I think it’s kind of lucky we only have the two absolutes of eternal gender and eternal families.

Absolutely individuality is celebrated, but only up to a point. We can’t decide to no longer be human. If eternal gender is true, we can try to be the other gender, but will ultimately be returned to whichever one is true. I can’t think of anything else that is endemic to who we are, collectively. Yep, probably is arrogant, but thankfully it’s yet another part that I can change. Thanks for the discussion.

By: AuntM

AuntM — Fri, 03 Apr 2015 21:36:48 +0000

That should be: What is *it* that Heavenly Parents see when they are knowing me vs. my mother or my friend?

By: AuntM

AuntM — Fri, 03 Apr 2015 21:28:08 +0000

Frank (68) – I agree with you about having lots of teachings about eternal gender and eternal families. I agree with you about teachings about eternal humanity if “humanity” is basically your word for “children of God.”

I don’t think the *absence* of other things “that really get taught” means that that we know that gender and humanity are the *only* things that are permanent about us. I was taught that we don’t know that much about the afterlife, that we cannot even fully conceive of it in our mortal minds. I was taught about the thrill of continuing revelation, that there are many great things not yet revealed. Assuming that we already know that *only* our gender and our humanity are eternal in us because that’s all we’ve heard so far seems incredibly arrogant to me.

My individuality was also celebrated, and I was taught that God knows me individually (i.e., knows me apart from other girls/women). What is *it* that Heavenly Parents see when they knowing they are knowing me vs. my mother or my friend? And how can whatever that is *not* be eternal is some way?

By: Frank Pellett

Frank Pellett — Fri, 03 Apr 2015 21:14:02 +0000

AuntM(66) – Nope, not implying. Straight saying. As for it being a common teaching, how many teachings do we get about our eternal existence? We get eternal humanity, eternal gender, and eternal family (but only for some, which is a weird way to have eternal family). We’ve a lot of vague ideas of what we’ll be doing, from strumming harps to planet building, but it’s only those three that really get taught.

Hey look, Steve Smith, serious discussion!

By: Steve Smith

Steve Smith — Fri, 03 Apr 2015 20:57:44 +0000

not really interested in playing dueling studies
I think what you mean to say is that you're not interested in a serious discussion, just defending traditional at all costs. How about you find me a study that has a grouping that has a wide range of expectations and results (one that meets your supposed high standards of scholarship, which I deeply suspect you don't actually have when it comes to studies that confirm your beliefs) that supports your proposition that children raised by gay couples are worse off than those raised by straights. Or is that just what your intuition tells you?