Comments on: Family and individual: the chicken or the egg? https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2015/12/family-and-individual-the-chicken-or-the-egg/ Truth Will Prevail Sun, 05 Aug 2018 23:56:25 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.8 By: TG https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2015/12/family-and-individual-the-chicken-or-the-egg/#comment-535654 Wed, 16 Dec 2015 07:01:10 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=34538#comment-535654 Clark wrote (25) “While Church officials have never even used the term, my sense is that they see a concern with bisexual people – which most likely makes up a much larger share of society than many portray. If homosexual relations and especially formal same sex relations become normalized then we’d expect bisexuality to become more prevalent and eventually more stable homosexual relationship by people who could be in heterosexual relations.”

As a single bisexual homoromantic man, myself, relabeling homosexual monogamy as apostasy (a.k.a. enemy of the Church) has not made me feel more encouraged to get out there and date women. There is already plenty at stake in dating. Raising the stakes by declaring that acting on my most natural and desirable inclinations are grounds for expulsion from my community only paralyzes me in the face of family formation.

If the stakes were intentionally lowered — if I was told that I had permission to pursue a SSM for time only vs. pursue an OSM for eternity, I might be persuaded to go for the gold of my own volition. But lately all I’ve felt is intense pressure to conform OR ELSE. And that OR ELSE tends to drive me in the opposite direction. I know I’m not the only gay man who feels this way.

That OR ELSE is a direct result of the ramped-up rhetoric on The Family that Julie’s been writing about.

]]> By: Clark Goble https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2015/12/family-and-individual-the-chicken-or-the-egg/#comment-535647 Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:00:40 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=34538#comment-535647 Zjg, I’m not sure what you count as evidence here. Certainly in the revelations there’s a lot saying it’s a man and a woman. It sounds like it’d only count as evidence if an explanation for sexual difference of spirits is given. While I can understand why people want this vague and of course Mormonism entails a certain fallibilism wherein new revelation can always throw doctrinal relations in new ways. Yet it really does seem like a key doctrine is sexual/gender difference as a fundamental ontological characteristic of spirits. The implication of that is that both genders are necessary – and necessary to deity as well.

Christian, I think we’re starting to see (5) changing to simply having a parent home for the children. I also think there’s been a significant shift in (4) to pay more attention to people’s abilities. So it’s more have as many children as you are able, but pay attention to your limits (and especially wives’ limits given our social expectations).

Alison, fornication though is conceived of as “a deviation of the proper behavior that will not be acceptable no matter the circumstances.” Admittedly the same acts in most fornication can be made legitimate in marriage and that’s not true of gay relations. If that’s what you mean then I agree. But I think the evidence is the Church conceives of SSM as fundamentally different an issue than say gay-curiosity by young people. Maybe you’re right and that will change though.

Brad, you don’t need a family in this life anymore than you need baptism in this life. But just as church membership as seen as important in this life, so too is marriage. That is the structure is seen as significant on its own terms.

Now I think this is why since the demographic shift starting in the 90’s that the church has struggled. It just doesn’t know how to deal with a populace that is becoming more and more single. Trust me, I married rather late, and as I said it’s very difficult feeling like one has a social place in the church after around 26 let alone 30 when you get the boot from singles wards. It was pretty devastating and there really is no transition for members.

So don’t think I’m downplaying the significance here. But I think a big part of the reason it is so problematic isn’t just the social issues (I’m bored, what do I do socially? Who should my friends be?) Rather it’s that gnawing feeling like you’re not a part because you’re not involved in these structures you feel to be essential. Certainly I felt like that in my 30’s and it wasn’t pleasant. In hindsight I think I was significantly overreacting. But at the time it really was a huge stress.

]]> By: zjg https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2015/12/family-and-individual-the-chicken-or-the-egg/#comment-535641 Sun, 13 Dec 2015 04:44:15 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=34538#comment-535641 Clark Goble — I completely understand why you would say that I’m downplaying the doctrinal difficulties of SSM. I think most Mormons understand exaltation to turn on marriage between a man and woman. And I agree on the marriage part. I’m just not exactly sure where the man and woman part comes from. I don’t know that we can draw strong inferences from what little we know about the eternities. To be sure, all of the models that we see in the temple and the scriptures are heterosexual marriage — but why is that? We don’t have a theology of the body like the Catholics. Is there some other similar doctrine about gender complementarity or is it just that gay marriages didn’t really exist until very recently and so the prophets never had any reason to address it? And yes, our heavenly parents are in a heterosexual relationship, but are we to take that to mean that there are no gods in a homosexual relationship? I guess there are three possible sources I see for the view that exaltation requires heterosexual marriage. First, there’s the notion that spirit children are born of sexual relations, which requires a heterosexual relationship. But that’s a highly speculative doctrine, invented by Orson Pratt in an effort to bolster polygamy and in tension with much of what Joseph taught on the subject. Second, there is the notion that the resurrection eliminates homosexuality. Again, that strikes me as little more than a folk doctrine. Finally, there’s the fact that we believe that homosexuality is sinful. But it’s not clear to me that the sinfulness of homosexuality forecloses gay marriage as a doctrinal manner any more than the sinfulness of any adulterous sex forecloses heterosexual marriage. Of course, our modern prophets have been clear I think that exaltation requires heterosexual marriage. It’s just that now that I have close friends who are gay and married with children, I realize how consequential that view of exaltation is and I wonder where it comes from. It just doesn’t seem to me to be a necessary conclusion based on Mormonism’s materialism or any other aspect of the doctrine. And for that reason, I wonder to what extent it is our doctrine that is driving our predisposition toward gay marriage and to what extent it is our predisposition toward gay marriage that is driving our view of the doctrine.

]]> By: christiankimball https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2015/12/family-and-individual-the-chicken-or-the-egg/#comment-535640 Sun, 13 Dec 2015 03:49:30 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=34538#comment-535640 in the way it does. Putting aside political and legal consequences, putting aside culture wars, when I think about The Family™ direct messages to young people, they boil down to these: (1) Don’t have sex until you are married. (2) If you're gay, don't get married. (3) If you're straight, get married early. (4) As soon as you are married, have lots of children. (5) If you're a woman, don't work outside the home. I’m on board with the sex before marriage (don’t) point. Personally, I would debate or question the rest, especially as universals. But they do seem to be the message of modern prophets (and some/many social conservatives). Most directly applicable to this post, I think these teachings are best conveyed by example, by ‘pull to the light’ rhetoric. I think that prescriptive or ‘push from behind’ rhetoric is simple and simplistic, draws sharp boundaries with the inevitable exclusive and exclusionary effects, and is likely to be counterproductive on average, i.e., more likely to cause resentment and disaffiliation than compliance.]]> [I am days late to this and the discussion has veered off in a way that I’m not interested in following, so I jump back.]
At response 14 (Dec 9, 11:42 am), Rosalynde says:
“Despite all this, though, in my view the more urgent concern is still convincing young people to marry and raise children in stable families.”
That’s a strong statement. It sets an audience and an objective. In a different mood I might argue with either or both. But taking that statement as a starting point I still disagree that the Church does well by this audience and this objective to so emphasize The Family™ in the way it does.
Putting aside political and legal consequences, putting aside culture wars, when I think about The Family™ direct messages to young people, they boil down to these:
(1) Don’t have sex until you are married.
(2) If you’re gay, don’t get married.
(3) If you’re straight, get married early.
(4) As soon as you are married, have lots of children.
(5) If you’re a woman, don’t work outside the home.
I’m on board with the sex before marriage (don’t) point. Personally, I would debate or question the rest, especially as universals. But they do seem to be the message of modern prophets (and some/many social conservatives). Most directly applicable to this post, I think these teachings are best conveyed by example, by ‘pull to the light’ rhetoric. I think that prescriptive or ‘push from behind’ rhetoric is simple and simplistic, draws sharp boundaries with the inevitable exclusive and exclusionary effects, and is likely to be counterproductive on average, i.e., more likely to cause resentment and disaffiliation than compliance.

]]> By: Alison Moore Smith https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2015/12/family-and-individual-the-chicken-or-the-egg/#comment-535638 Sat, 12 Dec 2015 17:42:03 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=34538#comment-535638 Clark Goble:

Perhaps a type of fornication with more social stigma in the 20th century but fundamentally no different.

I’m not sure I’d agree with that. It seems the church’s position is that homosexual relations are more than a proper behavior used in improper circumstances (like “regular” fornication), but a deviation of the proper behavior that will not be acceptable no matter the circumstances. This makes more sense of the apostasy position, I think.

I think you’re talking past one an other by equivocating over vehicle…It’s kind of akin to how a Protestant might say baptism couldn’t be necessary as Christ is the way to God. Baptism is just a sign. You seem to want to make family kind of an accidental and non-necessary trapping but I’m not sure you can really make that move. There’s just too many explicit scriptures going the other direction.

Exactly.

Brad L, it seems you are conflating the church’s positions about our condition when we die vs requirements for godhood. Yes, children who die before accountability are saved in celestial kingdom. Yes, single adults who keep their covenants can enter the celestial kingdom. There is no doctrine that suggests these people won’t need to have a spouse in order to attain godhood.

From LDS.org (emphasis mine):

From another revelation to the Prophet Joseph, we learn that there are three degrees within the celestial kingdom. To be exalted in the highest degree and continue eternally in family relationships, we must enter into “the new and everlasting covenant of marriage” and be true to that covenant. In other words, temple marriage is a requirement for obtaining the highest degree of celestial glory. (See D&C 131:1-4.) All who are worthy to enter into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage will have that opportunity, whether in this life or the next.

It makes sense that those who would choose to “continue eternally in family relationships” would need to be in family relationships.

]]> By: Jack https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2015/12/family-and-individual-the-chicken-or-the-egg/#comment-535635 Sat, 12 Dec 2015 03:57:09 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=34538#comment-535635 Rob can speak for himself. But I’ve no doubt that he, like any believing LDS, has no problem with the idea that children get a free ticket to paradise — exaltation. It just goes without saying. But on the other hand, why even have the highest ordinances — those pertaining to the sealing of families — in the here and now if they’re not to be taken seriously here and now as well as in the future?

]]> By: Brad L https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2015/12/family-and-individual-the-chicken-or-the-egg/#comment-535634 Sat, 12 Dec 2015 03:01:58 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=34538#comment-535634 Clark and Jack, clearly, according to LDS church doctrine, in this mortal life, you don’t have to have a family to qualify for exaltation by the time you die. Rob is placing great emphasis on the importance of family in this mortal life.

]]> By: Jack https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2015/12/family-and-individual-the-chicken-or-the-egg/#comment-535633 Sat, 12 Dec 2015 01:22:50 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=34538#comment-535633 “Rob has no idea what he is talking about, and that should be very clear.”

Why? Because he has the gonads to speak in a plain believing vernacular?

We will not be exalted outside of a familial context. And that context, whenever it is expressed or pointed to in the scriptures is based in the bond of man and woman. Simple? Yes, but not simplistic. There’s a lot going on that we really don’t understand. But even so, scripturally speaking, what we have is: Husband, wife, and progeny — however extended the process may be.

]]> By: Clark Goble https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2015/12/family-and-individual-the-chicken-or-the-egg/#comment-535632 Sat, 12 Dec 2015 00:01:52 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=34538#comment-535632 Brad, the way that takes place is by having them form a family prior to the resurrection. That’s one of the big functions of the temple – creating those family units to enable exaltation. Again, the parallel to baptism is quite pronounced.

I’ll let Rob speak for himself of course. But again I don’t think we’re talking just metaphoric families. The whole view of Malachi in the church is making the church as a whole into one large family unit. When within the church the patriarchal order is talked about (not in the feminist sense) it’s wrapped up with a theology of families with Adam as the head.

This is pretty key theology and isn’t meant metaphorically at all. The whole idea within the church is that we’re not saved individually but as families.

]]> By: Brad L https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2015/12/family-and-individual-the-chicken-or-the-egg/#comment-535631 Fri, 11 Dec 2015 21:51:45 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=34538#comment-535631 Clark, Rob and I are not talking past each other. Rob has no idea what he is talking about, and that should be very clear. Rob Osborn writes, “the family is the vehicle used by God that allows us to achieve exaltation.” My understanding of LDS church teachings is that children who die young can achieve exaltation, and so can people who never marry on this earth life. Rob’s comment doesn’t reflect church teachings.

However part of following Jesus entails entering to the structure of family.

Considering that Rob said that SSM and heterosexual cohabiting destroy the vehicle to exaltation, he is talking about family in the sense of nuclear family units as in husband and wife with their children, not extended family or metaphorical church congregation families. Also, bear in mind that people who remain single their whole lives can be said, according to LDS teachings, to be following Jesus. So what you say is not in line entirely with LDS teachings.

it’s also clear that there is a special responsibility in family to teach and learn

That’s beyond the point, which was that there are other ways besides the family (well, immediate, nuclear family) in which the LDS church teaches its doctrines and administers its ordinances.

]]> By: Clark Goble https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2015/12/family-and-individual-the-chicken-or-the-egg/#comment-535630 Fri, 11 Dec 2015 21:27:07 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=34538#comment-535630 Brad Rob Obsorn’s assertion that the family is the vehicle to God is actually not supported by LDS church doctrine, hence the ridicule. In LDS church doctrine Jesus Christ is the vehicle to God, even at the expense of family (see the verse I quoted above, this is also supported by a few other verses in the New Testament).

I think you’re talking past one an other by equivocating over vehicle. Clearly Jesus tells us we may have to choose between family and God. It’s not hard to find examples of this even in the restoration when people left family to get baptized and join the Church. However part of following Jesus entails entering to the structure of family. Both a literal one and then an extended family as we become a community in Christ.

Put an other way we have to distinguish between a particular family and the structure of family in general.

Again to your later point, certainly we can learn in many ways. However it’s also clear that there is a special responsibility in family to teach and learn that just isn’t there in the same degree more broadly. So I think your position simply is discounting the structure of the family as revealed. It’s kind of akin to how a Protestant might say baptism couldn’t be necessary as Christ is the way to God. Baptism is just a sign. You seem to want to make family kind of an accidental and non-necessary trapping but I’m not sure you can really make that move. There’s just too many explicit scriptures going the other direction.

]]> By: Brad L https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2015/12/family-and-individual-the-chicken-or-the-egg/#comment-535629 Fri, 11 Dec 2015 21:04:59 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=34538#comment-535629

Rob Osborn makes a statement that is mocked by some, but it’s pretty clearly the LDS position to a great extent.

Rob Obsorn’s assertion that the family is the vehicle to God is actually not supported by LDS church doctrine, hence the ridicule. In LDS church doctrine Jesus Christ is the vehicle to God, even at the expense of family (see the verse I quoted above, this is also supported by a few other verses in the New Testament). One cannot choose the type of family that he/she comes from. Many are orphans by no choice of their own. Furthermore, some don’t have the choice to get married and create a family, either because they die too young or they cannot attract a mate for physical and psychological reasons. Are these people excluded from reaching God? Not according to church doctrine they aren’t. Rob is overemphasizing the importance of family in church doctrine and misses the mark. What gets me is that Rob comes on here thinking that he is preaching church doctrine and telling us freethinkers to repent. What he doesn’t realize is that he is engaging in just as much freethinking in saying that the family is the vehicle to God as the active LDS person who supports SSM.

Rob also makes another claim that is inconsistent with church doctrine that I just caught, which is “the vehicle in which we use to administer that gospel and learn is through the family.” The family may be one way in which individuals learn about the teachings of the LDS church. I learned about them from my parents, and I’m sure many others have. But that isn’t the only way. LDS ordinances are administered by individuals to individuals regardless of whether they are biologically related or not. And LDS teachings are taught by individuals in the LDS church to other individuals, again, regardless of whether they are family-related or not. Rob Osborn clearly does not have a good understanding of the role of the family in the LDS church teachings.

]]> By: Clark Goble https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2015/12/family-and-individual-the-chicken-or-the-egg/#comment-535628 Fri, 11 Dec 2015 20:49:49 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=34538#comment-535628 ji, I think homosexuality is sin was the Church’s position. That is SS relations were just an other sort of fornication. Perhaps a type of fornication with more social stigma in the 20th century but fundamentally no different. Since the push for SSM and the reaction with the Prop-8 push and similar move in Hawaii though it seems that the Church has seen it as a threat that goes well beyond fornication. Thus explanations that simply treat it as fornication seem to be missing something.

]]> By: Clark Goble https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2015/12/family-and-individual-the-chicken-or-the-egg/#comment-535627 Fri, 11 Dec 2015 20:48:08 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=34538#comment-535627 zjg while I think the brethren clearly are worried about the ideal case, I think that explains the basic doctrine but not the particular emphasis they’ve given this doctrine. They aren’t just saying SSM is wrong with some minor opposition. They’ve gone well beyond that to treat it as a type of apostasy. That suggests a practical worry well beyond just a worry about the eternities but a practical problem here and now.

Now I might be wrong in what I said. And I’d never say that’s all that’s going on. But if it were just about the eternities we might expect a different approach.

Regarding heaven, I think you raise some good points. But simultaneously I think you downplay too much how big a doctrinal issue this is for the church. To suggest that drawing inferences about SSM requires a lot of fairly arbitrary editing seems difficult to swallow. The ideal is men and women married. Now one could throw polyandry into the mix to make things more complex except that as far as we can see all cases of polyandry in church history are for this life only. Even if polyandry might make an interesting way of dealing with the situation, it’d still require a pretty massive revelation. Thus there just are no examples of male-male sealings, so drawing inferences from that isn’t hard.

Now the issue of women is trickier. Of course most of us get squeamish just thinking about the topic. (Oddly I’m far more open to my wife remarrying if I were to die prematurely than I’d be for remarrying were the reverse to happen) Again going to the history, however icky, women were married to men, and while they were in a kind of joint relationship via the man, they weren’t in a direct relationship with each other. (Ignoring the issue of what went on behind closed doors – just dealing with the theology. So far as I know the Church didn’t even conceive of problems behind closed door although as I recall that issue caused a schism in the Manti polygamous apostate group a decade or two ago) So from a theological perspective there’s simply no basis for SS relations for women that are considered authorized.

If we’re just going by our theology then any SS relationship would be intrinsically fornication/adultery. That seems to entail fairly clear inferences regarding SSM without really being speculative. We can always acknowledge there’s a lot we don’t know. But it seems reasonably safe to draw inferences from what we do know, even if it might turn out they don’t have universal application.

I think the assumption by many (not you) is that this is all conservative homophobia driving theology and overreaction. Yet I really think this ignores just how thorny an issue this is for the particular type of physicalist theology we Mormons have. As soon as you have marriage between a man and a woman as the basis for deity then intrinsically homosexuality is a theological problem it just isn’t for other Christians (who at best see it just as an issue of fornication).

]]> By: ji https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2015/12/family-and-individual-the-chicken-or-the-egg/#comment-535626 Fri, 11 Dec 2015 20:29:15 +0000 http://timesandseasons.org/?p=34538#comment-535626 I think you’re making it too hard. How about something simpler? Homosexual behavior is sin. Doesn’t that explain the church’s approach?

]]>