"The Family" Part 5

"We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God's eternal plan." (The Family: A Proclamation to the World)

Life is beautiful. Sex is beautiful. Our powers to create should be treated as sacred. I think I have a lot to learn about what this means in practice, and I have some thoughts of my own, but I like this statement and don't think I know many people who would take serious issue with it. Onward.

"Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. "Children are an heritage of the Lord" (Psalm 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations." (The Family: A Proclamation to the World)

Again, no problems here. Parents should care about and for their children, and God cares if we do. Can I embrace this part of "The Family"? Yes, and I think it condemns us for our condemnation of homosexual children. It may not have in the past when we could still reasonably fear that a child could be led to homosexuality through example or coercion--then would could believe that we were protecting other children--but we no longer can reasonably hold this view. Both scientific consensus and the LDS Church have rejected it. God will hold us accountable for the physical and mental care we give our LGBT children. I see no indication of God's excusing a parent for rejecting a child in any degree as the consequence of perceived (or even real) sin. I see Christ's warning that if I harm a child, it would be better to have a millstone hung about my neck and be drowned. I do see evidence of God's allowing natural consequences to follow poor choices, but I see much more evidence of long-suffering love than tough love.

"The Family" Part 4

"The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife." (The Family: A Proclamation to the World)

The importance of reproduction is biologically obvious. Its method has required man and woman until recently. Bearing and raising children outside of a two parent family has negative consequences for individuals and society. Casual sex has negative consequences for individuals and society. That God does not want these consequences for his children seems totally straightforward. This proclamation was made in this historical context, and could be completely correct in its context. I see many reasons to support these teachings.

I also see reasons for re-evaluating some assumptions closely tied to these teachings. When children are cloned, or born through technology to two women or two men instead of a man and a woman, will we claim they don't have souls, aren't really children of God, or are born in sin? Are we truly willing to condemn these children or their loving parents? How different, really, are these situations from in vitro fertilization? We no longer imagine that birth control is sinful, yet it was once preached against as if there were a doctrinal mandate to condemn it.

We should exercise caution in employing new technologies to create life (the powers of procreation, and creation, ARE sacred, and we must show we can use them with wisdom, love, and foresight if we are to show ourselves ready to assume the role of gods). We should also remember that God speaks to his children all over the world--including in revealing science, if our prophets are to be believed. I think it will be easier to go to God for further light and knowledge on the subject than to justify as eternal doctrines meant for a specific historical and cultural environment.

I do have one problem. I do not believe that sex is only healthy and beautiful between a man and a woman. I have known too many homosexuals (one would be enough) in loving, committed relationships who show too many fruits of happiness, goodness, and love to hang on to my absolute, black and white prejudices against homosexual sex. The lawfully wedded part I think is very important to individual and societal well-being. I want to advocate for continued recognition of the value of family in our legal system. This is why I view gay marriage advocates as my moral allies. This is why I apologize to my LGBT sisters and brothers for the pain caused by the condemnation they have experienced because of our implementation of some doctrines we espouse as Latter-day Saints.

This paragraph of "The Family" is one I'm not sure I could endorse as scripture. I'm not sure I would raise my hand to the square to vote it into our canon. But I might. While many Latter-day Saints are uncomfortable with my reading of "The Family", it is explicitly part of our scripture and doctrine (much clearer than the total absence of canonized, scriptural condemnation of gay marriage) that scripture is given to us according to our language and understanding, in a specific cultural context, and with the possibility that new revelation will supersede it (as it has with parts of every other book of scripture in our canon). I'm ok with scripture being flawed, so I might vote yes and pray for the day when our leaders will seek and reveal more light and knowledge on the subject. There is already so much of good in it.

"The Family" Part 3

"In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshipped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize their divine destiny as heirs of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally." (The Family: A Proclamation to the World)

This grand view of eternity is what helps me make sense of life. This life is hard. That's built into mortality. Even if there were no other evils, death would be an awful monster to face in uncertainty. Yet death is exactly what each of us must face--with great uncertainty. What possibly could be the purpose of placing us into such a state of existence? Clearly other options exist for such a powerful being as God? What can I learn from believing a loving god placed us in this position? From believing that I chose it? Then there is the idea that our earthly relationships continue in meaningful ways. It isn't only our continued relationship to God that matters, and that we don't lose our individuality into some nebulous being. We are developing relationships of eternal consequence, and it is explicitly part of LDS doctrine, not just something that we think should be true.

Death and all this family stuff makes a wonderful sort of sense once you decode the doctrines hidden to make the proclamation more approachable to the uninitiated. We are destined to be gods and goddesses if we make the choices that will allow us to become such. If you think this belief is too weird, or even evil, I'm sorry it bothers you. I think, "What more natural meaning to being God's children than growing up to be gods?"

We need temples and the ordinances performed in them. This is a problematic doctrine for my current universalist belief tendencies. My personal response is, everyone will have an opportunity for these ordinances, and while it is wonderful to experience the spirit of the ordinances in this life, it is not essential. I find temple work beautiful and inspiring to do much good. If anyone else wants to experience the beauty I have found in the temple, I'm happy to help you get there. If not, I'd love to be an observer, companion, or helper in your personal search for truth and beauty.

In summary: we chose life, physical bodies are wonderful, individuality and relationships are eternal, and we can become gods and goddesses. Quite the crazy metaphysical framework, but it really works for me. I think there is even more implied. If relationships are eternal, we lose something of eternal value every time we contribute to harming a relationship with a loved one. If I am not asking myself what I can do to improve my family relationships, I am failing to fully embrace the atonement in my life. If I am focused on how a family member or friend has lost his salvation, I may be forgetting the universalism of our temple doctrines, or be overemphasizing our belief in works and not giving grace its due weight.

No more questions I haven't already asked for this part. :)

"The Family" Part 2

"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. (The Family: A Proclamation to the World, The Family: A Proclamation to the World)"

These are some of the weirdest and most wonderful doctrines of Mormonism. We have a mother in heaven! Who else teaches this? We go so far beyond the typical, weak anthropomorphism religious people are so often criticized for. We don't claim a God who looks like us, we claim Gods who look like men AND women, who are literally our parents, and who want us to 'grow up' to be Gods like them. Far from disavowing this doctrine (despite some downplaying in the media), this is right at the beginning of the document defining our church's stand on the importance of family. We claim that gender isn't some accident of birth to be transcended after the resurrection, but important now, important in the future, and important in our pasts. There are all sorts of things that could be said to ridicule or condemn these teachings. They are in many ways more reminiscent of the Greek Gods we learn about in children's stories than like any contemporary concept of God. Alternatively, one can take the ideas seriously and possibly conclude that this is what you should expect Gods to be like if one is to take religion and evolution both seriously (Natural Gods, Existential Assumptions).

On top of these positive claims made in "The Family", there are a lot of cultural assumptions we make. So, to explain my Mormonism and why I could accept this part of "The Family" as scripture, I share another list of rhetorical and real questions highlighting what I see as omissions and implications that help "The Family" transcend our current culture and provide potential value for future generations:

• Which aspects of us are in his image? We don't have his glory. What else is left out?
• Is that image all there is to God's body? (Is God more than the image of our bodies?)
• Is it implied that women are more in Mother's image?
• Does image include sexual orientation? Really?
• Are there only two eternal sexual orientations?
• Do we really believe that every individual is created in God's image, or are individuals who are not clearly male or female not created in God's image? Created in a faulty image? Created in the image of a God we haven't seen (just like this proclamation implies women are)? If you have a clear answer to this, which scripture or president of the church or general proclamation did you get it from (seriously, please share. I will edit my post accordingly)?
• Exactly how does gender relate to sexual orientation? 
• Is gender is really an essential characteristic of EVERY person in mortality? I believe this, but if it's true, exactly how is it essential? For some is it essential in its brokenness, and not in its enduringness? Or are the essential parts of gender something not exactly like binary, male-female sexuality? 
• What essential role does gender play in our eternal identity? For example, does it mean that if you are a righteous man you will get to be a benevolent heavenly father, beget children, and be worshipped in the worlds you make? If you are a righteous woman does it mean you will get to bear children for eternity and be protected from blasphemy by not being talked about much? If you are something else you will get to be happy in a subordinate role of some kind, or will you be fixed and then get to be a God or a mother? Are you sure this is what Mormon scripture and modern prophets teach?

Once again scripture, examined, not only allows for greater richness of interpretation than our cultural assumptions suggest, but requires we reexamine those assumptions to see if we really know they are from God.

I'm getting excited to see what future parts will make me ask myself. Comments are welcome to help me avoid errors in reasoning as I proceed.

Why I Can Support "The Family: A Proclamation to the World"; Part 1

I remember when the LDS Church published "The Family: A Proclamation to the World". It was inspiring. It was beautiful. It affirmed some of the grandest ideas in Mormonism. It was also the first time in my life I could remember the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve Apostles publishing such an official, doctrinal statement (I was three when the revelation on the priesthood was given). I wondered when it would be voted on by the church as canonized scripture. Since then, life experiences have changed me, and I've met people hurt by others who accept and enforce the surface meanings of this proclamation. I feel glad that it has not been accepted as binding, and hope that it won't be until our understanding as a church has changed and we can see it in new light. Still, I hesitated to reject outright the feelings of inspiration to do good and be better that I remembered. Further, I think I could vote yes if I were asked, today, to canonize this proclamation as part of LDS scripture.

I decided to study "The Family" again and see if I could still feel as I did that it is an inspired document. Over the course of a number of blog posts, I will share my current thoughts and feelings about "The Family." If you will be offended by reading of my continued belief in God and in modern prophets and continuing scripture, I'll take no offense at your skipping these posts. If you will be offended by my twisting conventional readings and accusing them of being nonsensical, unexamined, and unreasoned, I'll take no offense at your skipping these posts. If you want to hear my story of eternal families, God speaking to men, and all the ambiguities of unanswered questions that I live with and find beauty in, then read on. Argue with me. Agree with me. Tell me you think my thoughts are important or a waste of time. Explore what truth I may have found, and help me see more that I have missed.

Having set the stage, I'll jump in--quoting from the proclamation and sharing thoughts, rhetorical questions, and a few real questions.

"We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children."

I have many reasons to believe this statement. The God I worship values marriage. He has taught it to men and women through prophets through all history. Everyone I know who has lived in a supportive, committed family has found great personal benefits from it. Societies benefit from strong families. I aspire to maintaining the ideal of family to the blessing of all humanity. It makes sense to me that family is part of an eternal plan and that we are literally a part of God's family--He wants us to grow up to be parents like He is. It's wonderful to me. 

My next question is, how do I fulfill this destiny?  This leads to more detailed questions about what eternal family means. What do we really know of eternal families and how they are organized?
1. We have a father and a mother, brothers and sisters.
2. We know that all eternal families in the eternities of Gods are like this. Really? What's our evidence?
3. All eternal families are defined in the way of the modern family unit. Are we sure?
4. Sex and gestation in a mother is how spirit children are created. Wow! Where did that idea come from?

I guess we don't really know as much as we assume, so let's look at some specific relationships that we can identify more clearly:

5. Think about your relationship in your eternal family to your earthly wife or husband. . .
6. Think about the family relationship that resulted in the birth of our Savior. . . (really a bit disturbing if you reject the immaculate conception as Mormonism does)
7. Think about how you are related to your earthly parents and children. . .

It appears to me that the rules of family organization are pretty complex and not very clear when it comes to our eternal families. So exactly how does the earthly family unit play a role in our eternal destiny? It's difficult for me to maintain that it is through modeling how eternal families are organized in any strict sense.

Superficial readings unsurprisingly support current LDS cultural biases, but examination leaves many more questions than are answered. How do our earthly families improve our eternal destiny? What evidence do we really have that the most common earthly family structure is the ONLY family structure approved by God in heaven OR on earth? I believe marriage as we most often think of it is ordained of God, but the reason I could accept this paragraph as scripture is that it is not limited in possible understandings. Its authors affirmed a positive ideal. They did not condemn other family organizations, however they may have felt personally about "alternative lifestyles". That feels like scripture to me. God speaks to us within our culture and language, but leaves us with hints that much more is still to come when we are ready for it. What that more is, I don't honestly know (even if I make statements as if I do), but the God I love appears to once again have left the door open to ever more knowledge. He has affirmed truth without limiting it.

I've gotten ahead of myself with some of the questions and speculations, but we are following a thought process. We've learned a very little, and begun to ask questions and make hypotheses about more. We may have to revise them with more data as you follow me through this process, but spelling them out shows my preconceptions--an important step in true learning. We have to identify our prior "knowledge" in order to be able to unlearn any misconceptions we may have brought to the classroom. In my experience this is at least as hard a part of learning as acquiring the new knowledge. We'll have to see if future parts allow me to continue rationalizing my personal pre-judgements. . .

Traditional, True Believing Mormon

I've begun to sympathize with others who feel unfairly judged by stereotypes. Admittedly, my persecution consists of nothing worse than exasperated disparagement of mine or my friends' intelligence or morality, and not any active harm, but it has had the benefit of making me a little more sensitive to stereotypes, at least. Along side this bit of added empathy, I want to embrace and reclaim the label that is sometimes used disparagingly to describe people who uncritically follow an obviously flawed religious narrative. I am a True Believing Mormon. I am a Traditional Mormon. So to the stereotyper of TBMs:

I'm not denying that the majority of Mormons never critically examine their faith narrative. If my understanding of James Fowler's findings in articulating his stages of faith is correct, then anyone who expects more than 40% of adults in any faith tradition to ever critically evaluate their narrative is not living in reality. What I take issue with is the implication that no one can critically and honestly examine their faith tradition and remain a true believer. Further, within Mormonism, some of us take to heart Joseph Smith's assertion that we must seek out all truth, whatever its source if we want to come out true Mormons. We take to heart the claim that no one can be saved in ignorance. We take to heart that the glory of God is intelligence. We believe the Gospel encompasses ALL truth, and that we should seek out ANYTHING that is virtuous, lovely, or of good report, or praiseworthy. If the search for ever more light and knowledge is not a core principle of Mormonism, then I probably shouldn't try to claim the label of True Believing. If it is part of Mormonism, then please stop using True Believing to describe people who you claim reject the search for truth. Find some other label. Call them whatever you want--it will show more about you than them--but please quit implying that true believers in truth cannot be true believers in Mormonism.

No, we don't have all truth, whatever a literalistic, narrow reading of some verse of scripture may say. Yes, we claim to know things that will probably be shown to be false. But seeking ever more truth is one of our teachings. However much, and however many, Latter-day Saints may rebel at giving up dearly held "truths" when they are proven false, you cannot be a Latter-day Saint and avoid the message that you have to learn more, that you have to find out for yourself, or that more will be revealed. You can't be a Latter-day Saint and not hear the message that God reveals things to others outside of the LDS church--scientists, great leaders, great humanitarians. However much we may at times try to keep uncomfortable changes under wraps by saying--"You got the wrong answer to your prayer," or "That is the philosophy of men," or "That person is a sinner, so you shouldn't listen to him," or "Homosexuals, Feminists, and Intellectuals are evil," or by limiting what gets discussed in our Sunday School meetings--our history is too well documented, and too many prophets have told us to go out and seek learning for these reactionary forces to ever win in the end. True Believing Mormons will hear the commands to learn, and the LDS church will continue to grow in goodness because of it. I'm a true believer in this. I embrace it. I think it's time I just ignore the stereotype and say, Yes, I'm a TBM. Yes, several generations into the culture, I'm a traditional Mormon. Then maybe, when you get to know me, you'll discover that your stereotype is about as true as any other--and limits your own understanding, just like any other.

Apologies

I spend a fair amount of time and energy (mostly online) around people who are questioning or disaffected from the LDS church. I do it for a few reasons. I like questions, and these are forums where people can ask complicated questions and get serious answers (sometimes). I sympathize with those who feel hurt by the LDS church or something that happened in it, and I want to offer them my support as they deal with separation or isolation from the culture that they once treasured--I don't want them to feel cast off. I want to be an example of one way of being thoughtful and staying LDS. That's potentially a very prideful reason, but it does motivate me at times. Having said all this, I frequently feel like I have to bite my tongue on these forums, and I want to let it out someplace equally public (even if no one reads this, anyone COULD read it). So, I'm going to start with the Book of Mormon. Please, give me a truly thoughtful criticism of the Book of Mormon in its entirety or shut up about it! Go ahead and criticize my actions or the actions of particular church leaders if you feel you must, but don't pretend you are being rational when you criticize the Book of Mormon.

There, I said it. I'm tired of the lack of archaeological evidence being trumpeted as a proof of falsehood. The record is ambiguous, and there are circumstantial evidences in favor, as well. If you'd care to make a side by side list with me, I'll put in my share of the work. We can see which side currently comes off better. Otherwise, get off your pseudo-scientific high horse.

I'm tired of genetic evidence of Asian ancestry for Native Americans being touted as proof of falsehood. At best, it is proof that a commonly held, superficial, LDS genetic hypothesis is false. I understand enough genetics to comprehend the claims, but I have also read the Book of Mormon closely enough to see that there is no clear genetic hypothesis regarding the ancestry of Native Americans to even do a good study. You can't even formulate a clear, testable hypothesis that is supported by the text. If the text falsifies your hypothesis to start with, why would you expect anything but a negative answer? False assumption, arbitrary conclusion.

I'm tired of tired arguments about authorship. There is a thoroughly controlled, objective study of authorship (http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=6&num=1&id=136) that convincingly shows that Alma and Nephi are different authors, and that they are not Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, or Solomon Spaulding. You can quibble about subjective textual analyses, about the exact process of translation and why the King James Version is quoted so extensively all day long. Explain to me how Joseph Smith created at least two completely independent authors according to non-contextual word print analysis--a feat not matched by great authors attempting to appear to be multiple authors--and I will then discuss your subjective, circumstantial complaints. Forget the fact that Joseph Smith really did have gold plates, as attested to by witnesses that many have tried to discredit for years. We have a text. It has multiple authors. The authors are not Joseph Smith. This is not circumstantial or derived from ambiguous historical accounts. Deal with it, and then I will believe that you are serious about examining all the evidence available to you.

I'm tired of hearing about 2nd Isaiah based on circumstantial textual criticism of ambiguous, incomplete ancient records for which we know we don't have the original (or even a claimed translation straight from the original). Give me a clear argument, if this is really an issue. I don't think Bible scholars have an agenda against the Book of Mormon, but I also don't think an appeal to their authority is sufficient proof. I do think no one has explained to me why 2nd Isaiah should bother me in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon doesn't talk about Cyrus. It does talk about coming out of Babylon. Cyrus could be a problem requiring some mental gymnastics, but it isn't there. Explain to me why coming out of Babylon is unambiguous or insuperable. Show me that Isaiah wouldn't have heard of Babylon, or at least show me that he would have more likely identified some other country as the worldly place that Israel should spiritually separate itself from. Then I might take the criticism as more than a possibility that is interesting to consider. (And then address my last point to show why I shouldn't consider the Book of Mormon as evidence that 2nd Isaiah was 1st Isaiah edited by post-exilic editors.)

Then show me why I shouldn't agree with my ancestor, George Cannon, who is reported to have said upon reading the Book of Mormon: An evil-minded man could not have written this book, and a good man would not have written it with the intent to deceive.