Kathryn Skaggs: The Gender Role Battle Comes To Primary

[BCSpace]

I don’t doubt for a minute that the 2014 Primary Theme focusing on eternal families, (including the specific roles of men and women as revealed in the Family Proclamation) was carefully prepared to ensure that very specific aspects of the family pattern were well emphasized. The words to “The Family is of God” is pure doctrine, undefiled and taught with power. Make no mistake about it: those given stewardship to correlate the annual Primary Program are inspired and understand the vital opportunity this curriculum provides to teach precious doctrine on a global scale.

 

I later found out that some members of the Church are offended by the words to the song “The Family is of God”, some even going as far as wanting it taken out of the program.

 

When a children’s Primary song becomes controversial (when according to eternal doctrine it is not), we begin to understand how vital it is to follow the Prophet. Modern prophets stand at the head of the fountain from which all righteousness flows as authorized guardians of truth.

 

Too many today are drinking the waters down stream believing it still the source of truth. However, we need to be aware that once downstream, we are drinking contaminated water.

 

If we’re drinking down stream, where the philosophies and ideologies of the world have infiltrated the pure flowing waters of righteousness, we need to understand that we are no longer drinking from the source. Some members, currently considered in good standing, now bottle their own brand of water and ideologies to fit a “cafeteria style” type of Mormonism. This must be discerned and rejected.

 

Because we have a tendency to want to hear some new thing, thinking it might be more enlightened, we often fall prey to drinking water downstream. I’m not here to name the many different brands of gospel water which we encounter on a daily basis (many of which we would never suspect and consider within the Church). I’m simply here to raise a voice of caution about what source you get your living water from and why.

 

Jesus Christ is the Source. He stands at the head of His Church and has called a Prophet to send forth His word to those who desire to make and keep sacred covenants. His word only comes to us through Holy Scripture, and the teachings and counsel of prophets and apostles and personal revelation consistent with gospel doctrine. As we consistently drink and teach directly from true sources, we are assured safety, peace and ultimately, eternal life.

 

The doctrine of eternal families is at the center of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The entire plan of happiness its purpose and therefore it must be taught with integrity. Regardless of the ongoing advocacies both within and outside of the Church suggesting we have conceded marriage, the official position of the Church is firm:

 

“The succession of federal court decisions in recent months, culminating in today’s announcement by the Supreme Court, will have no effect on the doctrinal position or practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is that only marriage between a man and a woman is acceptable to God. In prizing freedom of conscience and Constitutional guarantees of the free exercise of religion, we will continue to teach that standard and uphold it in our religious practices.” (Mormon Newsroom)

 

Knowing that the adversary is out in a full-force attack to destroy the family, how grateful I am for the gathering together of saints on the Sabbath, where our families can learn pure, uncontaminated doctrine. May each of us, in our assigned stewardships, follow this pattern to teach doctrine without contamination or additives so that our families can be together forever.

 

http://www.mormonwomenstand.com/doctrine-taught-primary-controversial/

 

I can see why the Primary song would be controversial in some of the farther corners of the Church, but I have not heard anything about this particular case and then I read Kathryn's response to a poster in the comment section:

 

The teachings in the song are taken straight from the The Family: A Proclamation to the World -doctrine. If you have issue with the gender roles as outlined in that document, you ultimately are saying that prophets and apostles of God are misguided in establishing this sacred document and in essence they are wrong.

 

I am a child of divorce and so I can speak to some of your concerns. I certainly didn’t get the ideal family out of my upbringing — very painful. But it is because I was taught the doctrine of the family that as an adult I have strived to make and keep sacred covenants so that my own children have a much different experience than I did.

 

I am so grateful that the ideal is always taught in the Lord’s Church. It is why He died for us and what His great atoning sacrifice was all about — each and every one of our exaltation into the great family of our Heavenly Father — regardless of challenges and or the many mortal difficulties each and everyone of us will encounter in this very imperfect state.

 

 

And so the battle comes to Primary where gender roles are taught as well as things like God the Father being the literal father of our spirits and the father of Jesus' physical body the same way our fathers are the fathers of our physical bodies, etc.

[Buckeye]

My daughter just gave a talk in primary on the proclamation. She said that mothers and fathers both have responsibility to preside, provide, protect, and nurture. The talk was very well received. The proclamation has some important truths in it, but it does not contain all truths, just those that the FP/Q12 could agree on in 1995.

[katherine the great]

Isn't this the lady who said the movie Frozen was about homosexuality?

[Buckeye]

Isn't this the lady who said the movie Frozen was about homosexuality?

 

Yes. (http://wellbehavedmormonwoman.blogspot.com/2014/02/movie-frozen-gay-homosexual-agenda.html#.VFoxIHIo7xM)

 

She is also a founder of the Mormon Women Stand group.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I personally am not sure what to make of that particular section of the family proclamation:
 

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. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation.

 
On the one hand a father is to preside over the family by divine design. On the other hand, a mother is obligated to help the father in his role as presider as an equal partner. In no other instance I can think of does someone who presides (Bishop, SP, Prophet, CEO, Supervisor) have an equal partner. The only way to make any sense of this at all is to negate the divinely designed roles all together. A father and mother are obligated to help one another as equal partners in presiding, providing, and nurturing - splitting these roles as individual circumstances necessitate. This is not what the song teaches, but it is what the proclamation teaches.
 
As for eternal doctrine and gender roles two recent examples of evolving ideas surrounding gender roles are instructive:
 
First Elder Faust in the year 2000 said:
 

Unfortunately, we see some very poor role models of womanhood in today’s society. We see women boxers and wrestlers as we flip through the television channels trying to find something uplifting. I believe the women of our time need to be strong, but not in that sense. In my opinion, these activities demean the nobility of womanhood. Young women need to be strong in righteousness, and, to quote your current theme, “to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places.”

Then we have Carolina Muñoz the kickboxer in the film Meet the Mormons held up as an example for Mormons everywhere.
 
Second I'd ask you compare these similarly structured ensign articles that appear 40 years apart:
https://www.lds.org/ensign/1973/02/strengthening-the-patriarchal-order-in-the-home?lang=eng
https://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/04/equal-partnership-in-marriage?lang=eng

Edited November 5, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Robert F. Smith]

................................................

http://www.mormonwom...-controversial/

It seems to me that Kathryn Skaggs is very militant, angry, and frightened, which may not be a productive or Christlike response to the threats which she perceives.  Somehow, placing MWS over against OW doesn't quite get it.

 

[Buckeye]

It seems to me that Kathryn Skaggs is very militant, angry, and frightened, which may not be a productive or Christlike response to the threats which she perceives.  Somehow, placing MWS over against OW doesn't quite get it.

 

 

I'm not a particular fan of Sister Skaggs, but to be fair, she has stated that MWS was not created as a counter-anything to OW. Also, I've read that her personal family has experienced struggles with the church's teachings on SSM. In my (very limited) judgment, I think her hostility is mostly a result of wanting to defend and strengthen her own family rather than tear down others.

[Buckeye]

...

 

On the one hand a father is to preside over the family by divine design. On the other hand, a mother is obligated to help the father in his role as presider as an equal partner. In no other instance I can think of does someone who presides (Bishop, SP, Prophet, CEO, Supervisor) have an equal partner. The only way to make any sense of this at all is to negate the divinely designed roles all together. A father and mother are obligated to help one another as equal partners in presiding, providing, and nurturing - splitting these roles as individual circumstances necessitate. This is not what the song teaches, but it is what the proclamation teaches.

 

...

 

 

I was part of Marriage and Family class taught in my ward's sunday school this year in which the (male) instructor said "in the family the father is the president and the wife is the counselor. Today father's only have one counselor, but in the past and in the eternities they will have many counselors." You can imagine how well that went over. Thankfully, for me, Sister Buckeye had been asked to sub in primary that day.

 

For my own family, we appreciate and display the proclamation in our home, all the while recognizing that it is only one step and not the final say on anything. Why does the proclamation only give certain roles to men and others (ok, one) to women? I'm not sure. But trying to be charitable, I believe it reflects the fact that the FP/Q12 could not come to agreement on anything beyond that at the time. It's also important to remember that the female leaders of the church were not consulted on the proclamation in 1995 and if they had been the wording may have been different (run a search for "Okasaki 2005 dialogue interview").

 

In my family, both my wife and I preside equally. We also take full responsibility to provide, protect, nurture, and do all other Christ-like actions. On any given day the specifics often vary greatly as to how we carry out our shared parental duties. But we always approach the duties as 100% belonging to both of us. That said, I know of many couples in the church, such as my sunday school instructor mentioned above, where some duties are strictly divided on a gender basis. Those marriages quite often work so I have no basis to say my family's approach is the way things have to be for all families.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

My daughter just gave a talk in primary on the proclamation. She said that mothers and fathers both have responsibility to preside, provide, protect, and nurture. The talk was very well received. The proclamation has some important truths in it, but it does not contain all truths, just those that the FP/Q12 could agree on in 1995.

Maybe we could just put your daughter in teh Q12? She seems to know so much more than they.

[Rob Osborn]

Not sure why or how it works out the way it does but a child fears punishment by the father more than the mother and as such realizes the father is the law maker in a family. The father is the protector also and it may have something to do with it all.

[Senator]

Not sure why or how it works out the way it does but a child fears punishment by the father more than the mother and as such realizes the father is the law maker in a family. The father is the protector also and it may have something to do with it all.

 

This is not always true.

[Buckeye]

Not sure why or how it works out the way it does but a child fears punishment by the father more than the mother and as such realizes the father is the law maker in a family. The father is the protector also and it may have something to do with it all.

 

In my home, I have two advantages over my wife for discipline. One, I'm physically larger, so I can force my teenage sons to their room if I want, but their mother can't (I don't do this by the way, but I could). Second, because I'm around less often, the children tend to believe my threats more readily simply because they have fewer experiences with my threats not being carried out. Interesting, when I'm alone with the kids are a long time and mom comes home, it seems the trend is reversed (at least for a short while) - she suddenly has more credibility, whereas my credibility has been compromised through the stresses of being with the kids.

 

But all of that is really beside the point. Obedience out of fear is the weakest form of obedience. God works through persuasion, not compulsion (see D/C 121). So regardless of who has more ability to inflict fear, my wife and I are both striving for a state where the children obey our laws because of love and trust us, not because of fear. In the long term, obedience out of love is the only real obedience.

[JLHPROF]

Family Proclamation said

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. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation.

 

I'm not convinced it is by divine design either.  That implies that there are other options and God made things this way.

I think gender roles ARE eternal, self-existent, and unalterable.

 

And in a Church that accepts eternal plural marriage to suggest that any other format could work makes little sense.

IF Joseph Smith will have all the women sealed to him as wives in the eternities, then I very much doubt that all the dozens of parents in that family relationship will preside equally as a committee.  I doubt very much that Abraham sits in committee with Sarah, Hagar and Keturah (and any other non-recorded wives).  I doubt that Joseph Fielding Smith sits in committee with his three wives and all have an equal say.

And IF Christ ends up being a polygamist as taught in the early days, I sincerely doubt that he sits in committee as equal with Mary, Martha, and Mary Magdalene. 

 

I think the President with his counselor(s) is a much more sensible explanation, offensive as it may be to our post 1960's attitudes (because you know, I'm sure that last 50 years of cultural change is so much more correct than the 5950 years of the world and the 6 previous dispensations of the fulness of the gospel).

[SeekingUnderstanding]

 

Family Proclamation said

 

I'm not convinced it is by divine design either.  That implies that there are other options and God made things this way.

I think gender roles ARE eternal, self-existent, and unalterable.

 

And in a Church that accepts eternal plural marriage to suggest that any other format could work makes little sense.

IF Joseph Smith will have all the women sealed to him as wives in the eternities, then I very much doubt that all the dozens of parents in that family relationship will preside equally as a committee.  I doubt very much that Abraham sits in committee with Sarah, Hagar and Keturah (and any other non-recorded wives).  I doubt that Joseph Fielding Smith sits in committee with his three wives and all have an equal say.

And IF Christ ends up being a polygamist as taught in the early days, I sincerely doubt that he sits in committee as equal with Mary, Martha, and Mary Magdalene. 

 

I think the President with his counselor(s) is a much more sensible explanation, offensive as it may be to our post 1960's attitudes (because you know, I'm sure that last 50 years of cultural change is so much more correct than the 5950 years of the world and the 6 previous dispensations of the fulness of the gospel).

 

 

I think you've nailed down why there is tension here and why this is a real difficult issue for the modern church. On the one hand we want men and women to be considered equal, on the other hand we have our history beautifully described in your post.

[bluebell]

I'm one of the primary choristers in my ward and I love The Family Is Of God. It's a very pretty song and the kids sound wonderful singing it.

However, it is a song that takes a very gentle touch. Kids are sensitive to how their own situations either live up to or fall below the standard. Many kids have working mothers, or are being raised by single mothers or grandparents. Many kids have divorced parents. Some children are secretly being abused (though I hope this reality is rare) by a father or mother who the song lauds.

Family life can be a minefield and so when this song is being taught it's important to focus on God's love, their parents love, everyone trying to do their best, and not judging other families (and following the spirit always but especially if there are specific children you are concerned about).

I don't believe banning the song would be at all helpful because it does match the doctrine of the church and anyone who believes children need to be shielded from church doctrine has bigger issues to contend with than a primary song.

[Tacenda]

I agree Bluebell, it does have a catchy tune. Ever since being in Primary I'm forever singing the songs.

As the song in the OP, I believe some songs are hard for some if their parents aren't as the songs proscribe. For instance "I Am a Child of God".

Edited November 5, 2014 by Tacenda

[cinepro]

For those unfamiliar with the song (including, until 30 seconds ago, me), here are the words:
 
 

1. Our Father has a family. It’s me!
It’s you, all others too: we are His children.
He sent each one of us to earth, through birth,
To live and learn here in fam’lies.


 
2. A father’s place is to preside, provide,
To love and teach the gospel to his children.
A father leads in fam’ly prayer to share
Their love for Father in Heaven.


 
3. A mother’s purpose is to care, prepare,
To nurture and to strengthen all her children.
She teaches children to obey, to pray,
To love and serve in the fam’ly.


 
4. I’ll love and serve my family and be
A good example to each fam’ly member.
And when I am a mom or dad, so glad,
I’ll help my fam’ly remember:
 


[Chorus]
God gave us families to help us become what He wants us to be—
This is how He shares His love, for the fam’ly is of God.

 
I am always surprised by people who get surprised or upset when the Church teaches the same thing it has always been teaching.

Although it is an interesting contrast to this classic song, which also refers to the roles of the "father" and "mother", but includes the line "With father and mother leading the way, teaching me how to trust and obey..." which is more illustrative of parents working together.

Edited November 5, 2014 by cinepro

[Rob Osborn]

Of amazement to me is that the show "Little House on the Prairie" showed traditional mother and father roles, and no one ever cried foul.

[JLHPROF]

Of amazement to me is that the show "Little House on the Prairie" showed traditional mother and father roles, and no one ever cried foul.

 

Oh I know.  My children's literature professor told the class that the Berenstein bears were sexist because Momma Bear stayed home and Papa Bear went to work.  How dare we expose our children to such material...

[DJBrown]

I can see why the Primary song would be controversial in some of the farther corners of the Church, but I have not heard anything about this particular case and then I read Kathryn's response to a poster in the comment section:

 

 

And so the battle comes to Primary where gender roles are taught as well as things like God the Father being the literal father of our spirits and the father of Jesus' physical body the same way our fathers are the fathers of our physical bodies, etc.

 

It is always interesting (and sad) to me to see so many members of the church try to argue that the Proclamation to the World is flawed or not doctrine or not binding.  I honestly think it is a type of litmus test in our generation for who will follow a prophet.  Simply saying those words will inevitably offend people.  

 

Just before reading the Proclamation, President Hinckley gave as his introduction in 1995, "With so much of sophistry that is passed off as truth, with so much of deception concerning standards and values, with so much of allurement and enticement to take on the slow stain of the world, we have felt to warn and forewarn. In furtherance of this we of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles now issue a proclamation to the Church and to the world as a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history. I now take the opportunity of reading to you this proclamation."

 

President Packer has said, "In 1995 that great document “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” was prepared by all members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. The hope is that Latter-day Saints will recognize the transcendent importance of the family and live in such a spiritually attentive way that the adversary cannot steal into the home and carry away the children." 

 

President Eyring has said, "The title of the proclamation on the family reads: “The Family: A Proclamation to the World—The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” Three things about the title are worth our careful reflection. First, the subject: the family. Second, the audience, which is the whole world. And third, those proclaiming it are those we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators. All this means that the family must be of tremendous importance to us, that whatever the proclamation says could help anyone in the world, and that the proclamation fits the Lord’s promise when he said, “Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same”

 

Elder Ballard has said, "False prophets and false teachers are also those who attempt to change the God-given and scripturally based doctrines that protect the sanctity of marriage, the divine nature of the family, and the essential doctrine of personal morality. They advocate a redefinition of morality to justify fornication, adultery, and homosexual relationships. Some openly champion the legalization of so-called same-gender marriages. To justify their rejection of God’s immutable laws that protect the family, these false prophets and false teachers even attack the inspired proclamation on the family issued to the world in 1995 by the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles."

 

Looking at these issues from a purely logical perspective (within the context of gospel testimony)- it makes perfect sense that members will be drawn away from the prophets by these very issues.  How long have we been told that "the day will come when you will not be able to stand on borrowed light" and similar things?  

[rpn]

I'll just note that the Proclamation says fathers provide and mother nurture, but it DOESN'T say who cleans the toilets, who takes out the garbage or writes the checks or even who leads the prayer, or indeed who does all the other thing that make up a family.

 

And part of our trouble resolving all the contradictions is that our society and culture do not operate on the same principle of consensus that God does (and that His church councils, including families, are supposed to).

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm not a particular fan of Sister Skaggs, but to be fair, she has stated that MWS was not created as a counter-anything to OW.

That may be true, but the OP has done that by tagging "Ordain Women" and "feminism," indicating that it was uppermost in BC's mind, thus effectively creating that de facto opposition.

 

Also, I've read that her personal family has experienced struggles with the church's teachings on SSM. In my (very limited) judgment, I think her hostility is mostly a result of wanting to defend and strengthen her own family rather than tear down others.

Possibly, but she will not be the first "Iron Rod" Mormon to scapegoat and tear down other, equally faithful "Liahona" Mormons.  We don't really need internecine warfare, and only one group rejoices when they witness that very unfortunate spectacle:  The anti-Mormons.

[readstoomuch]

Another excellent thread. We are all figuring these things out. Women at Church by Neyland McBaine helped smooth off a few edges in my mind. The LDS.org essays, people talking, bishops showing love and acceptance for all the multitude of social issues makes me feel hopeful. Goodnight all. May God bless you all in working out the answers.

[Calm]

Not sure why or how it works out the way it does but a child fears punishment by the father more than the mother and as such realizes the father is the law maker in a family. The father is the protector also and it may have something to do with it all.

That is not demonstrated by research or anecdotes.  My dad's law was what he wanted at that moment from us. Mom made family law and on occasion needed Dad to back her up in it, most of the time Dad got his role wrong and gave us the wrong message so left us more confused than ever.  Luckily Mom took time to teach even if Dad didn't and her disappointment and displeasure was usually more than enough punishment for any of us and still is.

 

Husband's family….Mom was abusive when they were younger, she grew out of it, but their dad learned parenting out a of textbook having no dad of his own and so his ways of doing thing were rational, etc.  They live in terror of their mom for awhile, luckily they were all able to get past and heal or so it seemed to me by the time I came along thoughthey completely avoided the negative and I had to work with my husband to find a happy medium.

 

My kids…they knew I would follow through, Dad wouldn't.  We didn't use fear but we did use rewards and withdrawal of good things to control behavior…or that was the idea. He would be sure they had something they wanted to eat before they went to sleep so so much for getting them to eat new things by saying that's is all you are going to eat.  And bribery didn't work either.  Thankfully they were very, very good kids.

Edited November 6, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

 I doubt very much that Abraham sits in committee with Sarah, Hagar and Keturah (and any other non-recorded wives).  I doubt that Joseph Fielding Smith sits in committee with his three wives and all have an equal say.

 

Why not?  Do the wives not care as much for the children as Abraham?  Are they somehow less smart or less experienced given that they are all one now and perfect?  

 

What is begin of one heart and one mind if what one person wants or cares about or says is not only different and more important than another's?

 

And IF Christ ends up being a polygamist as taught in the early days, I sincerely doubt that he sits in committee as equal with Mary, Martha, and Mary Magdalene. 

 

So their opinions don't matter to him.  He never even really has to talk to them…what is marriage exactly again?  What a wonderful eternal life to look forward to…Dad goes off to take to the guys and the women get to gather around at home wondering what the next big decision will be.

 

These are all perfect beings, of one heart and one mind…why wouldn't they all be equal to each other?

Edited November 6, 2014 by calmoriah