Kathryn Skaggs: The Gender Role Battle Comes To Primary

[bluebell]

My apologies for being confusing. I am sure they sit in counsel. What I don't believe is that it is a committee of equal voters. But of course the person presiding listens to the counsel.

I am sure Christ listens to the counsel of his wives. But I don't believe they take a vote of equals on how to handle a situation.

It's obvious why Christ would not be on equal footing with an apostle, but why would a wife's council be less equal than a husband's?

[juliann]

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.

If you consider setting yourself up as the beacon of righteousness and judging everyone else to that standard to not be judgmental....

 

And I think it is very obvious she set this up to counter OW. (MWS doesn't even like Neylan McBaine.)

[BCSpace]

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.

 

 

If that article is considered militant and hostile, then I'd say the LDS Church itself is militant and hostile.

[BCSpace]

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.

 

Am curious as to what you think they couldn't agree on.

[Buckeye]

Am curious as to what you think they couldn't agree on.

 

I can only read the same tea leaves as you. Elder Perry once taught in GC that fathers and mothers are to be "co-presidents." That remark was removed from the official publication. President Packer taught that the proclamation was scripture. That remark was also removed from the official publication. Those are two examples where it seems reasonable to conclude there is disagreement among the Q12/FP. I wouldn't be surprised if there are others too, but I have not special insight into what. I just know that if the task of writing a proclamation on the family were given to any of the ward or stake councils that I have been a part of there certainly would have been some disagreement as to what to say. I have to believe the same factors are at play at higher levels too. In fact, if you believe Sister Okasaki, then had the Sisters been consulted the proclamation would have been written differently in some regard.

[DJBrown]

I can only read the same tea leaves as you. Elder Perry once taught in GC that fathers and mothers are to be "co-presidents." That remark was removed from the official publication. President Packer taught that the proclamation was scripture. That remark was also removed from the official publication. Those are two examples where it seems reasonable to conclude there is disagreement among the Q12/FP. I wouldn't be surprised if there are others too, but I have not special insight into what. I just know that if the task of writing a proclamation on the family were given to any of the ward or stake councils that I have been a part of there certainly would have been some disagreement as to what to say. I have to believe the same factors are at play at higher levels too. In fact, if you believe Sister Okasaki, then had the Sisters been consulted the proclamation would have been written differently in some regard.

 

I have a hard time reconciling your opinion with these statements:

 

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 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."

 

People are arguing from silence that the Proclamation to the World is not truly authoritative for various reasons.  One of those reasons is supposedly the brethren don't agree on it.  I have yet to encounter a single piece of evidence to suggest that there is any degree of disagreement on the words and meaning of the Proclamation among those 15 brethren.

[Pahoran]

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.

Are you sure you read the same article as the rest of us?

Disapproval is not "angry." Disappointment is not "frightened." Expressing such things is not "militant."

After all, what's she saying? Some alleged members got up in arms about a Primary song. Really? A Primary song? And one that provides a pretty decent paraphrase of The Family: A Proclamation to the World.

Which is, just so you know, official, accepted and utterly uncontroversial LDS doctrine.

Her remarks on the subject seem perfectly calm and collected to me.

And if you disagree, please tell us: is there anything she could have said that you wouldn't have seen as "very militant, angry, and frightened?"

Regards,

Pahoran

[BCSpace]

I can only read the same tea leaves as you. Elder Perry once taught in GC that fathers and mothers are to be "co-presidents." That remark was removed from the official publication. President Packer taught that the proclamation was scripture. That remark was also removed from the official publication.

 

 

 

And yet neither statement is wrong relevant to extant doctrine, past and present. Both are true. I'd say they were removed because certain people would misinterpret the meaning, intentionally or unintentionally.

 

Those are two examples where it seems reasonable to conclude there is disagreement among the Q12/FP. I wouldn't be surprised if there are others too, but I have not special insight into what. I just know that if the task of writing a proclamation on the family were given to any of the ward or stake councils that I have been a part of there certainly would have been some disagreement as to what to say. I have to believe the same factors are at play at higher levels too. In fact, if you believe Sister Okasaki, then had the Sisters been consulted the proclamation would have been written differently in some regard.

 

 

Of course it likely would be differently worded, but I'll bet it wouldn't say anything different than the doctrine it already summarizes.

 

It never ceases to amaze me that people see change in the Church on various issues when essentially there has been no change at all. But a little word here, a little phrase there, no change in doctrine, and viola! Testimonies are made and destroyed.

Edited November 10, 2014 by BCSpace

[Tacenda]

And yet neither statement is wrong relevant to extant doctrine, past and present. Both are true. I'd say they were removed because certain people would misinterpret the meaning, intentionally or unintentionally.

Of course it likely would be differently worded, but I'll bet it wouldn't say anything different than the doctrine it already summarizes.

It never ceases to amaze me that people see change in the Church on various issues when essentially there has been no change at all. But a little word here, a little phrase there, no change in doctrine, and viola! Testimonies are made and destroyed.

What exactly is the doctrine they haven't changed?

[BCSpace]

What exactly is the doctrine they haven't changed?

 

 

 

In the two examples given by Buckeye, the removed statements weren't in conflict with any doctrine. Other examples of no change in doctrine would be plural marriage, priesthood ban, and  homosexuality.

[Sleeper Cell]

 The proclamation has some important truths in it, but it does not contain all truths, ... 

 

Isn’t that true of the canonized scriptures as well?  

[wenglund]

I, personally, don't have a problem with the notion that the male Christ presides over his bride, the Church. and this because for me the gospel isn't about equality of authority but about progression unto godliness. Sadly, modern culture inverts this priority, arrogantly presuming to know better than God.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[JLHPROF]

Well, if the Quorum of the 12 is any indicator, it is when you join the quorum, not when you are ordained.

 

It's not.  Because there is only one quorum and all apostles (at this stage in history) are members.  There was a time in Church history when there were apostles never in the quorum who were more senior than those within.  But that hasn't happened since the late 1800s.

[cinepro]

It's not.  Because there is only one quorum and all apostles (at this stage in history) are members.  There was a time in Church history when there were apostles never in the quorum who were more senior than those within.  But that hasn't happened since the late 1800s.

 

The current members of the First Presidency are Apostles but not members of the Quorum of the 12.  When the Prophet dies, the First Presidency is dissolved and the counselors re-join the Quorum at their previous positions.

[JLHPROF]

The current members of the First Presidency are Apostles but not members of the Quorum of the 12.  When the Prophet dies, the First Presidency is dissolved and the counselors re-join the Quorum at their previous positions.

 

Yes, and they return to seniority based on ordination.  Seniority in a quorum is based on date of ordination, not acceptance into the quorum.

[cinepro]

Yes, and they return to seniority based on ordination.  Seniority in a quorum is based on date of ordination, not acceptance into the quorum.

Can you provide an example of someone who was ordained an Apostle and joined the Q12 at a later date getting higher seniority than an Apostle who had been ordained later but joined the Q12 earlier?

 

Because I provided an example of the opposite where Brigham Young jr. was ordained before Joseph F. Smith, but joined the Q12 after him, and it was decided he had lower seniority. Which situation was resolved by a decision of the Prophet and Q12, so I'm not sure how you can say that was an aberration unless the opposite decision has been reached in other cases.

[KevinG]

It never ceases to amaze that such great offense can be taken at variations of phrases in an imperfect language. Moroni waned us to seek the spirit and doctrine behind even the scriptures he translated.

Yet we are so good at wresting everything until the spirit is gone from it and only the debate remains.

If someone has used the position of president in the ward or home to do anything but preside as Christ presides they need to repent. Those who are a part of their stewardship should seek to counsel them in love and repentance, not to give up on their covenants and throw the whole system away. Anyone who does not understand the equality of voices in a council (home or church) is t doing it right.

We have a very top down concept of leadership in the west, and I think it skews our understanding of what it means to preside in the kingdom of God. Christ is at the head, and He sacrificed Himself for us. How much more important we preside in service and sacrifice to those we are asked to lead? D&C 121 is a good place to start.

Edited November 10, 2014 by KevinG