Gospel Principles #37 - Family Responsibilities (NOM version)

See my previous blog entry to see how I taught this lesson in Relief Society.

To be honest, I didn't strictly buy into the gender role stuff taught by the church even when I was a TBM. I think part of that stems from the fact that I've never been a typical female. I'm not a tom-boy or anything---it's more like I'm gender-neutral.

So is my husband. About a year ago, I was driving my husband to work when we saw a billboard advertising a Men's Expo. My husband asked me if I thought there was anything at a Men's Expo that would interest him. We couldn't come up with anything. He's just not very interested in any typically male things like sports, guns, barbecues, etc. Later on that week we passed a billboard for a Women's Expo. I asked him the same question about me and again we couldn't think of anything. I'm not interested in fashion, makeup, scrapbooking, crafts, etc. Those things bore me to death. I guess the point I'm making is that we're not your stereotypical male/female. And for that reason, statements about essentialized gender characteristics don't really resonate with me personally.

Now, that's not to say that I don't think that male and female anatomy has no impact on who we are at all. Sexual dimorphism is obviously real and I think there is plenty of evidence to show that your hormones can have a dramatic influence on your personality and tastes. But although you can make broad generalizations about male and female chemistry and its influence on personality, there are just so many individual exceptions to that rule as to make those generalizations almost meaningless. For example, my dad was pushing my 2 year old son on the swings at a playground the other day. When my son started to say "Hiwaa!" I told my dad that meant he wanted to be pushed much higher. Dad replied, "He's definitely a boy." Sure---but that does nothing to explain why my other son (who is 4) won't go within 2 feet of a swing without crying uncontrollably.

The Family: A Proclamation to the World is NOT Revelation
One of the things that is important to recognize about the Proclamation is that it is not an official revelation. Church policy dictates that in order for something to be accepted as part of the official LDS canon, it must be presented for a sustaining vote to the world-wide church membership during a solemn assembly. To date, this has never happened. This is probably because the First Presidency and the 12 Apostles did not receive the Proclamation as revelation; it was crafted by them as a committee. (Frankly, the entire document is riddled with Dallin H. Oaksey legalese.)

As further proof of the Proclamation's lack of canonical status, note the revisions made to Boyd K. Packer's infamous October 2010 Conference address. In the original speech as it was delivered verbally, Packer stated:

Fifteen years ago, with the world in turmoil, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” the fifth proclamation in the history of the Church. It qualifies according to the definition as a revelation and would do well that members of the church to read and follow it.

In the printed version of the address that was published online a week later, the last sentence of that paragraph was struck out and replaced with: "It is a guide that members of the Church would do well to read and to follow."

Downgraded from "revelation" to "guide" in just a week's time? Not surprising. Leaving the Proclamation's canonical status ambiguous is the church's way of having their cake and eating it too. They want the members to treat it as though it were revelation, to give it the deference of canonized scripture. But they know that it is not---or have they even attempted to give it official canonical status.

Nevertheless, the average TBM treats it with canonical status, which means the Brethren have succeeded in making it virtually canonized. The reverence that church members give to the Proclamation reminds me of an interesting comment made by Randall Paul on an episode of the Mormon Matters podcast. While discussing the deference that contemporary Mormons give to the General Authorities, Paul stated:

When I was growing up, the marker [of loyalty to the church] was the Word of Wisdom. It was not sexual morality and it had nothing to do with the authority of the prophet. But now the Word of Wisdom has become so ubiquitous in Western culture that we've lost that marker and we're searching for a [new] marker. And we want it to be that the prophet literally is out there healing people on the streets, having angelic visitations all the time, stories about Jesus appearing to him in the temple telling him when the Second Coming is coming. We want another section of the Doctrine and Covenants every couple of years. That's what we really want a prophet to be doing. If you're a prophet: deliver! To me, the further we get away from Joseph Smith, the more it's becoming obvious that the Ensign and the Conference talks are not the Doctrine and Covenants. So in our own hearts, we want to give more and more power to the prophet for whatever he does because we know that's part of Mormonism. That's our marker: that we have a prophet.

Could a dogmatic adherence to the Proclamation be part of a desire to overcompensate for our prophet? To see evidence of a living prophet to help us find comfort in proclaiming to believe in one?

Male Spiritual Inferiority?
One thing that I feel I should mention is that I added some heavy-handed discussions about maternal gatekeeping to my Relief Society lesson partly to counteract the strong male-bashing that had occurred in Relief Society the previous week (while discussing Chapter 36 - The Family Can Be Eternal). The sister who had taught the lesson was an older single woman and perhaps was a little bitter about that or something. Several comments were made about how men needed marriage in order to tame their selfish and anti-social impulses. Some of the comments from the sisters astounded me. A few highlights:

• "My mother always used to say that an unmarried man over the age of 30 is evil."
• "A man is like a grape. You have to squash him and squish him over and over. And, if you're lucky, you'll get a little bit of juice from him."
• One woman told a story about how she came to hate her husband but stuck through the marriage so that her kids wouldn't have to go through a divorce. Yikes!

Not surprisingly given the tone of the most recent General Conference, single men received the brunt of most the blame for societal ills during the lesson. [1]

As a feminist, I basically don't believe that anyone should be limited or boxed in by their gender---male or female. Any kind of gender inequity or gender essentialization is flawed, in my opinion. But what is the source of all this male-bashing in a church context?

My money's on the priesthood, actually. The fact that the priesthood is only given to men brings gender inequality in the church to the forefront. (More on that in a minute.) Mormons acknowledge this inequity by talking regularly about why women don't need the priesthood to be equal. One of the ways Mormons have tried to cope with these stark inequities is to assert that males need the priesthood because they are spiritually inferior to women. So, in response to justifiable feminist critiques, Mormon culture has begun to posit that the priesthood is some sort of spiritual crutch for the weak, inferior male.

I frankly find that idea offensive. As a feminist, I believe in equality of the sexes; not that women should be given superior status over men. For that matter, I see no support for the idea of male spiritual inferiority in church doctrine. I think that men are just as innately capable of being a good parent, of expressing their feelings, of doing domestic chores, etc. If they are not, then I think social training is more likely to be the culprit than any kind of essentialized spiritual gender characteristics.

Presiding in Equality?
I mentioned earlier how the church tries to have its cake and eat it too by leaving the canonical status of the Proclamation in question. I think there are lots of other ways the Proclamation is an attempt by the church to have its cake and eat it too. The Proclamation wants to uphold traditional gender roles as having some sort of divine impetus while at the same time trying to deflect any criticism from feminists.

This tension is fairly obvious from this paragraph:

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. Extended families should lend support when needed.

To me, this paragraph is contradictory. How can a father preside over his family and still be an equal partner with his wife? M-w.com says the word preside means "to exercise guidance, control, or direction" and "to occupy the place of authority." In fact, the word president and preside both from from the Latin root word praesidere (prae = "before" and sidere = "to sit," literally meaning "to sit before"). Praesidere originally meant to "stand guard" and it morphed into the French word présider by the 1600s which meant to "preside over, to govern." In short, the word "preside" is loaded with hierarchical intonations, implying one who is in a position of authority to make decisions and to rule over those that he governs. There's just no getting around that.

Now, let's take the most pro-feminist statement from the Proclamation (and which I made the star of the show in the lesson I taught in church): "In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners." Lest you think for a moment that this is implying that women can help their husbands do any breadwinning, there is a clarifying statement just afterwards that undercuts it, implying that only in situations of disability and death should there be any "individual adaptation."

In fact, one time (when I was still a TBM), I was having an argument about women working outside the home with a family member and I brought up the line about helping each other in their responsibilities from the Proclamation. My family member used the sentence about death and disability to argue that it wasn't the intention of the General Authorities to suggest women should work outside the home in any other circumstances except those ones. So, I guess that means it's okay for a man to help with the role of nurturing but it's inappropriate for a woman to help with the role of breadwinning? Seems like a convenient double standard to me.

Authority within Church Government

What I find most problematic of all is how a male-only priesthood plays out within church government. Women are virtually powerless to assert any change within the church. While an assertive woman can certainly speak her mind and offer a suggestion to a priesthood leader, the male has full control in deciding whether to implement that suggestion or not. It's true that most men in the church will never be in a position of authority in which they can implement changes in their church community---but they at least have the remote possibility they will one day be in a position of authority. By contrast, a woman has a 0% chance of being a position of authority. And that has serious ramifications for the church. If you deny half of your population a voice in how your institution is governed, you run the risk of being dramatically short-sighted in meeting individual needs. (I contend that a female prophet would NEVER have instituted the 3-hour block, for instance.)

That being said, I read an interesting piece in Mother Jones about how Christian mega-churches are targeting the male in the household most of all. They find that if they can get the father to come to their church, they've got the whole family. Perhaps it works the same way in our church. Could a male-only priesthood be so attractive to men that it makes them want to come to church, pay tithing, and do the whole rigamaroll---and bring their families with them? If so, maybe it's a necessary form of institutional self-preservation to deny women the priesthood. But even if that were true, it's no excuse for the frankly egregious gender gap that exists in this church.

Fortunately, one of the fringe benefits of losing  my faith is that I no longer have to do the mental gymnastics to make excuses for the poor treatment of women in the church any more. I no longer have to wrest the Proclamation until it is compatible with feminism. I can easily disregard it as being the product of a group of male geritocracy that actively tries to suspend the church's culture in the 1950s. I don't think it's out of a malicious intent to suppress women. I honestly think it's just that the 15 elderly men grew up in a different era and in a different time. They make certain assumptions about the world that someone who with a different life background just wouldn't make. And that's exactly why women are so badly needed in leadership positions.

Footnotes
[1] There was also a discussion during this lesson about how getting married earlier is better than getting married later in life because you "don't have time to develop negative personality traits that could hinder a marriage." That's just simply not true. Statistically, the highest predictors for marital success are having an education and getting married when you're 25 or older. I'm willing to bet that this statistic can largely be explained by the fact that the human brain is literally not fully developed until you're 25. It makes sense that someone with a steady income and a mature brain would have higher marital success.

Gospel Principles #37 - Family Responsibilities (TBM version)

For reference, see Family Responsibilities in the Gospel Principles manual.

To be honest, I'm too much of a feminist to deliver this lesson straight up the way it's supposed to be. So, this was one of those lessons where I pushed the envelope just a little bit.

Introduction
I started my lesson with a heavy disclaimer. I put a placard that said "The Ideal" up at the top of the chalkboard and then a placard that said "The Real" toward the bottom of the chalkboard. I talked about how there is a big gap there. And the topic of today's lesson tends to make that contrast feel very strong. Because today we're talking about The Family: A Proclamation to the World. (I then put the Proclamation up next to "The Ideal.") The Proclamation is a very idealistic thing. And, as such, it doesn't always correspond with our realities. I then put up a picture of a stressed-out mom next to "The Real."

Our lives aren't perfect. Sometimes our relationships with our spouses or our children are difficult or frustrating. Sometimes we aren't able to get married or have a family. Sometimes we lose our spouse to death or divorce. Sometimes the people we love make choices we disagree with.

It's hard not to see that as a personal failure. It's hard not to get depressed and feel like something's wrong with us because we're not perfect and we feel like we fall so short of the ideal. But I don't think that's how God sees us nor is it how he wants us to see ourselves. I think the important thing to remember is we talk about ideals in church to help us strive to be better, to make continuous daily improvements. But we don't need to think of ourselves as broken or as second-class citizens when we aren't perfect. Because every family, no matter how perfect they look on the outside, has problems, challenges, and things they struggle with. No one is exempt. And we would all do well to have a little charity for ourselves and for others as we muddle through this thing called life together.

The Effect of Children on Marriage
Next, I read several sections from the manual. It was the usual blah blah blah, the father presides and the mother nurtures the children. Yadda yadda yadda.

I told them that this stuff is nothing new. Both of those sections quoted heavily from the Proclamation, which we're all very familiar with by now. So, that's the Ideal. What about the Real?

I drew this graph on the board:

Ever since it was first identified in the 80s, this trend has been documented by multiple studies across multiple disciplines. The research is pretty clear that kids seem to make your marriage less happy. I rehearsed a few theories about why this could be (kids monopolize your money, create more housework, cause boredom, etc.).

Robert Miller, a BYU professor, likes to show this graph to his students and engage them in a discussion about it. Inevitably, one of his sassier students will ask: why have children at all? So I pose that same question to you: why have children at all? (Build on sister's responses.)

Planning a Family
What does the Proclamation say that can help you make this transition go a little more smoothly? (Here we read a section from the Proclamation that says families should plan to have children and make them a priority.) A landmark 10 year study done at the University of California at Berkeley that studied several aspects of marital happiness found that “couples who were ambivalent about parenthood, [who] disagreed about it, or who just ‘let it happen’ were far more likely to be unhappy and were at higher risk for divorce. Couples who planned a baby’s arrival or who were equally joyous at becoming parents were far more likely to maintain their marital happiness or even enjoy an increase after the baby was born" (from Tara-Parker Pope's For Better). So, if you plan for a family like the Proclamation says to, it will help make that transition go better.

Sharing the Load in Parenting
Now let’s read from my absolute most favorite part of the Proclamation. This part is super, super awesome. Right after the section where it talks about how fathers should preside and provide for their families and then it says mother should nurture their children, the next line of the Proclamation reads: “In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.”

Even though fathers have the stewardship over providing for their family and mothers’ stewardship is over the children, I think what this phrase is trying to suggest is that we don’t need to be so dogmatic in saying: “This is your job and this is my job and we CANNOT mix the two.” We help each other in our stewardships.

Take, for example, the role of parenting. Even though the mother is responsible to nurture the children, that doesn’t mean the father should have no involvement with the children whatsoever. That would be ludicrous. Academic research has shown again and again that a father who is closely involved in the lives of his children has a dramatic impact on their health and well-being. (I then read several statistics that I took about the importance of having an involved father in the home from the US Dept of Health and Human Services.)

Now here’s something that’s extra fascinating: the California Department of Social Services Office of Child Abuse Prevention funded a major study targeted at figuring out how to get fathers more involved in parenting. Without going into too many details, the study found that fathers had less parenting stress and marital happiness when they had support from their wives. Again, from Tara Parker-Pope:

Now you’re probably thinking, of course his wife supports his effort to help more around the house. But studies show that’s not always the case. A difficult lesson many mothers have to learn is that they are bringing some of the parenting stress upon themselves by not ceding control from time to time. Women often complain that fathers don’t help enough, but when they do help, wives often unwittingly sideline their husbands, unintentionally discouraging them by micromanaging the way they wash the baby or change the diaper. …

How many mothers have berated their husbands when they’ve come home and discovered him playing video games with the kids? It’s not that video games are banned—the game console is in the house, after all. But maybe the mom would rather see her kids reading or playing outside. Is it really fair to criticize her husband’s parenting style just because it’s different from her own?

Studies show that the best predictor of a father’s involvement with his children is not the way he feels about his kids. The best predictor of a man’s parenting is his relationship with his wife. When the mother relinquishes her power and lets a father parent his own way, video games and all, he tends to be happier with the mother and more involved with his children.

How have you found the balance described in the Family: the Proclamation to the World in your own family or how have you seen it working in other families that you might be familiar with? How have you found a way to be equal partners in fulfilling your divine responsibilities? (Build on sister's responses.)

Sharing the Load in Housework
Now, aside from saying that husbands and wives should be equal partners, the Proclamation is virtually silent on the issue of housework. I then cite statistics that say that women clearly do the majority of housework in the home---regardless of whether she is a stay-at-home mom, whether both she and her husband work, or even when the husband is the one who stays home. Since the perceived division of labor over housework is often a source of conflict in marriage, I provided the sisters with a chores worksheet that would stimulate a discussion about how fairly their chores are divided. I said they could possibly use it as a discussion to talk about fairness. For me, it helped me to realize just how much my husband really does help out that I don't necessarily give him credit for.

Conclusion
I then concluded by citing statistics showing how a happy marriage can be beneficial to your health in the long run.

Insomnia-Induced Fantasies

I'm writing this at 3:00am on a weeknight. I'm suffering from one of my occasional bouts of insomnia. And in this sleep-deprived state I had a crazy fantasy about how I would leave the church.

This train of thought began as I was contemplating the current state of our Relief Society presidency. The Relief Society president has been having really terrible health problems lately. I am not privy to what those health problems are, but they have caused her face to swell up so much that she doesn't even look like the same person any more. She has consequently been absent from church a lot. The other counselors have been having very spotty attendance as well because of health concerns or other reasons.

The absence of leadership has been causing a lot of confusion and problems in communication. There was a recent mix-up over the lesson schedule that caused me to teach two weeks in a row---and one of the lessons I had to make up off the top of my head just a few days before teaching it. Plus, there have been other problems with communications about activities that have made it so that no one has shown up for the Relief Society Activities Formerly Known as Enrichment except the people presenting.

Even though our current presidency has only been in for less than half a year, I have to wonder if it's possible they might get released. And in pondering that possibility, I began to have a fantasy in which the bishop called me to be the next Relief Society President.

Let me be clear that I've never wanted to be Relief Society President---I never really wanted to be that engrossed in the church even when I was a TBM. But I've also always felt in my heart that I would make a really, really good Relief Society President. Part of me is sad that I can never be one now because, in all modesty, I seriously would have ROCKED at it.

So here's how the fantasy goes:

Bishop: Sister, we would like to extend a release to you from your current calling as a Relief Society teacher.

Me (inwardly feeling a great sense of relief at having my last ties to the church finally cut): Thank you, Bishop. I gratefully accept this release.

Bishop: And the reason we are extending this release to you is because we have a new calling in mind for you. The Spirit has told me that you should be the one who should serve as our ward's new Relief Society President.

Me (chuckling with amusement): Well, Bishop, it's good that you are so in tune with the Spirit. I do think that I could do a good job as the Relief Society President. I'm a very well-organized person who puts 110% into everything I do. In particular, I would make it my mission to reach out to all the sisters in the ward. I would work my hardest to help every sister feel loved, appreciated and welcome at Relief Society. (Pause.) But I'm afraid that I cannot accept this calling.

Bishop: Uhhh... Why not?

Me: Because I don't believe in the church. At all. Not one bit of it. I haven't believed a word of it for at least a year now. I'm not even sure I believe that God exists any more. I've only been coming because I didn't want to make waves when I left. I just wanted to quietly recede into inactivity without anyone really noticing. But you've unfortunately forced my hand here. I'm sorry. What I'm going to do next will probably comes as quite a shock to you, but...

(At this point, I take out my temple recommend and walk over to the Bishop's paper shredder and run it all the way through.)

Me: From this point on, you will not see me here at church any more. I don't want you to try to talk me out of it. I don't want any home teachers or visiting teachers. I just want to be left alone. And I would also appreciate it if you never mention this conversation to anyone else. Sorry to drop such a bomb on you, but, well... That's how these things go sometimes. If you don't mind, I'd like to end this conversation here and I don't really wish to discuss it any further. And I do not authorize you to discuss this conversation with anyone else. Ever.

(Walks out of office.)

Ahhh, me.... Fantasies....