FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Difference between revisions of "Question: Was “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” drafted by lawyers in Hawaii in response to legal concerns the Church had over the legalization of gay marriage?"
SpencerMarsh (talk | contribs) (→Question: Was “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” drafted by lawyers in Hawaii in response to legal concerns the Church had over the legalization of gay marriage?) |
SpencerMarsh (talk | contribs) (→It seems that it is true that these legal concerns played a role but it does not appear that they played the only role.) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
The Hawaii Supreme Court began hearing a case on gay marriage known as Baehr v. Lewin (later "Miike") in 1993. A year after this, members of the Quorum of the Twelve began to draft what we know today as the Family Proclamation. The Family Proclamation was included as an appendix to the amicus curiae brief filed in Baehr v. Miike in 1997. | The Hawaii Supreme Court began hearing a case on gay marriage known as Baehr v. Lewin (later "Miike") in 1993. A year after this, members of the Quorum of the Twelve began to draft what we know today as the Family Proclamation. The Family Proclamation was included as an appendix to the amicus curiae brief filed in Baehr v. Miike in 1997. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
<!-- Hiding the introductory references to Rational Faiths - Trevor | <!-- Hiding the introductory references to Rational Faiths - Trevor | ||
| Line 109: | Line 104: | ||
Here, welfare and family breakdown are put side-by-side with same-sex marriage. While [https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng the Proclamation] dedicates considerable space to heteronormative marriage and gender essentialism, it also focuses on the rearing of children: “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…Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity” (italics mine). The portion on father/mother responsibilities is typically interpreted as a mere restatement of traditional (or outdated) gender roles. However, the concept that “fathers are to preside over their families…and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families” may stem from the political and public discussions revolving around fatherless families and welfare-dependent mothers (recall the absent father from Moyers’ documentary). “Work” is listed among multiple “principles” upon which “successful families and marriages are established…” On an even more dire note, the Proclamation warns “that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God” (italics mine). The language surrounding parental responsibility and specifically working, present, faithful fathers fits quite well into the national politics of the day. Statements similar to the Proclamation’s final line could be pulled from any of the above cited works: “We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.” From Murray to Moyers to Whitehead to Clinton, concern over welfare dependence and family breakdown had been growing among General Authorities and the public at large. While same-sex marriage legalities most definitely played a leading role in the Proclamation’s conception, I think it is safe to say that the American discussion regarding family fragmentation (especially fatherlessness) and welfare dependency also paved the way for it and helped shape its final draft.<ref>Walker Wright, “Family Breakdown, the Welfare State, and the Family Proclamation: An Alternative History*” <http://www.withoutend.org/family-proclamation-alternative-history/> (accessed 19 August 2019). Wright notes that the title may be misleading and that “complementary” may be better than “alternative”</ref> | Here, welfare and family breakdown are put side-by-side with same-sex marriage. While [https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng the Proclamation] dedicates considerable space to heteronormative marriage and gender essentialism, it also focuses on the rearing of children: “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…Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity” (italics mine). The portion on father/mother responsibilities is typically interpreted as a mere restatement of traditional (or outdated) gender roles. However, the concept that “fathers are to preside over their families…and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families” may stem from the political and public discussions revolving around fatherless families and welfare-dependent mothers (recall the absent father from Moyers’ documentary). “Work” is listed among multiple “principles” upon which “successful families and marriages are established…” On an even more dire note, the Proclamation warns “that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God” (italics mine). The language surrounding parental responsibility and specifically working, present, faithful fathers fits quite well into the national politics of the day. Statements similar to the Proclamation’s final line could be pulled from any of the above cited works: “We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.” From Murray to Moyers to Whitehead to Clinton, concern over welfare dependence and family breakdown had been growing among General Authorities and the public at large. While same-sex marriage legalities most definitely played a leading role in the Proclamation’s conception, I think it is safe to say that the American discussion regarding family fragmentation (especially fatherlessness) and welfare dependency also paved the way for it and helped shape its final draft.<ref>Walker Wright, “Family Breakdown, the Welfare State, and the Family Proclamation: An Alternative History*” <http://www.withoutend.org/family-proclamation-alternative-history/> (accessed 19 August 2019). Wright notes that the title may be misleading and that “complementary” may be better than “alternative”</ref> | ||
--> | --> | ||
| + | |||
===Boyd K. Packer gives additional context=== | ===Boyd K. Packer gives additional context=== | ||
Revision as of 17:05, 2 September 2021
- REDIRECTTemplate:Test3
Contents
- 1 Question: Was “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” drafted by lawyers in Hawaii in response to legal concerns the Church had over the legalization of gay marriage?
- 1.1 It seems that it is true that these legal concerns played a role but it does not appear that they played the only role.
- 1.2 Boyd K. Packer gives additional context
- 1.3 The doctrines have long been taught by the Church
- 1.4 Many of the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants started out as similar documents
Question: Was “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” drafted by lawyers in Hawaii in response to legal concerns the Church had over the legalization of gay marriage?
It seems that it is true that these legal concerns played a role but it does not appear that they played the only role.
It is claimed by some that “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” was drafted by lawyers in Hawaii in response to legal concerns the Church had over the legalization of gay marriage. This is partially true.
The Hawaii Supreme Court began hearing a case on gay marriage known as Baehr v. Lewin (later "Miike") in 1993. A year after this, members of the Quorum of the Twelve began to draft what we know today as the Family Proclamation. The Family Proclamation was included as an appendix to the amicus curiae brief filed in Baehr v. Miike in 1997.
Boyd K. Packer gives additional context
Boyd K. Packer gave further context to the Proclamation’s Origin:
The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve issued a proclamation on the family. I can tell you how that came about. They had a world conference on the family sponsored by the United Nations in Beijing, China. We sent representatives. It was not pleasant what they heard. They called another one in Cairo. Some of our people were there. I read the proceedings of that. The word marriage was not mentioned. It was at a conference on the family, but marriage was not even mentioned. It was then they announced that they were going to have such a conference here in Salt Lake City. Some of us made the recommendation: "They are coming here. We had better proclaim our position.”[1]
The doctrines have long been taught by the Church
The doctrines contained within the Proclamation are doctrines long taught by the Church. We address this elsewhere on the wiki.
Many of the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants started out as similar documents
Some sections of the Doctrine and Covenants started out as (1) council minutes, (2) official statements of church policy written by lawyers like Oliver Cowdery, (3) letters written by Joseph Smith, (4) excerpts from peoples’ notes recording things that Joseph Smith taught. Examples include D&C 130 and 134. More may be found by reading the headings of the revelations. Those who are bothered by a revelation or doctrinal disquisition being first drafted by others may be comforted knowing that many revelations have been ratified in similar ways.
Notes
- ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "The Instrument of Your Mind and the Foundation of Your Character," CES Fireside (2 February 2003).