A Novel Understanding Of Gender Roles in The Proclamation on the Family

I was reluctant to write this blog post but I have been encouraged to do so by certain individuals because they find my reading of the Proclamation on the Family (PoF) fascinating and original.  So, I am taking the plunge and adding this blog article to the current and ongoing discussion about equality and gender roles within the LDS Church.

My intent and hope in writing this post is not to provide a solution to issues revolving around equality and gender roles in the Church. This isn't meant to support the conservative or progressive view on these issues. It isn't intended to increase tension among men, women and Church leaders. This is only to get people to see this issue in a new light (hopefully) and to open up a new avenue of discussion on these matters. Finally, what I am about to share is NOT the official doctrine of the LDS Church nor should it ever be taken as such. It is strictly and absolutely MY opinion and reading of the Proclamation of the Family.

With that being said, here's how I read the Proclamation on the Family. In my eyes, the basic and simple point of the PoF is that men and women don't have any gender roles until they are married and have children. That's what I believe the essential message of the Proclamation on the Family to be. 

Let me walk you through how I came to that perspective on the Proclamation on the Family. 

The Proclamation on the Family starts out with a statement that gender is eternal. 

"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.

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."

Not only do we learn that gender is eternal, but that we were not genderless in the preexistence. We were male and female before we came to earth. Although God created gender, creating gender is not the same as creating roles. These two concepts are separate and should not be conflated together. 

Unfortunately, LDS culture and society society have been commingled with LDS doctrine to such a degree that LDS practices are assumed to be LDS doctrine despite no doctrinal foundation or justification for such beliefs and it is now almost difficult to tease these two concepts apart because they are so embedded in LDS thinking and behavior because people have mingled these two things together as if they are LDS doctrine.

A careful reading of the PoF and other sources does not and cannot support that when God  spiritually and physically created men and women, He also created the roles that would accompany each gender. God merely created gender, humans created most of the roles. Almost all gender roles are arbitrary because they were created by society and culture with the exception that men and women don't have any gender roles until they are married and have children.

"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.

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."

In my reading of the PoF, we learn a few things. First, the first commandment to get married is an obligation that falls equally on both genders. The obligation must be fulfilled by men and women. It appears from the PoF (as well as other scriptural sources) that the Lord’s doctrine that men and women are to both be active players in finding a spouse.

Secondly, we also learn there is something unique about the "First Commandment" that is different from almost all the other commandments the Lord has given. In order for the commandment to get married to be satisfied, it requires a man and a woman to come together in marriage. In other words, it takes two people to obey this one commandment whereas almost all other commandments require each individual to obey them on their own. Men and women are both needed to create a marriage. A man can't be married unto himself and a woman can't do that either. Men and women need each other to satisfy that obligation. That's why if you read the entire PoF, there's no mention of gender roles when it comes to dating. It isn't a man's job to find a spouse and it isn't a woman's job to find a spouse. Its an equal obligation. 

Additionally, we learn that God actually gave two distinct and separate commandments to men and women instead of one. If you read the PoF carefully and read the scriptures carefully, you realize that men and women must satisfy the "First Commandment" (marriage) to satisfy the "Second Commandment" (be fruitful and multiply/procreate).  In other words, God intended that men and women must be husband and wife before (condition precedent) they can be fathers and mothers. This concept is affirmed in the passage below:

"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 is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. 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."

From the paragraph above we learn that men and woman as husband and wives are both under the same obligation to have children. Again, the commandment to have children is another one of those rare instances where it takes two people (men and women) to obey a single commandment. It is an obligation that both men and women are equally required to obey although women carry the heavier burden than men do in this instance. 

It is worth pointing out that men and women can become mothers and fathers without having to be husband and wife. Thus, the PoF recognizes that " Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers"  will "be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations" of rearing "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." Thus, even if you haven't satisfied the first commandment of getting married, you are still under the commandment as fathers and mothers to raise and provide for their children.

We also learned that children are "entitled" to having parents. This is the first and only time in the PoF where any "right" is mentioned.

Finally, we learn that marriage is essential to God's plan for His Children. Children can only be created within the confines or parameters of marriage so that they can relocate from the preexistence to earth and arrive in a safe and healthy environment for them to begin their life on earth.

So far, we haven't seen any gender roles described or proscribed to men and women. We have only seen that gender is eternal, that both genders must be married before they can be parents. That's what the PoF teaches so far. 

But if you read the PoF carefully, you will find that there the gender roles for both men and woman are very simple and there is only one role for men and women. 

"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."

In the way I read the LDS Church's Proclamation on the Family, there is on only one gender role that men and women each have. For men, "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." For women, "Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children." We also learn that men and women are to help each other in the one roles that each gender has. Men and women are to assist each other in these roles as equal partners.

I don't see any other assigned gender role for men and women in the PoF. That's all there is.

If you notice, there is no gender roles when it comes to house hold chores, dating, employment, church callings. Its not there. Also notice that the gender roles for men and women aren't trigged until they have been (1) married and (2) have children. Gender roles don't happen until both requirements are satisfied. That means that according to the PoF, there are no gender roles for men and women prior to marriage. It also implies that there are no gender roles for married couples either. Only when they have children do the the simple gender roles assigned to men and women kick in.

The Proclamation on the Family (PoF) doesn't mention the gender roles and the Priesthood either. (an omission I find fascinating). You would have to look else where for why women can't or shouldn't (or why they can or should) hold the Priesthood (an argument I am intentionally avoiding here). But if you are looking strictly at the PoF, it does seem to imply that the unmarried women (or women with full-grown children) could hold the priesthood. However, you are free to have that debate in the comments section of this article although I encourage (and prefer) you talk about gender roles in the Church.

That, dear readers, is how came to the idea that the only gender role men and women have according to the Proclamation. These roles are only triggered upon the event of lawful marriage and procreation of children within that marriage. Men and women simly don't have any gender roles until they are married and have children.  Society through various means get boys and girls to do certain things in preparation as husband and wives and mother and fathers. However, they should not be assumed that they are the inherent and permanent gender roles for men and women. Women and men like to do certain things but again, these things should not be conflated with actual gender roles of women. They are merely preferences.

Biology and genetics are the only natural limitations on men and women. However, again, they are not to be conflated with gender roles. They are merely to be understood as natural and normal physical limitations just as being Deaf or blind are natural physical limitations. Sometimes my Deafness will naturally limit me to doing certain things and other times it won't. Or I can get around these physical barriers through technology and/or pure determination.

I understand that for some people, they may find my interpretation of the PoF to be patriarchal. I don't think it is and it was never intended to be that way. It was simply to challenge the current understanding of gender roles and to present a novel and unique way of understanding gender roles as outlined in the PoF.

To me, I find the PoF to be traditional/conservative and progressive at the same time. LDS Doctrines can be viewed as being the most liberal theology in the world and it applies here on the issue of gender roles. 

The gender roles as I read in the PoF are realistic and simple. The only gender roles men and women have occur only in marriage and it only relates to the raising of children in the home. That's it. That means all other gender roles are not eternal, doctrinal or important or essential. Anything outside of that is rather subjective and arbitrary which are based on unsound justifications.

I think that's fairly liberating for both men and women because it escapes the inherent double standards and double binds that men and women place on one other and amongst each other (as in internal and external pressures) while having a more simpler (and less stifling) roles for both men and women.

To me it implies that God is only concerned with the eternal truths and obligations that transcend time, geography, culture, tradition and society and that at the end of the day, we find the truth to be simple in its concept and execution. Only humans can muck up a concept so simple and elegant.

It was humans who added unnecessary layers of complexity onto a simple doctrine through media, entertainment, culture, society, tradition, history and (yes) religion. Also, we have made unwarranted connections, assumptions and leaps in logic about gender roles merely because a person does "A" it necessarily follows that they do "X, Y, or Z." 

But at the same time, humans created these additional roles because of survival or because it was practical or because it saved time and energy.  There was some need for it, for some reason, in the past that was useful for men and women. Many of these roles weren't done to oppress but out of some necessity. However, some roles eventually became a tool for oppression.  Finally, we can’t assume that all past social practice is beneficial in the future. It is good for society and in the Church to reevaluate these things from time to time. 

This brings me to the current discussion on gender roles. The additional gender roles that humans have placed on top of the one, single, assigned role for men and women as outlined in the PoF, can be stifling and choking at times. There are lots of things that men and women have to do because they are culturally or societally or religiously induced rigid expectations. Women aren't the only ones who have issues with gender roles. Men do too.  Both have men and women legitimate complaints about the roles and duties the Church places on us and whether or not they are equal. 

But there is one scriptural passage that I gives me hope for both men and women with regards to gender roles in the future. The prophet Isaiah explained that during the millennial reign of Christ, the roles and behaviors of animals will radically change:

“The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. 

“And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

“And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’ den.

“They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.” (Isa. 11:6–9.)

If the natural behaviors and roles of animals (predator and prey) can be radically changed, there is a strong but subtle implication that the behavior of humans beings will radically change as well. I don't think that the roles that men and women have within the parameters of a lawful marriage and procreation of children within that marriage will change. I think that the behaviors of men and women will change which will affect how the genders interact with one another.

I hope this article was enlightening as well as entertaining and thought provoking. 

I look forward to hearing your insights and ideas on this subject in the comments section.

Elder Tad R. Callister's CES Broadcast Available In ASL Or Closed Captioned Tonight

Elder Tad R. Calister, who is in the Presidency of the Seventy, will be giving the first CES devotional of the year. The CES devotional will be broadcasted tonight from the campus of Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. Within three weeks of the devotional, this broadcast will be archived online at cesdevotionals.lds.org and can be watched in ASL or with Closed Captioning. 

Below is instructions on how Deaf and Hard of Hearing individuals may be able to watch the programing in real time tonight either with Closed Captions or in American Sign Language. See the chart below:

ASL Interpreted LDS Church Broadcasts Now Available For 2014

A calendar for the entire year ASL interpreted LDS Church broadcasts is now available. Check out the scheduled below:

The LDS Church Is A Global Church

The LDS Church has created an infographic to help people understand that it is a world wide religion that is practiced by people around the world. The Mormon Church started with six members in a small log home owned by Peter Whitmer, Sr., in Fayette, Seneca County, New York on April 6, 1830 and now has grown to 15 million members world wide.

See the graph below to learn all about world's 4th largest religion:

Broadcast Schedule To See The First Presidency 2013 Christmas Devotional In American Sign Language Available For Deaf and Hard of Hearing Viewers

Below is the schedule to view the satellite broadcast of the annual First Presidency Christmas Devotional in American Sign Language:

October 183rd Semiannual General Conference Broadcast Scheduale For Deaf Members of The LDS Church

The LDS Church has released the schedules to view General Conference with American Sign Language Interpretation on multiple television and online formats. Look at the schedule below. If you know someone who is Deaf and is a member of the LDS Church, please refer them to this schedule. This is also a great missionary opportunity to invite those who are non-LDS Deaf to learn more about our Church.  

The Broken History

Note: I have asked Audrey Bastian to be a guest blogger today to write about a missionary named Elder Elam Luddington who served in Siam in 1854 becoming the first missionary in Thailand and what his experiences were in serving among those who had disabilities. Audrey Bastian is a professional writer and freelance American Sign Language interpreter in the Washington DC metro area. She received her master’s degree in International Law and World Order from the University of Reading in England and a bachelor’s degree in History with a minor in Arabic from Brigham Young University. She is currently working on a narrative non-fiction account of the first Mormon missionary to Siam in 1852.

How would we render Mormon history differently if we viewed it through the lens of broken bones and disability? 

Elam Luddington became a historic figure when as one of four missionaries assigned he arrived alone in Bangkok on April 6, 1853. Twenty eight years earlier at eighteen years old Luddington’s career trajectory looked promising but as a mariner based out of New York. He mounted the first rung of that ladder as a steward and cook on a sloop running cargo on the Hudson River. Then he apprenticed himself out to construct a large brig. In his autobiography he wrote, “I took quite a liking to the sea and clipper ships, brigs, and schooners with all sails set and colors flying.” A fall, however, may have driven him onto a new path and eventually a journey without purse or scrip through Southeast Asia. Luddington there faces ‘the broken’ in raw and close encounters.

In 1825 Luddington embarked on the “John Adams” carrying a cargo of cotton to the Bay of Havre de Grace, France then Liverpool, England. At Liverpool he recalls:

Here, while discharging cargo between daylight and dark I fell down the hold and  broke my left arm. It was not properly set, and is lame to this day.  

(Elam Luddington Autobiography.  

http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~vkbush/elamlud.html, Accessed on July 10, 2013.)

A fall down the hold may not seem significant at first until we discover that he never stepped foot onto a ship again employed as a mariner. Could the lame arm have anything to do with his sudden career change? Certainly the lives of every seaman depended on his shipmates. Hand over hand pulling and pushing of life at sea required two strong arms. A man with a low functioning arm would have been a liability to a sea captain.

Whatever the case, his career shifted dramatically inland eventually leading him to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints or the Mormons. Do we remember that he crossed the Plains twice, once as a Mormon Battalion soldier, and once as a pioneer company leader with that arm? Do we remember that sitting in the Church’s October conference of 1852 he received a ‘call’ across the pulpit to proselyte in Siam partially lamed? The very physical limitations he incurred precluding his original employment on ships, however, enabled this historic voyage to Siam. 

Shifting our anchor into the Pacific, Southeast Asia has the highest percentage of people with disabilities in the world. Poverty, accidents (like Luddington’s), inaccessibility of medical care, wars causing disabling injuries, malnutrition affecting growth and brain development and the penal system of cutting off limbs for petty crimes were all common during the 1800s.

Elam Luddington, a quiet man with a mild disability of his own, arrived on the shores of Calcutta in 1853. In his missionary journal he traveled Southeast Asia referencing injuries. These ranged from religious rites causing pain or death to scenes of bloody warfare. He specifically records fighters who lost limbs during a struggle and the penal system of Siam torturing and starving prisoners or chopping fingers and hands. 

Luddington arrived in China just before the Second Opium War. The Qing government ratified The Treaty of Nanjing in 1843 significantly reducing its power at the trading ports. Chinese society slowly unhinged and so did its coastal welfare structure. In Canton Luddington zooms in on some people with disabilities and their situation. He writes:

The mame, the holt, the [blind] & most deformed objects of pity these poor invaleads rooling in poverty & dirt, gathering the crumbs or chow chow or sumthing to support nature I hav often seen them sucking the stalks of old shugar cane beging in the streets & sullers, to keep from starving to death. 

(Elam Luddington, Missionary Journal The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Archives MS 6104)

Although he may not have seen himself as disabled, impaired or impoverished like the “deformed objects” he describes, nonetheless he also begged for his own bread and shelter every night as a penniless missionary; journeying with his own lame arm. This vivid and tragic depiction reveals not only the broken in body, the broken in spirit, but more widely, the broken society. 

Chinese likely saw the scene differently. Is this an example of Chinese humanity or dogma? For example, did either Chinese culture or even Cantonese law stipulate that sellers divvy their excess food to people with disabilities? Luddington then might have witnessed an element of Chinese welfare: providing food at the markets. Indeed we may be glimpsing acts of Chinese humanity toward people with disabilities despite however backward it appears to our age of disability rights. Luddington described his own situation thus:

I wos looked upon, as only fit for transportation or an outcast from the hopes of Eternity, or a poor Mormon Elder from Utah. 

(Elam Luddington, Missionary Journal, see above)

In the chaos of pre and post war Canton, Chinese and specifically these people with disabilities found ways to stay alive and so did Luddington. 

We would have to dig further into how other provinces in China regarded and cared for people with disabilities to compare the coastal region and the interior. We could also compare the way the British now ruling Canton treated their people with disabilities. Ironically Dickens had just published Hard Times the previous year attacking the Utilitarian idea of happiness for the majority, effectively creating misery for anyone outside of it; the very poor and disabled. 

Using logic, not everyone in Canton disregarded the needs of people with disabilities. Even in the 1850s there were likely crusaders especially people with disabilities themselves striving for better conditions. A human “rooling in poverty & dirt” will not survive long without a network or scheme of some sort. The will to live encourages some level of resourcefulness and fraternity. 

Likely Luddington’s observations do not represent the true identities of people with disabilities in Canton. Perhaps the “invaleads” he witnessed recently walked as other men on the streets only days or weeks before? Perhaps they succumbed to the injuries or accidents that led any man of the 1850s into that condition. Why did Luddington choose to write about these people in his journal, though? Besides the shock of seeing them “gathering the crumbs” could he also acknowledge that he himself teetered on that same desperate life. Though broken, Luddington and those that he witnessed carried on one more day. And through his words we gain insight into conditions leading to the Second Opium War and the life of an impoverished Mormon missionary from deepening our focus on people with broken arms and disabilities.

Building on the work of Mormon/Asian historian, Lanier Britsch, and former mission president to Thailand and Brigham Young University professor, Michael Goodman, a narrative non-fiction book is in process to bring the tale of Elam Luddington to a wider audience. 

You can follow the research and writing:

Facebook: facebook.com/MissionSiam1852

Twitter: @AudreyBastian

Official website: MormonsLeftandRight.com