Proverbs and Ecclesiastes

Proverbs and Ecclesiastes

19 August 2018

Intro

Play the Byrds’ 1965 version of Turn, Turn, Turn for a minute or so as people settle in.

The music of my teens! Pete Seeger wrote the music, and added six words to lyrics/text from the KJV Ecclesiastes. This is what always comes to mind (first and exclusively) when I think “Ecclesiastes.”

Goal for today:

Sometimes "I feel good, I'm going to climb that next mountain!"

Sometimes "I'm going to repent"

Sometimes "That teacher is great"

Sometimes "Something new to think about"

But today I want you to leave here thinking "I want to read, I'm going to read"

Wisdom Books as Scripture

In the Christian canon the wisdom books are Proverbs, Job, and Ecclesiastes (today Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, next week Job)

In the Jewish canon Ecclesiastes is part of the Megillot or "five scrolls" (Ruth, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther), and Proverbs is part of the Writings (Psalms, Job, Proverbs).

Ecclesiastes was somewhat controversial. Inclusion in the Jewish canon was debated as late as the second century CE and still questioned for the Christian canon into the fifth century CE.

Do you think of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes as scripture?

Not story (history, biography).

Not sermons or words of the prophets.

Probably do get quotable lines (for our endless proof-texting).

            Something different. Poetic. Moving. A different “voice”; a different “register.”

In 'Chris Kimball Speculative" mode, in my personal devotional life, I think of the wisdom literature as the words of, the teachings of, the voice of, the feminine aspect of God--Mother in Heaven, if you like. This is not doctrine, purely speculative, don’t quote me. On the other hand, it is not unprecedented or completely blue sky. A careful Mormon student/scholar (Kevin Barney) wrote this:  

"Since Asherah was recharacterized as personified Wisdom, we should read passages referring to wisdom with an eye attuned to possible nuanced allusions to the Goddess. In particular, we should read with care the whole of the Wisdom Literature."

Proverbs

What comes to mind when you think Proverbs? Do you have a favorite?

Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall. (16:18)

Train up a child in the way they should go and when they are old they will not depart from it. (22:6)

Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not rely on your own understanding. (3:5)

A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. (15:1)

This is poetical--imaginative, evocative, translated in many ways including into very modern idiom. I am going to use this fact to take poetic license with the Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes. Fair warning that for today at least we will move back and forth between translations.

For reading and appreciating Proverbs, notice the couplets. You can read Proverbs front to back, but most people enjoy Proverbs one couplet at a time. Some are synonymous (look for "and"), where the second half reinforces or expands on the first. Some are antithetical (look for "but"), where the second half contradicts or opposes the first. To get full value, find the entire couplet and pay attention to the connector, the and or but, and then think about why and what it is saying. All the components are important.

Example:

Walk in the way of the good and keep to the paths of the just. (2:20 synonymous)

For the upright will abide in the land and the innocent will remain in it. (2:21 synonymous)

but

The wicked will be cut off from the land. (2:22 antithetical)

Focus on Proverbs 8 (the “wisdom is better than rubies” text)

[Handout with KJV verses numbered and spelled out.]

Note on verse 30: The KJV mistranslates this verse as “then I was by him, as one brought up with him” (reading as though the speaker was a child). The key term in the Hebrew is ’amon’ meaning a master craftsman, artificer, or architect. Thus, this passage portrays Wisdom as a skilled craftsman working beside Yahweh in creating the world. In the NRSV, this passage reads: “then I was beside him, like a master worker.”

My “poetic license” version (to read out loud while people follow along the KVU)

Woman Wisdom Calls.

Hear, for I will speak noble things, and from my lips will come what is right;

Take my instruction instead of silver, and knowledge rather than choice gold

for wisdom is better than jewels.

The Lord created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of long ago.

Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth

Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth.

When he established the heavens, I was there.

When he marked out the foundations of the earth then I was beside him like a master worker.

And now, my children, listen to me: happy are those who keep my ways. Hear instruction and be wise, and do not neglect it.

For whoever finds me finds life.

For whoever finds me finds life.

Focus on Proverbs 31 (the “virtuous woman” text)

[Handout with KJV verses numbered and spelled out.]

Styled as "the words of King Lemuel" but we don't know any King Lemuel. Speculatively (but I like it) this is King Solomon recording what his mother Bathsheba taught him.

Note on "virtuous" (v 10): The word is chayil (חַיִל). We've seen this before. Ruth is chayil. So are soldiers and capable men. It is more often rendered "valiant" but also "capable" or "strong" or "able." As English has developed, “virtuous” has taken on enough sexual/chastity/virginity sense to be distracting. It’s not wholly wrong, but it might be better to use “valiant” to avoid channeling this Proverb into teenage-girls-only lesson material. That is in fact what happened to me, growing up. I put this Proverb in the “for the girls” category. I’m sorry I did and I am repenting.

My “poetic license” version (to read out loud while people follow along the KVU)

A capable partner is more precious than jewels.

Her spouse trusts her. She does him good all the days of their life.

She works with willing hands. She rises while it is still night and provides food for her household.

She considers a field and buys it. With the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard.

She girds herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

She perceives that her merchandise is profitable.

Her lamp does not go out at night.

She opens her hand to the poor, and reaches out her hands to the needy.

Strength and dignity are her clothing and she laughs at the time to come.

She opens her mouth with wisdom.

The teachings of kindness are on her tongue.

Personal note: I want to be that!

Ecclesiastes

The opening "Preacher" in KJV is a mistranslation. The word is Qohelet which literally means "gatherer" or "acquirer". The Greek version, however, referred to a member of an assembly, and the English from Greek made it Preacher. Since the original meaning is more like "gatherer of knowledge" modern translations are more likely to use "Teacher" or "Philosopher."

This is not just a side note, but tells us something about how to read Ecclesiastes. It is not a collection of sayings, or a collection of (perhaps 12) sermons. It is one philosophical dissertation (or arguably two). Different from Proverbs, you get the full meaning and appreciation by reading Ecclesiastes beginning to end, as a single extended argument.  

Ecclesiastes is a difficult book. Now reading from the introduction of "Nothing New Under the Sun: A Blunt Paraphrase of Ecclesiastes" by Adam Miller [writer of religious criticism and interpretation and also of contemporary Latter-day Saint lay theology; a professor of philosophy at Collin College in McKinney, Texas, where he directs the college's honors program]: 

"You won't like this book. Ecclesiastes is gloomy, skeptical, and irreverent. It is caustic and drolly splenetic. It is unapologetically human. It refuses to abet our hunger for clean narratives and happy endings. It is a hopeless book. 

Example: The race doesn't go to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the cunning, nor fame to the talented. Time and chance toy with everyone. 

Tested wisdom is better than strength, patient silence is better than shouting, and practiced skill is sharper than a sword. But even these can't prevent a lone idiot from destroying the whole city.

“Ecclesiastes is a hard book full of hard sayings. It is an anvil against which our hearts must be hammered. No wonder we avoid it.

But the cost of avoidance is high. In order to become Christian, we must first learn to be hopeless. Hopelessness is the door to Zion. Hopelessness is crucial to a consecrated life. Before we can find hope in Christ, we must give up hope in everything else.

. . .

I expect that you will not like Ecclesiastes. But if, neither liking nor disliking it, you come to love Ecclesiastes, then you will have seen, at least in part, what I want to show."

I want to propose that a good way in to Ecclesiastes is through Romans. In effect, Romans can be read as Paul's reply to Ecclesiastes. Not a reply in a contradicting or argumentative sense, but a reply in a "next step" or "where does Christ take us from here" sense. 

To illustrate, you read the Ecclesiastes verses [below] and I will reply with the verses from Romans.

A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance (Ecc 3:4)

For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. (Romans 14:17)

Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins. (Ecc 7:20)

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23)

Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for God has already approved what you do. Always be clothed in white, and always anoint your head with oil. Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun. Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the realm of the dead, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom. (Ecc 9:7-10)

In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God's people in accordance with the will of God. And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. (Romans 8:26-28)

Rejoice, O young man, in your youth, and let your heart cheer you in the days of your youth. Walk in the ways of your heart and the sight of your eyes. But know that for all these things God will bring you into judgment. Remove vexation from your heart, and put away pain from your body, for youth and the dawn of life are vanity. (Ecc 11:9-10)

In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. (Romans 2:16)

For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil. (Ecc. 12:14)

So then each of us will give an account of himself to God. (Romans 14:12)

In conclusion, here are the words of Paul with the message I would close on. If you think about what you know of Ecclesiastes, you will hear echoes but also the Christian answer.

Some judge one day to be better than another, while others judge all days to be alike. Let all be fully convinced in their own minds.

Those who observe the day, observe it in honor of the Lord.

Those who eat, eat in honor of the Lord, since they give thanks to God;

Those who abstain, abstain in honor of the Lord and give thanks to God. 

We do not live to ourselves, and we do not die to ourselves. If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord; so then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ died and lived again, so that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.

Romans 14:5-7

Sacrament

You have to know that we've been in the ward for 7 1/2 years. I attend Sacrament Meeting when I can (physically) and am in town. That ends up being less than half time. Very occasionally Sunday School, never Priesthood Meeting. Blue shirt, no tie, back bench. I've never had a calling. Never spoken except in a Testimony Meeting. I've got a few friends in the Ward, the Bishop knows me (including checking me out online before we ever met, and I'm fairly public, posting and commenting under my name), and the most pressure I get comes in the form of "come on, you can't really be as radical as you say you are."

I'm also late. Almost always. So today I slip in next to my wife (an always on time kind of person--we travel separately) in the middle of the sacrament. Late enough that the water is right in front of me as I sit down. I am grateful. And I'm not a stickler for being present during the prayer. I prefer being there, but I know the words.

Then the blessing comes. The man I believe to be the current YM president goes back up to the table and brings me the bread.

I think he's going around to a few other late comers. He doesn't make an issue or demonstration. It's quiet and it's done. A small thing? But I'm tearing up. By all rights I'm an outcast. Hardly belong. Invisible. And this young man (young like my sons) goes out of his way to serve me, in way that I care about although he couldn't possibly know. Today I am one of the 'least of us' and I receive with thanks.

Stories from My Life

I missed testimony meeting today. My wonky body at fault, not a reluctance to go. The following testimony--the stories of my life--isn't likely to be told from a pulpit anyway.

The experiences I think to tell come once or twice a decade. They are real in the sense that I never think to question that something happened. They are real in the sense that they changed my life. On the other hand, whether the immediate cause is an angel or indigestion isn't always clear, and the meaning is often obscure or unfolds over many years.

I am 13 years old. Dad and I have gone fishing. I’m stretched out on a big branch hanging over the river. The sun is shining. I am wearing my favorite shirt, a corduroy that mother cut down from one of dad's old shirts. The feeling comes over me, not words but a warm, bright, arms-around-me sort of feeling that communicates "you are loved."

I am a new senior companion, months before my language skills are adequate. Visiting in a home, we show a filmstrip and play a tape about Joseph Smith. I'm running the projector but otherwise a spectator and I hear as if for the first time. I have a warm burning-in-the-bosom feeling that says to me "something really happened."

I am sitting in the temple during an endowment session, Christmas break during my first year back after my mission. I'm worrying over my engagement, about which I have doubts. I really want a yes or no. Instead, I am blessed with a vision. It's of a hike in the mountains, with alternating views of a high narrow ridge and a broad open meadow. The voice-over says "this is what you should be thinking about, now you figure it out."

I am giving a blessing. One of many. The words are not my own. In some fashion I am a channel, an instrument, and someone else is playing.

I am driving home from a Saturday leadership meeting at the Stake Center, thinking ahead to the name-and-blessing ceremony for our new son the next day. As I drive, a strong impression comes over me that says "I know this boy, his name is Peter."

My best friend calls me, saying that his life has come apart, that he is an alcoholic now just acknowledging and trying to do something about it, that he has strayed far from religion and church. He is mostly confessing, but also invites support and advice. I recognize a classic golden moment missionary opportunity but I hesitate. The next day I hike up into the mountains. As the sun rises, I find a flat spot and pray. And then, in the closest to an actual voice of any experience of my life I hear "tell him to return to the church of his childhood, where he will receive the support that he needs." That “church of his childhood” is Catholic. I am surprised.

I stand at the veil, welcoming an old friend through. (The only thing I’ve ever done that exceeded my mother’s expectations.) He turns to me and says “in that moment you are acting out Christ’s role.” I shiver.

A young woman brings her baby daughter to the Church for a name and blessing. She is a recent convert, not married, not familiar with Mormon practice and not instructed in Mormon ways. She carries her daughter to the stand with the unspoken expectation that she will hold while we bless. We take the baby and close ranks, physically pushing the mother away. With that push I feel a physical pain like I've been stabbed. As we finish the prayer I determine not to do that again. It occurs to me that if the mother were included and my sister stood with me, I wouldn't feel that pain any more.

I kneel in prayer in my study, in the midst of mental/spiritual/emotional anguish. Direct help comes later by way of psychotherapy and the passage of time. But I do get two blessings. One is a vision that gives me a peek into how I am seen. The second is a name for G_d. Not a name I've heard anywhere else, before or since. For 20 years now it's the name I use.

After years of Mormon church interviews, on both sides of the table, I am struck with the awareness that I will not do that again. That my legs will not walk me into the room and my knees will not allow me to sit. Consequences follow.

I walk into a Mormon chapel and the whole front of the room is tinged red. This happens over and over, for 5 years or more. It occurs to me that "seeing red" as a metaphor for anger is not just a metaphor.

I am in recovery after cancer-related surgery dramatic enough that my every breath is a second life celebratory event. I have the impression that my only task in life now is to keep going for another 10 minutes, and when I get done, then another 10.

I am holding one of my grandchildren. The feeling comes over me that for purposes of any discussion about grace and works, or my mission in life, or The Plan, or The Way, this infant grandchild is my life's greatest accomplishment. And I did so very little.

Questions re: The Proclamation on the Family

[Repost from 2012 and 1998; last revision 1/3/1998; posted here for reference.]

If the Proclamation on the Family was the subject of study in my law class.

What is a "proclamation"

1.      History of proclamations. There have been four other proclamations (1841, 1845, 1865, 1980). Is this like the others? Different? How? Why?

2.      Is it scripture?

3.      Is it dogma (meaning a point of faith which is required or obligatory)?

4.      Is it revelation?

5.      Is it addressed to the world (like the proclamations of 1845 and 1980), or to church members (like the proclamations of 1841 and 1865)?

6.      Is it descriptive (a declaration of the world as it is), or prescriptive (a declaration of how the world should or must be), or aspirational (a declaration of how the world would be happiest)?

2.      What is the source of authority?

1.      It was prepared by a committee, as are various lesson guide (for example). Is it different? Who was on the committee? Does that matter?

2.      What has been said and by whom and with what authority to ratify or confirm or position the PotF as authority?

3.      Is a sustaining by the general church membership required? Why? Why not?

3.      What are appropriate or valid sources for definitions and explanations?

1.      The committee was probably most or all white American men born in the first half of the 20^th century. Is that correct? Is that an appropriate framing for definitions and meanings?

2.      Are the scriptures useful or appropriate for defining terms?

3.      What has been said (and by what authority) since the PotF was issued to explain or interpret?

4.      Is the PotF to be understood as a sui generis text? Or as a text with precedents within Mormon scripture and history? Or as part of a conversation with the external world? Consider the context in which the PotF was issued:

1.      Political environment: Republican Party platform, position of the religious right, Conference on Women (in China), welfare for single mothers and dependent children, immigration policy.

2.      Church environment: Elder Packer on intellectuals, feminists and homosexuals; SWK, ETB and GBH on the role of women.

3.      Legal environment: pro-life/pro-choice debate; capital punishment; same-sex marriage dispute in Hawaii.

4.      A number of Roman Catholic encyclicals and letters are pertinent, including Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) (3/25/95), about abortion, euthanasia and the death penalty, Letter to Families (2/2/94), Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (On Social Concerns) (12/30/88), concerning poverty in the modern world, and Economic Justice For All issued by the U.S. bishops in 1986.

5.      Text of the PotF

1.      Marriage

1.      What is marriage, that it is "ordained of God"? Is it a commitment, a legal relationship, a ceremony, a public declaration, an ordinance?

2.      Is the temple sealing "ordained of God"? Is it the same as “marriage”? What is the status of those who marry in a civil ceremony?

3.      If marriage is not limited to the temple sealing, what are the elements or parameters of an “ordained by God” marriage? Can it be self-declared? Common law? Only by a Mormon bishop? Only by a minister of some kind? By a Justice of the Peace?

4.      If marriage is a legal relationship, and the law (here or elsewhere) recognizes same-sex or polygamous or time-limited or other relationships, are they then "ordained of God"? What is the distinction? Who decides, or by what basis can we determine?

5.      Is marriage between one man and one woman the only possibility? Is polygamy within the scope of that which is "ordained of God"? Not ever?

2.      Nature of God

1.      Does “God is Father” mean God is male? What does “Father” mean? What does "heavenly parents" mean? Are those terms inherently gendered?

2.      When God is Father, in what sense is a woman created in God's image? Is that consistent with gender being eternal?

3.      Moses 2:27 says that God created man in the image of "mine Only Begotten." What does “in the image” mean if it is the same for men and women, for the Father and the Son?

4.      Is a man's divine nature and destiny to be like his heavenly father?

5.      Is a woman's divine nature and destiny to be like her heavenly father? Or her heavenly mother?

3.      Role of Christ

1.      God is "Eternal Father" and there are "heavenly parents." Where is Christ?

2.      Are "sacred ordinances and covenants" enough by themselves for individuals to return to the presence of God? What is the role of or need for the atonement?

3.      Is salvation and return to God and exaltation a family matter ("as a family or not at all") or an individual matter?

4.      Gender

1.      What does "gender" mean as used in the PotF?

1.      Sex--male and female? What about [1998]hermaphrodites/[2019]intersex persons? What about various chromosomal combinations other than XX and XY? Are those "essential characteristics" or are they aberrations which will be corrected (in the millennium?)

2.      Sexual nature? Is sexual orientation an essential characteristic? Or is it malleable? If malleable, then does that go both directions--i.e., is heterosexual orientation a learned trait which will not or may not be eternal? If essential, is that true for both hetero- and homo-sexual orientation? What significance is there to evidence that at least some part of orientation is genetic? What significance is there to evidence that a substantial part of orientation is apparent very early, i.e., before age 8?

3.      Social and cultural identification? (This is the most common dictionary definition of "gender.") Are there only two genders? Is the social and cultural setting that has an "essential premortal, mortal and eternal purpose" the late 20th century U.S. setting? Or the mid-19th century Utah setting? Or “here and now” for each reader?

4.      Role--some people ("fathers") are to preside and provide and other people ("mothers") are to nurture? If that is the case, how does one decide who are the fathers and who are the mothers? By reverting to some other definition of gender (see 1, 2 and 3 above)? For the many adults who do not live in a household with two adults and minor children--who live alone, or do not have children (or none at home), or are single parents for whatever reason—how would these role assignments make sense or be defining?

2.      What is the sense of "gender" in a premortal period, without a body and without sexual relations, without marriage and family?  

5.      Procreation.

1.      In what sense is “multiply and replenish” the first commandment?  

1.      First in time? What about "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat." (Genesis 2:17, and in Moses).

2.      First in importance? What about Christ's teaching about the most important commandments?

2.      Are people who cannot bear children (infertility by birth, by accident, by age) breaking a commandment when they do not "multiply"? What about a woman who is not married and does not bear children? Is artificial insemination a good way or acceptable way to "multiply"? What about sex without marriage?

3.      Are there some people who should not have children? Those who are not married? In cases where pregnancy or childbirth is physically dangerous? Where physical resources (food, shelter) are limited? Where the mother or the father is emotionally unstable? Where one or both of the parents don't want or don't like children?

4.      Does the "multiply and replenish" commandment have consequences for birth control?

5.      What does it mean to say that "the means by which mortal life is created" is "divinely appointed"? Is this simply an affirmation that sex is of God? Or is it a declaration of opposition to artificial insemination, test-tube conception, etc.? If the latter, what is "the means" which is divinely appointed? For example, what about in vitro fertilization using sperm and egg from husband and wife, married to each other?

6.      What does it mean to "affirm the sanctity of life"? Is this simply a general affirmation that we should not kill? Or is it a pro-life, anti-abortion statement? Can abortion ever be acceptable when life is "sanctified"? Does it suggest that capital punishment is wrong? What about fighting in a war?

6.      Sex: “the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded”

1.      Identify that “are to be” appears as a command. The PotF seems to have nothing to say about sex other than between man and woman, lawfully wedded (i.e., consequences, penalties). Is that right?

2.      What does "sacred powers of procreation" mean? Intercourse? Sexual activity of any kind? Foreplay? Kissing?

3.      Is the emphasis on procreation?

1.      What about sexual activity between a man and a woman of a type that cannot result in pregnancy?

2.      What about birth control? Sex after menopause?

3.      What about sexual activity between a man and man or a woman and woman, sex that by definition cannot be procreative?

4.      Is the emphasis on “lawfully wedded”?

1.      What “lawfully” is meant? Which state in the United States? Which non-U.S. country? What age limits? With or without mixed race restrictions? Under what divorce rules?

2.      What if the law changes? 

7.      Children.

1.      Parents have a duty to rear their children in love and righteousness. What is the appropriate role for uncles and aunts and grandparents and neighbors and friends? Extended families are to "lend support when needed." Is "need" only in the case of disability or death? If not, what are other circumstances? Divorce? Financial difficulty?

2.      In many cases one parent or the other is absent. Does that change the obligation of the remaining parent in any way?

3.      What is the role and obligation of a step-parent? Does it change if the second adult in the household is same sex? What if there are more than two adults involved?

1.      For example, a biological mother/biological father/step-father or step-mother.

2.      For example, a biological mother/mother's female partner/biological father/father's second wife.

4.      Parents are to teach children to (a) love and serve one another, (b) observe God's commandments, (c) be law-abiding citizens. Is this an exhaustive list or an illustrative list? If exclusive, what about [insert any number of teachings that might be important]? If illustrative, what else belongs on the list and does it mean anything that it is not stated explicitly?

5.      Do children have any recourse if they do not get their "entitlement," i.e., birth to married parents and growing up with parents who are completely faithful to each other? Do they have recourse to the Church? To the community? The state? To God?

6.      If a woman gets pregnant without being married, what is best to do for the child? Get married so birth is to married parents? Arrange for an adoption? Does it matter how old the woman is? Who the biological father is? What if the woman is married to a man who is not the biological father, or paired with another woman? Are those cases different, with respect to what the child gets of his or her entitlement and education?

7.      Who is the audience for the sentence "Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony .. ."? Probably not the children (the effect would be to tell the majority that they were cheated) and probably not parents who are living together and faithful (they are already providing birth within marriage and charged with honoring their marital vows). Candidates include:

1.      Men and women contemplating adultery. This says "don't." But they already knew that.

2.      Men and women contemplating divorce. Does this mean that when there are dependent children divorce is never a good or right alternative? If divorce is sometimes the best alternative, what values counterweigh the children's entitlement? What about abuse?

3.      Couples contemplating having a child. If there is any doubt about staying together or complete fidelity, should they avoid having children?

4.      Single adults and unmarried (whether opposite sex or same sex) couples contemplating having a child. This would say "don't." Same for adoptions?

5.      Policy makers. Does welfare policy that penalizes families with two parents make it more or less likely that children will get their entitlement? Does accessible birth control for teenagers make it more or less likely that children will get their entitlement? Does abortion make it more or less likely that children will get their entitlement? Does same sex marriage make it more or less likely that children will get their entitlement?

8.      Role of women.

1.      Is the mother's "primary responsibility" of nurturing by divine design?

2.      Is there a role or a place for a woman who has no children?

3.      What does "equal partners" mean when roles are different for men than for women?

4.      Is heavenly mother a model of nurturing?

9.      Role of men

1.      What does it mean to "preside"? "Presiding" can happen only when there is someone to preside over. Is there a meaning of "preside" which is consistent with being an equal partner?

2.      Do men have a role in nurturing, teaching, playing with, modelling for, their children, or is that all for mothers? Do men have any responsibility with respect to children other than their "own" (and how is "own" defined)?

3.      What is a "divine design"? It can't be "the way God made the world" (like gravity, for example) because it is obvious that many fathers do not preside (whatever it is that preside means, when a father is absent he can't very well be doing it), some do not act in love and righteousness, and many do not provide the necessities of life. Is it a commandment?

4.      Does heavenly father provide the necessities of life?

10.  Families

1.      "Family" is not defined in the PotF. Does "family" = father, mother, children? (This represents a minority of households in the Church and in the world.) What is "family" when the children grow up and leave home? Does "family" = people living together and supporting each other? What is/was "family" in polygamy?

2.      Is "happiness" in family life and a "successful" family the same thing?

3.      What are "the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ"? [This could, of course, be a multi-semester course in itself.] What is added in listing "faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work and wholesome recreational activities"? Why is anything added? Why is there a separate list?

4.      Are Christian families happier than Buddhist families?

5.      Is family so important that people should get married and have children even when they have doubts about their own ability, or their spouse's ability, to make it work? Should some people never marry?

11.  Political activism.

1.      Violating covenants of chastity, abuse, and failing to fulfill family responsibilities seem to be accorded equal seriousness or severity. Should punishment under the law be the same?

2.      Do laws regarding abuse (which require reporting, and take the abuser out of the home, for example) maintain and strengthen the family? [Probably they do, but this is not a simple question.]

3.      Which direction on abortion maintains and strengthens the family? Why?

4.      What kind of welfare system best maintains and strengthens the family?

5.      What are "measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family"? (emphasis added). Is there some way to tell what has been so designed? Is it a call to promote measures with a "pro-family" label? Or is it to promote measures which it seems will actually help?

6.      Is the objective to promote the happiness and success of families, or is it to promote the family as a fundamental unit? (See the example below.)

Example: Suppose we use "father/mother/dependent children" as an operating definition of "family," and the issue we are asked to support or reject is a proposal for legal recognition of same-sex marriage.

Analysis: We know that recognition will make "family" (as defined) less unique, less fundamental. If same-sex marriage is recognized then society will have to operate with a broader definition of "household" or "dependent group." At the same time, suppose we are genuinely convinced that families will on the whole be happier as a consequence of recognizing same-sex marriage, because their gay children will have a good option for their life, and because there will be a significant drop in the number of opposite-sex marriages where one partner is homosexual and either or both spouses are ultimately unhappy.

Question: Does the PotF say to vote for uniqueness, or for happiness?

Or does the PotF itself teach that the second part of the analysis wrong? Does the PotF in some way teach that recognition of same-sex marriage could not possibly make families happier? (Where is that message in the text?)

Or is the PotF an assertion that every measure which maintains the family as fundamental also (by definition?) promotes the happiness and success of families?

Copyright 1997 Christian E. Kimball

Revision date: 1/3/98

E-mail to: ckimball@pobox.com