em says “Do you view the Family Proclamation as scripture? How do you feel about men presiding/women submitting? Is the main purpose of the Proclamation to discourage homosexuality? Is the Proclamation compatible with the theory of evolution?”
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://mormonopenforum.blogsome.com/2005/07/02/available-discussion-thread/trackback/
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
The Family Proclamation:
Do you view the Family Proclamation as scripture? How do you feel about men presiding/women submitting? Is the main purpose of the Proclamation to discourage homosexuality? Is the Proclamation compatible with the theory of evolution?
Comment by em — July 2, 2005 @ 5:37 pm
It’s not scripture. It’s just a political document to discourage and vilify homosexuality.
Comment by Elmo — July 5, 2005 @ 3:33 pm
Its not “Scripture” in the sense of “the word of God” as its clearly not a quotation of the Lord as much of the canon is. There are varying degrees of Scripture.
It is hostile to the theological ramifications of the Theory of Evolution, which are used by atheists as a foil against theism.
It is hostile to various popular ideas about homosexuality (e.g., people are genetically gay, gender is ambiguous, etc.).
It isnt primarily a political document, its an unambiguous policy statement that has significant political implications. There isnt anything in it that hasnt been stated elsewhere.
Comment by Kurt — July 5, 2005 @ 4:29 pm
I actually agree with Kurt’s comments. (That’s a first for both of us I think.) There are two points at which the proclamation might be in conflict with evolution:
1) the idea that gender really is assigned before birth. The utter contingency involved in not only evolution but human embriology would certianly suggest that our common ideas concerning the preexistence aren’t quite right. By this I mean the idea that we looked pretty much the same (physically speaking) or that we knew who our spouse would be. Of course these issues have more to do with free will, theologically speaking, than evolution.
2. The genetic tendency toward homosexuality as postulated by sociobiology seems to not be in very much harmony with the strong anti-homosexual rhetoric as well as the idea of permanent gender assignment. E. O. Wilson said:
“All that we can surmise of humankind’s genetic history argues for a more liberal sexual morality, in which sexual practices are to be regarded first as bonding devices and only second as means for procreation…
There is, I wish to suggest, a strong possibility that homosexuality is normal in a biological sense, that it is a distinctive beneficent behavior that evolved as an important element of early human social organization. Homosexuals may be the genetic carriers of some of mankind’s rare altruistic impulses. (On Human Nature, 142, 143)”
He then goes on to a rather compelling argument in support of this assertion, an argument which is simply too long to quote here.
Now I guess that these points which come from science really don’t directly contradict the proclamation, the whole issue suffering greatly from an is/ought barrier. Nevertheless, in as much as the proclamation moves from speaking of “oughts” into the way things are, then it will find itself in conflict with evolution.
Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — July 9, 2005 @ 8:59 pm