Reading the Marriage and Family Relations manual, Chapter 1
…in which our hero undertakes a new quest, and great cataclysms arrive upon the land.
“Honey, you know what would be great? Reading the Marriage and Family Relations manual together. It could be fun!”
I am not sure, upon reflection, which of us had the idea to read a chapter of the manual together from time to time. Local leaders had testified to us of the manual’s abilities to bring families closer together. Desperate to save my empty shell of my marriage of convenience, I was ready to try anything — anything — to make it all work. So last night, we sat in bed next to the Wonder Twins and began to read the first chapter of the manual, “The Family Is Central to the Creator’s Plan.” It’s basically a General Conference address by Elder Boyd K. Packer, coupled with two “ideas for application”:
-
- Review “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.†Determine ways you will better follow this prophetic counsel.
- Obtain a poster of “The Family: A Proclamation to the World†from a Church distribution center. Display it prominently in your home.
I don’t know that we’ll put the poster up anytime soon. But we shall indeed determine ways to better follow this prophetic counsel.
On to the talk, “For Time and All Eternity,” which was given in October 1993 General Conference. It, in turn, quotes extensively from a 1942 General Conference address by the First Presidency and delivered by President David O. McKay. Permit me to quote excerpts of President Packer’s talk, and you tell me how you think things went. I present them without comment or emphasis not in the original.
A body patterned after the image of God was created for Adam, and he was introduced into the Garden. At first, Adam was alone. He held the priesthood, but, alone, he could not fulfill the purposes of his creation. No other man would do. Neither alone nor with other men could Adam progress. Nor could Eve with another woman. It was so then. It is so today. Eve, an helpmeet, was created. Marriage was instituted, for Adam was commanded to cleave unto his wife (not just to a woman) and “to none else…”
After the Fall, natural law had far-reaching sovereignty over mortal birth. There are what President J. Reuben Clark Jr. called “pranks†of nature [note: this refers to an October 1946 Relief Society Conference, the same year as the "death knell" on women's administering of ordinances], which cause a variety of abnormalities, deficiencies, and deformities. However unfair they seem to man’s way of reasoning, they somehow suit the purposes of the Lord in the proving of mankind. The following of every worthy instinct, the responding to every righteous urge, the consummating of every exalting human relationship are provided for and approved in the doctrines of the gospel of Jesus Christ and are protected by commandments revealed to His Church…
Except Adam and Eve by nature be different from one another, they could not multiply and fill the earth. The complementing differences are the very key to the plan of happiness. Some roles are best suited to the masculine nature and others to the feminine nature. Both the scriptures and the patterns of nature place man as the protector, the provider…
While the different roles of man and woman are set forth in exalted celestial declarations, they are best demonstrated in the most practical, ordinary, down-to-earth experiences of family life. Recently I heard a speaker in sacrament meeting complain that he could not understand why his grandchildren always spoke of going to Grandma’s house, never to Grandpa’s house. I solved that great mystery for him: Grandpas don’t bake pies!…
During World War II, men were called away to fight. In the emergency, wives and mothers worldwide were drawn into the workforce as never before. The most devastating effect of the war was on the family. It lingers to this generation…
The First Presidency counseled [quoting from the 1942 address] that “the mother who entrusts her child to the care of others, that she may do non-motherly work, whether for gold, for fame, or for civic service, should remember that ‘a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.’ (Prov. 29:15) In our day the Lord has said that unless parents teach their children the doctrines of the Church ‘the sin be upon the heads of the parents.’ (D&C 68:25)…
I close with a parable.
Once a man received as his inheritance two keys. The first key, he was told, would open a vault which he must protect at all cost. The second key was to a safe within the vault which contained a priceless treasure. He was to open this safe and freely use the precious things which were stored therein. He was warned that many would seek to rob him of his inheritance. He was promised that if he used the treasure worthily, it would be replenished and never be diminished, not in all eternity. He would be tested. If he used it to benefit others, his own blessings and joy would increase.
The man went alone to the vault. His first key opened the door. He tried to unlock the treasure with the other key, but he could not, for there were two locks on the safe. His key alone would not open it. No matter how he tried, he could not open it. He was puzzled. He had been given the keys. He knew the treasure was rightfully his. He had obeyed instructions, but he could not open the safe.
In due time there came a woman into the vault. She too held a key. It was noticeably different from the key he held. Her key fit the other lock. It humbled him to learn that he could not obtain his rightful inheritance without her.
They made a covenant that together they would open the treasure and, as instructed, he would watch over the vault and protect it; she would watch over the treasure. She was not concerned that, as guardian of the vault, he held two keys, for his full purpose was to see that she was safe as she watched over that which was most precious to them both. Together they opened the safe and partook of their inheritance. They rejoiced, for, as promised, it replenished itself.
With great joy they found that they could pass the treasure on to their children; each could receive a full measure, undiminished to the last generation.
Perhaps some few of their posterity would not find a companion who possessed the complementary key, or one worthy and willing to keep the covenants relating to the treasure. Nevertheless, if they kept the commandments, they would not be denied even the smallest blessing.
Because some tempted them to misuse their treasure, they were careful to teach their children about keys and covenants.
There came, in due time, among their posterity some few who were deceived or jealous or selfish because one was given two keys and another only one. “Why,†the selfish ones reasoned, “cannot the treasure be mine alone to use as I desire?â€
Some tried to reshape the key they had been given to resemble the other key. Perhaps, they thought, it would then fit both locks. And so it was that the safe was closed to them. Their reshaped keys were useless, and their inheritance was lost.
Those who received the treasure with gratitude and obeyed the laws concerning it knew joy without bounds through time and all eternity.
Stay tuned for Chapter 2!
After reading the passage together, Steve and his DW stared blissfully into each other’s eyes.
“I’ve never felt so close to you, Stephen,” she murmured.
“Me neither, sugarplum,” he sighed. [edited] “I don’t think we should postpone this reading, honey-pea. Chapter two sounds like really interesting blog material.”
Comment by Kaimi — September 25, 2006 @ 1:12 pm
[spit-take.]
Comment by Jeremy — September 25, 2006 @ 1:14 pm
AAAAAAIIIGHHH!!!!
MUST…POUR…BLEACH…IN…BRAIN! MUST…REMOVE…IMAGES!
Comment by HP/JDC — September 25, 2006 @ 1:14 pm
I’m not very good a reading comprehension. Was it a key to the factory?
Comment by Mark IV — September 25, 2006 @ 1:14 pm
So who is the Gatekeeper? There is no Dana, only Zool?
Comment by ECS — September 25, 2006 @ 1:23 pm
[...] Steve Evans tells us what he and his wife do in bed (answer: read old conference talks about chastity). [...]
Pingback by Carnal Knowledge in the ‘Nacle « The Ironic Priesthood — September 25, 2006 @ 1:45 pm
Kaimi you filthy mind, cut it out.
Comment by Steve Evans — September 25, 2006 @ 1:54 pm
ECS: I believe that Gozer the Traveller will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldrini he came as a large and moving Torg!
Comment by Steve Evans — September 25, 2006 @ 2:09 pm
Whatever you do, never cross the streams!
Comment by a random John — September 25, 2006 @ 2:12 pm
Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the Meketrex supplicants they chose a new form for him - that of a giant Slorr! Many Shubs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slorr that day, I can tell you!
Comment by Capt. Obsidian — September 25, 2006 @ 2:15 pm
So you better watch out, and be good for goodness sake.
Comment by John Mansfield — September 25, 2006 @ 2:18 pm
All I can say is that I am pleased with the direction the comments have taken.
Comment by HP/JDC — September 25, 2006 @ 2:19 pm
Steve, you missed the instruction that the last part of the lesson is supposed to be sung, not just read, to the following tune:
ARTIST: Melanie Safka
TITLE: I’ve Got a Brand New Pair of Roller Skates (You’ve Got a Brand New Key)
Lyrics and Chords
I rode my bicycle past your window last night
I roller skated to your door at daylight
It almost seems like you’re avoiding me
I’m OK alone but you’ve got something I need, well
/ C - - - / G7 - - - / C - - - / F - G7 - /
{Refrain}
I’ve got a brand new pair of roller skates
You’ve got a brand new key
I think that we should get together and
Try them on to see
I been lookin’ around awhile
You got something for me
Oh, I got a brand new pair of roller skates
You got a brand new key
/ C - / / / / F - / F FG7 / C - / /
I ride my bike, I roller skate, don’t drive no car
Don’t go too fast, but I go pretty far
For somebody who don’t drive, I been all around the world
Some people say I done all right for a girl
I asked your mother if you were at home
She said yes, but you weren’t alone
Oh, sometimes I think that you’re avoiding me
I’m OK alone but you got something I need, well
{Refrain}
Comment by Kevin Barney — September 25, 2006 @ 2:41 pm
Regarding the actual post, I don’t know what to make of this talk. Some of the things from the 1942 talk are things that you simply couldn’t (or shouldn’t) say today, but I don’t know that they were far outside the norm of conversation in their original context.
As for the parable, I really just don’t know what to make of it. Obviously, it has something to do with gender and sex, but what exactly escapes me. This is a case where I need a little more inspired interpretation in order to grasp what I was supposed to grasp.
Comment by HP/JDC — September 25, 2006 @ 2:43 pm
A footnote re: “Adam was commanded to cleave unto his wife (not just to a woman)”
While this may be the case, it cannot simply be assumed from the KJV language, it must be demonstrated. The Hebrew word used at this point, ‘ishshah, can be rendered either woman or wife. How to take it in any given passage must be determined from the context. (I haven’t taken the time to look at this closely and see which rendering I think the context favors.)
Comment by Kevin Barney — September 25, 2006 @ 2:46 pm
Kevin,
It’s difficult, because being a wife is considered a normal state for a good woman. Therefore, it is hard to judge which was the primary definition and which was the secondary. That said, the context makes it clear that relations between Adam and Eve (when read together with Gen 1) were authorized by Heavenly Father. The status of the treats at their cultural hall wedding reception, however, remains lost forever.
Comment by HP/JDC — September 25, 2006 @ 2:57 pm
being a wife is considered a normal state for a good woman
Yo HP! The white phone is for you. Please pick up the white phone…
Comment by Mogget — September 25, 2006 @ 4:35 pm
Mogget, I think HP already picked it up — oh wait, that’s the white male phone… heh.
Comment by Steve Evans — September 25, 2006 @ 4:46 pm
No really. The ancient Hebrews figured good women got married.
Comment by HP/JDC — September 25, 2006 @ 5:33 pm
I can’t wait until we get to “The Miracle of Forgiveness”.
Comment by Tatiana — September 25, 2006 @ 7:53 pm
Thank you Kevin Barney for putting Melanie’s song back into my mind! I wish my computer had a component which would play the song–which, incidentally, I was warned was rather pornographic back in the day. (Leaders were cautioned to never play it or “Angel of the Morning” at Church dances.) So thanks to the parable, we do understand more about roller skates. But in 2006, how do we deal with skateboards? Obviously phallic symbols, they don’t even require a key. Is the skateboard in fact a symbol of the instant gratification-based sexual revolution? And what of those signs that say, “Skateboarding is not a crime!”? Dang kids. We need a parable about skateboards.
Comment by Margaret Young — September 25, 2006 @ 8:59 pm
Margaret, don’t go changing my roller skates into a skateboard, or else you will never unlock my treasure.
Comment by Steve Evans — September 25, 2006 @ 9:13 pm
I’m always a little dismayed at the misuse of the phrase “help meet.” It is too often used in the Church as a single word in the form of a noun, with implications of inferiority — like Eve was some kind of assistant.
The KJV of Genesis 2:18 actually reads “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.” The phrasing is archaic; the translators were after the idea of “a helper suitable for him.”
In Hebrew the passage literally reads “a helper according to the opposite of him.” The term does not suggest a subordinate role; rather, it seems to express the idea of an “indispensable companion” — the woman would supply what the man was lacking and logically it would follow that the man would supply what she was lacking.
Comment by Mike Parker — September 26, 2006 @ 10:36 am
So, changing the shape of the key to look like the other one would be … gender reassignment?
Comment by FHL — September 26, 2006 @ 11:03 am
FHL, I am not sure that President Packer had something so graphic in mind. My suspicion is that he was simply referring to the way we view gender roles in general, i.e., if a woman tries to be the priesthood leader/protector/provider.
Comment by Steve Evans — September 26, 2006 @ 11:10 am
What I learned from this excerpt: at some point before I become a grandfather, I’m going to have to stop baking pies.
[insert some random Ghostbusters quote here for reasons that are not entirely clear to me]
Comment by BTD Greg — September 26, 2006 @ 12:25 pm
Neither my wife or I make pies. She makes a killer oatmeal chocolate chip cookie, though. Does that count for anything?
Comment by CS Eric — September 26, 2006 @ 1:55 pm
For that matter, “an help meet” might be best read as “a power equal to”. For more on that, read here and then thank Ben.
Comment by HP/JDC — September 26, 2006 @ 2:23 pm