← Church History Matters
Church History Matters
183 - The Family A Proclamation to the World CFM - A Deep Dive On The Family Proclamation - E51 December 15-21
02:22:16
Loading summary
Transcript161 lines
- [00:00]
A
We are free to choose our own course in life, but we are not free to choose the outcome that comes from following our own rules.
- [00:07]
B
We also have to have the humility to say we just don't know everything about this that we want to know.
- [00:11]
A
They were very aware when they proclaimed this that they were proclaiming it into a world that was not settled on these issues.
- [00:19]
B
There's the ideal, there's the real. We're trying to reach the ideal, but sometimes we have to exist in the real. Make time for your family. Don't just work. Hello, Scott.
- [00:29]
A
Hello, Casey.
- [00:31]
B
We're back and we are past the Doctrine and Covenants now actually doing some bonus material. Is that the way to describe it is.
- [00:40]
A
Yeah. Today is what this is the second to last content for the Come Follow Me for this year. We got Today with the family proclamation and then next week is Christmas and then we say goodbye to the Doctrine and Covenants for another four. Casey, it's kind of sad.
- [00:53]
B
We've been on this road before. I guess this is the second round of the Come Follow Me process we've done in church, but we should point out a couple things. In 2026, we're going to continue to make church history matters, but we are going to be doing a few things differently than we've done it this year.
- [01:08]
A
Is it time for the big announcement?
- [01:10]
B
Yeah. Why don't we put it out there?
- [01:11]
A
Yeah. So we, when we first started Church History Matters, we, we, we began talking about challenging church history topics and we just were diving directly into those through a series of multiple episodes. Right. We, we've, we've hit some really big questions, some juicy challenging church history. And, and then we were invited by Scripture Central to do this series, to do Come Follow Me for the year 2025, the Doctrine and Covenants. And so now, Casey, what are we going to do for 2026?
- [01:41]
B
We're returning to form, returning to our original format, which is we're going to be taking on challenging issues in church history again. We're going to be doing series based on that. So partially the reason for this, dear listeners, is so many of you have been reaching out to us and saying, when are we going to do a series on women in priesthood or going to do a series on the Word of Wisdom or can we do a series on the history of the Salt Lake Temple? And we love doing that. We've loved doing Come Follow Me too.
- [02:13]
A
Yeah, this has been a blast.
- [02:14]
B
It's been super great. And we've also had people contacting us saying, are you going to do the Old Testament next year? And man, it has been a gut wrenching decision made over a series of weeks to decide what we were going to do. But we ultimately, carefully and prayerfully came to the decision that it'd probably be better that we were more impactful when we were tackling these tough issues in church history. And it is called Church History Matters. Though I guess the Old Testament is also church history.
- [02:42]
A
Ancient church History Matters too. That's true.
- [02:45]
B
We even toyed with changing the name to that. Like, let's do the Old Testament and let's call it Ancient Church History Matters or Middle Eastern Church History Matters or something like that.
- [02:55]
A
And this maybe is a good time to plug our good friend John Hilton. So he's been tapped by Scripture Central to walk you through the Old Testament. So we recommend you check out John's show in 2026. John Hilton. I think it'll just be right here on the Scripture Central YouTube channel. And wherever you get your audio podcasts, you and I case here. We're going to be going back to the church History Matters YouTube page, which is. Which is also owned by Scripture Central, but it's just a different page. That's where we're going to continue in 2026 to publish our content. So we would invite you now to even pause this and go go subs our church History Matters YouTube page specifically in order to not miss any of the episodes going forward in 2026. We'll catch you over there at the beginning of the new year.
- [03:41]
B
If you're listening on a podcast app, it should be all in the same place.
- [03:45]
A
It's always been nothing different there. Just on YouTube, right?
- [03:47]
B
Yeah, but on YouTube, we'll be moving over to our own channel where we'll be posting content and all kinds of stuff as the year goes on. And some of it is going to be Old Testament related. But like I said, we just felt like, you know, our special. Our special challenge is to make these difficult issues in church history something that you can navigate, that you can help your loved ones and friends with. And it's been difficult. I remember Scott seeing, hearing you literally go. So we're letting go of Come Follow Me. And you've literally gestured like I was crestfallen. You were, you were emotional. Yeah. But I think it's the right decision.
- [04:24]
A
So I think so. I think we have loved doing Come Follow Me to be clear. And the Old Testament is so awesome. And we hope you have a blast in that. And maybe, maybe one day Casey will walk through the whole Old Testament together. But it is not this day. We want to go back to the original vision and plan that was the impetus for this podcast to go back to challenging issues. And that is what we plan to do. So please join us over on church History Matters YouTube channel. And if your audio listener just keep listening, they'll just keep coming out every week. So we look forward to 2026 with you.
- [05:01]
B
Yes. Okay, so our topic today is really unique. It's the A Proclamation to the World, the 1995 document that we're debating before we turned on things. But semi canonical is the word that sometimes gets thrown around. We're actually going to discuss that. What's its status within the canon? Is it canonical? Is it not canonical? Where does it rest? What are the leaders of church said about it? And I think we're going to have a little controversy here today too, right. Where there's a few controversies associated with the Family Proclamation.
- [05:36]
A
It's fair to say there are several associated. Yeah, we'll talk about a couple. But yeah, there's maybe no end to controversies with this document, more than you would think, actually, which is so interesting. But and by the way, this, this year is also the 30th anniversary of the Family Proclamation. So that's kind of fun to celebrate that this year.
- [05:55]
B
Yeah, September 2025 was the 30th anniversary of the Family Proclamation and all kinds of great online discussion about it. Let me give an introductory statement and then we'll get to the context. A month after the proclamation was given back in 1995, they held a CES fireside to discuss it. And a brand new member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles named Henry B. Eyring. It's just kind of like, hey rookie, get in there and do your thing. Was asked to go through the proclamation line by line. So 45min talk well worth your time to read. President Eyring now he was Elder Eyring back then noted that the entire history of the church up to 1995, the church had only issued four proclamations. And we should note one more was issued in 2020. That's the restoration proclamation. That was on the 200th anniversary of Joseph Smith's first vision. But then Elder Eyring introduced the proclamation by saying this. He just started with the title. He said three things about the title are worth our careful reflection. First, the subject, the family. Second, the audience, which is the whole world. And third, those who proclaimed it are those we sustain as prophets, ears and revelators. That means the Family must be as important to us as anything we can consider and that what the proclamation says could help anyone in the world. And so this is a proclamation to the world and we've got to kind of look at it through that lens as well, which we'll try to do.
- [07:18]
A
I believe what President Eyring said, because I've seen this proclamation do. Its great work like this really can't help anyone in the world. And so, yeah, what an honor to be able to discuss that with you today. Casey. Let's, let's do this.
- [07:31]
B
Yeah, so like any other passage we've done this year, we're going to do the four Cs. We're going to talk about the context, the content, the controversies and the consequences just with the Family Proclamation. So we won't have verses to refer back to, but we might be going hey, in paragraph three and things like that. And we'll kind of treat the paragraphs in a versification kind of way. So let's start with the context of the Family Proclamation.
- [07:53]
A
Foreign.
- [07:59]
Elder Ronald A. Rasband just Last General Conference October 2025, actually did some of this work for us. He gave us a brief sketch of the origins of the Family Proclamation. He said it this way, quote, let me give you some background about the proclamation. He said, In 1994, a year before the proclamation was presented, the quorum of the twelve Apostles discussed how society and governments were pulling away from God's laws for family, marriage and gender. But that was not the end of what we saw. President Russell M. Nelson later explained. We could see the efforts of various communities to do away with all standards and limitations on sexual activity. We saw the confusion of genders. We could see it all coming. He said, maybe let's pause all the rasband right there and actually talk about some of what we, what we know is happening in the 1990s. A couple specifics to what we know in the broader culture.
- [08:52]
B
This is all stuff you can look up fairly easily on the Internet. But let me just mention a few things. During the 1980s and 90s, family life, Western family life, I guess we should say, was changing pretty fast, just to name a few factors. Divorce rates had climbed sharply and had peaked around 1980, but remained relatively high throughout the 80s and the 90s. Cohabitation without marriage increased through the 1980s and was increasing in the 1990s. Second wave feminism was reshaping expectation for gender roles and public debates on a number of issues linked to family life were intensifying. Things like abortion, like no fault divorce, sexual ethics, women's equality in church and society. And church leaders had seen this changing landscape as something that they needed to reckon with. The phrase traditional family values was brought up a lot in the 90s. So you could not only see this in the discourse of the church, but in the political discourse from the time where this was a lot of what political talks were about back and forth and frankly still are today. So in President Hinckley's introductory remarks, because he gives a little introduction before he reads the proclamation in September 1995 in the Women's session of General Conference, we should mention, he called these developments sophistry deception. And he said he was worried about the church taking on, in his words, the slow stain of the world. So the church has always been a little removed from society, but followed societal trends maybe in a more gradual sort of way. And it seems like President Hinckley was worried about that as well. So society's changing. That's one part of the context.
- [10:36]
A
And then if we just dig a little deeper into some of the more immediate contexts right there in the 90s, we see some political and legal things happening. Two major issues in the early to mid-1990s especially seemed to shape the timing and the tone of the family proclamation. The first was international family debates happening at the un and then second was, was some same sex marriage litigation, especially in Hawaii. And so we want to talk about both of those. Let me, let me mention the UN conference first here. So in the mid-1990s, the UN held major gatherings that many conservative religious groups saw as hostile to to traditional family structures, like elder Boyd K. Packer. He later said that the 1994 UN Conference on the family in Cairo, where marriage was not even mentioned, he said, helped to catalyze the idea of a church proclamation defining the family. Here's his actual words. He said, quote, there had been United nations meetings on the family around the world. I remember the one in Cairo. I read the proceedings of it and it was on the family. And in all the proceedings, I couldn't find the word marriage, as though those two didn't go together. And so we could see what was happening. He said they then learned that a major international meeting focusing on the family, titled the Celebration of the Family was going to be held in Salt Lake city that coming March 1995. And this meeting was meant to be like a pro family response to that UN Conference in Cairo where post family agendas were, were being promoted. So President Packer said, we thought that if they're coming here for that Salt Lake City meeting, We'd better state our case. And so we made a proclamation on the family, close quote. So that, so that's the first context is that UN meeting in Cairo really caused some concern among church leaders when it comes to like what is happening with the defining of the family and the degradation of marriage.
- [12:34]
B
Right. So that's the first thing and probably the second major thing was this, this legal case, this legal challenge in the US at the state level that was seeking to legalize same sex marriage. So this, this court case was Bear v. Lewin Mike. It was in, in Hawaii where there's a fairly large church population and has been for a really long time. So here's a quick just timeline that you can run down. So In December of 1993, same sex couples applied for marriage licenses at the Hawaii State Health and were refused. They filed suit in a case now known as Bear v. Mike. Originally Bear V. Lewin. In September 1991, Circuit Court Judge Kevin Klein dismissed the case and the couples appealed to the Hawaii Supreme Court. In October 1992, the bear case was heard before the Hawaii Supreme Court. On 5 May 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court rules that the state's refusal to issue marriage licenses constitutes sex discrimination under Hawaii law. As such, the discrimination may only be practiced if the state can demonstrate this is in the wording of the ruling, a compelling public interest in denying marriage to same sex couples. So the Supreme Court returns the case to the Circuit Court to issue a new decision based on whether such a compelling interest exists. And following this, the Hawaii legislature becomes embroiled in competing measures, including a constitutional amendment to bond ban same sex unions, which, which doesn't go anywhere that year. But this is the first major same sex marriage lawsuit in the United States and raised the possibility that Hawaii might legalize same sex marriage, which could lead to other states and churches having to confront issues linked to religious freedom. So this is all still stuff we're familiar with because we lived through this in the decades that followed. The case was widely understood during this time to be a serious threat to the traditional legal definition marriage. And it helped spur the U.S. defense of Marriage act, or DOMA, which is passed in 1996. So that's the other major factor that seems to be going on surrounding the creation of the proclamation.
- [14:48]
A
Yeah, and just during that time, it's interesting to watch what movements are happening within the church kind of in tandem in parallel with that development in Hawaii. Like for instance, in February 1994, the First Presidency issues a letter to church authorities which included language it's really interesting that sort of foreshadows some of what would be found in the family proclamation that will be issued a year and a half later. Listen to this letter. It says, and there's, there's a sense of warning and concern in the tone. It says, quote, the principles of the gospel and the sacred responsibilities given to us require that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints oppose any efforts to give legal authorization to marriages between persons of the same gender. Marriage between a man and woman is ordained of God to fulfill the eternal destiny of his children. Doesn't that have some interesting echoes to the proclamation? Then they go on. The union of a husband and wife assures perpetuation of the race and provides a divinely ordained setting for the nurturing and teaching of children. This sacred family setting, with father and mother and children firmly committed to each other and to righteous living, offers the best hope for avoiding many of the ills that afflict society. We encourage members to appeal to legislators, judges and other government officials to preserve the purposes and sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman and to reject all efforts to give legal authorization or other official approval or support to marriages between persons of the same gender. Sincerely yours, signed Ezra Taft Benson, Gordon B. Hinckley and Thomas S. Monson. So clearly weighing in to this debate that's starting to really rise out of Hawaii and saying this is where we stand right? And most careful historians now will say that those are essentially the two issues that prompted the timing and the tone of the family proclamation. Number one, the legal and political pressures around same sex marriage sparked initially by this Hawaii legal case. And two, the problematic international post family policy rhetoric which was sparked initially by that 1994 United nations meeting in Cairo. Those two together were kind of the twin impetuses that prompt church leaders to articulate our doctrine on the family in a formal citable document that could serve in both religious and legal arenas, which we're going to find out. In fact, interesting to note that nearly a decade before the Hawaiian litigation peaks, there was this newly called apostle named Dallin H. Oaks who had actually written an internal memo arguing that proposed legalization of quote, so called homosexual marriages justified a formal church position and significant efforts in opposition. Close quote. So Dallin H. Oaks recently called a very legal mind and now apostolic calling come together. He is, he's seeing some writing on the wall. He's seeing there's going to be a clash coming. And this justifies a formal church position in opposition to that. And so the family proclamat will serve just that function. Right. For example, later in 1997, two years after the Family Proclamation comes out, the church actually appends the entire text of the Family Proclamation in an amicus brief to the Hawaii Supreme Court, using it to articulate the church's religious doctrine about marriage and family in a legal setting. And it's been used multiple times since then, but so now it's a document that is very informative to church members and to others generally, but it's also a document that can be used in legal cases. So all of that seems to be swirling and it's all part of what brings about this proclamation.
- [18:36]
B
There's a biography of President Oaks that was written by Richard Turley, very good historian, he notes. During the fall of 1994, at the urging of its acting president, Boyd K. Packer, the quorum of the 12 discussed the need for a scripture based proclamation to set forth the church's doctrinal position on the family. And in that meeting, this is according to Sherry Dew's biography of Russell M. Nilsen. She writes, they considered everything from the increasingly ubiquitous nature of pornography to potential anti family legislation of various kinds. The 12 reviewed both doctrines and policies, considering those things that could not be changed and those things that possibly could be policies. They discussed issues they saw coming, including an intensified societal push for gay marriage and transgender rights. But that was not the end of what we saw, Elder Nilsen explained. We could see the efforts of various communities to do away with all standards of limitation on sexual activity. We saw the confusion of genders. We could see it all coming. This extended discussion, along with others over a period of time, led to the conclusion that the 12 should prepare a document, perhaps even a proclamation, outlining the Church's stand on the Family to present to the First Presidency for consideration. So a committee that consisted of Elders Faust, this is James E. Foust, Russell M. Nilsen, and Dallin H. Oaks was assigned to prepare a draft, and their work, for which President Nielsen was the principal draftsman, was completed over the Christmas holidays. After being approved by the quorum of the 12, the draft was submitted to the First Presidency on January 9, 1995, and warmly received. This is all from Rick Turley's biography of Dellany Chokes. Now, after Howard W. Hunter passed away, President Howard W. Hunter In March 1995, the First Presidency was reorganized with Gordon B. Hinckley and Thomas S. Monson and James E. Faust as the members of the First Presidency. And that First Presidency then made further revisions to the document. So at this point, the First Presidency is revised and a draft has been written. And now all the apostles kind of involve themselves. So this is described by Dallin H. Oaks, who was one of the apostles present in 2017. President Oaks gave an address where he made this statement. He said subjects were identified and discussed by members of the quorum of the 12 for nearly a year. Language was proposed, reviewed, and revised. Prayerfully, we continually pleaded with the Lord for his inspiration on what we should say and how we should say it. During this revelatory process, a proposed text was presented to the First Presidency. After the Presidency made further changes, the proclamation on the Family was announced by the president of the church, Gordon B. Hinckley, later that year in the women's meeting of September 23, 1995.
- [21:29]
A
Okay, so it's going to be announced in the women's meeting of September 23, 1995, like you said. And just last conference, Elder Rasband actually gave a little more context behind the decision to announce this in the women's meeting. He said, In March 1995, President Hunter passed away, and President Hinckley became the 15th president of the church. The proclamation was now in his hands. When would be the right time to make this declaration to the church? That time came six months later. Days before the September 23rd General Relief Society meeting that preceded General Conference. President Hinckley and his counselors met in council with the Relief Society General Presidency. The sisters, like the apostles, had been weighing concerns about women and families. President Hinckley was scheduled to address the women at the gathering. He had been pondering the direction of his remarks as the discussion progressed. He referred by name to the newly created, but not yet public, the Family of Proclamation to the World. And actually, we have the perspective of the Relief Society presidency. They actually talked about this. The presidency at that time consisted of Elaine Jack. She was the president, with Chico Okazaki and Eileen Clyde as counselors. And according to Eileen Clyde, second counselor, she said that President Hinckley said, quote, the real reason I've talked with you for a long time is that I'm trying to decide. We have written a proclamation on the family, and it's my responsibility to decide when to present it. And you've already invited me to speak at your meeting on Saturday. I don't want to overwhelm your meeting. We want to hear from you sisters, and we want the sisters to hear from you. So you've already asked me to speak and have prepared remarks, and they'll take about 11 minutes. But this is a very important thing. If I were to announce this proclamation to the family. I'm afraid it would overwhelm the meeting. He said, as you can see him kind of hemming and hawing here. And then. And then President Elaine Jack, in her journal, she said that President Hinckley said, quote, I don't know if there would be time to give this. And then she said, we hastily assured him that there was plenty of time and that we would each give up time for President Hinckley to do this. We told him how pleased we would be to have him read such a proclamation. And then Eileen Clyde added. We said, quote, president Hinckley, this is obviously very important, and our concern for the family is very important. And let's let that concern overwhelm the meeting, if that would be the case. But we can easily pair our talk so that you use the talk you've prepared, but take the time you need, if you choose to do this at our meeting, to present your proclamation on the family. And she said before we left the meeting, President Hinckley said, thank you. You've helped me clarify my thinking. I will make the presentation of the proclamation at your meeting. Close quote. So there you go. Then. It was decided. And September 23rd, here it goes. Yes.
- [24:12]
B
So in the September 23rd relief society general session, President Hinckley introduced the proclamation, but he does give an introduction. And this is the introduction which we've referenced earlier.
- [24:25]
A
With so much of sophistry that is passed off as truth, with so much of deception concerning standards and values, with so much of allurement and enticement to take on the slow stain of the world, we have felt to warn and forewarn in furtherance of this, we of the First Presidency and the Council of the twelve Apostles now issue a proclamation to the church and to the world as a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines and practices relative to the Family, which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history, I now take the opportunity of reading to you this proclamation.
- [25:21]
B
So there's the introduction, and then he reads the proclamation in its entirety. And that's pretty detailed context. We're going to dive into maybe a couple more issues when we get to controversies, but that's the setup for the proclamation being issued in 1995.
- [25:37]
A
Okay, so let's go to our second C. The content.
- [25:45]
Casey, I was thinking. Thinking maybe we should play a game.
- [25:47]
B
Okay.
- [25:49]
A
Since President Hinckley said that this is a reaffirmation. Okay. This document is a reaffirmation of the standards, doctrines and Practices which he said had been repeatedly stated throughout the church's history. I thought it could be fun if maybe after we read a line from the family proclamation, we do a little brief throwback to at least some of those earliest moments in our church's history where those things had been taught. Does that sound fun?
- [26:15]
B
This is your idea of a game? Okay. Yeah.
- [26:18]
A
What should we call this game?
- [26:19]
B
Find the Source.
- [26:20]
A
Find the Source. Okay, I like that.
- [26:22]
B
So, first paragraph. Tell me the source. We, the First Presidency and council of the twelve apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of his children. All right, what's the source of.
- [26:40]
A
And again, we're not going to pretend like we know what exact sources the first presidency in 12 came up with. Like or went to. But. But my mind goes to. I think the earliest source on this, maybe that's the most clear, would be doctrine and Covenants 49. It almost uses that exact language. We talked about this, the context of Section 49, that there's the Shakers, there's these people who. Who are kind of anti marriage, or at least they say that marriage is not the highest form of living. It's better to be celibate. And. And this revelation is a response to that kind of thinking. But verses 15 through 17. I can't help but think these were source material for that paragraph. Here's where the Lord says, and again, verily I say unto you that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto men. It's almost that exact language, right? And then he says, wherefore it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh. And all this, that the earth might answer the end of its creation, like the earth was made so that men and women can marry and have children. He goes on, and so that it the earth, verse 17, so that it might be filled with the measure of man according to his creation, before the world was. I don't know any verses of Scripture that hit that more solidly than right there. Marriage is ordained of God. Men and women get married, have children, so that the whole plan, the Creator's plan, can work. I think that's right there. What do you think?
- [28:11]
B
I don't know of any verses of Scripture that more clearly state what the purpose of the earth is. Right. The twain shall be one flesh. And all this. That the earth might answer the end of its creation. So this is literally the reason why Earth exists in our theology, so that we can have a place to experience family life, to know what it's like to know love and to raise family together or be part of a family.
- [28:34]
A
That's awesome. I remember. I remember after the family proclamation was given, Elder Richard G. Scott said, I remember this because I was single when he said it, and it impacted me. He said, forming your own family is at the very heart of the reason you're here on Earth. I was like, whoa, I think I should take dating and marriage seriously, I guess, at that point. And so that's good stuff. Okay, let me give you the next line. All human beings, male and female, are created in the image of God. Go, Casey.
- [29:06]
B
Easy peasy. That is Genesis 1:26, 27, right?
- [29:10]
A
Classic.
- [29:11]
B
Classic, right? First. First chapter of Scripture, you can argue in the Bible. And also something that is. I mean, it's not hard to find references to this. Here's a couple.
- [29:22]
A
I came.
- [29:22]
B
I came prepared for this game. Scott.
- [29:26]
Spencer W. Kimball said, and God said, let us make man, not a separate man, but a complete man, which is husband and wife in our image after our likeness. And it was so. What a beautiful partnership. D. Todd Christofferson said it this way. Each individual carries the divine image, but it is in the matrimonial union of male and female as one that we attain perhaps the most complete meaning of our having been made in the image of God, male and female.
- [29:54]
A
Well, that is good. Let's just think about that for a second. So oftentimes when we talk about being made in the image of God, we were talking about how we kind of. We look like God is what we're kind of saying generally in the church, I feel like. But Elder Christofferson and I think President Kimball, they're both saying that the complete image of God is a man and a woman together. Is that what they're saying? Like, man and woman together equals the image of God?
- [30:16]
B
I've heard people play around with this before because I often have students say things like, well, where does it ever talk about a heavenly mother in Scripture? And Joseph Fielding Smith, in Answers to Gospel Questions, actually cited Genesis 1:26, 27, and pointed out, like, the pronouns, okay, so Genesis 26 says something like, so God created man in his own image. Male and female created he them. And that just begs the question, well, how does a he create a female in his image? But if you look back, us is used there in the Book of Abraham. They Literally, just talk about a council of gods and we will do this. So that means that there's more than one singular being participating in this. Like I said, the book of Abraham describes a council of gods. And we can just surmise from that that there must have been men and there must have been women in that council that are creating it, because the men are created in the image of men and women in the image of women. And so, yeah, this is theological. Going back to the book of Abraham, Genesis, and even earlier, probably, that made.
- [31:22]
A
Me think of another quote by Erastus Snow. He said, God created man in the image of God, male and female created he them. And then he says, they belong together, and neither one of them is fitted for the accomplishment of their works alone. In other words, he says, there can be no God except He. He is composed of the man and the woman united. He said, there never was a God and there never will be in all eternities, except they are made of these two component parts, a man and a woman, the male and the female. So I feel like that goes perfectly with what you just said, that this idea that let us go down and make man in our image, and the end result of that was male and female.
- [32:06]
B
Okay, next sentence is for you. You ready?
- [32:09]
A
Okay.
- [32:09]
B
Each is a beloved spirit, son or daughter of heavenly parents. One of the more consequential lines of the family proclamation, I would say. Sources for heavenly parents.
- [32:18]
A
Yeah, I mean, scripture is full of references to our heavenly father, right? But no scripture makes it explicit that we have a heavenly mother. There's implicit, like you just mentioned, the Genesis 1, let us go down and make man in our image, male and female. So some believe that's an implicit reference to a heavenly mother, but explicitly, not really in Scripture. But Joseph Smith does teach this doctrine informally during his lifetime. Like, for instance, Zina D. Young, member of the Church during the early restoration. Her mom had just died, and she was filled with grief. And she asked Joseph Smith, will I know my mother when I get over to the other side? And Joseph said, certainly you will. And then he added, more than that. You'll meet and become acquainted with your eternal Mother, the wife of your Father in heaven. The astonished Zionist said, I have a mother in heaven then? And he said, you assuredly have. How could a father claim his title unless there were also a mother to share that parenthood? Even a few months before Joseph's death, his friend W.W. phelps published this line in the church's newspaper. Quote, o Mormonism, thy father is God, thy mother is the Queen. Of heaven. The next year, after Joseph had died in 1845, a poem by Eliza R. Snow, pretty famous in the church. It was originally called My Father in Heaven. It later became oh, My Father. And there's a little stanza in there that most people are aware of in the heavens. Are parents single? No. The thought makes reason stare. Truth is reason. Truth eternal tells me I have a mother there. So that's kind of Nauvoo era. But like later church leaders make it explicit and they teach it really officially, like the First Presidency statement from Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, Anthony Schlumb. They said, all men and women are in the similitude of the universal father and mother. George Q. Cannon later said, God is a married being. He has a wife. We are the offspring of him and his wife. That was in 1884. And I like how President Oaks says it in a talk that he gave right before the family Proclamation. It was the General Conference before, in May of 1995. Inside it says this President Oaks, our theology begins with heavenly parents. Our highest aspiration is to be like them. The fullness of eternal salvation is a family matter. Boom. Really well done. A couple years before the proclamation, President Hinckley acknowledged the doctrine of heavenly mother in a women's session of General Conference. And he said, that doctrine rests well with me. But then he gave this important caution. He said, however, in light of the instruction we've received from the Lord himself, I regard it as inappropriate for anyone in the church to pray to our Mother in heaven. So that's interesting. But I think, Casey, since the family proclamation, it's become pretty normalized to talk about heavenly parents.
- [35:14]
Even like the young women now stand up every Sunday and they say, I am a beloved daughter of heavenly parents with a divine nature and destiny. And they go on. So I think this has made some strong inroads from Nauvoo, kind of being taught informally, implicitly in the Scriptures, explicitly in Nauvoo, informally. And it's become very, very formalized and nowhere more formalized than in the family proclamation. So I think that is a solidification of a doctrine that we wish was more explicit in Scripture, but now we've got it proclaimed by all 15, like locking it in. So I love that.
- [35:52]
B
Yeah, I think the family proclamation seriously moved the needle on this.
- [35:58]
There's a great little website run by BYU called the Corpus of General Conference Talks, where you can just search the use of terms in a General Conference. And after the proclamation, the use of the term heavenly parents and the words heavenly mother have sort of shot way up because it just sort of normalized us talking about this. I remember as a kid thinking this was a little taboo. And today my students don't really hesitate to. To bring up the idea of a heavenly mother that said, let me just add one thing here. The latest statement that was made about this was a talk that Dale Renlund gave in the April 22 general conference. And you'll recall he said this. He kind of pulled us back a little bit. He said, very little has been revealed about Mother in Heaven. And what we do know is summarized in a Gospel topic found in our Gospel library application, which. Yep, there's a little Gospel topics essay there. Then he made this remarkable statement. He said, once you have read what is there, you will know everything that I know about the subject. So there's this apostle saying, that's about everything that we know for sure. And then he said, I wish I knew more. You too may still have questions and want to find more answers. Seeking greater understanding is an important part of our spiritual development. But please be cautious. Reason cannot replace revelation. So just hitting the brakes a little bit to basically say, hey, let's be cautious with the doctrine, especially one that, as you mentioned, isn't explicitly stated in the Scriptures, but that, you know, is stated in. You quoted First Presidency statements. You quoted Joseph Smith, a hymn from the hymn book, the Family Proclamation. I mean, this isn't as out there as sometimes we make it sound like, but we also have to have the humility to say, we just don't know everything about this that we want to know.
- [37:46]
A
Yeah. Beware of speculation beyond what, you know, the idea of her existence. And, and also beware of, like, the silly thing that I've heard us say for a long time. Like, culturally, we'll hear people say, like, well, we don't really talk about Heavenly Mother because, like, Heavenly Father wants to protect her and doesn't want us to, like, say her name in vain and stuff like that. You've probably heard that. I'm sure our listeners have. Have heard this express, but that's just simply not true. Like, the reason we don't talk more about Heavenly Mother is, as Elder Renlund said, we don't know anymore. Like, we just. We, like the prophets, have no problem talking about her, like, mentioning her and like, acknowledging her existence. But we literally, that's about all we know. And so that's why we don't talk much more about her, I guess.
- [38:31]
B
You know, and one time I was visiting with another colleague about that particular issue. By the Way. Thanks for mentioning the whole we gotta protect Heavenly Mother kind of thing, because I think she can handle it. You know, she's capable.
- [38:44]
A
She's a goddess. I think she's fine.
- [38:47]
B
She's okay. But one thing he pointed out was kind of interesting, which he said, you know, when it comes down to it, we don't really know that much about Heavenly Father. And what we do know about Heavenly Father, we know through Jesus Christ that the greatest revelation of what God is like is the character, attributes and perfections of Jesus. And most of those character, attributes and perfections aren't gendered.
- [39:11]
We're not going to say being charitable or being patient is something that's exclusive to men. So if you want to know what the personality and character of Heavenly Mother are like, a good place to look is Jesus Christ that it's fair to say that if he represents the Father, he also represents our Eternal Mother as well. On that score, we do know a lot. But we know primarily through the means of Jesus Christ.
- [39:37]
A
Almost every time in Scripture, the voice of the Father is heard, he always says the same thing, which is, this is my beloved Son. Listen to him. Hear him. So back to you, Jesus. Right. It means it's right back to Jesus. Like the spotlights on Jesus. That's how we know what we know. Yeah.
- [39:53]
B
Jesus is the instrument of our salvation. I'm guessing if Heavenly Mother ever appeared to someone, this is my beloved Son. Hear him. He's the person we've assigned to look after you. Pay attention to what he has to say.
- [40:04]
A
Yeah, I love it. Okay, let's finish that sentence, Casey, and tell me about some sources. So that sentence ends in the proclamation. And as such, as children of heavenly parents, each has a divine nature and destiny. Is there anywhere that teaches that we have a divine nature and destiny?
- [40:22]
B
For real, we've explored these. A lot of these are found in the Doctrine and Covenants, the revelations of Joseph Smith. First one that comes to mind is section 93 of the Doctrine and Covenants, which, when you start looking at it and we mention this, makes a direct comparison between the journey that Jesus Christ went through during his time here on Earth and the journey we're going through. The origin of Christ. Our origin, how and what we worship. So, for instance, Jesus says, I was in the beginning with the Father. Then he tells us, you were also in the beginning with the Father. Jesus says, I am the Spirit of truth. In verse 26 and verse 23, you are the Spirit of truth. Jesus received grace for grace. We have to receive grace for grace. I'm in the Father and the Father in me. You'll be glorified in Me as I am in the Father. I received a fullness of truth. Then in verse 28, he says, you too will receive truth and light until you're glorified in truth and know all things. So that's one of our strongest theological texts to say we do have this divine nature. We're the same type of being as God, ontologically speaking, and we have the potential to become like Him. But I mean, found throughout the Scriptures. Moses 1:39 this is my work and my glory to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. Section 88, 107. The saints shall be filled with his glory and receive their inheritance and be made equal with Him. And there's more passages I could cite. You know, we become joint heirs with Christ. This is taught all over the we become the sons and daughters of God. D and c, 25, verse 1. All those who receive me become sons and daughters in my kingdom. But maybe just a couple quotes really fast. Lorenzo Snow, for instance, our spirit birth gave us godlike capabilities. In our spiritual birth, our Father transmitted to us the capabilities, powers and faculties which he himself possessed, as much so as the child in its mother's bosom possesses, though in an undeveloped state, the faculties, powers and susceptibilities of its parents. That's from teachings of Lorenzo Stone, where recently M. Russell Ballard, the late Elder Ballard, through a natural process of inheritance, we received in embryo the traits and attributes of our Heavenly Father. We are his spirit children. Some of what our Eternal Father is, we have inherited what he has become, we may become. And I mean, maybe the best summary I've seen of it from Tad Collister, who just barely passed away at the time of this recording. This is his ontological. The difference between man and God is significant, but it is one of degree, not kind. It's the difference between an acorn and an oak tree, a rosebud and a rose, a son and a father. In truth, every man and woman is a potential God and embryo in fulfillment of the eternal law that like begets like. So this is one of the most beautiful and profound teachings of the Gospel. And we could say it about every single person, not just Latter Day Saints, that every single person has this divine spark, this divine potential, this opportunity for them to become like God. That it's something that, given the right time, circumstances and commitment, every person can achieve. Okay, I'm going to hit you with a challenging one. Okay, this one's A little twisty. Okay, so the next line is, gender is an essential characteristic of individual, premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose. This one's become a little controversial in recent years. Does this one have a foundation in the Scriptures?
- [43:51]
A
Yeah. And the word gender made like this, that word, since 1995, has become pretty embattled. Right. It's come to mean, like, social construct, like, as opposed to the word sex. Right, that sex is your biological characteristics at birth. And so some people have, like, even, like, pushed on that word. Like, why would you use the word gender, the social construct word, instead of the word sex? And the church actually clarified that in 2020, by the way. Here's what they said. Official clarification quote. The intended meaning of gender in the family proclamation is biological sex at birth. Close quote. Does that solve everything? No, it does not solve everything. So. So gender is an essential characteristic of premortal, mortal, and postmortal scripturally. Where would we go? I feel like this one's actually kind of hard. The ones that came to mind on this were like Moses, chapter three, verses three through seven. This is where we learned that before everything was created naturally on the earth, God created things spiritually. Like, we would use the word premortally, for instance, verse 5. I, the Lord created all things of which I have spoken spiritually before. They were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I the Lord God had created all the children of men and not yet a man to till the ground. For in heaven created I them. I think that's a good one. In heaven, premortally, we were already created, the children of men. Elder Scott, he said this. He said the scriptures record, and I God created man, male and female, created I them. And then he created, explains this was done spiritually. In your premortal existence, when you lived in the presence of your Father in heaven, your gender existed before you came to earth. That's a good one. Boyd K. Packer. He said, in due course we were given a spirit body. We became then the sons and daughters of God. We had gender then. We were male or female. So he pinpoints the moment of being gendered at our spirit birth right prior to that, I think Section 93 would say we were intelligences or the light of truth. And apparently that's maybe not. Maybe not gendered, but at our spirit birth, when we become the. The sons and daughters of God, we are then in. That's when he says we had gender we are male and female. We're now the little gods and goddesses and embryo and. And we're off to the races. So that's, that's pre. Mortal. Mortal. I think that one's easy, right? Lots of scriptures about that. Like, like Mark 10:6. From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. What about post mortal? Scripturally, I think section 138 is A. Is a nice little snapshot. When President Joseph F. Smith sees in the spirit world after death, he sees a bunch of people. He says, I saw Father Adam. He still was Father Adam. And then he says in verse 39, and I saw our glorious mother Eve with many of her faithful daughters who had lived in the ages past and worshiped the true and living God. They were still daughters. They were still, you know, Eve was still. Even the faithful daughters were still daughters. But I actually think, Casey, I think that this language probably comes from a quote by Elder James E. Talmadge. I think Elder Talmadge's language probably influenced the family proclamation. I'm guessing. But here's, here's the language. Tell me what you think. He said way back in 1922 in a talk called the Eternity of Sex.
- [47:18]
B
Great title, by the way.
- [47:20]
A
That'll get people to come to your talk. He said this quote, we affirm as reasonable, scriptural and true the eternity of sex among the children of God. The distinction between male and female is no condition peculiar to the relatively brief period of mortal life. It was an essential characteristic. Oh, he uses that language that the family proclamation uses. It was an essential characteristic of our pre existent condition even as it shall continue after death. In both the disembodied and resurrected states, there is no accident or chance due to purely physical conditions by which the sex of the unborn is determined. The body takes form as male or female according to the sex of the spirit, whose appointment it is to tenant that body. Man is man and woman is woman. Fundamentally, unchangeably, eternally. Each is indispensable to the other and to the accomplishment of the purposes of God. So that's Elder Talmage.
- [48:19]
B
That was a good find. I wasn't aware of that talk. And you put it into the outline. That's from 1922. Correct. And he uses the exact wording that shows up in the 1995 proclamation that it's an essential characteristic, which is really, really interesting. So this has become one of the more controversial lines in the proclamation, and I'll just state outright, the reason is the rise of discussions surrounding transgender individuals and their rights and what we define gender as. Which, again, it was helpful that they clarified by gender, they meant biological sex, because even that is nomenclature that you've got to understand to navigate the differences between the two. So the rights of transgender individuals and how we administer to them is increasingly complicated. And I want to point out, in 2020, for the first time, the church handbook of instructions included counsel about how to minister to transgender individuals. This also coincided with a new website and a tab and gospel library for transgender individuals that affirms a few things. Transgender individuals are children of God. God loves them. They have a powerful and important role to play in the church. But just to make sure that we. We represent the church position accurately here, I'm going to quote a little bit from the church handbook, if that's okay.
- [49:47]
A
Yeah. And before you quote that, you said that came out in 2020. Is that right?
- [49:50]
B
Yeah. Okay.
- [49:51]
A
I think that's really interesting, because in 2015. Okay. So five years before that comes out, President Dalliny Chokes was quoted in the Salt Lake Tribune as saying this. He said, concerning the issue of transgender, I think we need to acknowledge that being acquainted with the unique problems of a transgender situation is something we have not had so much experience with, and we have some unfinished business in teaching on that. Close quote. As you can see, in 2015, they're wrestling with this, saying, we got to understand this more. Right. So I love that background to the 2020 clarification. So here's what happened in the five years since Dallin H. Oak said that, what you're about to do.
- [50:29]
B
Yeah. They spent five years discussing this, and then they issue this in the handbook, which states a number of important positions on. On transgender individuals that we want to make sure are crystal clear. So it reads, when individuals experience of incongruence between their biological sex and their gender identity, and biological sex is really straightforward. It's just the makeup of your body. Right. Gender identity is how you see yourself and how you represent yourself. And that's a much more ambiguous term that we're holding intensive discussions about right now as a society. It says when they experience incongruence between their biological sex and their gender identity identity, they may identify as transgender. Then it says this. The church does not take a position on why some people identify as transgender, though it urges its members to reach out with love and understanding to all people, regardless of their gender identity. So that would be the three most important sentences. Here's what being transgender means. We don't know what causes a person to experience that, and Three, we reach out with love and understanding to people that identify as transgender. That said, because some practices in the church are based on a person's biological sex, we now have to identify policy as to how we work with this. So here's the next set of teachings. Transgender individuals face complex challenges. Members and non members who identify as transgender and their family and friends should be treated with sensitivity, kindness, compassion, and an abundance of Christlike love. All are welcome to attend sacrament meeting, other Sunday meetings, and social events of the church. The church handbook also adds most participation and some priests ordinances are gender neutral. Transgender persons may be baptized and confirmed. They may also partake of the sacrament and receive priesthood blessings. However, priesthood ordination and temple ordinances are received according to biological sex at birth. So there are ordinances like those of the temple that are based on a person's biological sex, and. And we administer them in that way. So someone whose gender identity didn't align with their biological sex, like, let's say we have someone who's biologically male, but their gender identity is female, would still need to receive temple ordinances based on their biological sex at birth. And then they. They. They also counsel transgender members against elective or medical surgeries to reassign gender and against social transitioning. Transgender individuals who do not pursue these forms of transitioning and are worthy can serve in church callings, hold temple recommends, and receive temple ordinances. So that's the policy that they've worked out over time, and there's been adjustments to that since then, but nothing that essentially changes the message there to say that they can participate in ordinances that don't have any aspect of gender to them, but some ordinances do, and some of the promises that we make to people and covenants that we make are based on a person's biological sex. I haven't snuck in and listened to the women's blessings in temples, for instance, but they're different. I assume they're different than the blessings that men receive, and that's one of the things that we have to reckon with. That said, I've had students and people that I care about that identify as transgender, and I want them to know that they're one of us. They belong with us. We want them to be part of the church, but understand that that could be complicated and challenging for them.
- [53:55]
A
Yeah, a great call toward compassion and understanding. And how does it say. And an abundance of Christlike love. Good. Okay, next line. Let me ask you if there's any sources you can think of for this one in the premortal realm. Spirit sons and daughters knew and worshiped 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.
- [54:23]
B
Ooh, good one. There are passages that imply a council in heaven. I mean, don't imply, just show that there was like Moses 4 or Abraham chapter 3. But this is something that's also been really clearly stated in the teachings of leaders of the church. For instance, that idea that we came to earth to receive a body. I don't know if that is explicitly stated in the Scriptures, except that there's passages that say that receiving a body makes you happy, that. That not having a body. In section 138 it says it's looked upon as a form of bondage and things like that. But here's a quote from Joseph Smith that seems to capture everything this paragraph is saying. Joseph Smith thought, at the first organization in heaven, we were all present and saw the Savior chosen and appointed and the plan of salvation made, and we sanctioned it. We came to this earth that we might have a body and present it pure before God in the celestial kingdom. So that seems to.
- [55:21]
Hit all the right marks and bring everything together that the major purposes were to come here to receive a body and then present it back to God as pure. The idea of getting a body being tested, which is so common in the discussions among church members.
- [55:35]
A
Yeah, it's super interesting. Like, when you think about scripture, there actually is no scripture that says it that explicitly. Right. This paragraph is. Is good at bringing stuff that's a little opaque into sharper focus. Like you said, there's mentions of premortal counsel, but not a lot of like, well, what did we talk about? Like, we know there's a rebellion there, right? Moses 4 and Abraham. But it's like, but what. But like, what was the plan? Was the plan laid out in front of us? So, yeah, that Joseph Smith quote is one of the clearest statements that no doubt was a source for that paragraph stuff.
- [56:11]
B
It's a nice synthesis of a lot of stuff that's. That's very much implied in the scriptures, but it's just nice to have a prophet endorse it. So I. Next. Next one's for you. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally. What's your Source.
- [56:34]
A
Scott this is one of my favorite paragraphs of the whole proclamation. Honestly, I love the word enables and I love the phrase make it possible. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to go beyond the grave, and sacred ordinances and covenants make it possible. Thought a lot about that and tried to pinpoint sources for that theology, which I think is so rich. And what I think might be one of the original sources here would be doctrine and covenants 132, like verses 13 and 14, where it says, says, and everything that is in the world, whether it be ordained of men by thrones or principalities or powers or things of name, whatsoever they may be that are not by me or by my word, saith the Lord, shall be thrown down and shall not remain after men are dead, neither in nor after the resurrection, saith the Lord your God. For whatsoever things remain are by Me, and whatsoever things are not by me shall be shaken and destroyed. So there's this idea here that everything is in on this inexorable crash course with, like, dissolution, death, decay. We talked about this once when we talked about Section 88. Like, entropy is. Is ultimately going to capture everything. Everything is going to be, as he says here, shaken and destroyed. Everything's going to come to dissolution, Everything, that is, except for those things that are by me or by my word or by my law, he goes on to say. And the logic there, the theology there is, I think, pretty profound. That what God is doing is he's interrupting and then he's like, revitalizing things that without his intervention, without his interposition into our lives would inevitably lead to this, like, you know, this. This entropy state, this where everything just goes into disarray. I think resurrection is a really crisp example of this, right? Our bodies are. We all feel it, are headed toward that, toward the grave, toward dissolution. But what resurrection does is actually. He uses the word quicken in Scripture. God infuses his light and law, and however he does it, I don't know, into our bodies and actually quickens them, makes them alive and revives them, pushes the opposite direction of entropy and makes us the kind of beings that become incorruptible, like uncorrodable. The kinds of bodies that now will be able to last forever without God's interposition in our lives, like, that would never happen. And so here, along those same. That same logic, he says that ordinances and covenants available in temples make it possible for our relationships to not be affected by entropy, by dissolution, by death. Our families can be united eternally. Relationships can be perpetuated beyond the grave because of God's law, God's light, God's word, as he says here. It's all those, he says who will enter into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. Section 132 goes on to say, so I think that's the. The beating heart of the theology here. And it's one of the most beautiful things to think about God, that He's not. He's not this. This capricious God who's punishing people who don't follow his rules. There's just. There's just this. What is in the universe that's already there. What is. Is entropy. What is. Is just like you're. You're going down. Like everything you love, everything you hold dear is eventually going to come to. Not unless God does something about it. And he has done something about it. And he asks us to participate with him jointly, you know, through the everlasting covenant in order to make those relationships eternal because they won't be forced upon us, but he's offering them to us for us to accept, if that makes sense. Like the theology there is beautiful. And the formal way, the place of cooperative grace, if I can use that phrase, where we and God work together is through the covenants and ordinances of the everlasting covenant. That is thoroughly scriptural. That's section 1 32, through and through. And that's where my mind goes. I don't know anything you would add to that one.
- [60:45]
B
Yeah. Our covenants are what exalt us. They're what bring us closer to God. Like I said, that is a good little paragraph because it covers a lot of theological ground in just a few short sentences.
- [60:54]
A
Love it. Okay, next one for you. 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. What do you got?
- [61:20]
B
Well, part of this is a softball, right? Because they're directly quoting Genesis 2 28. That's repeated in Moses 2 28. That's repeated in Abraham 4 28, which all read, God blessed them. And God said unto them, be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. What seems to be new is them saying that this commandment is still in force. Recognizing some sensitivity here, not Everybody is able to have children in this life. But if you are, it's a blessing, it's a good thing, and it's a commandment that God has given and that it's a righteous thing. Essentially, that, that having children and procreating and having a family is one of the greatest blessings of this life. For instance, Dallin H. Oaks taught this. He said attraction between man and woman was instilled by the Creator to ensure the perpetuation of mortal life and to draw husband and wife together in the family setting he prescribed for the accomplishment of his purposes, including the raising of children. In contrast, deviations from God's commandments and the use of procreative powers are grave sins. President Kimball read the read those verses once where he said there were two purposes. One was to procreate, to multiply and replenish, and the other was to be one that sexual union is used to unite husband and wife as a couple together. That said, we got to be cautious here, too, because some people take this idea of having children and put other rules on top of it. I've had well meaning and very faithful church members say stuff like, you don't get to decide when you're done having kids. The Lord decides when you're done having kids. And I would just caution people to say these are really, really personal decisions. For instance, a really influential talk. One of my favorite General Conference talks of all time was when Neil L. Anderson taught about children. And he quoted these sections of the proclamation. But then he added this. He said, when to have a child and how many children to have are private decisions to be made between husband and wife and the Lord. These are sacred decisions, decisions that should be made with sincere prayer and acted on with great faith. And that is a necessary addendum because the church is a family church. And sometimes we overdo it. Like, I remember a couple showing up at my ward and how long have you been married? Two weeks. And somebody's like, like, when are you going to have kids? And I was like, no, that's really private. Or one time we had a couple that lived next door to us and we invited them over for a family game night. And in the middle of the game, the wife said, sir, you're going to ask us why we haven't had kids. And I was like, I was about to say Yahtzee, actually. Yahtzee. And then I said, so why haven't you had kids? And she was just so used to people asking them that because they'd been married for six years and they didn't have any kids, and we weren't going to ask him, but it seems like that demonstrates it now. The reason why this talk is so meaningful to me is because Elder Anderson inspired us to have another kid. We hadn't had a child for eight years when this talk was given, and there are a number of reasons for that. We had a child with autism, and we were working through that. But we both got a prompting during this talk that it was probably time for us to have another child. And she's here, and she's delightful. And she told us when she was three that what she wanted to be most was a big sister. And so that led to us having another. Another child who's also here and who's delightful, too.
- [65:01]
A
I remember when Sarah and I first got married, and of course, we were wondering this very question. And I had taken a class from Elder David A. Bednar right before he became an apostle. It was Teachings of the Living Prophets. And then the next semester, he became one. And I still had his email address. And I thought, maybe I'll just give this a shot. Maybe he has a little extra advice about when to start having a family than maybe we talked about in class. And so I remember one morning I shot an email off to him saying, hey, Elder Bednar, congrats on your new calling. I was just wondering if you have any advice for my newly married wife and I to, you know, as to when to start having a family. And I said, thanks. Scott emailed it. I was kind of nervous, but I didn't really think about it until later that afternoon. I got a phone call from a woman I didn't recognize. And she said, is this Scott Woodward? And I said, yep. She said, did you send Elder Bednar an email this morning? I was like, oh, boy. I was like. I said, yeah, I did have. She said, well, this is his secretary and I. I have a message for you. Are you ready? I was like, yeah, hold on. Let me. Let me get something to write this down. I said, okay, I'm ready. And she said, Elder Bednar said, tell Scott he already knows what to do. Close quote. And I was like, that's it. She said, that's the whole thing. I said, please tell him thank you. She said, I will. We hung up. And I was like. I said out loud. I was like, I don't know what to do. That's why I sent the email. But I remembered. I remembered in his class, he did say that. This. He said, the decision as to when to have children and how many to have is between you and your spouse and the Lord. And if anybody is giving you advice about this, that is not you, your spouse, or the Lord, don't worry about it. Don't even, don't even value means nothing. It means nothing. So that, that came back to my memory. I was like, okay, that's good. It's between me and Sarah and the Lord. And that's it. That's my experience with wrestling with that question early on in our in our marriage.
- [67:11]
B
But now let me let me address one thing really, really fast too. The last sentence is essentially the law of chastity. By boiled down to one sentence, we further declare God has commanded the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman lawfully wedded to husband and wife. And this, along with the statement that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, are probably the two most controversial parts of the family proclamation. We talked about individuals who are transgender, but individuals who experience same sex attraction. LGBT individuals struggle with this idea too, that sex is only between man and a woman who are lawfully wedded in the church doesn't recognize same sex marriage. That can be really, really tough for them. So I just wanted to quickly show a model of how church leaders would would speak to someone who experiences same sex attraction. This is from a talk that Jeffrey R. Holland gave back in 2007 and a real experience that he had. He noted, he said a pleasant young man in his early 20s sat across from me. He had an engaging smile, although he didn't smile often during our talk. What drew me in was the pain in his eyes. I don't know if I should remain a member of the church, he said. I don't think I'm worthy. Why wouldn't you be worthy? I asked. I'm gay, elder Holland then said. A flicker of relief crossed his face as he sensed my continued interest. I'm not attracted to women. I'm attracted to men. I've tried to ignore these feelings or change them, but. He sighed. Why am I this way? My feelings are very real. I paused, then said, I need a little more information before advising you. You see, same gender attraction is not a sin, but acting on those feelings is just as it would be with heterosexual feelings. Feelings. Do you violate the law of chastity? He shook his head. No, I don't. This time I was relieved. Thank you for wanting to deal with this, I said. It takes courage to talk about it, and I honor you for keeping yourself clean. As for why you feel as you do I can't answer that question. And Elder Holland here is capturing an essential teaching of the church on homosexuality, which is we don't know what the cause is of homosexuality. It can be a number of factors. And he even says that, he says a number of factors can be involved and they can be as different as people are different. Some things, he continues, including the cause of your feelings, we may never know in this life. But knowing why you feel as you do isn't as important as knowing you have not transgressed. If your life is in harmony with the commandments, then you are worthy to serve in the church, enjoy full fellowship with the members, attend the temple, and receive all the blessings of the Savior's atonement. Then Elder Holland added, he set up a little straighter. I continued, you serve yourself poorly when you identify yourself primarily by your sexual feelings. That isn't your only characteristic. So don't give a disproportionate attention. You are first and foremost a son of God and he loves you. And I would hope that that's a model for a dialogue that any church leader would have with somebody who experiences same sex attraction. That our expectation is that they live the law of chastity, that we don't know everything that we want to know, but we still love them. And provided that they live the standards of the church, they can serve in the church, they can be a vital, important part of the church, and that we want them to be a vital and important part of the church too. So I've generally seen, as I've taught the family proclamation, that it's that little sentence and the other sentence that defines marriage between a man and a woman that can be really, really tough for lesbian or gay Latter Day Saints, who I'm. I'm grateful for. I'm glad that they're with us and I hope they stay with us because I think the Gospel of Jesus Christ has as much to offer them as any individual.
- [70:56]
A
Yeah, great model. Thanks for reading, Elder Holland. That's great.
- [70:59]
B
That is essentially the church's position on birth control too. I've had students in class bring that up because there are statements, they're usually pretty old, that are against using any form of birth control. But I think for about 40 years, the position of the church has essentially been it's a private decision between husband, wife, and the Lord. And so that's kind of where we're at on that. So if you read anything before, say the 1980s, I would just say it was a different time. Technology was different. This has been the position of the Church for decades now. Okay, I've got one for you. Next line. We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed.
- [71:41]
A
This is back to your line that we're sex positive. Right. The means by which mortal life is created was designed by God. That's so good. So let's see some sources for that. I mean, clearly, the fact that God commands Adam and Eve to multiply and replenish and continues to do that throughout Scripture, it seems to be implicit that that's a good thing. But a couple explicit statements I think are really good. Here's one from President Kimball. He said, said, husband and wife are authorized, comma. In fact, they're commanded to have proper sex when they're properly married. That's good. He goes on. I think this is the quote you were referring to earlier. He said, sex is for both procreation and expressions of love. It is the destiny of men and women to join together to make eternal family units. In the context of lawful marriage, the intimacy of sexual relations is right and divinely approved. There's nothing unholy or degrading about sexuality in itself. For by that means, men and women join in a process of creation and in an expression of love. One more great one from Elder Holland. When he said this once, he said, quote, I submit to you that you will never be more like God at any other time in this life than when you are expressing that particular power. Of all the titles he has chosen for himself, Father is the one he declares and creation is his watchword. Especially human creation. Creation in his image. I love that.
- [73:13]
B
Yeah. And let me add an insight here. That's kind of odd, but I appreciated it. It came from one of my students. He was reading through this. We declare the means by which mortal life are created to be divinely appointed. And he said so is that the Church's position on cloning? If we ever came up with a way to clone human beings, which maybe we have already, the proclamation actually has an answer to that. We would say Emperor Palpatine. We are not in favor of this because we affirm the means by which mortal life are created to be divinely appointed. So maybe that's a little sci fi for you. But it is interesting that the proclamation can be used to engage with even questions that seem a little. A little far out there. But that's part of the foresight, I guess, of the wording that's in here.
- [74:01]
A
Very good. I had never thought about the cloning application of that line. Thank you, Casey.
- [74:05]
B
That's good. Well, well, thank my student who I think was wearing like a, like a Boba Fett T shirt when he made that inside of glass. And I was like, interesting you. I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. Like, well done. Okay.
- [74:19]
A
Good insight, son. Good insight. All right, next line. Still along this topic, we affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God's eternal plan.
- [74:30]
B
Sanctity of life and its importance seems to be directed towards another hot topic social issue of our time, which is abortion. And it's an incredibly challenging and nuanced concept that a lot of people discuss. For instance, the church's position when it comes to abortion is complicated. The Church handbook makes reference to a scripture everybody knows from the Ten Commandments, thou shalt not kill, but then references a verse from the Doctrine and Covenants, thou shalt not kill, nor do anything like unto it. That's doctrine and covenants 59,6. And there is some ambiguity surrounding abortion. We don't treat it the same way we do murder because we don't know directly when the spirit enters the body. In fact, there are sometimes contradictory statements in the Scriptures. For instance, one comes from Luke 1:39, 40. I'll just paraphrase. It's where Mary comes to visit Elizabeth, and Mary's pregnant with Jesus and Elizabeth is pregnant with John the Baptist. And John leaps within the womb like he recognizes Jesus is nearby and does a somersault or something like that, which seems to imply that John's spirit is in his body. Life is there before birth. Then the counter example in the Book of Mormon actually is 3 Nephi 1:13, where the Christmas story in the Book of Mormon is considerably darker. But you remember all the people that believe are rounded up and they're going to be executed. The night before this happens, Jesus speaks to the prophet Nephi and says, lift up your head and be of good cheer, for behold, the time is at hand. And on this night shall the sign be given. And on the morrow come I into the world to show unto the world that I will fulfill all that which I have caused to be spoken by the mouth of my holy prophets. So you put those side to side, and I think there is a way to harmonize them. But one makes it sound like John's spirit was in his body and he was conscious of his surroundings. And another makes it sound like Jesus is talking to a prophet in the Americas the night before he's born, which could be used to imply that the spirit enters the body at birth.
- [76:42]
A
Don't you think that could be like a pre recording message that Jesus is sending?
- [76:46]
B
I usually present these two examples to my students and say, is there a way to harmonize this? And I've had students go, he's Jesus, he can do whatever he wants to do. I've had other students say, maybe you can come and go because, you know, it seems crowded in that womb and you're like, I gotta go stretch my legs in America for a little while. For me, the most simple way to reconcile it would be to say there was some sort of divine investiture of authority. Some messenger was given the authority to speak as if he was Christ. Like there's a billion different ways to reconcile it. But because of the ambiguity there, the handbook does not recognize abortion as being the same thing as murder, but still being very serious. For instance, it quotes that scripture, thou shalt not kill, nor do anything like unto it. Then it says, the church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience. Members must not submit to perform, arrange for, pay for, consent to, or encourage an abortion. The only possible exceptions are when. And then it lists three exceptions. Pregnancy results from forcible rape or incest. A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy. Or a competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. And then it actually says, presiding officers carefully review the circumstances if a church member has been involved in an abortion. And it also adds, as far as has been revealed, a person may repent and be forgiven of the sin of abortion. So we treat it differently in a lot of ways and offer those exceptions. And because of that, I mean, when I worked at the church office building, I remember actually seeing anti abortion protesters show up at our general conference and thinking, what? We're on your side, guys. But any exception to them was abominable and needed to be protested. And these exceptions again, there's a talk where President Nilsen notes that they are rare exceptions. They don't happen very often, but even in those cases, you might need to sit down and say, well, what would you do? I've had conversations with my wife of what if your life was in danger? And I remember her saying, I can't speak unless I know all the details, but I'd probably want to give the child the best possible chance to have a life and to make it. And so this is personal stuff. And when we say the sanctity of life, I mean we also include stillborn children. Like what counts as a person's life. If they are inside their mother, but they die before birth, is that their life? The handbook again, no. That we don't have clear doctrine on this. This is what the hambock says on that temple ordinances are not performed for stillborn children. However, this does not deny the possibility that a stillborn child may be part of a family in the eternities. Parents are encouraged to trust the Lord to resolve such cases in a way he knows best. The family may record the name of a stillborn child on a family group record, followed by the word stillborn in parentheses. Then this next sentence. It is a fact that a child has life before birth. However, there's no direct revelation on when the Spirit enters the body. And so put those two sentences together and I've pondered over them. Them saying it's a fact that there's life before birth, but we don't know when the Spirit enters the body makes us recognize there's a little ambiguity here. And we've got to be especially sensitive, especially in the case of a stillborn child, where that's such an emotional trial for people, that we affirm the sanctity of life. But here's some of the things surrounding it. Now, with that in mind, when it comes to abortion in general, one of the things the church has suggested is that certain things like, oh, using the duration of gestation as a medium to say, when is abortion appropriate or not appropriate is pretty arbitrary. And when I say duration of gestation, if you don't know, they try to create abortion laws that, that are focused on, well, when could a child be born and still lead a normal life, like 40 weeks, those numbers keep shrinking, where as we're getting better and better and understand more about the human body, we've had children born earlier and earlier and still lead a normal life. So President Nielsen kind of says it's just arbitrary. Right. You're just basically writing a line in the sand and saying, yeah, this is when we think they're viable. But it's difficult to say.
- [81:07]
A
And by the way we talk about those exceptions, inception, rape, or when the life of the mother is in jeopardy, those aren't automatic. I think it's really interesting to.
- [81:16]
B
Yeah.
- [81:17]
A
In the handbook and prophets, I'm thinking like President Hinckley once was saying, he's like, those instances are rare. And in those circumstances, those who face these questions, he said, are asked to consult with their local ecclesiastical leaders and to pray in great earnestness, receiving a confirmation through prayer before proceeding. Even in those rare like exceptions, it's like still Please make sure you get a confirmation from God before proceeding. But then he says this. He says, remember the alternative. He says, there is a better way. If there is no prospect of marriage to the man involved, leaving the mother alone, there remains a very welcome option of placing the child for adoption by parents who will love it and care for it. There are many such couples in good homes who long for a child and cannot have one. Close quote. So what a gift. And that's to me, that's. I won't go into too many details, Casey, but that's super close to home for me, like.
- [82:19]
In my own wife's family like this. I'll just say this. My wife wouldn't be here along her family line if someone had just said, well, there's exceptions. And so let's terminate the base. Like, I'm grateful for a courageous girl who decided to have that baby and put that baby up for adoption, who had children. And down the way, eventually my wife came from that line is what I'm saying, Casey. And so when I look, when I think about this horrible decision that some, especially women are placed in, I just love that line from President Hinckley. Please be prayerful before proceeding. Even in those exceptions, those cases where it would be, you know, authorized in terms of what the church says about it. But like, we're talking about a lot of consequences that can flow from that decision, good or bad. Please be prayerful.
- [83:12]
B
All good points. Even more recently, President Nelson has taught adoption is a wonderful alternative to abortion. Both the baby and the adoptive parents can be greatly blessed by the adoption of that baby into a home where the child will be be lovingly nurtured and where the blessings of the gospel will be available. So we would just say in almost all situations, there's an alternative. There are those really tough cases that they bring up, and I'm glad that those exceptions are there. But you make a good point in saying, essentially, you know what? We've got to be so very careful when it comes to this. Life is sacred. And affirming. The sanctity of life is an important thing to the proclamation does to just help us recognize that, hey, when a life is created, we got to be really careful with it. We just can't be cavalier about what happens there, too. Now we've reached the part of the proclamation that kind of shifts from these huge doctrinal and philosophical issues to sort of the here's how to have a happy life. Right? So the next paragraph starts. Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and their children. Children are inherited to the Lord. Then it cites Psalm 127:3.
- [84:23]
A
That's the only verse of scripture cited in the whole proclamation, by the way, which is kind of cool.
- [84:28]
B
Yeah, it's cool. 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. Walk us through sources for this. I mean, again, this all seems like common sense to me. I can't find a lot in here that's controversial, but I might be wrong.
- [84:56]
A
Yeah, no, this one's pretty straightforward and highly scriptural. This is not hard to find. Let me walk through a couple, for instance, like Jacob, Chapter three, verse seven. As far as that first line about husbands and wives having a responsibility. Love and care for each other. Jacob3 7. Husbands love their wives, and their wives love their husbands, and their husbands and their wives love their children. D&C 42, 22. Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shall cleave unto her, and none else. D&C 83 4. All children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age, meaning, right, they can leave the house like so parents, nurture and take care of your children. Deuteronomy 6:5, 7 Thou shalt teach these words diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up like, teach them, teach them these things. The law Deuteronomy is talking about Proverbs 22:6. Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he's old he will not depart from it. Ephesians 6:4 Ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath. I never understood what that meant until I was a dad. I'm like, oh, it's so easy to like, like tease your kids and push their buttons. But anyway, provoke not your children to wrath, but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. I like that one. Alma 39:12. The spirit of the Lord doth say unto me, said one dad to his son, command thy children to do good, lest they lead away the hearts of many people to destruction. Therefore I command you, my son, in the fear of God, that you refrain from your iniquities DNC 93, verse 40. I have commanded you to bring up your children in light and truth. And we could just go on and on and on. President Hinckley, he once said, when all is said and done, the primary place in building a value system is in the homes of the people. Like, this is where rubber hits the road. And Elder Christofferson, here's another great quote from him. He said, a family built on the marriage of a man and a woman supplies the best setting for God, God's plan to thrive. The setting for the birth of children who come in purity and innocence from God, and then the environment for the learning and preparation they will need for a successful mortal life and eternal life in the world to come. A critical mass of families built on such marriages is vital for societies to survive and flourish. That's why communities and nations generally have encouraged and protected marriage and the family as privileged institutions. It's never been just about the love and happiness of adults, he says. Close quote. Good stuff. Anything you'd add to that, Casey?
- [87:32]
B
Oh, all these ideas, like I said, I hope, just aren't exclusive to Latter Day Saints too. It seems like the ideals presented here are fairly universal. Take care of your kids, Serve one another. Make them good citizens. Recognize that they'll be held accountable before God. This is something that I'd have. I. I don't see anything controversial about it in the least because it's just kind of like, be a decent person. These are all standards that we don't agree. That we agree to. And if we don't, I mean, what's going on? You know, why do you think we shouldn't be good citizens or something like that?
- [88:11]
A
Okay, good. Well, let's move on to the next one then. This one's the big paragraph. Oh, so a lot going on in this one. So here we go. Let's, let's. Let's break it down. The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to his eternal plan. Okay, I feel like we've covered that one already. Right. With like, DNC 49 and others. Okay. 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. I also feel like maybe we've hit that one. Anything else you want to say about those? That. That line there.
- [88:43]
B
No, no, no, no. I think we've covered them.
- [88:45]
A
Okay, next. Here's the formula. I love this formula. From the proclamation here. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ, successful marriages and families are established and maintained on. Here's the principles on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and everybody's favorite wholesome recreational activities. Close quote. Let's pause there. Anything you want to cite? When it comes to that formula of.
- [89:23]
B
Happiness in family life, hopefully everybody agrees with that too. My students always say faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. Like one of these things is not like the other. But that might reflect an addition in our time that the rest of the principles right here are fairly universal and have always been. But today, one of the challenges that we genuinely face is the way that we work. We don't always maintain a healthy work life balance. And the proclamation is telling us to do that. Essentially, that wholesome recreational activities means if you're at work every day until late and then you go in early the next day, and you're never taking your kids fishing or going for a bike ride or sitting down and playing board games or anything like that. That's one of the principles too. I can't recall a sermon the Savior gave on wholesome recreational activities, but the modern leaders of the church have essentially said, make time for your family. Don't just work. In days past, you were working in the fields with your son or daughter. Today, you know, we've separated those two parts of our lives and we need to make sure that there's a healthy work life balance that exists there.
- [90:35]
A
I'm thinking maybe a couple scriptures that would go along with that. Fourth, Nephi has this great couple of verses 15 through 17, some of my favorites that just paints a little picture about this, what Mormon calls the happiest people who had ever been created by the hand of God. What was the secret to their success? Listen to this. It says there was no contention in the land. I'm thinking about forgiveness and respect and love right here in those three. Maybe right there. There was no contention in the land because of the love of God which did dwell in the hearts of the people. There were no envyings, nor stripes, nor tumults, nor whoredoms, nor lyings, nor murders, nor any manner of lasciviousness. And surely there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God, right? There's these people that are just united in keeping the commandments, loving God, loving each other. It kind of reminds me of King Benjamin when he said, consider on the blessed and happy state of those that keep the Commandments of God. They're blessed in temporal ways and spiritual ways. And it's just a happiest way to live when you live on the principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, wholesome recreation. Like, so good. If I could emphasize any of these. Like, I think repentance and forgiveness are, like, at the beating heart of, like, what makes marriages work. Well, right. There's going to be. No. Inevitably you're going to have situations where you're going to need to forgive your spouse and you're going to need to ask forgiveness of your spouse. Like, that's just always going to be a thing. And once you get good at that, then I found it's a lot easier to ask forgiveness of your children when you. When you do things that you realize in hindsight were not the best things to do or to say or to say. Let me have another shot at that. Will that be all right? I'm sorry that I did it that way or said it that way. That just goes so far in helping relationships. It just lubricates relationships in such beautiful ways that I just love that that's right there in the middle of that cluster. Repentance, forgiveness, growing out of respect and love, no doubt. Let me read the next part and tell me what you think about this, Casey. I think we're now entering into a little more controversial water. 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. Okay, pause right there. We're talking gender roles here, huh?
- [93:05]
B
Nope, nope, nope, nope. Don't pause right there. You got to keep going. Okay? And this is the problem. Back In September of 2025, when the proclamation had a. Its 30th anniversary, this was the part that I saw a lot of people singling out and saying, this is archaic. Like, this is something that doesn't apply any longer, but it's because people stop where you stopped. It gives these different roles to men. Well, the father specifically and a mother specifically. And they don't read the next sentence, which I'm going to read right now. It says in these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another other as equal partners. So essentially, it assigns roles to fathers and it assigns roles to mothers. But then it says you have to help each other fulfill these roles and you have to do so as equal partners. And that's the problem, is that when people Read through the proclamation, they don't read that additional sentence. They just stop before it gets to the equal partnership thing and assume that we're assigning 1950s roles to men and women. Now, it gives three roles to men that they're to protect, preside, and provide, and gives the role of nurturing to women. That doesn't mean that if you're a woman and a bear attacks your children, you can't go, well, it's not my job. Protection's not my racket or anything like that. Or that if you're a man and a child is crying, that you're supposed to sit there and go, well, this looks like a nurturing situation. I need to find a mother to take care of it for me. So. So I think that's a huge misunderstanding and also a huge disservice to the family proclamation that we don't emphasize the last sentence, which in my mind is the most important sentence given there. But, okay, let's deal with it, since it is kind of controversial. So a couple things. First, out of preside, protect and provide. I think probably the most controversial one is preside because it makes it sound like, well, men are in charge at home and women are subservient to men. But in my mind, that's a misunderstanding of what presiding means within a gospel context. Outside of the gospel, in a secular context, we have presidents who preside, right? And the idea was when the president says jump, you say, how high? Like, bring me a Diet Coke. Okay, we'll bring it in. In the gospel context, presiding doesn't place you in a higher position. Place you in a lower position. For instance, this is doctrine and covenants 50:26. But it's just one of many scriptures I could quote. He that is ordained of God and sent forth the same is appointed to be the greatest, notwithstanding he is the least and the servant of all. The presiding is a call to serve others. And that other passages in the Doctrine and covenants, like Section 121, talk about presiding, but not by virtue of the priesthood, by persuasion, longsuffering, gentleness, meekness, love unfeigned by kindness and pure knowledge which will greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy and without guile. So you don't also use your position as presiding officer to just compel people to do things. You use gentleness and meekness. That that's a call to be Christlike, that you preside in the way Christ presided, which was you do provide direction and guidance, but you also do so in a gentle and loving way. And one last thing, I would also add that presiding in the home as being described here, is essentially different too. Let me share an anecdote. This is from a Latter Day Saint marriage and family therapist named Calford Broderick that I really like. And this is an experience he shared. He said, immediately after setting me apart as a stake president, Elder Boyd K. Packard, and you remember Boyd K. Packer, is like World War II veteran, old school.
- [96:55]
1950S guy, right? He said Elder Boyd K. Packer set me down to give a few points of advice on how to succeed in my new calling. I was fully prepared to be receptive to his counsel, but I couldn't help being taken aback by his first admonition. Now, president, I don't want you treating your wife the way you do the steak. And Galford. Broderick says, I was mildly offended. I said I wasn't planning on treating either the stake or my wife badly. I know, he continued, but you need to treat them well differently. In a stake, when a decision is to be made, you will seek the opinion of your counselors and other concerned individuals. Then you will prayerfully reach a decision on the matter and they will all rally round and support you because you are the president and you have the mantle of authority. And Scott, you and I have served in leadership positions in the church. This is really how it works, right? You have a vigorous discussion, but then you let the presiding officer make the decision and we're going to support you. I've even had people in council meetings I'm in say, like, better to be united in a bad plan than divided in a good plan or something like that, which isn't exactly. But he's saying that's how it works in the church. The presiding officer makes the decisions. The next thing Boyd K. Packer said to this stake president was, in your family, when there is a decision to be made that affects everyone, you and your wife together will seek whatever counsel you might need. And together you will prayerfully come to a unified decision. If you ever pull priesthood rank on her, you will have failed in your leadership. So he seems to be teaching that presiding in the church is one thing and presiding at home is a different thing. And that in home there really is this equal partner relationship where you have to achieve consensus on big decisions. And I was trying to say, well, where else do we see this kind of relationship? Because, I mean, even among missionaries, there's a senior and a junior companion. Is the wife the junior companion? No, I don't think so. There's another talk where El Tom Perry, another venerable World War II veteran, said, There is not a president or a vice president in a family. The wife isn't the vice president. The only relationship I can think of that captures this is. Is Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother, where it appears they're so simpatico in what they do that we don't talk a lot about, well, who's the presiding officer? Heavenly Father, Heavenly Mother. They just work together in unity in all things. And I would say at home, that's what presiding means. So people that go after this verse haven't done a deep dive into what presiding actually means within the church and what the Scriptures say about what it means to preside.
- [99:33]
A
Yeah, that's good. I like it. Yeah, it's not controversial that parents are to provide for their kids. But, yeah, preside. The man presides. But then the next sentence, equally with his wife, is.
- [99:46]
Yeah, I. I've heard women say, I wish the proclamation right there just said, husbands and wives provide, preside, protect and nurture their children as equal partners, rather than than parsing them out the way that they did. I'm sure there was meaning in. In doing it that way, but it does. The way that it's phrased, I can see how it lends itself to sometimes people feeling like there's maybe thicker lines in terms of gender roles than there really is because of how it's worded. Because the equal partners clause then kind of, you know, thins that line almost to just a dash. That's like. Well, I mean, if just primary roles, but then you help each other. But. So I don't know. I don't know, Casey, why the Brethren didn't write it that way. Because I think that's the meaning, right? The meaning is husbands and wives preside, provide, protect, and nurture their children together as equal partners.
- [100:37]
B
I would just say don't ever read those first two sentences without reading the third. I mean, after presiding, probably the next most controversial is providing. There's a lot of women that have to work outside the home just to support their family, just to make ends meet. And they feel guilty. Like, should I be at home nurturing my children? And I would also say that the council of the church has been more gentle on that than sometimes the perception is given there. Like, there's this great talk that Quentin L. Cook gave where he's talking about these decisions, and he says this. Women are confronted with many options and need to prayerfully consider the choices they make and how those choices affect the family. These are Very emotional personal decisions. But there are two principles we should always keep in mind. First, no woman should ever feel the need to apologize or feel that her contribution is less significant because she is devoting her primary efforts to raising and nurturing children. Nothing could be more significant in Heavenly Father's plan. And that, interestingly, I'm pausing the quote here for a second, is where we do find ourselves sometimes. Like, I've actually had women in classes that I teach come up and say, is it wrong if I want to stay home with my kids and be a stay at home mom? And I've also had women say, well, I'm just a mom or something like that. And it seems like we're devaluing how incredibly important that is. It's first of all a full time job, no doubt in my mind. And second, I can't think of a more important full time job than that decision at the same time too. And here's the second part, he says, second, we should all be careful not to be judgmental or assume that sisters are less valiant if the decision is made to work outside the home. We rarely understand or fully appreciate people's circumstances. Husbands and wives should prayerfully counsel together, understanding that they're accountable to God for their decisions. So on the flip side, if a woman does choose to work outside the home for whatever reason, just back off a little bit, right? Understand their situation, their timing. My own life. My wife came to me when we were going to have our first baby and said, I'm going to stay at home with the child and so you need to get a job. Which was good motivation for me. I was kind of floating through my college studies and I had a job in insurance by the time the baby came. At the same time too, my wife is a very gifted lighting designer. She does theatrical lighting and.
- [103:06]
She stayed home with our kids. But she also wanted to use her talents to bless others and, and we weren't rich, but we were doing okay. She didn't need to work for us to make ends meet, but she also wanted to express herself and she wanted community and she wanted connection. And so she started to work at a local arts council and then as our children got older and became more independent, worked as a lighting designer and she's got a great career on her own. That aside from the money, which I don't mind, the money brings her a lot of fulfillment and a lot of satisfaction that she making a difference, that she contributes, that she's valued in her role. So it's been a negotiation, it's Been a dance for us, but we have worked it out to where she works because it's part of what fulfills her. It helps her find her talents. But I would never, ever, ever criticize a mother who chooses to stay home and doesn't work in that matter. My kids spent a lot of their childhoods in theater, and that's been good for them. All of them have had a proclivity towards acting and theater and stuff like that because of what their mother did. And I'm really grateful that she's made those decisions. We've worked it out amongst ourselves, and it's been a blessing to us.
- [104:17]
A
Yeah, that's cool. I like that. I think it's interesting that we can kind of beat each other up both ways, right? Like, people looking down on women who want a career or same like, looking down on women who don't want a career. Like, I've noticed the judgment can go both ways, and I think the best advice is stop it. Stop doing that. Let people live and work this out as spouses. Like you said, it's been a dance between you and your spouse to figure out how to continue to take care of the kids while also allowing for that to happen. That's beautiful. That's as it should be. I'm also thinking, just reviewing in my mind some of the women leaders of the church the last. Last decade or so. Like, I'm thinking like Jean Bingham, Relief Society president of the church. She. She taught English as a second language. She served as a nurse's aide. I'm thinking of, like, Camille Johnson, who's the current Relief Society president. She holds a J.D. a juris doctorate. She practiced law for nearly 30 years. I'm thinking of Bonnie Cordon, Young Women's President till 2023. She's, like, worked in management in the software industry. She started her own business. Emily Bel Freeman, the young women's president now, like, she's taught for many years in church education system. She's entrepreneur. Yeah. Like.
- [105:34]
I don't think women like that would be held up in the church and put in those positions if that was looked down upon by church leaders or the Lord or anything like that. Right? So on the one hand, it's like, come on, we got to stop saying that. On the other hand, we also got to stop looking down on women who just want to. To stay home and take care of the kids. Like, let people live their lives. Right? So just don't neglect the kids. Whatever you do, don't neglect the kids. However, you're gonna make that work. Like, just make sure the primary thing stays the primary thing right.
- [106:04]
B
Equal partners and getting the job done right is what we would say. And maybe it could have been written differently, but I still think if you read it carefully and thoughtfully, it's all there and it resolves itself is my feeling. But okay, we got two more sentences to go in this paragraph.
- [106:24]
A
Disability, death or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended family should lend support when needed. That seems very uncontroversial. Anything you want to say about that?
- [106:35]
B
Nothing controversial I can think of, but I will use it as an opportunity to acknowledge something which is that the proclamation is an ideal. Right. And it seems like these sentences were added in to recognize that not everybody is going to experience that ideal. That you might get a divorce when you thought you were going to have a perfect marriage, or you might lose a spouse or a child or have challenges. I mean, one of the things that's been brought up by a couple leaders of the church in the last couple years, and I'm talking like, like Elder Gong and President Ballard, was that the demographics in the church are changing. So does the family Proclamation still apply? For instance, in the April 2021 General Conference, M. Russell Ballard said, brothers and sisters, more than half of the adults in the church today are widowed, divorced or not yet married. Some wonder about their opportunities and place in God's plan and in the church. We should understand that eternal life is not simply a question of. Of current marital status, but of discipleship and being valiant in the testimony of Jesus. The hope of all who are single is the same as for all members of the Lord's restored church. Access to the grace of Christ through obedience to the laws and ordinance of the Gospel. So I would say I'm grateful for these last two sentences because basically they're saying, yeah, we know things are going to sometimes not work out the way that you want them to, or life might not follow this ideal path that sometimes we imagine ourselves to be on.
- [108:07]
A
We idealize it in the church sometimes, don't we?
- [108:09]
B
Yeah, we do. We've all experienced, you know, what it's like on Mother's Day for a. For a person that doesn't have a chance to be a mother and how difficult that can be. But I would say, look, family life is, Is. Is not just for married people. Everybody's part of a family, right? And extended families and found families that exists within the church can also be a really, really important component in our journey towards exaltation and eternal life. And you know what? This emphasis on the nuclear family that has existed in the church for the last few years ignores this rich tradition of aunties and uncles and all kinds of different surrogate parents that exist within the church and surrogate family members. I really think that part of the reason why we have a church, right, is not everybody has a complete family. So we're going to let this ministering brother serve as a surrogate father to a child that doesn't have one, or we're going to be an extended family to a couple that's living a long ways away from their own extended family. We need to recognize that family is a very big, fluid concept. I'm going to quote a note of literary work in saying ohana means family, family, and family means nobody gets left behind. Which actually isn't an ancient Hawaiian proverb, it turns out, but I think captures. What we're going for here is that when we call each other brother and sister in the church, it's because we're also teaching the idea that some families you're born into and some families you choose to be a part of, and both can be very important in our journey to becoming like God, 100%.
- [109:54]
A
As you were talking, I was just thinking about my older sister. She's never been married. She's, I think, 50 years old now, and she is incredible. She is the best aunt. And she has this maternal way with our kids, with all the. With all the extended, you know, my nieces and nephews, like, she's. She's just the best. Everyone loves Aunt Stacy, and she plays a role that, frankly, some of us parents can't quite play, even in the lives of our own children. And so I love that. Sometimes we get too narrow with the idea of family. We're just thinking, mom, dad, children, Dad's family. And if you don't have that arrangement, then it's broken for you. No, it's not. No, it's not. We're all doing this together, and I've seen it firsthand with my amazing older sister. So shout out. Aunt Stacy just shown us how it's done. Like, you just do what you can in the sphere that you're in, and you do the best to love and to nurture and to bless and to protect those kids and to help them become what they can be, and we just help each other.
- [111:04]
B
While you were talking, I was thinking of one of my wife's sisters who's unmarried, but she's the cool aunt, right? She takes care of everybody. And she's an elementary school teacher. So, I mean, at this point, thousands of kids, kids have been blessed by her gifts and what she does to help other people. So it's one of those little lines in the proclamation that I'm grateful for because it recognizes, you know what, there's the ideal, there's the real. We're trying to reach the ideal, but sometimes we have to exist in the real.
- [111:32]
A
Yeah. The prophets are saying, we see you, I think. Right. We see you. Keep doing what you're doing. Do the best you can.
- [111:38]
B
Okay, my turn to throw a paragraph at you. You threw the longest paragraph in the family proclamation right direction. So you got to manage this one. Okay. We warn 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. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. Where's this coming from?
- [112:09]
A
We could quote a long list of scriptures that talk about that we're going to be judged for our actions. Right. And our intentions and our thoughts and our words. So I think Judgment Day is a pretty solid scripturally based concept. Right. We will be judged by how we treat other people, particularly our family members. I love that it's being really specific there. We'll be held accountable for violating chastity. I think that that's incredibly scriptural. I'm thinking Alma 39. When Alma has a son that's struggled in this. In this way, and he helps him work through that issue, but he makes it very clear that that is something that he'd be held accountable before God. If he does not repent, that would. Anyway. We could multiply examples. I don't think that's very controversial here. Basically what this is saying is if you don't keep the laws of God, you're going to be held accountable for that as it pertains to. To family, just like all the other ways that we will be held accountable for God's laws. Here's a great quote from Elder Dale G. Renlund. He's talking about those who flagrantly violate the laws of God. In this case, he's talking about the law of chastity. But just think how this applies here. He said, no accountability for any choice. Sounds like the ultimate freedom. If we can avoid most worldly consequences by being discreet and careful, what's the harm? He says against this backdrop, the law of chastity seems old fashioned, prudish, or unnecessary. But then he says God's laws are not negotiable. He allows us to disregard them. But we're not free to create our own rules for the eternities any more than a person is free to create his or her personalized laws for physics. God wants us to be a qualified heir in his kingdom. To expect his heavenly inheritance while following a different course than he has outlined is naive. We are free to choose our own course in life, but we are not free to choose the outcome that comes from following our own rules. No matter how many times someone says we can, it won't work. He says, heavenly Father is not to blame when we don't receive blessings connected to the law of chastity because of disobedience. So that's really helpful. And in terms of, like, abuse, again, I don't think that's controversial that God is against abuse or that that's condemned in Scripture or by prophets. But here's, here's just one statement that I think is representative of the church position on this. Elder Holland, he said this, quote, a husband who would never dream of striking his wife physically can break, if not her bones, then certainly her heart by the brutality of thoughtless or unkind speech. Physical abuse is uniformly and unequivocally condemned in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. If it's possible to be more condemning than that. We speak even more vigorously against all forms of sexual abuse. Close quote. I think it's clear it's not controversial. Let's go to that next line too, where they say, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. I'm struck by the word calamities, Casey. That's the same word the Lord used in Doctrine and Covenants Section one, when he said, there is a calamity coming. Because why? Because people are walking after the image of their own God and their own idolatry and their own rebellion. They're doing things their own way and not God's way. And they're free to do that. As Elder Renlund said, you can do that, but what you can't do is then forestall the consequences of living that way. So the calamity is coming. That's. That's clear from, I think, abundant places in the doctrine of covenant. Section 1, section 45, section 133, calamities coming. And the way that we can avoid that happening in our lives and keeping those calamities from affecting us deeply is by keeping Our covenants, like section one, is very clear. Those who heed the Lord's voice and repent are the ones who will be spared the full consequences of that, right? I think we might still be affected by seeing people that we love. However, that's going to look like people will be affected by it, but we will be spared, right? Stand in holy places and be not moved when the calamity is coming. Like as you keep your covenants, chastity and all the other ones, this is how we get protection. So I think that's thoroughly scriptural. I don't know. What would you add to that, Casey?
- [116:32]
B
I would add that when we think of calamities, right, we think of like a meteor hitting the earth or an earthquake or a volcano or that kind of thing. But the calamities of the last days can be family related too, right? Like when we talk about, you know, endemic crime or income inequality or all these societal problems that we're trying to deal with, we sometimes look past the fact that a lot of these problems have been exacerbated by the fact that we don't have whole families. Like there has been an economic price paid for the increase in the number of divorces we have or the rise in the number of unmarried couples. And again, it's difficult to talk about because it feels like we're trying to legislate how people lead their personal lives, which people hate at the same time, too. You know, what? If we had a mother and a father in every home that were doing what the proclamation prescribes, we'd solve a lot of the societal problems that we're dealing with. And I know that that's overly simplifying the problem. But the calamities aren't always natural disasters. Sometimes the calamities are, you know, that a kid grows up in a home without a strong male role model or a little girl doesn't get the kind of love and affection that she deserves because she's raised in a home where there's substance abuse or something like that, like these calamities it mentions in the paragraph itself come upon individuals, communities and nations. And we tend to only think of calamities on a national scale, when in reality, the calamities that we're trying to avert here through the teachings of Jesus Christ are for individuals, communities and nations, that they happen on personal levels as well. And these individual calamities can often be avoided if we just repent and heed the teachings of Jesus Christ.
- [118:27]
A
Love it. Okay, last paragraph for you, Casey. 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.
- [118:41]
B
So I'm going to come out directly and say this doesn't have an ancient or scriptural origin because it's a call to action in our day. Like, this is the Today's News Today section of the Family proclamation, where they're not citing anything ancient. They're saying, we're asking you to do something about it. If I were to tie it back to one scripture, maybe it would be Malachi 4, 5, 6, where it's always struck me that idea that if Elijah doesn't come, lest the earth will be smitten with a curse, that it doesn't have to happen, we can do something about it. I mean, one of the differences in Judeo Christian prophecies is that often they're not a foregone conclusion. The Lord says, this is going to happen if you don't do this, go do something about it. It's not like Oedipus, where he was always going to kill his dad and marry his mother and he didn't have any choice in the matter. Most of the time, when the Lord presents us with a prophecy about the future, he's trying to get us to get up and do something about it. And so I would say this call to action is a call to all of us to get out there and do what we can in civic and governmental roles, roles in community roles, to just try and make a difference. But I mean, it's just like President Hinckley said earlier, and you quoted that wonderful quote that the best place to instill values is in the home of a person. So, I mean, if you want to do what this last paragraph says and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society, it starts at home, right? You go home, you do your job, you be responsible, you take care of the people around you, you contribute to your teach them the gospel. And then as you leave the home, in your career, in your life, in your civic engagement, you do look at things and say, hey, is this going to help us have stronger families? And when we vote, when we engage on all levels, that should be something that's foremost in our mind, like, will this action make life easier for families? Will it strengthen families? That should be a guiding principle in a lot of our civic engagement.
- [120:43]
A
Beautiful. Okay, we did it. That's the whole proclamation. Let's now move on to the third C. The controversies.
- [120:55]
B
So I've got a controversy for you, Scott, and this is one we brought Up. It. It came up back in September when we had our. Our 30th anniversary. How come female church leaders weren't consulted in writing the Family Proclamation? We did talk about how President Hinckley consulted with them in announcing the Family Proclamation, but it doesn't seem. We have a source that says, like, they sat down with the General Relief Society presidency and asked for their feedback on the proclamation. So what would you say to somebody that says that? Like, why did they consult the female leadership of the church?
- [121:24]
A
What's funny is there actually is an interview with Sister Chico Okasaki. Remember, she was a counselor in the Relief Society presidency when President Hinckley was consulting. Like, when is it okay if I. I read this? In your. In your meeting in 2012. She was interviewed in which she said this. She said, In 1995, when the family Proclamation was written, the Relief Society presidency was asked to come to a meeting. We did, and they read this proclamation. It was all finished. The only question was whether they should present it at the priesthood meeting or at the Relief Society meeting. It didn't matter to me where it was presented. She said what I wanted to know was how come we weren't consulted. Uh, oh. Then she says, they just asked us which meeting to present it in. And we said, whatever President Hinckley decides is fine with us. He decided to do it in the Relief Society meeting. The apostle who was our liaison said, isn't it wonderful that he made the choice to present it at the Relief Society meeting? Well, that was fine, but as I read it, I thought that we could have made a few changes in it.
- [122:29]
B
Sister Okazaki, she is spunky.
- [122:32]
A
Yeah, a little spice there. But that. I think that underscores the angst of this. Right. Like, how come women weren't consulted? She's very clear saying we weren't, and I wish we were, and I would have made some suggestions. So I don't know. I've got a couple thoughts. I don't think I have anything definitive, but as we mentioned, this is. This is only the fifth ever proclamation in our church's history. And I don't think in the creation of the previous four proclamations, any women leaders had been consulted. I'm not saying that's right. I'm just saying it wasn't precedented. Right. Of course it could be a good idea, but not doing that was not violating any sort of precedent. That's where my thoughts went initially. Also, some. Some might argue that there is a substantive difference in the job descriptions of prophet seers and revelators on the one hand, and General Relief Society, young women and primary leaders on the other. Right. Whose job is it to make proclamations for the whole church? I think we would all agree it's the first presidency in the 12. Now, is it a bad idea for them to consult? I don't think so. Is it required? Clearly not. On the other hand, you know, the counterpoint would be to say, well, sure, the final say rests with the first presidency in 12. But involving the sisters would have been valuable. In fact, doing so would have been a very smart move in the spirit of counseling together and sort of info gathering and perspective sharing, wouldn't it? Like that seems like that'd be valuable. It certainly could have made it better. It wouldn't have made it worse. Right, because the first presidency in 12 wouldn't have to go with any of the suggestions. And so I see that. But ultimately, I think it does come down to prophets, seers and revelators uniting in their calling to set clear the doctrine of the church and to then offer a warning to the nations. And that seems to fall ultimately in that role squarely and not so much in other church roles, other church callings that one might get. So I know that's not going to be a completely satisfying answer to all of our feminist friends out there who may be listening, but who I have respect for, by the way. But I just. I don't know anything. You would add Casey to that one.
- [124:45]
B
I was thinking as you were talking about the cultural gap of the last 30 years and what's happened, and there have been some major changes in church culture in the last 30 years that I think are more positive. And it would be difficult to imagine the proclamation being written today without consultation from female leaders. But let me just point out a couple of things. When I first started serving within the church as an adult, it felt like the primary governing body of the ward was the pec, which stood for Priesthood Executive Committee. And at the time, this was the bishopric, the elders quorum president, the high priest group leader, which is a position that doesn't even really exist anymore, and the ward mission leader. And they made all the decisions. Right. And I remember attending PEC and. And we were getting good stuff done, and we tried to be as sensitive as we could to Everybody. But in 2010, there was a new handbook that was sent out that all of a sudden changed things, that it basically said the primary governing body of the ward should be the ward council. What's the difference between the ward council and the PC? The ward council Includes the Relief Society precedent, the young Women's precedent, the primary precedent gave women a more prominent role. And it was interesting that within a year or PEC had gone from being a two hour meeting on Sunday to a half hour meeting that took place right before Word Council to just being eliminated generally because it was sort of redundant to begin with. And we realized that the council of the female leadership of the Word was so valuable that, you know, what's the point in having pec? Let's just get everybody together and start making decisions. And that has been reflected in the higher leadership of the church. Church too. In the higher leadership of the church, the general officers of the church, the female general officers of the church have been elevated and put on keyboards that oversee missionary work and temple work and curriculum and a number of other things. So we see women in much more prominent roles today. And that's been a subtle shift that's happened in the church primarily on the local level. That doesn't always get acknowledged within the church as well. The second thing I would say too is just because women didn't appear to have consulted on the proclamation doesn't mean that they haven't made great comments on the proclamation. And some of the most profound addresses interpreting the proclamation, explaining and defending the proclamation, like, honestly, my favorite talk on the proclamation generally comes from Bonnie oscarson. It's her 2015 talk that was given for the 20th anniversary of the proclamation called Defenders of the Family Proclamation. And she just basically came out swinging and pointed out a couple of important things about the proclamation, its origins and why it matters so much. I mean, maybe it wasn't written by the female leadership of the church, but I don't think anybody that knows anything about the discourse within the church is going to say that it hasn't been endorsed by the female leadership of the church on occasion after occasion after occasion. And we're finding ourselves back in the position we often find ourselves in when we're accused of being a patriarchy or being male dominator, which is we just allow women within the church to speak for themselves and articulate why they feel valued and teach the doctrine of the church in a way that's powerful and that helps people. I agree that maybe women should have been consulted, but it seems like there's been structural changes in the church that have helped us down that road. And certainly women have been some of the best voices in speaking out in defense of the Family Proclamation.
- [128:27]
A
Good thoughts. I have a question for you, Casey. Let's just hit it. People are always hitting around this Question. Let's just hit it right now. Should we consider the family proclamation Scripture?
- [128:37]
B
Good question. The short answer is, is it Scripture? Yes, absolutely. By the definition given in the Doctrine and Covenants, which we've had this discussion a couple times, it's Scripture. The Lord said, this is section 68, 3, 4. So this is the Savior defining Scripture. Whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be Scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, and shall be the voice of the Lord and the power of God unto salvation. Under that standard, the proclamation is Scripture. No doubt in my mind. Now, is it canon? Should it be canonized? We had people, especially when we talked about Section 134, say, why hasn't the family proclamation been canonized? It seems like it's very similar to section 134 in that it's a written document that isn't a dialogic revelation. And it seems like it's quoted so much. And it's really important to us that why haven't we just made this thing formal and put it in the Doctrine and Covenants? I don't know. And that decision is way above our pay grade, first of all. But it hasn't been canonized. And because of that, we can say that it's semi canonical. We can cite it and say how important it is, but for whatever reason, the leadership of the Church hasn't been moved upon to put it through the formal canonization process yet. I'm not saying that'll never happen, but it just hasn't happened. As of this recording in 2025.
- [130:04]
A
President Hinckley was really clear when he introduced this. This in not introducing it as a revelation, but introducing it as what he said was, quote, we of the First Presidency and Council, the twelve Apostles, now issue a proclamation to the Church and to the world as. Listen to this language. A declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history. Right. So. So this is a secondary derivative document as stated by President Hinckley. This is not a primary source. It's a summary. Right. We could call it an authoritative doctrinal consolidation, maybe even an intensification of some of the existing teachings that's just been brought together in one page and proclaimed throughout the world in a moment of perceived crisis. Right. In the 90s, as we talked about the content context. Right. It is. It's. It's a summary document. And President Oaks has called it, quote, the Lord's re emphasis of the gospel truths we need to sustain us through current challenges to the family. Close quote. I think that's a great way to say it. Right. It's a re emphasis. So yeah. Is it scripture? I love the Section 68 definition. Sure. Is it canon? Everybody will say, is it, Was it revelation? Those involved say that there's revelation involved in the process. President Oaks has said that others have talked about that explicitly. But was it a, like you said, dialogic revelation? No, it's a reaffirmation. It's a secondary derivative, consolidated doctrinal document.
- [131:43]
B
We don't mean derivative in a negative sense here. We mean. No, it's just derived from the scriptures. It's like President Hinckley said, a declaration, but mostly a reaffirmation of stuff that we already believe. The parts at the end where they're calling for greater engagement and they're warning are new. But most of the document, as we've sort of proved in our conversation, is old. We've known this for a long time. Just nice to have it all in one place. It's incredibly useful to have it in one place and to hang it on your wall. Even better. That just kind of shows people why it matters to you and why it's so important. Okay, I'm going to throw one more controversy at you and maybe I have the wrong friends on social media, but I heard one or two people say this at the anniversary of the proclamation, its 30th anniversary back in September. And they said it in a very like derogatory way, which was, well, the proclamation was written by lawyers. So what would you say to someone.
- [132:43]
A
That says that, yeah, President or elder James E. Faust and Dallin H. Oaks used to be a lawyer and they totally helped in writing this proclamation. Yeah, for sure. That's not what they mean. They mean in the Hawaii kerfuffle, right when the same sex legal challenge was happening in Hawaii back in the early 90s, mid-90s, and the church was concerned and started to get involved. Did the church outsource the writing kind of secretly almost to some lawyers to write the proclamation. And then once they basically had the shape of it, then they put their stamp of approval on it and sent that out to the world. Is that what happened? And the answer to that is no. So let me, let me give you a little context. There's actually a great quick little write up that I think is well done on mormoner.org about the family Proclamation. And they do a good job walking through this. Here's how the question is framed on their website. Who wrote the family proclamation? Did attorneys write it to support the fight against gay marriage in Hawaii? Right. That's. That's the accusation, isn't it? And so they say no, but sort of, yes. When I saw that, I was like, why would you say it that way? Here they say it was not written by the church's attorneys, but as we've mentioned, it was later used in 1997 in a Hawaii case as an part of the amicus brief. They actually appended the family proclamation there. Right. It has been used legally there. But no, this was not written by church lawyers. Here's one connection, though. Initial drafts of the family proclamation were written by members of the 12, as we said, then submitted to the first presidency. That's all, like, really transparent, and I think that's pretty unassailable that that's how it happened. But there is a lawyer named Lynn Wardle who was a BYU law professor known for his opposition to gay marriage. He seems to have been consulted on the church's filing in the Hawaii Bear versus Mike's case. Was he consulted in drafting the family proclamation? Not likely. There's no evidence for or against that. But this kind of comes from a couple fragmented, like, online sources. Greg Prince likes to promote this, but when you look at his sources, it's people who heard that someone said. It's like. It's like, kind of like. Like there's nothing really solid to really go on here. If the brethren, like, had lawyers look at it, I'm fine with that, but I think there's like, a little bit of a tinge of accusation in the very question. Right. Didn't lawyers just write this and then the church. It's like, no. Like, stop. Like that. No, that didn't happen. No more. Lawyers involved in the church's efforts in Hawaii, like, church lawyers, that. Yeah. Did they consult them? Yeah. Did they use the family proclamation? Yes, they did. Right. In 1997 as part of the amicus brief. But, yeah. So that's. That's kind of the. The reality of that situation, as far as we can see from, like, trustworthy sources. Right.
- [135:43]
B
Hey, even if it was written by lawyers, it doesn't mean that it couldn't be inspired. Right. I mean, Paul was a lawyer. Right. He dabbled in a lot of different. He was a. He was a jack of all trades. James E. Faust and Dalliny Chokes were lawyers. It doesn't mean that it wasn't inspired. And again, a lot of the discourse surrounding this, I'm not going to name names has been I heard or this person. And they're completely ignoring the primary source participants like Dallin H. Oaks who have been saying this is how it was written. President Oaks 2017 address is fairly straightforward in saying here's what happened. And the second thing is, I would say is we also don't think that revelation comes in a vacuum. So why are they treating a legal case in Hawaii as something that delegitimizes the proclamation, which is what they're really trying to do differently than they would treat the circumstances surrounding receiving the word of wisdom? Or Joseph Smith is in Liberty jail and he writes an epistle. It seems like a really odd place to start from and a weird criticism of the proclamation because them being lawyers doesn't invalidate it as an inspired document. And secondly, the context doesn't invalidate it. In fact, we would say knowing the context is an important part of understanding all of these sacred documents that we've been going through the entire year. So why is the proclamation an exception? I just don't get it.
- [137:05]
A
Were there real life circumstances that happened in the real world that got the prophets thinking in this direction to want to make this proclamation? There was. Yeah, there really was.
- [137:15]
B
They've said there was. They've even openly told the story in general conference. But. But they have to turn it into this whole sneaking around. Their law firm wrote this. When they're ignoring the primary sources, which is what responsible historians do, they go to the primary sources and listen to what they have to say first.
- [137:32]
A
There you go. All right, Casey, that was a lot. Final C. Consequences. What do you want to say in terms of like long term effect of family proclamation?
- [137:48]
B
In the years following the introduction of the proclamation, it's become a touchstone for Latter Day Saints as the world continuously kind of shifts values with regards to the family. And some of these re evaluations of the family have been positive. To be honest with you, some of them haven't been so positive. President Oaks just emphasized it, that wonderful quote, he called it the Lord's re emphasis of gospel truths. We need to sustain us through current challenges to the family. But let me introduce a different voice here, and I cited her earlier. But Bonnie Oscarson, who was the General Young Women's President on the 20th anniversary of the proclamation, pointed out a really good thing is that the proclamation has become a touchstone for us where everything is being reevaluated. She said this. Little did we realize then how very desperately we would need these basic declarations in today's world as the criteria by which we could judge each new wind of worldly dogma coming at us from the media, the Internet, scholars, TV and films, and even legislators. The proclamation on the Family has become our benchmark for judging the philosophies of the world. And I testify that the principles set forth within this statement are as true today as they were when they were given to us by a prophet of God nearly 20 years ago. And I would add 30 years now. Still the same. I agree that it's just gotten more topsy turvy out there. And the proclamation gives everybody a place to start with. And for being one page long, it is a dense document. Like you may have noticed, we talked a lot about this. There is a class that Scott and I have both taught that is an entire semester of dealing with the proclamation.
- [139:30]
A
26 hours worth for me, the fact.
- [139:32]
B
That we've gotten through it in a couple hours, I'm genuinely happy because there's. There's so much more we could be discussing and every sentence has so much meaning associated with it. It's a document that we should read and study and read and study again.
- [139:46]
A
It's a document that, as you study it, like it continues to yield insights as you push deeper like it pushes back in good ways and fruitful ways. And I can only speak in my own personal experience, like the doctrinal clarity of this document is phenomenal and has been very helpful in, in my own approach to marriage and family and not just in my own living it, but trying to figure out, like, the most sensitive and compassionate ways to defend it while being, you know, thoughtful and careful in how I approach those and talk about those who, you know, are mentioned in here, some of these sensitive groups. It's so valuable. I've daydreamed, Casey, that the prophets would do this with every topic. Would you just make a one pager, please? Would you just synthesize the teachings of the last 200 years.
- [140:40]
On all the important topics? I know that's a ton of work, and I know they put so much into this and grateful for that, for the way that it made a splash when it first came out. And the ripples that it continues to make today are positive ones, I think. Overall, of course, there's pushback. Of course there's challenges. They knew it would be. They were very aware when they proclaimed this that they were proclaiming it into a world that was not settled on these issues. So if you hear about pushback, if you see.
- [141:12]
Difference of opinions than what's proclaimed here. That's precisely why it was proclaimed. It was into that context. And I think it's done a lot of good overall. I think. I think the net is positive. It's a net positive document. Although I know, you know, not everyone agrees with it. And I say, well, agency has been activated. You can choose to follow the prophets or not on this. And, you know, God bless on your journey, but I'm grateful. As for me and my house, this has been a great blessing.
- [141:44]
B
Yeah, me, too. So go spend some time with your family and cherish them now that you've spent a couple hours with the proclamation. All right, Scott, until next time.
- [141:54]
A
Okay. We'll see you, Casey. Thanks.