View source for The Family: A Proclamation to the World

{{Main Page}}
{{Navigation:Social issues}}{{blankline}}

= Is the document "The Family: A ''Proclamation'' to the World" official doctrine? =
== Church leaders have repeatedly taught that the ''Proclamation'' is official doctrine ==

Some do not like the doctrines taught in the ''Proclamation'' on the Family, and claim that it is not "scripture" or not "official doctrine." What have Church leaders said on this matter?

Church leaders have repeatedly taught that:
* The ''Proclamation'' is official doctrine.
* It was written and endorsed by all members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.
* It does not teach new doctrine, but merely reiterates and emphasizes principles long taught in the Church.
* It is an inspired, prophetic, and vital instruction for our day.
* Members have a duty to hold it up, teach it, and live its principles.

Those who wish to claim that the ''Proclamation'' is not official are either ignorant of these teachings, or are seeking to deceive their audience.

{{Epigraph|That marvelous document [the ''Proclamation''] brings together the scriptural direction that we have received that has guided the lives of God’s children from the time of Adam and Eve and will continue to guide us until the final winding-up scene.<br>&mdash;Elder David B. Haight<ref>{{Ensign|author=David B. Haight|article=Be A Strong Link|vol=30|num=11|date=November 2000|pages=|url=https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/be-a-strong-link?lang=eng}}</ref>}}

= Official doctrine =

== Proclamations are unusual ==

President Henry B. Eyring made the significance of the ''Proclamation'' clear, and described the weight which the apostles attach to it:

<blockquote>
Since the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ through the Prophet Joseph Smith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has [http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Proclamations_of_the_First_Presidency_and_the_Quorum_of_the_Twelve_Apostles issued a ''Proclamation'' only four times]. It had been more than 15 years since the previous one, which described the progress the Church had made in 150 years of its history. Thus, we can understand the importance our Heavenly Father places upon the family, the subject of the fifth and most recent proclamation, given on 23 September 1995.<ref> Henry B. Eyring, "[http://lds.org/ensign/1998/02/the-family The Family]," ''Ensign'' 28 (February 1998).</ref>
</blockquote>

== President Hinckley announced that the ''Proclamation'' was a reiteration of doctrine ==

The ''Proclamation'' was first read by President Gordon B. Hinckley at a General Relief Society Meeting on 25 September 1995. Before reading it, he said:

<blockquote>
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....<ref>{{Ensign|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Stand Strong against the Wiles of the World|vol=25|num=11|date=November 1995|pages=98|url=https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1995/10/stand-strong-against-the-wiles-of-the-world?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

President Hinckley did not, then, regard the doctrine within the ''Proclamation'' as radical or new&mdash;it was intended to be a reconfirmation and reiteration of doctrines long taught by "the prophets, seers, and revelators of" the Church.

{{Related articles
|title=more
|link1=Mormonism and prophets/Mormonism and The Proclamation on the Family/Longstanding doctrine
|subject1=''Proclamation'' doctrines are longstanding
|summary1 =
}}

== Origin of the ''Proclamation'' ==

President Boyd K. Packer described the circumstances behind issuing the ''Proclamation'':

<blockquote>
The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve issued a ''Proclamation'' on the family. I can tell you how that came about. They had a world conference on the family sponsored by the United Nations in Beijing, China. We sent representatives. It was not pleasant what they heard. They called another one in Cairo. Some of our people were there. I read the proceedings of that. The word ''marriage'' was not mentioned. It was at a conference on the family, but marriage was not even mentioned.

It was then they announced that they were going to have such a conference here in Salt Lake City. Some of us made the recommendation: "They are coming here. We had better proclaim our position."<ref>Boyd K. Packer, "The Instrument of Your Mind and the Foundation of Your Character," CES Fireside (2 February 2003).{{link|url=http://speeches.byu.edu/index.php?act=viewitem&id=180}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The intention, then, was to proclaim the Church's official position on these matters.

== Standard for official doctrine ==

Elder Neal L. Anderson taught:

<blockquote>
There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is '''taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve'''. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many {{ea}}. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.<ref>{{Ensign|author=Neal A. Anderson|article=Trial of Your Faith|vol=42|num=11|date=November 2012|pages=|url=https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/trial-of-your-faith?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

{{Related articles
|title=more
|link1=Mormonism and prophets/Mormonism and The ''Proclamation'' on the Family/Frequently taught
|subject1=Proclamation on the Family taught frequently since being issued
|summary1 =
}}

The Church's official website emphasized:

<blockquote>
With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four "standard works" of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), '''official declarations and proclamations''', and the Articles of Faith {{ea}}.<ref>" Approaching Mormon Doctrine, LDS Newsroom (4 May 2007). {{link|url=http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Elder D. Todd Christofferson echoed this idea:

<blockquote>
The President of the Church may announce or interpret doctrines based on revelation to him. Doctrinal exposition may also come through the '''combined council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles'''. Council deliberations will often include a weighing of canonized scriptures, the teachings of Church leaders, and past practice.<ref> {{Ensign|author=D. Todd Christofferson|article=The Doctrine of Christ|vol=42|num=5|date=May 2012|pages=|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Thus, statements by the united First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and official proclamations are official Church doctrine. The ''Proclamation on the Family'' qualifies on both counts.

{{More_old|Church_doctrine/Official_or_core_doctrine|l1=Official doctrine}}

== All fifteen apostles involved in preparing the ''Proclamation'' ==

President Boyd K. Packer said:

<blockquote>
In 1995 that great document "The Family: A ''Proclamation'' to the World"9 was prepared by '''all members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles'''....

The hope is that Latter-day Saints will recognize the transcendent importance of the family and live in such a spiritually attentive way that the adversary cannot steal into the home and carry away the children....{{ea}}<ref>Boyd K. Packer, "[http://speeches.byu.edu/index.php?act=viewitem&id=1856 Fledgling Finches and Family Life], BYU Campus Education Week Devotional, 18 August 2009.</ref>
</blockquote>

== Scripture? ==

The ''Proclamation'' is not canonized scripture&mdash;that status applies only to The Holy Bible, The Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price.

The Doctrine and Covenants states:

<blockquote>
Search these commandments, for they are true and faithful, and the prophecies and promises which are in them shall all be fulfilled. What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same ({{s||D&C|1|37-38}}).
</blockquote>

President Henry B. Eyring applied this verse to the ''Proclamation'':

<blockquote>
The title of the ''Proclamation'' on the family reads: "The Family: A ''Proclamation'' to the World—The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

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 proclaiming it are those we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators. All this means that the family must be of tremendous importance to us, that whatever the ''Proclamation'' says could help anyone in the world, and that the ''Proclamation'' fits the Lord’s promise when he said, "Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same" ({{s||D&C|1|38}}).<ref>{{Ensign|author=Henry B. Eyring|article=|vol=28|num=2|date=February 1998|pages=|url=http://lds.org/ensign/1998/02/the-family}}</ref>
</blockquote>

While not canonized scripture, then, the ''Proclamation'' may well meet the criteria for the broader use of the term ''scripture'' in LDS thought:

<blockquote>
And 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, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation ({{s||D&C|68|4}}).
</blockquote>

== "Significant, major, revelatory, scripturelike" ==

President Packer told a Worldwide Leadership Training Broadcast:

<blockquote>
A ''Proclamation'' in the Church is a significant, major announcement. Very few of them have been issued from the beginning of the Church. They are significant; they are revelatory. At that time, the Brethren issued "The Family: A ''Proclamation'' to the World." It is scripturelike in its power.

When you wonder why we are the way we are and why we do the things we do and why we will not do some of the things that we will not do, you can find the authority for that in this ''Proclamation'' on the family. There are times when we are accused of being intolerant because we won't accept and do the things that are supposed to be the norm in society. Well, the things we won't do, we won't do. And the things we won't do, we can't do, because the standard we follow is given of Him.

As we examine this ''Proclamation'' more closely, see if you don't see in it the issues that are foremost in society, in politics, in government, in religion now that are causing the most concern and difficulty. You'll find answers there - and they are the answers of the Church.<ref>Boyd K. Packer, "Proclamation on the Family]," Worldwide Leadership Training Broadcast (9 February 2008). {{link|url=https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/archive/worldwide-leadership-training/2008/02?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

== "Marvelous," "Scriptural direction" ==

Elder David B. Haight said:

<blockquote>
I spoke to the audience and to this young mother about the ''Proclamation'' that was issued five years ago by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, a ''Proclamation'' on the family, and of our responsibility to our children, and the children’s responsibility to their parents, and the parents’ responsibility to each other. That marvelous document brings together the scriptural direction that we have received that has guided the lives of God’s children from the time of Adam and Eve and will continue to guide us until the final winding-up scene.<ref>{{Ensign|author=David B. Haight|article=Be A Strong Link|vol=30|num=11|date=November 2000|pages=|url=https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/be-a-strong-link?lang=eng}}.</ref>
</blockquote>

== "God-given," "scripturally-based doctrines" ==

Elder M. Russell Ballard:

<blockquote>
False prophets and false teachers are also those who attempt to change the God-given and scripturally based doctrines that protect the sanctity of marriage, the divine nature of the family, and the essential doctrine of personal morality. They advocate a redefinition of morality to justify fornication, adultery, and homosexual relationships. Some openly champion the legalization of so-called same-gender marriages. To justify their rejection of God’s immutable laws that protect the family, these false prophets and false teachers even attack the inspired ''Proclamation'' on the family issued to the world in 1995 by the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles.<ref>{{Ensign|author=M. Russell Ballard|article=Beware of False Prophets and False Teachers|vol=29|num=11|date=November 1999|pages=|url=https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1999/10/beware-of-false-prophets-and-false-teachers?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

= Statements by apostles and prophets about the ''Proclamation'' =

== "A prophetic document" ==

Elder M. Russell Ballard said:

<blockquote>
Brothers and sisters, this year marks the 10th anniversary of the ''Proclamation'' to the world on the family, which was issued by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in 1995 (see "The Family: A ''Proclamation'' to the World," ''Liahona'', Oct. 2004, 49; ''Ensign'', Nov. 1995, 102). It was then and is now a clarion call to protect and strengthen families and a stern warning in a world where declining values and misplaced priorities threaten to destroy society by undermining its basic unit.

The ''Proclamation'' is a prophetic document, not only because it was issued by prophets but because it was ahead of its time. It warns against many of the very things that have threatened and undermined families during the last decade and calls for the priority and the emphasis families need if they are to survive in an environment that seems ever more toxic to traditional marriage and to parent-child relationships.<ref{{Ensign|author=>M. Russell Ballard|article=What Matters Most Is What Lasts Longest|vol=35|num=11|date=November 2005|pages=|url=https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2005/10/what-matters-most-is-what-lasts-longest?lang=eng}}</ref>

Within this context of the preeminent importance of families and the threats families face today, it is not surprising that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles used strong words in the ''Proclamation'' to the world on families....<ref>{{Ensign|author=M. Russell Ballard|article=Let Our Voices Be Heard|vol=33|num=11|date=November 2003|pages=|url=https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2003/10/let-our-voices-be-heard?lang=eng}}.</ref>
</blockquote>

== "An inspired document" "historic" ==

President Boyd K. Packer:

<blockquote>
In "The Family: A ''Proclamation'' to the World," an inspired document issued by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, we learn that....<ref>{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=Counsel to Youth|vol=41|num=11|date=November 2011|pages=|url=https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2011/10/counsel-to-youth?lang=eng}}</ref>

We have watched the standards of morality sink ever lower until now they are in a free fall. At the same time we have seen an outpouring of inspired guidance for parents and for families.

The whole of the curriculum and all of the activities of the Church have been restructured and correlated with the home:....And then the historic ''Proclamation'' on the Family was issued by the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles.<ref{{Ensign|author=>Boyd K. Packer|article=Parents in Zion|vol=28|num=10|date=October 1998|pages=|url=https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1998/10/parents-in-zion?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

== Those who attack "the inspired proclamation" are "false prophets and false teachers" ==

Elder M. Russell Ballard:

<blockquote>
False prophets and false teachers are also those who attempt to change the God-given and scripturally based doctrines that protect the sanctity of marriage, the divine nature of the family, and the essential doctrine of personal morality. They advocate a redefinition of morality to justify fornication, adultery, and homosexual relationships. Some openly champion the legalization of so-called same-gender marriages. To justify their rejection of God’s immutable laws that protect the family, these false prophets and false teachers even attack the inspired ''Proclamation'' on the family issued to the world in 1995 by the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles.<ref>{{Ensign|author=M. Russell Ballard|article=Beware of False Prophets and False Teachers|vol=29|num=11|date=November 1999|pages=|url=https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1999/10/beware-of-false-prophets-and-false-teachers?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

== "Reiteration" of doctrine ==

Elder L. Tom Perry said:

<blockquote>
The doctrine of the family and the home was recently reiterated with great clarity and forcefulness in "The Family: A ''Proclamation'' to the World." It declared the eternal nature of families and then explained the connection to temple worship. The ''Proclamation'' also declared the law upon which the eternal happiness of families is predicated, namely, "The sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."<ref>{{Ensign|author=L. Tom Perry|article=Obedience to Law Is Liberty|vol=43|num=5|date=May 2013|pages=|url=https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/04/obedience-to-law-is-liberty?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

== Critical doctrines ==

Elder Neal A. Maxwell:

<blockquote>
In the passing years I have developed much appreciation for the institution of the family. Other institutions simply cannot compensate fully for failing families. If we will hold fast to the Church's ''Proclamation'' on the family, we will see that we hold the jewels, as it were, that can enrich so many other things. Let the world go its own way on the family. It appears to be determined to do that. But we do not have that option. Our doctrines and teachings on the family are very, very powerful, and they are full of implications for all the people on this planet.<ref>Neal A. Maxwell, "Sharing Insights from My Life," BYU Devotional 12 Jan 1999. {{link|url=http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=3590&x=61&y=5}}</ref>
</blockquote>

President Eyring regarded the ''Proclamation'' as describing the things that "matter...most":

<blockquote>
Because our Father loves his children, he will not leave us to guess about what matters most in this life concerning where our attention could bring happiness or our indifference could bring sadness. Sometimes he will tell a person such things directly, by inspiration. But he will, in addition, tell us these important matters through his servants. In the words of the prophet Amos, recorded long ago, "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets" ({{s||Amos|3|7}}). He does this so that even those who cannot feel inspiration can know, if they will only listen, that they have been told the truth and been warned.<ref>{{Ensign|author=Henry B. Eyring|article=|vol=28|num=2|date=February 1998|pages=|url=http://lds.org/ensign/1998/02/the-family}}</ref>
</blockquote>

== Important ==

Elder Robert D. Hales:

<blockquote>
To know and keep the commandments, we must know and follow the Savior and the prophets of God. We were all blessed recently to receive an important message from modern prophets, entitled "The Family: A ''Proclamation'' to the World" (see Ensign, Nov. 1995, 102). This ''Proclamation'' warns us what will happen if we do not strengthen the family unit in our homes, our communities, and our nations. Every priesthood holder and citizen should study the ''Proclamation'' carefully.

Prophets must often warn of the consequences of violating God’s laws. They do not preach that which is popular with the world. President Ezra Taft Benson taught that "popularity is never a test of truth" ("Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet," in 1980 Devotional Speeches of the Year [1981], 29).

Why do prophets proclaim unpopular commandments and call society to repentance for rejecting, modifying, and even ignoring the commandments? The reason is very simple. Upon receiving revelation, prophets have no choice but to proclaim and reaffirm that which God has given them to tell the world. Prophets do this knowing full well the price they may have to pay. Some who choose not to live the commandments make every effort to defame the character of the prophets and demean their personal integrity and reputation.<ref>{{Ensign|author=Robert D. Hales|article='If Thou Wilt Enter into Life|vol=|num=|date=|pages=|url=https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1996/04/if-thou-wilt-enter-into-life-keep-the-commandments?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

== Revelatory Process Brings About the Family ''Proclamation'' ==

Elder Dallin H. Oaks:

<blockquote>
The '''inspiration identifying the need''' for a ''Proclamation'' on the family came to the leadership of the Church over 23 years ago. It was a surprise to some who thought the doctrinal truths about marriage and the family were well understood without restatement. Nevertheless, we felt the confirmation and we went to work. Subjects were identified and discussed by members of the Quorum of the Twelve 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'''. We all learned "line upon line, precept upon precept," as the Lord has promised ({{s||D&C|98|12}}).

During this '''revelatory process''', a proposed text was presented to the First Presidency, who oversee and promulgate Church teachings and doctrine. After the Presidency made further changes, the ''Proclamation'' on the family was announced by the President of the Church, Gordon B. Hinckley. In the women’s meeting of September 23, 1995, he introduced the ''Proclamation'' with these words: "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."

I testify that the ''Proclamation'' on the family is a '''statement of eternal truth''', the will of the Lord for His children who seek eternal life. It has been the basis of Church teaching and practice for the last 22 years and will continue so for the future. Consider it as such, teach it, live by it, and you will be blessed as you press forward toward eternal life.

Forty years ago, President Ezra Taft Benson taught that "every generation has its tests and its chance to stand and prove itself." I believe our attitude toward and use of the family ''Proclamation'' is one of those tests for this generation. I pray for all Latter-day Saints to stand firm in that test.

I close with President Gordon B. Hinckley’s teachings uttered two years after the family ''Proclamation'' was announced. He said: "I see a wonderful future in a very uncertain world. If we will cling to our values, if we will build on our inheritance, if we will walk in obedience before the Lord, if we will simply live the gospel, we will be blessed in a magnificent and wonderful way. We will be looked upon as a peculiar people who have found the key to a peculiar happiness."

I testify of the '''truth and eternal importance''' of the family proclamation, '''revealed by the Lord Jesus Christ to His Apostles''' for the exaltation of the children of God (see {{s||Doctrine and Covenants|131|1-4}}), in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.<ref>{{Ensign|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=The Plan and the Proclamation|vol=47|num=11|date=November 2017|pages=30&ndash;31|url=https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2017/11/saturday-morning-session/the-plan-and-the-proclamation?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

= Other leaders on the ''Proclamation'' =

Elder W. Eugene Hansen:

<blockquote>
Again the ''Proclamation'' on the family, modern-day revelation....As we ponder these inspired words of modern revelation....I leave you my witness that the ''Proclamation'' on the family, which I referred to earlier, is modern-day revelation provided to us by the Lord through His latter-day prophets.<ref>{{Ensign|author=W. Eugene Hansen|article=Children and the Family|vol=28|num=5|date=May 1998|pages=|url=https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1998/04/children-and-the-family?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Elder Eran A. Call:

<blockquote>
The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, whom we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators, two years ago solemnly proclaimed to the world our beliefs concerning marriage, parents, and the family. I challenge each of you to read, study, and live by this inspired proclamation. May it become the guideline and standard by which we live in our homes and raise our children.<ref>{{Ensign|author=Eran A. Call|article=The Home: A Refuge and Sanctuary|vol=28|num=11|date=November 1998|pages=|url=https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1997/10/the-home-a-refuge-and-sanctuary?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Elder Claudio R.M. Costa:

<blockquote>
The Lord instructed us how to take care of our families when He told us through His prophets in the ''Proclamation'' to the world....<ref>{{Ensign|author=Claudio R.M. Costa|article=Don't Leave for Tomorrow What You Can Do Today|vol=37|num=11|date=November 2007|pages=|url=https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/10/don-t-leave-for-tomorrow-what-you-can-do-today?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

= Duty to teach and support the ''Proclamation'' =

{{Epigraph|Today I call upon members of the Church and on committed parents, grandparents, and extended family members everywhere to hold fast to this great proclamation, to make it a banner not unlike General Moroni’s "title of liberty," and to commit ourselves to live by its precepts. As we are all part of a family, the ''Proclamation'' applies to everyone.<br>&mdash;Elder M. Russell Ballard<ref name="ballard">{{Ensign|author=M. Russell Ballard|article=What Matters Most Is What Lasts Longest|vol=35|num=11|date=November 2005|pages=|url=https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2005/10/what-matters-most-is-what-lasts-longest?lang=eng}}</ref>}}

Elder Dallin H. Oaks noted:

<blockquote>
This declaration is not politically correct, but it is true, and '''we are responsible to teach and practice its truth'''. That obviously sets us against many assumptions and practices in today’s world....{{ea}}<ref>Dallin H. Oaks, "As He Thinketh in His Heart," evening with a General Authority (February 2013). {{link|url=https://si.lds.org/library/talks/evening-with/as-he-thinketh-in-his-heart-1}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Elder M. Russell Ballard:

<blockquote>
Brothers and sisters, as we hold up like a banner the ''Proclamation'' to the world on the family and as we live and teach the gospel of Jesus Christ, we will fulfill the measure of our creation here on earth. We will find peace and happiness here and in the world to come. We should not need a hurricane or other crisis to remind us of what matters most. The gospel and the Lord’s plan of happiness and salvation should remind us. What matters most is what lasts longest, and our families are for eternity. Of this I testify in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.<ref name="ballard"></ref>
</blockquote>

{{Critical sources box:Mormonism and prophets/Mormonism and The ''Proclamation'' on the Family/Claims is not official doctrine/CriticalSources}}{{blankline}}

= Have the doctrines in the document "The Family: A ''Proclamation'' to the World" long been taught in the Church? =
== Yes, the doctrines contained within the "Proclamation" are longstanding doctrines within the Church ==

President Hinckley observed, on introducing the ''Proclamation'':

<blockquote>
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....<ref>{{Ensign|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1995/10/stand-strong-against-the-wiles-of-the-world?lang=eng Stand Strong against the Wiles of the World]|date=November 1995|pages=98}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The doctrines taught are, then, longstanding ones in the Church.

This article reviews each line of the ''Proclamation'' and presents a sample of past teachings on the same subject.

== "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God" ==
* "Marriage is ordained of God. It is a necessary and delightful condition. It is the only true state, and the failure of many marriages does not change the rightness of marriage."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1979/04/fortify-your-homes-against-evil?lang=eng Fortify Your Homes Against Evil]|date=May 1979}}</ref>
* "It is my purpose to endorse and to favor, to encourage and defend marriage. Many regard it nowadays as being, at best, semiprecious, and by some it is thought to be worth nothing at all. I have seen and heard, as you have seen and heard, the signals all about us, carefully orchestrated to convince us that marriage is out of date and in the way."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1981/04/marriage?lang=eng Marriage]|date=May 1981}}</ref>

== "the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children." ==
* Many of the social restraints which in the past have helped to reinforce and to shore up the family are dissolving and disappearing. The time will come when only those who believe deeply and actively in the family will be able to preserve their families in the midst of the gathering evil around us....There are those who would define the family in such a nontraditional way that they would define it out of existence....We of all people, brothers and sisters, should not be taken in by the specious arguments that the family unit is somehow tied to a particular phase of development a moral society is going through. We are free to resist those moves which downplay the significance of the family and which play up the significance of selfish individualism. We know the family to be eternal."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/10/families-can-be-eternal?lang=eng Families Can Be Eternal]|date=November 1980}}</ref>

* "The work of the adversary may be likened to loading guns in opposition to the work of God. Salvos containing germs of contention are aimed and fired at strategic targets essential to that holy work. These vital targets include—in addition to the individual—the family, leaders of the Church, and divine doctrine."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Russell M. Nelson|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1989/04/the-canker-of-contention?lang=eng The Canker of Contention]|date=May 1989}}</ref>

* "In this marriage relationship comes the greatest of exaltation and the greatest experiences of life. You will come to know that most of what you know that is worth knowing you learn from your children."<ref>Boyd K. Packer, ''The Things of the Soul'' (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1997), 228 [Address given to Brigham Young University student body 14 April 1970.]</ref>

* "I desire to emphasize this. I want the young men of Zion to realize that this institution of marriage is not a man-made institution. It is of God. It is honorable, and no man who is of marriageable age is living his religion who remains single. It is not simply devised for the convenience alone of man, to suit his own notions, and his own ideas; to marry and then divorce, to adopt and then to discard, just as he pleases. There are great consequences connected with it, consequences which reach beyond this present time, into all eternity, for thereby souls are begotten into the world, and men and women obtain their being in the world. Marriage is the preserver of the human race. Without it, the purposes of God would be frustrated; virtue would be destroyed to give place to vice and corruption, and the earth would be void and empty."<ref>{{Book:Smith:Gospel Doctrine|pages=272}}</ref>

* "the greatest responsibility and the greatest joys in life are centered in the family, honorable marriage, and rearing a righteous posterity."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Ezra Taft Benson|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/05/to-the-single-adult-brethren-of-the-church?lang=eng To the Single Adult Brethren of the Church]|date=May 1988|page=52}}</ref>

* "Alas, it may be true that those who do not believe in God, who is a loving parent and who is the Father of the human family, will also never be able to accept the eternal importance of the institution of the family, except as something that is socially useful—little wonder we arrive at different conclusions or that we have different priorities."<ref>Neal A. Maxwell, "[http://speeches.byu.edu/index.php?act=viewitem&id=906 Family Perspectives]," BYU Devotional, 15 January 1974</ref>

== "All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God." ==

* "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them" ({{b||Genesis|1|27}}).
* "Seest thou that ye are created after mine [Christ's] own image?  Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image. Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh ({{s||Ether|3|15-16}}).
* "And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all" ({{s||Moses|1|6}}).
* "God instituted marriage in the beginning. He made man in his own image and likeness, male and female, and in their creation it was designed that they should be united together in sacred bonds of marriage, and one is not perfect without the other."<ref>{{Book:Smith:Gospel Doctrine|pages=272}}</ref>

== "Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny." ==
* "We are begotten in the similitude of Christ himself. We dwelt with the Father and with the Son in the beginning, as the sons and daughters of God; and at the time appointed, we came to this earth to take upon ourselves tabernacles, that we might become conformed to the likeness and image of Jesus Christ and become like him; that we might have a tabernacle, that we might pass through death as he has passed through death, that we might rise again from the dead as he has risen from the dead."<ref>{{Book:Smith:Gospel Doctrine|pages=428}}</ref>
* "The gospel teaches us that we are the spirit children of heavenly parents. Before our mortal birth we had "a pre-existent, spiritual personality, as the sons and daughters of the Eternal Father" (statement of the First Presidency, ''Improvement Era'', Mar. 1912, p. 417; also see {{s||Jer.|1|5}}). We were placed here on earth to progress toward our destiny of eternal life. These truths give us a unique perspective and different values to guide our decisions from those who doubt the existence of God and believe that life is the result of random processes."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/the-great-plan-of-happiness.p2?lang=eng The Great Plan of Happiness]|date=November 1993}}</ref>

== "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." ==
* "When the frailties and imperfections of mortality are left behind, in the glorified state of the blessed hereafter, husband and wife will administer in their respective stations, seeing and understanding alike, and co–operating to the full in the government of their family kingdom. Then shall woman be recompensed in rich measure for all the injustice that womanhood has endured in mortality. Then shall woman reign by Divine right, a queen in the resplendent realm of her glorified state, even as exalted man shall stand, priest and king unto the Most High God. Mortal eye cannot see nor mind comprehend the beauty, glory, and majesty of a righteous woman made perfect in the celestial kingdom of God."<ref>James E. Talmage, "The Eternity of Sex," ''Young Woman's Journal'' 25 (October 1914), 602-3 as found in Joseph Smith, ''The Words of Joseph Smith'', comp. and ed. Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1980), 137 n. 4.</ref>
* "Some people are ignorant or vicious and apparently attempting to destroy the concept of masculinity and femininity. More and more girls dress, groom, and act like men. More and more men dress, groom, and act like women. The high purposes of life are damaged and destroyed by the growing unisex theory. God made man in his own image, male and female made he them. With relatively few accidents of nature, we are born male or female. The Lord knew best. Certainly, men and women who would change their sex status will answer to their Maker...."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/print/1974/10/god-will-not-be-mocked?lang=eng God Will Not Be Mocked]|date=November 1974}}</ref>
* "Dear brethren and sisters, the scriptures and the teachings of the Apostles and prophets speak of us in premortal life as sons and daughters, spirit children of God. Gender existed before, and did not begin at mortal birth."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|date=November 1993|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/for-time-and-all-eternity.p1  For Time and All Eternty]}}</ref>

== "In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshiped God as their Eternal Father" ==
* "The spirits of men and women are eternal (see {{s||D&C|93|29-31}}; see also Joseph Smith, Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 158, 208). All are sons and daughters of God and lived in a premortal life as his spirit children (see {{s||Numbers|16|22}}; {{s||Hebrews|12|9}}, {{s||D&C|76|24}}). The spirit of each individual is in the likeness of the person in mortality, male and female (see {{s||D&C|77|2}}; 132:63; {{s||Moses|6|9-10}}; {{s||Abraham|4|27}}). All are in the image of heavenly parents."<ref>Boyd K. Packer, "[https://si.lds.org/library/talks/general/the-play-and-the-plan?lang=eng The Play and the Plan]," CES Fireside, 7 May 1995, Kirkland, Washington.</ref>

== "accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize his or her divine destiny as an heir of eternal life." ==

* And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he [Jesus Christ] said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell; And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them; And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever ({{s||Abraham|3|24-26}}).

== "The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave." ==
* "There is another dimension to marriage that we know of in the Church. It came by revelation. This glorious, supernal truth teaches us that marriage is meant to be eternal. There are covenants we can make if we are willing, and bounds we can seal if we are worthy, that will keep marriage safe and intact beyond the veil of death."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1981/04/marriage?lang=eng Marriage]|date=May 1981}}</ref>

== "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." ==
* "Oh, brothers and sisters, ''families can be forever''! Do not let the lures of the moment draw you away from them! ''Divinity, eternity,'' and ''family''—they go together, hand in hand, and so must we! {{io}}<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/10/families-can-be-eternal?lang=eng Families Can Be Eternal]|date=November 1980}}</ref>

== "The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife." ==
* "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth...." ({{b||Genesis|1|28}}).
* "Before leaving our discussion of unchanging plans, however, we need to remember that the adversary sponsors a cunning plan of his own. 34 It invariably attacks God’s first commandment for husband and wife to beget children. It tempts with tactics that include infidelity, unchastity, and other abuses of procreative power. Satan’s band would trumpet choice, but mute accountability. Nevertheless, his capacity has long been limited, "for he knew not the mind of God" ({{s||Moses|4|6}})."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Russell M. Nelson|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/constancy-amid-change.p32  Constancy Amid Change]|date=November 1993}}</ref>

== "We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force." ==
* "There seems to be a growing trend against marriage from degenerate areas of the world and a very strong trend toward marriage without children. Naturally the next question is, "Why marry?" And the "antimarriage revolution" comes into focus. Arguments are given that children are a burden, a tie, a responsibility. Many have convinced themselves that education, freedom from restraint and responsibility—that is the life. And unfortunately this benighted and destructive idea is taking hold of some of our own people."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1979/04/fortify-your-homes-against-evil?lang=eng Fortify Your Homes Against Evil]|date=May 1979}}</ref>

== "the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife." ==
=== General statements ===
* The voice of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in unmistakable terms warns:

:"… sexual sin—the illicit sexual relations of men and women—stands, in its enormity, next to murder. The Lord has drawn no essential distinctions between fornication, adultery, and harlotry or prostitution. Each has fallen under his solemn and awful condemnation. … [Such cannot] … escape the punishments and the judgments which the Lord has declared against this sin. The day of reckoning will come just as certainly as night follows day."

:Then speaking of those who condone and justify evil whether from press or microphone or pulpit, they continue:

::"They who would palliate this crime and say that such indulgence is but a sinless gratification of a normal desire, like appeasing hunger and thirst, speak filthiness with their lips. Their counsel leads to destruction; their wisdom comes from the father of lies." (Message of the First Presidency to the Church, ''Improvement Era'', November 1942, page 686.)<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|date=May 1971|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1971/04/voices-of-the-past-of-the-present-of-the-future.p71  Voices of the Past, of the Present, of the Future]}}</ref>

* "As we have said on previous occasions, certainly our Heavenly Father is distressed with the increasing inroads among his children of such insidious sins as adultery and fornication and homosexuality, lesbianism, abortion, alcoholism, dishonesty, and crime generally, which threaten the total breakdown of the family and the home…"<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1979/04/fortify-your-homes-against-evil?lang=eng Fortify Your Homes Against Evil]|date=May 1979}}</ref>
* "There is a practice, now quite prevalent, for unmarried couples to live together, a counterfeit of marriage. They suppose that they shall have all that marriage can offer without the obligations connected with it. They are wrong! However much they hope to find in a relationship of that kind, they will lose more. Living together without marriage destroys something inside all who participate. Virtue, self-esteem, and refinement of character wither away. Claiming that it will not happen does not prevent the loss; and these virtues, once lost, are not easily reclaimed."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1981/04/marriage?lang=eng Marriage]|date=May 1981}}</ref>
* "God Himself decreed that the physical expression of love, that union of male and female which has power to generate life, is authorized only in marriage."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1981/04/marriage?lang=eng Marriage]|date=May 1981}}</ref>
* "Whether we like it or not, so many of the difficulties which beset the family today stem from the breaking of the seventh commandment (see {{s||Ex.|20|14}}). Total chastity before marriage and total fidelity after are still the standard from which there can be no deviation without sin, misery, and unhappiness. The breaking of the seventh commandment usually means the breaking of one or more homes."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/10/families-can-be-eternal?lang=eng Families Can Be Eternal]|date=November 1980}}</ref>

=== Premarital sexual relations forbidden ===
* "Let every youth keep himself from the compromising approaches and then with great control save himself from the degrading and life-damaging experience of sexual impurity."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/print/1974/10/god-will-not-be-mocked?lang=eng God Will Not Be Mocked]|date=November 1974}}</ref>

=== Adulterous sexual relations forbidden ===
* "Now the lust of the heart and the lust of the eyes and the lust of the body bring us to the major sin. Let every man remain at home with his affections. Let every woman sustain her husband and keep her heart where it belongs—at home with her family."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1974/10/god-will-not-be-mocked?lang=eng God Will Not Be Mocked]|date=November 1974}}</ref>
* "And now a word of warning. One who destroys a marriage takes upon himself a very great responsibility indeed. Marriage is sacred! To willfully destroy a marriage, either your own or that of another couple, is to offend our God. Such a thing will not be lightly considered in the judgments of the Almighty and in the eternal scheme of things will not easily be forgiven. Do not threaten nor break up a marriage. Do not translate some disenchantment with your own marriage partner or an attraction for someone else into justification for any conduct that would destroy a marriage."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1981/04/marriage?lang=eng Marriage]|date=May 1981}}</ref>

=== Homosexual relations forbidden ===
Homosexual behavior has consistently been forbidden within the Church of Jesus Christ.

{{Related articles
|title=seealso
|link1=What is the scriptural basis for the restriction on homosexual sexual behavior in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
|summary1 =
|subject1=What is the scriptural basis for the restriction on homosexual sexual behavior in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
}}

(Note that in earlier statements, leaders often used the term "homosexuality" to refer to ''behavior'', not to temptation or orientation.<ref>This fact is exhaustively demonstrated in {{Interpreter:Smith:Feet Of Clay Queer Theory And The Church:2021|pages=187-215}}</ref>)

* "Every form of homosexuality is sin....May we repeat: Sex perversions of men and women can never replenish the earth and are definitely sin without excuse, and rationalizations are very weak; God will not tolerate it."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1974/10/god-will-not-be-mocked?lang=eng God Will Not Be Mocked]|date=November 1974}}</ref>

* "A modern prophet, President Spencer W. Kimball, has warned us:... . when toleration for sin increases, the outlook is bleak and Sodom and Gomorrah days are certain to return." His predecessor, President Harold B. Lee, warned of the growing social acceptance of "that great sin of Sodom and Gomorrah... adultery: and beside this, the equally grievous sin of homosexuality, which seems to be gaining momentum with social acceptance in the Babylon of the world... " Many today are as indecisive about the evils emerging around us—are as reluctant to renounce fully a wrong way of life—as was Lot's wife. Perhaps in this respect, as well as in the indicators of corruption of which sexual immorality is but one indicator, our present parallels are most poignant and disturbing. It was Jesus himself who said, "Remember Lot's wife." Indeed we should—and remember too all that the Savior implied with those three powerful words."<ref>{{Book:Maxwell:Look Back At Sodom}}</ref>

*In this day of the "new morality" as sex permissiveness is sometimes called, we should be made aware of the Lord’s concern about immorality and the seriousness of sex sins of all kinds.

:We have come far in material progress in this century, but the sins of the ancients increasingly afflict the hearts of men today. Can we not learn by the experiences of others? Must we also defile our bodies, corrupt our souls, and reap destruction as have peoples and nations before us?

:God will not be mocked. His laws are immutable. True repentance is rewarded by forgiveness, but sin brings the sting of death.

:We hear more and more each day about the sins of adultery, homosexuality, and lesbianism. Homosexuality is an ugly sin, but because of its prevalence, the need to warn the uninitiated, and the desire to help those who may already be involved with it, it must be brought into the open.

:It is the sin of the ages. It was present in Israel’s wandering as well as after and before. It was tolerated by the Greeks. It was prevalent in decaying Rome. The ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are symbols of wretched wickedness more especially related to this perversion, as the incident of Lot’s visitors indicates.<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1977/10/the-foundations-of-righteousness.p36 The Foundations of Righteousness]|date=November 1977}}</ref>

== "We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed." ==
* We are appalled at the conscious effort of many of the people in this world to take it upon themselves, presumptive, to change the properly established patterns of social behavior established by the Lord, especially with regard to marriage, sex life, family life. We must say: "The wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid." (See {{s||Isa.|29|14}}.)<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1975/04/why-call-me-lord-lord-and-do-not-the-things-which-i-say.p75  Why Call Me Lord, Lord and Do Not the Things Which I Say?]|date=May 1975}}</ref>
* "The expression of our procreative powers is pleasing to God, but he has commanded that this be confined within the relationship of marriage."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/the-great-plan-of-happiness.p22?lang=eng The Great Plan of Happiness]|date=November 1993}}</ref>
* "...in the context of lawful marriage, the intimacy of sexual relations is right and divinely approved. There is 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."<ref>{{Book:Kimball:Teachings|pages=311}}</ref>

== "We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan." ==
* "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." ({{s||D&C|49|15-16}})<ref>Cited in this context, for example, in {{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1974/10/god-will-not-be-mocked?lang=eng God Will Not Be Mocked]|date=November 1974}}</ref>
* "Eternal love, eternal marriage, eternal increase! This ideal, which is new to many, when thoughtfully considered, can keep a marriage strong and safe. No relationship has more potential to exalt a man and a woman than the marriage covenant. No obligation in society or in the Church supersedes it in importance."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1981/04/marriage?lang=eng Marriage]|date=May 1981}}</ref>

== "Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children." ==
* "Make sure, young man, that you treat your wife with reverence and with respect. Treat her as your sweetheart, your loving companion, the mother of your children."<ref>Boyd K. Packer, ''The Things of the Soul'' (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1997), 228 [Address given to Brigham Young University student body 14 April 1970.]</ref>

== "Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness" ==

== "to provide for their physical and spiritual needs...to teach them...to observe the commandments of God" ==
* And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized, that teach them not to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents ({{s||D&C|68|25}}).

== "to teach them to love and serve one another" ==
* And ye will not suffer your children that they go hungry, or naked; neither will ye suffer that they transgress the laws of God, and fight and quarrel one with another, and serve the devil, who is the master of sin, or who is the evil spirit which hath been spoken of by our fathers, he being an enemy to all righteousness. But ye will teach them to walk in the ways of truth and soberness; ye will teach them to love one another, and to serve one another ({{s||Mosiah|4|14-15}}).

== "to teach them...to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live" ==
* "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law" ({{s||Articles of Faith|1|12}}).

* "The desirability of this country will persist so long as its citizenry are a God–fearing people with the integrity to obey the law of the land. This includes the laws we do not like as well as the laws we do like."<ref>James E. Faust, "The Integrity of Obeying the Law," Freedom Festival Fireside, Provo, Utah, 2 July 1995; cited in James P. Bell and James E. Faust, "Citizenship" in ''In The Strength Of the Lord: The Life and Teachings of James E. Faust'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1999), 274.</ref>

* "Let our citizenship be spirited but always appropriate and befitting who we are."<ref>Neal A. Maxwell, "[http://speeches.byu.edu/index.php?act=viewitem&id=1050 All Hell Is Moved]," BYU Devotional (8 November 1977).</ref>

* "Discipleship includes good citizenship. In this connection, if you are a careful student of the statements of the modern prophets, you will have noticed that with rare exceptions—especially when the First Presidency has spoken out—the concerns expressed have been over moral issues, not issues between political parties. The declarations are about principles, not people; and causes, not candidates."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Neal A. Maxwell|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/02/a-more-determined-discipleship.p6 A More Determined Discipleship]|date=February 1979}}</ref>

== "Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony" ==
* A higher and higher percentage of children grow up with only one parent. This is certainly not the way of the Lord. He expected for a father and a mother to rear their children. Certainly any who deprive their children of a parent will have some very stiff questions to answer. The Lord used parents in the plural and said if children were not properly trained "the sin be upon the heads of the parents." ({{s||D&C|68|25}}.) That makes it a bit hard to justify broken homes. Numerous of the divorces are the result of selfishness. The day of judgment is approaching, and parents who abandon their families will find that excuses and rationalizations will hardly satisfy the Great Judge.<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=God Will Not Be Mocked|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1974/10/god-will-not-be-mocked?lang=eng|date=November 1974}}</ref>

== "and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity" ==
* "Once marriage vows are taken, absolute fidelity is essential—to the Lord and to one’s companion."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Russell M. Nelson|article=Children of the Covenant|date=May 1995|url=https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1995/04/children-of-the-covenant?lang=eng}}</ref>

== "Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ" ==
* "The ultimate end of all activity in the Church is that a man and his wife and their children can be happy at home and that the family can continue through eternity. All Christian doctrine is formulated to protect the individual, the home, and the family."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1981/04/marriage?lang=eng Marriage]|date=May 1981}}</ref>

== "Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities." ==

* "... the home and family have been the center of true civilization. Any distortion of the God-given program will bring dire consequences. The families worked together, played together, and worshiped God together."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1974/10/god-will-not-be-mocked?lang=eng God Will Not Be Mocked]|date=November 1974}}</ref>
* "We hope our parents are using the added time that has come from the consolidated schedule in order to be with, teach, love, and nurture their children. We hope you have not forgotten the need for family activity and recreation, for which time is also provided. Let your love of each member of your family be unconditional. Where there are challenges, you fail only if you fail to keep trying!"<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/10/families-can-be-eternal?lang=eng Families Can Be Eternal]|date=November 1980}}</ref>

== "By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness" ==
* "Brethren, as patriarchs in your homes, be worthy watchmen."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1978/04/strengthening-the-family-the-basic-unit-of-the-church?lang=eng Strengthening the Family, the Basic Unit of the Church]|date=May 1978}}</ref>
* "It is the will of the Lord to strengthen and preserve the family unit. We plead with fathers to take their rightful place as the head of the house. We ask mothers to sustain and support their husbands and to be lights to their children."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Joseph Fielding Smith|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/1972/07/counsel-to-the-saints-and-to-the-world?lang=eng Counsel to the Saints and to the World]|date=July 1972|pages=27}}</ref>

== "and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families" ==
* "Both men and women are to serve their families and others, but the specific ways in which they do so are sometimes different. For example, God has revealed through his prophets that men are to receive the priesthood, become fathers, and with gentleness and pure, unfeigned love they are to lead and nurture their families in righteousness as the Savior leads the Church (see {{s||Eph.|5|23}} ). They have been given the primary responsibility for the temporal and physical needs of the family (see DNC 83:2)."<ref>{{Ensign|author=M. Russell Ballard|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/equality-through-diversity.p10  Equality Through Diversity]|date=November 1993}}</ref>

== "Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children" ==
* "Women have the power to bring children into the world and have been given the primary duty and opportunity as mothers to lead, nurture, and teach them in a loving, spiritual environment."<ref>{{Ensign|author=M. Russell Ballard|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/equality-through-diversity.p10  Equality Through Diversity]|date=November 1993}}</ref>

== "fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners" ==
* Most of what men and women must do to qualify for an exalted family life together is based on shared responsibilities and objectives. Many of the requirements are exactly the same for men and women. For example, obedience to the laws of God should be the same for men and women. Men and women should pray in the same way. They both have the same privilege of receiving answers to their prayers and thereby obtaining personal revelation for their own spiritual development....In this divine partnership, husbands and wives support one another in their God-given capacities. By appointing different accountabilities to men and women, Heavenly Father provides the greatest opportunity for growth, service, and progress. He did not give different tasks to men and women simply to perpetuate the idea of a family; rather, He did so to ensure that the family can continue forever, the ultimate goal of our Heavenly Father’s eternal plan.<ref>{{Ensign|author=M. Russell Ballard|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/equality-through-diversity.p10  Equality Through Diversity]|date=November 1993}}</ref>

* "The secret of a happy marriage is to serve God and each other. The goal of marriage is unity and oneness, as well as self-development. Paradoxically, the more we serve one another, the greater is our spiritual and emotional growth. The first fundamental, then, is to work toward righteous unity."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Ezra Taft Benson|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1982/10/fundamentals-of-enduring-family-relationships.p32 Fundamentals of Enduring Family Relationships]|date=November 1982}}</ref>

== "Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation." ==
* "We need to recognize the hard mortal realities in all of this and must use common sense and guidance by personal revelation. Some will not marry in this life. Some marriages will fail. Some will not have children. Some children will choose not to respond to even the most devoted and careful nurturing by loving parents. In some cases, health and faith may falter. Some who would rather remain at home may have to work. Let us not judge others, because we do not know their situation nor do we know what common sense and personal revelation have led them to do. We do know that throughout mortality, women and men will face challenges and tests of their commitment to God’s plan for them. We need to remember that trials and temptations are an important part of our lives. We should not criticize others for the way they choose to exercise their moral agency when faced with adversity or affliction."<ref>{{Ensign|author=M. Russell Ballard|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/equality-through-diversity.p10  Equality Through Diversity]|date=November 1993}}</ref>
== "Extended families should lend support when needed." ==

== "We warn that individuals...will one day stand accountable before God" [if they] ==

* "God bless you, our beloved people. Listen to the words of heaven. God is true. He is just. He is a righteous judge, but justice must come before sympathy and forgiveness and mercy. Remember, God is in his heavens. He knew what he was doing when he organized the earth. He knows what he is doing now. Those of us who break his commandments will regret and suffer in remorse and pain. God will not be mocked. Man has his free agency, it is sure, but remember, GOD WILL NOT BE MOCKED. (See {{s||D&C|63|58}}.)"<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1974/10/god-will-not-be-mocked?lang=eng God Will Not Be Mocked]|date=November 1974}}</ref>

* "That society which puts low value on marriage sows the wind and, in time, will reap the whirlwind—and thereafter, unless they repent, bring upon themselves a holocaust!"<ref>{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1981/04/marriage?lang=eng Marriage]|date=May 1981}}</ref>
=== "violate covenants of chastity" ===

See [[#"the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."|above]].

=== "abuse spouse or offspring" ===

* Spouse abuse
** CITE
** CITE

* Child abuse
** Cite
** CITE

=== "fail to fulfill family responsibilities" ===
* "There is no lack of clarity in what the Lord has told us. We cannot shirk. He has placed the responsibility directly where it belongs, and he holds us accountable with regard to the duties of parents to teach their children correct principles and of the need to walk uprightly before the Lord—and there is no substitute for teaching our children by the eloquence of example."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/10/families-can-be-eternal?lang=eng Families Can Be Eternal]|date=November 1980}}</ref>

== "the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets" ==

* Why do we take our destiny in our own hands? From the building of the first colonial cabin, the home and family have been the center of true civilization. Any distortion of the God-given program will bring dire consequences....Could it be possible that many of us, like a cork in a stream, have been swept off our destiny line by false concepts, perilous ways, and doctrines of devils? By whom are we enticed? Have we accepted the easy way and veered off from the "strait and narrow" way to the easy and comfortable way and the broad way which leads to sorrowful ends?<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1974/10/god-will-not-be-mocked?lang=eng God Will Not Be Mocked]|date=November 1974}}</ref>

* "As we have said on previous occasions, certainly our Heavenly Father is distressed with the increasing inroads among his children of such insidious sins as adultery and fornication and homosexuality, lesbianism, abortion, alcoholism, dishonesty, and crime generally, which threaten the total breakdown of the family and the home…"<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1979/04/fortify-your-homes-against-evil?lang=eng Fortify Your Homes Against Evil]|date=May 1979}}</ref>

* "Society without basic family life is without foundation and will disintegrate into nothingness."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/10/families-can-be-eternal?lang=eng Families Can Be Eternal]|date=November 1980}}</ref>

== "We call upon" all "to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family" ==
* "Furthermore, many of the social restraints which in the past have helped to reinforce and to shore up the family are dissolving and disappearing. The time will come when only those who believe deeply and actively in the family will be able to preserve their families in the midst of the gathering evil around us. Whether from inadvertence, ignorance, or other causes, the efforts governments often make (ostensibly to help the family) sometimes only hurt the family more. There are those who would define the family in such a nontraditional way that they would define it out of existence. The more governments try in vain to take the place of the family, the less effective governments will be in performing the traditional and basic roles for which governments are formed in the first place."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/10/families-can-be-eternal?lang=eng Families Can Be Eternal]|date=November 1980}}</ref>

= Has the family ''Proclamation'' been taught frequently? =
== Yes. This is an important point for judging the importance that Church leaders attach to it ==

Elder Neal L. Anderson taught:

<blockquote>
There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is '''taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve'''. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many {{ea}}. Our doctrine is not difficult to find {{ea}}.<ref>{{Ensign|author=Neal A. Anderson|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/trial-of-your-faith?lang=eng Trial of Your Faith]|date=November 2012}}</ref>
</blockquote>

= Repeated Publication of the ''Proclamation'' =
* {{Ensign|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Stand Strong against the Wiles of the World|date=November 1995|pages=100}}
* Separate pamphlet published: The First Presidency, The Family: ''A ''Proclamation'' To The World'' (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, December 1, 1995).
* {{Ensign|date=October 1998|article=[https://www.lds.org/liahona/1998/10/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world?lang=eng The Family: A ''Proclamation'' to the World]}}
* "[https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-student-study-guide/the-worldwide-church/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world?lang=eng The Family: A ''Proclamation'' to the World]," Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Student Study Guide, (2005), 223.
* {{Liahona|date=June 2006|article=[https://www.lds.org/liahona/2006/06/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world?lang=eng The Family: A ''Proclamation'' to the World]}}

= Reference to the ''Proclamation'' as event of historical significance =
* {{Liahona|article=[https://www.lds.org/liahona/2005/11/news-of-the-church/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world-reaches-10-year-milestone?lang=engThe Family: A ''Proclamation'' to the World reaches 10 year milestone]|date=November 2005}}
* "[http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/58765/Historical-chronology-of-The-Church-of-Jesus-Christ-of-Latter-day-Saints.html Historical chronology of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]," ldschurchnews.com (8 February 2010).

= Teaching =
* {{Newera|article=[https://www.lds.org/new-era/2006/08/line-upon-line-the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world-paragraph-3?lang=eng Line upon Line: The Family: A ''Proclamation'' to the World, Paragraph 3]|date=August 2006}}

= Educational series (also ran in ''Ensign'') =
* {{Liahona|date=October 2004|article=[https://www.lds.org/liahona/2004/10/strengthening-the-family-what-is-a-family?lang=eng Strengthening the Family: What Is a Family?]}}
* {{Liahona|date=December 2004|article=[https://www.lds.org/liahona/2004/12/strengthening-the-family-the-family-is-central-to-the-creators-plan?lang=eng Strengthening the Family: The Family Is Central to the Creator’s Plan]}}
* {{Liahona|date=January 2006|article=[https://www.lds.org/liahona/2005/01/strengthening-the-family-created-in-the-image-of-god-male-and-female?lang=eng Strengthening the Family: Created in the Image of God, Male and Female]}}
* {{Liahona|date=February 2005|article=[https://www.lds.org/liahona/2005/02/strengthening-the-family-our-progress-toward-perfection?lang=eng Strengthening the Family: Our Progress toward Perfection]}}
* {{Liahona|date=April 2005|article=[https://www.lds.org/liahona/2005/04/strengthening-the-family-multiply-and-replenish-the-earth?lang=eng Strengthening the Family: Multiply and Replenish the Earth]}}
* {{Liahona|date=June 2005|article=[https://www.lds.org/liahona/2005/06/strengthening-the-family-the-sacred-powers-of-procreation?lang=eng Strengthening the Family: The Sacred Powers of Procreation]}}
* {{Liahona|date=July 2005|article=[https://www.lds.org/liahona/2005/07/strengthening-the-family-a-solemn-responsibility-to-love-and-care?lang=eng Strengthening the Family: A Solemn Responsibility to Love and Care]}}
* {{Liahona|date=July 2005|article=[https://www.lds.org/liahona/2005/08/strengthening-the-family-within-the-bonds-of-matrimony?lang=eng Strengthening the Family: Within the Bonds of Matrimony]}}
* {{Liahona|date=September 2005|article= [https://www.lds.org/liahona/2005/09/strengthening-the-family-happiness-in-family-life?lang=eng Strengthening the Family: Happiness in Family Life]}}
* {{Liahona|date=October 2005|article= [https://www.lds.org/liahona/2005/10/strengthening-the-family-as-equal-partners?lang=eng Strengthening the Family: As Equal Partners]}}
* {{Liahona|date=December 2005|article=[https://www.lds.org/liahona/2005/12/strengthening-the-family-adapting-to-circumstances?lang=eng Strengthening the Family: Adapting to Circumstances]}}

= Since there are people that are born intersex, experience gender dysphoria, or identify as transgender, does this invalidate the Latter-day Saint doctrine of eternal gender? =
== The Criticism ==
Some secularist critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints point to the existence of intersex humans, people who experience gender dysphoria, or people who identify as transgender in order to invalidate the doctrine of eternal, binary gender.

''Intersex people'' are defined as those that:

<blockquote>
are born with any of several variations in sex characteristics including chromosomes, gonads, sex hormones, or genitals that, according to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, "do not fit the typical definitions for male or female bodies."<ref>"Intersex," ''Wikipedia'', accessed January 4, 2019, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex.</ref>
</blockquote>

''Transgender people'' are those that identify with, dress as, and/or have gender-reassignment surgeries performed on them to become, identify with, and or act as a different gender than the one they were proclaimed to be at birth.

''Gender dysphoria'' is the dissonance caused by not identifying with the gender (male or female) that one is proclaimed to be a part of at birth.

It is claimed that this invalidates the doctrine of gender as outlined by "The Family: A ''Proclamation'' to the World":

<blockquote>
All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.<ref>"The Family: A ''Proclamation'' to the World," ''The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints'', accessed January 4, 2019, {{link|url=https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng&old=true}}.</ref>
</blockquote>

It should be noted here that "gender" is used synonymously with "biological sex".<ref>"General Conference Leadership Meetings Begin," ''Church Newsroom'', accessed October 7, 2019, https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/october-2019-general-conference-first-presidency-leadership-session. "'Finally, the long-standing doctrinal statements reaffirmed in The Family: A ''Proclamation'' to the World 23 years ago will not change. They may be clarified as directed by inspiration.' For example, 'the intended meaning of gender in the family ''Proclamation'' and as used in Church statements and publications since that time is biological sex at birth.'"</ref>

== Our spirits are eternally gendered either male or female ==
One immediate point to make is that, according to the Family ''Proclamation'' above and the Doctrine and Covenants, our spirits are eternally gendered either male or female ({{s||D&C|49|15-17}}). A male or female spirit can still be housed in an intersex body. The existence of intersex individuals does not invalidate the possibility that we have male and female spirits only.

As it concerns transgender individuals, there are four logical possibilities:
#Their spirit has legitimately been housed in the wrong bodies by their choice.
#Their spirit has legitimately been housed in the wrong bodies by God's choice.
#Their spirit has legitimately been housed in the wrong body by the joint agreement of them and God.
#There is a deeper mental condition that doesn't allow their brains to accept that they actually belong to the right body.

We don't know which of these actually are happening. It's best to wait for science and revelation to converge. Eventually, we know they will. As President Russell M. Nelson has taught, "[t]here is no conflict between science and religion. Conflict only arises from an incomplete knowledge of either science or religion, or both[.]"<ref>"Elder Nelson: 'There Is No Conflict Between Science and Religion'," ''LDS Living'', April 17, 2015, https://www.ldsliving.com/Elder-Nelson-There-Is-No-Conflict-Between-Science-and-Religion-/s/78668.</ref>

=== Feelings are not being ===
Some may be offended by the last possibility. It does remain a logical possibility.

Brigham Young University professor Ty Mansfield pointed out something important in regard to feelings not forming identity. He related it to sexuality but it can equally apply to gender dysphoria.

<blockquote>
"Being gay" is not a scientific idea, but rather a cultural and philosophical one, addressing the subjective and largely existential phenomenon of identity. From a social constructionist/constructivist perspective, our sense of identity is something we negotiate with our environment. Environment can include biological environment, but our biology is still environment. From an LDS perspective, the essential spiritual person within us exists independent of our mortal biology, so our biology, our body is something that we relate to and negotiate our identity with, rather than something that inherently or essentially defines us. Also, while there has likely been homoerotic attraction, desire, behavior, and even relationships, among humans as long as there have been humans, the narratives through which sexuality is understood and incorporated into one’s sense of self and identity is subjective and culturally influenced. The "gay" person or personality didn’t exist prior to the mid-20th century.

In an LDS context, people often express concern about words that are used—whether they be "same-sex attraction," which some feel denies the realities of the gay experience, or "gay," "lesbian," or "LGBT," which some feels speaks more to specific lifestyle choices. What’s important to understand, however, is that identity isn’t just about the words we use but the paradigms and worldviews and perceptions of or beliefs about the "self" and "self-hood" through which we interpret and integrate our various experiences into a sense of personal identity, sexual or otherwise. And identity is highly fluid and subject to modification with change in personal values or socio-cultural context. The terms "gay," "lesbian," and "bisexual" aren’t uniformly understood or experienced in the same way by everyone who may use or adopt those terms, so it’s the way those terms or labels are incorporated into self-hood that accounts for identity. One person might identify as "gay" simply as shorthand for the mouthful "son or daughter of God who happens to experience romantic, sexual or other desire for persons of the same sex for causes unknown and for the short duration of mortality," while another person experiences themselves as "gay" as a sort of eternal identity and state of being.

An important philosophical thread in the overall experience of identity, is the experience of "selfhood"—what it means to have a self, and what it means to "be true to" that self. The question of what it means to be "true to ourselves" is a philosophical rather than a scientific one. In her book Multiplicity: The New Science of Personality, Identity, and the Self, award-winning science and medical writer Rita Carter explores the plurality of "selves" who live in each one of us and how each of those varied and sometimes conflicting senses of self inform various aspects of our identity(ies). This sense seems to be universal. In the movie The Incredibles, there’s a scene in which IncrediBoy says to Mr. Incredible, "You always, always say, ‘Be true to yourself,’ but you never say which part of yourself to be true to!"<ref>Ty Mansfield, "[https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2014/mormons-can-gay-just-cant-gay 'Mormons can be gay, they just can’t do gay': Deconstructing Sexuality and Identity from an LDS Perspective]," (presentation, FairMormon Conference, Provo, UT, 2014).</ref>
</blockquote>

Thus, there is ''big'' difference between ''feelings'' and the meaning or labels that we ''assign'' to feelings. Thank goodness that feelings are not being. Couldn't we imagine a time where someone would want to change feelings that they didn't feel described their identity such as impulses for pornography, drugs, or violence? This does not mean that the author is comparing sexual orientation to bad impulses, this is simply to point out that feelings do not inherently control identity. We assign identity to feelings.

These points demonstrate that we all have to seek out something else to determine identity that is enduring, real, and meaningful. Some of us turn to God for that identity. Others may subconsciously or consciously create some form of a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonism platonic] entity to ground our morality and identity i.e. "Love binds the universe. Love is my religion". But the basic point still stands&mdash;our feelings may be used to form identity, but that identity&mdash;the identity based in our feelings that we are having now&mdash;isn't enduring; and we must turn to the unseen world to form abiding and real identity.

== The Argument from Personal Revelation ==
There are often claims from members of the Church who identify as transgender and other members of the Church who support transgenderism that they have received personal revelation that they are meant to identify as the gender that they currently identify as and/or that gender is not meant to be binary.

There are often claims from members of the Church who identify as transgender and other members of the Church who support transgenderism that they have received personal revelation that the Church is wrong about this issue and that it will eventually accept transgenderism and so on in the future. Since this is an important theological topic that involves the entire human family and their eternal destiny, this type of revelation does not lie within the stewardship of those that identify as transgender or those that support same-sex marriage, but with the prophet of God ({{s||Doctrine and Covenants|28|2-4}}; 42:53-60; 112:20). We should wait for the Lord to reveal more officially as to what is occuring with transgender individuals. As it regards those that have felt like they've received revelation that gender isn't binary, the Savior told us that the one way we could protect ourselves against deception is to hold to his word (JS-{{s||Matthew|1|37}}) and he announces himself as the source of the revelation declaring that gender is binary ({{s||Doctrine and Covenants|49|28}}). Thus, it is likely that these individuals, if they have indeed felt revelation occur, have been deceived by false Spirits ({{s||Doctrine and Covenants|50|1-2}}) and their testimonies should be disregarded. If someone were to receive a revelation like this, it would be given to them for their own comfort and instruction. They would also be placed under strict commandment to not disseminate their revelation until it accords with the revelation of the prophets, God's authorized priesthood channels ({{s||Alma|12|9}}).

{{Related articles
|title=main
|link1=How does official teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints view those that receive revelation that contradicts that of the Prophet?
|summary1 =
|subject1=How does official teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints view those that receive revelation that contradicts that of the Prophet?
}}

As a final word which we wish to emphasize:

<b>FairMormon joins The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in unequivocally condemning the discrimination of any of God's children based upon gender (or gender identity), race, sexual identity and/or orientation, and/or religious affiliation.</b>.

{{Related articles
|title=seealso
|link1=If same-sex attraction is something that occurs naturally, why can't God and the Church accept it by allowing sealings of LGBT couples?
|summary1 =
|subject1=If same-sex attraction is something that occurs naturally, why can't God and the Church accept it by allowing sealings of LGBT couples?
}}

= Is The Family: A ''Proclamation'' to the World against feminism? =
== Introduction to Question ==
In 1995, top leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints introduced a nine-paragraph ''Proclamation'' regarding the family called ''The Family: A ''Proclamation'' to the World''. In it, the divine institution of the family is described and defended–– including primary gender roles for a man and wife in marriage.

This document has invited a lot of criticism from some of the more progressive critics of the Church. It has also been the source of confusion for many regular members of the Church that have feminist leanings since the document prescribes ideal gender roles. The question has been: Is the ''Proclamation'' against feminism?

This article explores the question.

== Response to Question ==
=== Two Lines that Affirm Male and Female Equality ===
The document contains two lines that affirm male/female equality––thus demonstrating that the ''Proclamation'' is not against feminism.

The first is this:
:By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. '''In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.'''

The second is this:
:Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation.

Notice the assumptions behind the lines: that males and females are capable of performing the same tasks and are encouraged to share each other’s loads.

Now, it is true that the ''Proclamation'' prescribes ideal gender roles (that is, roles that change not on preference but out of necessity) based upon what we are naturally ordered to biologically. This shouldn’t be offensive. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarianism Gender complementarianism] is scientifically defensible and is a philosophy that affirms the moral equality of the two genders.<ref>Bruce Goldman,  "Two minds: the cognitive differences between men and women," ''Stanford Medicine'', Stanford University, May 22, 2017, https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html; "'Two Minds' two years later: Still curious about sex differences in cognition? Here are some resources," ''Stanford Scope Blog'', October 24, 2019, https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2019/10/24/two-minds-two-years-later-still-curious-about-sex-differences-in-cognition-here-are-some-resources/; John Stossel, "The Science: Male Brain vs Female Brain," ''YouTube'', October 15, 2019, video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTEi2-FAEZE; David C. Geary, "The Real Causes of Human Sex Differences," ''Quilette'', October 20, 2020, https://quillette.com/2020/10/20/the-real-causes-of-human-sex-differences/; "The Ideological Refusal to Acknowledge Evolved Sex Differences," ''Quillette'', September 1, 2022, https://quillette.com/2022/09/01/the-ideological-refusal-to-acknowledge-evolved-sex-differences/; ''Male, Female: The Evolution of Human Sex Differences'', 3rd ed. (Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association, 2020). Indeed, every single cell of our body is influenced by our sex. See Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Understanding the Biology of Sex and Gender Differences; Theresa M. Wizemann, Mary-Lou Pardue, eds., ''Exploring the Biological Contributions to Human Health: Does Sex Matter?'' (Washington D.C.: National Academies Press (US), 2001), Executive Summary, 2, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222291/#!po=1.11111. For further info on male-female neuroanatomy and psychobehavior, see Amber N. V. Ruigrock et. al, "[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763413003011 A meta-analysis of sex differences in human brain structure]," ''Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews'' 39 (2014): 34&ndash;50; Larry Cahill, "[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3359593/ A Half-Truth is a Whole Lie: On the Necessity of Investigating Sex Influences on the Brain]," ''Endocrinology'' 153 (2012): 2542; "[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/his-brain-her-brain-2012-10-23/ His Brain, Her Brain]," Scientific American, October 1, 2012. For a paradigm of gender compatible with the Gospel, see Ryan T. Anderson, ''When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment'' (New York: Encounter, 2017), chap. 7. For the most thorough coverage of the literature exploring sex differences in neuroanatomy and psychobehavior in one book, see Charles Murray, ''Human Diversity: The Biology of Gender, Race, and Class'' (New York: Twelve, 2020), 11&ndash;127.</ref> We should seek to fill our roles as prescribed by the ''Proclamation''. But the ''Proclamation'' doesn’t exclude feminism. Notice that the second line assumes that wives will be able to take over their husbands’ responsibilities. Women should therefore have potential for lucrative careers to support their families––including those careers traditionally held by men.

The ''Proclamation'' may indeed be against certain strains of feminist thought&mdash;such as gender being merely a social construct. But it is not inherently against notions of moral equality of the genders. It does not say that females are fundamentally incapable of performing any task they wish. All the ''Proclamation'' intends to state is that there are psychobehavioral and physical differences between men and women that are both biologically and spiritually-determined and that these differences are optimized for producing, nurturing, and protecting children. It encourages us to fill the roles that we were most naturally ordered to so as to glorify men ''as'' men and women ''as'' women&mdash;not holding one to the other's standard of excellence.

== Conclusion ==
It’s unfortunate that this has become such a common misunderstanding about the ''Proclamation''; but hopefully this article will allow both "progressive" members and "conservative" members to find some common ground as we both seek to understand how both men and women can reach their fullest potential as children of God.

= What does the Family ''Proclamation'' mean when it says fathers "preside" over their families? =
Part of family ''Proclamation'' addresses general gender roles given to men and women. Fathers, it says, are to "preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families." Mothers "are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children." In these responsibilities, it says, "fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners."

== The definition of the word "preside" ==
The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology etymology] of the word "[https://www.etymonline.com/word/preside preside]" is interesting. It traces back to the Latin words "prae" and "sedere." When combined, they literally mean "to sit in front of." It was used in Latin to signify "standing guard" and "superintending." Thus, the word carries the dual meaning of ''protecting'' something and ''leading'' something (or someone). That is why the word is included in others like "'''preside'''nt."

== Husbands preside in the home ==
Church leaders have consistently taught that men preside in the home. Paul taught in Corinthians that "the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."<ref>{{s|1|Corinthians|11|3}}</ref> The Prophet Joseph Smith explained, "It is the place of the man to stand at the head of his family."<ref>[https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-42.8?lang=eng#p8 "Chapter 42: Family: The Sweetest Union for Time and for Eternity,"] ''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith''.</ref> President Joseph F. Smith reemphasized this when he taught, "In the home the presiding authority is always vested in the father."<ref>[https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/42c42f8f-20ec-4b12-80a8-2762676fdd63/0/0 "Editorial Thoughts: The Rights of Fatherhood,"] ''Juvenile Instructor'' 37:5 (1 March 1902), 146.</ref>

The appointment for the man to preside comes from heaven, as taught by President Howard W. Hunter: "Of necessity there must be in the Church and in the home a presiding officer (see {{s||D&C|107|21}}). By divine appointment, the responsibility to preside in the home rests upon the priesthood holder (see {{s||Moses|4|22}})."<ref>[https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1994/10/being-a-righteous-husband-and-father "Being a Righteous Husband and Father,"] October 1994 general conference.</ref>

== Husbands lead their families ==
The Church's ''General Handbook'' teaches:
<blockquote>
Presiding in the family is the responsibility to help lead family members back to dwell in God’s presence. This is done by serving and teaching with gentleness, meekness, and pure love, following the example of Jesus Christ (see {{s||Matthew|20|26-28}}). Presiding in the family includes leading family members in regular prayer, gospel study, and other aspects of worship. Parents work in unity to fulfill these responsibilities.<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/2-supporting-individuals-and-families?lang=eng#title_number5 "Parents and Children",] ''General Handbook'', 2.1.3.</ref>
</blockquote>

Elder D. Todd Christofferson taught:
<blockquote>
The scriptures tell us, "The Melchizedek Priesthood holds the right of presidency, and … to administer in spiritual things" ({{s||Doctrine and Covenants|107|8}}). Brethren, this means that we are to take the lead in our marriage and families in attending to the spiritual as well as physical welfare of our wives, children, and even extended family. . . .

Unfortunately, in some homes it is always the wife and mother who has to suggest—even sometimes plead—that the family gather for prayer or for home evening. This should not be. The women in our lives have the right to look to their husbands to assume their duty and to take the lead. A husband should counsel continually with his wife about the welfare of each of their children. … Most sisters are willing and eager to counsel with their husbands and can provide many helpful insights and recommendations, but it will be easier for them if their husband takes the initiative to talk with them and to plan together.<ref>D. Todd Christofferson, "To the Brethren of the Priesthood: Your Spiritual Leadership," Chile multistake conference, Aug. 26, 2018; as cited in Dallin H. Oaks, [https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2020/06/young-adults/keeping-the-faith-on-the-front-line?lang=eng "Keeping the Faith on the Front Line,"] ''Ensign'', June 2020 [digital only].</ref>
</blockquote>

== Husbands work in unity with their wives ==
The goal of this life, as taught by scripture, is to become "of one heart and one mind."<ref>{{s||Moses|7|18}}; {{s||Philippians|2|2}}; {{s|1|Peter|3|15}}; {{s||Doctrine and Covenants|38|27}}.</ref> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyd_K._Packer Elder Boyd K. Packer] taught that "[i]n the Church there is a distinct line of authority. We serve where called by those who preside over us. In the home it is a partnership with husband and wife equally yoked together, sharing in decisions, always working together."<ref>Boyd K. Packer, "[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1998/05/the-relief-society?lang=eng The Relief Society]," ''Ensign'' 28, no. 5 (May 1998): 73.</ref> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Tom_Perry Elder L. Tom Perry] taught, "The father is the head in his family. . . . Remember, brethren, that in your role as leader in the family, your wife is your companion. . . . Therefore, there is not a president or a vice president in a family. The couple works together eternally for the good of the family.<ref>[https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2004/04/fatherhood-an-eternal-calling "Fatherhood: An Eternal Calling,"] April 2004 general conference.</ref>

== Presiding in righteousness ==
In all cases, men are to preside in love and righteousness. From the ''General Handbook'' we learn:
<blockquote>
This [priesthood] authority can be used only in righteousness (see {{s||Doctrine and Covenants|121|36}}). It is exercised by persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, love, and kindness (see {{s||Doctrine and Covenants|121|41-42}}). Leaders counsel with others [and parents counsel together] in a spirit of unity and seek the Lord’s will through revelation (see {{s||Doctrine and Covenants|41|2}}). . . . Those who exercise priesthood authority do not force their will on others. They do not use it for selfish purposes. If a person uses it unrighteously, "the heavens withdraw themselves [and] the Spirit of the Lord is grieved" ({{s||Doctrine and Covenants|121|37}}).<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/3-priesthood-principles?lang=eng#title_number15 "Exercising Priesthood Authority Righteously,"] ''General Handbook'', 3.4.4.</ref>
</blockquote>

A husband can lose the efficacy of his priesthood power if he is not keeping his life in accordance with the moral laws and other statutes laid out in scripture. That is made clear in {{s||Doctrine and Covenants|121|36-44}} which includes telling men that they cannot act in "unrighteous dominion" over others. Thus, if a man's family is to receive guidance from God, he is obligated to act in accordance with the commandments. He should strive to include his wife in the leadership of his family as much as possible. His authority is not equivalent to a dictatorship.

Paul counseled married men to "love [their] wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word. That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish." "So ought men," he says, "to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church[.]"<ref>{{s||Ephesians|5|25-29}}</ref>-->

= Was "The Family: A ''Proclamation'' to the World" drafted by lawyers in Hawaii in response to legal concerns the Church had over the legalization of gay marriage? =
== The main concern of Church leaders, and the only one that they seem to have had in consciousness when they first started drafting the proclamation, was a conference held in Cairo, Egypt in 1994 on the family that did not mention marriage ==
It is claimed by some that "The Family: A ''Proclamation'' to the World" was drafted by lawyers in Hawaii in response to legal concerns the Church had over the legalization of gay marriage.<ref>The claim has its origins in Laura Compton, "From Amici to 'Ohana: The Hawaiian Roots of the Family Proclamation," Rational Faiths, May 15, 2015, <nowiki>https://rationalfaiths.com/from-amici-to-ohana/.</nowiki></ref> Additionally it is claimed that the legalization of same-sex marriage and justifying an irrational homophobia ad hoc was the main concern motivating the creation of the proclamation.

Mormonr.org documents how "[i]n 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court began hearing a case on gay marriage, known as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baehr_v._Miike Baehr v. Lewin (later Miike)].<ref>Baehr v. Lewin (1993) was a case where three same-sex couples petitioned the Hawaii Supreme Court to recognize their unions.</ref> In 1994 the brethren begin the process of writing the ''Proclamation'' in a 'revelatory process' with members of the Quorum of the Twelve."<ref>The Family ''Proclamation'' was published in 1995. Dallin H. Oaks explained that it was developed over the course of a year: "Subjects were identified and discussed by members of the Quorum of the Twelve 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." [https://mormonr.org/qnas/NqoXl/origins_of_the_family_proclamation/research#re-0RpZ3x-YH6khb DHO offers an account of the Proclamation].</ref> They also state that "Lynn Wardle, a BYU law professor known for his opposition to gay marriage, consulted on the Church filing in Hawaii's Baehr v. Miike case. Wardle may have also consulted with drafting the family proclamation, but there is no known evidence to support this."<ref>"Origins of the Family Proclamation," ''Mormonr'', accessed January 24, 2023, https://mormonr.org/qnas/NqoXl/origins_of_the_family_proclamation.</ref> This is as far as anyone can come to saying that Church lawyers drafted the proclamation. It is the case that Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder James E. Faust were lawyers prior to their call to the Quorum of the Twelve and that they were secondary draftsman to the Proclamation; but Oaks and Faust are not who people have in mind when making the claim that "the Family ''Proclamation'' was drafted by Church lawyers." They mean to say that lawyers ''outside'' of the Quorum of the Twelve apostles and First Presidency drafted the proclamation.

We have evidence that the drafting of the ''Proclamation'' was done by Elders Nelson, Faust, and Oaks in the winter of 1994 and by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve for the first 9 months of the year 1995.

Dallin H. Oaks' biography ''In the Hands of the Lord: The Life of Dallin H. Oaks'' (2021) authored by Richard Turley provides additional context:

<blockquote>
During the fall of 1994, at the urging of its Acting President, Boyd K. Packer, the Quorum of the Twelve discussed the need for a scripture-based ''Proclamation'' to set forth the Church’s doctrinal position on the family. A committee consisting of Elders Faust, Nelson, and Oaks was assigned to prepare a draft. Their work, for which Elder Nelson was the principal draftsman, was completed over the Christmas holidays. After being approved by the Quorum of the Twelve, the draft was submitted to the First Presidency on January 9, 1995, and warmly received.
<br>
Over the next several months, the First Presidency took the proposed ''Proclamation'' under advisement and made needed amendments. Then on September 23, 1995, in the general Relief Society meeting held in the Salt Lake Tabernacle and broadcast throughout the world, Church President Gordon B. Hinckley read "The Family: A ''Proclamation'' to the World" publicly for the first time.

During the period that the ''Proclamation'' was being drafted, Church leaders grew concerned about efforts to legalize same-sex marriage in the state of Hawaii. As that movement gained momentum, a group of Church authorities and Latter-day Saint legal scholars, including Elder Oaks, recommended that the Church oppose the Hawaii efforts…<ref>Richard E. Turley Jr., ''In the Hands of the Lord: The Life of Dallin H. Oaks'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2021), 215.</ref>
</blockquote>

The above quotation from Dallin H. Oaks' biography notes that the initial impetus for drafting the ''Proclamation'' came from Boyd K. Packer. Boyd K. Packer related the following about the origins of the ''Proclamation'' at a devotional given at BYU in 2003:

<blockquote>
 The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve issued a ''Proclamation'' on the family. I can tell you how that came about. They had a world conference on the family sponsored by the United Nations in Beijing, China. We sent representatives. It was not pleasant what they heard. They called another one in Cairo. Some of our people were there. I read the proceedings of that. The word marriage was not mentioned. It was at a conference on the family, but marriage was not even mentioned.

It was then they announced that they were going to have such a conference here in Salt Lake City. Some of us made the recommendation: "They are coming here. We had better proclaim our position."<ref> Boyd K. Packer, "[https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/boyd-k-packer/instrument-mind-foundation-character/ The Instrument of Your Mind and the Foundation of Your Character]," CES Fireside (2 February 2003).</ref>
</blockquote>

Similarly, Elder M. Russell Ballard related:

<blockquote>
Various world conferences were held dealing either directly or indirectly with the family…In the midst of all that was stirring on this subject in the world, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles could see the importance of declaring to the world the revealed, true role of the family in the eternal plan of God. We worked together through the divinely inspired council system that operates even at the highest levels of the Church to craft a ''Proclamation'' that would make the Lord’s position on the family so clear that it could not be misunderstood.<ref>M. Russell Ballard, "[https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/m-russell-ballard/sacred-responsibilities-parenthood/ The Sacred Responsibilities of Parenthood]," (address at Brigham Young University, 19 August 2003). Cited in W. Justin Dyer and Michael A. Goodman, "The Prophetic Nature of The Family Proclamation," in ''Latter-day Saints in Washington D.C.: History, People, and Places'', ed. Kenneth L. Alford, Lloyd D. Newell, and Alexander L. Baugh (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2021), 142, 152n24.</ref>
</blockquote>

We note that the United Nations indeed held a conference in Beijing, China (the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Conference_on_Women,_1995 Fourth World Conference on Women]) from the 4&ndash;15 of September 1995 and one in Cairo, Egypt (the "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Conference_on_Population_and_Development Cairo Conference on Population and Development]") f{{s||rom|5|}}&ndash;13 September 1994. The Beijing Conference probably had little to no impact on the drafting of the ''Proclamation'' given that the ''Proclamation'' had already been drafted, substantially edited, and was about read to the Church by Gordon B. Hinckley on 23 September 1995. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deseret_News ''Deseret News''] reported on 14 March 1995 that the United Nations was holding a conference celebrating the International Year of the Family that week in Salt Lake City.<ref>"[https://www.deseret.com/1995/3/15/19164375/world-focus-on-s-l-gathering World Focus on S.L. Gathering]," ''Deseret News'', March 15, 1995.</ref> The U.N. had designated the year 1994 as the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Year_of_the_Family International Year of the Family]. The First Presidency released a statement on 1 January 1994 endorsing the U.N.'s designation.<ref>"[https://www.thechurchnews.com/archives/1994-01-01/year-of-family-endorsed-by-the-first-presidency-140922 Year of family endorsed by the First Presidency]," ''Church News'', January 1, 1994; "[https://www.deseret.com/1994/1/1/20766441/year-of-family-endorsed-by-the-first-presidency?_amp=true YEAR OF FAMILY ENDORSED BY THE FIRST PRESIDENCY]," ''Deseret News'', January 1, 1994; "[https://www.deseret.com/1994/1/9/19086091/first-presidency-backs-1994-as-year-of-family FIRST PRESIDENCY BACKS 1994 AS YEAR OF FAMILY]," ''Deseret News'', January 9, 1994.</ref> 5 days after the ''Deseret News''' report on the UN coming to Salt Lake, they reported the alarming speech of a member of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society John Birch Society] before a gathering of about 400 in Salt Lake City. The speaker, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Norman_Grigg William Grigg], warned of what he perceived were the United Nations' attempts at "redefining the family out of existence[.]"<ref>Marianne Schmidt, "[https://www.deseret.com/1995/3/19/19165099/u-n-is-enemy-of-the-family-editor-says U.N. IS ENEMY OF THE FAMILY, EDITOR SAYS]," ''Deseret News'', March 19, 1995. Yet another ''Deseret News'' article appeared on 17 April 1995 from one Scott Bradley in North Logan decrying the perceived ways in which the U.N. was undermining family. "[https://www.deseret.com/1995/4/17/19170068/u-n-gatherings-threaten-families U.N. GATHERINGS THREATEN FAMILIES]," ''Deseret News'', April 17, 1995.</ref>

Thus, this is the potential timeline/narrative that arises:
*'''17 December 1990:''' With the encouragement of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_E._Woods William E. Woods], a gay rights activist, three same-gender couples applied for marriage licenses at the Hawaii Department of Health.
*'''12 April 1991:''' The three couples are denied the marriage licenses
*'''1 May 1991:''' The three couples file the lawsuit.
*'''1993:''' The Hawaii Supreme Court begins to hear the case.
*'''1 February 1994:''' The First Presidency releases a statement saying "[w]e 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."<ref>"[https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1994/04/news-of-the-church/first-presidency-statement-opposing-same-gender-marriages?lang=eng First Presidency Statement Opposing Same Gender Marriages]," ''Ensign'' 24, no. 4 (April 1994): 80.</ref>
*'''5&ndash;13 September 1994:''' The United Nations holds their conference in Egypt.
*'''Sometime between mid-September to December 1994:''' Boyd K. Packer read the proceedings of the conference in Cairo in 1994. Concerned about the conference coming to Salt Lake City in March of the next year, he and others (likely the Church's representatives at Cairo) provided encouragement for the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to write a proclamation.
*'''Christmas and New Years 1994:''' The initial drafting of the ''Proclamation'' takes place by Elders Nelson, Faust, and Oaks with Elder Nelson as the principal draftsman. During this time, Church representatives grow concerned over the efforts to legalize same-sex marriage in Hawaii and, with the encouragement of Latter-day Saint legal scholars and Dallin H. Oaks, decided to formally oppose those efforts.
*'''24 February 1995:''' ''The Associated Press'' reports that the Church had announced its petition to intervene in the case.<ref>"[https://www.deseret.com/1995/2/24/19161078/church-joins-hawaii-fight-over-same-sex-marriages CHURCH JOINS HAWAII FIGHT OVER SAME-SEX MARRIAGES]," ''Associated Press'', February 24, 1995.</ref>
*'''4&ndash;15 September 1995:''' The United Nations' conference in Beijing happened and Church representatives attended the conference. Sometime in the eight days after their being at the conference, they may have reported on their findings to top Church leaders. Minor edits (at best) would be made to the proclamation.
*'''23 September 1995:''' Gordon B. Hinckley reads the ''Proclamation'' at the Relief Society meeting in response to these concerns.
*'''3 June 1997:''' The Church includes the ''Proclamation'' as part of an amicus curiae brief regarding the case to the Hawaii Supreme Court.<ref>"Amicus Curiae Brief of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1997), Baehr v. Miike," ''Mormonr'', accessed May 10, 2022, https://mormonr.org/qnas/NqoXl/origins_of_the_family_proclamation/research#re-0Z2bwi-L8jzYb.</ref>
*'''3 November 1998:''' The state of Hawaii passes a constitutional amendment reserving marriage for man-woman unions.
*'''3 December 1999:''' The Hawaii state Supreme Court dismisses the case on the grounds that reserving marriage to man-woman unions does not violate the state's constitution.

It's certain that the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve knew about the efforts in Hawaii prior to Packer providing the initial impetus to draft the proclamation. But, according to the documentable accounts of President Packer, Elder Ballard, and President Oaks, those efforts probably weren't in leaders' immediate consciousness when initially beginning to draft the family proclamation. They weren't the main concern on leaders' hearts when beginning to draft the proclamation.

== Economic and Social Concerns with the Breakdown of the Family in the 80s and 90s Motivating the ''Proclamation'' ==
Another Latter-day Saint, Walker Wright, wrote an insightful post outlining the economic and social costs of the breakdown of the family including the rise of fatherless homes and the amount of people on welfare being observed in the United States in late 80s and 90s that likely influenced the final shape of the proclamation.<ref>Walker Wright, "Family Breakdown, the Welfare State, and the Family Proclamation: An Alternative History," Worlds Without End, August 1, 2015, http://www.withoutend.org/family-proclamation-alternative-history/.</ref> Elder Gordon B. Hinckley stated in the October 1993 General Conference:

<blockquote>
We in America are saddled with a huge financial deficit in our national budget. This has led to astronomical debt. But there is another deficit which, in its long-term implications, is more serious. It is a moral deficit, a decline in values in the lives of the people, which is sapping the very foundation of our society. It is serious in this land. And it is serious in every other nation of which I know. Some months ago there appeared in the Wall Street Journal what was spoken of as an index of what is happening to our culture. I read from this statement: "Since 1960, the U.S. population has increased 41%; the gross domestic product has nearly tripled; and total social spending by all levels of government [has experienced] more than a fivefold increase. ... "But during the same ... period there has been a 560% increase in violent crime; a 419% increase in illegitimate births; a quadrupling in divorce rates; a tripling of the percentage of children living in single-parent homes; more than 200% increase in the teenage suicide rate" (William J. Bennett, "Quantifying America's Decline," Wall Street Journal, 15 Mar. 1993).<ref>Gordon B. Hinckley, "[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1993/11/bring-up-a-child-in-the-way-he-should-go?lang=eng Bring Up a Child in the Way He Should Go]," ''Ensign'' 23, no. 11 (November 1993): 58&ndash;59.</ref>
</blockquote>

Elder Neal A. Maxwell decried the rise of illegitimate children, children not having functioning fathers more and more, the large percentage of juvenile criminals coming from fatherless homes, less children being born today and living continuously with their own mother and father, the rise of adolescents contracting sexually transmitted diseases, and the percentage of children that had both of their parents or their only parent in the workforce in the April 1994 General Conference.<ref>Neal A. Maxwell, "[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1994/04/take-especial-care-of-your-family?lang=eng Take Especial Care of Your Family]," ''Ensign'' 24, no. 5 (May 1994): 88&ndash;89.</ref>

Leaders couldn't have been concerned with ''just'' same-sex marriage. The ''Proclamation'' addressed a wide range of issues. Wright concludes:

<blockquote>
While [https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng the Proclamation] dedicates considerable space to heteronormative marriage and gender essentialism, it also focuses on the rearing of children: "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…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" (italics mine). The portion on father/mother responsibilities is typically interpreted as a mere restatement of traditional (or outdated) gender roles. However, the concept that "fathers are to preside over their families…and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families" may stem from the political and public discussions revolving around fatherless families and welfare-dependent mothers (recall the absent father from Moyers’ documentary). "Work" is listed among multiple "principles" upon which "successful families and marriages are established…" On an even more dire note, the ''Proclamation'' warns "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" (italics mine). The language surrounding parental responsibility and specifically working, present, faithful fathers fits quite well into the national politics of the day. Statements similar to the Proclamation’s final line could be pulled from any of the above cited works: "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."
</blockquote>

President Gordon B. Hinckley was asked by a reporter what his greatest concerns were as President of the Church as he celebrated h{{s||is|5|}}th birthday in June 1995. He replied: "I am concerned about family life in the Church. We have wonderful people, but we have too many whose families are falling apart. … I think [this] is my most serious concern."<ref>Bruce C. Hafen, "[https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2015/08/the-proclamation-on-the-family-transcending-the-cultural-confusion?lang=eng The ''Proclamation'' on the Family: Transcending the Cultural Confusion]," ''Ensign'' 45, no. 8 (August 2015): 51.</ref> Just three months after, he read the family ''Proclamation'' to the General Relief Society Meeting. "It was no coincidence[,]" writes Bruce C. Hafen, "that this solemn declaration was issued precisely when the Lord’s prophet felt that, of all the subjects on his mind, unstable family life in the Church was his greatest concern."<ref>Ibid.</ref> President Hinckley decried the breakdown of the family in society in the October 1995 General Conference.<ref>Gordon B. Hinckley, "[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1995/11/stand-strong-against-the-wiles-of-the-world?lang=eng Stand Strong Against the Wiles of the World]," ''Ensign'' 25, no. 11 (November 1995): 98&ndash;101.</ref> He placed the rise of the welfare state and the breakdown of the family close to same-sex marriage as among the social ills the Church should combat.

<blockquote>
How bitter are the fruits of casting aside standards of virtue. The statistics are appalling. More than one-fourth of all children born in the United States are born out of wedlock, and the situation grows more serious. Of the teens who give birth, 46 percent will go on welfare within four years; of unmarried teens who give birth, 73 percent will be on welfare within four years. I believe that it should be the blessing of every child to be born into a home where that child is welcomed, nurtured, loved, and blessed with parents, a father and a mother, who live with loyalty to one another and to their children. I am sure that none of you younger women want less than this. Stand strong against the wiles of the world…There are those who would have us believe in the validity of what they choose to call same-sex marriage. Our hearts reach out to those who struggle with feelings of affinity for the same gender. We remember you before the Lord, we sympathize with you, we regard you as our brothers and our sisters. However, we cannot condone immoral practices on your part any more than we can condone immoral practices on the part of others.
</blockquote>

This may be further evidence that legalization of same-sex marriage in Hawaii was not the main concern of Church leaders when beginning to draft the proclamation.

== Even if the ''Proclamation'' ''were'' drafted with the Hawaii case being the primary concern to be addressed, two things must be kept in mind ==

=== 1. Legal documents can be revelatory and scriptural ===
Legal documents can still be revelatory and authoritative. Some sections of the Doctrine and Covenants started out as (1) council minutes, (2) official statements of church policy written by lawyers like Oliver Cowdery, (3) letters written by Joseph Smith, (4) excerpts from peoples’ notes recording things that Joseph Smith taught. Examples include {{s||D&C|102|}}, {{s_short||D&C|122|}}, {{s_short||D&C|123|}}, {{s_short||D&C|128|}}, {{s_short||D&C|129|}}, {{s_short||D&C|130|}}, {{s_short||D&C|131|}}, {{s_short||D&C|134|}}, and {{s_short||D&C|135|}}.

Additionally, all revelations have a historical context in which they were given. No revelation comes in a vacuum. Just because the ''Proclamation'' arose in an environment that included legal questions about marriage, sexuality, and their nature, that does not negate nor diminish the authority of the proclamation.

When would revelation be more needed or more likely to come than in a contentious and confusing legal and political environment?

=== 2. The doctrines contained within the ''Proclamation'' are doctrines long taught by the Church ===
The doctrines contained within the ''Proclamation'' have long taught by the Church. Regardless of how the doctrines were embodied in the Proclamation, they are not novel. The doctrine in the ''Proclamation'' wasnot created ''ad hoc'' to justify a political agenda or a stance on same-sex behavior that was an innovation.

{{Related articles
|title=main
|link1=The Family: A ''Proclamation'' to the World#Have the doctrines in the document "The Family: A ''Proclamation'' to the World" long been taught in the Church?
|link2=The Family: A ''Proclamation'' to the World#What sort of scriptural support is there for the doctrines of The Family: A ''Proclamation'' to the World?
|link3=The Family: A ''Proclamation'' to the World#What is the scriptural basis for the restriction on homosexual sexual behavior in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
|summary1 =
|subject1=Have the doctrines in "The Family: A ''Proclamation'' to the World" long been taught?
|summary2 =
|subject2=What sort of scriptural support is there for the doctrines of The Family: A ''Proclamation'' to the World?
|summary3 =
|subject3=What is the scriptural basis for the restriction on homosexual sexual behavior in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
}}

= What sort of scriptural support is there for the doctrines of The Family: A ''Proclamation'' to the World? =
== Introduction to Question ==
Many have asked what sort of scriptural support exists for the Family Proclamation. This article provides a resource that can answer this question.

== Response to Question ==
=== Scriptural Insert ===
A website has been created called thefamilyproclamation.org. This website provides scriptures, general authority quotes, scientific research, and stories about applying the doctrines of the family proclamation. They have an annotated scriptural insert of the family ''Proclamation'' with scriptures that can support virtually each line of the proclamation. That insert is pictured below:

[[File:Family Proc Scipture Insert 1 .png|600px|thumb|center]]
[[File:Family Proc Insert 2.png|600px|thumb|center]]

=== Line by Line Analysis ===
The same website has a section that provides [https://thefamilyproclamation.org/annotated-proclamation/ line-by-line analysis of the family proclamation]. Scriptures are listed in support of its doctrines.

== Conclusion ==
The Family: A ''Proclamation'' to the World is a divinely inspired document. Its authors have repeatedly testified to its revelatory status. We should follow its teachings and see the rewards that we reap because of our obedience to it.

= Is gender a social construct? =
== Introduction to Question ==
It’s a common refrain among the cultural left of the West that ''gender is a social construct''.<ref>Unless otherwise stated, all quotations and citations from the feminist authors below come from Ryan T. Anderson, ''When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment'' (New York: Encounter Books, 2018).</ref> A social construct is any category of thought that is created and imposed onto reality through and because of human, social interaction. Key to the idea of a social construct is that the category of thought is not extracted from reality but imposed onto reality. For instance, social constructionists give the boundaries of nations as good examples of a social construct. At a finite moment in time, someone had to come along and say "here is where the boundaries of what we'll call the United States are going to be!" From that moment on, we have acted as if the boundaries of the United States have an objective, primitive existence when, according to these theorists, they don't.

The view of gender as a social construct stands in stark contrast to the ideas of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that "[g]ender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."<ref>"The Family: A ''Proclamation'' to the World," 2nd paragraph.</ref>

When saying ''gender'' in the statement "gender is a social construct", most are referring to the idea that there aren't any sex-specific, biologically-determined, psychobehavioral differences between men and women. According to these people, there are no substantive differences in preference or behavior between men and women. Postmodern-adjacent philosopher [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Butler Judith Butler] refers to gender as conceived here (as well as a person's gender identity) as a "performance".<ref>Judith Butler, ''Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity'' (New York: Routledge, 2006), 171&ndash;80.</ref> This performance is an outward showing or demonstration of the expectations that have been imposed onto a person through [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_act speech acts] in their cultural environment. In other words, what we call "femininity" and "masculinity" is just people conforming to how society says that a man or woman "should act" and nothing more. There is no biological, neuroanatomical basis for any cognitive or behavioral differences between men and women. How a man or woman "should act" is merely an imposition from broader society for a particular social purpose&mdash;in this case the continuing replenishing of society with healthy citizens to run that society's economic and other political infrastructure.

When others say ''gender'' in the statement "gender is a social construct", they mean to say that the biological sex binary of male and female itself is a social construct. Butler in a 1994 book chapter regards the immutability of the body as pernicious since it "successfully buries and masks the genealogy of power relations by which it is constituted".<ref>Judith Butler, "Bodies That Matter," in ''Engaging with Irigaray'', ed. Carolyn Burke, Naomi Schor, and Margaret Whitford (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994), 148.</ref> "In short," summarizes social conservative philosopher [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_T._Anderson Ryan T. Anderson], "‘the body’ conceived as something in particular is all about power."<ref>Anderson, ''When Harry Became Sally'', 153.</ref>

Some people refer to both the male-female sex binary and cognitive-behavioral differences when saying ''gender'' in the statement "gender is a social construct".

The theory that gender is a social construct is the brainchild of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-wave_feminism second-wave feminism]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_de_Beauvoir Simone De Beauvoir] is thought to be the mother of the movement. She is famous for the saying from her 1949 book ''The Second Sex'' that "[o]ne is not born, but rather becomes, a woman. No biological, psychological, or economic fate determines the figure that the human female presents in society; it is civilization as a whole that produces this creature, intermediate between male and eunuch, which is described as feminine."<ref>Simone de Beauvoir, ''The Second Sex'' , trans. H.M. Parshley (London: Jonathan Cape, 1953; 2009), 294.</ref> Second-wave feminism "broadened the debate [from merely about the ownership of property and suffrage, such as under first-wave feminism] to include a wider range of issues: sexuality, family, domesticity, the workplace, reproductive rights, de facto inequalities, and official legal inequalities. It was a movement that was focused on critiquing the patriarchal, or male-dominated, institutions and cultural practices throughout society. Second-wave feminism also drew attention to the issues of domestic violence and marital rape, created rape-crisis centers and women's shelters, and brought about changes in custody laws and divorce law."<ref>"Second-wave feminism," ''Wikipedia'', accessed January 11, 2023, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-wave_feminism.</ref> Key to undermining the conception of female as interested in domestic affairs was "undoing the myth" that there were sex-based, biologically-determined, psychobehavioral differences between men and women. Thus, second-wave feminists, and especially those involved in neuroscience and psychology, have been vocal for many years that gender is a social construct, and that there are no substantive brain differences between men and women that lead to differences in cognition and behavior. All of this theorizing and scholarship was toward the end of providing greater political equality for men and women. The claim that gender is a social construct now dominates most halls of academic learning in the West. While we can recognize the substantial and wonderful differences that have been made in society because of feminism including greater learning, financial, and professional opportunities for women as well as greater political power and influence, we can also recognize the deficiencies in the social constructionist theory of gender and theorize about new ways that themes of equality, equity, justice, fairness, sexism, and misogyny can be potentially reworked and retooled with our understanding of brain differences. We can celebrate men qua men and women qua women.

This article will respond to the social constructionist theory of gender under both meanings of gender as well as provide some resources for understanding other themes better.

== Response to Question ==
=== Social Constructs May Not Exist ===
First, at the broadest level, social constructs may not exist. Recall that (key to the idea of a social construct) there is no objective existence to the categories imposed on to reality. Also, these categories of thoughts are created and imposed onto reality rather than extracted from it.

But both the subjectivity and the creation of categories are highly doubtful.

We can imagine a state of affairs in which there are no subjects, such as human beings, that exist. During that state of affairs, at some primitive point of time, there still existed the ''possibility'' that human beings would exist. On top of the possibility that human beings would exist was the possibility of their gender being physically substantiated and embodied. Given that the ''possibility'' of human male and female existed, the categories of male and female are objective and not imposed onto reality. The possibility is "out there" in the world and humans have merely given substance to the category of human male and female.

The same goes for ''all'' categories. Categories are ''never'' created and ''never'' merely subjective. Categories can only be embodied and recognized.

=== The Two Sex Gametes and Their Implications for the Male-Female Sex Binary ===
It is important to start by substantiating the existence of the male-female sex binary since, without it, sex-specific differences in cognition and behavior have no firm foundation. Without the existence of categories like male and female, there is no such thing as a "male brain" nor "female brain".

As explained by the atheist, lesbian, neuroscientist, sex researcher, and columnist Dr. Debra Soh:

<blockquote>
Biological sex is either male or female. Contrary to what is commonly believed, sex is defined not by chromosomes or our genitals or hormonal profiles, but by gametes, which are mature reproductive cells. There are only two types of gametes: small ones called sperm that are produced by males, and large ones called eggs that are produced by females, There are no intermediate types of gametes between egg and sperm cells. Sex is therefore binary. It is not a spectrum.<ref> Dr. Debra Soh, ''The End of Gender: Debunking the Myths About Sex and Identity in Our Society'' (New York: Threshold Editions, 2020), 17.</ref>
</blockquote>

It is because of the existence of the two and only two gametes that we are genetically evolved and constructed as human beings to be a segment of the population that carries and produces one gamete or the other: males or females. It is also by reason of the existence of the two gametes that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex intersex conditions] are considered [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorders_of_sex_development disorders of sexual development]. A person was meant to develop and be born as either male or female. Evolutionary force has differentiated between male and female because of the advantages of sexual reproduction for the survival and progress of our species. The proximate, cooperative work of mother and father are vital to the health, development, and survival of human infants and young given that our young are helpless when born and thus require much attention. Nature gave us male and female in order to ensure that our young develop healthily.

Men are ordered towards the end of impregnation and women towards the end of hosting conception and incubation. Can you think of a third reproductive function that must be performed by a third member of the species in order for us or other animals to reproduce? If not, you have just been given additional evidence that the sex binary is real and that we were meant to develop as male or female and not something between it.

The male-female sex  binary exists. This is not a category of thought that we have imposed onto reality but one that we have extracted from it.

Some claim that human sex is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimodal_distribution bimodal] instead of binary&mdash;citing intersex conditions as evidence of people not being easily categorizable as male or female and thus evidence of human sex's bimodality. While it ''may'' be okay to make a merely ''descriptive'' claim that human sex is bimodal, it is not an accurate metaphysical claim. In other words, just because a group of people developed such that they are not easily categorizable as male or female, that does not mean that they weren't ''meant'' to develop as male or female. It does not mean that intersex conditions represent an entirely healthy, normal sexual development. Scripture proclaims and even secular evolutionary observations demand that we are meant to develop as either male or female.

=== Evidence For Neuroanatomical and Correlative Psychobehavioral Differences Between Men and Women ===
There is a lot of evidence for neuroanatomical and correlative psychobehavioral differences between men and women cited below.<ref>Bruce Goldman,  "Two minds: the cognitive differences between men and women," ''Stanford Medicine'', Stanford University, May 22, 2017, https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html; "'Two Minds' two years later: Still curious about sex differences in cognition? Here are some resources," ''Stanford Scope Blog'', October 24, 2019, https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2019/10/24/two-minds-two-years-later-still-curious-about-sex-differences-in-cognition-here-are-some-resources/; John Stossel, "The Science: Male Brain vs Female Brain," ''YouTube'', October 15, 2019, video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTEi2-FAEZE; David C. Geary, "The Real Causes of Human Sex Differences," ''Quilette'', October 20, 2020, https://quillette.com/2020/10/20/the-real-causes-of-human-sex-differences/; "The Ideological Refusal to Acknowledge Evolved Sex Differences," ''Quillette'', September 1, 2022, https://quillette.com/2022/09/01/the-ideological-refusal-to-acknowledge-evolved-sex-differences/; ''Male, Female: The Evolution of Human Sex Differences'', 3rd ed. (Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association, 2020). Indeed, every single cell of our body is influenced by our sex. See Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Understanding the Biology of Sex and Gender Differences; Theresa M. Wizemann, Mary-Lou Pardue, eds., ''Exploring the Biological Contributions to Human Health: Does Sex Matter?'' (Washington D.C.: National Academies Press (US), 2001), Executive Summary, 2, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222291/#!po=1.11111. For further info on male-female neuroanatomy and psychobehavior, see Amber N. V. Ruigrock et. al, "[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763413003011 A meta-analysis of sex differences in human brain structure]," ''Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews'' 39 (2014): 34&ndash;50; Larry Cahill, "[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3359593/ A Half-Truth is a Whole Lie: On the Necessity of Investigating Sex Influences on the Brain]," ''Endocrinology'' 153 (2012): 2542; "[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/his-brain-her-brain-2012-10-23/ His Brain, Her Brain]," ''Scientific American'', October 1, 2012. For a paradigm of gender compatible with the Gospel, see Ryan T. Anderson, ''When Harry Became Sally'',  chap. 7. See also Abigail Favale, ''The Genesis of Gender: A Christian Theory'' (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2022). For the most thorough coverage of the literature exploring sex differences in neuroanatomy and psychobehavior in one book that the author has seen, see Charles Murray, ''Human Diversity: The Biology of Gender, Race, and Class'' (New York: Twelve, 2020), 11&ndash;127.</ref> One of the clearest and most obvious differences between men and women is sexual preference. The vast majority of the human population is heterosexual and for obvious, biological reasons. There are also large differences in physical aggression and moderate to small differences in personality traits. Women have more oxytocin&mdash;a chemical reponsible for social paring and bonding&mdash;than men.<ref>Donatella Marazziti et. al, "[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6446474/ Sex-Related Differences in Plasma Oxytocin Levels in Humans]," ''Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health'' 15 (March 2019): 58&ndash;63; Shan Gao et. al, "[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4941426/ Oxytocin, the peptide that bonds the sexes also divides them]," ''Proc Natl Acad Sci'' 113, no. 27 (2016): 7650-7654.</ref> This makes it so that women, on average and in general, are, for instance, more interested in careers involving people rather than things.

Much of today's society conflates the concepts of biological sex and sex differences in behavior. For instance, there are many different gender identities that one can choose from according to much of the modern cultural and political left. One of these is to be "non-binary". Those that identify as non-binary typically identify as such because they do not conform to stereotypically masculine nor feminine ways of thinking and behaving. In most cases, they are born male or female and physically present as such but, later in life, believe that they don't identify with their birth sex. It's important to remember that one can be gender non-conforming in behavior without necessarily having to identify as something other than their birth sex. Indeed, there are masculine women and effeminate men. Also, one does not need to be stereotypically masculine in every respect to be considered masculine or feminine. For its part, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints defines masculinity as acquiring the bodily and cognitive capabilities to do three things in the context of family life: preside over one's family, protect one's family, and provide for one's family. As for femininity, it is defined as acquiring the cognitive and bodily capabilities to nurture one's family. Father and mother have these primary roles but share in the other's roles and aid the other in those roles. What's great about these definitions is that, in the context of masculinity, masculinity is defined quite narrowly such that a man can love cooking, musicals, knitting, and other stereotypically feminine things but still be masculine insofar as he also acquires and becomes apt at the skills necessary to play the three roles listed above on behalf of his family and those around him. In the context of femininity, a woman can like and do stereotypically masculine things and still be a feminine woman so long as she acquires the bodily and cognitive skills necessary to nurture her family and those around her. Even if you don't have masculine nor feminine capabilities, there is still your body to confront which, in 99% of cases, will be genetically constructed as male or female. You can't identify as something that contradicts plain reality. If you are a more effeminate man, you don't have to identify as anything other than that: an effeminate man. There is indeed a spectrum of masculinity and femininity that one can be a part of. But one's greater or lesser ''masculinity or femininity'' should not lead someone to conclude ''they are something other than male or female'' and change their ''bodies'' which are, in about 99% of cases, organized as either male or female.

It is important to recognize that just because the author believes that gender (as behavior and cognition differences) has a biological basis, that does not mean that we are committed to the notion that socialization plays no role in how we shape our thinking or behavior. Differences exist at the individual level. Debra Soh explains:

<blockquote>
To claim that there are no differences between the sexes when looking at group averages, or that culture has greater influence than biology; simply isn't true. Socialization shapes the extent to which our gender is expressed or suppressed, but it doesn't dictate whether someone will be masculine or feminine, or whether she or he will be gender-conforming or gender-atypical.
<br>
Let me explain: Whether a trait is deemed "masculine" or "feminine" is culturally defined, but whether a person gravitates toward traits that are considered masculine or feminine is driven by biology. For example, in the Western world, a shaved head is viewed as masculine, and the majority of people sporting a shaved head are men. For women who choose to shave their head as an expression of who they are, they are likely more masculine than the average woman, and will probably be more male-typical in other areas of their life, too. From a biological standpoint, compared with other women, there's a good chance they were exposed to higher levels of testosterone in utero.

If, in an alternate universe, a shaved head was seen as a feminine trait, we would expect to see the reverse&mdash;most people who shaved their head would be women, and any men who chose to do so would likely be more feminine than other men, and exposed to lower levels of testosterone in the womb.

For someone who is gender non-conforming, this is similarly influenced by biology, but the extent to which they will feel comfortable expressing their gender nonconformity (through, say, the way they dress or carry themselves) will be influenced by social factors, like parental upbringing and cultural messaging. Social influence cannot, however, override biology. No matter how much parents or teachers or peers frown upon gender nonconformity (or gender conformity, for that matter), a person will gravitate toward the same interests and behaviors, but he or she may feel more inclined to hide that part of themselves.<ref>Soh, ''The End of Gender'', 42&ndash;44.</ref>
</blockquote>

=== What A Man or Woman "Should Be" ===
But let's offer one more argument against the notion of a social construct. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Butler Judith Butler] is a famous American philosopher and gender theorist. Butler is famous for the notion that gender is a "performance". This is known as the theory of "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_construction_of_gender#Applications_of_gender_performance gender performativity]". That theory is described well in an introduction to Butler's most famous book ''Gender Trouble'' (1990) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3i-8JEWSk8 here].

Butler's essential premise is that behaviors, attitudes, preferences, and temperaments that we typically associate with men and women are not innate to male and female. Male and female are not stable concepts, according to Butler, and any behavior that we associate as "innate" or "natural" to them is merely illusory. Gender identity&mdash;one's subjective sense of the sex that they belong to&mdash;is not innate either. Gender identity is constructed through a set of socially popular [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_act speech acts] that are then ''performed''. Gender identity and the behaviors that we engage in based on our understanding of what our gender identity is are thus socially-constructed. Recall that a social construct is a subjective category that is imposed onto reality.

There are three main points that we can offer against Butler's arguments:
#Our inner sense of being male or female is most-often driven by the recognition that our bodies conform to the male or female sexual reproductive system. This is an objective observation.
#Our inner sense of being masculine or feminine is driven by our recognition of patterns in male behavior and female behavior against which we judge our own level of masculinity or femininity. This is arguably an objective observation.
#When in a situation where we have to tell someone to "be a man", we are transmitting a moral imperative to someone that they must act in accordance with. These morals can be persuasively argued to be objective morals. That moral imperative is transmitted with that particular linguistic content based on either the behavioral patterns that we witness men and women engaging in and/or the tasks that we can observe male and female bodies are more aptly suited for. These are all arguably objective observations.

If objective observations, then they definitionally cannot be social constructs. It's like what we call "walking". Walking is a particular kind of activity, and we can distinguish it from other kinds of activity like jogging and sprinting. That distinction is based on objective observations and abstracting a category of thought from objective observations. In a similar way, we might abstract categories of femininity and masculinity from objective observations of how men and women act. Performing these activities may have a biological basis that holds at the general level, varies slightly at the individual level, isn't infinitely malleable, and endures across time and culture.

=== Latter-day Saint Theology and Gender ===
As stated above, Latter-day Saints hold to gender being an essential characteristic as someone's eternal being. This understanding is gleaned from the scriptures of the faith.

The scriptures teach that the human spirit (or at least a part of it) is eternal.<ref>{{s||Abraham|3|18}}</ref> Prior to being given mortal bodies, the spirits of humans were created as male or female.<ref>{{s||Moses|3|4-5}}</ref> Spirit is believed to be made of some kind of physical matter.<ref>{{s||Doctrine & Covenants|131|7}}</ref> Thus, the Latter-day Saint scriptures appear to teach that a part of human spirits is eternal while another part of it is created from perhaps more elementary spiritual matter particles. Latter-day Saints tend to call these parts a person's spiritual ''intelligence'' (which is eternal going backwards and forwards) and a person's spirit body (which is created). All people's spirits, from eternity past to eternity future, will be sired in some sense by a Heavenly Mother and Father.

Some Latter-day Saints (under what we'll call TSGA:  "Theory of Spirit Gender A") believe that our gender is a part of only our intelligence and others (under what we'll call TSGB: "Theory of Spirit Gender B") believe that it is a part of only our spirit body. Another possibility (under what we'll call TSGC: "Theory of Spirit Gender C") may be that gendered [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology ontologies] are a part of a person's intelligence and are then added upon and expanded with a person's spirit body. Ultimately, it is not known exactly how and when gender becomes an eternal characteristic of someone's identity.

No matter which way you slice the theology, it is clear that gender is not a concept that was ever created. Some critics may be tempted to claim that gender is socially constructed in Latter-day Saint theology, but review of the scriptures and other official pronouncements declared to be inspired and authoritative contradicts that claim. Under TSGA, gender has always existed as a brute fact regarding a person's intelligence. Under TSGB, a divine feminine and masculine have existed from eternity past and will exist into eternity future and thus the concept of male or female gender was never created while our spirits' ''particular'' gender was.<ref>Of course, a commitment to TSGB would mean that the male-female binary could be redefined or otherwise abolished given a different plan for the configuration of a person's or group of people's spirit gender.</ref> Under TSGC, both of these are true: gender is native to our intelligences ''and'' added upon with our spirit bodies by heavenly parents who have always been male or female and always will be male or female.

Key to understanding Latter-day Saint theology of gender and its importance to Latter-day Saints is the idea of ''gender complementarianism''. That is: men and women play complementary roles and have complementary behaviors that contribute to the greater whole of producing and rearing children. For Latter-day Saints, this complementarity is something that is essential to the function of our mortal and eternal lives. That is why Latter-day Saints (and, at least in part, religious people more broadly) defend differences between men and women so much. There is something about men and women, qua men and qua women, that makes them special and contributes to the broader order of the cosmos. Gendered behavior and bodies are deeply meaningful to Latter-day Saints and signatures of the Eternal Mother and Father and their relationship. As stated by Elder Dallin H. Oaks, "Our theology begins with heavenly parents. Our highest aspiration is to be like them."<ref>Dallin H. Oaks, "[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1995/05/apostasy-and-restoration?lang=eng Apostasy and Restoration]," ''Ensign'' 25, no. 5 (May 1995): 87.</ref>

It is certainly the case that Latter-day Saints can create an understanding of complementarianism that is more rigorously based in scripture, science, and sound philosophy. However, it is clear that complementarianism is a necessary belief for fidelity to the basic, rudimentary statements of the scriptures and other pronouncements declared to be inspired and authoritative such as the Family ''Proclamation'' cited above.

=== Rethinking Sexism, Misogyny, Equality, and Morality ===
In noting that there are sex differences in cognition and behavior between men and women, it provides us an opportunity to plug an article that may be helpful in reconsidering and retooling our philosophical ideas regarding sexism, equality, misogyny, and more since much of the current moral and political discourse is based on an understanding of those themes that is informed by the assertion that gender is a social construct. We have written an article linked below that treats those themes philosophically and scripturally that we encourage our readers to be familiar with.

{{Related articles
|title=main
|link1=What is sexism?
|summary1 =
|subject1=What is sexism?
}}

== Conclusion ==
Our understanding of gender and its origins will continue to grow as neuroscientists and philosophers uncover more, but one thing is clear: it is the "conservative religious" folk that have an understanding of gender closer to reality than much of the modern cultural left of the West.

== Further Reading ==
*Mascolo, Michael. "Time to Move Beyond 'Gender Is Socially Constructed': Contradictions of sex and gender," ''Psychology Today'',  July 31, 2019, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/old-school-parenting-modern-day-families/201907/time-move-beyond-gender-is-socially-constructed

= What is the scriptural basis for the restriction on homosexual sexual behavior in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? =
== Introduction to Question ==
In recent years, it has become an item of interest and controversy to know what scriptural grounds are for prohibiting homosexual sexual behavior in different Christian religions.

This article provides some resources for answering this question as well as other relevant scriptural texts from the Latter-day Saint canon for answering this question.
{{Seealso|What sort of scriptural support is there for the doctrines of The Family: A ''Proclamation'' to the World?}}

It demonstrates, despite lengthy and intelligent cases to the contrary,<ref>Taylor G. Petrey, "[https://www.dialoguejournal.com/2011/12/toward-a-post-heterosexual-mormon-theology/ Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology]," ''Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought'' 44, no. 4 (2011): 106&ndash;41; ''Tabernacles of Clay: Sexuality and Gender in Modern Mormonism'' (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2020); Blaire Ostler, ''Queer Mormon Theology: An Introduction'' (Newburgh, IN: By Common Consent Press, 2021); Nathan Oman, "A Welding Link of Some Kind: Exploring a possible theology of same-sex marriage sealings," ''Thoughts from a Tamed Cynic'', September 27, 2022, https://nateoman.substack.com/p/a-welding-link-of-some-kind; For lengthy and cogent rebuttals to and reviews of Petrey’s book ''Tabernacles of Clay'', see Gregory L. Smith, "[https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/feet-of-clay-queer-theory-and-the-church-of-jesus-christ/ Feet of Clay: Queer Theory and the Church of Jesus Christ]," ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 43 (2021): 107&ndash;278; Michael A. Goodman and Daniel Frost, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/constancy-amid-change/ Constancy Amid Change]," ''BYU Studies Quarterly'' 61, no. 3 (2022): 191&ndash;217. For a solid and insightful rebuttal to Petrey’s article "Towards a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology", see V.H. Cassler, "[https://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleCasslerPlatosSon.html Plato's Son, Augustine's Heir: ‘A Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology’?]" ''SquareTwo'' 5, no. 2 (Summer 2012). Dr. Cassler has another article on SquareTwo that provides a feminist argument in favor of traditional marriage that readers may be interested in. See V.H. Cassler, "[https://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleCasslerMarriage.html 'Some Things That Should Not Have Been Forgotten Were Lost': The Pro-Feminist, Pro-Democracy, Pro-Peace Case for State Privileging of Companionate Heterosexual Monogamous Marriage]," ''SquareTwo'' 2, no. 1 (2009). For a solid review of and response to Blaire Ostler’s book,  see Daniel Ortner, "[https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-queer-philosophies-of-men-mingled-with-scripture/?fbclid=IwAR3AZmGaadE3R9BDKblUe48C97mS2MZxXNPNQD6TbH1VpZd12eAq9-LbNiM The Queer Philosophies of Men Mingled with Scripture]," ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 51 (2022): 317&ndash;34. For a review of Oman's work, see Matthew Watkins, "[https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/we-dont-know-so-we-might-as-well-a-flimsy-philosophy-for-same-sex-sealings/ 'We Don’t Know, So We Might as Well': A Flimsy Philosophy for Same-Sex Sealings]," ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 54 (2022): 207&ndash;22. Much of the scriptures covered in this article will show that, even if Oman's thesis holds (which it doesn't. Sealings have always been understood in part as marital since Nauvoo), his arguments will still be rejecting key scriptural assertions and broaching more questions than answering.</ref> that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stands on solid scriptural grounds in their prohibition of homosexual sexual behavior and has effectively no theological workaround for incorporating neither homosexual sexual behavior nor same-sex unions/temple sealings into their theology.

== Response to Question ==
=== Resources for Understanding the Biblical Perspective on Homosexuality ===
For understanding the biblical perspective on homosexuality, there are three great resources online that explain it.

#[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_B._Hays Richard B. Hays], ''The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics'' (New York: HarperOne, 1996), 379&ndash;406 online at https://www.heartlandchurch.org/d/The_Moral_Vision_of_the_New_Testament_excerpt.pdf. This gives an academic, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exegesis exegetical] perspective from the New Testament about homosexuality, concluding that whenever homosexual sexual behavior is discussed, it is unremittingly negative.
#Justin W. Starr, "Biblical Condemnations of Homosexual Conduct," ''FAIR Papers'', November 2011, https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/starr-justin-BiblicalHomosexuality.pdf. This paper gives an academic, exegetical perspective from the entire Bible regarding homosexual sexual behavior. It concludes that the Bible is against all homosexual sexual behavior.
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._J._Gagnon Robert A. J. Gagnon], one of the foremost experts on homosexuality and the Bible, has a [http://www.robgagnon.net/ website] where he has links to his many articles and video presentations defending the traditional view from scripture.

=== Book Resources ===
The best book resource defending the traditional interpretation of scripture regarding homosexual sexual behavior:

#Robert A. J. Gagnon, [https://www.amazon.com/Bible-Homosexual-Practice-Texts-Hermeneutics/dp/0687022797 ''The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics''] (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001).

These resources thoroughly refute any notion that the Bible is either indifferent, silent, or in favor of homosexual sexual behavior.

=== Latter-day Saint Scripture and its Addenda to the Case Against Homosexual Sexual Behavior ===
Uniquely Latter-day Saint texts offer many important addenda to the conversation about proper sexuality.

#The Book of Moses, contained in the Pearl of Great Price in the Latter-day Saint scriptural canon, affirms that all men and women had a personal, real pre-existence prior to being created on the earth. {{s||Moses|3|5}} teaches that all things created in the Garden of Eden, including men and women (represented as Adam and Eve), were created spiritually before they were created physically in the Garden. {{s||Moses|1|8}} reinforces that this was a real pre-existence (existing as actual spirits sepearte in both time and space from God) rather than ideal pre-existence (existing in God's mind prior to physical creation). Moses sees "all the children of men which are and '''were''' created." The Book of Abraham, also contained in the Pearl of Great price and purporting to the the writings of the biblical patriarch Abraham, teaches that there is at least a portion of our spirit that was not created ({{s||Abraham|3|18}}). Thus, our embodiment as man and woman means something not just now, but has always meant something. If that is the case, then there is an objective way to structure and understand our sexed embodiment and the sexual relationships that we engage in with those bodies. That is where this next point elucidates further.
#The great Greek philosopher Aristotle taught that all things were created with a ''telos'' or purpose. By adhering to this ''telos'' or being used according to it, things, including people, flourish. Along similar lines, {{s||Jacob|2|21}} teaches that all men and women were created with the end of keeping God’s commandments and glorifying him forever.<ref>Some will wish to undermine this scripture by pointing to passages in the Book of Mormon that affirm that errors might exist in it such as the Title Page of the Book of Mormon, {{s|1|Nephi|19|6}}; {{s||Mormon|8|12}}, 16-17; {{s||Mormon|9|31}}; {{s||Ether|12|23-25}}. Each of the authors is clear that the content that they have included in the Book of Mormon is sacred content. All of them couch their disclaimers in conditionals i.e. "if error exists, don't condemn it". The Book of Mormon authors were confident that the content, and especially the content that prophets were claiming was sacred teaching revealed from heaven, was of divine origin. The way that they recount secular history and their particular writing style may be weak and may contain errors, and some of the claimed divine content may indeed not come from God, but Book of Mormon authors are clear that they tried their absolute hardest every effort to include only those things they believed came from God as the Book of Mormon’s sacred teaching. We should, in their honor, try our hardest to recognize the content that they wrote, compiled, and bequeathed to us as divine, morally and scientifically correct teachings.</ref> {{s||Doctrine & Covenants|49|15-17}} teaches that the Lord’s definition of marriage is such that it is between a man and a woman. In that scripture, men and women are commanded to be married and have sexual relations so that they can bear childrrn: to "multiply and replenish the earth". Scripture consistently associates keeping the commandments with flourishing and happiness. See, for example,  {{s||Mosiah|2|41}}. This in and of itself should show that Latter-day Saint theology recognizes a gender binary of man and woman as well as the designedness and primacy of heterosexual marriages. People who claim that God ''made'' them with same-gender attraction and/or gender dysphoria and ''meant'' for them to act on their same-gender attraction are simply wrong. These scriptures also combine to testify that marriage, for Latter-day Saints, is not merely an ''instrumental'' good (something good because of the consequence it brings about) in that it brings about children that can contribute to society, but is an ''intrinsic'' good (something good by its nature) in that it is the consummation of who and what we are as men and women.
#Restoration scripture echoes Genesis in affirming that men and women should become "one flesh"&mdash;affirming the creative order discussed in Justin W. Starr’s paper above.<ref>{{s||Doctrine & Covenants|49|15-17}}; {{s||Moses|3|21-24}}; {{s||Abraham|5|14-18}}</ref> These are therefore affirmations of the created order whereby only relations between men and women are ethically proper. These scriptures, combined with those before that describe are telos, testify that, in matters regarding how we determine what is ethically-proper sexual conduct, it doesn't matter that God created us, but to what end he created us. If he created us for a particular end that was good, then we can and should make decisions that adhere to that purpose. God created woman from the rib of a man and said that for this reason (the reason of being taken from the man) shall a man leave his father and mothers and cleave to his wife, becoming one flesh ({{s||Genesis|2|21-24}}). He commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth ({{s||Genesis|1|28}}). God then saw that his creation was "very good" ({{s||Genesis|1|31}}).
#{{s||Doctrine & Covenants|131|1-2}} teaches that one must enter into the covenant of marriage in order to reach the Celestial Kingdom.
#{{s||Doctrine & Covenants|132|19-20}} lays out more of Latter-day Saint theology of marriage. According to that section, men and women’s glory as gods consists in part in having "a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever." Thus, the capacity to have spiritual offspring is a necessary condition of becoming gods in Latter-day Saint theology. Doctrine & Covenants 132 teaches that only men and women joined together in marriage have this capacity. Verse 63 of the revelation teaches that men and women are sealed together in part to "bear the souls of men." The revelation teaches that a binary sexual complementarity is required in order to achieve spiritual creation.<ref>It should be noted that Joseph Smith never appears to have taught in his public sermons that human spirits were birthed by Heavenly Parents in the pre-mortal existence. Indeed, he seems to have taught in his public sermons that spirits were never created. See Kenneth W. Godfrey, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/pearl-great-price-revelations-god/history-intelligence-latter-day-saint-thought The History of Intelligence in Latter-day Saint Thought]," in ''The Pearl of Great Price: Revelations from God'', ed. H. Donl Peterson and Charles D. Tate Jr. (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1989), 213-36; Blake Ostler, "[https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V15N01_61.pdf The Idea of Pre-Existence in the Development of Mormon Thought]," ''Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought'' 15, no. 1 (Spring 1982): 59&ndash;78. Although that is true, it is also the case that his revelations teach that men and women can create spirit children and that our spirits were at one point created. The Book of Moses teaches this doctrine of spirits having a moment when they were created and the majority of Latter-day Saint scriptural exegetes have recognized this or at least been open to it. See {{s||Moses|3|5}} and especially in connection to {{s||Moses|1|8}} where Moses sees "all the children of men which are and '''were''' created." All scripture assumes real pre-existence instead of ideal pre-existence and virtually all Latter-day Saint exegetes with the exception of perhaps one have recognized this. See Elder Bruce R. McConkie, "Christ and the Creation," in ''Studies in Scripture: Volume Two, The Pearl of Great Price'', ed. Robert L. Millet and Kent P. Jackson (Salt Lake City: Randall Book, 1985), 88; Milton R. Hunter, ''Pearl of Great Price Commentary'' (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1951), 80&ndash;86; Richard D. Draper, S. Kent Brown, and Michael D. Rhodes, ''The Pearl of Great Price: A Verse by Verse Commentary'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2005), 222; H. Donl Peterson, ''The Pearl of Great Price: A History and Commentary'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1987), 129&ndash;30; Shon D. Hopkin, "Premortal Existence," in ''Pearl of Great Price Reference Companion'', ed. Dennis L. Largey (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2017), 240&ndash;41; Hyrum L. Andrus, ''Doctrinal Commentary on the Pearl of Great Price'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1973), 99&ndash;136; Aaron P. Schade and Matthew L. Bowen, ''The Book of Moses: From the Ancient of Days to the Latter Days'' (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2021), 153&ndash;54n30; Book of Mormon Central and Jeffrey R. Bradshaw, "Book of Moses Essays: #54 Moses Sees the Garden of Eden ({{s||Moses|3|}}) Spiritual Creation ({{s||Moses|3|5-7}})," ''The Interpreter Foundation'', May 8, 2021, https://interpreterfoundation.org/book-of-moses-essays-054/; Terryl L. Givens, "[https://interpreterfoundation.org/conferences/2020-book-of-moses-conference/papers/givens/ The Book of Moses as a Pre–Augustinian Text: A New Look at the Pelagian Crisis]," in ''Tracing Ancient Threads in the Book of Moses: Inspired Origins, Temple Contexts, and Literary Qualities'', ed. Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, David R. Seely, John W. Welch and Scott Gordon, 2 vols. (Orem, UT: The Interpreter Foundation; Springville, UT: Book of Mormon Central; Redding, CA: FAIR; Tooele, UT: Eborn Books, 2021), 1:293-314. Of the five commentaries on the Doctrine and Covenants that were reviewed and that commented on v. 63 of this revelation specifically, two appear to explicitly accept that spirit birth is a reality. Exactly how is not specified. See Roy W. Doxey, ''Doctrine and Covenants Speaks'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1970), 422; Daniel H. Ludlow, ''A Companion to Your Study of the Doctrine and Covenants'', 2 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1978), 1:664. Two seem to be at the very least open to that possibility. See Robert L. Millet, "A New and Everlasting Covenant (D&C 132)," in ''Studies in Scripture: Volume One, The Doctrine and Covenants'', ed. Robert L. Millet and Kent P. Jackson (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1989), 524&ndash;25. See also Joseph Fielding McConkie and Craig J. Ostler, ''Revelations of the Restoration: A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants and Other Modern Revelations'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2000), 63. One appears to believe that reference to the eternal worlds and bearing the souls of men refers to mortal life and the bearing of life on earth similar to how {{s||Doctrine & Covenants|49|15-17}} speaks about marriage. See Richard O. Cowan, ''Doctrine & Covenants: Our Modern Scripture'' (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1978), 133. McConkie's and Ostler's commentary may have meant to fit more into this understanding of the verse. The dominant understanding seems to be that spirit birth is a reality. All commentators agree that sexual relations are only proper between a married man and woman. Indeed, there still seems to be little purpose for God creating us as man and woman if it did not have a vital purpose to our earthly and eternal flourishing. Lastly, Brian Hales discusses evidence that Joseph Smith taught spirit birth to his followers more in private when introducing eternal and plural marriage. He also relates this evidence to Doctrine & Covenants 132 and concludes that it and JS's private teachings substantiate the doctrine of spirit birth. See Brian C. Hales, ''Joseph Smith's Polygamy: Volume 3, Theology'' (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2013), 113&ndash;125. Thus at worst Joseph Smith considered spirit birth a possibility and didn't consider it carefully enough when presenting his King Follet Discourse that the so-called "progressives" on this issue quote and rely on in order to construct theologies that permit same-gender sexual relations.</ref> This scripture alone naturally necessitates an ethic in which homosexual sexual behavior is discouraged or prohibited since engaging in it isn’t consonant with your divine identity and destiny. Sanctioned homosexual sexual behavior would confuse men and women both on earth and in heaven as to what their divine nature and destiny actually is. It would distort it.
#The Family: A ''Proclamation'' to the World teaches that all men and women were born of Heavenly Parents in the pre-mortal life. Latter-day Saint theology affirms the existence of a Heavenly Mother by whom the spirits of all of humanity from Adam to the present day have been sired.<ref>David L. Paulsen and Martin Pulido, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/a-mother-there-a-survey-of-historical-teachings-about-mother-in-heaven/ ‘A Mother There’: A Survey of Historical Teachings About Heavenly Mother]," ''BYU Studies Quarterly'' 50, no. 1 (2011): 70&ndash;97.</ref> It has been affirmed that the ''Proclamation'' came by way of divine inspiration and revelation [[Is the Mormon document "The Family: A ''Proclamation'' to the World" official doctrine?|many times]].
#The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible adds commentary to and restores much of the text of the Bible that is relevant to discussions of the Biblical witness regarding homosexual sexual behavior. Readers can see this for themselves in Joseph Smith's revision of {{s||Genesis|9|}} and the Sodom narratives, {{s||Romans|1|26-32}},<ref>Smith, "[https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/feet-of-clay-queer-theory-and-the-church-of-jesus-christ/#section-b Feet of Clay]," 129.</ref> and {{s|1|Corinthians|6|12}} and 6:18.<ref>Scott H. Faulring, Kent P. Jackson, and Robert J. Matthews, ''Joseph Smith's New Translation of the Bible: Original Manuscripts'' (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2004), 501.</ref> In each of these cases Joseph Smith either agrees with or intensifies the biblical witness against homosexual sexual behavior.

=== Will Technological Reproduction Justify a Reversal of the Church's Position on Homosexual Behavior? ===
Some claim that, perhaps in the future, technological reproduction will be able to occur and thus will be able to provide us, without the sexual union of (hopefully married) man and woman, healthy human bodies (either fully formed or ones that may need human care for development from both heterosexual and homosexual couples) for the spirit children of our Heavenly Parents to inhabit.
Thus, in that situation, the Church could potentially receive revelation to be inclusive of LGBT romantic, sexual, and/or marital relationships and homosexuality and other human sexual behaviors that are not procreative, marital-sexual relationships can be accepted.

Here is an objection to such an argument: {{s||Jacob|2|21}} informs us that we were created unto the end of keeping God's commandments. {{s||Doctrine & Covenants|49|15-17}} tells us that God has commanded us to be married as man and woman so as to have children and give bodies to the amount of spirit children God has created.

The acceptance of LGBT romantic, sexual, and/or marital relationships, even at this future moment in time where technological reproduction, would flatly contradict these two scriptures. There is no other way to interpret these scriptures that places LGBT romantic, sexual, and/or marital relationships within the "telos" of the human body. Such hypothetical future acceptance is thus unnecessary and not even possible.

One would have to deny that there is divine inspiration behind these scriptures; but how could one do that? They're so intuitively true––and especially given other Latter-day Saint theological commitments such as the pre-existence, God's existence, and the necessity of God to instruct us in morality––that for scripture to state them seems almost unnecessary. Additional commentary on appeal to prophetic fallibility to justify rejection of these two scriptures is found in footnote #2 of this article.

=== Personal Revelation Justifying the Practice of Homosexual Sexual Behavior ===
Some have claimed that they have received revelation that homosexual sexual behavior is correct and use this as justification for not keeping the scriptural commandment of abstaining from them. This revelation, given its incongruity with scripture and other prophetic revelation, must be a form of false revelation from false spirits.

{{Main|How does official teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints view those that receive revelation that contradicts that of the Prophet?}}

=== Scriptural Concordance of Words Relevant to Considerations About Homosexuality ===
Fornication is defined as any sexual activity between people outside of marriage. If one defines marriage as between a man and a woman, then any sexual contact between homosexual partners is going to be considered fornication. Below is a concordance of the mentions of fornication and its derivatives in scripture.

'''Fornication'''
*{{s||Ezekiel|16|26}}
*{{s||Ezekiel|16|29}}
*{{s||Isaiah|23|17}}
*{{s|2|Chronicles|21|11}}
*{{s||Matthew|5|32}}
*{{s||Matthew|15|19}}
*{{s||Matthew|19|9}}
*{{s||Mark|7|21}}
*{{s||John|8|41}}
*{{s||Acts|15|20}}
*{{s||Acts|15|29}}
*{{s||Acts|21|25}}
*{{s||Romans|1|29}}
*{{s|1|Corinthians|5|1}}
*{{s|1|Corinthians|5|1}}
*{{s|1|Corinthians|6|13}}
*{{s|1|Corinthians|6|18}}
*{{s|1|Corinthians|7|2}}
*{{s|1|Corinthians|10|8}}
*{{s|2|Corinthians|12|21}}
*{{s||Galatians|5|19}}
*{{s||Ephesians|5|3}}
*{{s||Colossians|3|5}}
*{{s|1|Thessalonians|4|3}}
*{{s||Jude|1|7}}
*{{s||Revelation|2|14}}
*{{s||Revelation|2|20}}
*{{s||Revelation|2|21}}
*{{s||Revelation|9|21}}
*{{s||Revelation|14|8}}
*{{s||Revelation|19|2}}
*{{s||Jacob|3|12}}
*{{s|3|Nephi|12|32}}
*{{s||Helaman|8|26}}
*{{s||Doctrine & Covenants|35|11}}
*{{s||Doctrine & Covenants|42|74}}
*{{s||Doctrine & Covenants|88|94}}
*{{s||Doctrine & Covenants|88|105}}

'''Fornications'''
*{{s||Ezekiel|16|15}}

'''Fornicator'''
*{{s|1|Corinthians|5|11}}
*{{s||Hebrews|12|16}}
*{{s||Doctrine & Covenants|42|77}}

'''Fornicators	'''
*{{s|1|Corinthians|5|9}}
*{{s|1|Corinthians|5|10}}
*{{s|1|Corinthians|6|9}}
*{{s||Doctrine & Covenants|42|76}}

=== Homosexuality as Part of the Definition of Other Words in Scripture Referring to Illicit Sexual Behavior ===
Homosexuality fits into the definition or the penumbras of the definitions of any other word in scripture referring to illicit sexual behavior.<ref>This is especially true when considering the biblical outlook on sex.  As Lyn M. Bechtel writes in ''Eerdman’s Dictionary of the Bible'': "In Hebrew Scripture sex has two primary functions: the production of progeny which lead to salvation, and the creation of the strong ties or oneness which are essential for holding the household and community together. Sex is the physical bonding together of what appears physically different in order to produce life, suggesting that the uniting of opposites is both creative and essential to the divine life process. In Gen.1 God creates by separating what is different into a physical (a child) and psychological unity...There is also casual sex or sex that does not create marital or family bonding and obligation (e.g., {{s||Deut.|22|28-29}}) or that violates existing marital or family bonding and obligation (e.g., vv. {{sv||Deuteronomy|22|23-24}}). This kind of sex is considered foolish and shameful, an "inadequacy" or "failure" to live up to internalized, societal goals and ideals because it violates the purpose of sex and therefore does not participate in the divine life process...Sexual intercourse in ancient Israel is intended to be an activity that builds the community first and therein fills the needs of the individual." See Lyn M. Bechtel, "Sex," in ''Eerdman’s Dictionary of the Bible'', ed. David Noel Freedman (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 1192&ndash;93. Thus scripture's outlook on proper sexual behavior refers to men and women becoming "one flesh" both physically and psychologically so that they can benefit the community. This naturally rules out homosexual sexual behavior as ethical.</ref> We have gathered an exhaustive concordance of those words [[Topical Scriptural Concordance/Sexual Behavior|at this link]] that readers should take a look at.

{{Related articles
|title=seealso
|link1=Did Christ teach against same-sex relationships during his mortal ministry?
|link2=Isn't the Mormon opposition to same-sex marriage hypocritical, considering that they used to ban black from holding the priesthood until 1978?
|summary1 =
|subject1=Did Christ teach against same-sex relationships during his mortal ministry?
|summary2 =
|subject2=Isn't the Mormon opposition to same-sex marriage hypocritical, considering that they used to ban black from holding the priesthood until 1978?
}}

{{Endnotes sources}}

<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE -->
[[Category:Questions]]
[[es:Pregunta: Ya que hay personas que nacen intersexuales, ¿esto invalida la doctrina del género eterno de los Santos de los Últimos Días ("Mormón")?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Es el documento mormón "La Familia: Una Proclamación para el Mundo" la doctrina oficial?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Las doctrinas en el documento mormón "La Familia: Una Proclamación para el Mundo" han sido enseñadas durante mucho tiempo en la Iglesia?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Se ha enseñado con frecuencia la "Proclamación sobre la Familia" del Santo de los Últimos Días ("Mormón")?]]
[[es:El mormonismo y La Familia: Una Proclamación para el Mundo]]