Latter-day Saint teachings/Clarifying Latter-day Saint Teachings

< Latter-day Saint teachings

Revision as of 21:16, 26 July 2022 by SpencerMarsh (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

  1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

Clarifying Latter-day Saint Teachings


Jump to details:


Question: How do Latter-day Saints understand the concept of love?

Introduction to Question

Many members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have been confused about the meaning of love from a Gospel point of view. This article seeks to outline principles of love that will affect the attitudes and behavior of the Saints towards commandments, their views about their identity, and so on.

This reflects the best efforts of the author to define love from the scriptural canon of the Church. Others are free to disagree with this if they have better scriptural exegesis and/or better philosophical considerations. The author has tried to follow the principles and procedures for reading and interpreting scripture outlined in this article.

Response to Question

Definition of Love

The scriptures of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contain many mentions of love. In fact, there are over 600 occurrences of the words “charity,” “charitable,” “love,” “loved,” “loves,” “lovest,” “loving,” “loving kindness,” and “loving kindnesses” in the entire canon. Readers are encouraged to either search out these words on the Gospel Library app or purchase concordances for the scriptures and explore each use.[1]

Love is the cardinal virtue one can master as a Latter-day Saint. The prophet Alma compares those that don't possess it to the worthlessness of the dross of metal.[2] The prophet Moroni likewise says we are nothing without charity.[3] The Savior bases his entire ethic on the law of love.[4]

After the author’s own review of the scriptures, the following definition of love can be derived:

Freely, rationally, selflessly, and non-grudgingly acting without the expectation of reciprocity (and even in the absence of reciprocity) so as to recognize and respect the intrinsic, absolute worth of all humans and introduce, reinforce, ensure, and/or restore telic flourishing, survival, comfort, and/or happiness—both temporal and spiritual—to all creatures (including God) so that ultimately all exist in a relationship marked by unity of both heart and mind.

As can be seen immediately, Latter-day Saint scripture makes love a concept pregnant with meaning. As will be demonstrated, that’s the point.

Let’s break down each part.

Freely

A person must act freely when entering a loving relationship. Love can neither be coerced nor determined. This necessitates that there exist some ability in humans for genuinely free action. The locus classicus for the Latter-day Saint belief in free action is found in 2 Nephi 2:27:

27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.[5]

Rationally

It requires a rational enough mind to give the moral law content. A person who has significant enough mental impairments cannot construct if/then statements like are required for morality. Some are not capable of thinking something like “if I murder a person, then I’m doing something wrong." Thus, one needs to have a rational enough mind to formulate moral sentences and evaluate their truthfulness.

Those who can’t form moral sentences rationally such as infants and the cognitively impaired are not of any less worth than others. All humans, as will be explained below, are of infinite, intrinsic moral worth.

Selflessly

Love is an act that seeks the good of the Other (the Other being everyone). It is not one that seeks the good of oneself. As The Book of Mormon tells us, “charity...seeketh not her own."[6] The Savior taught us that "[h]e that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it."[7] He also taught that we should love our neighbors and God with all we have: heart, might, mind, and strength.[8] However, selflessness counterintuitively doesn’t imply that we are completely bereft of self love and don’t seek to help ourselves at least on occasion. It is important to love ourselves since, if we don’t, we won’t be able to love others. We can’t love others if we’re emaciated from hunger and thus too tired to help others. We can’t help others when facing crippling depression. Sometimes other people can’t be there to love us and help us and we need to provide things for ourselves. Thus, we should love ourselves. King Benjamin taught us that "it is not requisite that a man [or woman] run faster than he [or she] has strength."[9] We should seek to love ourselves not as an end in and of itself, but always as a means to the end of loving others.

Non-Grudgingly

We shouldn’t be hesitant with our love. Love should also not be given out of duty. If given out of duty, then it is not love. Moroni tells us that we shouldn’t give gifts grudgingly.[10] The Lord told the Saints that they should be equal in temporal things, "and this not grudgingly, otherwise the abundance of the manifestations of the Spirit shall be withheld."[11]

Acting

As the late Baptist minister and professor of New Testament exegesis and theology at Fuller Theological Seminary George Ladd wrote in his seminal work on New Testament theology, on the New Testament's view "[l]ove is a matter of will and action."[12] Love is not merely being. You can say that you love someone until you’re blue in the face but it doesn’t mean anything until you actually do something to show it. The Lord told us that “if ye love me, keep my commandments."[13] The author of 1 John tells us to "not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth."[14] To really be loving, you have to do things.

This is a crucial point that many don’t understand. In protest to certain Church standards, people will often say that we should just “focus on the heart” and “not judge others” by certain standards. The point deemphasizes the fact that love is and always will be a principle of action and God reserves the right to judge people by how well they act in accordance with Church standards.

Without the Expectation of Reciprocity

Love should be given without the expectation of reciprocity. To give care to someone's needs with the expectation of reciprocity is to treat someone of merely instrumental and not intrinsic worth. Love is when we care for someone's needs because of their intrinsic worth. An action can be called loving merely by someone not having the expectation that the other will care for their own needs. It does not necessarily need to be the case that there is no chance for reciprocity when trying to act lovingly towards others.

And Even in the Absence of Reciprocity

Love is not something that is given only when the Other cares about us. It is something that we give even when the Other doesn’t care for us in return. It is given even when the Other maligns us, tries our patience, abuses us, and makes us uncomfortable.

The Sermon on the Mount records the Savior’s teachings that support this.

[R]esist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain…Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven…For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?[15]

So as to Recognize and Respect the Intrinsic, Absolute Value of all Humans

Latter-day Saint theology holds that all human beings are of infinite, intrinsic (and not merely instrumental) worth. This because it is believed that they have 1) always existed and 2) with human like intelligence.[16] All humans are believed to be sons or daughters of Heavenly Parents and thus have a potential to become divinized like them and hold dominion over the universe.[17] Thus, along with being of infinite, intrinsic worth, humans are also believed to always of absolute worth. Nothing conditions their worth because they are, inherently, of the highest worth being gods in embryo. Humans are also the only creatures capable of having dominion over the earth and replenishing it.[18] They have the power to access other ecosystems and bring balance to them. A human can enter an ocean and bring balance to the habitat of fishes. A fish can't enter the habitat of a human and bring balance to it. They don't (and indeed can't without some form of miraculous technological intervention perhaps) have that type of intelligence.

Humans should thus never be treated as mere means to an end. They are persons and should never be treated as anything less than a person. Such would dehumanize them. If we love human beings, then we will never treat them as merely a means to an end.

The recognition of a person as having infinite, intrinsic, and absolute value should accompany every act we perform in relation to another. It will be demonstrated by both the attentiveness and tenderness we lend to people’s wants and needs.

Any loving relationship requires a lover and a beloved. Without one or the other, the relationship cannot exist.

And Provide Survival

It’s intuitive that love should have particular effects. The effects are what we use to discern what we value so much about love. Of course, whether or not your act actually produces these effects does not necessarily determine whether or not your act can be considered loving. Most important is that you intend to produce these effects and that you make efforts to produce them. Your intentions are subjective but they are reflected in your objective speech and action and in the effects that those actions produce. There is also a way in which we need to inflict pain in order to bring about a greater good. Getting a shot and the pain of working out are moral goods that involve pain but bring about a greater good. The scriptures themselves teach that God scourges and chastens his children in order to bring about their future, greater happiness.[19] Love can involve the infliction of pain.

Among these effects that we want to provide, making people feel that they have absolute value (as discussed above) is a good effect. Survival is also a good effect. We are commanded to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and administer to the relief of the sick.[20] We are commanded to not kill (in the sense of murdering someone. Not killing in self-defense, for example) nor do anything like unto it in the Doctrine & Covenants.[21]

Telic Flourishing

Telic flourishing is also a good effect. A telos is a particular purpose or design that a thing has. The philosopher Aristotle posited that a thing flourishes when it acts or is used in accordance with its design. A basketball flourishes when it is bounced, passed, and shot through a hoop. Latter-day Saint theology teaches something similar. One thing that Latter-day Saint theology explicitly indicates is part of the human design is that of being united sexually after marriage.[22] A man is designed to be united with a woman and a woman is designed to be with a man. Thus, homosexual behavior (including same-sex marriage), pornography, most cases of masturbation, adultery, and other sexual behavior outside the confines of marriage, since they can and do lead men and women away from fulfilling their telos, are not acceptable under Latter-day Saint moral standards.

Another human telos that Latter-day Saint scripture recognizes is “keep[ing God’s] commandments and glorify[ing] him forever.”[23] All commandments help us to love God and love our neighbor as ourself according to Jesus. Thus, part of the human telos is to love. One reason to adhere to this telos is that others flourish. Doing anything that would prevent others from adhering to this telos would be immoral. Helping people to live in accordance with this telos is moral and encouraged.

Latter-day Saints who have gone through and done initiatory ordinances in the temple may, from a blessing they receive during those ordinances, know the telos of many parts of the human body.

An understanding of the human telos will not only ground a Latter-day Saint sexual ethic, but it may also ground a Latter-day Saint understanding of health. Latter-day Saint scientists and other medical professionals might look at the way we understand the telos of the human body given what we know from the temple and scriptures and ask "how can I restore this body to its original order?" They can recognize how the body has fallen from its original order—thus becoming disordered—and seek to restore that order to the body. We typically define health in terms of presence of comfort and happiness, absence of pain, parity with like creatures, and longevity. Latter-day Saints and others who believe in the concept of a telos—a certain purpose created in the mind of a creator and reflected in the design of the creation—can understand health in terms of restoring the body to that order.

An understanding of the human telos may also ground gender roles for Latter-day Saints. The Family: A Proclamation to the World states that men's primary role in the family is to preside over, provide for, and protect his family. A woman's primary role is to nurture her children. A Latter-day Saint can have an understanding of self-love that includes making decisions that help one adhere to their telos. How can a man better prepare to protect his family? Could that include building his body or purchasing a firearm and understanding its use? How can a woman better prepare to nurture her children? These may be good questions to ask and in a spirit of prayer.

Happiness

Another thing that is likely a part of the human telos for Latter-day Saints is joy.[24] We find our greatest joy in committed, loving relationships. This is part of why the Savior commands that we love. Joy comes as we survive, flourish according to our telos, and have other things helped. For instance, a person with bad eyesight is loved by helping them regain it. True enough that a person with poor eyesight can be happy, but there are times when providing eyesight back can make them more joyful. We all want joy. Love given in this way can bring it. There is also a difference between temporal joy and spiritual joy. Temporal joy is getting a cool treat at the store from your parents. Spiritual joy is more enduring and primarily comes when we are acting in accordance with the thing that will bring us the most lasting joy like cultivating an abiding, intimate relationship with God. Temporal joy isn't necessarily bad, it's just not as valuable as spiritual joy. This may be why we're commanded to be "spiritually minded."[25]

Some may wonder here why we have separated these effects. The reason is that it's the author's belief that a person can have one or two of these things provided to them without the others. One can survive without being comfortable or happy. One can survive and be comfortable without being happy or experiencing telic flourishing.

To All Creatures

These effects should be brought to all creatures and not just humans. All creatures want to survive, to flourish according to their telos, and to be happy. Latter-day Saint scripture tells us that animals have spirits.[26] They also apparently have a telos. Doctrine & Covenants 59:16-19 explains this telos of animals and plants:

16 Verily I say, that inasmuch as ye do this, the fulness of the earth is yours, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which climbeth upon the trees and walketh upon the earth;
17 Yea, and the herb, and the good things which come of the earth, whether for food or for raiment, or for houses, or for barns, or for orchards, or for gardens, or for vineyards;
18 Yea, all things which come of the earth, in the season thereof, are made for the benefit and the use of man, both to please the eye and to gladden the heart;
19 Yea, for food and for raiment, for taste and for smell, to strengthen the body and to enliven the soul.

However, verse 20 of the same section provides this injunction:

20 And it pleaseth God that he hath given all these things unto man; for unto this end were they made to be used, with judgment, not to excess, neither by extortion.

This same caution against the use of animals in excess is repeated in Doctrine & Covenants 49:21. Another revelation in the Doctrine & Covenants clarifies that the Lord ordained the consumption of animals for times of winter, cold, famine, and excess of hunger.[27]

Including God

Love is not just a virtue that should be shown towards other animals and other humans. It should also be shown towards God. Jesus teaches that the first great commandment is to love God with all your heart, might, mind, and strength by keeping his commandments.[28]

There are commandments in scripture that clearly show God trying to get us to be in a totally unified, loving relationship with him (or, at least, can be interpreted as such). For instance, God commands us that we set aside the entire day of Sunday as a day to rest from labors and pay our devotions to him.[29] We spend most of our weeks not thinking about God. Isn't it intuitive that God would ask for one day for himself? Additionally, God expressly condemns witchcraft, sorceries, soothsayers, and idolatry since these types of people/behaviors can lead us to believe in other powers besides his. Engaging in these things becomes an affront to his omnipotence and total majesty. Idolatry is linked to adultery throughout scripture and God is depicted as the betrayed lover.

Jesus sets up a perfect triangle of love distribution between us, others, and God in Matthew 22:33–40. He commands us to love both God and our neighbor. The purpose of this life is to discern how to create a totally unified, loving relationship between God, us, the rest of the human family, and all of God's creation.

So that Ultimately All Exist in a Relationship Marked by Unity of Both Heart and Mind

Love ultimately brings about unity. This unity should be a unity of both heart and mind. Love is the "bond of perfectness."[30] The Doctrine & Covenants exhorts us to be clothed in the bond of charity and calls it a bond of perfectness and peace.[31]

Unity of heart is being 1) willing to continue providing for the needs of the person you are in a relationship with and 2) having trust that they feel the same for you. What should our universal purpose be as creatures? Love. Particularly, loving in the right way at the right time. By loving in the right way at the right time, we all grow into understanding of the principle of love.

Unity of mind is being agreed in and knowing all things including purpose, morality, science, and so forth. Unity of mind can thus happen now, but it can also grow further into the eternities. Scripture tells us to "be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind."[32]

At the very root of the Latter-day Saint hope for the world is to create a relationship "of one heart and one mind" with everyone dwelling in righteousness and no poor among us.[33] It is by this relationship that Latter-day Saints and indeed the entire human family can take on the very nature of God and become love personified.[34]

If everyone were to face their attention outward and focus on the needs of others, eventually, no one's needs would need to be met. This is why the Savior wants us to lose our lives and begin to love others: so that we can eventually save ours and everyone else's life.[35] If everyone is loving someone, no one will need love. If everyone has love, then we will all experience the greatest amount of joy that is possible to experience. This is the concept of Zion elucidated by Latter-day Saint scripture.

Conclusion

Thus, the Latter-day Saint philosophy of love would be something of a synthesis of the union, robust concern, appraisal, and emotion complex models in the philosophy of love.[36] Love, for Latter-day Saints, is both an attitudinal and active virtue.

Continued reflection may yield additional understanding on this vital theme. Readers are encouraged to seek it.

Appendix: Bible Project Word Studies - Love

The Bible Project has produced two excellent videos exploring the meaning of the word "love" in both the Old and New Testaments exegetically. These videos are on YouTube and are linked here for a scholarly but accessible way of understanding love from a scriptural perspective.


Question: How should we collectively view the concept of judgement?

Introduction to Question

The concept of judgement is misunderstood by most of the world. What can we learn from the scriptures about it?

The concept of judgement is probably one of the most frequently misunderstood facets of Christian ethics and religious life in general in today’s world.

Frequently, the concept is brought up in discussions where one person is attempting to give correction to another in light of Christian/Latter-day Saint moral values. The person who rejects correction will usually cite the scripture where Jesus tells his followers “judge not that ye be not judged.”

This article will correct a few misconceptions surrounding this concept.

Response to Question

Scripture Holistically

It will be best to cite the relevant scriptural data in full so as to get a better understanding of this. In the scriptural canon there are over 1300 combined uses of the words “judge,” “judged,” “judges,” “judgest,” “judgeth,” “judging,” “judgement,” “judgements,” “judgement-hall,” “judgement-seat,” and “judgement- seats.” A sizeable number of these have to do with God as our Eternal Judge, sitting on his judgement-seat, ready to enact judgement against those who have sinned without repentance at the last day.

There are upwards of 15 different Greek and Hebrew words that the canon uses to translate the above 11 words. Readers are encouraged to purchase a concordance for the scriptures or search these terms using the search function in the Gospel Library App and explore each use.[37]

What can we learn from this data? One thing we can learn is that judgement is not an inherently bad thing. Indeed, if it were, God would be sinning and, as a religious truism, God is perfect.

The real problem, then, can’t be judgement itself, but perhaps who is doing the judging. But even this has some problems as will be demonstrated.

Scripture in Context

Let’s take the most important scripture of this debate and reproduce it in full for analysis.

Matthew 7:1-5

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

What are some of the lessons that we can draw from these verses? The first thing we might learn is that Jesus’ condemnation of judgement does not have to do with judgement itself. It is the way and time at which judgement is used. Jesus condemns hypocrisy, pettiness, and presumptuousness with judgement. Indeed, Jesus even commands his followers to judge righteous judgement (John 7:24)! How could we even do missionary work or invite anyone to repent (Doctrine and Covenants 88:81) if we cannot recognize weaknesses or other sins in others and help them address them?

But what are some of the ways in which we judge unrighteously? Jesus has some things to say about this as well. In this scripture, it is heavily implied that we often have a greater weakness than our brother. Indeed, Jesus makes this clear by making a contrast between a mote (like a speck of dust) and a beam (a large piece of wood). So, we should examine ourselves and see if we have that same weakness. If we do, then we will be judged by our brother and, likely, God too. We should repent if we have that weakness. If we have fully repented, then we will have the opportunity to see the mote in our brother’s eye more clearly and be able to help him or her address it. When we do, we should do it in a spirit of meekness, humility, lowliness of heart, and love unfeigned. We should not seek to gain a sense of spiritual superiority by our helping others with their weaknesses. Indeed, we are all ultimately fallen men and women (Mosiah 3:19). This is what really upsets the person receiving correction: not judgement itself, but the way in which others judge. Does a person’s judgement lead them to help the other person receiving correction to only feel shame that produces self-loathing? Or does it inspire the other to see greater blessings in keeping the commandments?

Another way we judge unrighteously is by overlooking important details when judging someone's moral character (John 7:24).

In other articles we will explore the concepts of shame and harm and see how these might round out discussion of this important concept.

Main article: Question: How should we collectively view the concept of harm?

The best ways to encourage people to live by a standard are to live the standard yourself and show how one is happier as they live it or advocate for the standard in a way that doesn’t feel as direct and confrontational such as giving a sacrament meeting talk or Sunday School lesson on the issue. Direct, face to face confrontation is perhaps the least effective way for guiding social harmony and for changing people’s behavior.

One Scripture That May Contradict the Viewpoint of This Article

There is one scripture that may contradict the view of this article.

The Lord told the Saints headquartered in Kirtland to make friends with their non-Latter-day Saint neighbors.

Doctrine and Covenants 82:22-23 states:

22 And now, verily I say unto you, and this is wisdom, make unto yourselves friends with the mammon of unrighteousness, and they will not destroy you.
23 Leave judgment alone with me, for it is mine and I will repay. Peace be with you; my blessings continue with you.

Some may use this scripture to say that we shouldn't judge anyone at all. Though this scripture more intuitively refers to merely pettiness in judgement. It cannot be used to invalidate the main point of this article: that unrighteous and righteous judgement both exist.

Conclusion

It is clear that there is something to learn for everyone regarding judgement. If others have better scriptural exegesis or philosophical considerations, they are welcome to send some of those disagreements to FAIR volunteers so that this article might improve if necessary. Continued meditation on this theme will almost certainly bring greater understanding to it.

Moving forward, it will be best to distinguish between unrighteous judgement (such as judgement that is petty, hypocritical, and/or presumptuous) and righteous judgment (such as judgement that helps us know what associations are going to lead us to always keep God's commandments).


Question: How should we collectively view the concept of harm?

Introduction to Question

The concept of harm is often misunderstood from a Gospel perspective. What can we learn about harm from the scriptures?

Response to Question

Harms that Bring about a Greater Good are Often Okay

One of the first things we can learn from the behavior of God and Jesus is that not all harms are bad. Indeed, it seems that if a harm brings about a greater good, then the harm may be justified.

Why would Jesus harshly criticize Peter (Luke 4:8)? Why would he rebuke unclean spirits (Luke 9:42)? Why would we be under the obligation to reprove our fellowmen with sharpness at times (Doctrine and Covenants 121:43)? It seems that not all harm is bad.

Harms that Do Not Bring about a Greater Good are not Okay

Only when harm treats others as if their lives were expendable or when a harm otherwise does not bring about a greater good should a harm be viewed as bad. That is one purpose of the whole moral ecosystem we know as the law of love laid out in scripture: to do away entirely with unnecessary harm and to allow us to know when it is appropriate to enact necessary harm.

Conclusion

It seems, then, that the task of any discussion of harm is to determine whether a particular action done by God or someone else does or does not bring about a greater good.

Continued meditation on this theme may reveal other important insights into this important concept. Readers are encouraged to seek it and send any thoughts to FAIR volunteers at this link so that we might consider it and add it to the article.


Question: How should we view the concept of shame?

Introduction to Question

The topic of shame has been one of the most discussed in recent years. What is the value of shame? What is shame?

These questions are explored in this article.

Response to Question

Distinguishing Shame From Guilt?

The primary concern of many when dealing with shame is that shame is associated in people’s minds with feelings of self-loathing rather than hope and change. Popular psychological researcher Brené Brown speaks about how shame is thinking “I am bad” whereas guilt is more like “I have done something bad.” Brown’s distinction has become quite popular in others’ consciousness and it is indeed useful.

In the author’s view, Brown’s distinction does run at least one risk: that we forget that shame and guilt are qualitatively very similar feelings. When we associate any bad feeling that is similar to shame (guilt, embarrassment, remorse, etc.) with the label of shame—and we view all shame as entirely bad—we can start to reject moral norms that are placed on us by the Gospel and the Lord's servants as merely conduits to self-loathing. It is not that Brown's distinction is wrong or bad; but that it can have adverse, unintended affects on our psyches/spirits and moral thinking if we do not monitor our thoughts and feelings carefully.

Is Shame Useful?

It is important to remember that not all shame is bad. Shame that only produces self-loathing is indeed bad, but shame also has other functions like instilling moral wrongs into people. Whenever we do something we feel is morally wrong, we may feel a degree of shame. That isn’t bad. Even in the scriptures the Lord tells us that there may be a time for others to feel shame. Doctrine and Covenants 42:74-93 lays out procedures for performing Church discipline for when a member offends another member:

88 And if thy brother or sister offend thee, thou shalt take him or her between him or her and thee alone; and if he or she confess thou shalt be reconciled.
89 And if he or she confess not thou shalt deliver him or her up unto the church, not to the members, but to the elders. And it shall be done in a meeting, and that not before the world.
90 And if thy brother or sister offend many, he or she shall be chastened before many.
91 And if any one offend openly, he or she shall be rebuked openly, that he or she may be ashamed. And if he or she confess not, he or she shall be delivered up unto the law of God (emphasis added).

Thus, there should be a function for shame to some degree. Not self-loathing, but godly sorrow and the change it inspires within us.

Conclusion

Hopefully this article will serve as a point of insight for those seeking to understand this vital concept. Continued reflection is surely to reveal more on this. Readers are encouraged to seek it.


Question: How should we understand the concept of worthiness?

Introduction to Question

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and others have been troubled at times with the concept of “worthiness.” This since the word seems to make reference to someone’s worth.

This may be an important question to answer since the scriptures and other Church practices frequently refer to or make mention of worthiness. How should we understand it?

This article seeks to answer this question.

Response to Question

All Humans are of Infinite, Intrinsic, and Absolute Worth

Latter-day Saint theology holds that all human beings are of infinite, intrinsic (and not merely instrumental) worth. This because it is believed that they have 1) always existed and 2) with human like intelligence.[38] All humans are believed to be sons or daughters of Heavenly Parents and thus have a potential to become divinized like them and hold dominion over the universe.[39] Thus, along with being of infinite, intrinsic worth, humans are also believed to always of absolute worth. Nothing conditions their worth because they are, inherently, of the highest worth being gods in embryo. Humans are also the only creatures capable of having dominion over the earth and replenishing it.[40] They have the power to access other ecosystems and bring balance to them. A human can enter an ocean and bring balance to the habitat of fishes. A fish can't enter the habitat of a human and bring balance to it. They don't (and indeed can't without some form of miraculous technological intervention perhaps) have that type of intelligence.

This worth can never be stripped from anyone regardless of their circumstance. We should always remember this whenever we are thinking about worth.

The Definition of Worthiness

In may be instructive to note how the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary defines “worthy” to get a sense of what Joseph Smith and King James Bible translators refer to when speaking about “worthiness.” It states:

1. Deserving; such as merits; having worth or excellence; equivalent; with of, before the thing deserved. She has married a man worthy of her.[41]

One will notice that part of this definition is the word “deserving; such as merits.” This is instructive as will be illustrated now.

Deserving to Enter the Temple

Deservingness to receive some sort of award or privilege is what the Church and its scriptures refer to when speaking about worthiness. There are some things that, no matter the circumstances and because of our intrinsic and absolute worth, we will always be worthy of such as love. There are times, though, where we do forfeit our privileges for something of worldly worth. Some of us, for instance, break the Word of Wisdom even when we have covenanted with God at baptism to keep all of his commandments and to receive all the words and commandments of prophets in all patience and faith.[42] Breaking our promises with God is an unloving thing to do.

The Gospel offers us a beautiful promise though. It teaches that we can repent and be forgiven by God. He stands with outstretched arms waiting for us to do so. He loves you with a perfect love. His nature is love.[43] The Apostle Paul was "persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, [n]or height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."[44]

Conclusion

Confusion on different Gospel principles can arise from time to time. It is the author’s hope that this article will serve productively to give all of us hope and an added measure of unity in mind.


Question: What is the difference between agency and freedom?

Introduction to Question

Many confuse the difference between agency and freedom from a Gospel perspective. For instance, some complain against the Church’s strong discouragement of its members getting tattoos by saying that such “takes away a person’s agency” and that taking away agency was “Satan’s plan."[45] This article seeks to outline the true meaning of agency and freedom.

Response to Question

Definition of Freedom

The Webster’s 1828 Dictionary (contemporary to Joseph Smith) defines freedom as “[a] state of exemption from the power or control of another; liberty; exemption from slavery, servitude or confinement. freedom is personal, civil, political, and religious.”[46]

Definition of Agency

The Webster’s 1828 Dictionary teaches that agency is “The quality of moving or of exerting power; the state of being in action; action; operation; instrumentality; as, the agency of providence in the natural world.”[47]

Explanation

Thus agency is the capacity to make an undetermined decision whether or not a particular freedom is given to you. Freedoms can and are stripped rightfully at times. The freedom to kill an innocent person is not one that is granted by basically anyone. Religious organizations have a right just like anyone else does to take away and give certain freedoms that define the parameters within which one must remain in order to be counted as members/full participants in those organizations.

Conclusion

Hopefully this will serve as a point of clarity for those that are wishing to gain added insight into this vital concept. Additional reflection may yield more insight.


Question: When, if ever, is it okay to disagree with Church leaders?

Introduction to Question

The current First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Russell M. Nelson as President (center), Dallin H. Oaks as First Counselor (left), and Henry B. Eyring as Second Counselor (right).

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a large and well-established organization of leadership. This video outlines that leadership in detail:


The President of the Church, considered to be a prophet of God, receives revelation on behalf of the entire Church. Each person receives revelation for his or her own position and correlative sphere of influence in the Church. The more general the leader, the more general their stewardship. An Elder’s Quorum President can receive revelation to direct the Elder’s Quorum, a Bishop might be able to receive revelation to direct the Elder’s Quorum, but the Elder’s Quorum President cannot receive revelation on behalf of the whole ward like the Bishop can.

Occasionally in the Church, it is asked when, if ever, it is okay to disagree with the decisions, teachings, and/or actions of local and/or general Church leaders.

This article will outline those occasions when it may be okay to disagree with leaders of the Church.

Four Important Initial Considerations

Before we get into the occasions when it may be okay to disagree with Church leaders, it is important to keep four things in mind.

The Ideal: Agreeing With, Defending, and Living Out as Much of Leaders’ Words and Actions as Humanly Possible

First, we should lay out what the ideal is for every Latter-day Saint in relation to all leaders (both general and local) of the Church. That is:

We should try and agree with, defend, and live out the words and actions of all leaders of the Church (past and present, ancient and modern, recorded in scripture and not, general and local) as much as humanly possible. We should defend their words as true (that is, corresponding to reality),[48] logically consistent, and morally good.

This is what it means to sustain a leader: to uphold their influence in human hearts as much as possible. When we disagree with them or criticize them, they can start to lose their influence either in our own hearts, the hearts of other people that hear our criticism, or both.

Particularly in regards to the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, we are told over and over again in the scriptures that they are holy.[49] We should try and treat them and their words as such.

We are also told in scripture to receive all the prophet's words as if from the mouth of God in all patience and faith.[50] Additionally, we are told that if we do lift our heels against them and say they have sinned when they haven't, that we will be cursed.[51] Latter-day Saints who have gone through temples to receive their endowment have covenanted to not speak evil of the Lord's anointed.

This is absolutely not to say that we make an assumption that the leaders of the Church (both general and local) are incapable of error. The scriptures expressly declare that the prophets are capable of error. The first section of the Doctrine and Covenants declares that when leaders make errors, it shall be made known.[52] It also declares that when they sin, they will be chastened so that they will repent.[53] All this means, again, is that we agree with, defend, and live out as much of their words and actions as humanly possible so as to uphold their influence on human hearts and minds. How much it will be humanly possible to defend them will be defined naturally by logical limits of reason and morality.

When they do make mistakes, and when they’ve made the steps necessary to correct it, we shouldn’t hold those mistakes in our hearts and minds like a grudge that we can hold over their heads. We should forgive, forget, and trust that they won’t make the same mistake in the future.

We're trying to get the whole human family into a relationship of one heart, one mind, with no poor among us, and everyone dwelling in righteousness by living the Savior's law of love.[54] We can't accomplish that task unless the human family trusts God's appointed spokesmen to accurately relay how we can all achieve that type of relationship with one another given the world's circumstances. We are, as the author of Ephesians tells us, “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone…That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive”.[55] They logically can’t perform that task if every word that they utter is subject to our “personal interpretation” of it.

If we don't assume a priori that we should agree with, live out, and defend the words and actions of our leaders, it's guaranteed that we we'll flounder in a kind of epistemic nihilism. Think about it, we live outside of the presence of God. There is no way that we can know for certain that any of the revelations recorded in the scriptures actually came from him. We have the Spirit, but anyone can recognize that our spiritual experiences offer us a different kind of knowing than having God right in front of us declaring that what a prophet says is true. We should assume that all of their words and actions are true and good until proven otherwise. Additionally, the scriptures teach us that our spiritual experiences should confirm what is taught in the scriptures. Joseph Smith left clear revelation that the canonized scriptures should govern the Church (Doctrine & Covenants 42:12–13, 56–60; 105:58–59). This since they have been revealed by the Lord's duly appointed prophet: the only person authorized to receive revelation on behalf of the entire Church (Doctrine & Covenants 21:4–5; 28:2; 43:2–7), submitted to and approved by all members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve (Doctrine & Covenants 107:27), and submitted to the general body of the Church for ratification (Doctrine & Covenants 26:2; 28:13). The best that we can do is assume that they're right and do everything we can to agree with and defend them and wait to have that position proven wrong somehow whether it be by logic or further revelation from the prophets.

Many of the Church, with all good intention, want for the Church to “hold space” for those that disagree with the top leaders of the Church on even foundational issues and doctrines. These members forget the words of Jesus himself who said that “[e]very ​​​kingdom​ divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand”.[56] We should be trying to create unity in God’s Kingdom. Intellectual diversity isn’t good in and of itself. It’s only good as a means to the end of building common understanding and agreeing one with another.

In another article on our website we’ve talked about how one can view contradictions in scripture in a faithful way. We believe those same principles can apply to perceived contradictions in the teachings of the top leadership of the Church and, for those that may want to know how to defend them, we encourage those people to see that article.

Numerous other reasons to hold to this injunction will become apparent as one continues to study the history and teachings of the scriptures and leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Recognizing a Fault or Mistake vs. Criticizing and Backbiting

Prophets and apostles have consistently taught that there is a difference between the type of differences of view that members can have with Church leaders and criticism or backbiting. Elder Dallin H. Oaks noted that there is a difference between the type of criticism that is "the act of passing judgement as to the merits of anything" and "the act of passing severe judgement; censure; faultfinding" which Church members are to refrain from in relation to Church leaders. Elder Oaks notes that the latter is condemned repeatedly in scripture.[57] There is a large difference between recognizing that what some Church leader said is mistaken or wrong and openly criticizing them and faultfinding. When we have disagreements, we can do the former and not the latter.

The strongest word that the scriptures use in relation to addressing the faults of top leaders is admonish which means "[t]o warn or notify of a fault; to reprove with mildness."[58] That word is used twice in scripture in relation to leaders of the Church and only directed to people that have close relationships with the prophet. In the first instance it is with Oliver Cowdery in 1829 before the organization of the Church:

19 Admonish him in his faults, and also receive admonition of him. Be patient; be sober; be temperate; have patience, faith, hope and charity.[59]

In the second instance it is given to Thomas B. Marsh who was the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles:

12 And pray for thy brethren of the Twelve. Admonish them sharply for my name’s sake, and let them be admonished for all their sins, and be ye faithful before me unto my name.[60]

In this latter scripture, it does say to admonish "sharply." But, again, it's used in relation to someone who is already in high positions in the Church. Also, "sharply," in this context, more than likely means "with plainness, truth, and clarity" rather than "with harsh censure." Such has been argued persuasively by Kent P. Jackson and Robert D. Hunt.[61]

Five procedures to follow if you have differences with Church leadership

Elder Oaks gave five things that members can do when they have differences with Church leadership.

  1. Overlook the difference
  2. Reserve judgment and postpone any action on the difference
  3. Take up our differences privately with the leader involved.
  4. Communicate with the Church officer who has the power to correct or release the person thought to be in error or transgression.
  5. Pray for the resolution of the problem.[62]

These procedures, as Oaks astutely observes, help one to address the point of pain while also keeping in accordance with the principles of moral truth outlined in scripture—thus allowing an individual to keep the Spirit of the Lord with them.

There may be times where we believe that personal revelation has told us something that contradicts the prophet’s revelation. In these cases, review the principles and procedures outlined in this article.

You Need a Good Way to Read Scripture in Order to Disagree with Church Leaders

Many of the occasions we have outlined below in which it may be okay to disagree with Church leaders involve being a good student of scripture and having a way to read them accurately and intelligently. In another article on the FAIR Wiki, we have outlined important principles for reading scripture. We strongly recommend that all readers get familiar with it if they haven’t done so already.

Main article: Question: How can one best read and understand the scriptures?

Occasions When One May Disagree With Church Leaders

Now we list the occasions in which one may disagree with Church leaders. These are not automatic exceptions. Disagreement should be handled in a spirit of charity, prayer, and seeking the good of the Kingdom of God.

1. It may be okay to disagree with Church leadership when what they teach is out of harmony with the Standard Works

The first place where it would be okay to disagree with any Church leadership is when they say something that is out of line with the standard works. Joseph Smith left clear revelation that the canonized scriptures should govern the Church.[63] This since they have been revealed by the Lord's duly appointed prophet (the only one authorized to receive revelation on behalf of the entire Church),[64] submitted to and approved by all members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve,[65] and submitted to the general body of the Church for ratification.[66] Scripture should be read contextually (that is, in the historical context of the people who would have first heard the revelation) and holistically (seeing everything scripture has to say on the topic at hand) to acquire accurate theological conceptions that members judge every person's doctrine against. This article explains in more detail how to read the scriptures.

Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:

It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards of doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted.[67]

It's important to remember that just because a doctrine doesn't immediately and explicitly pop up in scripture, doesn't mean that that teaching isn't inspired. For instance, President Russell M. Nelson taught the following at the October 2017 General Conference of the Church:

My dear brothers and sisters, I promise that as you prayerfully study the Book of Mormon every day, you will make better decisions—every day. I promise that as you ponder what you study, the windows of heaven will open, and you will receive answers to your own questions and direction for your own life. I promise that as you daily immerse yourself in the Book of Mormon, you can be immunized against the evils of the day, even the gripping plague of pornography and other mind-numbing addictions.[68]

This is a promise connected to a specific action. This promise and action are never explicitly laid out in scripture, but the Lord does bless us as we treat the prophets as holy, are anxiously engaged in a good cause of our own free will without God's revelation (like sustaining the prophet by lovingly accepting his challenges),[69] and receive the words of the prophet as if from the mouth of God in all patience and faith as we are bound to do by the Doctrine and Covenants.[70]

2. It may be okay to disagree with Church leadership when they try and claim revelation for something that is outside the bounds of their stewardship

As mentioned before, Church leaders have a specific sphere of influence that they are given with their calling and they are only allowed to receive revelation for that calling.

Elder Oaks taught the following. His words are supported by scripture (cited in the footnotes):

First, we should understand what can be called the principle of “responsibility in revelation.” Our Heavenly Father’s house is a house of order, where his servants are commanded to “act in the office in which [they are] appointed."[71] This principle applies to revelation. Only the President of the Church receives revelation to guide the entire Church. Only the stake president receives revelation for the special guidance of the stake. The person who receives revelation for the ward is the bishop. For a family, it is the priesthood leadership of the family. Leaders receive revelation for their own areas of responsibility. Individuals can receive revelation to guide their own lives. But when one person purports to receive revelation for another person outside his or her own area of responsibility—such as a Church member who claims to have revelation to guide the entire Church or a person who claims to have a revelation to guide another person over whom he or she has no presiding authority according to the order of the Church—you can be sure that such revelations are not from the Lord. “There are counterfeit signals.”[72] Satan is a great deceiver, and he is the source of some of these spurious revelations. Others are imagined. If a revelation is outside the limits of your specific responsibility, you know it is not from the Lord and you are not bound by it.[73]

3. It may be okay to disagree with Church leadership when their decisions don’t come from revelation

Members may disagree with Church leaders' decisions when those decisions do not come from revelation. When a decision, new doctrine, new policy, etc. is claimed to come by revelation, this adds a confirming, divine witness on that action and disagreement with that decision may very likely be disagreement with God. Since revelation almost always comes from God through the Holy Spirit, it follows that when the Holy Spirit does not touch us, that we are usually not receiving revelation.

As the Lord told all prospective missionaries in 1831, we are inspired when the Holy Ghost touches us:

3 And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost.


4 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.

5 Behold, this is the promise of the Lord unto you, O ye my servants.[74]

Here we echo the above caveat to not immediately reject a teaching, policy, promise, and/or other action that is not explicitly laid out in scripture/not explicitly said to have come by revelation. Just because a certain utterance from someone is not couched with words explicitly stating that that message came from revelation, that that does not mean that the message didn’t come by revelation. Thus we need to be methodical about how we’re deciding what to reject on that basis.

Plato and Aristotle in discussion, by Luca della Robbia (1437)

4. It may be okay to disagree with Church leadership when their conduct clearly does not fall in line with the moral standards and other statutes laid out in scripture

Another area in which members can disagree with Church leadership is when their conduct clearly does not fall in line with the moral standards and other statutes laid out in scripture. What are the moral standards laid out in scripture? See this article for an informative yet non-exhaustive summary.

As mentioned before, the Doctrine and Covenants expressly states that when Church leaders make errors it will be known. It also states that when they sin, they will be chastened so that they will repent. No one is exempt from the laws of the Church given through prophets by God via revelation. All must be held accountable before the appropriate authorities for their transgressions.[75] The Doctrine and Covenants even provides a procedure for excommunicating the President of the Church.[76]

5. It may be okay to disagree with Church leadership when their words do not accord with science

This last one is perhaps the most fraught with difficulty and complexity. We absolutely do not want to make science our idol. We do not want it to have higher authority than revelation or the prophets. We do not want to reject doctrines of the Church just because the current scientific community accepts something that might be at odds with Church doctrine and other moral standards placed upon us by the Church.

However, we also do not want to be hostile to science either. We want to have science inform our perspectives on things pertaining to the Gospel as much as possible. Take, for instance, the words of the revelation given to Joseph Smith when organizing the School of the Prophets:

77 And I give unto you a commandment that you shall teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom.


78 Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand;

79 Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms—

80 That ye may be prepared in all things when I shall send you again to magnify the calling whereunto I have called you, and the mission with which I have commissioned you.[77]

It is clear from the revelation that our theology is expressly not hostile to science. We welcome it in order to be better instructed in things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. Thus, we will have to do a continuous dance with our scripture and the academy: seeing how revelation and science converge. For instance, we can see what miracles, characters, and other events in scripture that we must logically see as literal and historical and which we do not. We might be informed about other things about the nature of those miracles, characters, and other events.

As President Brigham Young taught:

“Mormonism,” so-called, embraces every principle pertaining to life and salvation, for time and eternity. No matter who has it. If the infidel has got truth it belongs to “Mormonism.” The truth and sound doctrine possessed by the sectarian world, and they have a great deal, all belong to this Church. As for their morality, many of them are, morally, just as good as we are. All that is good, lovely, and praiseworthy belongs to this Church and Kingdom. “Mormonism” includes all truth. There is no truth but what belongs to the Gospel. It is life, eternal life; it is bliss; it is the fulness of all things in the gods and in the eternities of the gods.[78]

Should I "Vote With My Feet" When I Disagree With Something and Leave the Church?

Many today are concerned with how their participation in or affiliation with a certain organization reflects on them morally as a person. It's standard practice for us, when we disagree with an organization or political party or other group, to leave that group and find other groups to become a part of and support.

Many apply this question to the Church and ask if they should leave the Church when they disagree with something in the Church. Tragically, some feel that their values and the values of the Church have come into conflict and that they cannot, in good faith, remain a member of the Church. What should a person do in this kind of situation?

As we have talked about in this article, we should make every effort possible, mental and spiritual, to be in line with the Church in terms of moral values. Many people leave the Church too quickly and ignorantly. They refuse to see things from the Church's point of view or refuse to look deeper into what the Church teaches. That is yet another reason that we have stressed in this article to defend Church leaders' words and actions as much as humanly possible. Joseph Smith taught that "[i]f the Church knew all the commandments, one half they would condemn through prejudice and ignorance."[79] Even if the Church supports something that you find reprehensible at first, continue to seek light and knowledge. It is in that wrestle that you are going to find the most powerful testimony of the Gospel you have had yet. The Lord will guide you and give you drops of light that will eventually lead you to resolution. As the Doctrine and Covenants declares that "[t]hat which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day."[80] Nowhere are these principles more evident than with how many people struggle with issues of perceived sexism and the Church and how, with contemplation and with a different philosophical framing of sexism, virtually all of these individuals' issues regarding this would be eliminated.

Main article: Question: What is sexism?

The Lord does tell us that leaders can make errors. We've quoted the relevant scriptures from Doctrine & Covenants in this article. To quote them again, "And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known; And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed; And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent".[81] Perhaps the Lord will reveal errors and correct them as you claim to spot them. Perhaps the light will grow brighter and you'll see how the prophets were right and you were wrong. Either way, a person has every reason to stay until things are made right.

See also: Question: Do the scriptures promote racism?

Conclusion

It is the hope of the author that these principles and ideas will serve productively to show that there is room for disagreement in the Church without undermining the (very) essential governmental structure and holy authority of Church leaders.


Question: 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?

Introduction to Question

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe in living prophets—men who literally can speak for God in our day.[82] They boldly and proudly proclaim that the heavens are open and that God speaks today on behalf of the entire human family through these prophets. Prophets speak for God by way of revelation. This revelation can sometimes constitute the Church's policy on something, a commandment given by God to the Church, and can sometimes indicate what Latter-day Saints believe to be eternal, unchanging truths.

See also: Question: What is official or core Mormon doctrine? and Question: How do Mormons understand prophetic revelation?

Members of the Church enjoy the opportunity to hear from the prophet. They are encouraged to seek revelation of their own to know if God calls prophets today and if the current president of the Church is God’s authorized prophet. They are also encouraged to seek revelation as to how to best apply the words of the prophets into their daily lives.

Within the Church there are occasionally claims by those who affirm to be members of the Church (and sometimes by those even outside of official Church membership) that they have received a revelation that contradicts revelation claimed by the prophet on behalf of the whole Church. These claims to revelation are spread publicly and often stir controversy among Latter-day Saints because of the opposition the person enacts against the Church's leadership.

These claims are all too familiar for mature Latter-day Saints. Such claims are heard frequently and to hear that revelation contradicts the prophet can cause some dissonance for those that are seeking to understand what Latter-day Saint doctrine can inform these epistemological discussions and provide answers to resolve these seemingly difficult problems.

This article will seek to identify principles and procedures that people can follow if they believe that they have received revelation that contradicts that of the President of the Church, the First Presidency, and/or the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. These will be sought for from the official scriptures and teachings of the leaders of the Church.

Five Things to Do in Case of Belief of Contradictory Revelation

1. As a first step, members ought to consider whether they are mistaken or misled.

Many members of the Church who find themselves in this situation ought to consider if they are simply wrong. There are a few ways in which members might be wrong.

President Henry B. Eyring stated the following in the October 2021 General Conference of the Church:

It is hard to keep the Lord’s commandments without faith and trust in Him. As some lose their faith in the Savior, they may even attack His counsel, calling good evil and evil good.[83] To avoid this tragic error, it is crucial that any personal revelation we receive be consonant with the teachings of the Lord and His prophets.[84]

1. Can’t have Spirit if in transgression or if in rebellion of Church leaders. President Dallin H. Oaks taught:

We cannot have the companionship of the Holy Ghost—the medium of individual revelation—if we are in transgression or if we are angry or if we are in rebellion against God’s chosen authorities.[85]

His words are supported by the official scriptures. According to them, the Spirit of God cannot abide in unclean hearts (hearts of people who have willfully sinned and/or rebelled against God) and to receive the First Presidency is to receive God.[86] If Latter-day Saints are in purposeful rebellion towards the leaders of the Church, it is believed that they may be in great danger of being deceived by false Spirits.[87] The scriptures teach clearly that hearkening unto the revelation received by prophets is how members will not be deceived in the last days before Christ's second coming and how they can become like God--thereby achieving salvation and exaltation.[88] Several scriptures address how to discern the difference between true and false Spirits.[89] This may seem surprising to modern Latter-day Saints that evil and/or unclean spirits might have influenced them to believe something false, but the Book of Mormon documents how this very thing happened among the Nephites.[90]

Latter-day Saints would also know that there are people who may intentionally want to be led by false Spirits--people that will spiritual experiences to pass that convince them of their own prophethood, so to speak. There are also those that might claim to have had a spiritual experience telling them that the prophets are wrong (when they haven’t actually had any revelatory experience) simply for the purpose of stirring up contention, mocking the epistemology of the Saints, and/or to simply troll. These are those that might be said to “pervert the Gospel.”[91]

2. Seeking revelation on everything can make us susceptible to self-deception or influence of false spirits. President Oaks had another thing to say on this regarding those that seek revelation on everything:

Closely related to this example is the person who has a strong desire to be led by the Spirit of the Lord but who unwisely extends that desire to the point of wanting to be led in all things. A desire to be led by the Lord is a strength, but it needs to be accompanied by an understanding that our Heavenly Father leaves many decisions for our personal choices. Personal decision making is one of the sources of the growth we are meant to experience in mortality. Persons who try to shift all decision making to the Lord and plead for revelation in every choice will soon find circumstances in which they pray for guidance and don’t receive it. For example, this is likely to occur in those numerous circumstances in which the choices are trivial or either choice is acceptable. We should study things out in our minds, using the reasoning powers our Creator has placed within us. Then we should pray for guidance and act upon it if we receive it. If we do not receive guidance, we should act upon our best judgment. Persons who persist in seeking revelatory guidance on subjects on which the Lord has not chosen to direct us may concoct an answer out of their own fantasy or bias, or they may even receive an answer through the medium of false revelation. Revelation from God is a sacred reality, but like other sacred things, it must be cherished and used properly so that a great strength does not become a disabling weakness.[92]

The scriptures confirm his teaching. We are told in Doctrine & Covenants 58:26-28 to not be commanded in all things and bring about righteousness through our own agency.[93]

3. Over-interpreting a heart flutter. It may be that an emotional reaction to something can be over-interpreted as a spiritual impression. Latter-day Saints should seek more dynamic confirmation if they are unsure they’ve felt the Spirit. Prophets have warned us about mistaking emotion for revelation. President Howard W. Hunter taught:

Let me offer a word of caution. . . . I think if we are not careful . . . , we may begin to try to counterfeit the true influence of the Spirit of the Lord by unworthy and manipulative means. I get concerned when it appears that strong emotion or free-flowing tears are equated with the presence of the Spirit. Certainly the Spirit of the Lord can bring strong emotional feelings, including tears, but that outward manifestation ought not to be confused with the presence of the Spirit itself.[94]

4. Can’t receive revelation outside of stewardship. Lastly, members should remember the concept of stewardship. For example, only the President of the Church may receive revelations on behalf of the entire Church.[95] Only those members of the Church that are appointed to a particular office may receive revelation for that office. Again from Elder Oaks:

First, we should understand what can be called the principle of “responsibility in revelation.” Our Heavenly Father’s house is a house of order, where his servants are commanded to “act in the office in which [they are] appointed."[96] This principle applies to revelation. Only the President of the Church receives revelation to guide the entire Church. Only the stake president receives revelation for the special guidance of the stake. The person who receives revelation for the ward is the bishop. For a family, it is the priesthood leadership of the family. Leaders receive revelation for their own areas of responsibility. Individuals can receive revelation to guide their own lives. But when one person purports to receive revelation for another person outside his or her own area of responsibility—such as a Church member who claims to have revelation to guide the entire Church or a person who claims to have a revelation to guide another person over whom he or she has no presiding authority according to the order of the Church—you can be sure that such revelations are not from the Lord. “There are counterfeit signals.”[97] Satan is a great deceiver, and he is the source of some of these spurious revelations. Others are imagined. If a revelation is outside the limits of your specific responsibility, you know it is not from the Lord and you are not bound by it.[98]

The First Presidency wrote in 1917:

When visions, dreams, tongues, prophecy, impressions or any extraordinary gift or inspiration, convey something out of harmony with the accepted revelations of the Church or contrary to the decisions of its constituted authorities, Latter-day Saints may know that it is not of God, no matter how plausible it may appear. … In secular as well as spiritual affairs, Saints may receive Divine guidance and revelation affecting themselves, but this does not convey authority to direct others. … The history of the Church records many pretended revelations claimed by imposters or zealots who believed in the manifestations they sought to lead other persons to accept, and in every instance, disappointment, sorrow and disaster have resulted therefrom.[99]


Members may feel some discouragement that it takes such effort to receive and recognize revelation; but this is, in a somewhat ironic way, strictly in line with the Lord's requirement for his people to be "tried in all things, that they may be prepared to receive the glory that [he has] for them, even the glory of Zion[.]"[100] Learning to receive and recognize revelation would logically not be an exception to such a requirement.

In order to guard themselves against false revelation, members should seek to understand what is already laid out in the revelations contained in scripture. Joseph Smith left clear revelation that the canonized scriptures should govern the Church (Doctrine & Covenants 42:12–13, 56–60; 105:58–59). This since they have been revealed by the Lord's duly appointed prophet: the only person authorized to receive revelation on behalf of the entire Church (Doctrine & Covenants 21:4–5; 28:2; 43:2–7), submitted to and approved by all members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve (Doctrine & Covenants 107:27), and submitted to the general body of the Church for ratification (Doctrine & Covenants 26:2; 28:13). Scripture should be read contextually (that is, in the historical context of the people who would have first heard the revelation) and holistically (seeing everything scripture has to say on the topic at hand) to acquire accurate theological conceptions that they judge their spiritual impressions against. This article explains how to do this in more detail.

One may wonder how far we can take this principle of only receiving revelation within one’s stewardship when it’s a fact that we often pray to help others and can receive revelation on how to help them such a concerned friend prays for another. A good rule of thumb is that we can receive revelation that supplements someone else’s seeking. Our revelation can serve as suggestions for how someone will direct their life. If they receive revelation and inspiration that does not agree with our own, then we bow to their revelation.

2. Members should pray to have their heart changed if this is necessary.

In the Book of Mormon, Nephi didn’t understand the meaning of his father Lehi’s vision. He was given the opportunity to either reject his father’s words or accept them. As a result of the confusion Nephi felt, he prayed to God to have his heart softened if necessary. All Latter-day Saints can learn from this example that Nephi set.[101] There may be things with which they do not fully agree with or understand at this moment. We learn from the Book of Mormon that a witness comes after the trial of faith.[102] We also learn that as one continues in light, that light can grow brighter and brighter until the perfect day.[103] Thus if we disagree with something right now, we may at some point grow in understanding of what has been revealed by prophets that we can reject the influence of false ideas and, yes, even false spirits that may have influenced us into believing something that wasn't true. A time of personal disagreement is fine. What isn’t fine for a person committed to the truths of Latter-day Saint theology is to not consider that one may be wrong and/or not approaching God with an honest heart seeking an answer from him when they have these types of questions. He promises that if we ask, we will receive.[104]

3. Members should be patient.

Closely related to this last point, members should be patient. For Latter-day Saints, the answer to prayer as to if something is right may not come until a bit later.

Consider a case from President Brigham Young. Brigham Young talked about the first time Joseph Smith taught something that he didn’t and couldn’t believe. It happened when Joseph taught about three degrees of glory in heaven. Said Brigham:

I was not prepared to say that I believed it [three degrees of glory], and I had to wait. What did I do? I handed this over to the Lord in my feelings, and said I, ‘I will wait until the Spirit of God manifests to me, for or against.’ I did not judge the matter, I did not argue against it, not in the least. I never argued the least against anything Joseph proposed, but if I could not see or understand it, I handed it over to the Lord.[105]

Note that Brigham does not “blindly follow” Joseph. He does not start believing the doctrine simply because Joseph preached it. Brigham insisted that he have his own witness prior to believing.

Yet, Brigham did not go too far the other way either. He did not engage in learned debate, or publish an “alternative” newspaper (today such folks would probably start a blog or post on Facebook) detailing all the reasons why he did not believe what Joseph was teaching. He conformed his outward behavior in accordance with his covenants, but he did not abdicate his inner responsibility for building his testimony by confronting his sincere doubt and uncertainty. He waited for revelation, but he did not let that which he did not know destroy that which he did know.

If he had not taken this approach, he would never have gotten a revelation. There is an old adage in Latter-day Saint culture that says "faith precedes the miracle." Perhaps this can include the faith to simply be patient for revelation that we need.

President Boyd K. Packer cautioned:

There are those within the Church who are disturbed when changes are made with which they disagree or when changes they propose are not made. They point to these as evidence that the leaders are not inspired.

They write and speak to convince others that the doctrines and decisions of the Brethren are not given through inspiration.

Two things characterize them: they are always irritated by the word "obedience," and always they question revelation. It has always been so.[106]

As mentioned previously, in The Book of Mormon it is taught that one receives no witness until after the trial of their faith.[107] Latter-day Saints might consider this in their efforts to be patient in receiving the light and knowledge they need to be in line with the authorities of the Church.

4. If, after all this, we still believe we are being told that the leaders of the Church are wrong, we are still not authorized to publicly preach or urge a different course of action or teaching.

President George Q. Cannon observed:

We could conceive of a man honestly differing in opinion from the Authorities of the Church and yet not be an apostate; but we could not conceive of a man publishing these differences of opinion and seeking by arguments, sophistry and special pleading to enforce them upon the people to produce division and strife and to place the acts and counsels of the Authorities of the Church, if possible, in a wrong light, and not be an apostate, for such conduct was apostasy as we understood the term. We further said that while a man might honestly differ in opinion from the Authorities through a want of understanding, he had to be exceedingly careful how he acted in relation to such differences, or the adversary would take advantage of him, and he would soon become imbued with the spirit of apostasy and be found fighting against God and the authority which He had placed here to govern His Church.[108]

Dallin H. Oaks gave five things that members can do when they have differences with Church leadership.

  1. Overlook the difference
  2. Reserve judgment and postpone any action on the difference
  3. Take up our differences privately with the leader involved.
  4. Communicate with the Church officer who has the power to correct or release the person thought to be in error or transgression.
  5. Pray for the resolution of the problem.[109]

These procedures, as Oaks astutely observes, help one to address the point of pain while also keeping in accordance with the principles of moral truth outlined in scripture—thus allowing an individual to keep the Spirit of the Lord with them.

Revealed policy vs. non-revealed policy. It’s important to know that Latter-day Saints can have differing opinions as to the efficacy of policy. Policy is a different matter entirely from revelation that teaches truths about heaven. Latter-day Saint scripture teaches that they are meant to seek all that is "virtuous, lovely, of good report, or praiseworthy" and use all disciplines to be better instructed in the Kingdom of God.[110] We may find things that may be helpful in supplementing the already good principles being used by the leaders of the Kingdom in building it up. As matters of policy and, more particularly, policy that is not claimed to have come by revelation, Church members may be free to agree and disagree and opine on ways the Church might improve through constructive dialogue. As matters of revelation that teach eternal truths and policy that is claimed to come from revelation, however, it’s difficult to conceive of a member that would go against revelations as claimed and approved by the top counsels of the Church. Such seems to be bad epistemology. It’s to ascribe self-delusion to the top leadership of the Church even when they’ve claimed to receive genuine revelation from God and followed all necessary steps for making something official.

The Doctrine & Covenants is explicit that a person cannot "lift up [their] heel" against the President of the Church and the other leaders and believe that they have sinned when they haven’t.[111] Are we sure that we want to deny that someone has received revelation when 15 people claim to have unitedly received revelation? Denying that they've received revelation speaks to the ability that all humans have in general to receive revelation from God. If humans can be wrong about receiving revelation even when unified in claiming that they have in regards to any particularity, then how much more ability do we, as "regular people," have to receive revelation that doesn't simply confirm our own biases? This claim makes it so that God’s word is not, in Latter-day Saint scriptural vernacular, "sharper than a two edged sword" and makes it so that "the law hath no claim on the creature."[112]

5. Members may be taught things by revelation that may be true, and for their comfort, but it is still not their place to spread them publicly, use them to advocate for change, and so forth.

Another point closely related to this is to know how revelation that gives us a mystery not yet known to the general body of the Church is to be taught. The Book of Mormon teaches that there will be times when people will receive revelations that may provide them instruction about the mysteries of God. Nevertheless, whenever they’re given mysteries, they are, according to Latter-day Saint doctrine, to not preach that as revelation until such knowledge is given to the whole Church through the appointed prophet.[113]

Doctrine & Covenants 28:4–5 tells us that:

4 And if thou art led at any time by the Comforter to speak or teach, or at all times by the way of commandment unto the church, thou mayest do it.
5 But thou shalt not write by way of commandment, but by wisdom;


All this begs the question of how we'll know it's the Spirit that prompts us to share. We will recognize that the Spirit is the one that prompts us to share when we feel that it doesn't motivate us to share it as factual knowledge. It will also not motivate us to go spread the information and stir up contention and strife among the Saints or stir up malice against the Church.[114] There may be times when the Spirit can prompt us to share our knowledge with someone, but it will likely be on a very individual basis and in private. You will likely not be bothered with the general rule being taught as the position for the entire Church.

Other Latter-day Saint prophets have taught similar things:

  • Brigham Young: “Should you receive a vision of revelation from the Almighty, one that the Lord gave you concerning yourselves, or this people, but which you are not to reveal on account of your not being the proper person, or because it ought not to be known by the people at present, you should shut it up and seal it as close, and lock it as tight as heaven is to you, and make it as secret as the grave. The Lord has no confidence in those who reveal secrets, for He cannot safely reveal Himself to such persons.”[115]
  • Joseph F. Smith: “Not even a revelation from God should be taught to his people until it has first been approved by the presiding authority—the one through whom the Lord makes known His will for the guidance of the saints. . . .The spirit of revelation may rest upon any one, and teach him or her many things for personal comfort and instruction. But these are not doctrines of the Church, and, however true, they must not be inculcated [i.e., taught and distributed/published] until proper permission is given.”[116]
  • Joseph Fielding Smith: “If a man comes among the Latter-day Saints, professing to have received a vision or a revelation or a remarkable dream, and the Lord has given him such, he should keep it to himself. . . . the Lord will give his revelations in the proper way, to the one who is appointed to receive and dispense the word of God to the members of the Church.”[117]

As a matter of caution, it would be wise to again point out that the Book of Mormon records how Satan went about the land, stirring up contention among the Nephites with rumors, gossip, and false teachings. If there is a spirit that tells us that we should publicly disclose our revelation and seek to bring others to our side, this would likely need to be seen as coming from Satan. Members may be taught things for their instruction or their comfort, but they should not disclose those revelations unless the Prophet of the Church reveals the same thing.

Answering Objections

There has been an objection raised to the model presented in this article regarding the relationship between personal and general revelation that we address here.

Nephi and Laban

Critics of this model have asserted that Nephi’s killing of Laban as recorded in the Book of Mormon is an example of someone receiving personal revelation outside of the explicit commandments of scripture that was evidently God’s will. According to these critics, Nephi was outside of God’s commandments in that God commanded that we murder no one (Exodus 20:13). Nephi was not the prophet at the time that this commandment was received but this was the standing law for him and other covenant Israelites. Yet Nephi received the commandment from the Holy Spirit to slay Laban. How can we assert that someone outside of a particular kind of stewardship generally can’t receive revelation that contradicts the prophet’s?

The fatal flaw of the argument is that Nephi was not acting outside of the commandments of scripture.

Like many modern laws, Biblical law recognized that there were different types of killing. The next chapter in Exodus tells us:

13 And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.

14 But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.(Exodus 21:13-14)

This ties into the "cities of refuge" principle. Someone who did not intend to kill, but committed what we might call "manslaughter"—killing someone without premeditation—was allowed to flee to a "city of refuge" in Israel, where they could not be killed by family bent on revenge.[118]

A key aspect in all this was pre-planning. Did you "lie in wait" for them? Did you try to "slay him with guile", i.e. did you plot and plan it out?

Nephi is quite clear about this: he went into Jerusalem, "And I was led by the Spirit, not knowing beforehand the things which I should do."[119]

He also repeatedly emphasizes that the Spirit told him that the Lord "hath delivered him into thy hands."[120] Nephi is clearly placing himself into this Jewish legal framework—he did not plot the death of Laban, did not go into the city with the intent to kill him, and the Lord merely "delivered him into his hand.”

Nephi is not acting outside of his stewardship but in strict agreement with the scriptures.

Even if we can find other examples in the scriptures of people receiving revelation outside of a stewardship, it doesn't mean anything for today when, by revelation, the Lord has established that general revelation comes by the prophet, is affirmed by the unanimity of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and other two members of the First Presidency, and ratified as canon as the law to govern the Church. The system of spiritual government that the Lord has set up in the last days will generally not allow for exceptions to the rule.

Elder Dale G. Renlund of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles has astutley observed: "Some might point out that Nephi violated a commandment when he slew Laban. However, this exception does not negate the rule—the rule that personal revelation will be in harmony with God’s commandments. No simple explanation of this episode is completely satisfactory, but let me highlight some aspects. The episode did not begin with Nephi asking if he could slay Laban. It was not something he wanted to do. Killing Laban was not for Nephi’s personal benefit but to provide scriptures to a future nation and a covenant people. And Nephi was sure that it was revelation—in fact, in this case, it was a commandment from God."[121]:17. Bold added. In a footnote, Elder Renlund writes:

The Lord often does change, amend, or make exceptions to His revealed commandments, but these are made through prophetic revelation and not personal revelation. Prophetic revelation comes through God’s duly appointed prophet according to God’s wisdom and understanding. These exceptions include the Lord’s revelation to Moses and Joshua to kill the inhabitants of the land of Canaan despite His commandment “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13). The Lord, through His prophet, can and will revise His commandments for His purposes. We are not free, however, through personal revelation to alter or ignore established commandments that God has revealed to His Church through the prophet. See 1 Nephi 4:12–18; for a fuller discussion, see Joseph Spencer, 1st Nephi: A Brief Theological Introduction (2020), 66–80.[121]:19n23

Conclusion

It’s not uncommon to hear difficult questions such as this one being leveled against the Church by its more secularist critics as if this were some sort of slam dunk on its epistemology. Although many members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints may feel confused by these questions and some not as well read in order to provide answers to these questions, the reality is that these epistemological questions have been answered by the official scriptures and teachings of leaders of the Church since the Church's inception. Understanding the previous principles and being able to articulate them to others will provide an excellent “reason for the hope that is within us” and help us to live more as Zion—as “one heart and one mind.”[122]

See also: Question: When, if ever, is it okay to disagree with Church leaders?


Question: What is the significance of the temple garment worn by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and what is the appropriate way to wear them?

Garments worn by male members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Introduction to Questions

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints perform several sacred ordinances or ceremonies for individuals that they believe are necessary for individual exaltation. A few of these ceremonies are performed in temples: holy places dedicated to serving God.

In the initiatory portion of the endowment, "the member is authorized to wear the temple garment. The garment represents his or her personal relationship with God and the commitment to obey covenants made in the temple."[123].

Members of the Church who go through these ceremonies and put on these sacred garments are sometimes confused as to two things:

  1. Whether or not they make a covenant to wear the garment
  2. When it might be appropriate to remove or modify the garment

This article seeks to answer these questions given what we know from official Church sources.

Response to Questions

1. Do Latter-day Saints covenant to wear the garment?

According to the official leadership handbook of the Church, “[m]embers who receive the endowment make a covenant to wear the temple garment throughout their lives.”[124] Among the questions asked to candidates for temple recommends is "[d]o you keep the covenants that you made in the temple, including wearing the temple garment as instructed in the endowment?" A "covenant" is defined by the Church (and, indeed, by most dictionaries) as “a sacred agreement between God and a person or group of people. God sets specific conditions, and He promises to bless us as we obey those conditions.”

Another way to argue that it is a covenant to wear the garment is to recognize that there is no substantive distinction between an instruction from God and a commandment. "Members who receive the endowment make a covenant to wear the temple garment throughout their lives." We covenant, both at baptism (Mosiah 18:8–10; Moroni 4:3; Doctrine & Covenants 20:37) and in the temple, to keep all of God’s commandments. Thus it is at least part of a covenant to wear our garments.

2. When might it be appropriate to remove or modify the temple garment?

The official leadership handbook section on wearing the garment states that “[t]he garment should not be removed for activities that can reasonably be done while wearing the garment. It should not be modified to accommodate different styles of clothing. The garment is sacred and should be treated with respect. Endowed members should seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit to answer personal questions about wearing the garment.”

What are those activities where it might be unreasonable to wear the garment? Examples might include exercise or water activity.

As the quote states, the garment should not be removed nor modified to accommodate different styles of clothing. One of the purposes of the garment is to encourage modesty in how we dress. The garment as currently designed indicates what parts of the body should be clothed in order to meet a more objective/specific standard of modesty in how we dress.

Several concerns have arisen because of various health and practical considerations. The garment, as currently designed, can potentially assuage some of those concerns. If concerns persist, these might be directed to God in prayer.

Garment Fabric Types Better.png

  1. Some have been concerned about having to be in extreme heat when wearing the garment. When to remove the garment in heat is a personal choice. Members may also benefit from understanding the different fabric types designed for different climates. The chart above lists the different fabric types.
  2. Some have been concerned about the flaring of hemorrhoids when wearing the garment. Wearing loose-fitting clothing and cotton underwear may help avoid excessive moisture and friction which may aggravate the hemmorroid.[125]
  3. Some women have been concerned about the garment causing yeast infections and/or urinary tract infections. It should be noted that all garment styles for women "have a 100% cotton bottom panel for breathability and hygiene, as recommended by OBGYNs."[126] A few of the fabrics are either 95% or 100% cotton.
  4. Some have been concerned about the potential for the garment to aggravate psoriasis when contracted. Those who suffer with psoriasis may be encouraged to avoid clothing and bedding that touches the affected area that is made of wool and other synthetic materials, are made with dyes, or have tight waistbands.[127]
  5. Some have been concerned about potential skin allergies that garments might cause. As noted above, there are several different styles of fabric that one can choose from in order to avoid allergies.
  6. Some have been concerned about the itchiness of certain fabrics. The chart above gives ratings for how soft and comfortable each fabric style is. Consumers can pick what works best for their circumstances.
  7. Some have been concerned with the garment's potential to aggravate ingrown hairs. The medical counsel for this is to wear loose clothing that surrounds the area to avoid excessive friction.[128]
  8. Special styles of garments exist for women who are pregnant and/or nursing and for those that are terminally ill and/or bedridden for an extended period of time.
  9. Some women have concerns about how the garment can hold menstrual pads. If another piece of underclothing works well for this, it may be used in addition to the garment. "It is a matter of personal preference whether other undergarments are worn over or under the temple garment."[129]
  10. Some complain about uncomfortable waistbands. This might be solved by keeping the garment top tucked into the garment bottom, or buying garment bottoms with a larger waist size.
  11. Some assert that they don't want to wear the garment because it imposes an arbitrary notion of modesty. They assert that the garment style has changed a lot over the years that fit with different cultural definitions of modesty. It is true that the garment has changed over the years and that it likely reflects a response to changing societal standards of modesty and what is considered fashionable. As directed by the First Presidency, any necessary modifications to the garment will be made in the future.

Fundamentally, garments should not be removed when we have the reasonable opportunity to wear them and that, generally speaking, we should be seeking for opportunities to wear them rather than not wear them. Why would there be so many fabrics and styles that one can choose from if the Church didn't expect us to wear them as much as possible? We should be intuitive about our garment wearing and be in the communication with the Spirit to know when it may be necessary to remove them.

Conclusion

Wearing the garment is a sacred privilege. They are expressly not "just like any other underwear." Wearing the garment communicates love for God by keeping our promises to him and love for others by giving them an example to follow that leads them to Jesus Christ.[130] We often want so much to conform our garment-wearing to the world rather than help the world conform to garment-wearing. We shouldn’t be afraid to be different from others. The Lord has told us that, as Christians, we should “[l]et [our] light so shine before men [and women], that they may see [our] good works, and glorify [our] Father which is in heaven.”[131] He wants us to be "a peculiar people, zealous of good works."[132] Being different by wearing our garments and treating them with sacredness is an excellent way that we can humbly follow the Lord and, by so doing, be peculiar and interesting to other people. This interest may lead them to explore the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ and be converted to it. Thus, by wearing the garment we can fulfill the Lord’s commandments. As Latter-day Saints, we should be model disciples of Jesus Christ. Wearing the garment is one way that we can do that and it brings tremendous spiritual blessings.


Question: What are appropriate activities for the Sabbath?

Introduction to Question

Like many Christians, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints celebrate the Sabbath on a Sunday. On Sunday, members attend worship services held at local chapels.

Members of the Church have been confused as to what activities might be appropriate on the Sabbath.

This article seeks to present scriptural quotes, commentary from prophets, and some ethical considerations about the issue that may elucidate a definitive answer to the question.

Response to Question

Scriptural Quote

The most relevant scriptural quote to answer this question is given in the 56th section of the Doctrine and Covenants. There, the Lord declares the following in verses 9-19:

9 And that thou mayest more fully keep thyself unspotted from the world, thou shalt go to the house of prayer and offer up thy sacraments upon my holy day;
10 For verily this is a day appointed unto you to rest from your labors, and to pay thy devotions unto the Most High;
11 Nevertheless thy vows shall be offered up in righteousness on all days and at all times;
12 But remember that on this, the Lord’s day, thou shalt offer thine oblations and thy sacraments unto the Most High, confessing thy sins unto thy brethren, and before the Lord.
13 And on this day thou shalt do none other thing, only let thy food be prepared with singleness of heart that thy fasting may be perfect, or, in other words, that thy joy may be full.
14 Verily, this is fasting and prayer, or in other words, rejoicing and prayer.
15 And inasmuch as ye do these things with thanksgiving, with cheerful hearts and countenances, not with much laughter, for this is sin, but with a glad heart and a cheerful countenance—
16 Verily I say, that inasmuch as ye do this, the fulness of the earth is yours, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which climbeth upon the trees and walketh upon the earth;
17 Yea, and the herb, and the good things which come of the earth, whether for food or for raiment, or for houses, or for barns, or for orchards, or for gardens, or for vineyards;
18 Yea, all things which come of the earth, in the season thereof, are made for the benefit and the use of man, both to please the eye and to gladden the heart;
19 Yea, for food and for raiment, for taste and for smell, to strengthen the body and to enliven the soul.

This scripture already has given us a pretty definitive declaration. You should:

  1. Go to your local chapel and offer up sacraments, oblations, and vows
  2. Rest from your labors
  3. Pay your devotions to God
  4. Confess your sins before your brethren and God
  5. Prepare food and specifically with singleness of heart
  6. Fast
  7. Pray

We should do these things with:

  1. Thanksgiving
  2. Cheerful and glad hearts
  3. Cheerful countenances
  4. Not with much laughter

The blessings for following these injunctions are the fulness of the earth including all beasts, fowls, herbs, and other foods for clothing, housing, industry, medicine, and general enjoyment.

Commentary from Prophets

The pamphlet For the Strength of Youth, written and approved by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, includes several restrictions on Sabbath day activities:

Sunday is not a day for shopping, recreation, or athletic events. Do not seek entertainment or make purchases on this day. Let others know what your standards are so they can support you. When seeking a job, share with your potential employer your desire to attend your Sunday meetings and keep the Sabbath day holy. Whenever possible, choose a job that does not require you to work on Sundays.[133]

The Church’s official handbook for leaders lists the following activities as appropriate:

  • Personal worship through prayer and fasting
  • Gospel study and learning
  • Ministering and service to others
  • Family history
  • Joyful family time
  • Other appropriate gatherings.

Ethical Commentary

We spend the majority of our weeks focused on things and people that aren’t God. To an extent that’s good and divine. Often that means we’re busy thinking of ways to keep the second great commandment to love our neighbor as ourself.[134] But is it any wonder that the Creator of the World asks us to set aside one day for Him and to do nothing else besides pay our devotions to Him and rest from labor after we have spent all week not talking to him? Not thinking about him? We often think that God is entirely self-sufficient and doesn’t need our devotion or love. That may come because of our seeing Him as all-powerful. While He is all-powerful, He is an all-powerful human. Like all humans, He is blessed and nourished by love. Don’t treat God as so distant that you think He doesn’t want or need your love. Treat Him as if He were as near to you and in need of attention as your closest friend or relative.

Conclusion

Hopefully this article has illuminated one way that we can more fully love God by keeping his commandments.[135]


Question: What does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teach about modesty and what is its importance?

Introduction to Question

Questions about the Church’s standard of modesty have arisen in recent years. This article seeks to be an exposition of everything we should know about modesty and the reasons for practicing it as well as a response to certain criticisms that have arisen about it. There is a large amount of groundwork that needs to be laid down in order to have an organized and effective conversation about the Church's standards of modesty. We'll start with the definition of modesty, then discuss some cultural and historical facts about modesty in dress, then address the specific questions that have arisen.

Definition of Modesty

It will first be important to define what modesty is. The Church defines modesty on their website as "an attitude of propriety and decency in dress, grooming, language, and behavior. If we are modest, we do not draw undue attention to ourselves. Instead, we seek to “glorify God in [our] body, and in [our] spirit” (1 Corinthians 6:20; see also 1 Corinthians 6:19)." This definition is echoed True to the Faith: the doctrinal reference for all Church members approved by the First Presidency.[136]

Two important things jump out at us as we examine this definition of modesty:

  1. Modesty is more than just standards about dress. It is also about grooming, language, and behavior. We sometimes reduce discussions of modesty to dress too often. It's not entirely certain if this is due to infractions of modesty in dress being more common than any other infraction of modesty. Though it seems that infractions of modesty with, say, swearing, coarse humor, and gossiping are just as common. We do well to be vigilant about being modest in all things and not just dress.
  2. Modesty standards apply to both men and women. Some women have complained that discussions of modesty too often focus on them and not men. This may be true. We do well to remember that standards of modesty apply to both men and women equally.

This definition is important for our discussion moving forward. We're going to turn our attention specifically to modesty in dress, but that should not be taken as an indication that the author believes that modesty in dress is all there is to modesty. The author will also discuss complaints from women about the Church's standards of modesty. But that should not be taken as indication that the author means to single them out in discussion of modesty.

Modesty in Dress

We're going to be discussing modesty in dress most specifically throughout the rest of this article so it's good to have the Church's current definition of it quoted to draw from and discuss. True to the Faith, approved by top general leaders of the Church and intended for a general audience, defines modesty in dress this way:

Prophets have always counseled us to dress modestly. This counsel is founded on the truth that the human body is God’s sacred creation. Respect your body as a gift from God. Through your dress and appearance, you can show the Lord that you know how precious your body is. Your clothing expresses who you are. It sends messages about you, and it influences the way you and others act. When you are well groomed and modestly dressed, you can invite the companionship of the Spirit and exercise a good influence on those around you. Central to the command to be modest is an understanding of the sacred power of procreation, the ability to bring children into the world. This power is to be used only between husband and wife. Revealing and sexually suggestive clothing, which includes short shorts and skirts, tight clothing, and shirts that do not cover the stomach, can stimulate desires and actions that violate the Lord’s law of chastity. In addition to avoiding clothing that is revealing, you should avoid extremes in clothing, appearance, and hairstyle. In dress, grooming, and manners, always be neat and clean, never sloppy or inappropriately casual. Do not disfigure yourself with tattoos or body piercings. If you are a woman and you desire to have your ears pierced, wear only one pair of modest earrings. Maintain high standards of modesty for all occasions. Do not lower your standards to draw attention to your body or to seek approval from others. True disciples of Jesus Christ maintain the Lord’s standard regardless of current fashions or pressure from others.[137]

This standard focuses more on behavior rather than the principles behind modesty. But this behavior does prepare one to wear the temple garment in the future. The garment is designed to be covered by clothing that is consistent with standards listed here in the pamphlet. Indeed, as the For the Strength of Youth pamphlet itself teaches, "[y]our dress and appearance now will help you prepare for the time when you will go to the temple to make sacred covenants with God."[138]

The Scriptural Case For Modesty in Dress

The scriptures are the law to govern the behavior and beliefs of the whole Church.[139] The scriptures include injunctions for modesty in dress that are more direct and some that are more indirect.

The first scriptures that may be important for considerations about modesty are the creation narratives. Subsequently to partaking of the forbidden fruit and just before casting Adam and Eve from the Garden, God made Adam and Eve coats of skin. Perhaps this had to do with the fact that the eyes of Adam and Eve were opened after partaking of the fruit and they knew that they were naked. An injunction to be modest in how we dress may be extracted from these passages.[140] Book of Mormon prophets see "costly apparel" very negatively—always framing it as a manifestation of pride.[141] In contrast to costly apparel, the prophet Alma looks positively on those that dress and groom themselves in a way that is "neat and comely."[142] The author of Timothy directs women to "adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided [meaning "braided"] hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; [b]ut (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works."[143] A nearly identical injunction is found in 1 Peter 3:3-4.[144] A revelation given to Joseph Smith in 1831 known as "The Law" commands members to "let all [their] garments be plain, and [the garments'] beauty the work of [their] own hands[.]"[145] A revelation given to Joseph Smith in 1830 told missionaries to “[cry] repentance, saying: Save yourselves from this untoward generation, and come forth out of the fire, hating even the garments spotted with the flesh.”[146] That revelation echoes the words of Jude who similarly argues that evangelists should "others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh."[147]

Other scriptural injunctions that support practicing the virtue of modesty in dress include being a peculiar people so as to encourage member retention as well as interest in the Church and thus success in missionary work,[148] keeping unspotted from the world,[149] abstaining from all appearance of evil,[150] practicing meekness/lowliness of heart/easiness to be entreated before the prophets who have asked us to practice modesty,[151] following the commandment to receive all the words and commandments of the prophet as he receives them as if from the mouth of God in all patience and faith,[152] and being anxiously engaged in a good cause.[153]

The scriptures also contain a constellation of words and terms that give us injunctions to cultivate certain virtues and avoid certain vices. These words and terms include those such as "carnal" "easy to be entreated," "humility", "lasciviousness", "lewdness", "lust", "lowly of heart", "meekness", "pride", "puffed up", "stiffneckedness", “sobriety", and "temperateness". The practice of modesty in dress but also in other facets of life such as grooming, language, and behavior would be included in the definitions or the penumbras of the definitions of these words and terms. One can search occurrences of these words, including their derivatives (like "sober", "soberness", etc. for 'sobriety') in the scriptures on the Church's website. Since the scriptures are the law to govern the behavior and beliefs of the whole Church, we are obligated to cultivate these virtues and avoid these vices through modesty.

So why should we be modest? What are the principles behind it? Let's review the main principles as laid out in the scriptures and other official Church publications.

The Principles Behind Modesty: Humility, Chastity, and Loving Obedience

  1. An Element of Humility: Being modest in dress, grooming, and behavior helps us to not have opportunities to puff ourselves up with pride over our spiritual brothers and sisters.
  2. An Element of Chastity: Modesty helps both men and women to remain spiritually and mentally chaste. In the Church, things that get covered are sacred from the sacrament table to the rooms we pass through during the endowment ceremony. In a similar way, modesty helps us to keep the body sacred and make the marital union between husband and wife that much more sacred since it uncovers something for someone that has made a deep emotional commitment to you.
  3. An Element of Loving Obedience: Modesty helps us to learn meekness and easiness to be entreated before the Lord's servants who have implored us to be such. It helps to condition us for a life of sobriety as encouraged by the scriptures. Not sobriety in terms to alcohol or other addictions, but sobriety in terms of solemnity and centering our minds on obtaining the mind of Christ and always acting like a dignified servant of Him.


Are There Ways We Can Better Advocate for Modesty?

Are there ways we can better advocate for modesty? Certainly. What are the harmful ways?

We might all agree that a direct, face-to-face confrontation with someone that is not following standards of modesty is the least effective way of defending modesty and encouraging others to be modest in dress.

The most effective ways of defending modesty are these:

  1. Be modest in dress in your own life: as President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, using a quote often-attributed to St. Francis of Assisi, taught, “Preach the gospel at all times and if necessary, use words.”[154]
  2. Advocate for modesty in your Sunday school lessons and sacrament meeting talks: Oftentimes the most effective way of defending any particular standard is to quote the standard from the Church's publications and teach them in your Sunday school lessons and sacrament meeting talks. Those that hear you in your audience can be given an indirect but still-clear reminder of what the standards are and why they are important. They cause a lot less discomfort for the individual who has been caught not following the standards.
  3. Defend modesty to friends: One of the most compelling reasons to be modest can be found in those that are courageous enough to stand up for the Church in their personal life such that they defend the Church's standards to friends.

All of these approaches create a culture of modesty within the Church. That, in the end, is one of the most important things behind being modest: Latter-day Saints creating a shared identity and culture of prophet-following and prophet-defending. Creating that shared identity and culture helps us to be more "of one heart and one mind".

Four More Good Reasons for Modesty

Let's wrap up with four more good reasons for modesty.

First, when a man or woman (whether old or young) over-relies on their appearance to get their (legitimate) needs met they often don't have to develop any other part of their personality or intellect. The attention they get from their appearance is enough to reinforce their attention back on to how they look. A modest person is actively putting themself in a place where they have to work on themselves in more than just looks. They have to develop their personality, interests, intellect, emotional intelligence and more. It's a fantastic gift a person can give to themself.

Second, there’s a lot of symbolic value to be found in covering our bodies appropriately. A person’s access to another is limited based on what the relationship is. To not cover appropriately would be bereft of boundaries and to maybe inspire someone to walk up to a stranger and tell them their life story. It would also be a sign of no boundaries for someone to show "too much" (as defined the person showing) of my physical body to someone with whom I'm not in a relationship of that kind of trust.

Third, any attitude like “women are not responsible for men’s thoughts at all and therefore they can wear what they want” hurts women because pretending that women don't dress in ways intended to provoke a response from men will not allow us to ask thoughtful questions about why our girls and young women look to male approval for a sense of self worth. If you don't believe that women are constantly being pummeled by messages about their bodies that eventually show up in how they dress, you are doing them a huge disservice. You are shutting your eyes to a major problem women face that will not be fixed by blithely ignoring the connection between how women dress and how men sexually respond to them by viewing them.

Fourth, failing to make the connection between women's bodies and how men operate has problems for men as well. When the husband of a friend of the author was a missionary in Seoul, South Korea, he lived near a red light district that he had to walk through in order to get to his bus stop. These women had observed the connection between how they dressed and how men responded and they used it, obviously (we’re not suggesting these women were devious--prostitution is a horrible evil perpetrated against women). Now, had the husband been taught that the way women dress has absolutely no impact on the way he thinks, then the sexually inappropriate thoughts that he had in response to this unexpected and immediate submersion in public near-nudity would have created a lot of unnecessary torment and shame. However, he had been taught to understand that it's normal for men to experience a sexual response to women's bodies. And because he understood that was normal, he was not crippled with shame and was better able to take steps that would allow him to stay in control of his thoughts. It was by recognizing--not ignoring--the connection between his thoughts and what he was seeing that he was able to make changes that kept him in control of his own thoughts.

In essence: "I am not responsible for others' thoughts and can therefore dress how I want without consequence" blinds us to the (meaningful and beautiful) connection between bodies and sexuality, which disempowers both men and women to make choices that are good for both their self worth and sexuality.

Conclusion

We often think that morality should be based on the immediate, obvious consequences of our actions; but the Church's standards invite us to think more about how the morals we adhere to can be based on the less obvious, unseen, and/or delayed consequences of our actions. One thing that will help to calibrate our minds and spirits with those of our Church leaders is to think about how we can better adhere to these types of norms that aren't based on the immediate, obvious consequences of our actions. While these standards may be annoying for us at times, they can bring great benefits for us as a people as we build Zion and prepare for the Second Coming of the Savior.


Question: Why does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consider the practice of masturbation sinful?

Introduction to Question

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints views the practice of masturbation to be sinful.[155] The Church's current handbook for leaders (2020; 2021) lists abstaining from masturbation as among the standards of conduct placed on Church members. But it states that "a church membership council is not held for" it. "However, a council may be necessary for intensive and compulsive use of pornography that has caused significant harm to a member’s marriage or family," which usually is accompanied by masturbation. The rulebook for the Church's missionaries (2019) says to "avoid any thought or action that would separate you from the Spirit of God. This includes but is not limited to adultery; fornication; same-sex activity; oral sex; arousing sexual feelings; inappropriate touching; sending or receiving messages, images, or videos that are immoral or sexual in nature; masturbation; and viewing or using pornography (see 7.5.3). See For the Strength of Youth (2011), 'Repentance,' 28–29, for additional information." The youth pamphlet For the Strength of Youth (2011) has said to "not do anything…that arouses sexual feelings" and to "not arouse [sexual] emotions in your own body."[156] The newest edition of the For the Strength of Youth pamphlet (2022) tells us that “[i]n your choices about what you do…avoid anything that purposely arouses lustful emotions in others or yourself.” True to the Faith (2004), a doctrinal reference work written for Church members of all ages and approved by the First Presidency, tells members to “[d]etermine now that you will never do anything outside of marriage to arouse the powerful emotions that must be expressed only in marriage. Do not arouse those emotions in another person’s body or in your own body.”[157] Church leaders have long been clear that masturbation should not be regarded nearly as bad as other sexual practices, but that it is bad enough to require sincere repentance.[158]

Many have wondered why the Church takes this stance. Much of the modern scientific community views the practice as normal in humans of all ages. Many benefits are associated with masturbation such as improved sleep, a better mood (due to the flood of feel-good chemicals released in brain during intercourse and orgasm), a better immune system, a better cardiovascular system, reduced stress, and reduced sexual tension—especially when a partner is not available, whether by their own choice or not, for sexual relations. Certain health professionals recommend masturbating to mitigate tension in relationships where one partner has a higher libido than the other and doesn’t want to demand intercourse of the lower libido partner (or the lower libido partner doesn’t want to accept demands). Masturbation exercises and thereby delivers blood and oxygen to the penile and pelvic floor muscles in men so that they can prevent erectile dysfunction and incontinence as well as improve the duration and quality of erections. It is claimed that masturbation allows men to experience intercourse longer before orgasm. There are a number of health issues that can cause pain (aka “dyspareunia”) for one or both partners during sex. A number of psychological issues can also limit someone from enjoying partnered sex such as trauma. For some of these conditions, there are certain health professionals that recommend masturbation as a form of treatment for the patient or as a release for their partner. Prior to marriage and after engagement, it is sometimes recommended that men and women masturbate in order to explore their bodies and determine what kind of touch they would like during intercourse. There is at least some evidence (though currently inconclusive) that more frequent ejaculation in men can result in reduced risk of prostate cancer.[159] Limited evidence suggests that orgasm might help women relieve pain from menstrual cramps and increase their pain threshold.[160] Orgasm has also been correlated with relief from headaches in some individuals.[161] A 2008 study at Tabriz University of Medical Sciences in Iran found that ejaculation in men can help reduce swollen nasal blood vessels (nasal congestion).[162] Masturbation is seen as having an evolutionary utility in that it flushes out low motility sperm in men so that higher motility sperm will compete to more quickly reach the ovum and fertilize it. According to some evolutionary psychologists, in earlier days of human evolutionary development, men competed for females to mate with. Women would be inseminated multiple times by different partners. Evolution allegedly instilled in men a biologically determined need to masturbate in order to have agile sperm and get offspring before other men. Masturbation also allegedly has an evolutionary utility for women in that it can change the state of the cervix, vagina, and uterus and make chances of conception more likely if climaxing one minute before insemination and 45 minutes after. It can increase acidic content in the cervical mucus as well as move debris out of the cervix to protect against cervical infection. Some have seen a restriction on masturbation as a form of sexual repression, which is seen as negative.

This article will explore, by study and also by faith,[163] why the Church might take the stance that it does on masturbation even given the potential benefits of it. Almost all of these points apply to a discussion about pornography. This article can thus be considered a response outlining the Church’s potential rationale against masturbation as well as pornography.

Both the main body and citations of this article contain information that may be enlightening and helpful to the reader. We strongly encourage reading both.

Response to Question

Sexual Desire is a Fundamentally Good Thing

Before we proceed with the rest of our response, it should be first noted and emphasized that our sexual desires are fundamentally good things, given to us by God to be used for “strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife” and bringing children into this world.[164] As For the Strength of Youth says, "[p]hysical intimacy between husband and wife is beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love between husband and wife."[165] Thus, sexual desire in and of itself should not be considered bad. Indeed, it should be celebrated.[166] No one should feel dirty, embarrassed, or shamed for their natural sexual desires.

As Parley P. Pratt once wrote:

Some persons have supposed that our natural affections were the results of a fallen and corrupt nature, and that they are 'carnal, sensual, and devilish,' and therefore ought to be resisted, subdued, or overcome as so many evils which prevent our perfection, or progress in the spiritual life … Such persons have mistaken the source and fountain of happiness altogether.[167]

All this said, since sexual desire has a proper use, it follows that it should be exercised or put to use for that purpose and that boundaries should be in place to guide us towards fulfilling that purpose. It is not a sin to have a sexual desire. It is sinful, however, to exercise that desire in illicit ways as defined by God. It is also sinful to begin to plan to exercise that desire in unrighteous ways.

The Act is Bad. The Person is Not.

Another thing to be emphasized is that the person that engages in masturbation is not a bad person. The act is bad. We are not "good people" and "bad people”. We are people that do good things and bad things. It is true that Jesus says that a good tree cannot produce bad fruit and neither a bad tree, good fruit.[168] But, for Jesus, it is not who you are that will determine what you do; it is what you do that will determine who you are. What you do creates proclivities and habits that become parts of you. Undoing one or more of those and becoming a different creature requires deliberate and sometimes ongoing self-restraint and change. This change can happen for everyone and Jesus lovingly invites us with open arms to make that change if those habits are not in line with God's will as outlined in prophetic teaching/revelation.

Jesus' view of identity is similar to that of Parable of the Two Wolves told here:

The Scriptural Case Against Masturbation

The scriptures are the law to govern the behavior and beliefs of the whole Church.[169] Citing James 4:17, the Church argues on its website that "sin is to willfully disobey God’s commandments or to fail to act righteously despite a knowledge of the truth".[170] Sin is to disobey the (presumably explicit and scriptural) law of God as defined by 1 John 3:5 and, apparently, 1 John 5:17. It is therefore logical that if we wish to establish something as sinful, that we make our best scriptural case—since scripture contains revealed truths from God—for it actually being such. We will generally examine passages in the order they appear in the canon of scripture. Only those passages that the author believes have relevance to the question of the morality of masturbation will be cited and discussed.

The sexually relational "telos" of men and women. The great Greek philosopher Aristotle considered all things to have a telos or purpose for which they were created/designed. He believed that things (including human beings) flourish when they adhere to their telos. Telic thinking (aka "teleology") became the foundation of Aristotle’s theory of morality (known as “virtue ethics”). According to Aristotle, human excellence consists of adhering to their telos to be virtuous.

The scriptures and other official pronouncements of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have a similar view of human sexuality. They teach that men and women are designed to be united with each other sexually after marriage. Scripture repeatedly affirms that men and women are meant to be united sexually—becoming "one flesh”.[171] Becoming “one flesh” does not merely refer to physically joining the complementary reproductive sexual organs of a man and woman (and more particularly toward the end of procreation and family life: the all-encompassing, instrumental, and intrinsic good of male-female unions),[172] but also to that man and woman becoming psychologically and spiritually unified through their sexual union. Individuals, communities, and nations flourish when men and women adhere strongly to this “telos”. Sex is therefore a relational (rather than isolated) act between married men and women for Latter-day Saints.[173] Any act that takes men and women away from living in accordance with that design (or at least has a high probability of taking them away from it) is going to be viewed as sinful/immoral by the Church.[174] This understanding of men and women's sexually relational telos will pervade much of the rest of our response.

C.S. Lewis wrote:

For me the real evil of masturbation would be that it takes an appetite which, in lawful use, leads the individual out of himself to complete (and correct) his own personality in that of another (and finally in children and even grandchildren) and turns it back; sends the man back into the prison of himself, there to keep a harem of imaginary brides. And this harem, once admitted, works against his ever getting out and really uniting with a real woman. For the harem is always accessible, always subservient, calls for no sacrifices or adjustments, and can be endowed with erotic and psychological attractions which no woman can rival. Among those shadowy brides he is always adored, always the perfect lover; no demand is made on his unselfishness, no mortification ever imposed on his vanity. In the end, they become merely the medium through which he increasingly adores himself…After all, almost the main work of life is to come out of our selves, out of the little dark prison we are all born in. Masturbation is to be avoided as all things are to be avoided which retard this process. The danger is that of coming to love the prison.[175]

One may still wonder why we have this telos and why it is so important to make sexuality relational as much as possible. Latter-day Saints believe that one of the central purposes of marriage is child-bearing and rearing. Doctrine & Covenants 49:17 states that one of the purposes of marriage is to fill the earth "with the measure of man [i.e. the amount of spirit children created by God in the pre-mortal existence ], according to his creation before the world was made." Sex is obviously the action taken by a mother and father in order to produce children. However, it is also the act of a husband and wife. Sex acts as a means of strengthening the emotional and spiritual bonds between husbands and wives so that they can stabilize/fortify their relationship as fathers and mothers and thus attend better to the needs of their children. Sex is the most complete union that any human can achieve with another human. It involves uniting the hearts, spirits, minds, and bodies (the sum total of a person) of a man and a woman into their complementary, reproductive roles so that they can achieve the goals of motherhood and fatherhood as well as the goals of being a husband or wife. Isolated sexual activity, like masturbation and pornography, accomplishes the goal of bonding a person to themselves and hyper-sexualized, dehumanizing, fictive fragments of other people. Relational sexual activity, and especially that between a husband and a wife, accomplishes the goal of uniting a person to another person; another human being.

Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her. There are two verses that have been used most frequently to justify abstaining from masturbation and they are the 27th and 28th of Matthew 5:

27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

These verses are echoed in 3 Nephi 12:28, Doctrine & Covenants 42:23, and Doctrine & Covenants 63:16.

Jason Staples, an assistant teaching professor in philosophy and religious studies at North Carolina State University, has argued persuasively that Jesus is not condemning sexual desire in and of itself here. Rather, he is condemning planning to exercise that desire in unrighteous ways and "fixing one’s desire upon obtaining something that is not rightfully one’s own." Furthermore, according to Staples, "lust" is better translated as “covet”. So, if you are making plans to engage in unlawful sexual activity (without actually engaging in that activity) with someone while either you or they are still married (or both are married to other people), you are, according to Jesus, committing adultery in your heart.[176] It's the difference between feeling a sexual desire towards another, on the one hand, and saying in one's mind "I should go talk to her/him and flirt with her/him to see if she'll/he’ll be turned on by it enough and come home with me" on the other. This passage, though, doesn't seem to clearly address the question of whether or not masturbation is an appropriate outlet for desire. Is someone who is married making plans to commit adultery by masturbating to the image of someone besides their spouse? Is someone who is not married making plans to commit adultery by masturbating to the image of someone who is married? Dr. Staples says this:

While I don’t think the Bible condemns masturbation (the usual interpretation of the Onan story doesn’t get it right), it also doesn’t seem that masturbation is “one of the proper outlets,” either. Actually, Matthew putting “and if your right hand causes you to stumble” [Matthew 5:30] immediately after this statement about coveting a woman may be seen as an indirect reference to masturbation. It’s not entirely clear, but it’s the closest thing in [the Bible] you’ll find to a statement about masturbation. Given the general outlook on sex in [the Bible], though, I’d say masturbation would not be included among the “proper outlets,” which are limited to heterosexual marital relations whenever discussed.[177]

A few notes regarding this comment by Dr. Staples:

  1. Regarding Jesus' words about the right hand causing us to stumble, Dr. Will Deming, a professor in theology at the University of Portland, makes a lengthy and compelling case for interpreting this passage as referring to ancient rabbinic commentaries on the Old Testament (specifically the Mishnah) that discuss how one could commit adultery by masturbating.[178]
  2. In their critique of homosexual sexual behavior, several biblical (Genesis 1:27-28; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13), Greco-Roman, and Jewish authors say that it is wrong because it does not lead to procreation and was a manifestation of an excess of passion.[179] This rationale applies equally well to masturbation and is very likely a logical outgrowth of the Old Testament scriptures just cited that were already accepted as divine anciently. The Greco-Roman passages may have reinforced or merely revealed the rationale used in the New Testament to critique homosexual sexual behavior (e.g. Romans 1:27–28; 1 Corinthians 6:9).
  3. If masturbation is a form of adultery, then it follows naturally that it can be an example of fornication as well.
  4. Biblical scholar Lyn M. Bechtel confirms Dr. Staples’ understanding of biblical (more specifically on the Old Testament; but the Old Testament's outlook is reflected in the New Testament as well as modern Restoration scripture) sexuality in Eerdman’s Dictionary of the Bible. In her words:
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., Deut. 22:28-29) or that violates existing marital or family bonding and obligation (e.g., vv. 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.[180]
Masturbation, since it doesn't build the community and does not create marital or family bonding (and more especially for those that do it while single) is outside the biblical outlook on proper sexuality. Properly extended, it is outside of Restoration scripture’s outlook on sex.

A case study from Corinthians. Here's another example that we can point to that gives good evidence that masturbation is not seen as proper. 1 Corinthians 7 opens with Paul talking about the sexual immorality of the Corinthians. He recognizes that cases of sexual immorality had taken place among them. In order to ameliorate this problem of sexual immorality, what does he do? He tells the Corinthians that they should marry and have sexual relations with their spouse. Paul does not encourage self-stimulation. He encourages monogamy and fidelity within marriage (cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5).[181] It's not absolutely probative for the notion that masturbation is sinful; but it is highly suggestive.

Masturbation and love of others. Masturbation most often affects the way that you look at others similar to how pornography does—even if only temporarily. When masturbating, one makes use of others or the image of them as the object of their own self-gratification. With repeated masturbation and over time, this can condition you to regularly see others as potential objects of your own pleasure. Especially with porn, pornographic actors and actresses allow others to objectify them. Some may believe that there exists such a thing as “ethical porn”, but such views are mistaken. There will never be a time in which you are viewing pornography and/or masturbating to pornography when you are paying the full currency of emotional commitment in the form of marriage to another human being before getting your sexual release. Full emotional commitment like that given in marriage is the only currency by which you can pay for sexual fulfillment in order to not be objectifying someone. The actors/actresses are facilitating this exploitation. Using others as merely a means to an end and treating them as an object—as well as viewing them as mere objects (even when they facilitate that objectification)—is contrary to the Lord's command to love our neighbor as ourselves.[182] While you’re only using people in your mind, masturbation still requires that someone be an object of your passion instead of a full subject; a full person. It “requires conjuring a pseudo-relational stimulus, replacing a real human being with a fantasized sexual fragment.”[183] You must abandon, even temporarily, the attitudinal aspect of love: seeing the beloved individual as of merely instrumental rather than intrinsic and absolute value. As we know, love is both an attitudinal and an active virtue. Abandoning one or both halves of this is engaging in an inherently unloving act. In this way, it isn’t virtuous. God and Christ, through their prophets, have taught us that thought is the birthplace of virtue.[184] Virtues such as charity must be practiced in our thoughts as well as our actions. Some may wonder why a full bequeathing of emotional commitment in the form of marriage is a necessary condition for ethical intimacy. Elsewhere on our site we have defined love in part as using someone or something according to their/its telos. If our sexual telos is defined as married, man-woman, relational sexuality, then masturbating to pornography or being a pornographic actor that seduces men and women into going against their telos by viewing pornography you create would be definitionally unloving. Sex is, by its nature, the most intimate set of acts we can perform with another. When someone is not committing to your overall well-being and engaging in that activity with you, there's a high likelihood that you'll be convinced that they care about your well-being. But both you and them will recognize, if not married when engaging in that activity, that you are engaging in a mere simulacrum of true intimacy without getting the real thing. Having many of these types of experiences over time of getting simulative intimacy (whether in the form of masturbation, viewing pornography, or other non-marital and casual sexual encounters) is death to your emotional health by a thousand cuts.

Some may believe that you can have masturbation without inner mental fantasy, or masturbation without pornography, or pornography without masturbation; but as Dr. Mark H. Butler—a professor in the school of family life and addiction specialist at Brigham Young University—and Misha D. Crawford—a master’s student in the marriage, family, and human development program at BYU— have observed "[w]e cannot decontextualize or ignore the stimulus–response linkage between sexual soloing and pornographic images, scripting, and fantasizing. Sexual arousal and experience do not exist in some pristine isolation but in an increasingly tightly bound stimulus-response (S–R) equation."[183]

Masturbation and love of self. We've established above that men and women have a sexually relational telos. Jacob 2:21, for instance, tells us that we were created unto the end of keeping God's commandments and glorifying him forever. Doctrine & Covenants 49:15-17 tells us that one of God's commandments, one of his laws, is for us to be married and become "one flesh" as husband and wife. Mosiah 2:41 tells us to consider the happy and prosperous state of those that keep the commandments. Well, Christ also tells us that revealed law is grounded in teaching us how to love God and love one another as ourselves in Matthew 22:34-40. Therefore, any commandment is going to be some instruction in the meaning and proper exercise of love. Learning love helps us take on God’s nature which is the nature of love and also happiness.[185] We've argued elsewhere on the FAIR site that part of the definition of love is to use something according to the purpose it was designed for. Loving ourself would then, arguably, include not masturbating since masturbation is not adhering to your telos of keeping God's command to be one flesh. It would be, definitionally, an unloving act towards yourself. This may be what Paul had in mind when he said that "[e]very sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body."[186]

It will be important to adhere to this telos of becoming one flesh and not only for the fact that not masturbating facilitates greater marital unity with a future or current spouse, but also because masturbating can have a debilitating psychological impact on us. We can start to view ourselves as slaves to our passions and out of control. We will recognize that a force that is threatening to neither our life nor health is overcoming our agency. We will feel like our sexuality isn't an integral part of our personhood that we get to choose when to express and exercise. We will recognize that we are getting this cheap thrill of sexual dopamine and oxytocin without anyone paying the price of emotional commitment to us and really caring for us. We'll recognize that we are engaged in a simulation of intimacy without experiencing real intimacy. This can cause deep feelings of embarrassment, loneliness, anxiety, and depression. Being placed over our desires and mastering them can help us embody a fuller self concept and make us feel like the divine beings we are and meant to become. We can start to feel like an object of passion just as much as we make others the objects of our passion while we masturbate. As the Book of Mormon says, the natural man is an enemy to God and has been since the fall of Adam. The only way to overcome this is by listening to the enticings of the Spirit and putting off the natural man. We can’t engage in recreational, indulgent masturbation and consider ourselves as putting off the natural man. We are indeed distancing ourselves from the Spirit and the joy we feel when close to it.[187]

Masturbation as part of the definition of other words in scripture. The scriptures contain a constellation of words that describe unlawful sexual activity. Among those that are perhaps most relevant to this discussion (including their derivatives) are "adultery",[188] "carnal", "chastity”, "concupiscence”, "fornication”,[189] "lasciviousness”, "lewdness”, "lust”,[190] and "sensual”. An exhaustive scriptural concordance of these words and their derivatives are gathered at this link. Readers are encouraged to read each occurrence in their original scriptural contexts (preferably following this approach articulated in another article on the FAIR wiki). Given that the scriptural outlook on proper sexuality (as discussed above) includes only marital relationships between husband and wife, any sexuality that falls outside of those bounds (including masturbation) is likely being condemned in scripture. Masturbation likely falls under the definition or the penumbras of the definition of all of these words. If it does, then it is condemned in scripture and we are bound to follow those injunctions to abstain from it (seeing as how scripture is the law to govern the behavior and beliefs of the Church established above).

As an example, let’s take "lasciviousness”. Doctrine & Covenants 1:24 states that God gives commandments to his prophets after the manner of their language so that they can come to understanding. The 1828 edition of Webster's Dictionary (which records the definitions of words as they would have been understood by Joseph Smith and thus the intended meaning behind many words in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price) defines lasciviousness as "[l]ooseness; irregular indulgence of animal desires; wantonness; lustfulness." If masturbation falls under this category of lasciviousness (and it likely does) then masturbation is condemned scripturally.

Other scriptures that may justify refraining. Other scriptural injunctions that may support abstaining from masturbation include being able to bridle your body and passions as taught by Alma and the author of James,[191] being a peculiar people so as to encourage interest in the Church and thus success in missionary work and member retention,[192] to keep unspotted from the world,[193] to abstain from all appearance of evil,[194] practicing meekness/lowliness of heart/humility/easiness to be entreated before the prophets who have implored us to abstain,[195] following the commandment to receive all the words and commandments of the prophet as he receives them as if from the mouth of God in all patience and faith,[196] being anxiously engaged in a good cause without God compelling you to do something by explicit revelation,[197] and ridding ourselves of "inordinate affection" (πάθος "vile passion") as encouraged by the author of Colossians.[198]

A note on likelihood. In the foregoing discussion on scripture and masturbation, we have used the word "likely" a lot in order to establish interpretation. Some may be tempted to think that just because we have used this word, that we don't know for certain and can't know for certain whether masturbation is condemned scripturally. This is not true. Academic disciplines like history and scriptural exegesis are most often not in the business of telling us what is absolutely the case but what is most likely the case. What is most likely the case is taken as what is the case and translated to religious practice. We believe that we have established that masturbation is most likely condemned in scripture.

If nothing else, choosing to masturbate when the prophets have repeatedly implored us to abstain and called it a sin is going against the revealed commandment of being meek and easy to be entreated. Particularly when done if single or married and not directing your thoughts to your spouse, it does not qualify as adhering to your telos and makes you fix your desire on what is not yours as taught by Christ and illustrated by Dr. Staples. Since, as Butler and Crawford observed, you cannot decontextualize stimulus from arousal, there will almost never be a time while masturbating (while single or married and not centering thoughts on your spouse) where you will not be fixing your desire on what is not yours.

Personal revelation justifying practice of masturbation. It’s possible that some feel like they’ve received personal revelation telling them that masturbation is okay; but such revelation, given prophetic teaching and revelation on the subject, is almost certainly coming from false spirits. There are some scenarios that may rightly necessitate the use of personal revelation to determine what is right. We discuss those below.

Masturbation not a part of the Church’s explicit definition of the Law of Chastity? Some have argued that masturbation is not unchaste given that it doesn't fall under the Church's definition of the Law of Chastity. In its handbook for leaders, the Church defines the Law of Chastity as merely (1) abstinence from sexual relations outside of a marriage between a man and a woman according to God’s law, and (2) fidelity within marriage. Given the scriptural outlook on sexuality as we've outlined in the foregoing sections, those that make this argument may want to reconsider their stance. True chastity is correlating your outward expressions of sexuality and romance towards another with your underlying emotional commitment to that person. This correlation is where true happiness and sexual wholeness are found. Masturbation and porn give you all the excitement of sex without the price of emotional commitment to a real human being. They are definitionally unchaste.

How Masturbation Might Take Away from Marriage

An addiction is a behavior you knowingly and compulsively engage in that both causes harm to you and interferes with other objectives you wish to accomplish in life. So, if you masturbate enough that you lose your job because of it or your grades suffer because you're losing too much time with it, or if you lose a healthy relationship with your spouse because of masturbation, and you know that this harm is being inflicted but you engage in the behavior anyway, it is likely that you have an addiction.

While masturbation does appear by most metrics to be harmless when done sparingly, it does have the much-greater-than-merely-possible potential to become addictive or at least compulsive.[199] When turning addictive (or compulsive), masturbation can quickly become a deterrent from having normal sexual relations with a spouse. It can become more pleasurable to the person engaging in it over other relationships. Taking away sexual relations from a spouse can cause deep dissatisfaction and distrust in the relationship—thus potentially leading to the breakup of marriages and families.

Donald L. Hilton, a Latter-day Saint neurosurgeon based in Texas, relates how, during any stimulation of the genitals and orgasm, chemicals such as dopamine, vasopressin, and oxytocin are released in the brain. Oxytocin and vasopressin in particular have been linked to emotional bonding mechanisms in humans and other animals. When oxytocin was selectively blocked in voles, for example, it was observed that they don't mate for life or bond.[200] Hilton cites American counselor Patrick Carnes who says that one stage of recovery from addiction is “grief” where the person “says goodbye” to their addiction. Hilton writes that "[i]t may be a combination of craving for dopamine and yearning for oxytocin-bonded pornography, among other things, that pushes a person to act out and view pornography."[201] Thus, according to Hilton, you can actually develop an emotional attachment to your masturbation/pornography problem. If he's right about this, we'd do well to ask "why don't we do more to keep sexual stimulation within marriage so that we can direct our oxytocin and vasopressin-driven emotional bonding towards our spouse and thus more fully recognize and adhere to our sexually relational ‘telos’?"[202]

Masturbation and Escalation

The highs that one gets from masturbation and the ensuing addiction that might follow from it can result in escalation of that sexual behavior to include viewing pornography, attending strip clubs, requesting various forms of local prostitution, and even forced sexual advances on the unwilling.

Some will be tempted to immediately apply the slippery slope fallacy to this argument. “Masturbation doesn’t necessarily lead to escalation of sexual behavior.” The author would respond with applying the fallacist’s fallacy. While it is true that masturbation doesn’t necessarily lead to escalation, the argument is that it can lead to escalation; that it has the much-greater-than-merely-possible potential to lead to escalation. To illustrate, let's take a lesson from porn. We're illustrating our point with porn and not masturbation by itself, but porn is almost always connected with masturbation so this example becomes relevant to the author's point.

Over 60 studies have connected porn use with escalation of interests.[203] That is, porn users who have been viewing porn on multiple occasions over time tend to become interested in certain types of porn scenes that they were initially uninterested in or even repulsed by. It all has to do with what is known by medical researchers and other professionals as the Coolidge Effect.

Independent researcher and activist (and, for what it's worth, an atheist) Gary Wilson explains the relationship between porn use, brain chemistry and structure, escalation, and the Coolidge Effect from 0:41-3:16 in the video below. Many people find it hard to believe that porn and masturbation could be addictive enough to a human brain and lead to escalation since sex is supposed to be healthy. But, as Wilson points out, “internet porn is as different from real sex as today's video games are from checkers.” He addresses this assumption thoroughly from 5:16-9:31 in the video below. We strongly recommend readers view both clips from the video:


The same principles very likely apply to masturbation. You have a form of stimulation that is accessible to you any time you want. Following the Coolidge Effect, you can do it in novel ways over time. You can begin to involve pornography and then harder forms of pornography. Once pornography becomes unhelpful in getting the same dopamine hit, you can try out sex with others and escalate that, as mentioned before, to forced sexual advances on the unwilling. Does that claim sound extreme? Let's go further.

Over 110 studies link pornography to sexual offending, sexual aggression, and sexual coercion.[204] Your brain becomes conditioned over time to want harder and harder forms of sex in order to get the same dopamine hit. Following the Coolidge Effect, you're very, very likely to seek it out. For men, they are much more likely to see women as objects and sexually subservient first before escalating. Over 40 studies link porn use to “un-egalitarian attitudes” towards women.[205]

How do you avoid all of this? Go back to 1:12 of the Wilson video and you'll find your answer: find a sexual relationship with a single partner and mate with him/her long term. Your relationship will be naturally more stable. Get married to your partner and avoid porn and other promiscuity outside of the context of relational sex. Over 80 studies link porn use and/or masturbation to less sexual and relationship satisfaction.[206] Your marriage will be more stable and your kids will be more likely to grow up in the context of a stable, low-conflict home. Hopefully one can begin to see our Heavenly Parents' design for sex and why they wanted us to cleave to one another and become "one flesh".

Deriving the Benefits of Masturbation Elsewhere

But what about the many benefits of masturbation? Shouldn’t one care about the risk of prostate cancer at least? The problem is that all of the claimed benefits of masturbation can be derived elsewhere and there is no net detriment to one's health while abstaining from masturbation (discussed more below under "Is there something that biologically determines us to masturbate?"). Indeed, in almost every case, masturbation is not even among the top things typically recommended by professionals when wanting to derive these benefits. Thus it's more likely than not that anyone claiming that masturbation is essential or indispensable to our well-being are getting their information from biased, ideologically-motivated, or simply non-credible sources (whether those sources be professional or lay).[207] We can take the potential benefits one by one and see what is recommended to reap them to demonstrate.

  1. Improved Sleep: The Mayo Clinic suggests six things to improve one’s sleep. These include sticking to a set sleep schedule, paying attention to what you eat and drink, creating a restful environment, limiting daytime naps, including physical activity in one's daytime routine, and managing one's worries.[208]
  2. Improved Cardiovascular System: Heather Shannon of UC Irvine Health recommends that one exercise, quit smoking, lose weight, eat heart-healthy foods such as guacamole and vegetables, have some chocolate in moderation, not overeat, and manage stress in order to have a healthy heart.[209]
  3. Improved Immune System: Harvard Health recommends that one not smoke, eat a diet high in fruits and vegetables, exercise regularly, maintain a healthy weight, get adequate sleep, wash hands frequently, minimize stress, and keep with current vaccines in order to maintain and improve one’s immune system.[210]
  4. Reduce stress: The Mayo Clinic recommends exercising, meditating, laughing, connecting with others, yoga, sleeping, journaling, getting musical, seeking counseling, eating a healthy diet, and avoiding alcohol, smoking, illegal drugs, and too much caffeine in order to reduce stress.[211]
  5. Reduced Risk of Prostate Cancer: The Mayo Clinic recommends that one keep a healthy diet (such as doing a low-fat diet, increasing the amount of fruits and vegetables you eat each day, and reducing the amount of dairy products you eat each day), maintain a healthy weight, and exercise most days of the week to reduce risk of prostate cancer.[212]
  6. Sexual Tension/Differing Libidos: This is a question that is best left between the couple and God through prayer (and maybe the local bishop or stake president). That said, if one is struggling with something like hypersexuality and truly trying to lower their libido, Dr. Janet Brito and Daniel Yetman recommend focusing on your diet, getting medication, focusing on relationships, and stopping illegal drug use.[213] Likely in a spirit of prayer, partners can and should do all that is possible to be mentally, spiritually, and physically-oriented towards each other even as they might have something that impedes them from normal sex.[214]
  7. Urinary incontinence/Fecal incontinence/Pelvic Floor Strengthening/Erectile Dysfunction/Improving Erections: The Mayo Clinic states that treatment for urinary incontinence depends on the type of incontinence, the severity of it, and its underlying cause. They list a number of exercises as well as behavioral, medicinal, surgical, and technological interventions used to treat it. None include masturbation.[215] For preventing fecal incontinence they recommend reducing constipation, controlling diarrhea, and avoiding straining.[216] Kegel exercises don't involve masturbation. The Mayo Clinic has a step-by-step instruction list for performing them. These exercises can prevent incontinence or improve it as well as improve erections.[217] The Mayo Clinic recommends working with your doctor to manage diabetes, heart disease or other chronic health conditions, seeing your doctor for regular checkups and medical screening tests, stopping smoking, limiting or avoiding alcohol, and not using illegal drugs, exercising regularly, taking steps to reduce stress, and getting help for anxiety, depression or other mental health concerns if wanting to prevent erectile dysfunction.[218] Over 50 studies link porn use/masturbation to sexual dysfunction.[219]
  8. Males Lasting Longer Before Orgasm: Madeline Kennedy and Dr. Arik V. Marcell recommend at least 19 relational or medicinal solutions to delaying orgasm/ejaculation.[220]
  9. Dyspareunia/Psychological Impediments: Approaching treatment for any case of dyspareunia and/or other psychological impediments to partnered sex are best left between husband, wife, God, qualified, reputable medical professionals, and maybe local leaders. More information on treatment options that fit with your values can be found online or by contacting your local doctor. Likely in a spirit of prayer, partners can and should do all that is possible to be mentally, spiritually, and physically-oriented towards each other even as they might have something that impedes them from normal sex.[214]
  10. Menstrual Cramps: The Mayo Clinic recommends taking pain relievers like ibuprofen, looking into hormonal birth control, getting surgery, exercising regularly, using heating pads, using dietary supplements, reducing stress, acupuncture, acupressure, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and herbal medicine as potential treatments for menstrual cramps.[221]
  11. Headaches: The Mayo Clinic recommends (among many other things) using pain relievers, using hot or cold compresses, resting in dark and quiet rooms, and other stress-reducing therapies for treating headaches.[222]
  12. Nasal Congestion: R. Morgan Griffin and Dr. Carmelita Swiner recommend using a humidifier, taking steamy showers, drinking lots of fluids, using saline nasal spray, using a neti pot, putting warm and wet towels on your face, avoiding chlorinated pools (while symptoms persist), propping yourself up on more pillows while you sleep, and using decongestants, antihistamines, and pain relievers for treating nasal congestion.[223]
  13. Low Motility Sperm: Atli Arnason and Jillian Jubala recommend taking Vitamin C supplements, getting Vitamin D, incorporating maca root and ashwaganda into your diet, and taking D-aspartic acid supplements to improve sperm motility.[224] Since, in a monogamous marriage, males are not competing for females, you don’t have to have the most agile sperm in order to conceive your own child. It’s impossible to know the procreative and other sexual habits of the earliest humans.[225] Thus, any claims to an evolutionary basis for practicing masturbation are suspect. The best that a Latter-day Saint can do is trust that we have a sexually relational telos as outlined in scripture above and experience the benefits of not masturbating for themselves to gain conviction of it.
  14. Preventing Cervical Infection: Menstrual cycles and orgasms during sleep/dreams have the same evolutionary utility for women. The vagina and cervix are self-cleaning organs. Douches can also be helpful but should be used with caution as these can sometimes increase chances of infection. Brenda Goodman and Dr. Traci C. Johnson recommend using condoms during sex (when not trying to conceive), limiting the number of people you have sex with, not having sex with a partner who has genital sores or penile discharge, making sure both you and your partner have been treated adequately for sexually-transmitted diseases, not using feminine hygiene products, and taking good control of your blood sugar if you have diabetes to lower your risk of getting cervicitis.[226]
  15. Exploring Body: This aspect of sexuality can certainly be discovered by husband and wife during partnered sexual activity with good communication as well as patient trial and error. Dr. Mark H. Butler and Misha Crawford have an excellent discussion of this in their article cited above. Click the blue endnote to the right of this sentence to jump to a link to their article.[183] The discussion of sexual discovery is had under the subtitle "In the Married Years”.
  16. Facilitating Conception: These benefits can obviously only be derived in partnered sexual activity with the goal of conception.[227]
  17. Increasing Pain Threshold: Jacquelyn Cafasso and Dr. Elaine K. Luo recommend doing yoga, performing aerobic exercise, vocalization (saying "ow" when you experience pain), using mental imagery to shrink the pain, and biofeedback in order to increase someone's pain threshold.[228]
  18. Treating Sexual Repression or Frustration: Sexual repression refers to negative attitudes about the idea of sex and many to most to all things associated with it. It can be manifested in poor sexual performance, sexual dysfunction, and extreme guilt after sex, normal sexual arousal, sexual fantasy, any masturbation, or any risqué sexual behavior (relative to moral systems such as that promoted by the Church) such as light or heavy petting before marriage. Sexual frustration refers to not being able to have as much sexual contact as you might like. Masturbation has sometimes been recommended as a way of treating sexual repression and frustration. One does not need to masturbate, however. Elizabeth Plumptre and Ivy Kwong recommend recognizing traits potentially characterizing repression, seeing a qualified sex therapist, and communicating about changes regarding repression with your partner if you currently suffer from repression.[229] To prevent repression, Latter-day Saint parents and the body of Saints must create an environment in which we protect and transmit a proper understanding of the human sexual telos but also do not harm children, youth, and young adults with railing accusation whenever they act out in inappropriate ways. We must celebrate their God-given and divine sexual feelings and impulses. We have to model healthy romantic and sexual relationships for them throughout their lives. Repression and frustration are best prevented by transmitting a proper understanding of God's design for sex, having healthy attitudes about sex and sexual feelings, and expressing sex's beauty whenever asked about. Any other symptoms associated with sexual repression and frustration can be treated using the solutions outlined above or talking with a trusted therapist.

All the potential nuances/exceptions to the general prohibition most likely come when fostering or nourishing the relational, tender, committed, married, and man-woman sexuality outlined in scripture and/or as specifically prescribed by a qualified, reputable professional as the only viable treatment for a particular health reason. We should approximate this ideal as much as possible.

Benefits of Not Masturbating

But are there benefits for not engaging in masturbation? We've expressed many so far, but it may be helpful to restate them clearly and in one place.

  1. You are able to have a more unified relationship with your current or future spouse
  2. You get to embody a fuller self concept by mastering your desires and making your sexuality an integral part of your agency and personhood
  3. You avoid any addiction or get to heal from it
  4. You get to learn something crucial and important about love
  5. You can avoid any guilt, embarassment, or cognitive dissonance that comes from not living within your values and those of your faith
  6. For men, you avoid any risk of erectile dysfunction that might come with excessive masturbation and porn use.

Mark H. Butler and Misha Crawford enumerate the following benefits in their article:

  1. Avoiding sexual soloing helps impressionable youth and adults alike stay away from pornography use and habituation, steering clear of pornography’s fetishization of anti-relational, toxic sexual imagery, scripts, and fantasizing as the basis of sexual arousal.
  2. Avoiding sexual soloing helps hold that “flight” from takeoff until the “copilot” is on board, preventing the sexual arousal template (SAT, conditioned patterns of sexual arousal) from veering off course.
  3. Avoiding sexual soloing promotes healthy social development before marriage, laying the groundwork for relationship and sexual well-being in marriage.
  4. Avoiding sexual soloing can promote a relational sexual template and lead to strengthening marriage relationships, both sexually and generally.
  5. Avoiding sexual soloing helps ensure that the sexual flight is copiloted safely and surely in marriage toward its relational destination.
  6. Avoiding sexual soloing makes it easier to stay away from, habituate to, or fetishize toxic sexual fantasizing. Avoiding sexual soloing prevents an inherently relational flight from lurching off course toward sexual fetishization.
  7. Avoiding sexual soloing holds open space for a relational sexual template and the development of holistic marriage relationships that are deeply aware and caring, strengthening marriage both sexually and generally.
  8. Avoiding sexual soloing and practicing sexual restraint promotes the development of positive coping strategies.
  9. Avoiding sexual soloing can promote sexual self-mastery, a competence crucial to couple relationship and sexual well-being.
  10. Avoiding sexual soloing prevents mapping sexuality to a distorted hedonistic template, or at worst the anti-relational, anti-attachment pornographic template.
  11. Avoiding sexual soloing confirms and strengthens a relational and attachment-oriented sexual arousal template (SAT) anchored in “being for the other.”[183]

An important thing to note is that any human can derive these benefits from not masturbating. You do not need God to command you to do this. Thus not masturbating does not need to be considered an exclusively religious moral. It can be a secular person’s moral as well as a religious person's. Indeed, one is not and cannot be making a religious argument for a particular kind of moral until they cite scripture, revelation, prophets, etc. One can make an entire case for the law of chastity without citing any of those things. What both the religious and secular person can recognize is that human beings are designed—whether by God, evolution, or maybe God through evolution—in a particular way. Our design is such that we flourish and find our greatest happiness in relational, monogamous sexuality. Our greatest happiness will be found as we all recognize our design and live in accordance with it.

Is there something within us that biologically determines us to masturbate?

Some people construct an identity around the practice of masturbation. People say that “we’re sexual beings” (which is true) and “masturbation is a part of our natural development.” What these people often mean is that “engaging in masturbation is a behavior that is biologically-determined and thus prohibiting it goes against who and what we are. It serves as a net detriment to our well-being.” We often construct these identities to justify bad behavior and protest against certain standards that go against these identities we construct arbitrarily and artificially around those behaviors. Thus, the imposition of a prohibition on masturbation starts to feel like an assault to our personhood. This is one reason that General Authorities of the Church so often stress that our fundamental identity is that of children of God: if we construct identities around sinful behaviors, we will quickly embroil ourselves in habits that are contrary to the will of God and his nature and feel that any call to repentance is a crusade against us. We can thus squeeze ourselves out of faith and find ourselves in rebellion to the Lord's anointed. If we center our thinking about our essential identity in the fact that we are infinitely beloved, spirit sons or daughters of Heavenly Parents, then we will be much more open to changing our behavior so as to foster closer relationships with them and the rest of their creation. Identity construction is one of our most common forms of denial as human beings. We need be careful in how we construct our identity.

The truth is that we are not merely sexual beings. We are marital beings. Marital beings are sexual beings, but they are not merely sexual beings. We are built with the purpose of being joined maritally and, after marriage, sexually as man and woman; husband and wife. We were designed for a relational, psychologically and spiritually-unified, tender, married man-woman sexuality and we should create our norms to funnel us towards that as stipulated by scripture.

There actually is one biologically-determined function that both men and women experience that serves the purpose people might think masturbation serves: nocturnal emission. We don’t need masturbation to pull double duty.

People sometimes believe that releasing our sexual urge is a human need since, like hunger, sexual desires do not go away with differing values (contrast with something like what political party you vote for which desire is entirely contingent on your values and the arguments you're currently persuaded by), they're about as frequent as the desire for food, they arise sometimes without any obvious stimulus, and they arise whether we want them to arise or not. But none of these facts necessarily entail that "releasing" our sexual urge through porn, masturbation, or other promiscuity is a human need. At most it's just a strong human desire. What perhaps is needed is emotional and spiritual connection, and that can be achieved through a variety of non-sexual (but still meaningful) ways. On the author's view, it's more coherently argued that the sex desire functions as it does because we need to procreate to survive as a species. Again, think about it. A person can live an entirely happy, wholesome, healthy life without sex, masturbation, porn, etc. Not releasing our sex urge isn't threatening to neither our life nor health. There does not seem to be any other persuasive explanation for the function of our sexual desires.

But what harm does one really do when engaged in isolated sexual acts?

But do isolated sexual acts really hurt anyone else? The foregoing analysis should be sufficient to demonstrate that masturbation can very likely have adverse effects on others. However, another point to make here is that, as humans, we are remarkably bad at creating and being faithful to norms that are based on the delayed consequences of our actions. We are really good at creating and abiding by norms that are based off of the immediate, obvious consequences of our actions. For example, all of us agree that it is wrong to kill an innocent person. Only some of us agree that masturbation is wrong because society consistently tries to condition us to believe in morals that have to do only with the immediate, obvious consequences of our actions on others and many have bought into that logic and framework. We would do well to ponder more about how we can create and more diligently abide by (still important) norms based on delayed, less-obvious, and even unseen consequences of our actions. Doing so may help us understand why The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds many of the moral positions it holds. It may help us to strengthen our testimonies of the Church and Gospel.

What do I do if I'm struggling with masturbation?

Christ lovingly and with open arms invites all who are struggling with pornography and masturbation to come unto him.

If you're struggling with masturbation, there is always help and hope for you. You may be trying to quit for the first time or for the 100th time. It does not matter. There is always hope.

The first thing to do will be to disclose your struggles to those you love and trust most. It may also be a good idea to speak with your local ecclesiastical leaders. You should thoroughly discuss the prospect of whether or not you actually have an addiction. Many people unfortunately are diagnosed as having an addiction wrongly and end up spending a lot of money unnecessarily on professional help. If you have trouble diagnosing the problem on your own, it may be helpful to seek professional counsel. There will very likely be many wonderful, qualified professionals in your area that will be eager to help you. These might include marriage and family therapists, sex therapists, and addiction recovery specialists.

The Church provides addiction recovery programs for individuals interested in overcoming addiction. There are also some resources available from Latter-day Saint individuals online that can help with recovery from masturbation/pornography addiction. They can be found through Google. These individuals and others you seek help from may have different beliefs about whether masturbation and pornography addiction exist and/or whether masturbation is sinful. Some have been vocal proponents of the view that masturbation and pornography addiction do not exist. Discretion is advised if seeking for a professional that affirms your view. Regardless, any number of therapeutic modalities may be helpful in eliminating unwanted masturbation and pornography use. Any good recovery specialist is going to help you on addressing limiting core beliefs that keep you from recovery, understanding the brain science behind compulsion/addiction, and setting daily boundaries that help address your core emotional, physical, and spiritual needs as well as take away about 80% of potential relapses. Any good marriage and family and/or sex therapist is going to help you address your problems according to the objectives that you set. So if you go in with the firm and explicit objective of not engaging in recreational, indulgent masturbation, they are obligated by their professional ethics (of allowing individual self-determination) to provide you the best therapies that help you accomplish those goals and are conducive to your ultimate well-being. If they don't help you move towards those objectives, then they are not acting ethically and you should consider seeking other help.

Important to remember that your sexual desires are not shameful things. Read again the section on sexual desires being fundamentally good. One of the things that keeps many addicts or compulsive users of porn and masturbation in their cycle is feeling ashamed of their desires and use. One of the most important lessons we can learn about porn and masturbation is that they are fueled and given power by that shame. When we slip up, we should feel appropriately sorrowful for a bad decision, but we shouldn’t feel fundamentally broken, irredeemable, or evil because of it because we aren’t.

Conclusion

While masturbation is not an avenue of sexual exploration or expression that will be wholly endorsed by the Church, it is still encouraged that parents have open discussions with their children about the beautiful, sacred nature of human sexuality, that everyone read out of the best of books about how to have more fulfilling sexual relationships with their partner (future or current), and that, generally, we make sexuality a topic of open discussion among those that we love and trust most. We often spend too much time in church talking about illicit sexual behavior that we often neglect defining and discussing what healthy, righteous sexuality is and how we can engage in it. That’s not always a bad thing. Talking about all the minutiae of sexuality is most often not going to be tasteful in Sunday School and other public church meetings. That said, among our families and others that we love and trust most, it can and should be much more comfortable. Sexuality is a topic that everyone should become an expert of at the right time so that we can all better understand how to reach and live in accordance with our divine destiny and identity.[230]

There may be those that still doubt the conclusions of this article. Your best testimony of this principle will be gained as you experience the benefits of not masturbating for yourself again. The author echoes the words of Jesus: “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.”[231]

It is the author's hope that this article will serve as a source of clarity on the Church's stance on masturbation for those that are confused about it, as a source of hope for those that would like to discontinue masturbation and remain in line with the Church, and as a source of great insight to those that are generally looking to understand the utterly sacred and utterly beautiful nature of human sexuality.

See also: Question: What is the difference between agency and freedom?, Question: How do Latter-day Saints understand the concept of love?, and Question: When, if ever, is it okay to disagree with Church leaders?

Additional Sources


Question: Why does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints strongly discourage their members from getting tattoos?

Introduction to Question

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints strongly discourages its members from getting tattoos. Why is this?

Latter-day Saint discomfort with tattoos goes back far. Latter-day Saint missionary William Orme Lee served in Samoa and published several articles in the Improvement Era magazine about his experiences. He wrote in the November 1899 edition of his frustration with the Samoan people for not banishing the practice of tattooing their body with cultural tattoos—calling tattooing a "heathenish custom, contrary to the laws of God, and of good society."[232]

In this article we will explore this question. We will present teachings from top leaders regarding tattoos. They will clearly explain their position and reasoning for it. Next, we will explore teachings from the official canon of scripture of the Church and the morals taught by it that might support the Church's discouragement of tattoos.

Teachings from Top Church Leaders

What follows represents an exhaustive listing of everything top general leaders of the Church have said regarding their strong discouragement of tattoos. Some references are from official Church settings such as General Conference and others are from unofficial settings such as books authored by the leaders (though this likely reflects official Church position/attitudes towards tattoos).

Bruce R. McConkie - 1958

In Mormon Doctrine, Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote:

Tattoos are permanent marks or designs made on the skin by puncturing it and filling the punctures with indelible ink. The practice is a desecration of the human body and should not be permitted, unless all that is involved is the placing of a blood type or an identification number in an obscure place. (Deut. 14:1.) Latter-day Saint servicemen in particular are counseled to avoid the pitfalls of tattooing. Persons who are tattooed are not, however, denied the ordinances and blessings of the temples.[233]

Bruce R. McConkie - 1966

Elder McConkie retained the above entry on tattoos in its entirety in the second edition of Mormon Doctrine.[234]

Vaughan J. Featherstone – October 1999

Aren’t you proud that the Church teaches us the truth? We don’t have to wonder about earrings for boys and men, tattoos, spiked hair, the four-letter words, and obscene gestures. We have prophets who model the standards.[235]

Gordon B. Hinckley – November 2000

In a discourse on teaching children true Gospel principles, President Gordon B. Hinckley stated the following:

Teach your children self-respect. Teach them that their bodies are the creation of the Almighty. What a miraculous, wonderful, and beautiful thing is the human body.

As has been said here tonight, Paul, in writing to the Corinthians, declared: “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

“If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are” (1 Cor. 3:16–17).

Now comes the craze of tattooing one’s body. I cannot understand why any young man—or young woman, for that matter—would wish to undergo the painful process of disfiguring the skin with various multicolored representations of people, animals, and various symbols. With tattoos, the process is permanent, unless there is another painful and costly undertaking to remove it. Fathers, caution your sons against having their bodies tattooed. They may resist your talk now, but the time will come when they will thank you. A tattoo is graffiti on the temple of the body.

Likewise[,] the piercing of the body for multiple rings in the ears, in the nose, even in the tongue. Can they possibly think that is beautiful? It is a passing fancy, but its effects can be permanent. Some have gone to such extremes that the ring had to be removed by surgery. The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have declared that we discourage tattoos and also “the piercing of the body for other than medical purposes.” We do not, however, take any position “on the minimal piercing of the ears by women for one pair of earrings”—one pair.[236]

Gordon B. Hinckley – November 2000

The practice is growing among young people of tattooing and piercing their bodies. The time will come when they will regret it, but it will then be too late. The scriptures unequivocally declare:


“Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

“If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are” (1 Cor. 3:16–17).

It is sad and regrettable that some young men and women have their bodies tattooed. What do they hope to gain by this painful process? Is there “anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy” (A of F 1:13) in having unseemly so-called art impregnated into the skin to be carried throughout life, all the way down to old age and death? They must be counseled to shun it. They must be warned to avoid it. The time will come that they will regret it but will have no escape from the constant reminder of their foolishness except through another costly and painful procedure…We—the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve—have taken the position, and I quote, that “the Church discourages tattoos[.]”[237]

For the Strength of Youth – 2001

The 2001 edition of the youth pamphlet For the Strength of Youth, written and approved by the First Presidency, states that one should "not disfigure [themselves] with tattoos or body piercings."[238]

M. Russell Ballard - 2002

Elder M. Russell Ballard wrote the following in his 2002 book When Thou Art Converted:

To you who are still in your youth: please know that we understand how difficult it can be to set a good example among your peers and associates. Many of you find yourselves on the front lines in the battle against those who intend to do things that are morally wrong. I firmly believe that there are certain things we cannot do if we are to stand for truth and right. President Gordon B. Hinckley has urged us to respect our bodies and not inflict permanent damage on them with tattoos and body piercings, reminding us that "the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are" (1 Corinthians 3:17).[239]

Margaret D. Nadauld – April 2002

The kind of young woman who can be a terrific torchbearer has high standards all the time, not just in her prom dress, but every, ordinary day. There are so many of you who are like that, and I salute you tonight. You have made modesty your way of life. It is more than how you dress. It includes at least six things that I can think of: (1) your behavior is decent and modest, and yet you are very fun to be with; (2) your language is never crude but happy and interesting; (3) you are well groomed, and that is appealing; (4) you are focused on developing your talents and achieving your goals, not piercing and tattooing and flaunting your body; (5) you play sports with gusto but never lose control; (6) you don’t seem to care about what the latest pop star wears or does because you have a certain style of your own. In summary, you do not imitate the world’s standards because you know a higher standard. You know who you are, and that puts you at a real advantage. You know that you really are a daughter of Heavenly Father. You know that He knows you and that He loves you; you want to please Him and honor His love for you. You know that even if you make foolish mistakes, He will help you if you turn to Him.[240]

True to the Faith – January 2004

True to the Faith, a doctrinal reference work written for members of all ages and approved by the First Presidency, states the following;

Latter-day prophets strongly discourage the tattooing of the body. Those who disregard this counsel show a lack of respect for themselves and for God. The Apostle Paul taught of the significance of our bodies and the danger of purpose- fully defiling them: “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are” (1 Corinthians 3:16 –17). If you have a tattoo, you wear a constant reminder of a mistake you have made. You might consider having it removed.”[241]

Henry B. Eyring – April 2004

So many these days disfigure their bodies with tattoos. How shortsighted. These markings last for life. Once in place, they can not be removed except through a difficult and costly process. I can not understand why any girl would subject herself to such a thing. I plead with you to avoid disfigurement of this kind.[242]

Earl C. Tingey – April 2004

In the For the Strength of Youth booklet, the following standards, among others, are like a North Star to you: choose friends with high standards, do not disfigure your body with tattoos or body piercings, avoid pornography, do not listen to music that contains offensive language, do not use profanity, date only those who have high standards, remain sexually pure, repent as necessary, be honest, keep the Sabbath day holy, pay tithing, keep the Word of Wisdom.[243]

Julie B. Beck – April 2006

When you know who you are and what you should be doing with your life, you don’t want to hide your light. For instance, you would not want to “hide your light” by wearing clothing that diminishes your royal potential. You would not use improper language or stories or mar your body with tattoos or other procedures debasing for a daughter of royal birth.[244]

Gordon B. Hinckley – April 2007

At the April 2007 General Conference of the Church, President Gordon B. Hinckley said to “[b]e clean in body and dress and manner. Do not permit yourself to be tattooed. If you do, someday you will regret it. Only a painful and costly procedure can remove the tattoo.”[245]

Elaine S. Dalton – April 2008

The precious gift of your body enables you to exercise your agency and put your faith and obedience into action. Have you ever noticed that nearly all of Satan’s attacks are directed at your body? Pornography, immodesty, tattoos, immorality, drug abuse, and addictions are all efforts to take possession of this precious gift. This was a gift that was denied Satan. Obedience to the commandments and standards enables each of you to be steadfast and immovable in protecting the precious gifts of your agency and your body.[246]

James J. Hamula – October 2008

So, as we enter the final climactic stages of the war against Satan, be sober, my young friends. Understand that you cannot partake of drugs, alcohol, or tobacco. You cannot participate in pornography or other immoral activity. You cannot lie, cheat, or steal. You cannot use false, demeaning, or dirty language. You cannot deface your body with tattoos and other piercings. You cannot do these things and be victorious in the battle for your own soul, let alone be a valiant warrior in the great struggle for the souls of all the rest of our Father’s children.[247]

Boyd K. Packer – April 2009

Do not decorate your body with tattoos or by piercing it to add jewels. Stay away from that.[248]

Thomas S. Monsen – April 2010

Servants of the Lord have always counseled us to dress appropriately to show respect for our Heavenly Father and for ourselves. The way you dress sends messages about yourself to others and often influences the way you and others act. Dress in such a way as to bring out the best in yourself and those around you. Avoid extremes in clothing and appearance, including tattoos and piercings.[249]

D. Todd Christofferson – October 2010

Acknowledging these truths and the direction of President Thomas S. Monson in last April’s general conference, we would certainly not deface our body, as with tattoos; or debilitate it, as with drugs; or defile it, as with fornication, adultery, or immodesty. As our body is the instrument of our spirit, it is vital that we care for it as best we can. We should consecrate its powers to serve and further the work of Christ. Said Paul, “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God” (Romans 12:1).[250]

Elaine S. Dalton - 2011

Then-Young Women General President Elaine S. Dalton in her 2011 book A Return to Virtue:

I know that you want to be happy. Maybe you worry about your circumstances. Don’t worry. We have the plan of happiness, and keeping the commandments will make you happy! As part of that plan, you were given a body. It is a precious gift whereby you can exercise your agency and put your faith and obedience into action. Your body houses your eternal spirit. Have you ever noticed that nearly all of Satan’s attacks are directed at your body? Pornography, immodesty, tattoos, immorality, drug abuse, and addiction are all efforts to take possession of this precious gift. This was a gift he was denied. Care for yourself; be modest and be clean. Do everything you can to be free from anything that would harm your body. Be strictly obedient to the standards in For the Strength of Youth. Virtue yields strength, and the blessings of being virtuous are freedom and happiness.[251]

For the Strength of Youth – 2011

The 2011 edition of For the Strength of Youth, echoing the 2001 edition, clearly states that one one should "not disfigure [themselves] with tattoos or body piercings."[252]

Elaine S. Dalton – April 2013

When you came to the earth, you were given the precious gift of a body. Your body is the instrument of your mind and a divine gift with which you exercise your agency. This is a gift that Satan was denied, and thus he directs nearly all of his attacks on your body. He wants you to disdain, misuse, and abuse your body. Immodesty, pornography, immorality, tattoos and piercings, drug abuse, and addictions of all kinds are all efforts to take possession of this precious gift—your body—and to make it difficult for you to exercise your agency.[253]

Dallin H. Oaks – February 2019

The Deseret News reported on February 10, 2019 that President Dallin H. Oaks told 65,000 at a devotional to avoid "tattoos, piercings, immodesty and pornography, calling such things 'grafitti on your personal temple.'"[254]

For the Strength of Youth: A Guide for Making Choices (2022)

The newest edition of the For the Strength of Youth pamphlet asks and answers its own question:

What is the Lord’s standard on dress, grooming, tattoos, and piercings? The Lord’s standard is for you to honor the sacredness of your body, even when that means being different from the world. Let this truth and the Spirit be your guide as you make decisions—especially decisions that have lasting effects on your body. Be wise and faithful, and seek counsel from your parents and leaders.[255]

The Scriptural Case Against Tattoos

The scriptural record does not have much to say explicitly about tattoos. That said, we can still defend the Church’s standard from them.

Leviticus 19:28

The only explicit reference to tattoos is in Leviticus 19:28 which tells us “Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the Lord.” The New Revised Standard Version translated this verse as “You shall not make any gashes in your flesh for the dead or tattoo any marks upon you: I am the Lord.” A similar injunction against cutting oneself is presented in Deuteronomy 14:1. While this prohibition is associated with the Mosaic Law which was done away with Christ's atonement, this scripture can still be instructive for why Church leaders have felt spiritually moved to strongly discourage modern Saints from participating in this practice.

The Catholic Study Bible notes that “[t]his prohibition probably refers only to the common ancient Near Eastern practice of branding a slave with its owner’s name as well as branding the devotees of a god with its name.”[256] The question would then become “Why would God not want the Israelites to tattoo themselves in devotion to Him?” It must have something to do with their collective identity as a people. This was a common practice in the ancient Near East and God asked the Israelites to stand apart from their contemporaries. This will be important moving forward in our examination. That God at one instance has cared about tattoos is telling.

This standard also likely had to do with merely disfiguring the body and corrupting the beautiful gift of God given to them. Regarding this scripture, the NKJV Study Bible notes that “[t]he human body was designed by God, who intended it to be whole and beautiful. Disfiguring the body dishonored God, in whose image the person was created. Cutting one’s flesh for the dead and tattooing (or perhaps painting) one’s body had religious significance among Israel’s pagan neighbors. In Israel, such practices were a sign of rebellion against God.”[257]

1 Corinthians 3:16–17; 6:19–20

Top general Church leaders (as can be seen above) have most often cited a pair of scriptures from 1 Corinthians about our bodies being temples of God.

1 Corinthians 3:16–17 reads:

16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

This scripture isn’t the best to use when justifying a prohibition on tattoos since Paul is here speaking to the local Church in Corinth. The scripture is making a warning to those from outside the Church that bring violence or other harm against those in the Church. It’s only in 6:19-20 that the word “temple” actually refers to the individual believer.[258]

1 Corinthians 6:19–20 reads:

19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.

This is a much better scripture to use when justifying a discouragement from getting tattoos. It testifies that our individual bodies are temples of God where the Holy Spirit can reside. By disfiguring them with tattoos we are disfiguring the creation of God. We should do what we can to take care of our bodies.

Becoming a Peculiar People

The scriptures repeatedly testify that God’s covenant people should be a peculiar people (Deuteronomy 14:2; 26:18; Psalms 135:4; Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 2:9) and that we should be unspotted from the world (James 1:27; Doctrine and Covenants 59:9). By being given and following a strong discouragement on tattoos, we can achieve the goal of being peculiar. Not having tattoos becomes a social identifier—signifying that we are the Lord’s people and wish to be separate from the world.

This separateness can be essential in moving missionary work forward. People are interested in the Church because of the Church’s prohibition on tattoos (and other things obviously). Thus, we can achieve more convert baptisms by doing things that go against cultural grain. We can also achieve greater member retention. Indeed, one of the concerns of those that leave the Church is that they perceive that the Church isn’t unique enough among the world’s organizations, and they go elsewhere seeking to be unique and to be seen. Not getting tattoos, while annoying for some at times, can have delayed and even unseen consequences that can be beneficial for us as a people. It can help all of us be psychologically and spiritually primed to be led to higher levels of spiritual devotion and greater shows of faith.

Jesus said that we should be a light on a hill and show forth our good works among men and women (Matthew 5:16). This is one way we can do that. The success of being peculiar is demonstrated in how many people give us attention for this standard we hold to.

Becoming Meek, Humble, Lowly of Heart, Easy to be Entreated

Obeying this standard gives us a chance to practice being meek/humble/lowly of heart/easy to be entreated—a virtue we are bound by scripture to practice.

Doctrine and Covenants 21:4–5

Doctrine and Covenants 21:4–5 reads:

4 Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;
5 For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

This scripture binds us to giving heed unto all of the prophets words and commandments. Not getting tattoos when the prophet asks us to is one way we can apply this scripture.

Doctrine and Covenants 58:27–29

Doctrine and Covenants 58:27–29 reads:

27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;
28 For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.
29 But he that doeth not anything until he is commanded, and receiveth a commandment with doubtful heart, and keepeth it with slothfulness, the same is damned.

Lovingly accepting the prophet's challenges to not get tattoos without having to have an explicit scripture given by modern revelation bind us to keeping this particular counsel is an excellent way we can apply this scripture in Doctrine and Covenants 58.

Responding to Objections

Cultural Tattoos

Some have said that the Church does not have a like discouragement for members of, for instance, Polynesian cultures that get tattoos as a symbol of rank and status among one’s tribe. As evidence of this, they point to the costumes and tattoos of performers at the Polynesian Cultural Center.

The director of the Polynesian Cultural Center, P. Alfred Grace, was asked about this topic in 2016. His reply was insightful:

The cultural tattoos are actually something that we discourage our employees to use, because while there’s a good cause for it, a good reason, we also feel that there is a higher law, which is to recognize our bodies as temples. And so we’re comfortable with that. For some cultures, it’s still a very significant part of their identification from a rank and status point. For example, in Samoa, the full body tattoo from the chest down to the top of the thigh is still a significant recognition of chiefly rank, so we’re sensitive to that. And while we don’t encourage employees to go away and get it and then return to the PCC, if they come with those kind of markings, we accept it as part of their culture.[259]

Thus, there’s no real allowance or exception of members to get these tattoos. There’s a strong discouragement as there is in other nations where the Church is founded. There is merely a question of not ostracizing those that do get tattoos and come into the Church with them.

Plastic Surgery

Some have protested that those that get plastic surgery on any part of their body are also “disfiguring” their bodies. It may be said that there is a difference between the graffiti placed on the body and disfiguring of it that comes with tattoos and the refiguring of it that comes with corrective surgeries. On the other hand, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland has warned Latter-day Saint women to not get caught up in beauty fashions of the day that they feel that they have to change every part of themselves to fit in.[260]

Cosmetic Tattoos

Some have pointed to the existence of women who tattoo eyebrows for beauty and balding men that tattoo their heads to give the appearance of a hairline. The Church hasn’t mentioned this specifically in its literature; but a response similar to the one about plastic surgery might be given here.

Medical Tattoos

Some also point to the existence of medical tattoos and suggest that these might be acceptable should the person need it. However, bracelets are a good replacement and are the official recommendation, for instance, for the Church’s missionary force.

1 Samuel 16:6–7

Some have said that the Church's standard is against biblical teaching. These critics cite 1 Samuel 16:6–7. Samuel is being directed by the Lord to anoint a new king over Israel among the sons of Jesse: David. Samuel finds Jesse and sees one of his sons Eliab. Samuel then states while looking at Eliab "Surely the Lord’s anointed is before him." To this the Lord responds "Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart."

Those who criticize the Church on these scriptural grounds assume that the scripture is justifying getting tattoos because what is most important is that you don't judge other people for expressing themselves.

The scripture here does not justify making love only attitudinal. The Lord has sized up the heart of Eliab to see if Eliab will do whatever the Lord asks him to in the position of king. This stance taken by critics deemphasizes the need to show love to the Lord and the prophets by being meek and lowly of heart and respecting the gift of our bodies that God gave us. It deemphasizes love for the prophets by encouraging us to not receive all of their words and commandments in all patience and faith and, as we learn often in Church, faith is a principle of action. As Christ said in John 14:15, "If ye love me, keep my commandments." Love, to Jesus, is about action. I can say I love God and the prophets until I'm blue in the face but it won't actually mean anything until I do something to show my love for them.

While we should never withhold friendship or love from those that convert to the Church with tattoos already placed nor from those that are already members and still get tattoos, we also shouldn't be permissive of breaking prophetic counsel.

Doesn't Hurt Others

A final objection to the standard is "It doesn't hurt others, so why should it be so strongly discouraged?" This objection seems to assume that the only things that can be considered right or wrong must have immediate, obvious consequences. But there are many norms that we hold that have delayed, unobvious, and/or sometimes unseen consequences. We're pretty bad as humans at holding to the latter and being patient. Those who have this concern should seek to identify the delayed yet beneficial consequences not getting tattoos provides for us. The moral goods described by the scriptures above are a good place to start.

Changing Policies of the Past

Some have argued that the Church has changed policies/doctrines of the past such as its historical practice of polygamy or it’s restriction on members of African descent from holding the Church’s priesthood and entering its temples. Particularly in regards to the latter, it’s common to hear people say that the leaders of the Church were simply wrong there so why can’t they be wrong about tattoos?

However, it’s not justified to reject a current prophet’s counsel just because it might change in the future or the prophet might be wrong. But we have good reason to believe that the prophet is correct about this. It’s not how we should operate as members of the Church. While the counsel might change in the future, it is the prophet’s prerogative and not ours to decide when we as a Church will change this practice.

Other Reasons to Not Get Tattoos

There are some other reasons to not get tattoos.

Donating Blood and/or Blood Plasma

One is that you can't donate blood plasma for at least a year after you get your tattoo. That is if you get your tattoo at a parlor that is not state regulated. When getting them at a state regulated parlor, you may be able to donate blood and/or plasma immediately after.

Job Employer Trust

While stigma surrounding tattoos has decreased dramatically in recent years, it is still a common preference among employers for their employees to not have tattoos. Not having tattoos will enhance your likelihood of obtaining jobs among employers who do not prefer tattoos and those who are indifferent to them.

Conclusion

While we may occasionally get annoyed at certain standards that come from the Church, when we humbly follow what the Lord’s prophets have asked us to do, it can bring feelings of peace and comfort as well as success in building Zion.

Further Reading


Contents
Articles about Word of Wisdom
19th century
Present day

How is the Word of Wisdom observed in the modern Church?

In more recent times, apostles and prophets have added the use of illegal drugs and misuse of prescription medications to the list of prohibitions

In more recent times, apostles and prophets have added the use of illegal drugs and misuse of prescription medications to the list of prohibitions. [261] The term "hot drinks" is currently officially applied to tea and coffee. [262] Since coffee and tea both contain the stimulant caffeine, a question that sometimes is asked is whether or not the Word of Wisdom prohibits cola drinks. There is no specific prohibition on cola drinks, and this issue is left to an individual's own discretion.

The Word of Wisdom is a fulfillment of prophecy

The Word of Wisdom states that it is given in part because of the "evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days" (D&C 89꞉4). Modern developments have vindicated this prophetic warning.

The Word of Wisdom is a principle of obedience and unity

Furthermore, the Word of Wisdom is a principle of unity, according to Brigham Young:

So we see that almost the very first teachings the first Elders of this Church received were as to what to eat, what to drink, and how to order their natural lives, that they might be united temporally as well as spiritually. This is the great purpose which God has in view in sending to the world, by His servants, the gospel of life and salvation. It will teach us how to deal, how to act in all things, and how to live with each other to become one in the Lord. [263]

Throughout history God’s covenant people have frequently had indicators, or identity markers, which have separated them from the rest of the world

Outward signs are often used to single out God’s covenant people. Such signs have included:

circumcision (Gen. 17:2–14), the Sabbath day (Ex. 31:12–17), endogamy or prohibitions on marriage outside the group (Ezra 10:3), greetings (D&C 88:131-133), and dietary proscriptions, such as the food taboos of Leviticus or the latter-day health code of the Word of Wisdom. [264]

Adherence to the Word of Wisdom is often a mark of a committed Latter-day Saint and is an outward sign of their separation from the world and their participation in the fellowship of God’s covenant people. Non-observance or observance of the Word of Wisdom often reflects one’s commitment (or lack thereof) to their covenants with God as well as a possible indicator as to how one might approach other commandments.

One author noted this tendency when he recalled:

the general perception among young men when I went to high school was that if a girl smoked, she was also more likely to engage in premarital sex. While this was certainly not true in all instances, I know that from the bragging of some misguided boys, the precept was generally accurate. Likewise, those who congregate to consume alcohol, whether at frat parties or bars, are more likely to engage in immoral, illegal, or in general non-typical LDS behavior, than the Church member who doesn’t drink or join others at the bar or party. Many high-school counselors are keenly aware, for instance, that those kids who frequently skip school are more likely to get involved in alcohol, drugs, shop-lifting, and teen pregnancy, and they are more likely not to graduate. It’s a type of group mind-set and approach to life. As the saying goes, "It’s hard to wrestle with pigs, without getting dirty." The Word of Wisdom helps keep our spiritual and physical bodies unspotted from the filth around us. [265]

Do Mormons who do not eat meat "sparingly" violate the Word of Wisdom?

Just as past members struggled as individuals and a group to keep some parts of the Word of Wisdom, it is arguable that some members today likewise struggle

As with the former members, the Lord is merciful and has not yet created a "standard" for meat consumption—each member and his or her conscience settles the matter with him or herself.

With respect to the question of why we do some things (tend to eat lots of meat) but not others (don't drink tea), the reason for that likely has much to do with the concept of following the counsel of living prophets. The current Church Handbook says "hot drinks" means tea and coffee, and it forbids the use of illegal drugs, even though neither "tea" nor illegal drugs are explicitly mentioned in the Word of Wisdom. Like other scriptures, we rely on guidance from living prophets to help us to know how Doctrine and Covenants Section 89 should be applied in our time. With respect to eating meat sparingly, that remains a "word of wisdom," but, unlike refraining from tea, is not mentioned in the current Handbook and has not been publicly mentioned by any General Authorities for many years.

Joseph Fielding Smith made the following statement with regard to eating meat:

While it is ordained that the flesh of animals is for man's food, yet this should be used sparingly. The wording of this revelation is perfectly clear in relation to this subject, but we do not always heed it. [266]

Thus, each member is encouraged to do better, but as in Joseph Smith's day we ought not to attack or dictate to others. If the Lord is displeased with us individually, he can make his will known by revelation. If He is displeased with the Church as a whole, prophetic authority will give the necessary correction.

The Word of Wisdom was enforced differently in the 19th century than today. It was not the strict test of fellowships that it is for the modern member. Members and leaders struggled with its application, and leaders of the Church were clear that while the Lord expected perfect adherence to the Word of Wisdom as an ideal, he was also patient and understanding of everyone—leader and member—who struggled to alter their habits.

In our day, the Word of Wisdom applies in ways in which it did not for Joseph Smith's era—the modern Word of Wisdom forbids a great many other illegal street drugs that received little attention in the 19th century.

Is it true that Mormons are forbidden from drinking cola drinks such as Coke, Pepsi and Dr Pepper?

Many members of the Church choose to abstain from cola drinks as part of their personal application of the Word of Wisdom, however, the use of cola products does not result in a restriction of Church privileges

Many members of the Church choose to abstain from cola drinks as part of their personal application of the Word of Wisdom. But, use of cola products per se does not result in a restriction of Church privileges, while the use of coffee, tea, tobacco, alcohol, or illicit drugs certainly would. Abuse of caffeine (or any other drug or substance) would, however, certainly contradict the spirit and intent of the Word of Wisdom.

Spencer W. Kimball made his own and the Church's view of cola drinks clear:

I never drink any of the cola drinks and my personal hope would be that no one would. However, they are not included in the Word of Wisdom in its technical application. I quote from a letter from the secretary to the First Presidency, 'But the spirit of the Word of Wisdom would be violated by the drinking or eating of anything that contained a habit-forming drug.' With reference to the cola drinks, the Church has never officially taken any attitude on this at but I personally do not put them in the class as with the tea and coffee because the Lord specifically mentioned them [the hot drinks].[267]

Bruce R. McConkie observed:

Some unstable people become cranks...There is no prohibition in Section 89 as to the eating of white sugar, cocoa, chocolate...or anything else except items classified under tea, coffee, tobacco and liquor. If some particular food disagrees with an individual, then that person should act accordingly without reference to the prohibitions in this particular law of health.[268]

President Heber J. Grant was encouraged to forbid cola drinks officially, but declined to do so:

On October 15, 1924, representatives of the Coca-Cola Company called on President Grant to complain that non-Mormon Dr. T. B. Beatty, state Health Director, was using the church organization to assist in an attack on Coca-Cola. They asked President Grant to stop him, but he refused at first, saying that he himself had advised Mormons not to drink the beverage. Beatty, however, had been claiming that there was four to five times as much caffeine in Coke as in coffee, when in fact, as the representatives showed, there were approximately 1.7 grains in a cup of coffee and approximately .43 grains or about a fourth as much in a equivalent amount of Coke. After a second meeting, President Grant said that he was "sure I have not the slightest desire to recommend that the people leave Coca-Cola alone if this amount is absolutely harmless, which they claim it is." Beatty, however, insisted that he would still recommend against its use by children. The question was left unresolved, and evidence indicates that while the First Presidency has taken no official stand on the use of cola drinks, some members urge abstinence.[269]

The Ensign included a wise caution in Dec 2008:

...the Word of Wisdom does not specifically prohibit caffeine. However, I believe that if we follow the spirit of the Word of Wisdom we will be very careful about what we consume, particularly any substance that can have a negative impact on our bodies. This is true regarding any drug, substance, or even food that may be damaging to one's health. This includes caffeine.[270]

Official statement of policy from the First Presidency regarding cola drinks

An official statement of policy from the First Presidency is available:

With reference to cola drinks, the Church has never officially taken a position on this matter, but the leaders of the Church have advised, and we do now specifically advise, against the use of any drink containing harmful habit-forming drugs under circumstances that would result in acquiring the habit. Any beverage that contains ingredients harmful to the body should be avoided.[271]

The Church Handbook of Instructions: "The only official interpretation of "hot drinks" (D&C 89:9) in the Word of Wisdom is the statement made by early Church leaders that the term "hot drinks" means tea and coffee"

The 2010 Church Handbook of Instructions notes:

The only official interpretation of "hot drinks" (D&C 89:9) in the Word of Wisdom is the statement made by early Church leaders that the term "hot drinks" means tea and coffee.

Members should not use any substance that contains illegal drugs. Nor should members use harmful or habit-forming substances except under the care of a competent physician.[272]

See also: Thomas J. Boud, MD, "The Energy Drink Epidemic," Ensign, December 2008. off-site

If Mormons don't drink coffee and tea because it contains caffeine, then why do they consume other products which contain caffeine?

While avoiding caffeine is a legitimate reason for avoiding coffee and tea, it is not the only reason nor is it necessarily the reason the Lord had in mind in giving the revelation

It is claimed that "most Mormons" feel that coffee and tea are prohibited because they contain caffeine. However, it is irrelevant what "most Mormons" claim as their reason for avoiding coffee and tea. The Word of Wisdom itself gives no indication of the reasons these substances are to be avoided—it only states that they should be. While avoiding caffeine is a legitimate reason for avoiding coffee and tea, it is not the only reason nor is it necessarily the reason the Lord had in mind in giving the revelation.

It is a common misconception, among both members and non-members, that the Word of Wisdom exists only to promote the health of the members. Health protection is an important benefit of the Word of Wisdom. That is made clear by verses 18-20 of Doctrine and Covenants 89. But an equally important reason for the Word of Wisdom is the promise given in the last verse of D&C 89, in which the members are told:

And I, the Lord, give unto them a promise, that the destroying angel shall pass by them, as the children of Israel, and not slay them.(D&C 89꞉21)

This refers to the last curse put on the Egyptians prior to the Exodus from Egypt. The Israelites were to mark their houses with lamb's blood at the first Passover. Houses so marked were protected from the "destroying angel." (See Exodus 12:1-30.)

Is lamb's blood "magic?" Does it repel angels like garlic does vampires? Hardly. Rather, we understand the blood to be a symbol of the covenant between God and Israel, and Christians understand it to be a foreshadowing of the culmination of that covenant as the blood of Jesus Christ protects from sin and destruction those who enter into a covenant with Him.

Thus, the Word of Wisdom functions in a similar way—it "marks us" as people under covenant to God. Consumption of coffee and tea is a common practice in many cultures—when others notice a member of the Church abstaining, it sets them apart as willing to forgo something that is culturally popular. This reinforces our duty to keep our covenants in both our own minds and in the eyes of others.

Some Health Benefits to Not Drinking Hot Drinks

A study printed in the International Journal of Cancer recently reported these startling findings: Drinking very hot beverages appears to raise the risk of esophageal cancer by as much as four times. The researchers analyzed results from five studies involving nearly three thousand people. The study found that hot beverages did increase the cancer risk. The study provided evidence of a link between esophageal cancer induced by the consumption of very hot drinks.[273] Another report by Swiss researchers found that a component in coffee (chlorogenic acid) actually destroyed much of the body's thiamin after one quart of coffee was consumed in three hours.[274] Other reported effects of drinking coffee are more controversial and have yet to be firmly proven.[275] At any rate, it is clear that just because "most Mormons" avoid coffee and tea due to concerns about caffeine, the presence of the stimulant is not the only reason the Lord may have invoked a prohibition against these substances.

Why are "hot drinks" forbidden by the Word of Wisdom?

Members of the Church keep the Word of Wisdom because they are obedient to the commandments of God

Members of the Church keep the Word of Wisdom because they are obedient to the commandments of God. The Word of Wisdom is one sign of their membership in the covenant.

Historical circumstances at the time of Joseph Smith may have given a wider application to cautions against "hot drinks" than the current policy

Historical circumstances at the time of Joseph Smith may have given a wider application to cautions against "hot drinks" than the current policy. If true, this demonstrates the pattern by which Joseph claimed the Church should always be governed: "by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed."[276]

According to the Church Administration Handbook:

The only official interpretation of "hot drinks" (D&C 89:9) in the Word of Wisdom is the statement made by early Church leaders that the term "hot drinks" means tea and coffee. Members should not use any substance that contains illegal drugs. Nor should members use harmful or habit-forming substances except under the care of a competent physician.
—Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Handbook 2: Administering the Church—2010 (Intellectual Reserve, 2010). Selected Church Policies and Guidelines 21.3.11

The only revealed answer to the question of why hot drinks (interpreted at present as coffee and tea) are prohibited by the Word of Wisdom is "because God told us they are"

The only revealed answer to the question of why hot drinks (interpreted at present as coffee and tea) are prohibited by the Word of Wisdom is "because God told us they are." Faithful members of the Church accept the revelations recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants as scripture, as sustained by a personal witness of the Holy Spirit.

Some members have pointed out that caffeine is contained in both coffee and tea, and that this substance has potential harmful effects.[277]

While the only official application of the term "hot drinks" is to tea and coffee,[278] an official statement of policy from the First Presidency is available, in which the use of any habit-forming drug is discouraged:

With reference to cola drinks, the Church has never officially taken a position on this matter, but the leaders of the Church have advised, and we do now specifically advise, against the use of any drink containing harmful habit-forming drugs under circumstances that would result in acquiring the habit. Any beverage that contains ingredients harmful to the body should be avoided.[279]

Such principles have led some members to include other caffeine-contained substances, such as cola drinks, in their application of the Word of Wisdom. But, use of cola products does not result in a restriction of Church privileges, while the use of coffee, tea, tobacco, alcohol, or illicit drugs certainly would.

It is a common misconception, among both members and non-members, that the Word of Wisdom exists primarily, or only, to promote the health of the members

It is a common misconception, among both members and non-members, that the Word of Wisdom exists primarily, or only, to promote the health of the members. Health protection is an important "side benefit," one might say, but arguably the most important reason for the Word of Wisdom is the promise given in the last verse of D&C 89, in which the members are told:

And I, the Lord, give unto them a promise, that the destroying angel shall pass by them, as the children of Israel, and not slay them.(D&C 89꞉21)

This refers to the last curse put on the Egyptians prior to the Exodus from Egypt. The Israelites were to mark their houses with lamb's blood at the first Passover. Houses so marked were protected from the "destroying angel." (See Exodus 12:1-30.)

Is lamb's blood "magic?" Does it repel angels like garlic does vampires? Hardly. Rather, we understand the blood to be a symbol of the covenant between God and Israel, and Christians understand it to be a foreshadowing of the culmination of that covenant as the blood of Jesus Christ protects from sin and destruction those who enter into a covenant with Him.

Thus, the Word of Wisdom functions in a similar way—it "marks us" as people under covenant to God. Consumption of coffee and tea is a common practice in many cultures—when others notice a member of the Church abstaining, it sets them apart as willing to forgo something that is culturally popular. This reinforces our duty to keep our covenants in both our own minds and in the eyes of others.

Some historical factors provide grounds for speculation about possible health and non-health reasons for the scripture's "hot drinks" prohibition

Orthodox medical care in Joseph Smith's day was based around what was called a "heroic" tradition. This school of thought went back to Galen, and invoked the four humours of yellow bile, black bile, phlegm, and blood. Disease was thought to be caused by an "imbalance" in these humours, and treatment aimed to restore the balance. In practice this was often done through blood-letting (bleeding) and purging (inducing vomiting and/or diarrhea).

The agent of choice for the orthodox physicians was calomel, or mercurous chloride. This treatment was popularized by Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, who treated victims of a yellow fever epidemic with it. When some patients survived both the yellow fever and Rush's misguided attmept to "treat" them with calomel and bleeding, he wrote a book that influenced medical practice in the United States for over a century. This doctrine was firmly in place in Joseph Smith's day.[280]

A heroic physician treated Joseph's older brother, Alvin, for an attack of "bilious colic" (likely acute appendicitis). Lucy Mack Smith recorded the outcome:

Alvin was taken very sick with the bilious colic. He came to the house in much distress, and requested his father to go immediately for a physician. He accordingly went, obtaining one by the name of Greenwood, who, on arriving, immediately administered to the patient a heavy dose of calomel. I will here notice, that this Dr. Greenwood was not the physician commonly employed by the family; he was brought in consequence of the family physician's absence. And on this account, as I suppose, Alvin at first refused to take the medicine, but by much persuasion, he was prevailed on to do so. This dose of calomel lodged in his stomach, and all the medicine afterwards freely administered by four very skillful physicians could not remove it. On the third day of his sickness, Dr. McIntyre, whose services were usually employed by the family, as he was considered very skillful, was brought, and with him four other eminent physicians. But it was all in vain, their exertions proved unavailing, just as Alvin said would be the case--he told them the calomel was still lodged in the same place, after some exertion had been made to carry it off, and that it must take his life.[281]

Such failures of heroic medicine predisposed the Smiths (with many of their contemporaries) to skepticism about orthodox "heroic" medicine.

Another medical system arose in the early 1800s: Thompsonian herbalism. Thompson patented his system, and opposed the heroics' measures—however, in many cases, his treatments were little better. Rather than using calomel, he used lobelia, or "wild Indian tobacco" as a cathartic and purgative. One could become a Thompsonian "doctor" simply by paying a $20.00 license fee to use Thompson's patents. Prominent Thompsonian physicians associated with the Latter-day Saints included Frederick G. Williams, Thomas B. Marsh, Sampson Avard, and Willard, Levi, and Phineas Richards.[282]

Joseph tended to use the Thompsonian physicians more than the orthodox, but he preached caution in the use of both calomel and lobelia:

Calomel doctors will give you calomel to cure a sliver in the big toe; and they do not stop to know whether the stomach is empty or not; and calomel on an empty stomach will kill the patient. And the lobelia [herbal] doctors will do the same. Point me out a patient and I will tell you whether calomel or lobelia will kill him or not, if you give it.[283]

Furthermore, many of the orthodox physicians in the Church—including John C. Bennett, William Law, and Robert Foster—were eventually to attack Joseph. And, Thompsonian opposition to the use of such drugs as quinine prevented an effective remedy from being used by the Saints.[284]

The herbal medications of the Thompsonians and orthodox physicians were generally administered by "percolating one pound of crude botanical with one pint of alcohol; teas were similarly prepared."[285]

Some have suggested, then, that the Lord's caution against "hot drinks" was a warning against the use of some of the extreme treatments advocated by the Thompsonian herbalists. The presence of Thompsonianism can be noted in the Word of Wisdom, which remarks that "tobacco is not good for the belly." This strikes the modern reader as strange—who would actually eat tobacco? But, in Joseph Smith's day, large doses of lobelia teas were consumed in order to induce purging.

This reading is perhaps supported by the fact that a Times and Seasons account of a discourse by Hyrum Smith said:

Again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly. There are many who wonder what this can mean, whether it refers to tea or coffee, or not. I say it does refer to tea and coffee.[286]

If there was confusion about the meaning of "hot drinks," it may be that at least some members understood the caution against hot drinks to extend to other beverages prepared hot, such as the infusions or teas of the heroics or Thompsonians.

On the other hand, Thompson himself sometimes referred to tea and coffee as "hot drinks," so the choice of wording may simply reflect common "medical" terminology in Joseph Smith's environment.[287]

In any case, the understanding that tea and coffee were intended by the term "hot drinks" is evident in the historical record by 1833 and 1834.[288]

Do Mormons really believe that drinking tea (or alcohol, etc.) is "morally wrong"?

The abstinence from tea and coffee is a moral issue for Latter-day Saints in that following it is a sign of keeping promises they have made with God

Mormons don't drink tea regardless of temperature, because they believe God's prophet and the authoritative interpreter today says, "Don't drink tea." It is a sign of covenants and promises they have made.

See also: Word of Wisdom: history of its enforcement, Joseph and medicinal "violation" of the Word of Wisdom, and Tea prevents exaltation?

When someone makes a promise to another, they want to uphold that promise. Keeping promises is a sign that someone loves the person that they've promised something to. Latter-day Saints have promised God that they will obey the Word of Wisdom. In exchange, God has promised that he will provide health to them and that he will count them as among his people (Doctrine and Covenants 89:18–21).

Latter-day Saint thus count keeping the Word of Wisdom as a moral issue because they follow Jesus' ethic of loving God with all your heart, might, mind and strength by keeping his commandments and loving their neighbor as themselves (Matthew 22:37–40).

Members of the Church do not follow the Word of Wisdom strictly because of health reasons, but also because God, speaking to prophets, has given these instructions to his people today as a social identifier

It is a common misconception, among both members and non-members, that the Word of Wisdom exists primarily, or only, to promote the health of the members. Health protection is an important benefit of the Word of Wisdom. This is made clear by verses 18-20 of the revelation. But an equally the most important reason for the Word of Wisdom is the promise given in the last verse of D&C 89, in which the members are told:

And I, the Lord, give unto them a promise, that the destroying angel shall pass by them, as the children of Israel, and not slay them.(D&C 89꞉21)

This refers to the last curse put on the Egyptians prior to the Exodus from Egypt. The Israelites were to mark their houses with lamb's blood at the first Passover. Houses so marked were protected from the "destroying angel." (See Exodus 12:1-30.)

Is lamb's blood "magic?" Does it repel angels like garlic does vampires? Hardly. Rather, we understand the blood to be a symbol of the covenant between God and Israel, and Christians understand it to be a foreshadowing of the culmination of that covenant as the blood of Jesus Christ protects from sin and destruction those who enter into a covenant with Him.

Thus, the Word of Wisdom functions in a similar way—it "marks us" as people under covenant to God. Consumption of coffee and tea is a common practice in many cultures—when others notice a member of the Church abstaining, it sets them apart as willing to forgo something that is culturally popular. This reinforces our duty to keep our covenants in both our own minds and in the eyes of others.

Some question why it is that we interpret "hot drinks" as only pertaining to coffee and tea. The answer is that that is how Joseph Smith, the prophet who received this revelation, interpreted "hot drinks" in his mind while receiving the revelation. Joseph Smith's model of revelation is one in which God can select mental content that we have previously produced as something that he would like to teach or emphasize to us (Doctrine and Covenants 9:8–9). It is also one in which God speaks to prophets according to their own language and understanding so that they can comprehend His commandments (Doctrine and Covenants 1:24).

Latter-day Saints also believe that this is a moral issue because of "of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days[.]"

The third verse of Doctrine and Covenants 89 states that the Word of Wisdom was given (at last in part) "[in] consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days[.]"[289] Thus it may be that the Word of Wisdom is about the health benefits or detriments of coffee and tea in and of themselves, but of the health detriments brought about by what other people will do to coffee and tea. We may consume these products unaware of how they have been altered to harm us in some way. If these products do harm to us, there is potential that we are not able to keep all of God's commandments and in the way that we would have us keep them.

Drinking things that impair your judgement can be morally wrong

In the case of alcohol, it can impair your judgement and make it so that you hurt others. It might be argued persuasively that engaging activities in which you may or may not hurt others (and when you really don't know that it won't hurt others) is a morally wrong thing to do.

Why did Joseph Fielding Smith say that the consumption of tea may bar someone from the celestial kingdom?

Critics count on "presentism"—they hope readers will judge historical figures by the standards of our day, instead of their day

Critics of the Church wish to emphasize that there is a "contradiction" in which one prophet says tea can prevent exaltation, while another prophet—Joseph Smith—is recorded as drinking tea. However, in contrast with Joseph Smith's day, more than a hundred years has passed since church leaders implemented a more stringent application of the Word of Wisdom. Thus, Joseph Fielding Smith's remarks apply to those under the current standards and laws. D&C 89 was clear that the revelation was from God, but it was not made a commandment or "point of fellowship" until the twentieth century.

The Word of Wisdom was enforced differently in the 19th century than today

The Word of Wisdom was not the strict test of fellowship in the 19th century Church that it is for the modern member. Members and leaders struggled with its application, and leaders of the Church were clear that while the Lord expected perfect adherence to the Word of Wisdom as an ideal, he was also patient and understanding of everyone—leader and member—who struggled to alter their habits.

Source(s) of the criticism
Critical sources

How does the fact that Jesus drank wine relate to the Word of Wisdom?

Jesus (and other people in the Old and New Testaments) drank fermented wine

Yes, Jesus (and other people in the Old and New Testaments) drank fermented wine. Unlike us today, they were not under any commandment not to do so.

The Word of Wisdom is a law specifically given to the Saints in the last days: It is not a universal or natural law

The Word of Wisdom is a law specifically given to the Saints in the last days (D&C 89:4). It is not a universal or natural law—like God's law against murder—that applies to all mankind in all ages. The Word of Wisdom does not apply to non-Latter-day Saints (D&C 89:3), and it did not apply to the Lord's covenant people before the restoration of the Gospel in the last days. It is a circumstantial commandment: One that is given to a particular people at a particular time and place. So it was not "wrong" for the Savior and his apostles to drink fermented wine at the Last Supper, or at the wedding at Cana, or in other circumstances.

In fact, the Word of Wisdom was initially given to the restored Church "not by commandment or constraint" (D&C 89:2) as, essentially, "divine advice." The early Latter-day Saints didn't live it as strictly as we do. (Joseph Smith and his companions drank a bit of wine in Carthage Jail to revive their spirits.) Acting under inspiration, later Church leaders gradually gave the Word of Wisdom more emphasis, until living it became a requirement for a temple recommend in the 1920s under President Heber J. Grant.

The Word of Wisdom is a commandment specifically given to us, "in consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days" (D&C 89:4). These conspiracies didn't exist in Jesus' time, and have only recently become a serious problem, as advertising and marketing of alcohol makes it look "fun," but ignores the serious effects of alcoholism, spouse and child abuse, drunk driving, and so forth.

Does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints own stock in businesses that are not consistent with the Church's standards?

The Church does not refuse to accept any lawfully traded security based on the products they sell, because all such donations are treated equally: They are sold

Some claim that the Church, as a corporate entity, controls business properties that are not consistent with its stated purposes. Examples include:

  • claims that the Church owns controlling stock in the Coca-Cola company
  • claims that the Church owns stock in tobacco companies
  • claims that the Church owns stock in alcohol companies

It may be technically true that for a few minutes, hours, or days, the Church has been at least part owner of some companies whose products or behavior does not match the Church's interests or standards. However, such claims as used by critics are designed to mislead, since the Church did not seek interest in any such company, and sells its interest as soon as it acquires it.

The Church does not refuse to accept any lawfully traded security based on the products they sell, because all such donations are treated equally—they are sold.

The Church has what is called the "donations in kind" office that manages issues related to real estate, stocks and bonds, and other "non-cash" contributions

The Church has what is called the "donations in kind" office that manages issues related to real estate, stocks and bonds, and other "non-cash" contributions. Interested parties can call Church headquarters and ask to be connected to this department, which will provide frank information about the Church's policy in this area.

It is the Church's practice to automatically liquidate all stocks/bonds provided to the donations in kind office as soon as they can be sold. Any stock donations made to the Church are never held by the Church or its corporations, but are converted into cash and then used for Church purposes.

The church receives a lot of these types of donations because of the favorable tax treatment the donor receives. In the United States, the IRS code allows for an individual who has a long term potential capital gain in a stock (i.e., they have owned it for more than 1 year) to donate the stock to a non-profit organization and receive a tax deductible donation credit against their taxes based on the full value of the holding without having to also recognize the gain and be taxed on the gain.

For example, if you bought stock for $10 and donate when it is worth $110, you get to remove $110 from your taxable earnings (which at the 33% tax bracket benefits you with not paying $36 in taxes). If you had sold the stock and donated the money, you would have had to realize a gain of $100 and had to pay taxes on that ($33), and then you would get the credit for the donation which would offset the gain.

As can be seen, when one can donate without selling, one essentially gets the best of both worlds, and it can result in substantial tax savings, with no loss to the charity to which one is donating. For this reason, estates that make sizeable donations to the Church usually do so with long term capital holdings, like stock, in order to realize the greatest tax benefits. This means that such donations are a very common event in Church finances.

Because the Church can neither control which stocks are donated, nor which stocks are in mutual fund shares that are donated, there have doubtless been times when interest in companies whose products are not in keeping with Church standards have been donated. Furthermore, stock index funds contain investments in all the stocks in that index (such as the Dow Jones Industrials, the S&P 500, and the Willshire 5000). Usually, this includes companies in industries inconsistent with the Church position.

The financial data for every publicly-traded corporation (i.e., a corporation with stock for sale at a stock exchange) is held in the Edgar data base of the Securities and Exchange Commission. This data is publically available on-line, at such sites as:

This data includes a list of "significant shareholders," which are typically those who own >5% of the total stock price. Any critic who claims the Church has on-going interest in a company should prove the claim by providing data showing that the Church indeed holds significant interest.

There have thus been instances in the past where reportable donations were made (>5%), and when the church received and then liquidated the holdings as a matter of public record. Yet, this does not mean that the Church purchased stock in these companies, or had continued to profit from stock held in such companies. The Church merely received a donation, which it liquidated in accordance with its standard financial practices.

Should Latter-day Saints eat fruit seasonally?

Introduction to Question

The Word of Wisdom, contained in Doctrine and Covenants 89, tells us that "all wholesome herbs God hath ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man—Every herb in the season thereof, and every fruit in the season thereof; all these to be used with prudence and thanksgiving." So not only are fruits and vegetables in their season good for you, but your entire constitution and nature as a human being, the way your body is put together, demands that you eat fruit and vegetables seasonally in order to reap the most health benefit from it.

The 1828 Webster’s Dictionary notes of the meaning of ‘herb’ that it "comprehends all the grasses, and numerous plants used for culinary purposes."

There are many benefits to eating produce seasonally. Julie M. Goolsby and Megan Fahey note that it’s healthier for you, the produce tastes better, it’s better for the environment, and it’s cheaper.[290]

One might ask when the season is for all these fruits and vegetables? Below we provide a resource for the peak seasons for all fruits and vegetables.

Response to Question

Seasonal Food Guide

The best resource for anyone, and especially for those living in the United States, is seasonalfoodguide.org. This allows you to pick a state and a month and it will tell you exactly what is in season in that state during that time of year.

Other resources more local to you may need to be found online or in local libraries.


Notes

  1. ↑ See for instance Strong's Concordance of the King James Bible and/or the concordances of the triple combination done by Gary Shapiro and Eldin Ricks.
  2. ↑ Alma 34:29
  3. ↑ Moroni 7:44
  4. ↑ Matthew 22:34–40
  5. ↑ See also Moses 4:3.
  6. ↑ Moroni 7:45
  7. ↑ Matthew 16:26
  8. ↑ Matthew 22:34–40
  9. ↑ Mosiah 4:27
  10. ↑ Moroni 7:8
  11. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 70:14
  12. ↑ George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), 131.
  13. ↑ John 14:15
  14. ↑ 1 John 3:18
  15. ↑ Matthew 5:38-48
  16. ↑ Abraham 3:18
  17. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 132:19–20
  18. ↑ Genesis 1:26, 28; Moses 2:26–28; Abraham 4:26–28
  19. ↑ Proverbs 3:11–12; Hebrews 12:5–6; Helaman 15:3
  20. ↑ Mosiah 4:26
  21. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 59:6
  22. ↑ Genesis 2:21–24; Matthew 19:3–9; Doctrine & Covenants 49:15–17; Moses 3:21–24; Abraham 5:14–18.There is controversy among biblical scholars as to whether or not the scriptures prohibit homosexual behavior. Interpretations of scripture that allow homosexual behavior are in the minority. For the dominant exegesis of scripture that prohibits it, see Robert A. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002); Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics (New York: HarperOne, 1996), 379–406 online at https://www.heartlandchurch.org/d/The_Moral_Vision_of_the_New_Testament_excerpt.pdf. For another source accessible online that gives faithful and accurate perspectives, see 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.
  23. ↑ Jacob 2:21
  24. ↑ 2 Nephi 2:25
  25. ↑ Romans 8:6,7
  26. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 77:1–4
  27. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 89:15
  28. ↑ Matthew 22:37; John 14:15
  29. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 59:9–13
  30. ↑ Colossians 3:14
  31. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 88:125
  32. ↑ Philippians 2:2
  33. ↑ Moses 7:18
  34. ↑ 1 John 4:8
  35. ↑ Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24
  36. ↑ Bennet Helm, "Love", in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/love/.
  37. ↑ For a concordance of the King James Bible, see James Strong, ed., Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009). For the triple combination, see Eldon Ricks, ed., Eldin Ricks's Thorough Concordance of the LDS Standard Works (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1995).
  38. ↑ Abraham 3:18
  39. ↑ Doctrine and Covenants 132:19-20
  40. ↑ Genesis 1:26, 28; Moses 2:26-28; Abraham 4:26-28
  41. ↑ “Worthy,” Webster’s Dictionary 1828, accessed October 4, 2021, http://www.webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/worthy
  42. ↑ Doctrine and Covenants 21:4–5
  43. ↑ 1 John 4:8
  44. ↑ Romans 8:38-39
  45. ↑ The reference to the plan of Satan refers to the scene portrayed in the Book of Moses where the gods take counsel with one another before sending spirits into the world and Satan presents a plan for the spirits that was rejected. See Moses 4 in the Pearl of Great Price.
  46. ↑ ”Freedom,” Webster’s Dictionary 1828, accessed August 31, 2021, http://www.webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/freedom.
  47. ↑ ”Agency,” Webster’s Dictionary 1828, accessed August 31, 2021, http://www.webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/agency.
  48. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 93:24
  49. ↑ For just three of dozens of references, see 1 Nephi 3:30; 5:13; 13:20
  50. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 21:5. This revelation in context referred to Joseph Smith but easily applies to his successors.
  51. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 121:16
  52. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 1:25
  53. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 1:27
  54. ↑ Matthew 22:34-40; Moses 7:18
  55. ↑ Ephesians 2:20, 4:14
  56. ↑ Matthew 12:25
  57. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "Criticism," Ensign 17, no. 2 (February 1987): 68. "Faultfinding, evil speaking, and backbiting are obviously unchristian. The Bible commands us to avoid 'evil speakings.' (See 1 Peter 2:1.) It tells us to 'Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you.' (Ephesians 4:31.) Modern revelations direct us to avoid 'backbiting,' 'evil speaking,' and 'find[ing] fault one with another.' (See [ Doctrine & Covenants 20:53–54 ]; 42:27; 88:124; and 136:23)."
  58. ↑ "Admonish," Webster's 1828 Dictionary, accessed June 16, 2021, http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/admonish. Emphasis added.
  59. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 6:19
  60. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 112:12
  61. ↑ Kent P. Jackson and Robert D. Hunt, "Reprove, Betimes, and Sharpness in the Vocabulary of Joseph Smith," Religious Educator 6, no. 2 (2005): 97–104.
  62. ↑ Oaks, "Criticism," 71–72.
  63. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 42:12–13, 56–60; 105:58–59
  64. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 21:4–5; Doctrine & Covenants 28:2
  65. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 107:27
  66. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 26:2; 28:13
  67. ↑ Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954–56), 3:203–204.
  68. ↑ Russell M. Nelson, "The Book of Mormon: What Would Your Life be Like without It?" Ensign 47, no. 11 (November 2017): 62–63.
  69. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 58:26-29
  70. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 21:4-6
  71. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 107:99.
  72. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, “Prayers and Answers,” Ensign 9, no. 11 (November 1979): 19–20.
  73. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "Revelation," New Era 11, no. 9 (September 1982): 45–46.
  74. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 68:3–5
  75. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 68:22–24; 107:81
  76. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 107:82–84
  77. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 88:77–80
  78. ↑ Brigham Young, Discourses of Brigham Young: Second President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, comp. John A. Widtsoe (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1954), 4. Quoting Journal of Discourses 11:375
  79. ↑ Larry E. Dahl and Donald Q. Cannon, eds., The Teachings of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1997), 129. Citing Joseph Smith, ed., History of the Church, 7 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1978), 2:477.
  80. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 50:24
  81. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 1:25–27
  82. ↑ This article is largely adapted from Gregory Smith, “What Should I Do If I Think I’ve Received Revelation Different from Apostles and Prophets?” FAIR Blog, January 11, 2016, https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2016/01/11/what-should-i-do-if-i-think-ive-received-revelation-different-from-apostles-and-prophets.
  83. ↑ Isaiah 5:20; Moroni 7:12–19
  84. ↑ Henry B. Eyring, "The Faith to Ask and Then to Act," Liahona 45, no. 11 (November 2021): 75.
  85. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, “Teaching and Learning by the Spirit,” Ensign 27, no. 3 (March 1997): 14.
  86. ↑ Helaman 4:24; Doctrine & Covenants 112:20, 30.
  87. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 50:1–3.
  88. ↑ Moroni 7:20–25; Joseph Smith - Matthew 1:37.
  89. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 50:31–33; 52:14–19.
  90. ↑ Helaman 16:22.
  91. ↑ Alma 30:60.
  92. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, “Our Strengths Can Become Our Downfall,” Ensign 24, no. 10 (October 1994): 13–14.
  93. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 58:26–28.
  94. ↑ Clyde J. Williams, ed., The Teachings of Howard W. Hunter (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1997), 184.
  95. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 28:1–7; Doctrine & Covenants 43:1–7.
  96. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 107:99.
  97. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, “Prayers and Answers,” Ensign 9, no. 11 (November 1979): 19–20. See also Doctrine & Covenants 50:1–3; 50:31–33; 52:14–19.
  98. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "Revelation," New Era 11, no. 9 (September 1982): 45–46.
  99. ↑ Joseph F. Smith, Anthon H. Lund, Charles W. Penrose, “A Warning Voice,” Improvement Era 20 (Sept. 1913): 1148–49. The canon of the Church is accepted as its official doctrine. Scripture is binding on all Latter-day Saints. See this page on the wiki.
  100. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 136:31.
  101. ↑ 1 Nephi 2:16.
  102. ↑ Ether 12:6.
  103. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 50:24.
  104. ↑ Matthew 7:7.
  105. ↑ Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 18:247 (23 July 1874).
  106. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, “Revelation in a Changing World,” Ensign 19, no. 11 (November 1989): 16.
  107. ↑ Ether 12:6.
  108. ↑ Deseret News editorial, George Q. Cannon, editor, impression of 3 November 1869; reprinted in George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1974), 493.
  109. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "Criticism," Ensign 17, no. 2 (February 1987): 71–72.
  110. ↑ Articles of Faith 1:13; Doctrine & Covenants 121:16.
  111. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 121:16.
  112. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 12:2; Alma 42:21.
  113. ↑ Alma 12:9–10.
  114. ↑ 3 Nephi 11:29.
  115. ↑ Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 4:288 (15 March 1857); reprinted in Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, 41
  116. ↑ Joseph F. Smith Correspondence, Personal Letterbooks, 93–94, Film Reel 9, Ms. F271; cited in Dennis B. Horne, ed., Determining Doctrine: A Reference Guide for Evaluating Doctrinal Truth (Roy, UT: Eborn Books, 2005), 221–222. Also in Gary James Bergera, Statements of the LDS First Presidency (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2007), 121.  Bergera indicates it is a letter from Joseph F. Smith to Lillian Golsan, 16 July 1902.
  117. ↑ Joseph Fielding Smith, Conference Report (April 1938): 66; see also Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954–56), 1:288.
  118. ↑ See Numbers 35:25; the cities are established in Joshua 20:.
  119. ↑ 1 Nephi 4꞉6
  120. ↑ 1 Nephi 4꞉11,12,17
  121. ↑ 121.0 121.1 Dale G. Renlund, "A Framework for Personal Revelation," Liahona 46, no. 11 (November 2022).
  122. ↑ Philippians 2:2; 1 Peter 3:15; Moses 7:18.
  123. ↑ General Handbook, 27.2 "The Endowment".
  124. ↑ General Handbook, 38.5.5 "Wearing and Caring for the Garment".
  125. ↑ "What to Wear, How to Sleep, and Other Practical Tips for Hemorrhoid Sufferers," Midwest Hemorrhoid Treatment Center, accessed June 7, 2022, https://www.mwhtc-stl.com/blog/what-to-wear-how-to-sleep-and-other-practical-tips-for-hemorrhoid-sufferers.
  126. ↑ Amanda Freebairn, "Why I Wear the Temple Garment," Public Square Magazine, July 28, 2021, https://publicsquaremag.org/faith/why-i-wear-the-temple-garment/?fbclid=IwAR1Gm_AHhVKUxp7cZ_qy-_8LQJOFf5mfU8E1QGkSaAj_fhkf---5AUg6yCo. For recommendations on how to prevent yeast infections, see Traci C. Johnson, "10 Ways to Prevent Yeast Infections," WebMD, January 16, 2020, https://www.webmd.com/women/guide/10-ways-to-prevent-yeast-infections. For recommendations on how to prevent urinary tract infections, see Mayo Clinic Staff, "Urinary tract infection (UTI)," Mayo Clinic, April 23, 2021, https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/urinary-tract-infection/symptoms-causes/syc-20353447.
  127. ↑ Shishira Sreenivas, "Psoriasis: Tips for Clothing and Bedding," WebMD, accessed June 7, 2022, https://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/psoriasis/psoriasis-clothing-bedding.
  128. ↑ Jon Johnson, "How to deal with an ingrown hair," Medical News Today, June 15, 2017, https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/317951.
  129. ↑ General Handbook, 38.5.5 "Wearing and Caring for the Garment".
  130. ↑ Matthew 22:34-40; John 14:15.
  131. ↑ Matthew 5:16.
  132. ↑ Titus 2:14. See also 1 Peter 2:9.
  133. ↑ For the Strength of Youth (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), 31.
  134. ↑ Matthew 22:34-40
  135. ↑ John 14:15
  136. ↑ True to the Faith (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2004), 106.
  137. ↑ Ibid., 107.
  138. ↑ Ibid., 8.
  139. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 42:56-60
  140. ↑ Genesis 3:21; Moses 4:27
  141. ↑ Alma 1:6, 27, 32; 4:6; 5:53; 31:28; Helaman 13:28; 4 Nephi 1:24
  142. ↑ Alma 1:27
  143. ↑ 1 Timothy 2:9. The author says "the author" of Timothy because modern biblical scholarship is united in affirming that Paul did not write Timothy. See Raymond F. Collins, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus: A Commentary (Nashville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 4.
  144. ↑ 1 Peter 3:3-4
  145. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 42:40
  146. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 36:6
  147. ↑ Jude 1:23
  148. ↑ Deuteronomy 14:2; 26:18; Psalms 135:4; Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 2:9
  149. ↑ James 1:27; Doctrine & Covenants 59:9
  150. ↑ 1 Thessalonians 5:22
  151. ↑ Moroni 7:44
  152. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 21:4–5
  153. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 58:27–29
  154. ↑ Dieter F. Uchtdorf, "A Word for the Hesistant Missionary," Liahona 36, no. 2 (February 2013): 4. Quoting St. Francis of Assisi in William Fay and Linda Evans Shepherd, Share Jesus without Fear (1999), 22.
  155. ↑ Wikipedia has an exhaustive timeline documenting the Church's attitudes towards masturbation over time and up to today. There are two aspects of the article that may be misleading. The first is that the article states that most members do not believe that masturbation is a sin. But the research to support this assertion is an article done in 2005. It is simply not a reliable indicator for how Church members view the practice as of 2022 when this article was last edited. The second aspect is that it relies on the same journal article from 2005 to assert that there was a relative silence on masturbation from the earliest days of the Church to now. But the fact that there was not an explicit mention and condemnation in the earliest days of Church history does not necessarily mean that early Church leaders' attitudes about masturbation weren't negative. It is in the historical contexts of greater sexual permissiveness in society and in the Church that Church leaders have more frequently addressed the topic. There has been a trajectory towards greater and greater sexual permissiveness since the 1800s.
  156. ↑ For the Strength of Youth (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2011), 36. While the pamphlet is more directly addressed to youth, it is clear from reading the actual pamphlet that Church leaders hope that youth will carry the attitudes and standards gleaned from the pamphlet into adulthood. This is confirmed especially when one looks at the injunctions identical to those in FSOY given in the publication True to the Faith: a doctrinal reference work written for all members and approved by the First Presidency. Thus, the pamphlet should be viewed as a relevant text for Latter-day Saints of all ages. Many also claim that the 2011 edition of the pamphlet has removed reference masturbation entirely, but the rhetoric of the pamphlet itself as quoted makes clear that the Church’s prohibition may have actually broadened to other things that stimulate inappropriate sexual desires in one’s body besides masturbation. Whether or not the rhetoric was broadened, the quote as it stands is clearly a euphemistic reference to masturbation.
  157. ↑ True to the Faith (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2004), 32.
  158. ↑ See, for instance, Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1969), 77–78. President Kimball makes comments about homosexuality as he perceived they relate to masturbation here. For info on this, see under "Causing Homosexuality?" in Gregory L. Smith, "Feet of Clay: Queer Theory and the Church of Jesus Christ," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 43 (2021): 209–15. One can also see our wiki article on it here.
  159. ↑ For a positive case, see R. Morgan Griffin, "Can Sex, Masturbation Affect Prostate Cancer Risk?" WebMD, accessed September 11, 2021, https://www.webmd.com/prostate-cancer/ejaculation-prostate-cancer-risk. Literature reviews, however, have been inconclusive as to whether masturbation is the cause of reduced risk of prostate cancer. See Rui Miguel Costa, "Masturbation is related to psychopathology and prostate dysfunction: Comment on Quinsey (2012)," Archives of Sexual Behavior 41, no. 3 (2012): 539–540; Aboul-Enein, Basil H., Joshua Bernstein, and Michael W. Ross, "Evidence for Masturbation and Prostate Cancer Risk: Do We Have a Verdict?" Sexual Medicine Reviews 4, no. 3 (2016): 229–234; Zhongyu Jian et al, "Sexual Activity and Risk of Prostate Cancer: A Dose-Response Meta-Analysis," The Journal of Sexual Medicine 15, no. 9 (September 2018), 1300–09.; Nathan P. Papa et al, "Ejaculatory frequency and the risk of aggressive prostate cancer: Findings from a case-control study," Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations 35, no. 8 (August 2017): 530.e7–530.e13.
  160. ↑ Beverly Whipple et. al, “Elevation of pain threshold by vaginal stimulation in women,” Pain 21, no. 4 (April 1985): 357–67.
  161. ↑ Colleen Doherty, “Can an Orgasm Cure My Headache?” VeryWell Health, last updated September 7, 2021, https://www.verywellhealth.com/orgasm-headache-migraine-1718250.
  162. ↑ David Robson, “Masturbation could bring hay fever relief for men,” New Scientist, April 1, 2009, https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16872-masturbation-could-bring-hay-fever-relief-for-men/?ignored=irrelevant.
  163. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 88:118; 109:7, 14
  164. ↑ David A. Bednar, “We Believe in Being Chaste,” Ensign 43, no. 5 (May 2013): 42.
  165. ↑ For the Strength of Youth, 35. This same attitude about sexuality is reflected in the 1990 and 2001 editions of the pamphlet. Other editions of the pamphlet do not have as extended of discussions regarding sexuality and sexual purity as the 1990, 2001, and 2011 editions.
  166. ↑ There are basically five views that one can take about what the purpose of sex is: procreation, stabilization of a relationship, expression of a good emotion (such as love, peace, or joy), bonding, or recreation. A Latter-day Saint can accept all five views. What they can’t do, and what they’d need to respond to critics about, is ever making sex merely about recreation ever. Sex cannot be merely recreational for a Latter-day Saint. That would justify masturbation, pornography, prostitution, and a myriad other sexual behaviors Latter-day Saints hold to be sinful. It seems that all sexual activity, whether isolated or relational, accomplishes the task of bonding us to someone or something including ourselves potentially. So not only would things like masturbation, pornography, prostitution, and the like be morally wrong for a Latter-day Saint. It’s also just logically impossible to believe that we can engage in sexual activity without bonding emotionally to someone or something. Latter-day Saints would also need to reject that you can separate bonding and recreation from stabilizing a relationship since they hold that sexual activity outside of marriage between a married man and the woman and to accept otherwise would justify things like cohabitation, same-sex relations, and other behaviors they see as sinful. Latter-day Saints can accept that you can separate stabilizing a relationship, bonding, and recreation from procreation since they believe that one of the purposes of sex is to strengthen the emotional bonds between husband and wife so that they can better provide for the needs of their children. It may be wise to reject the stabilization view entirely since it’s not wise to use sex to solve problems or arguments. It can reduce desire in your spouse and make it so that sex is a duty rather than a joy. We could go on, but this brief exposition may be enough to help turn the wheels of people’s mind so they can fill in the rest of the gaps and think better about sex and its purposes .
  167. ↑ Peter L. Crawley, ed., The Essential Parley P. Pratt (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1990), 124.
  168. ↑ Matthew 7:15–20; James 3:11; Moroni 7:11.
  169. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 42:12–13, 56–60
  170. ↑ "Sin," The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed November 26, 2021, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/sin?lang=eng.
  171. ↑ Genesis 2:21–24; Matthew 19:3–9; Mark 10:2–12; Romans 1:20–28; Doctrine & Covenants 49:15–17; Moses 3:21–24; Abraham 5:14–18; The Family: A Proclamation to the World. Some may not believe that the Family Proclamation constitutes an official pronouncement of the church, but several facts contradict this view. See this page for more info. For a solid exegesis of the Romans passage, see Justin W. Starr, "Biblical Condemnations of Homosexual Conduct]," FAIR Papers, 2004, https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/starr-justin-BiblicalHomosexuality.pdf. Another way to argue for this telos is to cite Jacob 2:21 which teaches that we were created unto the end of keeping God's commandments. Doctrine & Covenants 49:15-17 teaches that we are commanded to be married and become one flesh with our spouses. Scripture consistently associates keeping commandments with happiness and flourishing. See, for example, Mosiah 2:41. In order to refute the notion that human males and females have the telos of being sexually united after marriage, one will most likely turn to offering arguments against the existence of God. Latter-day Saints will thus need to know these arguments and how to refute them—something we have discussed elsewhere on the wiki.
  172. ↑ That the joining of the complementary reproductive sexual organs of men and women is the referent “one flesh” is confirmed in scripture and in nature. Scripturally, Eve is the “missing rib” of Adam. God takes Adam’s rib and forms Eve. Scripture then gives us a “therefore” to indicate that for this reason—the reason of Eve being the complementary opposite of Adam and being his missing rib—should they again unite and become “one flesh”. Furthermore, Adam and Eve are commanded to "be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth" (Genesis 1:28; Moses 2:28; Abraham 4:28). That can only happen, in the creation scenario, in the procreative relationship of man and woman. In nature, it's obviously the case that only the organic sexual union of a human male and female can create children.
  173. ↑ It may be important to mention the differences that Latter-day Saints have with Catholics in views of the human sexual telos. The Catholic Church's view of human sexuality makes almost no separation between the unitive purpose of sex (bringing men and women together maritally) and the procreative purpose of it (being open to the possibility of children resulting from the sexual act). This is why the Catholic Church formally opposes all birth control besides the rhythm method. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes that sex should be used for at times procreative ends and at times unitive ends but always in the context of marriage between a man and a woman. When to have children and when to make use of birth control—as well as what method of birth control to use (besides elective abortion, which is condemned)—is between the couple and God through prayer.
  174. ↑ This is almost certainly why Church leaders have been verbally, openly, and strongly skeptical of birth control and oral sex or otherwise issued strong restrictions on them that were later softened. Leaders' past skepticism and rhetoric is often mocked and maligned today, but here with the understanding of the sexual telos of men and women, it becomes much more sensible as to why they were skeptical and harsh: those things can very easily further separate the children of God from understanding their sexual telos and achieving their fullest flourishing found in the procreative relationship of a man and woman. The further one gets from understanding their sexual telos as the procreative union of a man and woman, the more uncomfortable a Latter-day Saint Christian should get.
  175. ↑ C.S. Lewis, Yours, Jack: Spiritual Direction from C.S. Lewis (New York: HarperOne, 2008), 292–93.
  176. ↑ Jason A. Staples, "'Whoever Looks at a Woman With Lust': Misinterpreted Bible Passages #1," Jason A. Staples, August 20, 2009, https://www.jasonstaples.com/bible/most-misinterpreted-bible-passages-1-matthew-527-28/.
  177. ↑ Jason Staples, May 22, 2012 1:20pm, "Comment on," Jason Staples, “'Whoever Looks at a Woman With Lust': Misinterpreted Bible Passages #1” Jason A. Staples (blog), August 20, 2009, https://www.jasonstaples.com/bible/most-misinterpreted-bible-passages-1-matthew-527-28/.
  178. ↑ Will Deming, "Mark 9:42-10:12, Matthew 5:27-32, and b. Nid.13b: A First Century Discussion of Male Sexuality," New Testament Studies 36 (1990): 130–41.
  179. ↑ Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001), 164–69, 176–78.
  180. ↑ Lyn M. Bechtel, “Sex,” in Eerdman’s Dictionary of the Bible, ed. David Noel Freedman (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 1192–93.
  181. ↑ People wrongly assume that just because they are attracted to multiple people that their real telos is to satisfy their attractions to all those people they're attracted to; as many as will consent and are able to give informed consent. But the fact that you're attracted to multiple people may just mean that God wants you to enter into monogamous marriage as soon as possible. It would be odd for God to design us as to be attracted to one and only one person: the person we'll marry. What if that person is born far away from you and you never meet? Is it just for God to limit your sexual and romantic potential to one person? What's wrong with others? How would God design you to only be attracted to the one you'll marry? Doesn't that limit our free exercise of agency and freely choosing righteousness? The theological and philosophical questions raised are manifold and largely unanswerable. The more sensible position is that our telos is still monogamy. That telos is more than abundantly manifested in our design.
  182. ↑ Matthew 22:34–40
  183. ↑ 183.0 183.1 183.2 183.3 Mark H. Butler and Misha D. Crawford, “How Could Avoiding ‘Sexual Soloing’ Be a Good Thing?” Public Square Magazine, September 20, 2021, https://publicsquaremag.org/sexuality-family/how-could-avoiding-sexual-soloing-be-a-good-thing/.
  184. ↑ Alma 12:14; Doctrine & Covenants 121:45
  185. ↑ 1 John 4:8 Alma 41:11
  186. ↑ 1 Corinthians 6:18, NKJV. Emphasis added.
  187. ↑ Mosiah 3:19
  188. ↑ Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible contains this entry defining adultery from an Old Testament perspective: "In the ancient Near East and the OT (Lev. 18:20; 20:10; Deut. 22:22) adultery meant consensual sexual intercourse by a married woman with a man other than her husband. However, intercourse between a married man and another woman was not considered adultery unless she was married. The betrothed woman is also bound to fidelity, but leniency is shown to a married or betrothed man (Exod. 22:16-17[MT 15-16]; Deut. 22:28-29; Prov. 5:15-20; Mal. 2:14-15). Some scholars distinguish between the ancient Near Eastern laws, where adultery was a private wrong against a husband, who could prosecute an offender, and the biblical laws, where adultery was an offense against God, with mandatory prosecution and a sentence of death, or, in some cases, atonement through a sin offering (Lev. 19:20-21). Others argue that biblical and ancient Near Eastern laws agree that adultery was an offense against the husband, with prosecution at his discretion (Prov. 6:32-35). Mistaken paternity and its effect on family inheritance, as well as protection of the husband's economic interest, were the primary reasons why adultery was a sin and included in the Decalogue (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Adultery was also used as a metaphor for Israel's idolatrous and immoral behavior (e.eg., Jer. 3:6-13; 23:9-15; Ezek. 16:30-43; Isa. 57:3-13)." See Hendrik L. Bosman, "Adultery," Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 23–24. It should be noted that the New Testament takes a different perspective on adultery to include relations between a married man and an unmarried woman. See Matthew 5:27-28; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18.
  189. ↑ Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible has this entry defining fornication from a biblical perspective: "In general, illicit sexual intercourse (Heb. zānâ), a sin violating the spirit of the Seventh Commandment (Exod 20:14), which was meant to protect the integrity of the family. Fornication (Gk. porneía) can be linked with adultery (Matt 5:32; 19:9) or distinguished from it (15:19 = Mark 7:21). Committing fornication is noted and rebuked (1 Cor. 6:18; 10:8; Jude 7). Paul advised monogamous marriage "because of cases of sexual immorality" (1 Cor. 7:2). Metaphorically, fornication can describe the corruption of God's people with pagan idolatry (e.g. Her. 2:20-36; Ezek. 16:15-43; Rev. 2:14, 20-22; 17:1-18; 18:2-9). Abstaining from fornication (unchastity) was one of the four conditions demanded of the Gentiles for their admission into the Church by the Jerusalem conference (Acts 15:20, 29)." See Allison A. Trites, "Fornication," Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 469.
  190. ↑ The Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible reads: "The word lust today is used almost exclusively to mean strong sexual desire. In the KJV usage it connotes intense pleasure or delight, or simply an inclination or wish. In the OT "lust" as a noun translates in the KJV a variety of Hebrew words and designates, among other things, an intense desire for holy war (Exod. 15:9), a craving for food (Ps. 78), a desire so strong that "stubbornness" would be a more appropriate translation (Ps. 81:12), and sexual desire (Prov. 6:25). In the NT Gk. epithymía is now more often translated "desire" for what in general in the KJV instead translates "lusts" (Mark 4:19). It can be used for a strong pure desire of Christ (Luke 22:15), a longing to be with Christ (Phil 1:23), a desire to do evil (John 8:44), and adultery (Matt. 5:28) and other impure sexual passions and practices (Romans 1:24; 6:12; Gal. 5:16, 24). In addition to epithymía to indicate sexual desire, the NT also uses Gk. órexis, thymós, hēdoné, and páthos. The context must always be considered in choosing the appropriate translation." See William R. Goodman, "Lust," Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 831.
  191. ↑ James 3:2; Alma 38:12. The author of this article says "the author" of James since it is not known whether James actually wrote James, someone else wrote James and then attributed it to him, or someone who was a close follower of James reworked material originally written by him into Greek literary style and form. See Timothy B. Cargal, "The Letter of James," in The New Oxford Annotated Bible, ed. Michael D. Coogan, 5th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), 2165. Some may believe that the Alma passage has no relevance to masturbation, but the scripture comes right before Alma's letter to his son Corianton which, at the very least, has a lot to do with sexual restraint.
  192. ↑ Deuteronomy 14:2; 26:18; Psalms 135:4; Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 2:9
  193. ↑ James 1:27; Doctrine & Covenants 59:9
  194. ↑ 1 Thessalonians 5:22. The Greek word translated as "appearance" is better translated as "form”. So the scripture is not saying to not do anything that might appear evil, but to abstain from doing anything that is actually evil.
  195. ↑ Moroni 7:44
  196. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 21:4–5
  197. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 58:27–29
  198. ↑ Colossians 3:5. The author of this article says "the author of Colossians" since it remains in debate whether Paul wrote Colossians, someone else wrote it and attributed it to him, or one of his followers adapted material that he had taught and/or written for the audience. Wikipedia has a decent discussion of the relevant issues.
  199. ↑ The existence of an addiction to porn and/or masturbation is debated in academia. Masturbation addiction is not listed in the DSM-5 of the American Psychological Association, for instance. It is more widely agreed that masturbation compulsion exists. The author believes that pornography and masturbation addiction(s) exist. On March 5, 2022, it was reported that the World Health Organization changed the ICD-11 to list “use of pornography” and “masturbation” to the diagnostic criteria for Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder. To see the criteria for CSBD from the ICD-11, see here. Additionally, in August 2011, the American Society of Addiction Medicine released a new definition of addiction that encompasses sex addictions including pornography and masturbation. See "Toss Your Textbooks: Docs Redefine Sexual Behavior Addictions," Your Brain on Porn, accessed May 16, 2023, https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/ybop-articles-on-porn-addiction-porn-induced-problems/the-porn-debate/toss-your-textbooks-docs-redefine-sexual-behavior-addictions/. Finally, on May 4, 2013, it was reported that the National Institute of Mental Health, "the world's largest funding agency for research into mental health," withdrew its support of the DSM-5 because of its lack of validity. Christopher Lane, "The NIMH Withdraws Support for DSM-5," Psychology Today, May 4, 2013, https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/side-effects/201305/the-nimh-withdraws-support-dsm-5. More commentary on the NIMH's withdrawal of support from professionals can be found at "National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH): DSM is flawed and outdated," Your Brain on Porn, accessed May 16, 2023, https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/miscellaneous-resources/the-american-society-for-addiction-medicine-new-definition-of-addiction-august-2011/national-institute-of-mental-health-nimh-dsm-is-flawed-and-outdated/. For information on recovery from excessive masturbation, see Matt Glowiak and Trishanna Sookdeo, “Masturbation Addiction: Signs, Symptoms, and Treatments,” Choosing Therapy, July 14, 2021, https://www.choosingtherapy.com/masturbation-addiction/. For persuasive commentary and research on the reality of masturbation and pornography addiction, see "Research," Your Brain on Porn, accessed September 11, 2021, https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/research/. For a succinct summary of what the Your Brain on Porn website uncovers, see Jacob Z. Hess, "There's One More Atheist in Heaven," Public Square Magazine, May 22, 2021, https://publicsquaremag.org/faith/theres-one-more-atheist-in-heaven/.
  200. ↑ Karen L. Bales, Julie A. Westerhuyzen, Antoniah D. Lewis-Reese, Nathaniel D. Grotte, Jalene A. Lanter, C. Sue Carter, "Oxytocin has Dose-dependent Developmental Effects on Pair-bonding and Alloparental Care in Female Prairie Voles," Hormones and Behavior 52, no. 2 (August 2007): 274–79. Cited in Donald L. Hilton, He Restoreth My Soul: Understanding and Breaking the Chemical and Spiritual Chains of Pornography Addiction Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ (San Antonio: Forward Press Publishing, 2009), 57.
  201. ↑ Hilton, He Restoreth My Soul, 58.
  202. ↑ It is for this same reason (of emotional bonding via oxytocin and vasopressin being so tightly bound to sexual stimulation of the genitals) that there is no such thing as “casual sex”. All sex is imbued with meaning for us as humans. Even if we don’t think there is meaning to this “casual sex” we may or may not be engaged in, our brains and bodies will ultimately not treat it as such. Nor is there casual romance. Kissing releases the same chemicals. See Adrienne Santos-Longhurst, "Why Do We Kiss? What Science Says About Smooching," Healthline, last updated July 25, 2018, https://www.healthline.com/health/why-do-we-kiss. Perhaps this can give us new insight (and a good response to those critics inside and outside of the Church that mock it) into why For the Strength of Youth and other church leaders warn against "passionate kissing" before marriage. See For the Strength of Youth (2011), 36. Think of the mental health benefits that can be gleaned if we, and especially the youth and young adults of the Church, didn't, for example, extol non-committal make outs and treated sex and romance with the emotional commitment that they deserve; if we actually correlated our outward expressions of sex and romance with an underlying commitment to the happiness and well-being of our partners. As President Spencer W. Kimball once said, "[w]hat do kisses mean when given out like pretzels and robbed of sacredness?” See Spencer W. Kimball, The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, ed. Edward L. Kimball (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1982), 281. Quoted in "For the Strength of Youth says not to participate in 'passionate kissing.' What is that?" New Era 41, no. 7 (July 2012): 29. Another way that masturbation might take away from marriage comes from abortion law and religious abortion policy. With stricter abortion law or stricter abortion policy (such as what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds to) couples have incentive to use more birth control and other forms of non-penetrative sex in order to reduce chances of unwanted pregnancies. Those forms of non-penetrative sex need to be meaningful sexual encounters with your spouse in order to be fulfilling and strengthen your marriage. If masturbating, whether single or married, you likely take away from the significance and excitement of those non-penetrative forms of relational sex with your spouse.
  203. ↑ "Studies reporting findings consistent with escalation of porn use (tolerance), habituation to porn, and withdrawal symptoms," Your Brain on Porn, accessed May 23, 2022, https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/porn-use-sex-addiction-studies/studies-find-escalation-and-habituation-in-porn-users-tolerance/.
  204. ↑ "Studies linking porn use to sexual offending, sexual aggression, and sexual coercion," Your Brain on Porn, accessed May 23, 2022, https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/studies-linking-porn-use-to-sexual-offending-sexual-aggression-and-sexual-coercion/.
  205. ↑ "Studies linking porn use to 'un-egalitarian attitudes' toward women," Your Brain on Porn, accessed May 23, 2022, https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/porn-use-sex-addiction-studies/studies-linking-porn-use-to-un-egalitarian-attitudes-toward-women/.
  206. ↑ "Studies linking porn use or porn/sex addiction to sexual dysfunctions and poorer sexual and relationship satisfaction," Your Brain on Porn, accessed May 30, 2022, https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/porn-use-sex-addiction-studies/studies-linking-porn-use-or-porn-sex-addiction-to-sexual-dysfunctions-and-poorer-sexual-and-relationship-satisfaction/#less.
  207. ↑ In today’s climate, those sources are likely motivated towards religious iconoclasm for the purpose of “sexual liberation”.
  208. ↑ Mayo Clinic Staff, “6 steps to betteru sleep,” Mayo Clinic, April 17, 2020, https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in-depth/sleep/art-20048379.
  209. ↑ Heather Shannon, “7 powerful ways you can strengthen your heart,” UCI Health, February 9, 2017, https://www.ucihealth.org/blog/2017/02/how-to-strengthen-heart.
  210. ↑ ”How to boost your immune system,” Harvard Health Publishing, February 15, 2021, https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/how-to-boost-your-immune-system.
  211. ↑ Mayo Clinic Staff, "Stress relievers: Tips to tame the stress," Mayo Clinic, March 18, 2021, https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/stress-management/in-depth/stress-relievers/art-20047257.
  212. ↑ Mayo Clinic Staff, “Prostate cancer prevention: Ways to reduce your risk,” Mayo Clinic, September 24, 2020, https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/prostate-cancer/in-depth/prostate-cancer-prevention/art-20045641.
  213. ↑ Daniel Yetman, "How to Decrease Libido," Healthline, October 28, 2020, https://www.healthline.com/health/how-to-decrease-libido.
  214. ↑ 214.0 214.1 Perhaps one of the best ways that single people can prepare for marriage and libido disparities is to learn to discipline their sexual desires right now by, among other things, not masturbating so that their body does not come to expect high amounts of sexual pleasure in order to be satisfied. By not masturbating now and disciplining their desires, they can also acquire the cognitive toolkit necessary to discipline desires so that they don’t act out sexually in other inappropriate ways when desire differentials arise spontaneously whether due to stress in their partner, hormonal changes in their partner, or other factors such as dyspareunia.
  215. ↑ Mayo Clinic Staff, "Urinary incontinence," Mayo Clinic, December 17, 2021, https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/urinary-incontinence/diagnosis-treatment/drc-20352814.
  216. ↑ Mayo Clinic Staff, "Fecal incontinence," Mayo Clinic, December 1, 2020, https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/fecal-incontinence/symptoms-causes/syc-20351397.
  217. ↑ Mayo Clinic Staff, "Kegel exercises for men: Understand the benefits," Mayo Clinic, September 8, 2022, https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/mens-health/in-depth/kegel-exercises-for-men/art-20045074.
  218. ↑ Mayo Clinic Staff, "Erectile dysfunction," Mayo Clinic, March 29, 2022, https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/erectile-dysfunction/symptoms-causes/syc-20355776.
  219. ↑ "Studies linking porn use or porn/sex addiction to sexual dysfunctions and poorer sexual and relationship satisfaction," Your Brain on Porn, accessed October 9, 2022, https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/porn-use-sex-addiction-studies/studies-linking-porn-use-or-porn-sex-addiction-to-sexual-dysfunctions-and-poorer-sexual-and-relationship-satisfaction/.
  220. ↑ Madeline Kennedy, "How to last longer in bed: 20 ways for men to delay ejaculation," Insider, August 26, 2022, https://www.insider.com/guides/health/sex-relationships/how-to-last-longer-in-bed.
  221. ↑ Mayo Clinic Staff, “Menstrual cramps,” Mayo Clinic, April 8, 2020, https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/menstrual-cramps/diagnosis-treatment/drc-20374944.
  222. ↑ Mayo Clinic Staff, “Headaches: Treatment depends on your diagnosis and symptoms,” Mayo Clinic, May 10, 2019, https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/chronic-daily-headaches/in-depth/headaches/art-20047375.
  223. ↑ R. Morgan Griffin, “How to Treat Nasal Congestion and Sinus Pressure,” WebMD, accessed January 24, 2022, https://www.webmd.com/allergies/sinus-congestion.
  224. ↑ Atli Arnason, “10 Ways to Boost Male Fertility and Increase Sperm Count,” Healthline, May 18, 2020, https://www.healthline.com/health/boost-male-fertility-sperm-count.
  225. ↑ Yuval Noah Harari, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (New York: Harper Perennial, 2015), 40–45. Harari actually takes the position that sexual culture was infinitely varied in the earliest days, but he builds and iron intellectual wall before making that claim. He shows how it’s near impossible to know what the earliest humans did in our evolutionary scheme because of scant artifactual evidence from that time and not being able to extrapolate from modern agrarian societies to ancient agrarian societies. Thus it’s difficult to understand why Harari takes that position. That being said, even if Harari’s position is the correct one, it would mean there were only cultural differences among our ancient ancestors and that there is no inherent, evolutionary utility to masturbation.
  226. ↑ Brenda Goodman, "Cervicitis," WedMD, accessed February 7, 2022, https://www.webmd.com/women/guide/cervicitis.
  227. ↑ It should be clear that when the author says "partnered sexual activity", they do not mean that the only form of appropriate sexual activity is penis-in-vagina penetrative sex. It merely means sexual activity between husband and wife.
  228. ↑ Jacquelyn Cafasso, "How to Test and Increase Your Pain Tolerance," Healthline, last updated June 12, 2018, https://www.healthline.com/health/high-pain-tolerance.
  229. ↑ Elizabeth Plumptre, "What Is Sexual Repression?" VeryWellHelath, February 23, 2022, https://www.verywellmind.com/sexual-repression-definition-causes-and-treatment-5217583.
  230. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 132:19–20
  231. ↑ John 7:17
  232. ↑ W.O. Lee, "The Inhabitants of Samoa, Their Social Life and Customs. By W.O. Lee, Samoan Missionary," Improvement Era 3, no. 1 (November 1899): 49–50.
  233. ↑ Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1958), 700.
  234. ↑ Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 775.
  235. ↑ Vaughan J. Featherstone, “One Link Still Holds,” Ensign 29, no. 11 (November 1999): 13.
  236. ↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, “‘Great Shall be the Peace of thy Children’,” Ensign 30, no. 11 (November 2000): 52.
  237. ↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, “Your Greatest Challenge, Mother,” Ensign 30, no. 11 (November 2000): 99.
  238. ↑ For the Strength of Youth: Fulfilling Our Duty to God (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2001), 16.
  239. ↑ M. Russell Ballard, When Thou Art Converted: Continuing Our Search for Happiness (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2002), 111.
  240. ↑ Margaret D. Nadauld, “Hold High the Torch,” Ensign 32, no. 5 (May 2002): 97.
  241. ↑ True to the Faith (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2004), 167.
  242. ↑ Henry B. Eyring, “In the Strength of the Lord,” Ensign 34, no. 5 (May 2004): 114.
  243. ↑ Earl C. Tingey, “For the Strength of Youth,” Ensign 34, no. 5 (May 2004): 50.
  244. ↑ Julie B. Beck, “You Have a Noble Birthright,” Ensign 36, no. 5 (May 2006): 107.
  245. ↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, “I Am Clean,” Ensign 37, no. 5 (May 2007): 62.
  246. ↑ Elaine S. Dalton, “At All Times, in All Things, and in All Places,” Ensign 38, no. 5 (May 2008): 107.
  247. ↑ James J. Hamula, “Winning the War Against Evil,” Ensign 38, no. 11 (November 2008): 51.
  248. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, “Counsel to Young Men,” Ensign 39, no. 5 (May 2009): 50.
  249. ↑ Thomas S. Monsen, “Preparation Brings Blessings,” Ensign 40, no. 5 (May 2010): 65.
  250. ↑ D. Todd Christofferson, “Reflections on a Consecrated Life,” Ensign 40, no. 11 (November 2010): 17.
  251. ↑ Elaine S. Dalton, A Return to Virtue (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2011), 125.
  252. ↑ For the Strength of Youth (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2011), 7.
  253. ↑ Elaine S. Dalton, “Be Not Moved!” Ensign 43, no. 5 (May 2013): 123.
  254. ↑ Tad Walch, "President Russell M. Nelson tells 65,000 of the faith's 'Arizona battalion' to strengthen themselves and others," Deseret News, February 19, 2019.
  255. ↑ For the Strength of Youth: A Guide for Making Choices (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2022), 27. Emphasis added.
  256. ↑ Donald Senior, John J. Collins, and Mary Ann Getty, eds., The Catholic Study Bible, 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 160.
  257. ↑ Earl D. Radmacher, Ronald B. Allen, and H. Wayne House, eds., NKJV Study Bible (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007), 191.
  258. ↑ Ibid., 1801.
  259. ↑ Jannalee Sandau, “Why There Are Tattoos and Strapless Costumes at the Polynesian Cultural Center,” LDS Living, November 2, 2016, https://www.ldsliving.com/Why-There-Are-Tattoos-Strapless-Costumes-at-the-Polynesian-Cultural-Center/s/83359.
  260. ↑ Jeffrey R. Holland, “To Young Women,” Ensign 35, no. 11 (November 2005): 29–30.
  261. ↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, "The Scourge of Illicit Drugs," Ensign (November 1989): 48.off-site; James E. Faust, "The Enemy Within," Ensign (November 2000): 44.off-site
  262. ↑ See, for example, Robert L. Simpson, Conference Report (April 1963), 53.;Boyd K. Packer, Conference Report (April 1963), 107. Early statements available in John A. Widtsoe and Leah D. Widtsoe, The Word Of Wisdom: A Modern Interpretation (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1937), 28 and Roy W. Doxey, The Word of Wisdom Today (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1975),10–13.
  263. ↑ Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 12:157-158. (italics added)
  264. ↑ Wouter Van Beek, "Covenants," in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow, (New York, Macmillan Publishing, 1992), 1:333.
  265. ↑ Mike Ash, FAIR e-mail list, 3 September 2006 (cited with permission).
  266. ↑ Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols., (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954–56), 148.
  267. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, edited by Edward L. Kimball, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1982), 202.
  268. ↑ Bruce R. McConkie, "Word of Wisdom," in Mormon Doctrine, 2nd edition, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 845–846. GL direct link
  269. ↑ Thomas G. Alexander, "The Word of Wisdom: From Principle to Requirement," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 14 no. 3 (Autumn 1981), 84–85.
  270. ↑ Thomas J. Boud, MD, "The Energy Drink Epidemic," Ensign (December 2008): 48.
  271. ↑ Lester E. Bush, Jr., ed., "Mormon Medical Ethical Guidelines," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 12 no. 3 (Fall 1979), 103.
  272. ↑ Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Handbook 2: Administering the Church—2010 (Intellectual Reserve, 2010). Selected Church Policies and Guidelines 21.3.11
  273. ↑ International Journal of Cancer, 88 (15 November 2000): 658–664.
  274. ↑ International Journal of Vitamin and Nutritional Research 46 (1976).
  275. ↑ An example of this is a study by Dr. Hershel Jick of Boston University Medical School. He found that drinking one to five cups of coffee per day raises the risk of heart attack by as much as 60 percent and drinking more than six cups per day raises the risk by 120 percent. However, other studies have failed to find a connection between heart attack and coffee intake. Other ongoing studies indicate a possible connection between coffee intake and bladder cancer. Coffee has also been tentatively linked to a rise in blood fats, increased adrenal activity, and blood cholesterol and heart action irregularity. Nevertheless, these studies are not conclusive and as such, cannot be authoritatively cited as evidence against coffee drinking. There are, however, other health concerns regarding the excessive or inappropriate use of caffeine. See: Thomas J. Boud, MD, "The Energy Drink Epidemic," Ensign (December 2008): 48.
  276. ↑ Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 volumes, edited by Brigham H. Roberts, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957), 5:135. Volume 5 link See also Dean C. Jessee, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, revised edition, (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 2002), 507–508.
  277. ↑ Clifford J. Stratton, "Caffeine—The Subtle Addiction," Ensign (June 1988): 60.
  278. ↑ See, for example, Robert L. Simpson, Conference Report (April 1963), 53.;Boyd K. Packer, Conference Report (April 1963), 107. Early statements available in John A. Widtsoe and Leah D. Widtsoe, The Word Of Wisdom: A Modern Interpretation (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1937), 28 and Roy W. Doxey, The Word of Wisdom Today (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1975),10–13.
  279. ↑ Lester E. Bush, Jr., ed., "Mormon Medical Ethical Guidelines," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 12 no. 3 (Fall 1979), 103.
  280. ↑ Robert T. Divett, "Medicine and the Mormons: a Historical Perspective," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 12 no. 3 (Autumn 1979), 16–17. On
  281. ↑ Lucy Mack Smith, The History of Joseph Smith By His Mother Lucy Mack Smith, edited by Preston Nibley, (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1956), 86. AISN B000FH6N04.
  282. ↑ See N. Lee Smith, "Herbal Remedies: God's Medicine," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 12 no. 3 (Autumn 1979), 40. See also Robert T. Divett, "Medicine and the Mormons: a Historical Perspective," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 12 no. 3 (Autumn 1979), 18–20.
  283. ↑ Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 volumes, edited by Brigham H. Roberts, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957), 5:356–357. Volume 5 link
  284. ↑ N. Lee Smith, "Herbal Remedies: God's Medicine," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 12 no. 3 (Autumn 1979), 43,46.
  285. ↑ N. Lee Smith, "Herbal Remedies: God's Medicine," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 12 no. 3 (Autumn 1979), 47.
  286. ↑ Hyrum Smith, "The Word of Wisdom," Times and Seasons 3 no. 15 (1 June 1842), 801. off-site GospeLink
  287. ↑ N. Lee Smith, "Review of Medicine and the Mormons: An Introduction to the History of Latter-day Saint Health Care by Robert T. Divett," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought (Spring 1984), 157–158.
  288. ↑ Paul H. Peterson, "An Historical Analysis of the Word of Wisdom," Master's thesis, Brigham Young University, 1972, 22-23.
  289. ↑ Doctrine and Covenants 89:3
  290. ↑ Julie M. Goolsby, "4 Reasons to Eat By the Seasons," MBG Food, last updated October 15, 2019, https://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-4807/10-Reasons-To-Eat-Whats-In-Season.html.

Question: Why does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have rules for facial hair?

Introduction to Question

Beginning in the 1960s and 70s, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has imposed certain restrictions on facial hair for male students at church schools like BYU, BYU-Idaho, BYU-Hawaii, Ensign College, and elsewhere.

There is often a cultural expectation that stake presidents, mission presidents, bishops, and other general leaders of the Church shave though there is no explicit institutional policy nor scripture that mandates this.

Why does the Church place the rule on BYU? Why BYU and not general leaders? Why do leaders follow this rule even though not explicitly laid out in the general handbooks of the Church?

This article seeks to answer this question.

Response to Question

For BYU At Least, It's Not Known Why They Continue to Enforce This. Perhaps Its to Create A Shared Identity and a Spirit-Filled Learning Environment

It's not entirely certain why the Church continues to uphold the so-called "beard ban" on BYU. Perhaps leaders they want to create a shared identity and be a peculiar people from the rest of the world. BYU is very well-known for these policies. Making the absence of facial hair normative for BYU students gets a lot of attention and this, in turn, can spark interest in the Church for potential investigators. There’s scriptural mandate to support becoming a peculiar people, unspotted from the world.[1] There’s also scriptural injunctions to practice meekness/lowliness of heart/humility/easiness to be entreated before the prophets who have implemented this policy and continue to enforce it,[2] and be anxiously engaged in a good cause without God compelling you to do something by explicit revelation.[3] The effectiveness of this standard is manifested in the numerous movements that have been organized and publicized in places like the New York Times to change it.[4]

Another reason may be that BYU wants to create a spirit-filled learning environment. Perhaps the emphasis on being clean-shaven creates an environment, psychology, and spiritual disposition in students to the effect that more feel the Spirit.

For General and Local Leaders, Much Less is Certain Why This Gets Enforced

For general and local leaders, it's even less certain why this gets enforced with so much regularity. Perhaps it's an outgrowth of BYU's emphasis and leaders are trying to enforce it for similar reasons above. Perhaps it's just tradition and we don't need to enforce it. Leaders and members should simply make decisions by the Spirit here and proceed with however they work it out between them, the Lord, leaders, and so forth.

Conclusion

These types of little rules can have delayed consequences that can be beneficial for us as a people. Thus, we shouldn't discount them entirely because they aren't listed explicitly in a church handbook or talk somewhere. For those to whom this rule is enforced explicitly, they should be patient and humble as they submit to these standards humbly and see Zion be built over time. Jesus cared about the little rules. Prior to his doing away with the law of Moses with his Atonement, the Savior said that “[w]hosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”[5] If Jesus can care about the little rules and can show us how they can help us grow as a people as we follow them, then we, as disciples of Christ, can likewise follow them humbly in all faith.

On the other hand, for those to whom this rule is not enforced explicitly in Church general policy handbooks, we should allow people to make the decisions between them, their local leadership, and the Lord.


Question: Why are men encouraged to wear white shirts to Sunday services in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Introduction to Question

Male members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are encouraged to wear a white shirt to Sunday worship services.

Why is this? Should Latter-day Saint men follow this encouragement?

This article seeks to answer this question.

Response to Question

The Church’s Official Policy Regarding This

We would do well to first restate what the Church’s policy is for boys that pass the sacrament.

Those who administer the sacrament should be well groomed and clean. They should not wear clothing or jewelry that might detract from the worship and covenant making that are the purpose of the sacrament. If the bishop needs to counsel a priesthood holder about such matters, he does so with love. He also takes into account the person’s maturity in the Church.

The general handbook had previously stated that “[t]ies and white shirts are recommended because they add to the dignity of the ordinance. However, they should not be required as a mandatory prerequisite for a priesthood holder to participate.” It no longer says that.

All we are required to do by official policy is be well-groomed and clean. We are not required to wear white shirts. That said, there are still special considerations to make that should encourage us to submit to leaders that have encouraged us to wear white shirts.

The Conveying of Sanctity in the Ordinance of the Sacrament

Wearing a white shirt for those that prepare, bless, and pass the sacrament can certainly signify the sanctity and holiness that the ordinance holds.

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland taught:

In that sacred setting we ask you young men of the Aaronic Priesthood to prepare and bless and pass these emblems of the Savior’s sacrifice worthily and reverently. What a stunning privilege and sacred trust given at such a remarkably young age! I can think of no higher compliment heaven could pay you. We do love you. Live your best and look your best when you participate in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.


May I suggest that wherever possible a white shirt be worn by the deacons, teachers, and priests who handle the sacrament. For sacred ordinances in the Church we often use ceremonial clothing, and a white shirt could be seen as a gentle reminder of the white clothing you wore in the baptismal font and an anticipation of the white shirt you will soon wear into the temple and onto your missions.

That simple suggestion is not intended to be pharisaic or formalistic. We do not want deacons or priests in uniforms or unduly concerned about anything but the purity of their lives. But how our young people dress can teach a holy principle to us all, and it certainly can convey sanctity. As President David O. McKay taught, a white shirt contributes to the sacredness of the holy sacrament (see Conference Report, Oct. 1956, p. 89).[6]

President David O. McKay taught:

I am not going to say much about the dress. We are not a people who look to formality, certainly we do not believe in phylacteries, in uniforms, on sacred occasions, but I do think that the Lord will be pleased with a bishopric if they will instruct the young men who are invited to administer the sacrament to dress properly. He will not be displeased if they come with a white shirt instead of a colored one, and we are not so poor that we cannot afford clean, white shirts for the boys who administer the sacrament. If they do not have them, at least they will come with clean hands, and especially a pure heart.


I have seen deacons not all dressed alike, but they have a special tie or a special shirt as evidence that those young men have been instructed that “you have a special calling this morning. Come in your best,” And when they are all in white, I think it contributes to the sacredness of it. Anything that will make the young boys feel that they have been called upon to officiate in the Priesthood in one of the most sacred ordinances in the Church, and they too should remain quite, even before ethe opening of the meeting.[7]

Parity with Other Members of the Church

Another reason to wear a white shirt is to establish a feeling of parity and equality with other members of local congregations. We come from diverse economic and social backgrounds. Having every male member wear a white shirt may establish a sense of connection or parity with others. This is certainly one of the beauties of temple ordinances is that we all wear clothing that is similar and this can powerfully symbolize the scriptural truth that all human beings are equal in worth before God.[8]

Scriptural Reasons for Wearing a White Shirt?

The scriptures do not have any explicit injunction to wear white clothing when performing ordinances or attending church. That said, there are other solid, scriptural reasons to follow this encouragement from Church leaders. Wearing white shirts can help us in being a peculiar people so as to encourage interest in the Church and thus success in missionary work,[9] to follow the injunction to keep ourselves unspotted from the world,[10] practicing meekness/lowliness of heart/humility/easiness to be entreated before the leaders of the Church that have asked us to do this,[11] following the commandment to receive all the words and commandments of the prophet as if from the mouth of God in all patience and faith,[12] and being anxiously engaged in a good cause without God compelling you to do something by explicit revelation.[13]

Conclusion

While this may be one of those encouragements from the Church that we roll our eyes at from time to time, it is till one that, if we follow it, can have delayed but still meaningful and beneficial consequences for building up Zion in these latter days.


Question: Are Latter-day Saints really commanded to avoid r-rated movies?

Introduction to Question

Many wonder why Latter-day Saints avoid R-rated movies. This issue was addressed well in the magazine LDS Living from author Elizabeth Summers. She provides valuable commentary on this issue. Readers can find her article here.


Questions: Why do Latter-day Saints not swear?

Introduction to Question

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints try not to swear. Why is this?

This article will offer scriptural, ethical, and pragmatic reasons for not swearing.

Response to Question

Scriptural Reasons

Proverbs teaches us that “[d]eath and life are in the power of the tongue; and [we] that love it shall eat the fruit thereof.”[14] Jesus taught that “every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgement. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.”[15] He also taught that it is “[n]ot that which goeth into the mouth [that] defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth[.] This defileth a man.”[16] Paul taught the Corinthians that “evil communications corrupt good manners.”[17] Paul taught the Ephesians to “[l]et no corrupt [σαπρὸς (sarpos) "unwholesome"] communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.”[18] The author of 1 Peter says “[b]ut as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation.”[19] King Benjamin in the Book of Mormon teaches us that if we do not watch our words then we will perish.[20] The prophet Alma in the Book of Mormon taught that, at judgement day, “our words will condemn us, yea, all our works will condemn us; we shall not be found spotless; and our thoughts will also condemn us; and in this awful state we shall not dare to look up to our God[.]”[21] Doctrine and Covenants 136, given to President Brigham Young, told the Saints to “let your words tend to edifying one another.”[22]

Ethical Reasons

Swearing can foster enmity between people. As a body of people that have been commanded to love our neighbor as ourself,[23] we should be exemplary in how we treat others and avoid language that leads to fractured relationships.

Pragmatic Reasons

Swearing can be a sign of an unrefined mind. There are many other things that we can say in any given situation to be funny, to speak clearly, and to speak professionally.

Little Rules

We may think that Christ didn’t care about little rules but he did. Prior to performing the atonement, he told those living under the law of Moses and its 613 little rules that “[w]hosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”[24]

Conclusion

The scripture and reason tell us to watch our mouths. We should do our best to follow these commandments and see the blessings that come from it.


Question: Why do Latter-day Saints often partake of the sacrament with their right hand?

Introduction to Question

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ceremonially eat bread and drink water each week in remembrance of the atonement of Jesus Christ and as a renewal of sacred covenants that they have made with him and God. This ceremony (or “ordinance” in the preferred vernacular of Latter-day Saints) is called the sacrament. For much time, Church members have insisted on grasping the small bread strips and cups that hold the water with their right hand before being consumed.

The official handbook of instructions for leaders in the Church states that “[m]embers partake with their right hand when possible.”

Why is this such a common practice among Latter-day Saints? This article will link to another written on this subject in the Latter-day Saint magazine LDS Living by author David Dollahite. Dollahite very adequately addresses the history and significance of this practice and how Latter-day Saints might view it today. Dollahite's article can be found here. Return for some additional commentary.

Other Scriptures that Might Support this Practice

Dollahite’s article does not offer every scripture that might support this practice. Other scriptural reasons that one might want to follow this custom might be to be peculiar people so as to encourage interest in the Church and thus success in missionary work,[25] to keep unspotted from the world,[26] and to be anxiously engaged in a good cause without God compelling you to do something by explicit revelation.[27]

Conclusion

While this may be a cultural vestige that we can roll our eyes at, it can still have delayed, beneficial consequences for Latter-day Saints as a people in their continued efforts to build the Kingdom of God and to express their deepest love and devotion to Jesus Christ.


Question: Should we pay tithing before paying for food or rent?

The Quote: "If paying tithing means that you can’t pay for water or electricity, pay tithing"

One critic of the Church states,

I find the following quote in the December 2012 Ensign very disturbing:

If paying tithing means that you can’t pay for water or electricity, pay tithing. If paying tithing means that you can’t pay your rent, pay tithing. Even if paying tithing means that you don’t have enough money to feed your family, pay tithing. The Lord will not abandon you.

Would a loving, kind, empathic God really place parents in the horrible position of having to choose whether to feed their children or pay what little they have to a multi-billion megamall owning Church that receives an estimated $8,000,000,000 in annual tithing receipts?" [28]

The quote used is part of a story about a family in San Salvador that had joined the Church and was experiencing a great change in their lives. We will provide a bit more of the context:

The Vigils’ bishop, César Orellana, also saw changes in their lives. Soon after their baptism, Amado approached Bishop Orellana and said, “We want to pay tithing, but we don’t know how.”

Bishop Orellana explained that tithing was 10 percent of their increase. Amado was somewhat concerned. At the time, Evelyn had a job, but he did not. “We always come up short,” Amado explained to his bishop, “but we want to pay tithing.”

Bishop Orellana responded, “Brother, the Lord has made many promises.” Together they read scriptures about the blessings that come from faithfully paying tithing, including the Lord’s words through the prophet Malachi: “Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, … and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it” (Malachi 3:10).

After reading these scriptures together, Bishop Orellana looked at the new convert and said, “If paying tithing means that you can’t pay for water or electricity, pay tithing. If paying tithing means that you can’t pay your rent, pay tithing. Even if paying tithing means that you don’t have enough money to feed your family, pay tithing. The Lord will not abandon you.”

The next Sunday, Amado approached Bishop Orellana again. This time he didn’t ask any questions. He simply handed his bishop an envelope and said, “Bishop, here is our tithing.”

Reflecting on this experience, Bishop Orellana says, “Ever since then, they have been faithful tithe payers.” The family received some commodities from the bishops’ storehouse during their financial difficulties. Beyond that, the Lord blessed them to be able to care for themselves. Evelyn received a promotion, and Amado found a good job. Evelyn later lost her job, but they continued to pay tithing and to receive spiritual and temporal blessings for their faithfulness. Once Bishop Orellana asked Amado how the family was doing financially. Amado responded, “We’re doing all right. Sometimes we don’t have much to eat, but we have enough. And more than anything, we trust in the Lord.” [29]

Choosing between tithing and food or rent

If someone is in the situation where they have to choose between tithing and food, it is of benefit to sit down and talk with the bishop as they have access to better training and employment opportunities as well as may be helpful in establishing a better budget so that such a conflict won't arise in the future.

With regard to self sufficiency, we are taught as well that we need to be part of our faith community and that requires of us time to allow others to serve us. It is a kindness to give others such opportunities, even when we don't necessarily need such help. There are blessings that come from being a charitable receiver as well as a charitable giver.


Question: Why should the poor and destitute pay tithing?

Biblical precedent for the idea that even those that are destitute will be blessed by the Lord if they pay their tithing

Critics of the Church often portray it as a business or corporation, with tithing being the method by which income is generated. If this were true, however, why would the Church be interested in the "widow's mite?" Critics often act as if the Church simply takes money from the poor and leaves them to fend for themselves. The reality is that the Church will not only support the destitute, but it will assist them in finding employment or means to create better circumstances in their lives. The Church does not force anyone to choose to pay tithing or to feed their children. The choice presented by the critics is a caricature which completely ignores the function of the Church Welfare program.

Paying tithing is a matter of faith. From a believer's perspective, a more accurate description than "pay what little they have to a multi-billion megamall owning Church" would be to "donate one-tenth of what little they have to the Lord."

There is a Biblical precedent for the idea that even those that are destitute will be blessed by the Lord if they pay their tithing.

Elder Lynn G. Robbins related the following at the April 2005 General Conference:

The Lord says to Elijah, “Arise, get thee to Zarephath … : behold, I have commanded a widow woman there to sustain thee” (1 Kgs. 17:9). It is interesting that Elijah is not told to go to Zarephath until the widow and her son are at the point of death. It is at this extreme moment—facing starvation—that her faith will be tested.

As he comes into the city he sees her gathering sticks.

“And he called to her, and said, Fetch me, I pray thee, a little water in a vessel, that I may drink.

“And as she was going to fetch it, he called to her, and said, Bring me, I pray thee, a morsel of bread in thine hand.

“And she said, As the Lord thy God liveth, I have not a cake, but an handful of meal in a barrel, and a little oil in a cruse: and, behold, I am gathering two sticks, that I may go in and dress it for me and my son, that we may eat it, and die” (1 Kgs. 17:10–12).

A handful of meal would be very little indeed, perhaps just enough for one serving, which makes Elijah’s response intriguing. Listen: “And Elijah said unto her, Fear not; go and do as thou hast said: but make me thereof a little cake first” (1 Kgs. 17:13; emphasis added).

Now doesn’t that sound selfish, asking not just for the first piece, but possibly the only piece? Didn't our parents teach us to let other people go first and especially for a gentleman to let a lady go first, let alone a starving widow? Her choice—does she eat, or does she sacrifice her last meal and hasten death? Perhaps she will sacrifice her own food, but could she sacrifice the food meant for her starving son?

Elijah understood the doctrine that blessings come after the trial of our faith (see Ether 12:6; D&C 132:5). He wasn't being selfish. As the Lord’s servant, Elijah was there to give, not to take. Continuing from the narrative:

“But make me thereof a little cake first [the firstlings], and bring it unto me, and after make for thee and for thy son.

“For thus saith the Lord God of Israel, The barrel of meal shall not waste, neither shall the cruse of oil fail, until the day that the Lord sendeth rain upon the earth.

“And she went and did according to the saying of Elijah: and she, and he, and her house, did eat many days.

“And the barrel of meal wasted not, neither did the cruse of oil fail, according to the word of the Lord, which he spake by Elijah” (1 Kgs. 17:13–16; emphasis added).[30]

Mark 12:41–44 gives us the story of the widows mite:

And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.
And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.
And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:
For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.


Question: Why should members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints pay their tithing to it when the Church already possesses immense resources?

Introduction to Question

On 17 December 2019, The Washington Post reported that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds over 100 billion dollars in a tax-exempt investment fund. The information was obtained from the brother of a former member of the Church named David A. Nielsen. Nielsen was an investment manager for the Church and filed a complaint with the IRS on 21 November 2019 “[accusing] church leaders of misleading members — and possibly breaching federal tax rules — by stockpiling their surplus donations instead of using them for charitable works. It also accuses church leaders of using the tax-exempt donations to prop up a pair of businesses.”[31]

A salvo of insightful responses were drawn from Latter-day Saints in light of this news and published in online venues. The pieces provide in-depth discussion about the ethics of holding that much money in reserve (and show clearly how the Church may very well be justified in its current financial practices).[32] The reader is strongly encouraged to read these.

This article doesn’t seek to defend the Church on the question of whether or not it is ethically justified to hold that much money in reserve (the author believes it does). Rather, the author wishes to answer a tangential question that has arisen because of this news: Why should a member of the Church give tithing donations to it when it already holds that much money and can accomplish so much with what it already has? Certain Church members have already written that they do not want to donate to the Church when it already holds a lot—feeling that the Church would be better served by donating their money to the poor before the members resume tithing donations.[33]

Response to Question

Several reasons can be enumerated for paying tithing even given the Church's current resources.

Obedience to God

The first and most important reason is that we have been commanded by God to donate tithes. Section 119 of the Doctrine and Covenants is the revelation that inaugurated the tithing commandment in this dispensation. It clearly teaches us to pay one tenth of our interest annually, that those that don't observe this law are not worthy to abide among the Saints, and that if we don't observe the law collectively as a body of Saints that we cannot be counted as the Lord's people.

The blessings for paying tithing are also said to be invaluable. The famous scripture from Malachi 3 teaches us to "[b]ring...all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it."[34] The Lord has taught us to be obedient to all the words and commandments that proceed from Him through the mouth of the prophet in all patience and faith.[35]

George Albert Smith related the following story in the June 1947 issue of the Improvement Era magazine:

One day on the street I met a friend whom I had known since boyhood. I had not visited with him for some time, and I was interested in being brought up to date concerning his life, his problems, and his faith, therefore I invited him to go to a conference in Utah County with me. He drove his fine car (the make of car I was driving had not been received into society at that time). He took his wife, and I took mine. . . .

As we drove home, he turned to me and said: . . . "You know I have heard many things in this conference, but there is only one thing that I do not understand the way you do."

I said: "What is it?"

"Well," he said, "it is about paying tithing."

He thought I would ask him how he paid his tithing, but I did not. I thought if he wanted to tell me, he would. He said: "Would you like me to tell you how I pay my tithing?"

I said, "If you want to, you may."

"Well," he said, "if I make ten thousand dollars in a year, I put a thousand dollars in the bank for tithing. I know why it's there. Then when the bishop comes and wants me to make a contribution for the chapel or give him a check for a missionary who is going away, if I think he needs the money, I give him a check. If a family in the ward is in distress and needs coal or food or clothing or anything else, I write out a check. If I find a boy or girl who is having difficulty getting through school in the East, I send a check. Little by little I exhaust the thousand dollars, and every dollar of it has gone where I know it has done good. Now what do you think of that?"

"Well," I said, "do you want me to tell you what I think of it?"

He said, "Yes."

I said: "I think you are a very generous man with someone else's property." And he nearly tipped the car over.

He said, "What do you mean?"

I said, "You have an idea that you have paid your tithing?"

"Yes." he said.

I said: "You have not paid any tithing. You have told me what you have done with the Lord's money, but you have not told me that you have given anyone a penny of your own. He is the best partner you have in the world. He gives you everything you have, even the air you breathe. He has said you should take one-tenth of what comes to you and give it to the Church as directed by the Lord. You haven't done that; you have taken your best partner's money, and have given it away."

Well, I will tell you there was quiet in the car for some time. . . .

About a month after that I met him on the street. He came up, put his arm in mine, and said: "Brother Smith, I am paying my tithing the same way you do." I was very happy to hear that.[36]

We Want the Church to be As Powerful as Possible

Tithing's greatest function is ensuring the continued flourishing of the Kingdom of God on the earth. The Church uses tithing funds to build chapels and temples, fund missions, fund private scholarships, fund five different universities and colleges, fund the seminaries and institute program, etc.

There may be other things as well that top Church leaders will use the money for that do not include what we typically expect but that will still be vital for the continued flourishing of the Kingdom. There has to be a significant purpose for the Church to have that amount of money being saved without spending that we’re simply not being fully informed of and there has to be a reason for not telling us what that purpose is.

In any case, we want top Church leaders to have as many resources as possible to do with it as they see fit.

If Church leaders make a mistake in how they invest their money, then the sin is on their heads. Our covenants still need to be kept while the Lord straightens out poor allocation practice.

No Evidence that Church has Used Tithing Funds Inappropriately

That said, there's no evidence that the Church has used tithing funds inappropriately.[37]

The Church already donates a lot of money as it is to charity and humanitarian efforts. An interview published by Tad Walch in the Deseret News on 14 February 2020 with the Presiding Bishopric of the Church revealed that the Church gives 1 billion dollars annually in humanitarian and welfare spending.[38]

If Wanting to Benefit a Particular Cause, The Best Thing to Do is Indicate it on the Tithing Slips Themselves

The slips where one records the amount of donation for tithing contain dedicated sections where one can indicate whether they would like funds to go to missionary efforts, humanitarian efforts, fast offerings, or other projects. The best thing that one can do is indicate on this slip where they would like their funds to go. The rest should be left in the Lord's hands.

Conclusion

It's not uncommon to have ethical questions like these. The Lord's program seems to always be that we should uphold our end of our bargains and then allow him to deal with those that don't uphold theirs. Our job is to love him with all our "heart, might, mind, and strength" by keeping his commandments and serving him.[39] He'll take care of the rest.


Question: Is belief in the Book of Mormon’s historicity essential to Latter-day Saint theology?

Book of Mormon Central, KnoWhy #480: Why Is the Book of Mormon’s Historical Authenticity So Important? (Video)

Introduction to Question

Beginning in the early 90s, theorists have surmised that the Book of Mormon does not need to literally be a historical account of certain ancient inhabitants of the Americas in order to be "true." The primary architect of this theory was Latter-day Saint Anthony A. Hutchinson in a book chapter on the subject.[40]

Hutchinson states:

My thesis is simple. I will state it as directly as possible for the sake of understanding and discussion. Members of [The] Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should confess in faith that the Book of Mormon is the word of God but also abandon claims that it is a historical record of the ancient peoples of the Americas. We should accept that it is a work of scripture inspired by God in the same way that the Bible is inspired, but one that has as its human author Joseph Smith, Jr.[41]

According to Hutchinson, the Book of Mormon is the word of God in that God authored the text. Essentially, it is a revelation of God told in story form. Joseph Smith is not translating an ancient text but merely dictating it as he believed it came from the gold plates. Joseph Smith is then a kind of author of the Book of Mormon text. According to Hutchinson, words like "inspiration" and "translation" now need a retooling in the Latter-day Saint vernacular.

In his words:

“I believe that the word of God or the gospel of Jesus Christ is ill-served if not undermined to the degree that current LDS approaches to the Book of Mormon focus on its claims about itself and its value as a sign authenticating LDS religious life rather than on its unique message as a nineteenth century reworking of the biblical tradition.”[42]

Hutchinson didn't remain alone in his advocacy. Close to 10 years after Hutchinson's book chapter was published, Jesus mythicist Robert M. Price similarly argued that Joseph Smith should be viewed as the “inspired author” of the Book of Mormon.[43] There have even been those that have so pompously, foolishly, and, ironically, unreflectively proclaimed that believing in historicity is actually a lower form of religiosity![44] These types of arguments have thus been offered against belief in the historicity of other scripture that is a part of the canon of the Church. This article can then serve as a response to anyone who makes this type of argument against any book of scripture.


This theory in all its minor variations has come to be called the Inspired Fiction Theory (hereafter IFT) for the origins of the Book of Mormon by Latter-day Saint scholar Stephen O. Smoot.[45]

Is belief in the IFT a historically and theologically viable position for Latter-day Saints to take?

In this article, we’ll present a short answer to this question.

Response to Question

The Essential Argument Against the IFT

The late BYU professor of political science William J. Hamblin has produced the most succinct dilemma for proponents of any variation of the IFT:

  1. Joseph Smith claimed to have had possession of golden plates written by the Nephites, and to have been visited by Moroni, a resurrected Nephite.
  2. If the Book of Mormon is not an ancient document, there were no Nephites.
  3. If there were no Nephites, there were no golden plates written by Nephites; and there was no Nephite named Moroni.
  4. If there was no Moroni and no golden plates, then Joseph did not tell the truth when he claimed to possess and translate these nonexistent plates, and to have been visited by a resurrected man.
  5. Hence, Joseph was either lying (he knew there were no plates or angelic visitations, but was trying to convince others that there were), or he was insane or deluded (he believed there were golden plates and angelic visitations which in fact did not exist).[46]

The Book of Mormon Loses Spiritual Potency with the Loss of Historicity

Many people can believe that the Book of Mormon is an inspiring document without being true. We as Latter-day Saints consider the Quran to be a book inspired by God but not the book that will lead you to the true God. One of The Book of Mormon’s central purposes is to convince the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ. The historicity of the appearance of the resurrected Christ to the Nephites here in the Americas is thus essential.

Actuality Over Details

More important about the Book of Mormon is that many of its most important events actually happened. It is less important to worry about how they happened. This is similar to Joseph Smith's First Vision: it is more important that God and Jesus Christ actually appeared to Joseph Smith rather than what color the leaves were that day, what temperature it was, whether or not the light around Joseph Smith was fire or just light, etc.

Other Arguments Put Forth By Latter-day Saint Scholars

Below is a Further Reading list that one can use to discover additional reasons that Latter-day Saint scholars have put forth to show the incoherency of the IFT.

Conclusion

Hopefully, this will encourage Latter-day Saints and other interested readers to look into the scholarship that has been written on the Book of Mormon so that they can more articulately defend the book’s historicity. There is a large amount of literature that is easily accessible to interested parties.


Sexuality and gender
Marriage and children

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.

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.
—Elder David B. Haight[47]

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:

Since the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ through the Prophet Joseph Smith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has 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.[48]

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:

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....[49]

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

To learn more:Proclamation doctrines are longstanding

Origin of the Proclamation

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

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."[50]

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

Standard for official doctrine

Elder Neal L. Anderson taught:

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 (emphasis added). Our doctrine is not difficult to find.[51]

To learn more:Proclamation on the Family taught frequently since being issued

The Church's official website emphasized:

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 (emphasis added).[52]

Elder D. Todd Christofferson echoed this idea:

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.[53]

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.

To learn more: Official doctrine

All fifteen apostles involved in preparing the Proclamation

President Boyd K. Packer said:

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....(emphasis added)[54]

Scripture?

The Proclamation is not canonized scripture—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:

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 (D&C 1꞉37-38).

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

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" (D&C 1꞉38).[55]

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

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 (D&C 68꞉4).

"Significant, major, revelatory, scripturelike"

President Packer told a Worldwide Leadership Training Broadcast:

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.[56]

"Marvelous," "Scriptural direction"

Elder David B. Haight said:

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.[57]

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

Elder M. Russell Ballard:

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.[58]

Statements by apostles and prophets about the Proclamation

"A prophetic document"

Elder M. Russell Ballard said:

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>M. Russell Ballard, "What Matters Most Is What Lasts Longest," Ensign 35/11 (November 2005). off-site</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....[59]

"An inspired document" "historic"

President Boyd K. Packer:

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....[60]

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>Boyd K. Packer, "Parents in Zion," Ensign 28/10 (October 1998). off-site</ref>

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

Elder M. Russell Ballard:

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.[61]

"Reiteration" of doctrine

Elder L. Tom Perry said:

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."[62]

Critical doctrines

Elder Neal A. Maxwell:

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.[63]

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

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" (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.[64]

Important

Elder Robert D. Hales:

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.[65]

Revelatory Process Brings About the Family Proclamation

Elder Dallin H. Oaks:

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 (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 Doctrine and Covenants 131꞉1-4), in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.[66]

Other leaders on the Proclamation

Elder W. Eugene Hansen:

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.[67]

Elder Eran A. Call:

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.[68]

Elder Claudio R.M. Costa:

The Lord instructed us how to take care of our families when He told us through His prophets in the Proclamation to the world....[69]

Duty to teach and support the Proclamation

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.
—Elder M. Russell Ballard[70]

Elder Dallin H. Oaks noted:

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....(emphasis added)[71]

Elder M. Russell Ballard:

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.[70]

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

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:

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....[72]

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."[73]
  • "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."[74]

"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."[75]
  • "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."[76]
  • "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."[77]
  • "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."[78]
  • "the greatest responsibility and the greatest joys in life are centered in the family, honorable marriage, and rearing a righteous posterity."[79]
  • "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."[80]

"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" (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 (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" (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."[81]

"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."[82]
  • "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 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."[83]

"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."[84]
  • "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...."[85]
  • "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."[86]

"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 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 Numbers 16꞉22; Hebrews 12꞉9, D&C 76꞉24). The spirit of each individual is in the likeness of the person in mortality, male and female (see D&C 77꞉2; 132:63; Moses 6꞉9-10; Abraham 4꞉27). All are in the image of heavenly parents."[87]

"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 (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."[88]

"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! (italics in original)[89]

"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...." (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" (Moses 4꞉6)."[90]

"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."[91]

"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.)[92]
  • "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…"[93]
  • "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."[94]
  • "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."[95]
  • "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 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."[96]

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."[97]

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."[98]
  • "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."[99]

Homosexual relations forbidden

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

See also: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.[100])

  • "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."[101]
  • "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."[102]
  • 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.[103]

"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 Isa. 29꞉14.)[104]
  • "The expression of our procreative powers is pleasing to God, but he has commanded that this be confined within the relationship of marriage."[105]
  • "...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."[106]

"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." (D&C 49꞉15-16)[107]
  • "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."[108]

"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."[109]

"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 (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 (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" (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."[110]
  • "Let our citizenship be spirited but always appropriate and befitting who we are."[111]
  • "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."[112]

"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." (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.[113]

"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."[114]

"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."[115]

"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."[116]
  • "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!"[117]

"By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness"

  • "Brethren, as patriarchs in your homes, be worthy watchmen."[118]
  • "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."[119]

"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 Eph. 5꞉23 ). They have been given the primary responsibility for the temporal and physical needs of the family (see DNC 83:2)."[120]

"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."[121]

"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.[122]
  • "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."[123]

"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."[124]

"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 D&C 63꞉58.)"[125]
  • "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!"[126]

"violate covenants of chastity"

See 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."[127]

"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?[128]
  • "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…"[129]
  • "Society without basic family life is without foundation and will disintegrate into nothingness."[130]

"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."[131]

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:

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 (emphasis added). Our doctrine is not difficult to find (emphasis added).[132]

Repeated Publication of the Proclamation

Reference to the Proclamation as event of historical significance

Teaching

Educational series (also ran in Ensign)

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:

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."[133]

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":

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.[134]

It should be noted here that "gender" is used synonymously with "biological sex".[135]

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 (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:

  1. Their spirit has legitimately been housed in the wrong bodies by their choice.
  2. Their spirit has legitimately been housed in the wrong bodies by God's choice.
  3. Their spirit has legitimately been housed in the wrong body by the joint agreement of them and God.
  4. 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[.]"[136]

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.

"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!"[137]

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 platonic entity to ground our morality and identity i.e. "Love binds the universe. Love is my religion". But the basic point still stands—our feelings may be used to form identity, but that identity—the identity based in our feelings that we are having now—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 (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-Matthew 1꞉37) and he announces himself as the source of the revelation declaring that gender is binary (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 (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 (Alma 12꞉9).

Main article: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:

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..

See also: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. Gender complementarianism is scientifically defensible and is a philosophy that affirms the moral equality of the two genders.[138] 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—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—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 etymology of the word "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 "president."

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."[139] The Prophet Joseph Smith explained, "It is the place of the man to stand at the head of his family."[140] President Joseph F. Smith reemphasized this when he taught, "In the home the presiding authority is always vested in the father."[141]

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 D&C 107꞉21). By divine appointment, the responsibility to preside in the home rests upon the priesthood holder (see Moses 4꞉22)."[142]

Husbands lead their families

The Church's General Handbook teaches:

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 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.[143]

Elder D. Todd Christofferson taught:

The scriptures tell us, "The Melchizedek Priesthood holds the right of presidency, and … to administer in spiritual things" (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.[144]

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."[145] 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."[146] 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.[147]

Presiding in righteousness

In all cases, men are to preside in love and righteousness. From the General Handbook we learn:

This [priesthood] authority can be used only in righteousness (see Doctrine and Covenants 121꞉36). It is exercised by persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, love, and kindness (see 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 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" (Doctrine and Covenants 121꞉37).[148]

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 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[.]"[149]-->

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.[150] 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 Baehr v. Lewin (later Miike).[151] In 1994 the brethren begin the process of writing the Proclamation in a 'revelatory process' with members of the Quorum of the Twelve."[152] 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."[153] 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:

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.
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…[154]

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:

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."[155]

Similarly, Elder M. Russell Ballard related:

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.[156]

We note that the United Nations indeed held a conference in Beijing, China (the Fourth World Conference on Women) from the 4–15 of September 1995 and one in Cairo, Egypt (the "Cairo Conference on Population and Development") from 5–13 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 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.[157] The U.N. had designated the year 1994 as the International Year of the Family. The First Presidency released a statement on 1 January 1994 endorsing the U.N.'s designation.[158] 5 days after the Deseret News' report on the UN coming to Salt Lake, they reported the alarming speech of a member of the John Birch Society before a gathering of about 400 in Salt Lake City. The speaker, William Grigg, warned of what he perceived were the United Nations' attempts at "redefining the family out of existence[.]"[159]

Thus, this is the potential timeline/narrative that arises:

  • 17 December 1990: With the encouragement of 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."[160]
  • 5–13 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.[161]
  • 4–15 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.[162]
  • 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.[163] Elder Gordon B. Hinckley stated in the October 1993 General Conference:

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).[164]

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.[165]

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

While 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."

President Gordon B. Hinckley was asked by a reporter what his greatest concerns were as President of the Church as he celebrated his 5th 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."[166] 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."[167] President Hinckley decried the breakdown of the family in society in the October 1995 General Conference.[168] 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.

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.

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 D&C 102, 122, 123, 128, 129, 130, 131, 134, and 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.

Main articles:Have the doctrines in "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" long been taught?
What sort of scriptural support is there for the doctrines of 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?

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:

Family Proc Scipture Insert 1 .png
Family Proc Insert 2.png

Line by Line Analysis

The same website has a section that provides 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.[169] 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."[170]

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 Judith Butler refers to gender as conceived here (as well as a person's gender identity) as a "performance".[171] This performance is an outward showing or demonstration of the expectations that have been imposed onto a person through 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—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".[172] "In short," summarizes social conservative philosopher Ryan T. Anderson, "‘the body’ conceived as something in particular is all about power."[173]

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 second-wave feminism. 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."[174] 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."[175] 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:

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.[176]

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 intersex conditions are considered 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 bimodal instead of binary—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.[177] 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—a chemical reponsible for social paring and bonding—than men.[178] 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:

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.
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—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.[179]

What A Man or Woman "Should Be"

But let's offer one more argument against the notion of a social construct. 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 "gender performativity". That theory is described well in an introduction to Butler's most famous book Gender Trouble (1990) 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—one's subjective sense of the sex that they belong to—is not innate either. Gender identity is constructed through a set of socially popular 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.[180] Prior to being given mortal bodies, the spirits of humans were created as male or female.[181] Spirit is believed to be made of some kind of physical matter.[182] 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 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.[183] 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."[184]

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.

Main article: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

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.

See also: 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,[185] 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.

  1. Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics (New York: HarperOne, 1996), 379–406 online at https://www.heartlandchurch.org/d/The_Moral_Vision_of_the_New_Testament_excerpt.pdf. This gives an academic, exegetical perspective from the New Testament about homosexuality, concluding that whenever homosexual sexual behavior is discussed, it is unremittingly negative.
  2. 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.
  3. Robert A. J. Gagnon, one of the foremost experts on homosexuality and the Bible, has a 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:

  1. Robert A. J. Gagnon, 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.

  1. 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. 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. 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 (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.
  2. 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, Jacob 2꞉21 teaches that all men and women were created with the end of keeping God’s commandments and glorifying him forever.[186] 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, 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.
  3. Restoration scripture echoes Genesis in affirming that men and women should become "one flesh"—affirming the creative order discussed in Justin W. Starr’s paper above.[187] 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 (Genesis 2꞉21-24). He commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth (Genesis 1꞉28). God then saw that his creation was "very good" (Genesis 1꞉31).
  4. Doctrine & Covenants 131꞉1-2 teaches that one must enter into the covenant of marriage in order to reach the Celestial Kingdom.
  5. 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.[188] 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.
  6. 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.[189] It has been affirmed that the Proclamation came by way of divine inspiration and revelation many times.
  7. 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 Genesis 9 and the Sodom narratives, Romans 1꞉26-32,[190] and 1 Corinthians 6꞉12 and 6:18.[191] 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: Jacob 2꞉21 informs us that we were created unto the end of keeping God's commandments. 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 article: 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

Fornications

Fornicator

Fornicators

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.[192] We have gathered an exhaustive concordance of those words at this link that readers should take a look at.

See also:Did Christ teach against same-sex relationships during his mortal ministry?
Isn't the Mormon opposition to same-sex marriage hypocritical, considering that they used to ban black from holding the priesthood until 1978?


Notes

  1. ↑ Deuteronomy 14:2; 26:18; Psalms 135:4; Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 2:9; James 1:27; Doctrine and Covenants 59:9
  2. ↑ Moroni 7:44
  3. ↑ Doctrine and Covenants 58:27–29
  4. ↑ For example, Anna P. Kambhampaty, “Beard Crusader,” New York Times, August 16, 2021; Julie Turkewitz, "At Brigham Young, Students Push to Lift Ban on Beards," New York Times, November 17, 2014.
  5. ↑ Matthew 5:19
  6. ↑ Jeffrey R. Holland, “’This Do in Remembrance of Me’,” Ensign 25, no. 11 (November 1995): 68.
  7. ↑ David O. McKay, Conference Report (October 1956): 89.
  8. ↑ 2 Nephi 26:33
  9. ↑ Deuteronomy 14:2; 26:18; Psalms 135:4; Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 2:9
  10. ↑ James 1:27; Doctrine and Covenants 59:9
  11. ↑ Moroni 7:44
  12. ↑ Doctrine and Covenants 21:4–5
  13. ↑ Doctrine and Covenants 58:27–29
  14. ↑ Proverbs 18:21
  15. ↑ Matthew 12:36-37
  16. ↑ Matthew 15:11
  17. ↑ 1 Corinthians 15:33
  18. ↑ Ephesians 4:29
  19. ↑ 1 Peter 1:15
  20. ↑ Mosiah 4:29-30
  21. ↑ Alma 12:14
  22. ↑ Doctrine and Covenants 136:24
  23. ↑ Matthew 22:39
  24. ↑ Matthew 5:19
  25. ↑ Deuteronomy 14:2; 26:18; Psalms 135:4; Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 2:9
  26. ↑ James 1:27; Doctrine and Covenants 59:9
  27. ↑ Doctrine and Covenants 58:27–29
  28. ↑ Jeremy Runnells, "Letter to a CES Director", 2013
  29. ↑ Aaron L. West, "Sacred Transformations," Ensign 42, no. 12 (December 2012): 38–39.
  30. ↑ Lynn G. Robbins, "Tithing—a Commandment Even for the Destitute," Ensign 35, no. 5 (May 2005): 34–35.
  31. ↑ Jon Swaine, Douglas MacMillan, and Michelle Boorstein, “Mormon Church has misled members on 100 billion tax-exempt investment fund, whistleblower alleges,” The Washington Post, December 17, 2019.
  32. ↑ See, for instance, Hal Boyd and Lynn Chapman, “The Washington Post says the Church of Jesus Christ has billions. Thank goodness,” Deseret News, December 17, 2019; Sam Brunson, "Some Thoughts About Ensign Peak Advisers and the Church," By Common Consent, December 17, 2019, https://bycommonconsent.com/2019/12/17/some-thoughts-about-ensign-peak-advisers-and-the-church/; Swift Hales, "Post-Mortem Analysis on this Year’s Exposé Stunt," FAIR Blog, December 18, 2019, https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2019/12/18/a-post-mortem-on-this-years-expose-stunt ; Aaron Miller, "The $100 Billion 'Mormon Church' Story: A Contextual Analysis," Public Square Magazine, December 20, 2019, https://publicsquaremag.org/faith/the-100-billion-mormon-church-story-a-contextual-analysis/; Christian Sagers, "Kathleen Flake: 'Mormonism and Its Money' is a power struggle we've seen before," Deseret News, December 26, 2019; Sam Brunson, "So You Have $100 Billion," By Common Consent, December 29, 2019, https://bycommonconsent.com/2019/12/29/so-you-have-100-billion/; Sam Brunson, "IRS Whistleblowers Revisited," By Common Consent, March 11, 2021, https://bycommonconsent.com/2021/03/11/irs-whistleblowers-revisited/; Jeff Bennion, "You Can't Spend Your Way Out of Poverty," Public Square Magazine, March 11, 2022, https://publicsquaremag.org/faith/church-state/you-cant-spend-your-way-out-of-poverty/; Samuel B. Hislop, “Church Finances and the Doubting Soul,” Public Square Magazine, December 16, 2022, https://publicsquaremag.org/faith/gospel-fare/church-finances-and-the-doubting-soul/. After the 2019 whistleblower, claims began to be made that the Church was playing fast and loose with tax law in Australia. For insightful responses to those claims, see C.D. Cunningham, "Is the Church breaking Tax Law in Australia?" Public Square Magazine, April 5, 2022, https://publicsquaremag.org/bulletin/is-the-church-breaking-tax-law-in-australia/; Paul W. Hess, "Defamation Down Under: Responding to the Aussie Allegations," Public Square Magazine, November 4, 2022, https://publicsquaremag.org/faith/climate-end-times/defamation-down-under-responding-to-the-aussie-allegations/. On February 21, 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced that it would be fining Ensign Peak Advisors for 5 million dollars—1 million from the Church itself and 4 from EPA. See "SEC Charges The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Its Investment Management Company for Disclosure Failures and Misstated Filings," U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, February 21, 2023, https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2023-35. Insightful responses to this news can be found online. "Church Issues Statement on SEC Settlement," The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, February 21, 2023, https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-issues-statement-on-sec-settlement; Public Square Staff, "Ensign Peak: Clarifying the SEC Announcement," Public Square Magazine, February 21, 2023, https://publicsquaremag.org/faith/church-state/ensign-peak-clarifying-the-sec-announcement/; Tad Walch, "Church settles case with SEC over financial reporting," Deseret News, February 21, 2023; Jonathan Green, "About that FEC Fine," Times and Seasons, March 7, 2023, https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2023/03/about-that-fec-fine/. On May 14, 2023, CBS released a '60 Minutes' TV special regarding David Nielsen and his allegations against the Church. For commentary on that TV special from a faithful perspective, see Kirk Magleby, "Church Finances: A View from the Pews," Scripture Central, May 12, 2023, https://bookofmormoncentral.org/blog/church-finances-a-view-from-the-pews; Tad Walch, "In CBS’s ‘60 Minutes’ segment on church finances, it missed the sweeping rags-to-riches history of faith," Deseret News, May 14, 2023; "Statement Issued Following CBS ‘60 Minutes’ Report," The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, May 15, 2023, https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/statement-issued-following-cbs-60-minutes-report; "Church Finances – Current Events," FAIR Current Events, accessed May 15, 2023, https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/home-page/current-events/church-finances-current-events; C.D. Cunningham, "The 'Mormon' Headline: Media's Lucrative Obsession with Latter-day Saints," Public Square Magazine, May 16, 2023, https://publicsquaremag.org/media-education/news-media/60-minutes-media-bias-latter-day-saints/.
  33. ↑ Jana Riess, “Jana Riess: Why I stopped paying tithing to the LDS Church,” Salt Lake Tribune, December 24, 2020.
  34. ↑ Malachi 3:10
  35. ↑ Doctrine and Covenants 21:4–5
  36. ↑ George Albert Smith, "The Story of a Generous Man," Improvement Era 50, no. 6 (June 1947): 357. Issues of the Improvement Era can be accessed here.
  37. ↑ Peter J. Reilly, "$100 Billion In Mormon Till Does Not Merit IRS Attention," Forbes, December 17, 2019, https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2019/12/17/100b-in-mormon-till-does-not-merit-irs-attention/?sh=6a9b18045d5b.
  38. ↑ Tad Walch, "Church finances: Presiding Bishopric offers unique look inside financial operations of growing faith," Deseret News, February 14, 2020.
  39. ↑ John 14:15; Doctrine and Covenants 59:5.
  40. ↑ Anthony A. Hutchinson, “The Word of God is Enough: The Book of Mormon as Nineteenth Century Scripture,” in New Approaches to the Book of Mormon, ed. Brent Lee Metcalfe (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1993), 1–19.
  41. ↑ Ibid., 1
  42. ↑ Ibid., 2.
  43. ↑ Robert M. Price, “Joseph Smith: Inspired Author of the Book of Mormon,” in American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon, eds. Dan Vogel and Brent Lee Metcalfe (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002), 321–66.
  44. ↑ Parsley S., "Liberating Ourselves from the Obsession with Historicity," Prodigal Press, no. 4 (December 2020): 5–8.
  45. ↑ Stephen O. Smoot, “Et Incarnatus Est: the Imperative for Book of Mormon Historicity,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 30 (2018): 125–62.
  46. ↑ William J. Hamblin, “An Apologist for the Critics: Brent Lee Metcalfe’s Assumptions and Methodologies,” FARMS Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6, no. 1 (1994): 453.
  47. ↑ David B. Haight, "Be A Strong Link," Ensign 30/11 (November 2000). off-site
  48. ↑ Henry B. Eyring, "The Family," Ensign 28 (February 1998).
  49. ↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, "Stand Strong against the Wiles of the World," Ensign 25/11 (November 1995): 98. off-site
  50. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "The Instrument of Your Mind and the Foundation of Your Character," CES Fireside (2 February 2003).off-site
  51. ↑ Neal A. Anderson, "Trial of Your Faith," Ensign 42/11 (November 2012). off-site
  52. ↑ " Approaching Mormon Doctrine, LDS Newsroom (4 May 2007). off-site
  53. ↑ D. Todd Christofferson, "The Doctrine of Christ," Ensign 42/5 (May 2012). off-site
  54. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Fledgling Finches and Family Life, BYU Campus Education Week Devotional, 18 August 2009.
  55. ↑ Henry B. Eyring, Ensign 28/2 (February 1998). off-site
  56. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Proclamation on the Family]," Worldwide Leadership Training Broadcast (9 February 2008). off-site
  57. ↑ David B. Haight, "Be A Strong Link," Ensign 30/11 (November 2000). off-site.
  58. ↑ M. Russell Ballard, "Beware of False Prophets and False Teachers," Ensign 29/11 (November 1999). off-site
  59. ↑ M. Russell Ballard, "Let Our Voices Be Heard," Ensign 33/11 (November 2003). off-site.
  60. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Counsel to Youth," Ensign 41/11 (November 2011). off-site
  61. ↑ M. Russell Ballard, "Beware of False Prophets and False Teachers," Ensign 29/11 (November 1999). off-site
  62. ↑ L. Tom Perry, "Obedience to Law Is Liberty," Ensign 43/5 (May 2013). off-site
  63. ↑ Neal A. Maxwell, "Sharing Insights from My Life," BYU Devotional 12 Jan 1999. off-site
  64. ↑ Henry B. Eyring, Ensign 28/2 (February 1998). off-site
  65. ↑ Robert D. Hales, "'If Thou Wilt Enter into Life," Ensign. off-site
  66. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "The Plan and the Proclamation," Ensign 47/11 (November 2017): 30–31. off-site
  67. ↑ W. Eugene Hansen, "Children and the Family," Ensign 28/5 (May 1998). off-site
  68. ↑ Eran A. Call, "The Home: A Refuge and Sanctuary," Ensign 28/11 (November 1998). off-site
  69. ↑ Claudio R.M. Costa, "Don't Leave for Tomorrow What You Can Do Today," Ensign 37/11 (November 2007). off-site
  70. ↑ 70.0 70.1 M. Russell Ballard, "What Matters Most Is What Lasts Longest," Ensign 35/11 (November 2005). off-site
  71. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "As He Thinketh in His Heart," evening with a General Authority (February 2013). off-site
  72. ↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, "Stand Strong against the Wiles of the World," Ensign (November 1995): 98.
  73. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Fortify Your Homes Against Evil," Ensign (May 1979).
  74. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).
  75. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Families Can Be Eternal," Ensign (November 1980).
  76. ↑ Russell M. Nelson, "The Canker of Contention," Ensign (May 1989).
  77. ↑ 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.]
  78. ↑ Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed., (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1939), 272.
  79. ↑ Ezra Taft Benson, "To the Single Adult Brethren of the Church," Ensign (May 1988).
  80. ↑ Neal A. Maxwell, "Family Perspectives," BYU Devotional, 15 January 1974
  81. ↑ Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed., (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1939), 272.
  82. ↑ Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed., (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1939), 428.
  83. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "The Great Plan of Happiness," Ensign (November 1993).
  84. ↑ 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.
  85. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).
  86. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "For Time and All Eternty," Ensign (November 1993).
  87. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "The Play and the Plan," CES Fireside, 7 May 1995, Kirkland, Washington.
  88. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).
  89. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Families Can Be Eternal," Ensign (November 1980).
  90. ↑ Russell M. Nelson, "Constancy Amid Change," Ensign (November 1993).
  91. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Fortify Your Homes Against Evil," Ensign (May 1979).
  92. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Voices of the Past, of the Present, of the Future," Ensign (May 1971).
  93. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Fortify Your Homes Against Evil," Ensign (May 1979).
  94. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).
  95. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).
  96. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Families Can Be Eternal," Ensign (November 1980).
  97. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).
  98. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).
  99. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).
  100. ↑ This fact is exhaustively demonstrated in Gregory L. Smith, "Feet of Clay: Queer Theory and the Church of Jesus Christ," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 43/3 (5 March 2021): 187-215. [107–278] link
  101. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).
  102. ↑ Neal A. Maxwell, Look Back At Sodom: A timely account from imaginary Sodom Scrolls (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1975).
  103. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "The Foundations of Righteousness," Ensign (November 1977).
  104. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Why Call Me Lord, Lord and Do Not the Things Which I Say?," Ensign (May 1975).
  105. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "The Great Plan of Happiness," Ensign (November 1993).
  106. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, edited by Edward L. Kimball, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1982), 311.
  107. ↑ Cited in this context, for example, in Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).
  108. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).
  109. ↑ 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.]
  110. ↑ 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.
  111. ↑ Neal A. Maxwell, "All Hell Is Moved," BYU Devotional (8 November 1977).
  112. ↑ Neal A. Maxwell, "A More Determined Discipleship," Ensign (February 1979).
  113. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974). off-site
  114. ↑ Russell M. Nelson, "Children of the Covenant," Ensign (May 1995). off-site
  115. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).
  116. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).
  117. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Families Can Be Eternal," Ensign (November 1980).
  118. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Strengthening the Family, the Basic Unit of the Church," Ensign (May 1978).
  119. ↑ Joseph Fielding Smith, "Counsel to the Saints and to the World," Ensign (July 1972): 27.
  120. ↑ M. Russell Ballard, "Equality Through Diversity," Ensign (November 1993).
  121. ↑ M. Russell Ballard, "Equality Through Diversity," Ensign (November 1993).
  122. ↑ M. Russell Ballard, "Equality Through Diversity," Ensign (November 1993).
  123. ↑ Ezra Taft Benson, "Fundamentals of Enduring Family Relationships," Ensign (November 1982).
  124. ↑ M. Russell Ballard, "Equality Through Diversity," Ensign (November 1993).
  125. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).
  126. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).
  127. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Families Can Be Eternal," Ensign (November 1980).
  128. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).
  129. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Fortify Your Homes Against Evil," Ensign (May 1979).
  130. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Families Can Be Eternal," Ensign (November 1980).
  131. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Families Can Be Eternal," Ensign (November 1980).
  132. ↑ Neal A. Anderson, "Trial of Your Faith," Ensign (November 2012).
  133. ↑ "Intersex," Wikipedia, accessed January 4, 2019, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex.
  134. ↑ "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed January 4, 2019, off-site.
  135. ↑ "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.'"
  136. ↑ "Elder Nelson: 'There Is No Conflict Between Science and Religion'," LDS Living, April 17, 2015, [ttps://www.ldsliving.com/Elder-Nelson-There-Is-No-Conflict-Between-Science-and-Religion-/s/78668 off-site].
  137. ↑ Ty Mansfield, "'Mormons can be gay, they just can’t do gay': Deconstructing Sexuality and Identity from an LDS Perspective," (presentation, FairMormon Conference, Provo, UT, 2014).
  138. ↑ 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, "A meta-analysis of sex differences in human brain structure," Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 39 (2014): 34–50; Larry Cahill, "A Half-Truth is a Whole Lie: On the Necessity of Investigating Sex Influences on the Brain," Endocrinology 153 (2012): 2542; "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), 11–127.
  139. ↑ 1 Corinthians 11꞉3
  140. ↑ "Chapter 42: Family: The Sweetest Union for Time and for Eternity," Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith.
  141. ↑ "Editorial Thoughts: The Rights of Fatherhood," Juvenile Instructor 37:5 (1 March 1902), 146.
  142. ↑ "Being a Righteous Husband and Father," October 1994 general conference.
  143. ↑ "Parents and Children", General Handbook, 2.1.3.
  144. ↑ D. Todd Christofferson, "To the Brethren of the Priesthood: Your Spiritual Leadership," Chile multistake conference, Aug. 26, 2018; as cited in Dallin H. Oaks, "Keeping the Faith on the Front Line," Ensign, June 2020 [digital only].
  145. ↑ Moses 7꞉18; Philippians 2꞉2; 1 Peter 3꞉15; Doctrine and Covenants 38꞉27.
  146. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "The Relief Society," Ensign 28, no. 5 (May 1998): 73.
  147. ↑ "Fatherhood: An Eternal Calling," April 2004 general conference.
  148. ↑ "Exercising Priesthood Authority Righteously," General Handbook, 3.4.4.
  149. ↑ Ephesians 5꞉25-29
  150. ↑ The claim has its origins in Laura Compton, "From Amici to 'Ohana: The Hawaiian Roots of the Family Proclamation," Rational Faiths, May 15, 2015, https://rationalfaiths.com/from-amici-to-ohana/.
  151. ↑ Baehr v. Lewin (1993) was a case where three same-sex couples petitioned the Hawaii Supreme Court to recognize their unions.
  152. ↑ 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." DHO offers an account of the Proclamation.
  153. ↑ "Origins of the Family Proclamation," Mormonr, accessed January 24, 2023, https://mormonr.org/qnas/NqoXl/origins_of_the_family_proclamation.
  154. ↑ Richard E. Turley Jr., In the Hands of the Lord: The Life of Dallin H. Oaks (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2021), 215.
  155. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "The Instrument of Your Mind and the Foundation of Your Character," CES Fireside (2 February 2003).
  156. ↑ M. Russell Ballard, "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.
  157. ↑ "World Focus on S.L. Gathering," Deseret News, March 15, 1995.
  158. ↑ "Year of family endorsed by the First Presidency," Church News, January 1, 1994; "YEAR OF FAMILY ENDORSED BY THE FIRST PRESIDENCY," Deseret News, January 1, 1994; "FIRST PRESIDENCY BACKS 1994 AS YEAR OF FAMILY," Deseret News, January 9, 1994.
  159. ↑ Marianne Schmidt, "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. "U.N. GATHERINGS THREATEN FAMILIES," Deseret News, April 17, 1995.
  160. ↑ "First Presidency Statement Opposing Same Gender Marriages," Ensign 24, no. 4 (April 1994): 80.
  161. ↑ "CHURCH JOINS HAWAII FIGHT OVER SAME-SEX MARRIAGES," Associated Press, February 24, 1995.
  162. ↑ "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.
  163. ↑ 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/.
  164. ↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, "Bring Up a Child in the Way He Should Go," Ensign 23, no. 11 (November 1993): 58–59.
  165. ↑ Neal A. Maxwell, "Take Especial Care of Your Family," Ensign 24, no. 5 (May 1994): 88–89.
  166. ↑ Bruce C. Hafen, "The Proclamation on the Family: Transcending the Cultural Confusion," Ensign 45, no. 8 (August 2015): 51.
  167. ↑ Ibid.
  168. ↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, "Stand Strong Against the Wiles of the World," Ensign 25, no. 11 (November 1995): 98–101.
  169. ↑ 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).
  170. ↑ "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," 2nd paragraph.
  171. ↑ Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (New York: Routledge, 2006), 171–80.
  172. ↑ Judith Butler, "Bodies That Matter," in Engaging with Irigaray, ed. Carolyn Burke, Naomi Schor, and Margaret Whitford (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994), 148.
  173. ↑ Anderson, When Harry Became Sally, 153.
  174. ↑ Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex , trans. H.M. Parshley (London: Jonathan Cape, 1953; 2009), 294.
  175. ↑ "Second-wave feminism," Wikipedia, accessed January 11, 2023, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-wave_feminism.
  176. ↑ Dr. Debra Soh, The End of Gender: Debunking the Myths About Sex and Identity in Our Society (New York: Threshold Editions, 2020), 17.
  177. ↑ 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, "A meta-analysis of sex differences in human brain structure," Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 39 (2014): 34–50; Larry Cahill, "A Half-Truth is a Whole Lie: On the Necessity of Investigating Sex Influences on the Brain," Endocrinology 153 (2012): 2542; "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), 11–127.
  178. ↑ Donatella Marazziti et. al, "Sex-Related Differences in Plasma Oxytocin Levels in Humans," Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health 15 (March 2019): 58–63; Shan Gao et. al, "Oxytocin, the peptide that bonds the sexes also divides them," Proc Natl Acad Sci 113, no. 27 (2016): 7650-7654.
  179. ↑ Soh, The End of Gender, 42–44.
  180. ↑ Abraham 3꞉18
  181. ↑ Moses 3꞉4-5
  182. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 131꞉7
  183. ↑ 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.
  184. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "Apostasy and Restoration," Ensign 25, no. 5 (May 1995): 87.
  185. ↑ Taylor G. Petrey, "Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 44, no. 4 (2011): 106–41; 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, "Feet of Clay: Queer Theory and the Church of Jesus Christ," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 43 (2021): 107–278; Michael A. Goodman and Daniel Frost, "Constancy Amid Change," BYU Studies Quarterly 61, no. 3 (2022): 191–217. For a solid and insightful rebuttal to Petrey’s article "Towards a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology", see V.H. Cassler, "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, "'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, "The Queer Philosophies of Men Mingled with Scripture," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 51 (2022): 317–34. For a review of Oman's work, see Matthew Watkins, "'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): 207–22. 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.
  186. ↑ 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, 1 Nephi 19꞉6; Mormon 8꞉12, 16-17; Mormon 9꞉31; 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.
  187. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 49꞉15-17; Moses 3꞉21-24; Abraham 5꞉14-18
  188. ↑ 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, "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, "The Idea of Pre-Existence in the Development of Mormon Thought," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15, no. 1 (Spring 1982): 59–78. 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 Moses 3꞉5 and especially in connection to 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), 80–86; 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), 129–30; Shon D. Hopkin, "Premortal Existence," in Pearl of Great Price Reference Companion, ed. Dennis L. Largey (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2017), 240–41; Hyrum L. Andrus, Doctrinal Commentary on the Pearl of Great Price (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1973), 99–136; 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), 153–54n30; Book of Mormon Central and Jeffrey R. Bradshaw, "Book of Moses Essays: #54 Moses Sees the Garden of Eden (Moses 3) Spiritual Creation (Moses 3꞉5-7)," The Interpreter Foundation, May 8, 2021, https://interpreterfoundation.org/book-of-moses-essays-054/; Terryl L. 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), 524–25. 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 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), 113–125. 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.
  189. ↑ David L. Paulsen and Martin Pulido, "‘A Mother There’: A Survey of Historical Teachings About Heavenly Mother," BYU Studies Quarterly 50, no. 1 (2011): 70–97.
  190. ↑ Smith, "Feet of Clay," 129.
  191. ↑ 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.
  192. ↑ This is especially true when considering the biblical outlook on scripture. In the words of Lyn M. Bechtel 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., Deut. 22꞉28-29) or that violates existing marital or family bonding and obligation (e.g., vv. 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), 1192–93. 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.
Sexuality and gender
Marriage and children

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.

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.
—Elder David B. Haight[1]

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:

Since the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ through the Prophet Joseph Smith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has 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.[2]

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:

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....[3]

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

To learn more:Proclamation doctrines are longstanding

Origin of the Proclamation

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

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."[4]

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

Standard for official doctrine

Elder Neal L. Anderson taught:

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 (emphasis added). Our doctrine is not difficult to find.[5]

To learn more:Proclamation on the Family taught frequently since being issued

The Church's official website emphasized:

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 (emphasis added).[6]

Elder D. Todd Christofferson echoed this idea:

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.[7]

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.

To learn more: Official doctrine

All fifteen apostles involved in preparing the Proclamation

President Boyd K. Packer said:

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....(emphasis added)[8]

Scripture?

The Proclamation is not canonized scripture—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:

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 (D&C 1꞉37-38).

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

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" (D&C 1꞉38).[9]

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

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 (D&C 68꞉4).

"Significant, major, revelatory, scripturelike"

President Packer told a Worldwide Leadership Training Broadcast:

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.[10]

"Marvelous," "Scriptural direction"

Elder David B. Haight said:

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.[11]

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

Elder M. Russell Ballard:

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.[12]

Statements by apostles and prophets about the Proclamation

"A prophetic document"

Elder M. Russell Ballard said:

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>M. Russell Ballard, "What Matters Most Is What Lasts Longest," Ensign 35/11 (November 2005). off-site</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....[13]

"An inspired document" "historic"

President Boyd K. Packer:

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....[14]

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>Boyd K. Packer, "Parents in Zion," Ensign 28/10 (October 1998). off-site</ref>

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

Elder M. Russell Ballard:

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.[15]

"Reiteration" of doctrine

Elder L. Tom Perry said:

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."[16]

Critical doctrines

Elder Neal A. Maxwell:

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.[17]

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

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" (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.[18]

Important

Elder Robert D. Hales:

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.[19]

Revelatory Process Brings About the Family Proclamation

Elder Dallin H. Oaks:

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 (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 Doctrine and Covenants 131꞉1-4), in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.[20]

Other leaders on the Proclamation

Elder W. Eugene Hansen:

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.[21]

Elder Eran A. Call:

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.[22]

Elder Claudio R.M. Costa:

The Lord instructed us how to take care of our families when He told us through His prophets in the Proclamation to the world....[23]

Duty to teach and support the Proclamation

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.
—Elder M. Russell Ballard[24]

Elder Dallin H. Oaks noted:

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....(emphasis added)[25]

Elder M. Russell Ballard:

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.[24]

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

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:

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....[26]

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."[27]
  • "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."[28]

"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."[29]
  • "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."[30]
  • "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."[31]
  • "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."[32]
  • "the greatest responsibility and the greatest joys in life are centered in the family, honorable marriage, and rearing a righteous posterity."[33]
  • "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."[34]

"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" (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 (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" (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."[35]

"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."[36]
  • "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 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."[37]

"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."[38]
  • "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...."[39]
  • "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."[40]

"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 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 Numbers 16꞉22; Hebrews 12꞉9, D&C 76꞉24). The spirit of each individual is in the likeness of the person in mortality, male and female (see D&C 77꞉2; 132:63; Moses 6꞉9-10; Abraham 4꞉27). All are in the image of heavenly parents."[41]

"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 (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."[42]

"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! (italics in original)[43]

"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...." (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" (Moses 4꞉6)."[44]

"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."[45]

"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.)[46]
  • "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…"[47]
  • "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."[48]
  • "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."[49]
  • "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 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."[50]

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."[51]

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."[52]
  • "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."[53]

Homosexual relations forbidden

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

See also: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.[54])

  • "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."[55]
  • "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."[56]
  • 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.[57]

"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 Isa. 29꞉14.)[58]
  • "The expression of our procreative powers is pleasing to God, but he has commanded that this be confined within the relationship of marriage."[59]
  • "...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."[60]

"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." (D&C 49꞉15-16)[61]
  • "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."[62]

"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."[63]

"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 (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 (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" (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."[64]
  • "Let our citizenship be spirited but always appropriate and befitting who we are."[65]
  • "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."[66]

"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." (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.[67]

"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."[68]

"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."[69]

"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."[70]
  • "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!"[71]

"By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness"

  • "Brethren, as patriarchs in your homes, be worthy watchmen."[72]
  • "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."[73]

"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 Eph. 5꞉23 ). They have been given the primary responsibility for the temporal and physical needs of the family (see DNC 83:2)."[74]

"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."[75]

"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.[76]
  • "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."[77]

"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."[78]

"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 D&C 63꞉58.)"[79]
  • "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!"[80]

"violate covenants of chastity"

See 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."[81]

"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?[82]
  • "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…"[83]
  • "Society without basic family life is without foundation and will disintegrate into nothingness."[84]

"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."[85]

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:

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 (emphasis added). Our doctrine is not difficult to find (emphasis added).[86]

Repeated Publication of the Proclamation

Reference to the Proclamation as event of historical significance

Teaching

Educational series (also ran in Ensign)

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:

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."[87]

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":

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.[88]

It should be noted here that "gender" is used synonymously with "biological sex".[89]

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 (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:

  1. Their spirit has legitimately been housed in the wrong bodies by their choice.
  2. Their spirit has legitimately been housed in the wrong bodies by God's choice.
  3. Their spirit has legitimately been housed in the wrong body by the joint agreement of them and God.
  4. 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[.]"[90]

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.

"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!"[91]

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 platonic entity to ground our morality and identity i.e. "Love binds the universe. Love is my religion". But the basic point still stands—our feelings may be used to form identity, but that identity—the identity based in our feelings that we are having now—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 (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-Matthew 1꞉37) and he announces himself as the source of the revelation declaring that gender is binary (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 (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 (Alma 12꞉9).

Main article: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:

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..

See also: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. Gender complementarianism is scientifically defensible and is a philosophy that affirms the moral equality of the two genders.[92] 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—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—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 etymology of the word "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 "president."

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."[93] The Prophet Joseph Smith explained, "It is the place of the man to stand at the head of his family."[94] President Joseph F. Smith reemphasized this when he taught, "In the home the presiding authority is always vested in the father."[95]

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 D&C 107꞉21). By divine appointment, the responsibility to preside in the home rests upon the priesthood holder (see Moses 4꞉22)."[96]

Husbands lead their families

The Church's General Handbook teaches:

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 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.[97]

Elder D. Todd Christofferson taught:

The scriptures tell us, "The Melchizedek Priesthood holds the right of presidency, and … to administer in spiritual things" (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.[98]

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."[99] 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."[100] 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.[101]

Presiding in righteousness

In all cases, men are to preside in love and righteousness. From the General Handbook we learn:

This [priesthood] authority can be used only in righteousness (see Doctrine and Covenants 121꞉36). It is exercised by persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, love, and kindness (see 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 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" (Doctrine and Covenants 121꞉37).[102]

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 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[.]"[103]-->

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.[104] 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 Baehr v. Lewin (later Miike).[105] In 1994 the brethren begin the process of writing the Proclamation in a 'revelatory process' with members of the Quorum of the Twelve."[106] 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."[107] 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:

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.
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…[108]

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:

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."[109]

Similarly, Elder M. Russell Ballard related:

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.[110]

We note that the United Nations indeed held a conference in Beijing, China (the Fourth World Conference on Women) from the 4–15 of September 1995 and one in Cairo, Egypt (the "Cairo Conference on Population and Development") from 5–13 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 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.[111] The U.N. had designated the year 1994 as the International Year of the Family. The First Presidency released a statement on 1 January 1994 endorsing the U.N.'s designation.[112] 5 days after the Deseret News' report on the UN coming to Salt Lake, they reported the alarming speech of a member of the John Birch Society before a gathering of about 400 in Salt Lake City. The speaker, William Grigg, warned of what he perceived were the United Nations' attempts at "redefining the family out of existence[.]"[113]

Thus, this is the potential timeline/narrative that arises:

  • 17 December 1990: With the encouragement of 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."[114]
  • 5–13 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.[115]
  • 4–15 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.[116]
  • 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.[117] Elder Gordon B. Hinckley stated in the October 1993 General Conference:

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).[118]

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.[119]

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

While 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."

President Gordon B. Hinckley was asked by a reporter what his greatest concerns were as President of the Church as he celebrated his 5th 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."[120] 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."[121] President Hinckley decried the breakdown of the family in society in the October 1995 General Conference.[122] 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.

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.

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 D&C 102, 122, 123, 128, 129, 130, 131, 134, and 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.

Main articles:Have the doctrines in "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" long been taught?
What sort of scriptural support is there for the doctrines of 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?

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:

Family Proc Scipture Insert 1 .png
Family Proc Insert 2.png

Line by Line Analysis

The same website has a section that provides 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.[123] 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."[124]

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 Judith Butler refers to gender as conceived here (as well as a person's gender identity) as a "performance".[125] This performance is an outward showing or demonstration of the expectations that have been imposed onto a person through 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—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".[126] "In short," summarizes social conservative philosopher Ryan T. Anderson, "‘the body’ conceived as something in particular is all about power."[127]

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 second-wave feminism. 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."[128] 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."[129] 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:

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.[130]

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 intersex conditions are considered 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 bimodal instead of binary—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.[131] 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—a chemical reponsible for social paring and bonding—than men.[132] 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:

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.
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—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.[133]

What A Man or Woman "Should Be"

But let's offer one more argument against the notion of a social construct. 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 "gender performativity". That theory is described well in an introduction to Butler's most famous book Gender Trouble (1990) 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—one's subjective sense of the sex that they belong to—is not innate either. Gender identity is constructed through a set of socially popular 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.[134] Prior to being given mortal bodies, the spirits of humans were created as male or female.[135] Spirit is believed to be made of some kind of physical matter.[136] 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 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.[137] 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."[138]

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.

Main article: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

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.

See also: 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,[139] 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.

  1. Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics (New York: HarperOne, 1996), 379–406 online at https://www.heartlandchurch.org/d/The_Moral_Vision_of_the_New_Testament_excerpt.pdf. This gives an academic, exegetical perspective from the New Testament about homosexuality, concluding that whenever homosexual sexual behavior is discussed, it is unremittingly negative.
  2. 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.
  3. Robert A. J. Gagnon, one of the foremost experts on homosexuality and the Bible, has a 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:

  1. Robert A. J. Gagnon, 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.

  1. 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. 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. 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 (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.
  2. 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, Jacob 2꞉21 teaches that all men and women were created with the end of keeping God’s commandments and glorifying him forever.[140] 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, 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.
  3. Restoration scripture echoes Genesis in affirming that men and women should become "one flesh"—affirming the creative order discussed in Justin W. Starr’s paper above.[141] 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 (Genesis 2꞉21-24). He commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth (Genesis 1꞉28). God then saw that his creation was "very good" (Genesis 1꞉31).
  4. Doctrine & Covenants 131꞉1-2 teaches that one must enter into the covenant of marriage in order to reach the Celestial Kingdom.
  5. 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.[142] 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.
  6. 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.[143] It has been affirmed that the Proclamation came by way of divine inspiration and revelation many times.
  7. 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 Genesis 9 and the Sodom narratives, Romans 1꞉26-32,[144] and 1 Corinthians 6꞉12 and 6:18.[145] 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: Jacob 2꞉21 informs us that we were created unto the end of keeping God's commandments. 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 article: 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

Fornications

Fornicator

Fornicators

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.[146] We have gathered an exhaustive concordance of those words at this link that readers should take a look at.

See also:Did Christ teach against same-sex relationships during his mortal ministry?
Isn't the Mormon opposition to same-sex marriage hypocritical, considering that they used to ban black from holding the priesthood until 1978?


Notes

  1. ↑ David B. Haight, "Be A Strong Link," Ensign 30/11 (November 2000). off-site
  2. ↑ Henry B. Eyring, "The Family," Ensign 28 (February 1998).
  3. ↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, "Stand Strong against the Wiles of the World," Ensign 25/11 (November 1995): 98. off-site
  4. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "The Instrument of Your Mind and the Foundation of Your Character," CES Fireside (2 February 2003).off-site
  5. ↑ Neal A. Anderson, "Trial of Your Faith," Ensign 42/11 (November 2012). off-site
  6. ↑ " Approaching Mormon Doctrine, LDS Newsroom (4 May 2007). off-site
  7. ↑ D. Todd Christofferson, "The Doctrine of Christ," Ensign 42/5 (May 2012). off-site
  8. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Fledgling Finches and Family Life, BYU Campus Education Week Devotional, 18 August 2009.
  9. ↑ Henry B. Eyring, Ensign 28/2 (February 1998). off-site
  10. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Proclamation on the Family]," Worldwide Leadership Training Broadcast (9 February 2008). off-site
  11. ↑ David B. Haight, "Be A Strong Link," Ensign 30/11 (November 2000). off-site.
  12. ↑ M. Russell Ballard, "Beware of False Prophets and False Teachers," Ensign 29/11 (November 1999). off-site
  13. ↑ M. Russell Ballard, "Let Our Voices Be Heard," Ensign 33/11 (November 2003). off-site.
  14. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Counsel to Youth," Ensign 41/11 (November 2011). off-site
  15. ↑ M. Russell Ballard, "Beware of False Prophets and False Teachers," Ensign 29/11 (November 1999). off-site
  16. ↑ L. Tom Perry, "Obedience to Law Is Liberty," Ensign 43/5 (May 2013). off-site
  17. ↑ Neal A. Maxwell, "Sharing Insights from My Life," BYU Devotional 12 Jan 1999. off-site
  18. ↑ Henry B. Eyring, Ensign 28/2 (February 1998). off-site
  19. ↑ Robert D. Hales, "'If Thou Wilt Enter into Life," Ensign. off-site
  20. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "The Plan and the Proclamation," Ensign 47/11 (November 2017): 30–31. off-site
  21. ↑ W. Eugene Hansen, "Children and the Family," Ensign 28/5 (May 1998). off-site
  22. ↑ Eran A. Call, "The Home: A Refuge and Sanctuary," Ensign 28/11 (November 1998). off-site
  23. ↑ Claudio R.M. Costa, "Don't Leave for Tomorrow What You Can Do Today," Ensign 37/11 (November 2007). off-site
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 M. Russell Ballard, "What Matters Most Is What Lasts Longest," Ensign 35/11 (November 2005). off-site
  25. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "As He Thinketh in His Heart," evening with a General Authority (February 2013). off-site
  26. ↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, "Stand Strong against the Wiles of the World," Ensign (November 1995): 98.
  27. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Fortify Your Homes Against Evil," Ensign (May 1979).
  28. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).
  29. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Families Can Be Eternal," Ensign (November 1980).
  30. ↑ Russell M. Nelson, "The Canker of Contention," Ensign (May 1989).
  31. ↑ 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.]
  32. ↑ Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed., (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1939), 272.
  33. ↑ Ezra Taft Benson, "To the Single Adult Brethren of the Church," Ensign (May 1988).
  34. ↑ Neal A. Maxwell, "Family Perspectives," BYU Devotional, 15 January 1974
  35. ↑ Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed., (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1939), 272.
  36. ↑ Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed., (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1939), 428.
  37. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "The Great Plan of Happiness," Ensign (November 1993).
  38. ↑ 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.
  39. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).
  40. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "For Time and All Eternty," Ensign (November 1993).
  41. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "The Play and the Plan," CES Fireside, 7 May 1995, Kirkland, Washington.
  42. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).
  43. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Families Can Be Eternal," Ensign (November 1980).
  44. ↑ Russell M. Nelson, "Constancy Amid Change," Ensign (November 1993).
  45. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Fortify Your Homes Against Evil," Ensign (May 1979).
  46. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Voices of the Past, of the Present, of the Future," Ensign (May 1971).
  47. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Fortify Your Homes Against Evil," Ensign (May 1979).
  48. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).
  49. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).
  50. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Families Can Be Eternal," Ensign (November 1980).
  51. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).
  52. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).
  53. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).
  54. ↑ This fact is exhaustively demonstrated in Gregory L. Smith, "Feet of Clay: Queer Theory and the Church of Jesus Christ," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 43/3 (5 March 2021): 187-215. [107–278] link
  55. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).
  56. ↑ Neal A. Maxwell, Look Back At Sodom: A timely account from imaginary Sodom Scrolls (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1975).
  57. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "The Foundations of Righteousness," Ensign (November 1977).
  58. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Why Call Me Lord, Lord and Do Not the Things Which I Say?," Ensign (May 1975).
  59. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "The Great Plan of Happiness," Ensign (November 1993).
  60. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, edited by Edward L. Kimball, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1982), 311.
  61. ↑ Cited in this context, for example, in Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).
  62. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).
  63. ↑ 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.]
  64. ↑ 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.
  65. ↑ Neal A. Maxwell, "All Hell Is Moved," BYU Devotional (8 November 1977).
  66. ↑ Neal A. Maxwell, "A More Determined Discipleship," Ensign (February 1979).
  67. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974). off-site
  68. ↑ Russell M. Nelson, "Children of the Covenant," Ensign (May 1995). off-site
  69. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).
  70. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).
  71. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Families Can Be Eternal," Ensign (November 1980).
  72. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Strengthening the Family, the Basic Unit of the Church," Ensign (May 1978).
  73. ↑ Joseph Fielding Smith, "Counsel to the Saints and to the World," Ensign (July 1972): 27.
  74. ↑ M. Russell Ballard, "Equality Through Diversity," Ensign (November 1993).
  75. ↑ M. Russell Ballard, "Equality Through Diversity," Ensign (November 1993).
  76. ↑ M. Russell Ballard, "Equality Through Diversity," Ensign (November 1993).
  77. ↑ Ezra Taft Benson, "Fundamentals of Enduring Family Relationships," Ensign (November 1982).
  78. ↑ M. Russell Ballard, "Equality Through Diversity," Ensign (November 1993).
  79. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).
  80. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).
  81. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Families Can Be Eternal," Ensign (November 1980).
  82. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).
  83. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Fortify Your Homes Against Evil," Ensign (May 1979).
  84. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Families Can Be Eternal," Ensign (November 1980).
  85. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Families Can Be Eternal," Ensign (November 1980).
  86. ↑ Neal A. Anderson, "Trial of Your Faith," Ensign (November 2012).
  87. ↑ "Intersex," Wikipedia, accessed January 4, 2019, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex.
  88. ↑ "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed January 4, 2019, off-site.
  89. ↑ "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.'"
  90. ↑ "Elder Nelson: 'There Is No Conflict Between Science and Religion'," LDS Living, April 17, 2015, [ttps://www.ldsliving.com/Elder-Nelson-There-Is-No-Conflict-Between-Science-and-Religion-/s/78668 off-site].
  91. ↑ Ty Mansfield, "'Mormons can be gay, they just can’t do gay': Deconstructing Sexuality and Identity from an LDS Perspective," (presentation, FairMormon Conference, Provo, UT, 2014).
  92. ↑ 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, "A meta-analysis of sex differences in human brain structure," Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 39 (2014): 34–50; Larry Cahill, "A Half-Truth is a Whole Lie: On the Necessity of Investigating Sex Influences on the Brain," Endocrinology 153 (2012): 2542; "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), 11–127.
  93. ↑ 1 Corinthians 11꞉3
  94. ↑ "Chapter 42: Family: The Sweetest Union for Time and for Eternity," Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith.
  95. ↑ "Editorial Thoughts: The Rights of Fatherhood," Juvenile Instructor 37:5 (1 March 1902), 146.
  96. ↑ "Being a Righteous Husband and Father," October 1994 general conference.
  97. ↑ "Parents and Children", General Handbook, 2.1.3.
  98. ↑ D. Todd Christofferson, "To the Brethren of the Priesthood: Your Spiritual Leadership," Chile multistake conference, Aug. 26, 2018; as cited in Dallin H. Oaks, "Keeping the Faith on the Front Line," Ensign, June 2020 [digital only].
  99. ↑ Moses 7꞉18; Philippians 2꞉2; 1 Peter 3꞉15; Doctrine and Covenants 38꞉27.
  100. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "The Relief Society," Ensign 28, no. 5 (May 1998): 73.
  101. ↑ "Fatherhood: An Eternal Calling," April 2004 general conference.
  102. ↑ "Exercising Priesthood Authority Righteously," General Handbook, 3.4.4.
  103. ↑ Ephesians 5꞉25-29
  104. ↑ The claim has its origins in Laura Compton, "From Amici to 'Ohana: The Hawaiian Roots of the Family Proclamation," Rational Faiths, May 15, 2015, https://rationalfaiths.com/from-amici-to-ohana/.
  105. ↑ Baehr v. Lewin (1993) was a case where three same-sex couples petitioned the Hawaii Supreme Court to recognize their unions.
  106. ↑ 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." DHO offers an account of the Proclamation.
  107. ↑ "Origins of the Family Proclamation," Mormonr, accessed January 24, 2023, https://mormonr.org/qnas/NqoXl/origins_of_the_family_proclamation.
  108. ↑ Richard E. Turley Jr., In the Hands of the Lord: The Life of Dallin H. Oaks (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2021), 215.
  109. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "The Instrument of Your Mind and the Foundation of Your Character," CES Fireside (2 February 2003).
  110. ↑ M. Russell Ballard, "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.
  111. ↑ "World Focus on S.L. Gathering," Deseret News, March 15, 1995.
  112. ↑ "Year of family endorsed by the First Presidency," Church News, January 1, 1994; "YEAR OF FAMILY ENDORSED BY THE FIRST PRESIDENCY," Deseret News, January 1, 1994; "FIRST PRESIDENCY BACKS 1994 AS YEAR OF FAMILY," Deseret News, January 9, 1994.
  113. ↑ Marianne Schmidt, "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. "U.N. GATHERINGS THREATEN FAMILIES," Deseret News, April 17, 1995.
  114. ↑ "First Presidency Statement Opposing Same Gender Marriages," Ensign 24, no. 4 (April 1994): 80.
  115. ↑ "CHURCH JOINS HAWAII FIGHT OVER SAME-SEX MARRIAGES," Associated Press, February 24, 1995.
  116. ↑ "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.
  117. ↑ 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/.
  118. ↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, "Bring Up a Child in the Way He Should Go," Ensign 23, no. 11 (November 1993): 58–59.
  119. ↑ Neal A. Maxwell, "Take Especial Care of Your Family," Ensign 24, no. 5 (May 1994): 88–89.
  120. ↑ Bruce C. Hafen, "The Proclamation on the Family: Transcending the Cultural Confusion," Ensign 45, no. 8 (August 2015): 51.
  121. ↑ Ibid.
  122. ↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, "Stand Strong Against the Wiles of the World," Ensign 25, no. 11 (November 1995): 98–101.
  123. ↑ 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).
  124. ↑ "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," 2nd paragraph.
  125. ↑ Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (New York: Routledge, 2006), 171–80.
  126. ↑ Judith Butler, "Bodies That Matter," in Engaging with Irigaray, ed. Carolyn Burke, Naomi Schor, and Margaret Whitford (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994), 148.
  127. ↑ Anderson, When Harry Became Sally, 153.
  128. ↑ Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex , trans. H.M. Parshley (London: Jonathan Cape, 1953; 2009), 294.
  129. ↑ "Second-wave feminism," Wikipedia, accessed January 11, 2023, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-wave_feminism.
  130. ↑ Dr. Debra Soh, The End of Gender: Debunking the Myths About Sex and Identity in Our Society (New York: Threshold Editions, 2020), 17.
  131. ↑ 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, "A meta-analysis of sex differences in human brain structure," Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 39 (2014): 34–50; Larry Cahill, "A Half-Truth is a Whole Lie: On the Necessity of Investigating Sex Influences on the Brain," Endocrinology 153 (2012): 2542; "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), 11–127.
  132. ↑ Donatella Marazziti et. al, "Sex-Related Differences in Plasma Oxytocin Levels in Humans," Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health 15 (March 2019): 58–63; Shan Gao et. al, "Oxytocin, the peptide that bonds the sexes also divides them," Proc Natl Acad Sci 113, no. 27 (2016): 7650-7654.
  133. ↑ Soh, The End of Gender, 42–44.
  134. ↑ Abraham 3꞉18
  135. ↑ Moses 3꞉4-5
  136. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 131꞉7
  137. ↑ 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.
  138. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "Apostasy and Restoration," Ensign 25, no. 5 (May 1995): 87.
  139. ↑ Taylor G. Petrey, "Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 44, no. 4 (2011): 106–41; 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, "Feet of Clay: Queer Theory and the Church of Jesus Christ," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 43 (2021): 107–278; Michael A. Goodman and Daniel Frost, "Constancy Amid Change," BYU Studies Quarterly 61, no. 3 (2022): 191–217. For a solid and insightful rebuttal to Petrey’s article "Towards a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology", see V.H. Cassler, "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, "'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, "The Queer Philosophies of Men Mingled with Scripture," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 51 (2022): 317–34. For a review of Oman's work, see Matthew Watkins, "'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): 207–22. 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.
  140. ↑ 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, 1 Nephi 19꞉6; Mormon 8꞉12, 16-17; Mormon 9꞉31; 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.
  141. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 49꞉15-17; Moses 3꞉21-24; Abraham 5꞉14-18
  142. ↑ 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, "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, "The Idea of Pre-Existence in the Development of Mormon Thought," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15, no. 1 (Spring 1982): 59–78. 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 Moses 3꞉5 and especially in connection to 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), 80–86; 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), 129–30; Shon D. Hopkin, "Premortal Existence," in Pearl of Great Price Reference Companion, ed. Dennis L. Largey (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2017), 240–41; Hyrum L. Andrus, Doctrinal Commentary on the Pearl of Great Price (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1973), 99–136; 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), 153–54n30; Book of Mormon Central and Jeffrey R. Bradshaw, "Book of Moses Essays: #54 Moses Sees the Garden of Eden (Moses 3) Spiritual Creation (Moses 3꞉5-7)," The Interpreter Foundation, May 8, 2021, https://interpreterfoundation.org/book-of-moses-essays-054/; Terryl L. 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), 524–25. 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 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), 113–125. 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.
  143. ↑ David L. Paulsen and Martin Pulido, "‘A Mother There’: A Survey of Historical Teachings About Heavenly Mother," BYU Studies Quarterly 50, no. 1 (2011): 70–97.
  144. ↑ Smith, "Feet of Clay," 129.
  145. ↑ 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.
  146. ↑ This is especially true when considering the biblical outlook on scripture. In the words of Lyn M. Bechtel 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., Deut. 22꞉28-29) or that violates existing marital or family bonding and obligation (e.g., vv. 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), 1192–93. 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.
Sexuality and gender
Marriage and children

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.

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.
—Elder David B. Haight[1]

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:

Since the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ through the Prophet Joseph Smith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has 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.[2]

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:

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....[3]

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

To learn more:Proclamation doctrines are longstanding

Origin of the Proclamation

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

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."[4]

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

Standard for official doctrine

Elder Neal L. Anderson taught:

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 (emphasis added). Our doctrine is not difficult to find.[5]

To learn more:Proclamation on the Family taught frequently since being issued

The Church's official website emphasized:

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 (emphasis added).[6]

Elder D. Todd Christofferson echoed this idea:

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.[7]

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.

To learn more: Official doctrine

All fifteen apostles involved in preparing the Proclamation

President Boyd K. Packer said:

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....(emphasis added)[8]

Scripture?

The Proclamation is not canonized scripture—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:

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 (D&C 1꞉37-38).

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

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" (D&C 1꞉38).[9]

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

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 (D&C 68꞉4).

"Significant, major, revelatory, scripturelike"

President Packer told a Worldwide Leadership Training Broadcast:

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.[10]

"Marvelous," "Scriptural direction"

Elder David B. Haight said:

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.[11]

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

Elder M. Russell Ballard:

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.[12]

Statements by apostles and prophets about the Proclamation

"A prophetic document"

Elder M. Russell Ballard said:

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>M. Russell Ballard, "What Matters Most Is What Lasts Longest," Ensign 35/11 (November 2005). off-site</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....[13]

"An inspired document" "historic"

President Boyd K. Packer:

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....[14]

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>Boyd K. Packer, "Parents in Zion," Ensign 28/10 (October 1998). off-site</ref>

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

Elder M. Russell Ballard:

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.[15]

"Reiteration" of doctrine

Elder L. Tom Perry said:

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."[16]

Critical doctrines

Elder Neal A. Maxwell:

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.[17]

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

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" (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.[18]

Important

Elder Robert D. Hales:

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.[19]

Revelatory Process Brings About the Family Proclamation

Elder Dallin H. Oaks:

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 (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 Doctrine and Covenants 131꞉1-4), in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.[20]

Other leaders on the Proclamation

Elder W. Eugene Hansen:

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.[21]

Elder Eran A. Call:

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.[22]

Elder Claudio R.M. Costa:

The Lord instructed us how to take care of our families when He told us through His prophets in the Proclamation to the world....[23]

Duty to teach and support the Proclamation

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.
—Elder M. Russell Ballard[24]

Elder Dallin H. Oaks noted:

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....(emphasis added)[25]

Elder M. Russell Ballard:

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.[24]

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

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:

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....[26]

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."[27]
  • "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."[28]

"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."[29]
  • "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."[30]
  • "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."[31]
  • "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."[32]
  • "the greatest responsibility and the greatest joys in life are centered in the family, honorable marriage, and rearing a righteous posterity."[33]
  • "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."[34]

"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" (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 (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" (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."[35]

"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."[36]
  • "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 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."[37]

"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."[38]
  • "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...."[39]
  • "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."[40]

"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 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 Numbers 16꞉22; Hebrews 12꞉9, D&C 76꞉24). The spirit of each individual is in the likeness of the person in mortality, male and female (see D&C 77꞉2; 132:63; Moses 6꞉9-10; Abraham 4꞉27). All are in the image of heavenly parents."[41]

"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 (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."[42]

"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! (italics in original)[43]

"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...." (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" (Moses 4꞉6)."[44]

"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."[45]

"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.)[46]
  • "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…"[47]
  • "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."[48]
  • "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."[49]
  • "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 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."[50]

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."[51]

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."[52]
  • "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."[53]

Homosexual relations forbidden

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

See also: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.[54])

  • "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."[55]
  • "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."[56]
  • 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.[57]

"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 Isa. 29꞉14.)[58]
  • "The expression of our procreative powers is pleasing to God, but he has commanded that this be confined within the relationship of marriage."[59]
  • "...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."[60]

"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." (D&C 49꞉15-16)[61]
  • "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."[62]

"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."[63]

"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 (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 (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" (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."[64]
  • "Let our citizenship be spirited but always appropriate and befitting who we are."[65]
  • "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."[66]

"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." (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.[67]

"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."[68]

"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."[69]

"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."[70]
  • "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!"[71]

"By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness"

  • "Brethren, as patriarchs in your homes, be worthy watchmen."[72]
  • "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."[73]

"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 Eph. 5꞉23 ). They have been given the primary responsibility for the temporal and physical needs of the family (see DNC 83:2)."[74]

"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."[75]

"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.[76]
  • "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."[77]

"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."[78]

"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 D&C 63꞉58.)"[79]
  • "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!"[80]

"violate covenants of chastity"

See 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."[81]

"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?[82]
  • "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…"[83]
  • "Society without basic family life is without foundation and will disintegrate into nothingness."[84]

"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."[85]

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:

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 (emphasis added). Our doctrine is not difficult to find (emphasis added).[86]

Repeated Publication of the Proclamation

Reference to the Proclamation as event of historical significance

Teaching

Educational series (also ran in Ensign)

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:

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."[87]

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":

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.[88]

It should be noted here that "gender" is used synonymously with "biological sex".[89]

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 (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:

  1. Their spirit has legitimately been housed in the wrong bodies by their choice.
  2. Their spirit has legitimately been housed in the wrong bodies by God's choice.
  3. Their spirit has legitimately been housed in the wrong body by the joint agreement of them and God.
  4. 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[.]"[90]

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.

"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!"[91]

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 platonic entity to ground our morality and identity i.e. "Love binds the universe. Love is my religion". But the basic point still stands—our feelings may be used to form identity, but that identity—the identity based in our feelings that we are having now—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 (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-Matthew 1꞉37) and he announces himself as the source of the revelation declaring that gender is binary (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 (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 (Alma 12꞉9).

Main article: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:

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..

See also: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. Gender complementarianism is scientifically defensible and is a philosophy that affirms the moral equality of the two genders.[92] 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—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—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 etymology of the word "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 "president."

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."[93] The Prophet Joseph Smith explained, "It is the place of the man to stand at the head of his family."[94] President Joseph F. Smith reemphasized this when he taught, "In the home the presiding authority is always vested in the father."[95]

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 D&C 107꞉21). By divine appointment, the responsibility to preside in the home rests upon the priesthood holder (see Moses 4꞉22)."[96]

Husbands lead their families

The Church's General Handbook teaches:

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 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.[97]

Elder D. Todd Christofferson taught:

The scriptures tell us, "The Melchizedek Priesthood holds the right of presidency, and … to administer in spiritual things" (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.[98]

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."[99] 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."[100] 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.[101]

Presiding in righteousness

In all cases, men are to preside in love and righteousness. From the General Handbook we learn:

This [priesthood] authority can be used only in righteousness (see Doctrine and Covenants 121꞉36). It is exercised by persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, love, and kindness (see 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 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" (Doctrine and Covenants 121꞉37).[102]

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 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[.]"[103]-->

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.[104] 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 Baehr v. Lewin (later Miike).[105] In 1994 the brethren begin the process of writing the Proclamation in a 'revelatory process' with members of the Quorum of the Twelve."[106] 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."[107] 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:

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.
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…[108]

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:

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."[109]

Similarly, Elder M. Russell Ballard related:

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.[110]

We note that the United Nations indeed held a conference in Beijing, China (the Fourth World Conference on Women) from the 4–15 of September 1995 and one in Cairo, Egypt (the "Cairo Conference on Population and Development") from 5–13 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 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.[111] The U.N. had designated the year 1994 as the International Year of the Family. The First Presidency released a statement on 1 January 1994 endorsing the U.N.'s designation.[112] 5 days after the Deseret News' report on the UN coming to Salt Lake, they reported the alarming speech of a member of the John Birch Society before a gathering of about 400 in Salt Lake City. The speaker, William Grigg, warned of what he perceived were the United Nations' attempts at "redefining the family out of existence[.]"[113]

Thus, this is the potential timeline/narrative that arises:

  • 17 December 1990: With the encouragement of 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."[114]
  • 5–13 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.[115]
  • 4–15 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.[116]
  • 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.[117] Elder Gordon B. Hinckley stated in the October 1993 General Conference:

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).[118]

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.[119]

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

While 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."

President Gordon B. Hinckley was asked by a reporter what his greatest concerns were as President of the Church as he celebrated his 5th 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."[120] 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."[121] President Hinckley decried the breakdown of the family in society in the October 1995 General Conference.[122] 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.

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.

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 D&C 102, 122, 123, 128, 129, 130, 131, 134, and 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.

Main articles:Have the doctrines in "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" long been taught?
What sort of scriptural support is there for the doctrines of 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?

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:

Family Proc Scipture Insert 1 .png
Family Proc Insert 2.png

Line by Line Analysis

The same website has a section that provides 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.[123] 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."[124]

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 Judith Butler refers to gender as conceived here (as well as a person's gender identity) as a "performance".[125] This performance is an outward showing or demonstration of the expectations that have been imposed onto a person through 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—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".[126] "In short," summarizes social conservative philosopher Ryan T. Anderson, "‘the body’ conceived as something in particular is all about power."[127]

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 second-wave feminism. 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."[128] 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."[129] 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:

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.[130]

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 intersex conditions are considered 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 bimodal instead of binary—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.[131] 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—a chemical reponsible for social paring and bonding—than men.[132] 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:

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.
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—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.[133]

What A Man or Woman "Should Be"

But let's offer one more argument against the notion of a social construct. 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 "gender performativity". That theory is described well in an introduction to Butler's most famous book Gender Trouble (1990) 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—one's subjective sense of the sex that they belong to—is not innate either. Gender identity is constructed through a set of socially popular 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.[134] Prior to being given mortal bodies, the spirits of humans were created as male or female.[135] Spirit is believed to be made of some kind of physical matter.[136] 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 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.[137] 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."[138]

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.

Main article: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

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.

See also: 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,[139] 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.

  1. Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics (New York: HarperOne, 1996), 379–406 online at https://www.heartlandchurch.org/d/The_Moral_Vision_of_the_New_Testament_excerpt.pdf. This gives an academic, exegetical perspective from the New Testament about homosexuality, concluding that whenever homosexual sexual behavior is discussed, it is unremittingly negative.
  2. 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.
  3. Robert A. J. Gagnon, one of the foremost experts on homosexuality and the Bible, has a 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:

  1. Robert A. J. Gagnon, 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.

  1. 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. 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. 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 (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.
  2. 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, Jacob 2꞉21 teaches that all men and women were created with the end of keeping God’s commandments and glorifying him forever.[140] 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, 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.
  3. Restoration scripture echoes Genesis in affirming that men and women should become "one flesh"—affirming the creative order discussed in Justin W. Starr’s paper above.[141] 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 (Genesis 2꞉21-24). He commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth (Genesis 1꞉28). God then saw that his creation was "very good" (Genesis 1꞉31).
  4. Doctrine & Covenants 131꞉1-2 teaches that one must enter into the covenant of marriage in order to reach the Celestial Kingdom.
  5. 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.[142] 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.
  6. 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.[143] It has been affirmed that the Proclamation came by way of divine inspiration and revelation many times.
  7. 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 Genesis 9 and the Sodom narratives, Romans 1꞉26-32,[144] and 1 Corinthians 6꞉12 and 6:18.[145] 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: Jacob 2꞉21 informs us that we were created unto the end of keeping God's commandments. 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 article: 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

Fornications

Fornicator

Fornicators

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.[146] We have gathered an exhaustive concordance of those words at this link that readers should take a look at.

See also:Did Christ teach against same-sex relationships during his mortal ministry?
Isn't the Mormon opposition to same-sex marriage hypocritical, considering that they used to ban black from holding the priesthood until 1978?


Notes

  1. ↑ David B. Haight, "Be A Strong Link," Ensign 30/11 (November 2000). off-site
  2. ↑ Henry B. Eyring, "The Family," Ensign 28 (February 1998).
  3. ↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, "Stand Strong against the Wiles of the World," Ensign 25/11 (November 1995): 98. off-site
  4. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "The Instrument of Your Mind and the Foundation of Your Character," CES Fireside (2 February 2003).off-site
  5. ↑ Neal A. Anderson, "Trial of Your Faith," Ensign 42/11 (November 2012). off-site
  6. ↑ " Approaching Mormon Doctrine, LDS Newsroom (4 May 2007). off-site
  7. ↑ D. Todd Christofferson, "The Doctrine of Christ," Ensign 42/5 (May 2012). off-site
  8. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Fledgling Finches and Family Life, BYU Campus Education Week Devotional, 18 August 2009.
  9. ↑ Henry B. Eyring, Ensign 28/2 (February 1998). off-site
  10. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Proclamation on the Family]," Worldwide Leadership Training Broadcast (9 February 2008). off-site
  11. ↑ David B. Haight, "Be A Strong Link," Ensign 30/11 (November 2000). off-site.
  12. ↑ M. Russell Ballard, "Beware of False Prophets and False Teachers," Ensign 29/11 (November 1999). off-site
  13. ↑ M. Russell Ballard, "Let Our Voices Be Heard," Ensign 33/11 (November 2003). off-site.
  14. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Counsel to Youth," Ensign 41/11 (November 2011). off-site
  15. ↑ M. Russell Ballard, "Beware of False Prophets and False Teachers," Ensign 29/11 (November 1999). off-site
  16. ↑ L. Tom Perry, "Obedience to Law Is Liberty," Ensign 43/5 (May 2013). off-site
  17. ↑ Neal A. Maxwell, "Sharing Insights from My Life," BYU Devotional 12 Jan 1999. off-site
  18. ↑ Henry B. Eyring, Ensign 28/2 (February 1998). off-site
  19. ↑ Robert D. Hales, "'If Thou Wilt Enter into Life," Ensign. off-site
  20. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "The Plan and the Proclamation," Ensign 47/11 (November 2017): 30–31. off-site
  21. ↑ W. Eugene Hansen, "Children and the Family," Ensign 28/5 (May 1998). off-site
  22. ↑ Eran A. Call, "The Home: A Refuge and Sanctuary," Ensign 28/11 (November 1998). off-site
  23. ↑ Claudio R.M. Costa, "Don't Leave for Tomorrow What You Can Do Today," Ensign 37/11 (November 2007). off-site
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 M. Russell Ballard, "What Matters Most Is What Lasts Longest," Ensign 35/11 (November 2005). off-site
  25. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "As He Thinketh in His Heart," evening with a General Authority (February 2013). off-site
  26. ↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, "Stand Strong against the Wiles of the World," Ensign (November 1995): 98.
  27. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Fortify Your Homes Against Evil," Ensign (May 1979).
  28. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).
  29. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Families Can Be Eternal," Ensign (November 1980).
  30. ↑ Russell M. Nelson, "The Canker of Contention," Ensign (May 1989).
  31. ↑ 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.]
  32. ↑ Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed., (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1939), 272.
  33. ↑ Ezra Taft Benson, "To the Single Adult Brethren of the Church," Ensign (May 1988).
  34. ↑ Neal A. Maxwell, "Family Perspectives," BYU Devotional, 15 January 1974
  35. ↑ Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed., (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1939), 272.
  36. ↑ Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed., (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1939), 428.
  37. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "The Great Plan of Happiness," Ensign (November 1993).
  38. ↑ 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.
  39. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).
  40. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "For Time and All Eternty," Ensign (November 1993).
  41. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "The Play and the Plan," CES Fireside, 7 May 1995, Kirkland, Washington.
  42. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).
  43. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Families Can Be Eternal," Ensign (November 1980).
  44. ↑ Russell M. Nelson, "Constancy Amid Change," Ensign (November 1993).
  45. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Fortify Your Homes Against Evil," Ensign (May 1979).
  46. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Voices of the Past, of the Present, of the Future," Ensign (May 1971).
  47. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Fortify Your Homes Against Evil," Ensign (May 1979).
  48. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).
  49. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).
  50. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Families Can Be Eternal," Ensign (November 1980).
  51. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).
  52. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).
  53. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).
  54. ↑ This fact is exhaustively demonstrated in Gregory L. Smith, "Feet of Clay: Queer Theory and the Church of Jesus Christ," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 43/3 (5 March 2021): 187-215. [107–278] link
  55. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).
  56. ↑ Neal A. Maxwell, Look Back At Sodom: A timely account from imaginary Sodom Scrolls (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1975).
  57. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "The Foundations of Righteousness," Ensign (November 1977).
  58. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Why Call Me Lord, Lord and Do Not the Things Which I Say?," Ensign (May 1975).
  59. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "The Great Plan of Happiness," Ensign (November 1993).
  60. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, edited by Edward L. Kimball, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1982), 311.
  61. ↑ Cited in this context, for example, in Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).
  62. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).
  63. ↑ 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.]
  64. ↑ 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.
  65. ↑ Neal A. Maxwell, "All Hell Is Moved," BYU Devotional (8 November 1977).
  66. ↑ Neal A. Maxwell, "A More Determined Discipleship," Ensign (February 1979).
  67. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974). off-site
  68. ↑ Russell M. Nelson, "Children of the Covenant," Ensign (May 1995). off-site
  69. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).
  70. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).
  71. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Families Can Be Eternal," Ensign (November 1980).
  72. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Strengthening the Family, the Basic Unit of the Church," Ensign (May 1978).
  73. ↑ Joseph Fielding Smith, "Counsel to the Saints and to the World," Ensign (July 1972): 27.
  74. ↑ M. Russell Ballard, "Equality Through Diversity," Ensign (November 1993).
  75. ↑ M. Russell Ballard, "Equality Through Diversity," Ensign (November 1993).
  76. ↑ M. Russell Ballard, "Equality Through Diversity," Ensign (November 1993).
  77. ↑ Ezra Taft Benson, "Fundamentals of Enduring Family Relationships," Ensign (November 1982).
  78. ↑ M. Russell Ballard, "Equality Through Diversity," Ensign (November 1993).
  79. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).
  80. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).
  81. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Families Can Be Eternal," Ensign (November 1980).
  82. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).
  83. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Fortify Your Homes Against Evil," Ensign (May 1979).
  84. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Families Can Be Eternal," Ensign (November 1980).
  85. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Families Can Be Eternal," Ensign (November 1980).
  86. ↑ Neal A. Anderson, "Trial of Your Faith," Ensign (November 2012).
  87. ↑ "Intersex," Wikipedia, accessed January 4, 2019, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex.
  88. ↑ "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed January 4, 2019, off-site.
  89. ↑ "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.'"
  90. ↑ "Elder Nelson: 'There Is No Conflict Between Science and Religion'," LDS Living, April 17, 2015, [ttps://www.ldsliving.com/Elder-Nelson-There-Is-No-Conflict-Between-Science-and-Religion-/s/78668 off-site].
  91. ↑ Ty Mansfield, "'Mormons can be gay, they just can’t do gay': Deconstructing Sexuality and Identity from an LDS Perspective," (presentation, FairMormon Conference, Provo, UT, 2014).
  92. ↑ 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, "A meta-analysis of sex differences in human brain structure," Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 39 (2014): 34–50; Larry Cahill, "A Half-Truth is a Whole Lie: On the Necessity of Investigating Sex Influences on the Brain," Endocrinology 153 (2012): 2542; "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), 11–127.
  93. ↑ 1 Corinthians 11꞉3
  94. ↑ "Chapter 42: Family: The Sweetest Union for Time and for Eternity," Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith.
  95. ↑ "Editorial Thoughts: The Rights of Fatherhood," Juvenile Instructor 37:5 (1 March 1902), 146.
  96. ↑ "Being a Righteous Husband and Father," October 1994 general conference.
  97. ↑ "Parents and Children", General Handbook, 2.1.3.
  98. ↑ D. Todd Christofferson, "To the Brethren of the Priesthood: Your Spiritual Leadership," Chile multistake conference, Aug. 26, 2018; as cited in Dallin H. Oaks, "Keeping the Faith on the Front Line," Ensign, June 2020 [digital only].
  99. ↑ Moses 7꞉18; Philippians 2꞉2; 1 Peter 3꞉15; Doctrine and Covenants 38꞉27.
  100. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "The Relief Society," Ensign 28, no. 5 (May 1998): 73.
  101. ↑ "Fatherhood: An Eternal Calling," April 2004 general conference.
  102. ↑ "Exercising Priesthood Authority Righteously," General Handbook, 3.4.4.
  103. ↑ Ephesians 5꞉25-29
  104. ↑ The claim has its origins in Laura Compton, "From Amici to 'Ohana: The Hawaiian Roots of the Family Proclamation," Rational Faiths, May 15, 2015, https://rationalfaiths.com/from-amici-to-ohana/.
  105. ↑ Baehr v. Lewin (1993) was a case where three same-sex couples petitioned the Hawaii Supreme Court to recognize their unions.
  106. ↑ 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." DHO offers an account of the Proclamation.
  107. ↑ "Origins of the Family Proclamation," Mormonr, accessed January 24, 2023, https://mormonr.org/qnas/NqoXl/origins_of_the_family_proclamation.
  108. ↑ Richard E. Turley Jr., In the Hands of the Lord: The Life of Dallin H. Oaks (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2021), 215.
  109. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "The Instrument of Your Mind and the Foundation of Your Character," CES Fireside (2 February 2003).
  110. ↑ M. Russell Ballard, "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.
  111. ↑ "World Focus on S.L. Gathering," Deseret News, March 15, 1995.
  112. ↑ "Year of family endorsed by the First Presidency," Church News, January 1, 1994; "YEAR OF FAMILY ENDORSED BY THE FIRST PRESIDENCY," Deseret News, January 1, 1994; "FIRST PRESIDENCY BACKS 1994 AS YEAR OF FAMILY," Deseret News, January 9, 1994.
  113. ↑ Marianne Schmidt, "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. "U.N. GATHERINGS THREATEN FAMILIES," Deseret News, April 17, 1995.
  114. ↑ "First Presidency Statement Opposing Same Gender Marriages," Ensign 24, no. 4 (April 1994): 80.
  115. ↑ "CHURCH JOINS HAWAII FIGHT OVER SAME-SEX MARRIAGES," Associated Press, February 24, 1995.
  116. ↑ "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.
  117. ↑ 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/.
  118. ↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, "Bring Up a Child in the Way He Should Go," Ensign 23, no. 11 (November 1993): 58–59.
  119. ↑ Neal A. Maxwell, "Take Especial Care of Your Family," Ensign 24, no. 5 (May 1994): 88–89.
  120. ↑ Bruce C. Hafen, "The Proclamation on the Family: Transcending the Cultural Confusion," Ensign 45, no. 8 (August 2015): 51.
  121. ↑ Ibid.
  122. ↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, "Stand Strong Against the Wiles of the World," Ensign 25, no. 11 (November 1995): 98–101.
  123. ↑ 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).
  124. ↑ "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," 2nd paragraph.
  125. ↑ Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (New York: Routledge, 2006), 171–80.
  126. ↑ Judith Butler, "Bodies That Matter," in Engaging with Irigaray, ed. Carolyn Burke, Naomi Schor, and Margaret Whitford (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994), 148.
  127. ↑ Anderson, When Harry Became Sally, 153.
  128. ↑ Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex , trans. H.M. Parshley (London: Jonathan Cape, 1953; 2009), 294.
  129. ↑ "Second-wave feminism," Wikipedia, accessed January 11, 2023, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-wave_feminism.
  130. ↑ Dr. Debra Soh, The End of Gender: Debunking the Myths About Sex and Identity in Our Society (New York: Threshold Editions, 2020), 17.
  131. ↑ 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, "A meta-analysis of sex differences in human brain structure," Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 39 (2014): 34–50; Larry Cahill, "A Half-Truth is a Whole Lie: On the Necessity of Investigating Sex Influences on the Brain," Endocrinology 153 (2012): 2542; "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), 11–127.
  132. ↑ Donatella Marazziti et. al, "Sex-Related Differences in Plasma Oxytocin Levels in Humans," Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health 15 (March 2019): 58–63; Shan Gao et. al, "Oxytocin, the peptide that bonds the sexes also divides them," Proc Natl Acad Sci 113, no. 27 (2016): 7650-7654.
  133. ↑ Soh, The End of Gender, 42–44.
  134. ↑ Abraham 3꞉18
  135. ↑ Moses 3꞉4-5
  136. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 131꞉7
  137. ↑ 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.
  138. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "Apostasy and Restoration," Ensign 25, no. 5 (May 1995): 87.
  139. ↑ Taylor G. Petrey, "Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 44, no. 4 (2011): 106–41; 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, "Feet of Clay: Queer Theory and the Church of Jesus Christ," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 43 (2021): 107–278; Michael A. Goodman and Daniel Frost, "Constancy Amid Change," BYU Studies Quarterly 61, no. 3 (2022): 191–217. For a solid and insightful rebuttal to Petrey’s article "Towards a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology", see V.H. Cassler, "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, "'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, "The Queer Philosophies of Men Mingled with Scripture," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 51 (2022): 317–34. For a review of Oman's work, see Matthew Watkins, "'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): 207–22. 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.
  140. ↑ 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, 1 Nephi 19꞉6; Mormon 8꞉12, 16-17; Mormon 9꞉31; 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.
  141. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 49꞉15-17; Moses 3꞉21-24; Abraham 5꞉14-18
  142. ↑ 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, "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, "The Idea of Pre-Existence in the Development of Mormon Thought," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15, no. 1 (Spring 1982): 59–78. 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 Moses 3꞉5 and especially in connection to 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), 80–86; 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), 129–30; Shon D. Hopkin, "Premortal Existence," in Pearl of Great Price Reference Companion, ed. Dennis L. Largey (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2017), 240–41; Hyrum L. Andrus, Doctrinal Commentary on the Pearl of Great Price (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1973), 99–136; 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), 153–54n30; Book of Mormon Central and Jeffrey R. Bradshaw, "Book of Moses Essays: #54 Moses Sees the Garden of Eden (Moses 3) Spiritual Creation (Moses 3꞉5-7)," The Interpreter Foundation, May 8, 2021, https://interpreterfoundation.org/book-of-moses-essays-054/; Terryl L. 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), 524–25. 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 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), 113–125. 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.
  143. ↑ David L. Paulsen and Martin Pulido, "‘A Mother There’: A Survey of Historical Teachings About Heavenly Mother," BYU Studies Quarterly 50, no. 1 (2011): 70–97.
  144. ↑ Smith, "Feet of Clay," 129.
  145. ↑ 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.
  146. ↑ This is especially true when considering the biblical outlook on scripture. In the words of Lyn M. Bechtel 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., Deut. 22꞉28-29) or that violates existing marital or family bonding and obligation (e.g., vv. 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), 1192–93. 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.
Sexuality and gender
Marriage and children

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.

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.
—Elder David B. Haight[1]

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:

Since the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ through the Prophet Joseph Smith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has 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.[2]

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:

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....[3]

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

To learn more:Proclamation doctrines are longstanding

Origin of the Proclamation

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

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."[4]

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

Standard for official doctrine

Elder Neal L. Anderson taught:

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 (emphasis added). Our doctrine is not difficult to find.[5]

To learn more:Proclamation on the Family taught frequently since being issued

The Church's official website emphasized:

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 (emphasis added).[6]

Elder D. Todd Christofferson echoed this idea:

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.[7]

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.

To learn more: Official doctrine

All fifteen apostles involved in preparing the Proclamation

President Boyd K. Packer said:

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....(emphasis added)[8]

Scripture?

The Proclamation is not canonized scripture—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:

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 (D&C 1꞉37-38).

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

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" (D&C 1꞉38).[9]

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

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 (D&C 68꞉4).

"Significant, major, revelatory, scripturelike"

President Packer told a Worldwide Leadership Training Broadcast:

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.[10]

"Marvelous," "Scriptural direction"

Elder David B. Haight said:

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.[11]

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

Elder M. Russell Ballard:

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.[12]

Statements by apostles and prophets about the Proclamation

"A prophetic document"

Elder M. Russell Ballard said:

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>M. Russell Ballard, "What Matters Most Is What Lasts Longest," Ensign 35/11 (November 2005). off-site</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....[13]

"An inspired document" "historic"

President Boyd K. Packer:

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....[14]

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>Boyd K. Packer, "Parents in Zion," Ensign 28/10 (October 1998). off-site</ref>

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

Elder M. Russell Ballard:

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.[15]

"Reiteration" of doctrine

Elder L. Tom Perry said:

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."[16]

Critical doctrines

Elder Neal A. Maxwell:

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.[17]

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

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" (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.[18]

Important

Elder Robert D. Hales:

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.[19]

Revelatory Process Brings About the Family Proclamation

Elder Dallin H. Oaks:

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 (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 Doctrine and Covenants 131꞉1-4), in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.[20]

Other leaders on the Proclamation

Elder W. Eugene Hansen:

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.[21]

Elder Eran A. Call:

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.[22]

Elder Claudio R.M. Costa:

The Lord instructed us how to take care of our families when He told us through His prophets in the Proclamation to the world....[23]

Duty to teach and support the Proclamation

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.
—Elder M. Russell Ballard[24]

Elder Dallin H. Oaks noted:

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....(emphasis added)[25]

Elder M. Russell Ballard:

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.[24]

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

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:

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....[26]

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."[27]
  • "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."[28]

"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."[29]
  • "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."[30]
  • "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."[31]
  • "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."[32]
  • "the greatest responsibility and the greatest joys in life are centered in the family, honorable marriage, and rearing a righteous posterity."[33]
  • "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."[34]

"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" (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 (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" (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."[35]

"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."[36]
  • "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 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."[37]

"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."[38]
  • "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...."[39]
  • "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."[40]

"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 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 Numbers 16꞉22; Hebrews 12꞉9, D&C 76꞉24). The spirit of each individual is in the likeness of the person in mortality, male and female (see D&C 77꞉2; 132:63; Moses 6꞉9-10; Abraham 4꞉27). All are in the image of heavenly parents."[41]

"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 (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."[42]

"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! (italics in original)[43]

"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...." (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" (Moses 4꞉6)."[44]

"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."[45]

"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.)[46]
  • "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…"[47]
  • "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."[48]
  • "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."[49]
  • "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 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."[50]

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."[51]

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."[52]
  • "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."[53]

Homosexual relations forbidden

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

See also: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.[54])

  • "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."[55]
  • "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."[56]
  • 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.[57]

"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 Isa. 29꞉14.)[58]
  • "The expression of our procreative powers is pleasing to God, but he has commanded that this be confined within the relationship of marriage."[59]
  • "...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."[60]

"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." (D&C 49꞉15-16)[61]
  • "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."[62]

"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."[63]

"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 (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 (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" (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."[64]
  • "Let our citizenship be spirited but always appropriate and befitting who we are."[65]
  • "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."[66]

"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." (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.[67]

"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."[68]

"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."[69]

"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."[70]
  • "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!"[71]

"By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness"

  • "Brethren, as patriarchs in your homes, be worthy watchmen."[72]
  • "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."[73]

"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 Eph. 5꞉23 ). They have been given the primary responsibility for the temporal and physical needs of the family (see DNC 83:2)."[74]

"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."[75]

"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.[76]
  • "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."[77]

"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."[78]

"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 D&C 63꞉58.)"[79]
  • "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!"[80]

"violate covenants of chastity"

See 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."[81]

"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?[82]
  • "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…"[83]
  • "Society without basic family life is without foundation and will disintegrate into nothingness."[84]

"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."[85]

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:

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 (emphasis added). Our doctrine is not difficult to find (emphasis added).[86]

Repeated Publication of the Proclamation

Reference to the Proclamation as event of historical significance

Teaching

Educational series (also ran in Ensign)

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:

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."[87]

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":

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.[88]

It should be noted here that "gender" is used synonymously with "biological sex".[89]

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 (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:

  1. Their spirit has legitimately been housed in the wrong bodies by their choice.
  2. Their spirit has legitimately been housed in the wrong bodies by God's choice.
  3. Their spirit has legitimately been housed in the wrong body by the joint agreement of them and God.
  4. 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[.]"[90]

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.

"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!"[91]

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 platonic entity to ground our morality and identity i.e. "Love binds the universe. Love is my religion". But the basic point still stands—our feelings may be used to form identity, but that identity—the identity based in our feelings that we are having now—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 (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-Matthew 1꞉37) and he announces himself as the source of the revelation declaring that gender is binary (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 (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 (Alma 12꞉9).

Main article: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:

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..

See also: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. Gender complementarianism is scientifically defensible and is a philosophy that affirms the moral equality of the two genders.[92] 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—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—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 etymology of the word "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 "president."

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."[93] The Prophet Joseph Smith explained, "It is the place of the man to stand at the head of his family."[94] President Joseph F. Smith reemphasized this when he taught, "In the home the presiding authority is always vested in the father."[95]

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 D&C 107꞉21). By divine appointment, the responsibility to preside in the home rests upon the priesthood holder (see Moses 4꞉22)."[96]

Husbands lead their families

The Church's General Handbook teaches:

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 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.[97]

Elder D. Todd Christofferson taught:

The scriptures tell us, "The Melchizedek Priesthood holds the right of presidency, and … to administer in spiritual things" (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.[98]

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."[99] 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."[100] 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.[101]

Presiding in righteousness

In all cases, men are to preside in love and righteousness. From the General Handbook we learn:

This [priesthood] authority can be used only in righteousness (see Doctrine and Covenants 121꞉36). It is exercised by persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, love, and kindness (see 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 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" (Doctrine and Covenants 121꞉37).[102]

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 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[.]"[103]-->

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.[104] 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 Baehr v. Lewin (later Miike).[105] In 1994 the brethren begin the process of writing the Proclamation in a 'revelatory process' with members of the Quorum of the Twelve."[106] 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."[107] 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:

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.
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…[108]

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:

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."[109]

Similarly, Elder M. Russell Ballard related:

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.[110]

We note that the United Nations indeed held a conference in Beijing, China (the Fourth World Conference on Women) from the 4–15 of September 1995 and one in Cairo, Egypt (the "Cairo Conference on Population and Development") from 5–13 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 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.[111] The U.N. had designated the year 1994 as the International Year of the Family. The First Presidency released a statement on 1 January 1994 endorsing the U.N.'s designation.[112] 5 days after the Deseret News' report on the UN coming to Salt Lake, they reported the alarming speech of a member of the John Birch Society before a gathering of about 400 in Salt Lake City. The speaker, William Grigg, warned of what he perceived were the United Nations' attempts at "redefining the family out of existence[.]"[113]

Thus, this is the potential timeline/narrative that arises:

  • 17 December 1990: With the encouragement of 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."[114]
  • 5–13 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.[115]
  • 4–15 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.[116]
  • 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.[117] Elder Gordon B. Hinckley stated in the October 1993 General Conference:

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).[118]

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.[119]

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

While 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."

President Gordon B. Hinckley was asked by a reporter what his greatest concerns were as President of the Church as he celebrated his 5th 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."[120] 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."[121] President Hinckley decried the breakdown of the family in society in the October 1995 General Conference.[122] 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.

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.

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 D&C 102, 122, 123, 128, 129, 130, 131, 134, and 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.

Main articles:Have the doctrines in "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" long been taught?
What sort of scriptural support is there for the doctrines of 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?

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:

Family Proc Scipture Insert 1 .png
Family Proc Insert 2.png

Line by Line Analysis

The same website has a section that provides 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.[123] 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."[124]

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 Judith Butler refers to gender as conceived here (as well as a person's gender identity) as a "performance".[125] This performance is an outward showing or demonstration of the expectations that have been imposed onto a person through 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—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".[126] "In short," summarizes social conservative philosopher Ryan T. Anderson, "‘the body’ conceived as something in particular is all about power."[127]

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 second-wave feminism. 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."[128] 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."[129] 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:

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.[130]

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 intersex conditions are considered 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 bimodal instead of binary—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.[131] 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—a chemical reponsible for social paring and bonding—than men.[132] 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:

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.
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—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.[133]

What A Man or Woman "Should Be"

But let's offer one more argument against the notion of a social construct. 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 "gender performativity". That theory is described well in an introduction to Butler's most famous book Gender Trouble (1990) 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—one's subjective sense of the sex that they belong to—is not innate either. Gender identity is constructed through a set of socially popular 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.[134] Prior to being given mortal bodies, the spirits of humans were created as male or female.[135] Spirit is believed to be made of some kind of physical matter.[136] 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 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.[137] 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."[138]

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.

Main article: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

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.

See also: 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,[139] 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.

  1. Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics (New York: HarperOne, 1996), 379–406 online at https://www.heartlandchurch.org/d/The_Moral_Vision_of_the_New_Testament_excerpt.pdf. This gives an academic, exegetical perspective from the New Testament about homosexuality, concluding that whenever homosexual sexual behavior is discussed, it is unremittingly negative.
  2. 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.
  3. Robert A. J. Gagnon, one of the foremost experts on homosexuality and the Bible, has a 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:

  1. Robert A. J. Gagnon, 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.

  1. 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. 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. 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 (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.
  2. 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, Jacob 2꞉21 teaches that all men and women were created with the end of keeping God’s commandments and glorifying him forever.[140] 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, 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.
  3. Restoration scripture echoes Genesis in affirming that men and women should become "one flesh"—affirming the creative order discussed in Justin W. Starr’s paper above.[141] 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 (Genesis 2꞉21-24). He commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth (Genesis 1꞉28). God then saw that his creation was "very good" (Genesis 1꞉31).
  4. Doctrine & Covenants 131꞉1-2 teaches that one must enter into the covenant of marriage in order to reach the Celestial Kingdom.
  5. 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.[142] 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.
  6. 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.[143] It has been affirmed that the Proclamation came by way of divine inspiration and revelation many times.
  7. 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 Genesis 9 and the Sodom narratives, Romans 1꞉26-32,[144] and 1 Corinthians 6꞉12 and 6:18.[145] 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: Jacob 2꞉21 informs us that we were created unto the end of keeping God's commandments. 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 article: 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

Fornications

Fornicator

Fornicators

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.[146] We have gathered an exhaustive concordance of those words at this link that readers should take a look at.

See also:Did Christ teach against same-sex relationships during his mortal ministry?
Isn't the Mormon opposition to same-sex marriage hypocritical, considering that they used to ban black from holding the priesthood until 1978?


Notes

  1. ↑ David B. Haight, "Be A Strong Link," Ensign 30/11 (November 2000). off-site
  2. ↑ Henry B. Eyring, "The Family," Ensign 28 (February 1998).
  3. ↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, "Stand Strong against the Wiles of the World," Ensign 25/11 (November 1995): 98. off-site
  4. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "The Instrument of Your Mind and the Foundation of Your Character," CES Fireside (2 February 2003).off-site
  5. ↑ Neal A. Anderson, "Trial of Your Faith," Ensign 42/11 (November 2012). off-site
  6. ↑ " Approaching Mormon Doctrine, LDS Newsroom (4 May 2007). off-site
  7. ↑ D. Todd Christofferson, "The Doctrine of Christ," Ensign 42/5 (May 2012). off-site
  8. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Fledgling Finches and Family Life, BYU Campus Education Week Devotional, 18 August 2009.
  9. ↑ Henry B. Eyring, Ensign 28/2 (February 1998). off-site
  10. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Proclamation on the Family]," Worldwide Leadership Training Broadcast (9 February 2008). off-site
  11. ↑ David B. Haight, "Be A Strong Link," Ensign 30/11 (November 2000). off-site.
  12. ↑ M. Russell Ballard, "Beware of False Prophets and False Teachers," Ensign 29/11 (November 1999). off-site
  13. ↑ M. Russell Ballard, "Let Our Voices Be Heard," Ensign 33/11 (November 2003). off-site.
  14. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Counsel to Youth," Ensign 41/11 (November 2011). off-site
  15. ↑ M. Russell Ballard, "Beware of False Prophets and False Teachers," Ensign 29/11 (November 1999). off-site
  16. ↑ L. Tom Perry, "Obedience to Law Is Liberty," Ensign 43/5 (May 2013). off-site
  17. ↑ Neal A. Maxwell, "Sharing Insights from My Life," BYU Devotional 12 Jan 1999. off-site
  18. ↑ Henry B. Eyring, Ensign 28/2 (February 1998). off-site
  19. ↑ Robert D. Hales, "'If Thou Wilt Enter into Life," Ensign. off-site
  20. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "The Plan and the Proclamation," Ensign 47/11 (November 2017): 30–31. off-site
  21. ↑ W. Eugene Hansen, "Children and the Family," Ensign 28/5 (May 1998). off-site
  22. ↑ Eran A. Call, "The Home: A Refuge and Sanctuary," Ensign 28/11 (November 1998). off-site
  23. ↑ Claudio R.M. Costa, "Don't Leave for Tomorrow What You Can Do Today," Ensign 37/11 (November 2007). off-site
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 M. Russell Ballard, "What Matters Most Is What Lasts Longest," Ensign 35/11 (November 2005). off-site
  25. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "As He Thinketh in His Heart," evening with a General Authority (February 2013). off-site
  26. ↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, "Stand Strong against the Wiles of the World," Ensign (November 1995): 98.
  27. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Fortify Your Homes Against Evil," Ensign (May 1979).
  28. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).
  29. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Families Can Be Eternal," Ensign (November 1980).
  30. ↑ Russell M. Nelson, "The Canker of Contention," Ensign (May 1989).
  31. ↑ 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.]
  32. ↑ Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed., (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1939), 272.
  33. ↑ Ezra Taft Benson, "To the Single Adult Brethren of the Church," Ensign (May 1988).
  34. ↑ Neal A. Maxwell, "Family Perspectives," BYU Devotional, 15 January 1974
  35. ↑ Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed., (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1939), 272.
  36. ↑ Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed., (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1939), 428.
  37. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "The Great Plan of Happiness," Ensign (November 1993).
  38. ↑ 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.
  39. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).
  40. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "For Time and All Eternty," Ensign (November 1993).
  41. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "The Play and the Plan," CES Fireside, 7 May 1995, Kirkland, Washington.
  42. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).
  43. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Families Can Be Eternal," Ensign (November 1980).
  44. ↑ Russell M. Nelson, "Constancy Amid Change," Ensign (November 1993).
  45. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Fortify Your Homes Against Evil," Ensign (May 1979).
  46. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Voices of the Past, of the Present, of the Future," Ensign (May 1971).
  47. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Fortify Your Homes Against Evil," Ensign (May 1979).
  48. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).
  49. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).
  50. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Families Can Be Eternal," Ensign (November 1980).
  51. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).
  52. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).
  53. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).
  54. ↑ This fact is exhaustively demonstrated in Gregory L. Smith, "Feet of Clay: Queer Theory and the Church of Jesus Christ," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 43/3 (5 March 2021): 187-215. [107–278] link
  55. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).
  56. ↑ Neal A. Maxwell, Look Back At Sodom: A timely account from imaginary Sodom Scrolls (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1975).
  57. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "The Foundations of Righteousness," Ensign (November 1977).
  58. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Why Call Me Lord, Lord and Do Not the Things Which I Say?," Ensign (May 1975).
  59. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "The Great Plan of Happiness," Ensign (November 1993).
  60. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, edited by Edward L. Kimball, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1982), 311.
  61. ↑ Cited in this context, for example, in Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).
  62. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).
  63. ↑ 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.]
  64. ↑ 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.
  65. ↑ Neal A. Maxwell, "All Hell Is Moved," BYU Devotional (8 November 1977).
  66. ↑ Neal A. Maxwell, "A More Determined Discipleship," Ensign (February 1979).
  67. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974). off-site
  68. ↑ Russell M. Nelson, "Children of the Covenant," Ensign (May 1995). off-site
  69. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).
  70. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).
  71. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Families Can Be Eternal," Ensign (November 1980).
  72. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Strengthening the Family, the Basic Unit of the Church," Ensign (May 1978).
  73. ↑ Joseph Fielding Smith, "Counsel to the Saints and to the World," Ensign (July 1972): 27.
  74. ↑ M. Russell Ballard, "Equality Through Diversity," Ensign (November 1993).
  75. ↑ M. Russell Ballard, "Equality Through Diversity," Ensign (November 1993).
  76. ↑ M. Russell Ballard, "Equality Through Diversity," Ensign (November 1993).
  77. ↑ Ezra Taft Benson, "Fundamentals of Enduring Family Relationships," Ensign (November 1982).
  78. ↑ M. Russell Ballard, "Equality Through Diversity," Ensign (November 1993).
  79. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).
  80. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Marriage," Ensign (May 1981).
  81. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Families Can Be Eternal," Ensign (November 1980).
  82. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "God Will Not Be Mocked," Ensign (November 1974).
  83. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Fortify Your Homes Against Evil," Ensign (May 1979).
  84. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Families Can Be Eternal," Ensign (November 1980).
  85. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Families Can Be Eternal," Ensign (November 1980).
  86. ↑ Neal A. Anderson, "Trial of Your Faith," Ensign (November 2012).
  87. ↑ "Intersex," Wikipedia, accessed January 4, 2019, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex.
  88. ↑ "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed January 4, 2019, off-site.
  89. ↑ "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.'"
  90. ↑ "Elder Nelson: 'There Is No Conflict Between Science and Religion'," LDS Living, April 17, 2015, [ttps://www.ldsliving.com/Elder-Nelson-There-Is-No-Conflict-Between-Science-and-Religion-/s/78668 off-site].
  91. ↑ Ty Mansfield, "'Mormons can be gay, they just can’t do gay': Deconstructing Sexuality and Identity from an LDS Perspective," (presentation, FairMormon Conference, Provo, UT, 2014).
  92. ↑ 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, "A meta-analysis of sex differences in human brain structure," Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 39 (2014): 34–50; Larry Cahill, "A Half-Truth is a Whole Lie: On the Necessity of Investigating Sex Influences on the Brain," Endocrinology 153 (2012): 2542; "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), 11–127.
  93. ↑ 1 Corinthians 11꞉3
  94. ↑ "Chapter 42: Family: The Sweetest Union for Time and for Eternity," Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith.
  95. ↑ "Editorial Thoughts: The Rights of Fatherhood," Juvenile Instructor 37:5 (1 March 1902), 146.
  96. ↑ "Being a Righteous Husband and Father," October 1994 general conference.
  97. ↑ "Parents and Children", General Handbook, 2.1.3.
  98. ↑ D. Todd Christofferson, "To the Brethren of the Priesthood: Your Spiritual Leadership," Chile multistake conference, Aug. 26, 2018; as cited in Dallin H. Oaks, "Keeping the Faith on the Front Line," Ensign, June 2020 [digital only].
  99. ↑ Moses 7꞉18; Philippians 2꞉2; 1 Peter 3꞉15; Doctrine and Covenants 38꞉27.
  100. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "The Relief Society," Ensign 28, no. 5 (May 1998): 73.
  101. ↑ "Fatherhood: An Eternal Calling," April 2004 general conference.
  102. ↑ "Exercising Priesthood Authority Righteously," General Handbook, 3.4.4.
  103. ↑ Ephesians 5꞉25-29
  104. ↑ The claim has its origins in Laura Compton, "From Amici to 'Ohana: The Hawaiian Roots of the Family Proclamation," Rational Faiths, May 15, 2015, https://rationalfaiths.com/from-amici-to-ohana/.
  105. ↑ Baehr v. Lewin (1993) was a case where three same-sex couples petitioned the Hawaii Supreme Court to recognize their unions.
  106. ↑ 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." DHO offers an account of the Proclamation.
  107. ↑ "Origins of the Family Proclamation," Mormonr, accessed January 24, 2023, https://mormonr.org/qnas/NqoXl/origins_of_the_family_proclamation.
  108. ↑ Richard E. Turley Jr., In the Hands of the Lord: The Life of Dallin H. Oaks (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2021), 215.
  109. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "The Instrument of Your Mind and the Foundation of Your Character," CES Fireside (2 February 2003).
  110. ↑ M. Russell Ballard, "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.
  111. ↑ "World Focus on S.L. Gathering," Deseret News, March 15, 1995.
  112. ↑ "Year of family endorsed by the First Presidency," Church News, January 1, 1994; "YEAR OF FAMILY ENDORSED BY THE FIRST PRESIDENCY," Deseret News, January 1, 1994; "FIRST PRESIDENCY BACKS 1994 AS YEAR OF FAMILY," Deseret News, January 9, 1994.
  113. ↑ Marianne Schmidt, "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. "U.N. GATHERINGS THREATEN FAMILIES," Deseret News, April 17, 1995.
  114. ↑ "First Presidency Statement Opposing Same Gender Marriages," Ensign 24, no. 4 (April 1994): 80.
  115. ↑ "CHURCH JOINS HAWAII FIGHT OVER SAME-SEX MARRIAGES," Associated Press, February 24, 1995.
  116. ↑ "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.
  117. ↑ 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/.
  118. ↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, "Bring Up a Child in the Way He Should Go," Ensign 23, no. 11 (November 1993): 58–59.
  119. ↑ Neal A. Maxwell, "Take Especial Care of Your Family," Ensign 24, no. 5 (May 1994): 88–89.
  120. ↑ Bruce C. Hafen, "The Proclamation on the Family: Transcending the Cultural Confusion," Ensign 45, no. 8 (August 2015): 51.
  121. ↑ Ibid.
  122. ↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, "Stand Strong Against the Wiles of the World," Ensign 25, no. 11 (November 1995): 98–101.
  123. ↑ 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).
  124. ↑ "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," 2nd paragraph.
  125. ↑ Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (New York: Routledge, 2006), 171–80.
  126. ↑ Judith Butler, "Bodies That Matter," in Engaging with Irigaray, ed. Carolyn Burke, Naomi Schor, and Margaret Whitford (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994), 148.
  127. ↑ Anderson, When Harry Became Sally, 153.
  128. ↑ Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex , trans. H.M. Parshley (London: Jonathan Cape, 1953; 2009), 294.
  129. ↑ "Second-wave feminism," Wikipedia, accessed January 11, 2023, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-wave_feminism.
  130. ↑ Dr. Debra Soh, The End of Gender: Debunking the Myths About Sex and Identity in Our Society (New York: Threshold Editions, 2020), 17.
  131. ↑ 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, "A meta-analysis of sex differences in human brain structure," Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 39 (2014): 34–50; Larry Cahill, "A Half-Truth is a Whole Lie: On the Necessity of Investigating Sex Influences on the Brain," Endocrinology 153 (2012): 2542; "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), 11–127.
  132. ↑ Donatella Marazziti et. al, "Sex-Related Differences in Plasma Oxytocin Levels in Humans," Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health 15 (March 2019): 58–63; Shan Gao et. al, "Oxytocin, the peptide that bonds the sexes also divides them," Proc Natl Acad Sci 113, no. 27 (2016): 7650-7654.
  133. ↑ Soh, The End of Gender, 42–44.
  134. ↑ Abraham 3꞉18
  135. ↑ Moses 3꞉4-5
  136. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 131꞉7
  137. ↑ 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.
  138. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "Apostasy and Restoration," Ensign 25, no. 5 (May 1995): 87.
  139. ↑ Taylor G. Petrey, "Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 44, no. 4 (2011): 106–41; 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, "Feet of Clay: Queer Theory and the Church of Jesus Christ," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 43 (2021): 107–278; Michael A. Goodman and Daniel Frost, "Constancy Amid Change," BYU Studies Quarterly 61, no. 3 (2022): 191–217. For a solid and insightful rebuttal to Petrey’s article "Towards a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology", see V.H. Cassler, "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, "'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, "The Queer Philosophies of Men Mingled with Scripture," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 51 (2022): 317–34. For a review of Oman's work, see Matthew Watkins, "'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): 207–22. 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.
  140. ↑ 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, 1 Nephi 19꞉6; Mormon 8꞉12, 16-17; Mormon 9꞉31; 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.
  141. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 49꞉15-17; Moses 3꞉21-24; Abraham 5꞉14-18
  142. ↑ 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, "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, "The Idea of Pre-Existence in the Development of Mormon Thought," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15, no. 1 (Spring 1982): 59–78. 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 Moses 3꞉5 and especially in connection to 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), 80–86; 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), 129–30; Shon D. Hopkin, "Premortal Existence," in Pearl of Great Price Reference Companion, ed. Dennis L. Largey (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2017), 240–41; Hyrum L. Andrus, Doctrinal Commentary on the Pearl of Great Price (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1973), 99–136; 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), 153–54n30; Book of Mormon Central and Jeffrey R. Bradshaw, "Book of Moses Essays: #54 Moses Sees the Garden of Eden (Moses 3) Spiritual Creation (Moses 3꞉5-7)," The Interpreter Foundation, May 8, 2021, https://interpreterfoundation.org/book-of-moses-essays-054/; Terryl L. 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), 524–25. 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 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), 113–125. 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.
  143. ↑ David L. Paulsen and Martin Pulido, "‘A Mother There’: A Survey of Historical Teachings About Heavenly Mother," BYU Studies Quarterly 50, no. 1 (2011): 70–97.
  144. ↑ Smith, "Feet of Clay," 129.
  145. ↑ 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.
  146. ↑ This is especially true when considering the biblical outlook on scripture. In the words of Lyn M. Bechtel 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., Deut. 22꞉28-29) or that violates existing marital or family bonding and obligation (e.g., vv. 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), 1192–93. 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.
Sexuality and gender
Marriage and children

Why do women not hold priesthood offices in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

During the early years of the LDS Church, no provision was made in the revelations describing the priesthood along with its offices for the ordination of women

In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints positions in the leadership hierarchy are generally connected directly to offices in the priesthood. During the early years of the LDS Church, no provision was made in the revelations describing the priesthood along with its offices for the ordination of women.[1] Consequently, when the Church received revelation describing the authority structure of the Church in terms of priesthood offices and roles, women were not included. This situation changed to some extent between 1842 and 1844. During the last two years of his life, Joseph Smith both organized the Relief Society and began introducing the temple ordinances (in particular the endowment) to the larger membership of the Church. Both of these developments had consequences for the view of women’s roles in the Church and in discussions over the relationship between women and the priesthood. Joseph addressed the Relief Society six times—the only sermons which he delivered exclusively to women in the Church—and these sermons (found in the Nauvoo Relief Society Minute Book) continue to frame the discussion of the role of women in the Church and their relationship to the priesthood.[2]

Did Joseph Smith intend to ordain women to the priesthood?

Some have understood Joseph Smith's address to the Relief Society on 30 March 1842 to suggest that Joseph intended to ordain women to the priesthood

On March 30th, 1842, Joseph Smith addressed the Relief Society at their third meeting. Eliza R. Snow recorded in the minute book:

the Society should move according to the ancient Priesthood, hence there should be a select Society separate from all the evils of the world, choice, virtuou[s] and holy— Said he was going to make of this Society a kingdom of priests an in Enoch’s day— as in Pauls day[3]

Some have understood this to suggest that Joseph intended to ordain women to offices in the priesthood. When the Relief Society was incorporated into the Ward structure (in 1868), Relief Society president Eliza R. Snow expanded on this idea given by Joseph Smith to explain that the Relief Society formed a necessary and integral part of the Church organization:

Although the name may be of modern date, the Institution is of ancient origin. We were told by our martyred prophet, that the same organization existed in the church anciently, allusions to which are made in some of the epistles recorded in the New Testament, making use of the title, 'elect lady'.:

This is an organization that cannot exist without the Priesthood, from the fact that it derives all its authority and influence from that source. When the Priesthood was taken from the earth, this institution as well as every other appendage to the true order of the church of Jesus Christ on the earth, became extinct, and had never been restored until the time referred to above.[4]

The Relief Society is an essential part of the restoration of the ‘same organization that existed in the Primitive Church’

Viewed this way, the Relief Society isn’t simply an innovation of the modern Church. It wasn’t organized as a way to engage women in the gospel. It is an essential part of the restoration of the ‘same organization that existed in the Primitive Church.’[5] Likewise, in an interview, Elaine Jack, past Relief Society general president, summed these ideas in this way:

Relief Society is not an auxiliary. The church was never fully organized until 'women were thus organized after the pattern of the priesthood.' It's the Lord's organization for women. And we act as a companion role to the priesthood.[6]

If seen as a companion to the priesthood—as an integral part of the Church organization, the Relief Society shouldn’t be viewed as a substitute for priesthood ordination, but as its partner. That is, women were not being ordained to the priesthood—they were being ordained to their own society—one just as ancient (a part of the primitive Church), restored to help the members of the Church work together to build up the kingdom of Zion on earth.

Joseph Smith described the organization of the Relief Society as being parallel to the organization of the priesthood

At the first meeting on March 17th, in 1842, Joseph said:

Pres[ident Joseph] Smith further remark'd that an organization to show them how to go to work would be sufficient. He propos'd that the Sisters elect a presiding officer to preside over them, and let that presiding officer choose two Counsellors to assist in the duties of her Office - that he would ordain them to preside over the Society and let them preside just as the Presidency, preside over the church; and if they need his instruction - ask him, he will give it from time to time.

Let this Presidency serve as a constitution - all their decisions be considered law; and acted upon as such

If any Officers are wanted to carry out the designs of the Institution, let them be appointed and set apart, as Deacons, Teachers, &c. are among us. … He then suggested the propriety of electing a Presidency to continue in office during good behavior, or so long as they shall continue to fill the office with dignity &c. like the first Presidency of the church.[7]

This language would cause later confusion, perhaps best illustrated by the ways in which it was understood

For example, Sarah M. Kimball, one of the first members of the Relief Society had, in 1868, organized her ward Relief Society to match that of the priesthood quorums - including offices of teachers and deaconesses. In responding to this confusion in 1880, President John Taylor (who had been assigned by Joseph to set Emma and her counselors apart as the first Relief Society presidency)[8] wrote:

Some of the sisters have thought that these sisters mentioned were, in this ordination, ordained to the priesthood. And for the information of all interested in this subject I will say, it is not the calling of these sisters to hold the Priesthood, only in connection with their husbands, they being one with their husbands.[9]

Given that President Taylor ordained the first Relief Society presidency under Joseph's instructions, he was well-placed to know whether this was an ordination to priesthood office or not.

President Taylor’s remarks underscore the notion that the Relief Society was not intended to move women into the Priesthood organization of the Church

But, his reference to a priesthood held "in connection with their husbands" reminds us of Joseph Smith’s remarks to the Relief Society on April 28th in 1842 (at the sixth meeting of the Relief Society). These remarks provided an understanding of the function and role of the Relief Society within the Church for the rest of the 19th century. In particular, Joseph connected the future role of the Relief Society to the work of temple ordinances that he was working to present to the Saints at Nauvoo:

He said the reason of these remarks being made, was, that some little thing was circulating in the Society, that some persons were not going right in laying hands on the sick &c. Said if he had common sympathies, would rejoice that the sick could be heal’d: that the time had not been before, that these things could be in their proper order— that the church is not now organiz’d in its proper order, and cannot be until the Temple is completed—— Prest. Smith continued the subject by adverting to the commission given to the ancient apostles "Go ye into all the world" &c.— no matter who believeth; these signs, such as healing the sick, casting out devils &c. should follow all that believe whether male or female. He ask’d the Society if they could not see by this sweeping stroke, that wherein they are ordaind, it is the privilege of those set apart to administer in that authority which is confer’d on them— and if the sisters should have faith to heal the sick, let all hold their tongues, and let every thing roll on.[10]

Healing by the laying on of hands was a practice that was common for Latter-day Saint women in the 19th century

Here, Joseph first brings up the issue of healing by the laying on of hands.[11] This had apparently caused some discussion as to whether it was appropriate or not. Healing the sick, however, was one of the signs to follow those with faith, and Joseph Smith compared their organization and the ordination that had been given to the members of the Relief Society to the commission given to the apostles in the New Testament. ‘These signs’ were understood to be a part of the mission of the Relief Society, and healing the sick was one of their primary focuses through the beginning of the twentieth century. The very name of the society, after all, described its purpose of bringing relief to the poor, sick, or suffering.

Later, Joseph Smith also noted:

He said as he had this opportunity, he was going to instruct the Society and point out the way for them to conduct, that they might act according to the will of God— that he did not know as he should have many opportunities of teaching them— that they were going to be left to themselves,— they would not long have him to instruct them— that the church would not have his instruction long, and the world would not be troubled with him a great while, and would not have his teachings— He spoke of delivering the keys to this Society and to the church— that according to his prayers God had appointed him elsewhere.[12]

While we may see a prophetic foreshadowing here of Joseph’s assassination in 1844, this may also represent Joseph’s intentions seen in his journal entry for July 16th, 1843:

The same spirit that crucified Jesus is in the breast of some who profess to be Saints in Nauvoo. I have secret enemies in the city intermingling with the Saints, etc. Said I would not prophesy any more, and proposed Hyrum to hold the office of prophet to the Church, as it was his birthright. I am going to have a reformation, and the Saints must regard Hyrum, for he has the authority, that I might be a Priest of the Most High God; and slightly touched upon the subject of the everlasting covenant, showing that a man and his wife must enter into that covenant in the world, or he will have no claim on her in the next world. But on account of the unbelief of the people, I cannot reveal the fullness of these things at present.[13]

When this was prepared for publication in the History of the Church, this section was substantially rewritten (interpreted) as follows:

He spoke of delivering the keys of the Priesthood to the Church, and said that the faithful members of the Relief Society should receive them in connection with their husbands; that the Saints whose integrity had been tried and proved faithful, might know how to ask the Lord and receive an answer.[14]

This interpolated idea of shared priesthood resulted in the notion of women being able to exercise the power of the priesthood without being ordained to an office in the priesthood—though it is not found in Joseph's original. We note too that the "keys" in this reading are the keys of knowledge and revelation.

Bruce R. McConkie emphasized that 'keys' "have two distinct and yet related meanings:"

1—They are the right of presidency; the right to govern and direct all the affairs of the Church or kingdom; and the power to authorize the use of hte Priesthood for a particular purpose. In this sense keys are held by those only who are in presiding and governing positions.

2—Keys are also the way and means whereby knowledge and intelligence may be gained from God. In this sense, they are possessed by every Priesthood bearer and ... by many faithful membres of the Relief Society.[15]:148.

It is this understanding of Joseph Smith’s remarks that serves as the backdrop for President Taylor’s comments as well as the treatment of ritual healing and temple ordinance work performed by the Relief Society within the 19th century.

To learn more:Editing practices for the History of the Church
Summary: The History of the Church was assembled in the 19th century, and followed different authorship, editing, and source conventions.

Keys and the Relief Society

At the conclusion of his remarks to the Relief Society in April of 1842, Joseph made this comment:

This Society is to get instruction thro’ the order which God has established— thro’ the medium of those appointed to lead— and I now turn the key to you in the name of God and this Society shall rejoice and knowledge and intelligence shall flow down from this time.[16]

President Willard Richards, following the Nauvoo pattern set by Joseph Smith, called and set apart women as healers

What does this mean, when Joseph suggests that "I now turn the key to you"? Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote in 1950:

What, then, in summary, is the relationship of the Relief Society to the keys of the kingdom? And what was the significance of the Prophet's turning the key in their behalf in the name of the Lord? ... By turning the key the Prophet delegated to the duly appointed officers of the new organization a portion of the keys of the kingdom. Under the Priesthood they were now authorized to direct, control, and govern the affairs of the society. They thus became legal administrators holding the keys of presidency. Under this appointment their lawful acts would be recognized by the Lord and he would work with them in the rolling forth of the kingdom in the sphere assigned to them. ...

[T]he door was [also] opened whereby the faithful sisters, with their husbands, could communicate with God and receige blessings at his hands. What was it the Prophet said? "Knwledge and intelligence shall flow down (i.e. from God) from this time henceforth."[15]:151.

The sphere that they saw assigned to them was this healing of the sick and taking care of the welfare of Zion. President Willard Richards, following the Nauvoo pattern set by Joseph Smith, called and set apart women as healers:

Accordingly he laid his hands upon the heads of a number of the sisters who had prepared themselves to act as midwives and also administering to the sick and afflicted and set them apart for this very office and calling, and blest them with power to officiate in that capacity as handmaids of the Lord. Among the number set apart at that time Sister Presendia was one who received the blessing, and from that day to this she has realized the power and influence it conferred in her daily administerings, not only when she has been called upon to act as a midwife, but when washing and anointing and blessing the sisters.[17]

During the remainder of the 19th century, there was an increasing formalization in healing ordinances and an accompanying liturgy used within the Relief Society. President Eliza R. Snow, under the direction of President John Taylor visited many of the newly organized local Relief Societies, and encouraged them:

"We need not be afraid of doing too much nor getting ahead of our Bretheren and if we did why let them hurry up," she told women in Santaquin. She taught Gunnison women the same principle, drawing precedent from the Nauvoo minutes: "The Prophet Joseph Smith said to the Sisters: ‘provoke the Brethren to good works.’" Snow described the Relief Society as "self-governing" and sought to cultivate in women a sense of initiative, responsibility, and partnership. "Woman was not only created as a help meet for man but to be one with him in the priesthood," she declared. Echoing Joseph’s counsel that "all must act in concert or nothing can be done," she affirmed that men’s and women’s interests "are both in the Kingdom of God and cannot be divided. The Gospel of Christ is designed to unite our labors."[18]

The response was enthusiastic. So much so, that in 1906, Elder J. Golden Kimball observed in his General Conference address:

The Priesthood quorums ... have become lax in their work and let loose their hold. While the auxiliary organizations have taken the right of way, the Priesthood quorums stand by looking on awe-struck.[19]

In response, President Joseph F. Smith announced his intention for a priesthood reformation in the April 1906 Conference:

We expect to see the day, … when every council of the priesthood in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will understand its duty; will assume its own responsibility, will magnify its calling, and fill its place in the Church, to the uttermost, according to the intelligence and ability possessed by it. When that day shall come there will not be so much necessity for work that is now being done by the auxiliary organizations, because it will be done by the regular quorums of the priesthood.[20]

The work of the Relief Society in the 19th century, and in particular the practice of healing by the laying on of hands shifted to the Priesthood during this priesthood reformation (between 1908 and 1920). Attitudes shifted considerably towards these practices. Brigham Young, in 1869 suggested, speaking to the women of the Church:

Why do you not live so as to rebuke disease? It is your privilege to do so without sending for the Elders.[21]

In 1946, a letter from Elder Joseph Fielding Smith shows how policy on this matter had been reversed

Joseph Fielding Smith:

While the authorities of the Church have ruled that it is permissible, under certain conditions and with the approval of the priesthood, for sisters to wash and anoint other sisters, yet they feel that it is far better for us to follow the plan the Lord has given us and send for the elders of the Church to come and administer to the sick and afflicted.[22]

Women and priesthood in a temple context

The one area where there was little change was in the ordinances of the temple. It was widely recognized that women officiated in ordinances in the temple, and the liturgical language of the endowment recognized women as priestesses. It is in this context that we see references back to Joseph Smith’s teachings of a priesthood given in the temple. After the completion of the St. George temple, and the resumption of temple work, there was a push to formalize the liturgy of the temple, and to make sure that it was consistent across the Church. In this context the question of women’s participation in ordinances both within the temple context and outside it came under scrutiny. In 1888, President Franklin D. Richards provided some additional insight:

I ask any and everybody present who have received their endowments, whether he be a brother Apostle, Bishop, High Priest, Elder, or whatever office he may hold in the Church, "What blessings did you receive, what ordinance, what power, intelligence, sanctification or grace did you receive that your wife did not partake of with you?" I will answer, that there was one thing that our wives were not made special partakers of, and that was the ordination to the various orders of the priesthood which were conferred upon us. Aside from that, our sisters share with us any and all of the ordinances of the holy anointing, endowments, sealings, sanctifications and blessings that we have been made partakers of.

Now, I ask you: Is it possible that we have the holy priesthood and our wives have none of it? Do you not see, by what I have read, that Joseph desired to confer these keys of power upon them in connection with their husbands? I hold that a faithful wife has certain blessings, powers and rights, and is made partaker of certain gifts and blessings and promises with her husband, which she cannot be deprived of, except by transgression of the holy order of God. They shall enjoy what God said they should. And these signs shall follow them if they believe.

Moses said, when some one told him that a certain man was prophesying in the camp, and the people thought he had no right to do so, Moses replied saying: "I would to God that all of the Lord's people were prophets." So I say: I wish all the sisters were so faithful that they were healers of the sick, through the power of God.[23]

In justifying the role of women using priesthood power and authority—particularly within a temple context, President Richards introduced this proof text normally used to justify notions of a priesthood of all believers. It provided an Old Testament context to support this doctrine of priesthood received in connection with temple service.

When asked about such matters and what they implied about women having priesthood ordination, Wilford Woodruff wrote to the Relief Society General President. He mentioned the habit of providing temple annointing and washing ritual to women for health reasons:

Wilford Woodruff: [Answer:] To begin with I desire to say that the ordinance of washing and anointing is one that should only be administered in Temples or other holy places which are dedicated for the purpose of giving endowments to the Saints. That ordinance might not be administered to any one whether she has received or has not received her endowments, in any other place or under any other circumstances.

But I imagine from your question that you refer to a practice that has grown up among the sisters of washing and anointing sisters who are approaching their confinement [i.e., preparing to give birth]. If so, this is not, strictly speaking, an ordinance, unless it be done under the direction of the priesthood and in connection with the ordinance of laying on of hands for the restoration of the sick.

There is no impropriety in sisters washing and anointing their sisters in this way, under the circumstances you describe; but it should be understood that they do this, not as members of the priesthood, but as members of the Church, exercising faith for, and asking the blessings of the Lord upon, their sisters, just as they, and every member of the Church, might do in behalf of the members of their families.[24]

In 1912, Elder James Talmage further expanded this to include single sisters being endowed when he suggested that a single woman being endowed shared the priesthood of her future husband:

"It is a precept of the Church that women of the Church share the authority of the Priesthood with their husbands, actual or prospective; and therefore women, whether taking the endowment for themselves or for the dead, are not ordained to specific rank in the Priesthood."[25]

Connections between women, priesthood and celestial marriage

This connection between women, priesthood, and celestial marriage was reintroduced by Elder Ballard in his August 20, 2013 devotional at BYU:

When men and women go to the temple, they are both endowed with the same power, which by definition is priesthood power. While the authority of the priesthood is directed through priesthood keys, and priesthood keys are held only by worthy men, access to the power and the blessings of the priesthood is available to all of God’s children. ... Those who have entered the waters of baptism and subsequently received their endowment in the house of the Lord are eligible for rich and wonderful blessings. The endowment is literally a gift of power. All who enter the house of the Lord officiate in the ordinances of the priesthood. This applies to men and women alike.[26]

And again, most recently in the April 2014 General Conference by Elder Dallin H. Oaks quoted Elder Ballard and emphasized this statement:

Our Church doctrine places women equal to and yet different from men. God does not regard either gender as better or more important than the other. … When men and women go to the temple, they are both endowed with the same power, which is priesthood power. … Access to the power and the blessings of the priesthood is available to all of God’s children.[27]

Women act with delegated priesthood authority

President Dallin H. Oaks emphasized this point when he pointed out that "since the scriptures state that “all other authorities [and] offices in the church are appendages to this [Melchizedek] priesthood” (D&C 107꞉5), all that is done under the direction of those priesthood keys is done with priesthood authority."[27]

When we understand this, we see that most men do not perform their duties with their "own" priesthood authority, most of the time. Instead, both men and women usually act in their Church callings by designated or delegated authority.

Most people—male and female—act with delegated authority

For example:

  • a ward clerk or executive secretary performs his duties by delegated authority.
  • Sunday school teachers—male and female—teach classes under designated authority.
  • Primary Presidencies, Young Women's Presidencies, Young Men's adult assistants, Sunday School presidencies—all act under delegated authority from the bishop when they are set apart.

In fact, there are only a few callings that exercise keys and priesthood authority that resides in them, rather than as delegated:

  • priesthood quorum presidents
  • bishops
  • stake, temple, and mission presidents
  • apostles

President Oaks expressed this idea when he emphasized:

We are not accustomed to speaking of women having the authority of the priesthood in their Church callings, but what other authority can it be? When a woman—young or old—is set apart to preach the gospel as a full-time missionary, she is given priesthood authority to perform a priesthood function. The same is true when a woman is set apart to function as an officer or teacher in a Church organization under the direction of one who holds the keys of the priesthood. Whoever functions in an office or calling received from one who holds priesthood keys exercises priesthood authority in performing her or his assigned duties.

Whoever exercises priesthood authority should forget about their rights and concentrate on their responsibilities.[27]

Most members, then, will spend all or most of their Church callings functioning under delegated authority, not authority to which they are ordained.[28]

And, that delegated authority is even used by women in temples to administer sacred ordinance, see above.

We need a more expansive view of how priesthood authority is used by all faithful Church members

President Joseph Fielding Smith emphasized this in 1959:

While the sisters have not been given the Priesthood, it has not been conferred upon them, that does not mean that the Lord has not given unto them authority. … A person may have authority given to him, or a sister to her, to do certain things in the Church that are binding and absolutely necessary for our salvation, such as the work that our sisters do in the House of the Lord. They have authority given unto them to do some great and wonderful things, sacred unto the Lord, and binding just as thoroughly as are the blessings that are given by the men who hold the Priesthood.[29].

Why are there no women prophets in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today?

Throughout history, women as well as men have developed the gift of prophecy as told and foretold by the scriptures

The Old and New Testaments talk of women prophets. Why are there no women prophets in the church today?

Every one of us should seek the Spirit of the Lord in learning and discerning our paths through life. This interplay between questions and answers from God is one face of the spiritual gift of prophecy. Throughout history, women as well as men have developed this gift as told and foretold by the scriptures. However, the spiritual gift of prophecy is different from the calling the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have to act as "prophets, seers, and revelators" for the Church and the world in general. Still, their callings do not conflict with the blessing we can all enjoy of being prophets for ourselves, our families, and for our callings in the Church.

The Bible mentions a number of prophetesses. In the Old Testament, we have Miriam (Exodus 15:20), Deborah (Judges 4:4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14,2 Chronicles 34:22), Noadiah (Nehemiah 6:14). The New Testament mentions Anna (Luke 2:36). So why do we not see women designated as "prophetesses" today?

The fact that there is a person designated as "The Prophet" for the Church does not preclude others from having the gift of prophecy

A "prophet" is often regarded as an office to which one is formally called and set apart. Latter-day Saints often refer to the President of the Church as "The Prophet." In this sense, the prophet is a priesthood position held by the senior apostle on earth. As President Dallin H. Oaks noted:

The divine nature of the limitations put upon the exercise of priesthood keys explains an essential contrast between decisions on matters of Church administration and decisions affecting the priesthood. The First Presidency and the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, who preside over the Church, are empowered to make many decisions affecting Church policies and procedures—matters such as the location of Church buildings and the ages for missionary service. But even though these presiding authorities hold and exercise all of the keys delegated to men in this dispensation, they are not free to alter the divinely decreed pattern that only men will hold offices in the priesthood. ...

The Lord has directed that only men will be ordained to offices in the priesthood. But, as various Church leaders have emphasized, men are not “the priesthood.”

In the same way, "The Prophet" is certainly a prophet, but he is not the only one who can or should possess the gift of prophecy.

From the Bible Dictionary definition for "Prophet," we read the following:

...In certain cases prophets predicted future events, e.g., there are the very important prophecies announcing the coming of Messiah's kingdom; but as a rule prophet was a forthteller rather than a foreteller. In a general sense a prophet is anyone who has a testimony of Jesus Christ by the Holy Ghost, as in Num. 11꞉25-29; Rev. 19꞉10.[30]

Surely the women called as General Auxiliary Presidency members are forthtellers. They travel the world teaching and testifying; they speak at General Conferences; they produce material for Church publications and do all of it by the spirit of prophecy. Women as well as men in all levels of the church today are blessed with this gift of the spirit to receive revelation. We simply don't recognize them formally.

In a broader sense, all who have a testimony of the Saviour are prophets regardless of their demographic characteristics Joel 2꞉28-29. Perhaps some of those named as prophets and prophetesses in the scriptures were given the title as charismatic/spiritual designations, not formal/official positions in a church hierarchy. Prophecy is a gift of the spirit, not necessarily a priesthood office.

Along with the prophetesses mentioned above, the word "prophetess" is used in two other ways in the Bible and Book of Mormon: the false prophetess and the consort prophetess.

The false prophetess

In the New Testament, the word is applied to "that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess."Rev 2꞉20 According to the Bible Dictionary, the use here is figurative and is part of a historical allusion used by John to communicate a threat of serious apostasy—a dark parallel to the woman and child that reprsent the Church of God (see Rev 12, especially JST Revelation 12:7. This reference to the spiritually disastrous reign of King Ahab and his wife Jezebel warns of a situation early church members should have recognized as dramatic and dangerous.

It does not preclude righteous women from acting as prophets any more than the existence of false male prophets precludes men from doing so.

The negative use of "prophetess" shows there must have been real significance attached to the word. Otherwise, its abuse by a Jezebel figure wouldn’t have been put forward as a sign of an insidious and destructive movement within the early church.

Why are there no female prophets today?

Knowing that any righteous individual can have gifts of the spirit, one really ought to ask: "Why do you not notice the females in the Church who are prophets?" The Lord has asked His people in ages past, and today:

Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. (Exodus 19:5-6)

He has also said that this is "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:" (1 Peter 2:9)

Moses desired all the Lord's people to be prophets:

Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord's people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them! (Numbers 11:)

If we cannot perceive Latter-day Saint women who are prophets, we may be thinking of "prophet" as a position of influence or power, rather than as a spiritual gift to which all are called to be worthy.

Learn more about Women and priesthood in the Church of Jesus Christ
Key sources
  • Valerie Hudson, "The Two Trees," Proceedings of the 2010 FAIR Conference (August 2010). link
  • Wendy Ulrich, "'Women, Men, and Priesthood Power'," Proceedings of the 2019 FAIR Conference (August 2019). link
  • Wendy Ulrich, "What I hope we will teach our daughters (and sons) about the priesthood," Proceedings of the 2016 FAIR Conference (August 2016). link
FAIR links
  • Michael R. Otterson, "On the Record," Proceedings of the 2015 FAIR Conference (August 2015). link
  • Kathryn Shirts, "“Daughters of Christ”: Finding Language to Talk about Women and Priesthood," Proceedings of the 2016 FAIR Conference (August 2016). link
  • Lynne Wilson, "Christ’s Emancipation of Women in the New Testament," Proceedings of the 2015 FAIR Conference (August 2015). link
  • Lynne Wilson, "Restoring a Kingdom of Priests and Priestesses," Proceedings of the 2022 FAIR Conference (August 2022). link
Video
  • "Women and the priesthood," BH Roberts Foundation print-link.
Navigators
Sub categories


Notes

  1. ↑ The most significant revelations relating to the structure and function of the priesthood are found in D&C Sections 20, 84, and 107. The language is almost entirely gendered. For example, 20꞉60 reads "Every elder, priest, teacher, or deacon is to be ordained according to the gifts and callings of God unto him; and he is to be ordained by the power of the Holy Ghost, which is in the one who ordains him."
  2. ↑ It is difficult to overemphasize the value of this record. A copy has been placed on-line at the Joseph Smith Papers website of the Church here.
  3. ↑ Nauvoo Relief Society Minute Book (entry dated 17 March 1842), LDS Church Archives, 22.
  4. ↑ Eliza R. Snow, "Female Relief Society," Deseret News (22 April 1868): 81.
  5. ↑ Eliza R. Snow references Articles of Faith 1꞉6 in her article.
  6. ↑ Quoted in Tina Hatch, "'Changing Times Bring Changing Conditions': Relief Society, 1960 to Present," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 37 no. 33, 68-69.. See also Julie Beck’s (then Relief Society general president) remarks in "Why We Are Organized into Quorums and Relief Societies]," BYU devotional address (17 January 2012). off-site
  7. ↑ Nauvoo Relief Society Minute Book (entry dated 17 March 1842), LDS Church Archives, [1].:4-5
  8. ↑ See Nauvoo Relief Society Minute Book (entry dated 17 March 1842), LDS Church Archives, 9. See also JD 21:368. .wiki (below) where he appeals to that experience.
  9. ↑ John Taylor, (8 August 1880) Journal of Discourses 21:367-368.
  10. ↑ Nauvoo Relief Society Minute Book (entry dated 17 March 1842), LDS Church Archives, [2].:38-39
  11. ↑ For an overview, see Jonathan A. Stapley and Kristine Wright, "Female Ritual Healing in Mormonism" The Journal of Mormon History 37 (Winter 2011): 1-85.
  12. ↑ Nauvoo Relief Society Minute Book (entry dated 17 March 1842), LDS Church Archives, [3].:37-38
  13. ↑ (See History of the Church, 5:510. Volume 5 link)
  14. ↑ History of the Church, 4:604. Volume 4 link See also Joseph Smith, Jr., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected by Joseph Fielding Smith, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1976), 226. off-site For a discussion of the interpretations of the Minute book see Jill Mulvay Derr and Carol Cornwall Madsen, "Preserving the Record and Memory of the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo, 1842-92" Journal of Mormon History Vol. 35/3 (Summer 2009): 88-117.
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 Bruce R. McConkie, “The Relief Society and the Keys of the Kingdom,” Relief Society Magazine (March 1950). off-site
  16. ↑ Nauvoo Relief Society Minute Book (entry dated 17 March 1842), LDS Church Archives, [4].:40
  17. ↑ "A Venerable Woman: Presendia Lathrop Kimball, Continued," Woman’s Exponent 12 (15 October 1883): 75. off-site
  18. ↑ Jill Mulvay Derr and Carol Cornwall Madsen, "Preserving the Record and Memory of the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo, 1842-92" Journal of Mormon History Vol. 35/3 (Summer 2009): 99.
  19. ↑ Conference Report (April 1906), 19.
  20. ↑ Joseph F. Smith, Conference Report (April 1906), 3.
  21. ↑ Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 13:155.
  22. ↑ Joseph Fielding Smith, letter, 29 July 1946.
  23. ↑ Franklin D. Richards, Discourse, July 19, 1888, in “Memorial Anniversary. Report of the Relief Soicety Meeting Held in the Ogden Tabernacle, July 19th, 1888, in Commemoration of the Last Public Visit and Instructions of President Brigham Young, on Invitation of President Jane S. Richards, to the Relief Society and Young Ladies’ Improvement Associations of the Weber Stake of Zion, Just Eleven Years Ago the 19th Inst.,” Woman’s Exponent (Salt Lake City, UT), Sept. 1, 1888, vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 52–54.off-site
  24. ↑ Wilford Woodruff to Emmeline B. Wells, 27 April 1888, Correspondence of the First Presidency, Church Archives.
  25. ↑ James E. Talmage, The House of the Lord: a study of holy sanctuaries, ancient and modern (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Deseret News, 1912), 94.
  26. ↑ M. Russell Ballard, "'Let Us Think Straight'," BYU devotional address, 20 August 2013.
  27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 27.2 Dallin H. Oaks, "The Keys and Authority of the Priesthood," Ensign (May 2014). off-site
  28. ↑ Men will, however, often be called on to exercise priesthood in the performance of ordinances, such as blessing the sacrament, blessing the sick, baptizing, or confirming—these duties are not carried out as part of a calling, but in one's role as an ordained holder of the priesthood.
  29. ↑ Joseph Fielding Smith, “Relief Society—an Aid to the Priesthood,” Relief Society Magazine, Jan. 1959, 4; cited by Oaks, 2014
  30. ↑ LDS KJV, Bible Dictionary, "Prophet,". off-site
Sexuality and gender
Marriage and children

This page is still under construction. We welcome any suggestions for improving the content of this FAIR Answers Wiki page.

General questions about identity

Can a person identify as gay or lesbian and still be a member of the Church in good standing?

The Church does not reject those who are attracted to those of their own sex. If such attraction leads to an intimate physical relationship, then this is considered sinful, just as sexual acts outside of marriage are for heterosexuals.

In 1998, President Hinckley said:

People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves ... gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are.[1]

In 1999, President Hinckley taught:

"As I said from this pulpit one year ago, our hearts reach out to those who refer to themselves as gays and lesbians. We love and honor them as sons and daughters of God. They are welcome in the Church."[2]

While President Hinckley avoided directly labeling anyone as gay or lesbian, he was directing his welcome to those who did make use of the label. He did not say that only those who shun the label are welcome, but specifically said that those who considered themselves to be gay could move forward as all other members do. There was no request for them to hide their identity or to change their vocabulary.

In general, Church leaders recommend against labeling anyone, including yourself. Labels detract from our divine nature as children of God. President Russell M. Nelson has counselled us about such things in areas far beyond sexual desire or orientation:

Russell nelson official portrait 2018.jpeg
I believe that if the Lord were speaking to you directly tonight, the first thing He would make sure you understand is your true identity. My dear friends, you are literally spirit children of God. ...

Labels can be fun and indicate your support for any number of positive things. Many labels will change for you with the passage of time. And not all labels are of equal value. But if any label replaces your most important identifiers, the results can be spiritually suffocating. ...

Who are you? First and foremost, you are a child of God.

Second, as a member of the Church, you are a child of the covenant. And third, you are a disciple of Jesus Christ.

Tonight, I plead with you not to replace these three paramount and unchanging identifiers with any others, because doing so could stymie your progress or pigeonhole you in a stereotype that could potentially thwart your eternal progression.

For example, if you are identified mainly as an American, those who are not Americans may think, “I know everything there is to know about you” and attribute erroneous beliefs to you.

If you identify yourself by your political affiliation, you will instantly be categorized as having certain beliefs—though I don’t know anyone who believes everything that their preferred political party presently embraces.

We could go on and on, rehearsing the constraints of various labels that we put on ourselves or that other people place upon us. ...

How tragic it is when someone believes the label another person has given them. ...

[Satan] rejoices in labels because they divide us and restrict the way we think about ourselves and each other. How sad it is when we honor labels more than we honor each other.

Labels can lead to judging and animosity. Any abuse or prejudice toward another because of nationality, race, sexual orientation, gender, educational degrees, culture, or other significant identifiers is offensive to our Maker! Such mistreatment causes us to live beneath our stature as His covenant sons and daughters!

There are various labels that may be very important to you, of course. Please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that other designations and identifiers are not significant. I am simply saying that no identifier should displace, replace, or take priority over these three enduring designations: “child of God,” “child of the covenant,” and “disciple of Jesus Christ.”

Any identifier that is not compatible with these three basic designations will ultimately let you down. Other labels will disappoint you in time because they do not have the power to lead you toward eternal life in the celestial kingdom of God.

Worldly identifiers will never give you a vision of who you can ultimately become. They will never affirm your divine DNA or your unlimited, divine potential.[3]

This counsel can also apply to using the label "straight" or "gay" to refer to children of God. In 1995, Elder Oaks taught:

We should note that the words homosexual, lesbian, and gay are adjectives to describe particular thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. We should refrain from using these words as nouns to identify particular conditions or specific persons. Our religious doctrine dictates this usage. It is wrong to use these words to denote a condition, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual behavior.

Feelings are another matter. Some kinds of feelings seem to be inborn. Others are traceable to mortal experiences. Still other feelings seem to be acquired from a complex interaction of "nature and nurture." All of us have some feelings we did not choose, but the gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us that we still have the power to resist and reform our feelings (as needed) and to assure that they do not lead us to entertain inappropriate thoughts or to engage in sinful behavior. [4]

The way we think about such things can determine whether we apply a theological lens to them, as Bishop Keith B. McMullin taught in 2010:

When I was a youngster, my mother discouraged me from using common language when speaking of sacred or special things. For example, instead of referring to an expectant mother as being pregnant, she encouraged me to say "she is expecting a baby." In Mother’s view, the latter description was more respectful and reverential, the former more clinical and common. Her teachings have had a salient effect upon me. The older I become, the more meaningful is her wisdom. The more we see and speak of intimate things as mere biology, the less likely we are to view and understand them in the context of exalting theology.

Church leaders have, therefore, consistently emphasized that such temptations and desires do not form a core or irreducible part of our nature. As Elder Boyd K. Packer said:

And so, now to the subject. To introduce it I must use a word. ... Please notice that I use it as an adjective, not as a noun; I reject it as a noun. I speak to those few, those very few, who may be subject to homosexual temptations. I repeat, I accept that word as an adjective to describe a temporary condition. I reject it as a noun naming a permanent one. [5]

This explains why Latter-day Saints often refer to homosexual/gay/lesbian issues with such terms as "same-sex attraction"

Latter-day Saint doctrine emphasizes that people are not the sum of their desires, temptations, or sins. Secular evidence suggests that those who self-identify with their desires in this way are more likely to engage in acts which the gospel of Christ teaches are sinful.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks pointed out a natural human tendency to use a single facet of our personality or experience as a large part of a self-definition:

I think it is an accurate statement to say that some people consider feelings of same-gender attraction to be the defining fact of their existence. There are also people who consider the defining fact of their existence that they are from Texas or that they were in the United States Marines. Or they are red-headed, or they are the best basketball player that ever played for such-and-such a high school. People can adopt a characteristic as the defining example of their existence and often those characteristics are physical.

We have the agency to choose which characteristics will define us; those choices are not thrust upon us.

The ultimate defining fact for all of us is that we are children of Heavenly Parents, born on this earth for a purpose, and born with a divine destiny. Whenever any of those other notions, whatever they may be, gets in the way of that ultimate defining fact, then it is destructive and it leads us down the wrong path. [6]

Our choice of terminology should not be construed to deny others the privilege of choosing their own acts or self-labels

When labels such as "homosexual," or "heterosexual", and labels such as "gay," "lesbian," or "straight" are used by members of the Church, this terminology should be understood to:

  • reflect the self-understanding of those referred to; or
  • serve as an adjective (e.g., "gay activists" are those working politically on behalf of those who self-identify as gay; or "heterosexual marriage" is a marriage between two people of the opposite sex regardless of sexual orientation).

The language used to describe people or phenomena influences how we perceive or think about them.

Definition of sexual orientation

The American Psychological Association {APA) gives the following definition for sexual orientation:

"Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions." [7]

The term sexual orientation in and of itself is ambiguous. There are many members of the Church who are primarily attracted to the same sex, but their sense of identity and community is more closely connected to a heterosexual lifestyle. Depending on which definition of sexual orientation that being used, the same person may have a homosexual or a heterosexual orientation.

The APA notes further: "Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors." [8]

Thus having same-sex attractions, participating in same-sex relationships, and identifying as gay or lesbian are three separate things.

A study by the Social Organization of Sexuality found that 60% of men and 68% of women who were attracted to the same sex have never engaged in homosexual behavior. Of those who identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual, only 13% of men and 4% of women who so identified have never engaged in homosexual behavior. [9] This lead the researchers to conclude that sexual identity (i.e., how people label and conceive of themselves) was a stronger indicator of sexual behavior than sexual orientation (i.e., the feelings or inclinations which people have). </blockquote>

Identity and behavior

Some use a self-identity as "homosexual" to imply or argue that acting on homosexual desires is an inevitable or proper outcome, since it is simply "who I am." The Church teaches, rather, that our temptations, unhealthy desires, or sins do not define who we are as children of God.

Definition of homosexuality, homosexual, and gay

In regards to the terms homosexual, lesbian and gay, Elder Oaks stated:

We should note that the words homosexual, lesbian, and gay are adjectives to describe particular thoughts, feelings, or behaviors.

In regards to the term homosexuality, Elder Oaks stated:

the First Presidency's letters condemning homosexuality are, by their explicit terms, directed at the practices of homosexuality.[10]

How does this compare with the dictionary? The American Heritage Dictionary defines homosexual as someone exhibiting homosexuality. It defines homosexuality as:

  1. Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
  2. Sexual activity with another of the same sex. [11]

Both the dictionary and Elder Oaks illustrate that homosexual can refer to thoughts or behaviors. Latter-day Saints may wish to communicate one thing about their thoughts, but quite another by their behavior. They therefore often choose language that makes this distinction clear.

Avoiding using gay as a noun

With regards to using gay as a noun, Elder Oaks said:

We should refrain from using these words as nouns to identify particular conditions or specific persons. Our religious doctrine dictates this usage. It is wrong to use these words to denote a condition, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual behavior.[12]

The American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style gives a similar warning against using gay as a noun:

Gay is often considered objectionable when used as a noun to refer to particular individuals, as in "There were two gays on the panel"; here phrasing such as "Two members of the panel were gay" should be used instead. [13]

According to the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) Media reference guide, many newspapers have also advised their newspaper writers to avoid using gay as a noun. [14] They cite the following examples:

New York Times:

Do not use gay as a singular noun. Gays, a plural noun, may be used only as a last resort, ordinarily in a hard-to-fit headline.

Washington Post:

When it is necessary to mention it, gay may be used as an adjective but not as a noun, except as a plural: gay man, gay woman, gay people, gays. Not a gay ...

Often, simply reporting the facts obviates the need for labels. Describing a slaying, for instance, should suffice without referring to it as a homosexual slaying. Ask yourself if you would use the term heterosexual slaying. In a recent story, a man "charged" that his former wife "was a lesbian" as if it were a slur, when simply alleging an affair between the ex-wife and the other woman would suffice.

Be wary of using homosexual as a noun. In certain contexts, it can be seen as a slur.

What have Church leaders taught about the distinction between desires, feelings, or inclinations, and sexual acts?

Those who claim that the Church has long condemned those who had homosexual feelings or inclinations regardless of whether they acted upon such feelings have not accurately reflected the long-standing teaching of the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles. Recent teaching of this doctrine is not a novelty, but merely an emphasis of that which has been long taught.

We are held accountable for things that we can choose. We are not held accountable for things outside of our control

This principle applies to sexual thoughts and actions. Church leaders have always taught that we need to learn to control our sexual actions. Our sexual natures are sacred, and should only be shared between a husband and a wife. But this law is not limited to sexual acts, but includes sexual feelings. The church teaches members to "never do anything outside of marriage to arouse the powerful emotions that must be expressed only in marriage". It is the intentional stimulation of sexual feelings that is prohibited, not merely having sexual feelings. This standard applies equally to all.

D&C

In a revelation given to William E. McLellin, the Lord reveals some of the feelings of McLellin:

Commit not adultery—a temptation with which thou hast been troubled. (D&C 66꞉10)

Even though he had been troubled with thoughts of adultery (there is no indication whether it was homosexual or heterosexual in nature) the Lord still gave the following praise:

Behold, thus saith the Lord unto my servant William E. McLellin—Blessed are you, inasmuch as you have turned away from your iniquities, and have received my truths, saith the Lord your Redeemer, the Savior of the world, even of as many as believe on my name. (D&C 10꞉1)

1980

President Spencer W. Kimball, in one of the first extensive treatments of this topic by a President of the Church regarding homosexual acts, was clear about the difference between the temptation and the act. That distinction has persisted in LDS discourse and teaching ever since:

The unholy transgression of homosexuality is either rapidly growing or tolerance is giving it wider publicity. If one has such desires and tendencies, he overcomes them the same as if he had the urge toward petting or fornication or adultery. The Lord condemns and forbids this practice with a vigor equal to his condemnation of adultery and other such sex acts. And the Church will excommunicate as readily any unrepentant addict.[15]

We note that homosexuality is compared to acts such as petting, fornication, or adultery. Those who are excommunicated are those who are unrepentant persist as "addicts": i.e., those who will not desist.

Again, contrary to the belief and statement of many people, this sin, like fornication, is overcomable and forgivable, but again, only upon a deep and abiding repentance, which means total abandonment and complete transformation of thought and act. The fact that some governments and some churches and numerous corrupted individuals have tried to reduce such behavior from criminal offense to personal privilege does not change the nature nor the seriousness of the practice. Good men, wise men, God-fearing men everywhere still denounce the practice as being unworthy of sons and daughters of God; and Christ’s church denounces it and condemns it so long as men and women have bodies which can be defiled.[16]

Again, the "behavior," and "practice" are that which is condemned.

President Kimball continued:

James said: 'A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. … 'Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.

'Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

'But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

'Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

'Do not err, my beloved brethren' (James 1:8,12-16).

Again, one is tempted but it requires a sinful response to temptation from our own lust to "bring...forth sin."

'God made me that way,' some say, as they rationalize and excuse themselves for their perversions. 'I can’t help it,' they add. This is blasphemy. ... Man is responsible for his own sins. It is possible that he may rationalize and excuse himself until the groove is so deep he cannot get out without great difficulty, but this he can do. Temptations come to all people. The difference between the reprobate and the worthy person is generally that one yielded and the other resisted. It is true that one’s background may make the decision and accomplishment easier or more difficult, but if one is mentally alert, he can still control his future. That is the gospel message—personal responsibility. ...

"Be wise in the days of your probation," said Mormon, "strip yourselves of all uncleanness; ask not, that ye may consume it on your lusts, but ask with a firmness unshaken, that ye will yield to no temptation, but that ye will serve the true and living God" (Moron 9꞉28).[17]

President Kimball emphasizes that some may be more vulnerable or susceptible to this temptation (or any other temptation) but emphasizes that one is only unworthy (or sinful) if he yields to temptation.

President Kimball had high hopes that people could overcome the practice of homosexuality, but warned that the feelings could well remain and need to be controlled on an on-going basis. He said:

In a few months, some have totally mastered themselves ... We realize that the cure is no more permanent than the individual makes it so and is like the cure for alcoholism subject to continued vigilance.

1987

President Gordon B. Hinckley:

Prophets of God have repeatedly taught through the ages that practices of homosexual relations, fornication, and adultery are grievous sins. ... Mankind has been given agency to choose between right and wrong. ... Mental control must be stronger than physical appetites or desires of the flesh. As thoughts are brought into complete harmony with revealed truth, actions will then become appropriate.[18]

1988

In 1988, Elder Dalin H. Oaks said:

Most of us are born with [or develop] thorns in the flesh, some more visible, some more serious than others. We all seem to have susceptibilities to one disorder or another, but whatever our susceptibilities, we have the will and the power to control our thoughts and our actions. This must be so. God has said that he holds us accountable for what we do and what we think, so our thoughts and actions must be controllable by our agency. Once we have reached the age or condition of accountability, the claim ‘I was born that way’ does not excuse actions or thoughts that fail to conform to the commandments of God. We need to learn how to live so that a weakness that is mortal will not prevent us from achieving the goal that is eternal.

God has promised that he will consecrate our afflictions for our gain (see 2 Nephi 2꞉2). The efforts we expend in overcoming any inherited [or developed] weakness build a spiritual strength that will serve us throughout eternity. Thus, when Paul prayed thrice that his ‘thorn in the flesh’ would depart from him, the Lord replied, ‘My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.’ Obedient, Paul concluded:

‘Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

‘Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong’ (2 Cor. 12:9-10).

Whatever our susceptibilities or tendencies [feelings], they cannot subject us to eternal consequences unless we exercise our free agency to do or think the things forbidden by the commandments of God. For example, a susceptibility to alcoholism impairs its victim’s freedom to partake without addiction, but his free agency allows him to abstain and thus escape the physical debilitation of alcohol and the spiritual deterioration of addiction. ...

Beware the argument that because a person has strong drives toward a particular act, he has no power of choice and therefore no responsibility for his actions. This contention runs counter to the most fundamental premises of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Satan would like us to believe that we are not responsible in this life. That is the result he tried to achieve by his contest in the pre-existence. A person who insists that he is not responsible for the exercise of his free agency because he was ‘born that way’ is trying to ignore the outcome of the War in Heaven. We are responsible, and if we argue otherwise, our efforts become part of the propaganda effort of the Adversary.

Individual responsibility is a law of life. It applies in the law of man and the law of God. Society holds people responsible to control their impulses so we can live in a civilized society. God holds his children responsible to control their impulses in order that they can keep his commandments and realize their eternal destiny. The law does not excuse the short-tempered man who surrenders to his impulse to pull a trigger on his tormentor, or the greedy man who surrenders to his impulse to steal, or the pedophile who surrenders to his impulse to satisfy his sexual urges with children. …

There is much we do not know about the extent of freedom we have in view of the various thorns in the flesh that afflict us in mortality. But this much we do know; we all have our free agency and God holds us accountable for the way we use it in thought and deed. That is fundamental.[19]

1991

The First Presidency wrote in 1991:

There is a distinction between immoral thoughts and feelings and participating in either immoral heterosexual or any homosexual behavior.[20]

1994

Elder Richard G. Scott:

Some bad thoughts come by themselves. Others come because we invite them by what we look at and listen to. ... The mind can think of only one thing at a time. Use that fact to crowd out ugly thoughts. Above all, don’t feed thoughts by reading or watching things that are wrong. If you don’t control your thoughts, Satan will keep tempting you until you eventually act them out.[21]

1995

In 1995, Elder Oaks stated:

Applying the First Presidency’s distinction to the question of same-sex relationships, we should distinguish between (1) homosexual (or lesbian) "thoughts and feelings" (which should be resisted and redirected), and (2) "homosexual behavior" (which is a serious sin)....

Persons cannot continue to engage in serious sin and remain members of the Church. And discipline can be given for encouraging sin by others. There is no Church discipline for improper thoughts or feelings (though there is encouragement to improve them), but there are consequences for behavior. ...

[W]e should always distinguish between sinful acts and inappropriate feelings or potentially dangerous susceptibilities. We should reach out lovingly to those who are struggling to resist temptation. The First Presidency did this in their 14 November 1991 letter. After reaffirming the sinful nature of "fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior," the Presidency added: "Individuals and their families desiring help with these matters should seek counsel from their bishop, branch president, stake or district president. We encourage Church leaders and members to reach out with love and understanding to those struggling with these issues. Many will respond to Christlike love and inspired counsel as they receive an invitation to come back and apply the atoning and healing power of the Savior."[22]

Gordon B. Hinckley:

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.[23]

2000

In 2000, President Boyd K. Packer taught:

That may be a struggle from which you will not be free in this life. If you do not act on temptations, you need feel no guilt. They [the feelings or temptations] may be extremely difficult to resist. But that is better than to yield and bring disappointment and unhappiness to you and those who love you.[24]

2003

In 2003, President Boyd K. Packer taught:

In the Church, one is not condemned for tendencies or temptations. One is held accountable for transgression. (See D&C 101꞉78; A+of+F 1꞉2). If you do not act on unworthy persuasions, you will neither be condemned nor be subject to Church discipline.[25]

2006

In 2006, Elder Dallin H. Oaks said:

The distinction between feelings or inclinations on the one hand, and behavior on the other hand, is very clear. It’s no sin to have inclinations that if yielded to would produce behavior that would be a transgression. The sin is in yielding to temptation. Temptation is not unique. Even the Savior was tempted.

The New Testament affirms that God has given us commandments that are difficult to keep. It is in 1 Corinthians 16꞉16: "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it."[26]

2007

In October 2007, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland published an article in the Ensign, which read in part:

A pleasant young man in his early 20s sat across from me. He had an engaging smile, although he didn’t smile often during our talk. What drew me in was the pain in his eyes.

"I don’t know if I should remain a member of the Church," he said. "I don’t think I’m worthy."

"Why wouldn’t you be worthy?" I asked.

"I’m gay."

I suppose he thought I would be startled. I wasn’t. "And … ?" I inquired.

A flicker of relief crossed his face as he sensed my continued interest. "I’m not attracted to women. I’m attracted to men. I’ve tried to ignore these feelings or change them, but …"

He sighed. "Why am I this way? The feelings are very real."

I paused, then said, "I need a little more information before advising you. You see, same-gender attraction is not a sin, but acting on those feelings is—just as it would be with heterosexual feelings. Do you violate the law of chastity?"

He shook his head. "No, I don’t."

This time I was relieved. "Thank you for wanting to deal with this," I said. "It takes courage to talk about it, and I honor you for keeping yourself clean.

"As for why you feel as you do, I can’t answer that question. A number of factors may be involved, and they can be as different as people are different. Some things, including the cause of your feelings, we may never know in this life. But knowing why you feel as you do isn’t as important as knowing you have not transgressed. If your life is in harmony with the commandments, then you are worthy to serve in the Church, enjoy full fellowship with the members, attend the temple, and receive all the blessings of the Savior’s Atonement."

He sat up a little straighter. I continued, "You serve yourself poorly when you identify yourself primarily by your sexual feelings. That isn’t your only characteristic, so don’t give it disproportionate attention. You are first and foremost a son of God, and He loves you.

"What’s more, I love you. My Brethren among the General Authorities love you. I’m reminded of a comment President Boyd K. Packer made in speaking to those with same-gender attraction. ‘We do not reject you,’ he said. ‘… We cannot reject you, for you are the sons and daughters of God. We will not reject you, because we love you.’ "

We talked for another 30 minutes or so. Knowing I could not be a personal counselor to him, I directed him to his local priesthood leaders. Then we parted. I thought I detected a look of hope in his eyes that had not been there before. Although he yet faced challenges to work through—or simply endure—I had a feeling he would handle them well.[27]

He went on to emphasize: "[L]et me make it clear that attractions alone, troublesome as they may be, do not make one unworthy. ... If you do not act on temptations, you have not transgressed."

In a Church booklet published in 2007, the Church taught:

Many people with same-gender attraction respect the sacredness of their bodies and the standards God has set—that sexuality be expressed "only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife" ("The Family: A Proclamation to the World," Ensign, Nov. 1995, 102). The lives of these individuals are pleasing to our Father in Heaven. Some, however, cross this boundary and indulge in immoral conduct. The desire for physical gratification does not authorize immorality by anyone. ...

An understanding of eternal truths is a powerful motivation for righteous behavior. You are best served by concentrating on the things you can presently understand and control, not wasting energy or enlarging frustration by worrying about that which God has not yet fully revealed. Focus on living the simple truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Same-gender inclinations may be very powerful, but through faith in the Atonement you can receive the power to resist all improper conduct, keeping your life free from sin.[28]

2009

D. Todd Christopherson:

All of us experience temptations. So did the Savior, but He "gave no heed unto them" (D&C 20꞉22). Similarly, we do not have to yield simply because a temptation surfaces. We may want to, but we don’t have to. An incredulous female friend asked a young adult woman, committed to living the law of chastity, how it was possible that she had never "slept with anybody." "Don’t you want to?" the friend asked. The young woman thought: "The question intrigued me, because it was so utterly beside the point. … Mere wanting is hardly a proper guide for moral conduct."

In some cases, temptation may have the added force of potential or actual addiction. I am grateful that for an increasing number of people the Church can provide therapeutic help of various kinds to aid them in avoiding or coping with addictions. Even so, while therapy can support a person’s will, it cannot substitute for it. Always and ever, there must be an exercise of discipline—moral discipline founded on faith in God the Father and the Son and what They can achieve with us through the atoning grace of Jesus Christ. In Peter’s words, "The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations" (2 Peter 2:9).[29]

Bruce C. Hafen:

You may not have consciously chosen to have same-gender attraction, but you are faithfully choosing to deal with it. Sometimes that attraction may make you feel sinful, even though the attraction alone is not a sin if you do not act on it. Sometimes you may feel frustration or anger or simply a deep sadness about yourself. But as hard as same-gender attraction is, your feeling that attraction does not mean that your nature is flawed. Whenever the adversary tries to convince you that you are hopelessly "that way," so that acting out your feelings is inevitable, he is lying. He is the father of lies...

It’s true that the law of chastity forbids all sexual relations outside the bonds of a married heterosexual relationship. And while same-gender attraction is not a sin, you need to resist cultivating immoral, lustful thoughts toward those of either gender. It’s no sin if a bird lands in your tree, just don’t let him build a nest there. ... if you feel an attraction you didn’t seek and haven’t acted on, you have nothing to repent of.[30]

2010

On 12 October 2010, Michael Otterson (head of Church Public Affairs) noted:

None of us is limited by our feelings or inclinations. Ultimately, we are free to act for ourselves.

The Church recognizes that those of its members who are attracted to others of the same sex experience deep emotional, social and physical feelings. The Church distinguishes between feelings or inclinations on the one hand and behavior on the other. It’s not a sin to have feelings, only in yielding to temptation

There is no question that this is difficult, but Church leaders and members are available to help lift, support and encourage fellow members who wish to follow Church doctrine. Their struggle is our struggle.[31]

The 2010 version of the Church's Handbook of Instructions notes:

Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. Homosexual behavior can be forgiven through sincere repentance.

If members engage in homosexual behavior, Church leaders should help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ, the process of repentance, and the purpose of life on earth.

While opposing homosexual behavior, the Church reaches out with understanding and respect to individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender.

If members feel same-gender attraction but do not engage in any homosexual behavior, leaders should support and encourage them in their resolve to live the law of chastity and to control unrighteous thoughts. These members may receive Church callings. If they are worthy and qualified in every other way, they may also hold temple recommends and receive temple ordinance.[32]

What does science have to say about this?

According to the American Psychological Association: "Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors."

As discussed above,[citation needed] self-identity determines behavior more than sexual orientation. Not only are there significant differences between a person's sexual orientation and their chosen behavior, but such things can change over time. The study indicated that of the 4.9% of men and 4.1% of women who have ever had a homosexual experience since the age of 18, only 2.7% of men and 1.3% of women had one in the last year. Some people change their sexual behavior based on religious beliefs. Others reported that they were no longer attracted to the same sex. The American Psychiatric Association has stated "Some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime."[33] The way this develops varies from person to person. A report from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health states that, "For some people, sexual orientation is continuous and fixed throughout their lives. For others, sexual orientation may be fluid and change over time."[34]

The Religions Dimension

Many people have testified that through the atonement of Christ, they no longer are attracted to people of the same gender. Others have also had faith in Christ, but still have same-sex attractions. Elder Holland taught: "Through the exercise of faith, individual effort, and reliance upon the power of the Atonement, some may overcome same-gender attraction in mortality and marry. Others, however, may never be free of same-gender attraction in this life."[35]

We are freed from some temptations over time, and must bear with others our whole lives.


Scripture and homosexual behavior—Old Testament

Why wasn't the prohibition against same-sex relationships rescinded when the rest of the law of Moses was rescinded?

As Latter-day Saints, we are blessed to be guided by modern revelation. We do not need to limit our understanding to what has been written in ancient texts. However, some critics have asserted that our stance on same-sex relationships should have been recinded with the rest of the law of Moses.

Unlike some of the surrounding pagan cultures in the ancient near east,

The Levitical laws, however, criminalized not only the behavior of all homosexual rapists but also the behavior of both partners in a consensual act of same-sex intercourse. Both have committed an abominable act. They also applied the same sanctions to Israelite and resident alien alike and made no concessions for homosexual intercourse with a person of unequal social status. ...

The level at which the Levitical laws stigmatize and criminalize all homosexual intercourse, while not discontinuous with some trends elsewhere, goes far beyond anything else currently known in the ancient near east. ...

The question of homosexual orientation was surely irrelevant to the denunciation of same-sex intercourse [in Israelite scripture], just as any debate about an orientation toward incest (or bestiality) would have been irrelevant. It was the act that mattered. ...

In our own cultural context we think that the banning of male cult prostitution does not take into account consensual, non-cultic, loving homosexual relationships. In the cultural context of the ancient Near East the reasoning has to be reversed: to ban homosexual cult prostitutes was to ban all homosexual intercourse. In any case, the authors of Lev 18꞉22 could have formulated the law more precisely by making specific reference to the [cultic prostitutes] (as in Deut 23꞉17-18), if it had been their intent to limit the law's application. That they did not do so suggests that they had a broader application in mind. Moreover, the Levitical rejection of same— sex intercourse depends on Canaanite practices for its validity about as much as the rejection of incest, adultery, and bestiality. [36]:69, 80-81, 132

Adultery, which includes all sexual relationships outside that of a husband and a wife, was forbidden under the 10 commandments

Exodus 20꞉14 reads: "Thou shalt not commit adultery."

Leviticus expands on what types of relationships qualify as adultery. As with much of the Old Testament, it was written for a male audience. Sexual relationships between females was not specifically condemned in Leviticus, but is covered in the 10 commandments. Leviticus 18꞉22 reads:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20꞉13:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

There are aspects of the Leviticus commands that involve ritual uncleanness (e.g., avoiding sexual intercourse during menstruation). However, the way Leviticus discusses and describes those commands—which were rescinded in the Christian era—and the commands about adultery, incest, beastiality, and homosexual behavior—which remained in force, are quite different.

The word toebah [= abomination] is restricted in Leviticus to forms of sexual immorality that can be characterized in three ways: (1) a sexual act regarded by Yahweh as utterly detestable and abhorrent; (2) a sexual act which rendered the individual participants liable to the death penalty or being "cut off from God's people"; (3) a sexual act which, if left unpunished by the nation, put the entire nation at risk of God's consuming wrath, God's departure from the midst of the people, and expulsion of the people from the land of Canaan (18:22, 26-30; 20:13). Homosexual intercourse is singled out among other abominable sexual acts in Leviticus 8 and 20 as a form of sexual misconduct particularly worthy of the designation toebah. It is dificult to see how one can speak of this or other acts in Leviticus 1 8 and 20 as "ceremonially unclean rather than inherently evil".[36]:118-119

This author then quotes another expert, who writes[37]:

Leviticus does recognize forms of ritual uncleanness that are not morally condemned, e.g., childbirth, seminal emission, heterosexual intercourse, and menstruation. Purification from these pollutions is accomplished quite simply through bathing and sacrifice. The word toevah is not used to refer to these conditions, nor are they punished. ... Idolatry was not simply unclean; it was a grave offense. ... That intercourse with a menstruating woman is also classified as an abomination along with homosexuality is an indication not, as Boswell suggests, that the latter offense [homosexuality] was considered trivial, but rather that the former was considered extremely grave.

So for an Israelite was there no difference between sex with a menstruating woman and homosexuality? No—the punishment for homosexual offenses was death, unlike the penalty for having sexual relations with a menstruating woman. In the latter case,

The menstrual period was the time that God had given women to cleanse their bodies from impurity as a prelude to renewing a cycle of fertility (a sabbath of sorts from sex). It was not the time for men to intrude with procreative designs. Deliberate intercourse during a menstrual period not only had the effect of "wasting seed" but also of putting one's own desires at cross-purposes with God's timing. Men were required to exercise self-restraint and wait for divinely created processes to run their course.[36]:138

By contrast, homosexual acts were part of a very small group of behaviors for which capital punishment could be imposed, as Gagnon points out:

in Leviticus 0, the only other acts that are specifically connected with the death penalty are:

[a] child sacrifice (20:2),
[b] cursing one's parents (20:9),
[c] adultery (20:10),
[d] some forms of incest (20:11-12), marriage to a wife and her mother (20:14), and
[e] bestiality (20:15-16).[36]:195n182

He continues:

most of Leviticus 8꞉20 can be thought of as an expanded commentary on the ten commandments, with prohibitions against idolatry and witchcraft, stealing and lying, adultery and incest; and commands to honor one's parents, keep the sabbath, and to "love one's neighbor as oneself" (Lev 19꞉18). Ritual and moral, eternal and contingent, are combined in the profile of holiness developed in Leviticus 7꞉26. Christians do not have the option of simply dismissing an injunction because it belongs to the Holiness Code [of Leviticus].[36]:123

Therefore, as one biblical scholar noted:

One might then counter, "Okay, these biblical authors were opposed to male, same-sex cult prostitution. But that only tells us what the author believed about consensual homosexual practice conducted in the context of idolatrous cults and prostitution, not the kind of loving expressions of homosexuality we witness today." Such a rationale would overlook the ancient Near Eastern context. The Mesopotamian evidence ... makes clear that the most acceptable form of same-sex intercourse—not the least acceptable was precisely same-sex intercourse conducted in a [pagan] religious context. Otherwise, for a man to want to be penetrated by another man was generally regarded as disgraceful. ...

When the biblical authors rejected homosexual cult prostitutes ... they were in effect rejecting the whole phenomenon of homosexual practice. They were repudiating a form of homosexual intercourse that was the most palatable in their cultural context. If they rejected that particular form of homosexual practice, how much more all other forms? Certainly the prohibition against cross-dressing in Deut 22꞉5 [which cultic prostitutes engaged in] puts this beyond doubt (any obscuring of male-female sexual differences is "an abomination [toebah] to Yahweh your God, everyone who does these things"), as does the absolute form of the prohibition in Lev 18꞉22 and 13.[36]:112-113


Scripture and homosexual behavior: New Testament

Jesus and the gospels

Did Jesus say anything about homosexual acts?

Some try to minimize the seriousness of homosexual acts by pointing out that Jesus did not preach against them specifically. This stance completely misunderstands and misrepresents the situation in Jesus' day.

First, how did Jews in Jesus' day understand homosexual acts? Because of the Leviticus Holiness Code, they were completely opposed to them: "early Judaism was unanimous in its rejection of homosexual conduct. We are unaware of any dissenting voice."[36]:215 In fact, "given the severe stance against homosexual intercourse in the Levitical laws, it is inconceivable that any non-apostate Jew in antiquity would argue for the legitimacy of male-male sexual intercourse."[36]:217-218

The Jewish world in which Jesus lived set a very strict moral standard, especially against the backdrop of the infamous promiscuity of the Greeks and Romans. Sexual relationships were absolutely forbidden outside of marriage. Christ validated these teachings, by teaching against adultery and fornication (Matthew 19꞉18, Matthew 15꞉19)

Second, Jesus tended to intensify or strengthen commandments about sexual matters, not loosen them. Rather than not committing adultery, his followers were not to even lust after someone, for "whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery already in his heart" (Matthew 5꞉28). The law of Moses made provision for divorce, but Jesus taught against it except in cases of sexual infidelity ()19꞉8-9.

All sexual relations outside of marriage were sinful in Judaism, and Jewish marriage presupposed a male/female marriage, as Jesus emphasized:

For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Matt 19꞉5-6)

Jesus did differ with the Judaism of his day on some points, but on these matters he was clear and direct about his opposition. Without him saying anything about same-sex behavior, none of his audience would have assumed anything except that such things were grave sins:

The univocal stance against homosexual conduct, both in ancient Israel and the Judaism of Jesus' day, makes it highly unlikely that Jesus' silence on the issue ought to be construed as acceptance of such conduct. Jesus was not shy about expressing his disapproval of the conventions of his day. Silence on the subject could only have been understood by his disciples as acceptance of the basic position embraced by all Jews. If Jesus had wanted to communicate afi‘irmation of same-sex unions he would have had to state such a view clearly since first—century Judaism, so far as we know, had no dissenting voices on the matter. Without a clear statement none of his disciples would have made such a logical leap.[36]:249-250

In short,

the silence of Jesus on the subject, combined with other factors, makes Jesus' opposition to same-sex intercourse historically probable. Indeed, the word "silence" can only be used in a very constricted sense. Jesus made no direct or explicit comments on samesex intercourse, just as he made no direct comments about many other important subjects. In a larger sense, though, Jesus was not silent about same-sex intercourse inasmuch as the inferential data speaks loud and clear about Jesus' perspective. ... [T]he ways in which Jesus integrated demands for mercy and righteous conduct in his teaching and ministry do not lend support for the view that Jesus might have taken a positive or neutral approach to same-sex intercourse.[36]:249

Jesus also did not mention other sexual sins also listed in the Holiness Code (e.g., incest, bestiality). We would not, however, conclude from that that he thought such behavior was acceptable.

The portrayal of a Jesus as a first-century Palestinian Jew who was open to homosexual practice is simply ahistorical. All the evidence leads in the opposite direction. Why, then, did Jesus not make an explicit statement against homosexual conduct? The obvious answer is that Jesus did not encounter any openly homosexual people in his ministry and therefore had no need to call anyone to repentance for homosexual conduct. He also did not address other sexual issues such as incest and bestiality, but that hardly indicates a neutral or positive stance on such matters. What is clear from the evidence that the texts do offer is that the historical Jesus is no defender of homosexual behavior. To the contrary, Jesus, both in what he says and what he fails to say, remains squarely on the side of those who reject homosexual practice.[36]:286


Scripture and homosexual behavior: New Testament

The early Church and the apostles

The law of Moses was fulfilled, but Christianity still required converts abstain from porneia

Christ fulfilled the law of Moses, but the early Christians were not sure what this meant. At the beginning, the Christians continued to follow the law of Moses, including prohibitions against same-sex relationships. Then Peter had a vision where he saw a sheet containing four-footed beasts, which were ritually unclean under the law of Moses. He was commanded to eat, but he resisted, because of the ritual laws. The Lord responded:

What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. (Acts 10꞉15)

Later Peter was invited to eat with a Gentile names Cornelious, which was also against the law of Moses. Peter understood the revelation meant that it was no longer necessary to follow the law of Moses in such matters. (See Acts 0 for the whole story) However, the question remained—what parts of the law were rescinded, and which needed to be followed by Gentiles who converted to Christianity?

The Jerusalem council

Of particular concern was whether circumcision was necessary—this is partly because of the physical pain which adult males might fear, but also because Gentile culture tended to regard circumcision as a barbarous practice. The apostles met in conference at Jerusalem, and concluded:

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you [Gentile Christian converts] no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. (Acts 15꞉28-29)

The word translated "fornication" is porneia—it had a broader sense even than "fornication". (The word "porno-graphy" comes from porenia.) Jesus had taught against porneia, and the apostles repeated it:

In Mark 7꞉21-23, Jesus interprets his saying about what defiles a person as follows: "for it is from . . . the human heart that evil intentions come: sexual immoralities (porneiai) . . . adulteries . . . licentiousness . . . . All these evil things come from within and defile a person." No first- century Jew could have spoken of porneiai (plural) without having in mind the list of forbidden sexual offenses in Leviticus 8 and 20 (incest, adultery, same-sex intercourse, bestiality). The statement underscores that sexual behavior does matter. If Jesus made this remark, he undoubtedly would have understood homosexual behavior to be included among the list of offenses.[36]:251-252

Incest condemnation

There can be little doubt that the early Christians would have understood this—for example, Paul cited Christ's teachings on fornication to condemn and excommunicate a man who had sex with his father's wife (1 Corinthians 5꞉1-5). This was a form of incest condemned by the Holiness Code in Leviticus just as homosexual acts were.

Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs

This is further illustrated by the first to second century A.D. text Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs. A historian of the radical differences between Jewish/Christian sexual ethics and the pagan ethics of the Romans wrote:

[In] the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs ... porneia has become the "mother of all evils." The Testament is invaluable because its unusual detail confirms that porneia could be used to describe a whole array of improper sexual configurations: incest, prostitution, exogamy, homosexuality, and unchastity.

The apostles therefore made it clear that most of the Mosaic laws were no longer operative—but the sexual restrictions of the Holiness Code remained a key part of Christian life.


Scripture and homosexual behavior: New Testament

Paul

The New Testament's most detailed condemnation of same-sex acts comes from Paul, however, in Romans 1. This too is a good example of how Jesus and other devout Jews would have understood matters.

Paul uses the example of same-sex behavior in an interesting way. He is attempting to demonstrate that pagans are sinners and require atonement to reconcile them to God. This is something that no first century Jew would have doubted.

But, we might ask, why would pagans/gentiles be condemned for not living the law of Moses, which they had not received? Paul agreed. He therefore chose two areas which knew he and his audience would agree that all people on earth were bound by.[36]:198n185

The first command—no idolatry

Paul starts with the first such command—the command not to worship idols. Paul argues that even Gentiles have had this revealed to them:

[18] The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, [19] since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. [20] For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

[21] For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. [22] Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools [23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles (Romans 1꞉18-23, NIV).

The second command—no homosexual sin

As a second bit of evidence of the gentiles' need to repent, Paul offers—homosexual acts. "Therefore," he writes, [because they became fools and made idols], "God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. ... Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts" (Romans 1꞉24,26, NIV):

[26] Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. [27] In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error (Romans 1꞉26-27, NIV, (italics added).

Paul also argues that even a pagan should be able to tell that this is a sinful act, since it requires using the body in an "unnatural" way—in a way that God did not intend. That does not mean (and it would not have meant to Paul) that some people do not naturally have such desires.

Instead, Paul is appealing to something that "even a gentile" can see. They might not have Torah, they might not have the Law of Moses, they might not be Christians—but even they should be able to see that male and female organs are intended to go together, to "fit." In the same way, Paul was arguing that it was obvious that males and males were not "designed" for sexual relations.

And, Paul uses this as both evidence for the gentiles' wilfull blindness, and as the punishment for their wilfull blindness about the nature of God as greater than their idols:

The power of Paul's argument lies precisely in its simplicity: if one disregards the book of Leviticus and asks oneself what clues existing in nature might aid in discerning the Creator's will for sexual expression, then human anatomy and procreative function comprise the most unambiguous indications of divine intent. One can debate the "naturalness" of homosexual urges. Many human emotions (for example, lust, anger, jealousy, covetousness) obviously run counter to God's intended design for nature and cannot be pronounced good simply because they are felt. Paul attributes such sinful impulses to the fall of Adam (Rom 5꞉12-21). However, anatomy is not quite as skillful a deceiver and for that reason is a more effective mediator of the truth. All of this explains why Paul selects female and male homosexual conduct as "exhibit A" of culpable gentile depravity. First and foremost, along with idolatry, same-sex intercourse represents one of the clearest instances of conscious suppression of revelation in nature by gentiles, inasmuch as it involves denying clear anatomical gender differences and functions (leaving them "without excuse").§ Second, it stakes out the common ground between Paul and his imaginary Jewish [audience] since for Jews in antiquity homosexual conduct was a particularly repulsive example of gentile depravity.[36]:339

These represent all gentile sins

Paul thus chooses homosexual acts as a stand-in for all of the evils for which gentiles are known. It functions as something of a symbol, and he expands its application in the next verses:

[29] They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, [30] slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; [31] they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. [32] Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them (Romans 1꞉29-32).

Springing the trap on his Jewish listeners

Up to this point, Paul's Jewish audience would be nodding along. These examples are intended to be "no brainers," sins so dramatic and obvious that no one doubts them—of course the gentiles sin in these ways. We see it all around us!

But Paul's intent is not to simply "pile onto" idolaters or homosexuals. Instead, he starts from a place that he knows that his entire audience will agree. He then extends his condemnation out further, to all gentile sins. Even to here, a Jewish audience would be in agreement. But then, Paul springs his trap:

[1] You [Jewish listener], therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. [2] Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. [3] So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? [4] Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?

[5] But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. [6] God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” [7] To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. [8] But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. [9] There will be trouble and distress for every human being [Jews and Gentiles!] who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; [10] but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. [11] For God does not show favoritism.

[12] All who sin apart from the law [Gentiles] will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law [Jews] will be judged by the law (Romans 2꞉1-12, NIV).

Paul's trap is clever but clear—just as all Gentiles are under condemnation, so are all Jews! Everyone is a sinner, everyone needs repentance, and all need Christ.

These verses, then, are not intended—and we should not use them—as a reason to harshly condemn or ridicule or shun those who commit homosexual sin. After all, Paul points out, we are all in the same boat.

But if we are trying to decide if Jesus and the early Christians and the scriptures were opposed to all same-sex sexual acts, then we must acknowledge that Paul used such acts as an example and metaphor for all sin because he was so certain that his audience would understand how serious they are.

Porneia again

Paul's condemnation applies to us all—but his symbolism shows how seriously homosexual sin was regarded. Like all porneia he saw it as a particularly serious problem:

"Flee porneia! Every (other) sin, whatever a man does, is outside of the body; but the one who commits porneia (ho porneudn) sins into/against (eigfi) his own body" (1 Cor 6꞉18).[36]:369

And, of anyone, Paul was the apostle most concerned about not imposing the Mosaic Law's ritual requirements on Christians—he even fought with Peter about it! [citation needed] If Paul is concerned about porenia, then we cannot decide that it simply a ritual matter. Instead, it is a vital part of the Christian life and sexual ethic.

Did Paul have any examples of "healthy" gay relationships?

Some have claimed that since the Roman empire's homosexual acts were largely pederasty (i.e., older men having sex with young boys) or rape (masters against slaves) that this condemnation does not apply today.

As we have seen, the Holiness Code and Jesus' doctrine make that reading extraordinarily unlikely. But the claim that Paul and the early Christians had no "positive" models to draw on is simply false:

Even on the surface of it, the notion that mutually caring same-sex relationships first originated in modern times sounds absurd. Are we to believe that nobody with homosexual or lesbian urges in all of antiquity was able to provide a healthy example of same-sex love? In fact, moving statements [472] about the compassionate and beautiful character of same-sex love can be found in Greco-Roman literature. Among the examples are the speeches in Plato's Symposium. ...

Indeed, one might expect to see in the homosexual community a negative reaction against stereotyping all expressions of homoerotic behavior in antiquity as sordid, since such a stereotype would deprive the homosexual community of ancient precedents for healthy homoerotic relationships. ... [480]

There were certainly instances of exploitative homosexual relationships in antiquity and pederasty was the most common form of homoerotic expression. Yet that is a far cry from making the case that homosexuality in Greco-Roman society was inherently exploitative or that it was so prone to exploitation that Jews and Christians could not make the distinction between exploitative and non-exploitative forms. Victimization simply did not factor significantly in the arguments that Jews and Christians made in the ancient world. All forms of homosexual and lesbian conduct were wrong simply because of what it was not: natural sexual intercourse with the opposite sex.[36]:471


Scripture and homosexual behavior—New Testament—The early Christians

The early Christian church was a beleaguered minority. It was unpopular and persecuted. Their opposition to same-sex acts were not, then, an accidental or small thing. They were not simply "following their culture"—in fact, they were swimming and struggling against it.

The Roman emperor Hadrian (ruled AD 117–138) had a male lover who was mourned over the entire empire and granted divine status upon his death. As Kyle Harper, a student of the change in sexual ideals from Rome to Christianity wrote:

Nothing belies the claim that pederastic discourse lost its vitality like the relationship between Hadrian and his Bithynian favorite, Antinous. Possibly a slave, Hadrian’s beloved died on the Nile under clouded circumstances. Hadrian’s sorrow was demonstrative, but what still defies easy comprehension is the paroxysm of empire-wide mourning that ensued. A city was founded at the site of his death; Hadrian believed reports that a new star had appeared in the sky, and Antinous was worshipped as a god or hero; statues of Antinous proliferated until his face was a universal image, known "across the inhabited world." Indeed, the haunting image of Antinous ranks behind only Augustus and Hadrian in the number of sculptures extant today. Dozens of cities issued coinage in his honor; games were being founded in his memory decades after Hadrian was in the grave. Provincial sycophancy and credulous paganism do not suffice to explain such an uncontrolled efflux of grief. The image and story of Antinous resonated in powerful and unexpected ways.[38]:551

So once again, the Christians did not lack examples of loving or devoted homosexual couples. Despite this, they remained true to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles about porneia, including same-sex acts.

Harper continues:

Regardless, in no sense should early Christian sexual morality be construed as an offshoot of Roman conservatism. The ideas about sex emanating from the new religion marked a discrete and categorical rupture. For the community of the faithful, the pleasures of the flesh became caught in a cosmic battle between good and evil. New rules, more interesting and less predictable than sometimes argued, formed. Porneia, fornication, went from being a cipher for sexual sin in general to a sign for all sex beyond the marriage bed, and it came to mark the great divide between Christians and the world. Same-sex love, regardless of age, status, or role, was forbidden without qualification and without remorse. Unexpectedly, sexual behavior came to occupy the foreground in the landscape of human morality, in a way that it simply never had in classical culture. "Above all else take thought for chastity; for fornication has been marked out as an exceedingly terrible thing in God’s eyes."[38]:1673

Conclusion—Jesus, New Testament, and early Christians

In sum:

the odds of any major positive figure connected with earliest Christianity having either no opinion or a positive opinion about homosexual conduct in any form is extremely remote. To assert otherwise is to lose all touch with the historical personalities behind [554] the texts and to foster an arbitrary, gnostic exegesis. The burden of proof is decidedly on anyone who would want to argue that Jesus or any New Testament writer would have been open to same- sex intercourse. Textual silence cannot be equated with neutrality or openness, let alone support, without grossly distorting history. ...

In short, the universal silence in the Bible regarding an acceptable same-sex union, when combined with the explicit prohibitions, speaks volumes for a consensus disapproval of homosexual conduct. To say that there are only a few texts in the Bible that do not condone homosexual conduct is a monumental understatement of the facts. The reverse is a more accurate statement: there is not a single shred of evidence anywhere in the Bible that would even remotely suggest that same-sex unions are any more acceptable than extramarital or premarital intercourse, incest, or bestiality. [36]:553-556

That Paul or others did not mention these sins frequently is no surprise, and does not tell us that they were taken lightly. Their sinfulness was known by all. There is only a single reference to the sinfulness of incest in the entire New Testament in 1 Corinthians—and it is only there because Paul was condemning a member guilty of this sin. But we do not conclude thereby that incest does not matter, even if it is a loving relationship between equals.


Latter-day Scripture

God and Christ repeated the definition of marriage between a man and a woman in this dispensation in Doctrine and Covenants 49꞉15-17

Doctrine and Covenants 49꞉15-17 announces:

And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man. 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; And that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made.

This revelation was given in answer to the Shakers who rejected marriage and believed in being totally celibate for their lives. Therefore what we have here is not simply a temporary definition of marriage, but a full restatement of what marriage is and why. Look at why marriage is ordained of God in these verses: it is because marriage fulfills the end of our creation. What creation? The creation announced in Genesis 1, Moses 3꞉24, and Abraham 5꞉18—the creation that made man and woman the ideal partner for each other.

Doctrine and Covenants 131꞉1 states:

In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; And if he does not, he cannot obtain it. (emphasis added)


Early Latter-day Saint history

Were Joseph Smith and other nineteenth century Latter-day Saints not strenuously opposed to same-sex acts or intimacy?

The evidence does not indicate that nineteenth-century Church members regarded homosexual acts with anything but abhorrence

It is claimed that Joseph Smith and other nineteenth century Latter-day Saints were not strenuously opposed to same-sex acts or intimacy, and that the modern Church's opposition to homosexual conduct is a later aberration. [39]

The evidence does not suggest that nineteenth-century Mormons regarded homosexual acts with anything but abhorrence. Attempts to prove otherwise seem largely founded on agenda-driven writing and a distortion of the historical evidence.

D. Michael Quinn's book, Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example is responsible for this claim, though some later, agenda-driven works cite him as evidence without addressing the numerous problems with his work. Quinn's methodology and conclusions are shoddy, he distorts and ignores evidence, and has been severely criticized by LDS and non-LDS historians.

The FAIR Wiki contains an analysis of this book's claims, with links to further reviews and resources: here.


Challenges

What are some of the unique challenges or difficulties faced by Latter-day Saints with same-sex attraction?

A theology that, without question, favors heterosexual relationships over homosexual relationships

Latter-day Saints have always believed that men and women were designed to be together in marriage. The Lord told Joseph Smith in 1831 (D&C 49꞉15-17) that

And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man. 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; And that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made.

Thus, for Latter-day Saints, men and women are a sexual binary, and were intended to be together sexually and maritally. This design and plan began before earth life, and will continue after it.

Church leaders have encouraged members to be particularly kind and compassionate to those struggling with homosexual feelings or inclinations

Elder Bruce C. Hafen in 2009:

During a recent stake conference in Europe, I asked the stake president if Sister Hafen and I might visit one or two of his stake members who could use a little encouragement. As we visited one young man, a single returned missionary, we found that he cared deeply about the Church but was also very troubled. When we asked how he was doing, he began to cry and, with a look of real anguish he said, "I suffer from same-gender attraction." My heart went out to him. The longer we talked, the more compassion I felt, as I learned that the operative word for him really was "suffer."[40]

Are Latter-day Saints with same-sex attraction encouraged to be closeted or lie about their attractions?

Honesty, inclusion, and fellowship are core values to the Church

It is claimed that:

  • Members are encouraged to lie about their sexual orientation
  • This encourages dishonesty
  • This isolates them from other members

There is no counsel or necessity to hide, lie, or isolate oneself from others. At the same time, members do not have to make their sexual feelings the subject of unnecessary attention in order to be honest with themselves and with others. As discussed above, members are discouraged from allowing any identity or group to which they belong supercede or interfere with their role as children of God, disciples of Christ, and covenant-keeping members of the Church.

Scripture repeatedly commands that we are to be one. D&C 38꞉27 reads:

I say unto you, be one; and if you are not one ye are not mine.

Isolating yourself interfers with the process of being one.

President Monson taught:

It is important that we eliminate the weakness of one standing alone and substitute for it the strength of people working together. [41]

Elder Robert D. Hales taught:

Why is it that some of us fail to learn the very critical point that we did not come to this life to live it alone? You can’t hide your actions from self and others. Polonius’ advice to his son, Laertes:

This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man. Hamlet, I, iii, 78-80

is valid, but must be qualified and expanded to include the concern for how to be true to yourself and your fellowman. The "isolated self" shut off from the Light of Christ makes us become fallible—open to delusion. The balance and perspective which come from caring about others and allowing others to care for us form the essence of life itself. [42]

Not only are members counseled to care for others, but to allow others to care for them. Part of being one is mourning with those that mourn, and comforting those that stand in need of comfort.(Mosiah 18꞉8) This applies equally to those who have struggled with their sexual desires that cannot now be satisfied, regardless of the orientation. Elder Oaks teaches:

All should understand that persons (and their family members) struggling with the burden of same-sex attraction are in special need of the love and encouragement that is a clear responsibility of Church members, who have signified by covenant their willingness "to bear one another’s burdens"[43]

Isolating yourself from others and carrying your burdens by yourself intefers with these other commandments. Not only are members allowed to disclose their sexual feelings to others, they are encouraged to share their feelings with their bishop if needed.

Are members encouraged to lie about their sexual feelings?

The counsel not to give sexual feelings undue attention is very different than lying about them or completely ignoring them. There is a difference between being prudent in disclosing sensitive topics and being dishonest. It would also be inappropriate to divert attention from the worship of the Savior (such as in a sacrament meeting) with talk of sexual struggles or desires. This is true whatever one's orientation. Not every subject is appropriate at every time—but that is not an encouragement to lie.

Honesty with others and with oneself has always been taught and encouraged in the church. In D&C 97꞉8, the Lord says the only ones that are acceptable before Him are those who are honest in heart. The 13th Article of Faith teaches that we believe in being honest and true. President Monson taught:

The oft-repeated adage is ever true: "Honesty [is] the best policy." A Latter-day Saint young man lives as he teaches and as he believes. He is honest with others. He is honest with himself. He is honest with God. He is honest by habit and as a matter of course. [44]

In the same way, the Church teaches against the consumption of alcohol. Alcoholics or those tempted by alcohol are not forbidden from disclosing that they struggle with alcohol. But, they should not define themselves solely by their addiction. Nor should they talk of nothing but their addiction, or distract meetings focused on other purposes by instigating a discussion about their addiction.

Do Church leaders teach that people with same-sex attraction should not associate with each other?

No. As with any temptation, it may be wise not to associate too closely with those who have tempted us in the past, or with whom we have made serious mistakes.

With any behavioral change, sometimes people need to give themselves distance from old associates and friends, and find a new social circle that will support, rather than hinder, their ability to keep the commandments.

In the same way, the Church teaches against the consumption of alcohol. Alcoholics or those tempted by alcohol are not forbidden from associating with other alcoholics—but if they find that such associations lead to a preoccupation with alcohol that increases the temptation they experience, it may be wise to withdraw somewhat. An alcoholic seeking to remain sober might well go to Alcoholics Anonymous—he would be unwise, however, to go to a bar.

Many members with same-sex attraction associate with each other through Evergreen

Many members with same-sex attraction associate with each other through Evergreen. While the Church is not officially affiliated with Evergreen, it sends a general authority to its annual conference, and many bishops refer their members to Evergreen and attend themselves.

The Church's pamphlet God Loveth His Children counsels:

In addition to filling your garden with positive influences, you must also avoid any influence that can harm your spirituality. One of these adverse influences is obsession with or concentration on same-gender thoughts and feelings. It is not helpful to flaunt homosexual tendencies or make them the subject of unnecessary observation or discussion. It is better to choose as friends those who do not publicly display their homosexual feelings. The careful selection of friends and mentors who lead constructive, righteous lives is one of the most important steps to being productive and virtuous. Association with those of the same gender is natural and desirable, so long as you set wise boundaries to avoid improper and unhealthy emotional dependency, which may eventually result in physical and sexual intimacy. There is moral risk in having so close a relationship with one friend of the same gender that it may lead to vices the Lord has condemned. Our most important relationships are with our own families because our ties to them can be eternal.

There are many with same-sex attraction who lead constructive, righteous lives and are not inappropriate in their display of sexual feelings. (In like way, there are many heterosexually attracted people who likewise moderate their sexual desires and keep discussion and display of them within appropriate bounds.)

This is not advice to refuse association with anyone who has same-sex attraction. In a similar fashion, it would not be wise to spend time with someone who is obsessed with or flaunts their tendency towards pornography or heterosexual promiscuity, especially if you are struggling with those tendencies yourself. There is a difference between associating with people who have a common tendency and who are working on overcoming that tendency, and associating with people who indulge in that tendency.

Just because it is better to have close friends with similar standards does not mean that we cannot ever associate with people who have different standards than we do. We are commanded to be "in the world, but not of the world" ([citation needed]). Even if we have a family member, friend, or coworker who is inappropriate in their sexual display, that does not mean that we cannot ever associate with that person. There is a way to maintain our own integrity while interacting with people who have different standards. We simply need judgment and self-awareness to know which influences will be unhelpful for us at certain times of our lives.


Causes of homosexuality

What have past and present Church leaders taught about why some people are attracted to the same sex?

The Church does not have an official position on the causes for same-sex attraction

Many Church leaders have indicated that we do not know the cause(s), and that this is a question for science. This is not to be confused with teachings on the practice of homosexuality, which is a behavior.

Many leaders have also indicated that discerning a cause for this (or any other) temptation is, in a sense, immaterial—given that one has such a temptation, what ought one to do about it? Below are collected a variety of quotes; most deal with same-sex attraction specifically, while a few speak in more general terms about weakness, frailties, or other mortal afflictions. All of these principles apply to a wide variety of sins, weaknesses, and temptations.

1980

President Spencer W. Kimball

The unholy transgression of homosexuality is either rapidly growing or tolerance is giving it wider publicity. If one has such desires and tendencies, he overcomes them the same as if he had the urge toward petting or fornication or adultery. The Lord condemns and forbids this practice with a vigor equal to his condemnation of adultery and other such sex acts. And the Church will excommunicate as readily any unrepentant addict....

Temptations come to all people. The difference between the reprobate and the worthy person is generally that one yielded and the other resisted. It is true that one’s background may make the decision and accomplishment easier or more difficult, but if one is mentally alert, he can still control his future. That is the gospel message—personal responsibility. [45]

1987

Boyd K. Packer

Obedience is powerful spiritual medicine. It comes close to being a cure-all. ... Some frustrations we must endure without really solving the problem. Some things that ought to be put in order are not put in order because we cannot control them. Things we cannot solve, we must survive. [46]

1988

Dallin H. Oaks

Most of us are born with [or develop] thorns in the flesh, some more visible, some more serious than others. We all seem to have susceptibilities to one disorder or another, but whatever our susceptibilities, we have the will and the power to control our thoughts and our actions. This must be so. God has said that he holds us accountable for what we do and what we think, so our thoughts and actions must be controllable by our agency. Once we have reached the age or condition of accountability, the claim ‘I was born that way’ does not excuse actions or thoughts that fail to conform to the commandments of God. We need to learn how to live so that a weakness that is mortal will not prevent us from achieving the goal that is eternal.

God has promised that he will consecrate our afflictions for our gain (see 2 Nephi 2꞉2). The efforts we expend in overcoming any inherited [or developed] weakness build a spiritual strength that will serve us throughout eternity. Thus, when Paul prayed thrice that his ‘thorn in the flesh’ would depart from him, the Lord replied, ‘My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.’ Obedient, Paul concluded:

‘Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

‘Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong’ (2 Corinthians 12:9-10).

Whatever our susceptibilities or tendencies [feelings], they cannot subject us to eternal consequences unless we exercise our free agency to do or think the things forbidden by the commandments of God. For example, a susceptibility to alcoholism impairs its victim’s freedom to partake without addiction, but his free agency allows him to abstain and thus escape the physical debilitation of alcohol and the spiritual deterioration of addiction. ...

Beware the argument that because a person has strong drives toward a particular act, he has no power of choice and therefore no responsibility for his actions. This contention runs counter to the most fundamental premises of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Satan would like us to believe that we are not responsible in this life. That is the result he tried to achieve by his contest in the pre-existence. A person who insists that he is not responsible for the exercise of his free agency because he was ‘born that way’ is trying to ignore the outcome of the War in Heaven. We are responsible, and if we argue otherwise, our efforts become part of the propaganda effort of the Adversary.

Individual responsibility is a law of life. It applies in the law of man and the law of God. Society holds people responsible to control their impulses so we can live in a civilized society. God holds his children responsible to control their impulses in order that they can keep his commandments and realize their eternal destiny. The law does not excuse the short-tempered man who surrenders to his impulse to pull a trigger on his tormentor, or the greedy man who surrenders to his impulse to steal, or the pedophile who surrenders to his impulse to satisfy his sexual urges with children. …

There is much we do not know about the extent of freedom we have in view of the various thorns in the flesh that afflict us in mortality. But this much we do know; we all have our free agency and God holds us accountable for the way we use it in thought and deed. That is fundamental. [47]

1990

Boyd K. Packer

All of us are subject to feelings and impulses. Some are worthy and some of them are not; some of them are natural and some of them are not. We are to control them, meaning we are to direct them according to the moral law. ...

We receive letters pleading for help, asking why should some be tormented by desires which lead toward addiction or perversion. They seek desperately for some logical explanation as to why they should have a compelling attraction, even a predisposition, toward things that are destructive and forbidden.

Why, they ask, does this happen to me? It is not fair! They suppose that it is not fair that others are not afflicted with the same temptations. They write that their bishop could not answer the "why," nor could he nullify their addiction or erase the tendency.

We are sometimes told that leaders in the Church do not really understand these problems. Perhaps we don’t. There are many "whys" for which we just do not have simple answers. But we do understand temptation, each of us, from personal experience. Nobody is free from temptations of one kind or another. That is the test of life. That is part of our mortal probation. Temptation of some kind goes with the territory. ...

It is not likely that a bishop can tell you what causes these conditions or why you are afflicted, nor can he erase the temptation. But he can tell you what is right and what is wrong. If you know right from wrong, you have a place to begin. That is the point at which individual choice becomes operative. That is the point at which repentance and forgiveness can exert great spiritual power…. [48]

1993

Boyd K. Packer

Doctrines teach us how to respond to the compelling natural impulses which too often dominate how we behave…. After the Fall, natural law had far-reaching sovereignty over mortal birth. There are what President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., called "pranks" of nature, which cause a variety of abnormalities, deficiencies, and deformities. However unfair they seem to man’s way of reasoning, they somehow suit the purposes of the Lord in the proving of mankind. [49]

1994

Richard G. Scott

It is important to understand that His healing can mean being cured, or having your burdens eased, or even coming to realize that it is worth it to endure to the end patiently, for God needs brave sons and daughters who are willing to be polished when in His wisdom that is His will.

Recognize that some challenges in life will not be resolved here on earth. Paul pled thrice that "a thorn in the flesh" be removed. The Lord simply answered, "My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness." He gave Paul strength to compensate so he could live a most meaningful life. He wants you to learn how to be cured when that is His will and how to obtain strength to live with your challenge when He intends it to be an instrument for growth. In either case the Redeemer will support you.

That is why He said, "Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; … For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."

Don’t say, "No one understands me; I can’t sort it out, or get the help I need." Those comments are self-defeating. No one can help you without faith and effort on your part. Your personal growth requires that. Don’t look for a life virtually free from discomfort, pain, pressure, challenge, or grief, for those are the tools a loving Father uses to stimulate our personal growth and understanding. As the scriptures repeatedly affirm, you will be helped as you exercise faith in Jesus Christ. That faith is demonstrated by a willingness to trust His promises given through His prophets11 and in His scriptures, which contain His own words. [50]

1995

Dallin H. Oaks

Feelings are another matter. Some kinds of feelings seem to be inborn. Others are traceable to mortal experiences. Still other feelings seem to be acquired from a complex interaction of "nature and nurture." All of us have some feelings we did not choose, but the gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us that we still have the power to resist and reform our feelings (as needed) and to assure that they do not lead us to entertain inappropriate thoughts or to engage in sinful behavior.

Different persons have different physical characteristics and different susceptibilities to the various physical and emotional pressures we may encounter in our childhood and adult environments. We did not choose these personal susceptibilities either, but we do choose and will be accountable for the attitudes, priorities, behavior, and "lifestyle" we engraft upon them.

Essential to our doctrinal position on these matters is the difference between our freedom and our agency. Our freedom can be limited by various conditions of mortality, but God’s gift of agency cannot be limited by outside forces, because it is the basis for our accountability to him. The contrast between freedom and agency can be illustrated in the context of a hypothetical progression from feelings to thoughts to behavior to addiction. This progression can be seen on a variety of matters, such as gambling and the use of tobacco and alcohol.

Just as some people have different feelings than others, some people seem to be unusually susceptible to particular actions, reactions, or addictions. Perhaps such susceptibilities are inborn or acquired without personal choice or fault, like the unnamed ailment the Apostle Paul called "a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure" (2 Corinthians 12:7). One person may have feelings that draw him toward gambling, but unlike those who only dabble, he becomes a compulsive gambler. Another person may have a taste for tobacco and a susceptibility to its addiction. Still another may have an unusual attraction to alcohol and the vulnerability to be readily propelled into alcoholism. Other examples may include a hot temper, a contentious manner, a covetous attitude, and so on.

In each case (and in other examples that could be given) the feelings or other characteristics that increase susceptibility to certain behavior may have some relationship to inheritance. But the relationship is probably very complex. The inherited element may be nothing more than an increased likelihood that an individual will acquire certain feelings if he or she encounters particular influences during the developmental years. But regardless of our different susceptibilities or vulnerabilities, which represent only variations on our mortal freedom (in mortality we are only "free according to the flesh" [2 Nephi 2꞉27]), we remain responsible for the exercise of our agency in the thoughts we entertain and the behavior we choose. [51]

Richard G. Scott

It is so hard when sincere prayer about something we desire very much is not answered the way we want. It is especially difficult when the Lord answers no to that which is worthy and would give us great joy and happiness. Whether it be overcoming illness or loneliness, recovery of a wayward child, coping with a handicap, or seeking continuing life for a dear one who is slipping away, it seems so reasonable and so consistent with our happiness to have a favorable answer. It is hard to understand why our exercise of deep and sincere faith from an obedient life does not bring the desired result. ...

When you face adversity, you can be led to ask many questions. Some serve a useful purpose; others do not. To ask, Why does this have to happen to me? Why do I have to suffer this, now? What have I done to cause this? will lead you into blind alleys. It really does no good to ask questions that reflect opposition to the will of God. Rather ask, What am I to do? What am I to learn from this experience? What am I to change? Whom am I to help? How can I remember my many blessings in times of trial? Willing sacrifice of deeply held personal desires in favor of the will of God is very hard to do. Yet, when you pray with real conviction, "Please let me know Thy will" and "May Thy will be done," you are in the strongest position to receive the maximum help from your loving Father.

This life is an experience in profound trust—trust in Jesus Christ, trust in His teachings, trust in our capacity as led by the Holy Spirit to obey those teachings for happiness now and for a purposeful, supremely happy eternal existence. To trust means to obey willingly without knowing the end from the beginning (see Proverbs 3:5-7). To produce fruit, your trust in the Lord must be more powerful and enduring than your confidence in your own personal feelings and experience. ...

How grateful I am personally that our Savior taught we should conclude our most urgent, deeply felt prayers, when we ask for that which is of utmost importance to us, with "Thy will be done" (Matthew 26:42). Your willingness to accept the will of the Father will not change what in His wisdom He has chosen to do. However, it will certainly change the effect of those decisions on you personally. That evidence of the proper exercise of agency allows His decisions to produce far greater blessings in your life. I have found that because of our Father’s desire for us to grow, He may give us gentle, almost imperceptible promptings that, if we are willing to accept without complaint, He will enlarge to become a very clear indication of His will. This enlightenment comes because of our faith and our willingness to do what He asks even though we would desire something else….

Please learn that as you wrestle with a challenge and feel sadness because of it, you can simultaneously have peace and rejoicing. Yes, pain, disappointment, frustration, and anguish can be temporary scenes played out on the stage of life. Behind them there can be a background of peace and the positive assurance that a loving Father will keep His promises. You can qualify for those promises by a determination to accept His will, by understanding the plan of happiness, by receiving all of the ordinances, and by keeping the covenants made to assure their fulfillment. [52]

1996

Richard G. Scott

You are here on earth for a divine purpose. It is not to be endlessly entertained or to be constantly in full pursuit of pleasure. You are here to be tried, to prove yourself so that you can receive the additional blessings God has for you. The tempering effect of patience is required. Some blessings will be delivered here in this life; others will come beyond the veil. The Lord is intent on your personal growth and development. That progress is accelerated when you willingly allow Him to lead you through every growth experience you encounter, whether initially it be to your individual liking or not. When you trust in the Lord, when you are willing to let your heart and your mind be centered in His will, when you ask to be led by the Spirit to do His will, you are assured of the greatest happiness along the way and the most fulfilling attainment from this mortal experience. If you question everything you are asked to do, or dig in your heels at every unpleasant challenge, you make it harder for the Lord to bless you….

Find the compensatory blessings in your life when, in the wisdom of the Lord, He deprives you of something you very much want. To the sightless or hearing impaired, He sharpens the other senses. To the ill, He gives patience, understanding, and increased appreciation for others’ kindness. With the loss of a dear one, He deepens the bonds of love, enriches memories, and kindles hope in a future reunion. You will discover compensatory blessings when you willingly accept the will of the Lord and exercise faith in Him. [53]

Neal A. Maxwell

Of course our genes, circumstances, and environments matter very much, and they shape us significantly. Yet there remains an inner zone in which we are sovereign, unless we abdicate. In this zone lies the essence of our individuality and our personal accountability. ...

[W]e become the victims of our own wrong desires. Moreover, we live in an age when many simply refuse to feel responsible for themselves. Thus, a crystal-clear understanding of the doctrines pertaining to desire is so vital because of the spreading effluent oozing out of so many unjustified excuses by so many. ...

Some seek to brush aside conscience, refusing to hear its voice. But that deflection is, in itself, an act of choice, because we so desired. Even when the light of Christ flickers only faintly in the darkness, it flickers nevertheless. If one averts his gaze therefrom, it is because he so desires. ...

What we are speaking about is so much more than merely deflecting temptations for which we somehow do not feel responsible. Remember, brothers and sisters, it is our own desires which determine the sizing and the attractiveness of various temptations. We set our thermostats as to temptations. [54]

1999

Henry B. Eyring

A second truth about our accountability is to know that we are not the helpless victims of our circumstances. The world tries to tell us that the opposite is true: imperfections in our parents or our faulty genetic inheritance are presented to us as absolving us of personal responsibility. But difficult as circumstances may be, they do not relieve us of accountability for our actions or our inactions. Nephi was right. God gives no commandments to the children of men save He prepares a way for them to obey. However difficult our circumstances, we can repent.

Similarly, the world might be willing to excuse our bad behavior because those around us behave badly. It is not true that the behavior of others removes our responsibility for our own. God’s standards for our behavior are unchanged whether or not others choose to rise to them…. [55]

2000

Neal A. Maxwell

Yet there are other fixed limitations in life. For instance, some have allotments including physical, mental, or geographic constraints. There are those who are unmarried, through no fault of their own, or yearning but childless couples. Still others face persistent and unreconciled relationships within their circles of loved ones, including offspring who have "[become] for themselves," resistant to parental counsel (3 Nephi 1꞉29). In such and similar situations, there are so many prickly and daily reminders.

Being content means acceptance without self-pity. Meekly borne, however, deprivations such as these can end up being like excavations that make room for greatly enlarged souls.

Some undergo searing developments that cut suddenly into mortality’s status quo. Some have trials to pass through, while still others have allotments they are to live with. Paul lived with his "thorn in the flesh" (2 Corinthians 12:7).

Suffice it to say, such mortal allotments will be changed in the world to come. The exception is unrepented sin that shapes our status in the next world. [56]

2006

Dallin H. Oaks

A man wrote a General Authority about how the power of the Atonement helped him with his problem of same-gender attraction. He had been excommunicated for serious transgressions that violated his temple covenants and his responsibilities to his children. He had to choose whether to attempt to live the gospel or whether to continue a course contrary to its teachings.

"I knew it would be difficult," he wrote, "but I didn’t realize what I would have to go through." His letter describes the emptiness and loneliness and the incredible pain he experienced from deep within his soul as he sought to return. He prayed mightily for forgiveness, sometimes for hours at a time. He was sustained by reading the scriptures, by the companionship of a loving bishop, and by priesthood blessings. But what finally made the difference was the help of the Savior. He explained:

"It [was] only through Him and His Atonement. … I now feel an overwhelming gratitude. My pains have been almost more than I could bear at times, and yet they were so small compared to what He suffered. Where there once was darkness in my life, there is now love and gratitude."

He continues: "Some profess that change is possible and therapy is the only answer. They are very learned on the subject and have so much to offer those who struggle … , but I worry that they forget to involve Heavenly Father in the process. If change is to happen, it will happen according to the will of God. I also worry that many people focus on the causes of [same-gender attraction]. … There is no need to determine why I have [this challenge]. I don’t know if I was born with it, or if environmental factors contributed to it. The fact of the matter is that I have this struggle in my life and what I do with it from this point forward is what matters" (letter dated Mar. 25, 2006). [57]

Discussion with Church Public Affairs by Elders Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: You’re saying the Church doesn’t necessarily have a position on ‘nurture or nature’

ELDER OAKS: That’s where our doctrine comes into play. The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions — whether nature or nurture — those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on.

ELDER WICKMAN: Whether it is nature or nurture really begs the important question, and a preoccupation with nature or nurture can, it seems to me, lead someone astray from the principles that Elder Oaks has been describing here. Why somebody has a same-gender attraction… who can say? But what matters is the fact that we know we can control how we behave, and it is behavior which is important. [58]

2007

Church booklet produced in 2007 notes

Despair is another adverse influence. It often results from a lack of understanding and trust in God’s continuing love as made available through the power of the Atonement. You can find hope in the fact that every blessing contemplated by Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness remains available for each of His children. Despair and doubt may lead to withdrawal, fault-finding, and impatience that all answers and resolutions for life’s problems are not immediately forthcoming. The Spirit of God brings good cheer and happiness. Trust the Lord. Do not blame anyone—not yourself, not your parents, not God—for problems not fully understood in this life. [59]

Jeffrey R. Holland

If you are a parent of one with same-gender attraction, don’t assume you are the reason for those feelings. No one, including the one struggling, should try to shoulder blame. Nor should anyone place blame on another-including God.

I too affirm that God loves all His children and acknowledge that many questions, including some related to same-gender attraction, must await a future answer, perhaps in the next life. Unfortunately, some people believe they have all the answers now and declare their opinions far and wide. Fortunately, such people do not speak for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. [60]

Further research will hopefully shed more light on the subject, but whatever reason science gives for same-sex attraction, it does not affect Church doctrine.

What if same-sex attraction is genetic?

Let us suppose that it was shown that same-sex attraction is genetic. Would this be a doctrinal problem for the Law of Chastity? No—even if same-sex attraction were enitrely biological, the Church still teaches we should overcome the natural man. Anger or violence are likewise natural tendencies with deep biological roots. We are still required to control and master them, and we are also not to express them in unrighteous ways. For many, this is a great challenge, but the Lord does not excuse us from that challenge. He promises to help us and to change us so that we can, with his help, behave as he would.

Many people experience opposite-sex desires that seem natural, but remain sinful. The church does not lift restrictions on practicing these behaviors either. Elder Packer spoke of a husband who expressed his heterosexuality by viewing pornography. Elder Packer explains why this expression of heterosexuality can be overcome:

Pornography will always repel the Spirit of Christ and will interrupt the communications between our Heavenly Father and His children and disrupt the tender relationship between husband and wife.

The priesthood holds consummate power. It can protect you from the plague of pornography—and it is a plague—if you are succumbing to its influence. If one is obedient, the priesthood can show how to break a habit and even erase an addiction. Holders of the priesthood have that authority and should employ it to combat evil influences.

We raise an alarm and warn members of the Church to wake up and understand what is going on. Parents, be alert, ever watchful that this wickedness might threaten your family circle.

We teach a standard of moral conduct that will protect us from Satan’s many substitutes or counterfeits for marriage. We must understand that any persuasion to enter into any relationship that is not in harmony with the principles of the gospel must be wrong. From the Book of Mormon we learn that "wickedness never was happiness."

Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Remember, God is our Heavenly Father.[61]

Just as improper expressions of heterosexuality can be overcome, the same is true for expressing homosexuality in improper ways.

Understanding explanations of homosexuality

In the past, when leaders have spoken about homosexuality or homosexual orientation, they may not have been referring to same-sex attraction. Elder Oaks has stated:

"The First Presidency's letters condemning homosexuality are, by their explicit terms, directed at the practices of homosexuality (italics added)."

When President Kimball spoke on homosexuality, he often clarified that he was talking about the "sexual act" and said that those attractions would often never go away, even in the repentant.

Does the Church deny the reality of a persistent orientation, which minimizes the effect the law of chastity has on people with a minority orientation?

The Church believes everyone has a the freedom to choose their actions. However, actions are very different from orientation. The Church teaches that same-sex attractions can run deep, and form a significant part of how a person experiences life. They are not, however, the only part.

Quotes from leaders

Speaking of same-sex attraction, Elder Packer said in 2000:

That may be a struggle from which you will not be free in this life.[6]

Elder Wickman was asked in an interview about how to respond to a son who said that he was gay. He responded:

We live in a society which is so saturated with sexuality that it perhaps is more troublesome now, because of that fact, for a person to look beyond their gender orientation to other aspects of who they are. I think I would say to your son or anyone that was so afflicted to strive to expand your horizons beyond simply gender orientation. Find fulfillment in the many other facets of your character and your personality and your nature that extend beyond that. There’s no denial that one’s gender orientation is certainly a core characteristic of any person, but it’s not the only one.[7]

Elder Holland expressed a similar feeling when he said:

Same-gender attractions run deep, and trying to force a heterosexual relationship is not likely to change them.[8]


Post-mortal states

Does the Church teach that same-sex attraction will persist in the next life?

Multiple LDS leaders have taught that same-sex attraction and homosexual desire will not persist beyond death

All Latter-day Saints anticipate being transformed and perfected in the resurrection. The weaknesses, failings, imperfections, and unholy desires that we all have will be removed. This includes any sexual desire or temptation not in accord with God's purposes for us.

Examples of such teachings include those listed below.

A 2007 official Church publication on same-sex attraction reassured readers that:

While many Latter-day Saints, through individual effort, the exercise of faith, and reliance upon the enabling power of the Atonement, overcome same-gender attraction in mortality, others may not be free of this challenge in this life. However, the perfect plan of our Father in Heaven makes provision for individuals who seek to keep His commandments but who, through no fault of their own, do not have an eternal marriage in mortal life. As we follow Heavenly Father’s plan, our bodies, feelings, and desires will be perfected in the next life so that every one of God’s children may find joy in a family consisting of a husband, a wife, and children.

Same-gender attractions include deep emotional, social, and physical feelings. All of Heavenly Father’s children desire to love and be loved, including many adults who, for a variety of reasons, remain single. God assures His children, including those currently attracted to persons of the same gender, that their righteous desires will eventually be fully satisfied in God’s own way and according to His timing. [62]

The Church's official website quoted Elders Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman telling Church Public Affairs:

ELDER WICKMAN: One question that might be asked by somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is, "Is this something I’m stuck with forever? What bearing does this have on eternal life? If I can somehow make it through this life, when I appear on the other side, what will I be like?"

Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.

The good news for somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is this: 1) It is that ‘I’m not stuck with it forever.’ It’s just now. Admittedly, for each one of us, it’s hard to look beyond the ‘now’ sometimes. But nonetheless, if you see mortality as now, it’s only during this season. 2) If I can keep myself worthy here, if I can be true to gospel commandments, if I can keep covenants that I have made, the blessings of exaltation and eternal life that Heavenly Father holds out to all of His children apply to me. Every blessing — including eternal marriage — is and will be mine in due course.

ELDER OAKS: Let me just add a thought to that. There is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband, a wife, and posterity. Further, men are that they might have joy. In the eternal perspective, same-gender activity will only bring sorrow and grief and the loss of eternal opportunities. [63]

In a 2007 PBS special, Elder Holland said about same-sex attraction:

I do know that this will not be a post-mortal condition. It will not be a post-mortal difficulty. [64]

In 2009, the Church's official website published Elder Bruce C. Hafen's remarks. He taught:

If you are faithful, on resurrection morning—and maybe even before then—you will rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex. Some of you may wonder if that doctrine is too good to be true. But Elder Dallin H. Oaks has said it MUST be true, because "there is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband and wife, and posterity." And "men (and women) are that they might have joy." [65]


Legal protections

Since the Church teaches that homosexual conduct is sinful, does this mean it opposes efforts to protect those who engage in homosexual acts?

The Church has not opposed measures which grant all the civil or secular benefits of marriage to other domestic partnerships

The Church sees the institution of marriage in religious terms. Theologically, the Church cannot accede to a redefinition of marriage.[66] The Church has not, however, opposed measures which grant all the civil or secular benefits of marriage to other domestic partnerships (see California FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5). As the Church indicated during its opposition to the redefinition of marriage in California:

The focus of the Church’s involvement is specifically same-sex marriage and its consequences. The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.[67]

The Church sustains the principle that all citizens are equal before the law

The Church sustains the principle that all citizens are equal before the law. Members of the Church are particularly sensitized to this issue because of their long history of persecution at the hands of private citizens and government agents in the nineteenth century. Even though Church members may disagree with the choices made by those who engage in homosexual acts, the Church has endorsed various measures to ensure fair treatment for them and others with same-sex attractions.

For example, Michael Otterson (managing director of the Church Public Affairs department) addressed the Salt Lake City Council meeting on 10 November 2009 and said:

The nondiscrimination ordinances being reviewed by the city council concern important questions for the people of this community.

Like most of America, our community in Salt Lake City is comprised of citizens of different faiths and values, different races and cultures, different political views and divergent demographics. Across America and around the world, diverse communities such as ours are wrestling with complex social and moral questions. People often feel strongly about such issues. Sometimes they feel so strongly that the ways in which they relate to one another seem to strain the fabric of our society, especially where the interests of one group seem to collide with the interests of another.

The issues before you tonight are the right of people to have a roof over their heads and the right to work without being discriminated against. But, importantly, the ordinances also attempt to balance vital issues of religious freedom. In essence, the Church agrees with the approach which Mayor Becker is taking on this matter.

In drafting these ordinances, the city has granted common-sense rights that should be available to everyone, while safeguarding the crucial rights of religious organizations, for example, in their hiring of people whose lives are in harmony with their tenets, or when providing housing for their university students and others that preserve religious requirements.

The Church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage. They are also entirely consistent with the Church’s prior position on these matters. The Church remains unequivocally committed to defending the bedrock foundation of marriage between a man and a woman.

I represent a church that believes in human dignity, in treating others with respect even when we disagree – in fact, especially when we disagree. The Church’s past statements are on the public record for all to see. In these comments and in our actions, we try to follow what Jesus Christ taught. Our language will always be respectful and acknowledge those who differ, but will also be clear on matters that we feel are of great consequence to our society. Thank you.[68]


Suicide

Is there an "epidemic" of suicide among gay Latter-day Saints?

if you or someone you know is thinking or talking about suicide, please get help. Suicide is preventable, and there are many resources.

In the United States and Canada, dial 9-8-8 anytime to get help.

As we have seen above, the Church recognizes that being a member of the church and having same-sex attraction can be very difficult.

It has long been known that suicide rates are higher for those with same-sex attraction.

Critics charge that:

  • Church doctrine and teaching causes these higher suicide rates; and
  • there is an "epidemic" of suicide among gay Latter-day Saints

These charges are without scientific foundation. They are not surprising, since warnings of such supposed dangers are a common strategy from those targeting unpopular social groups.[69]

For example, some have claimed that the Church's policy of requiring First Presidency clearance for the baptism of children of gay couples caused a spike in suicide. These claims were fiction—in Utah "the year after the November policy saw a 21 percent decrease in youth suicide and a small decrease in suicide of those eighteen to sixty-four years old."[70]

There are three studies that have looked at precisely this quesiton—in all cases, those with same-sex attraction who were members of the Church had lower suicide rates than those with same-sex attraction outside the Church.

Because this is such an important issue, we will consider these points in detail.

Background risk

To answer questions about the Church’s impact, if any, we have to know first about background risk. If you were going to study the effects of, say, smoking on cancer, first you have to know how likely cancer is in people who don’t smoke. It doesn’t do much good to point out that 10% of people who smoke die of cancer, if 10% of people who don’t do too. Sadly, we’ve known for decades that LGBTQ people have higher rates of suicidal thoughts and attempts, and probably higher rates of actual suicide too.[71] This is one of the great constants in research over decades.

Denmark

In Denmark, for example, a 2011 study showed that gay men in registered domestic partnerships (Denmark’s version of “gay marriage,” which they have had since 1990) were still almost eight times more likely to commit suicide as married or divorced heterosexuals. Divorce and singleness are risk factors for suicide, and so of all LGBTQ people, those in legal same-sex partnerships should have the best numbers because they are “wired in” to a close social support such as a spouse.

Denmark is an extremely secular country—it seems unlikely that religious doctrine or persecution can explain this massive disparity in suicide rates.

Norway

A Norwegian study found that when compared to heterosexual youth, youth who were attracted to the same sex and/or self-identified as LGB were no more likely to attempt suicide. Only homosexual behavior was associated with an increased rate of suicide attempt, and “[t]he increased odds [of suicidality] could not be attributed to GLB students' greater exposure to risk factors for suicide attempt.”[72]

So, even in two of the most tolerant, non-religious, secular societies, there are some prominent risks. We might think of this as something of a “best case scenario” for tolerance and acceptance. We aren’t likely to produce a society in or out of the Church more open to same-sex behavior than Denmark and Norway. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t still work to bring these suicide rates down, but it might suggest that insisting that others need to be more "tolerant" of homosexual behavior may not provide huge gains.

Suicide in Utah?

The Church is often blamed for an "epidemic" of gay suicdes in Utah. But, Utah's state expert (who is himself gay) insists that there is no such epidemic:

Michael Staley [who is openly gay himself], who works for Utah’s medical examiner and ranks among the most respected researchers on this topic, said in an interview with Q Salt Lake, a Utah LGBT magazine, his initial findings do not support the narrative that Utah youth suicides are rising as a result of the Church’s traditional teachings on sexuality or LGBT issues. “There’s no data to show that, period,” Staley said. “The people who are driving that narrative are going to be disappointed.”[73]

Why might people be “disappointed”? Isn’t that good news? Well, it isn’t if you are trying to use suicide as a weapon to shame a religion and push it to change.

So, the claim that Utah suffered an explosion of gay suicide turns out not to be true. But people continue to say it—which suggests that either they are misinformed, or their goal may be something other than the truth.

Suicide in the Church

It is well known that religion is generally protective against suicide—so isolating someone from their religious group probably doesn’t help make them safer, all else being equal.[74]

We will now look at the three studies who examined suicidality in Latter-day Saint LGBTQ members.

First study - Cranney (2017)

This data from 2012–2014, published in Journal of Homosexuality:

LGB Mormons have more days of poor mental health than their non-LGB Mormon counterparts, but fewer than their LGB non-Mormon counterparts. When weights are applied, the only significant health difference found between LGB Mormons and any other group is a significantly higher number of days of poor mental health than non-LGB Mormons (6 days versus 3 days, p = .01 [in the last 30]); all other health comparisons are statistically insignificant. ...

[H]owever they do it, the LGB Mormon population’s reconciliation of particular facets of their sexual and religious identities does not lead them to having discernibly worse mental or physical health than their non-LBG Mormon and LGB non-Mormon counterparts.[75]

So, LGB in the Church do have more days of poor mental health—but their mental health is still better than LGB outside the Church.

Separating those who are struggling from the Church may, then, not be helpful and might even be harmful.

Second study - Dyer, Goodman, and Wood (2022)

The second study is from the 2019 Utah Prevention Needs Assessment, done as part of the Student Health and Risk Prevention (SHARP) survey by Utah's Department of Human Services.[76]

Discussion Graph
We look first at depression rates in all members, regardless of sexual orientation (Chart 1).

Stars mark statistically significant results compared to Latter-day Saints. So, Latter-day Saints have statistically significant lower rates of depression than the other groups.

Chart 1: Figure 2A from Dyer, Goodman, and Wood. This chart shows depression rates for all participants by religion. Latter-day Saints are the left hand bar. Stars mark statistically significant results compared to Latter-day Saints. So, Latter-day Saints have statistically significant lower rates of depression than the other groups.
What about LGBTQ Latter-day Saints? We see in Chart 2 that they too are less likely to be depressed than LGBTQ members of other faiths.
Chart 2: Figure 4A from Dyer, Goodman, and Wood. This chart shows depression rates for LGBTQ by religion. Latter-day Saints are the left hand bar. Stars mark statistically significant results compared to Latter-day Saints. So, Latter-day Saints LGBTQ have statistically significant lower rates of depression than the other groups.
What about actually considering or attempting suicide? Chart 3 shows that Latter-day Saints are less likely to experience this, and it is statistically significant.
Chart 3: Figure 1A from Dyer, Goodman, and Wood. This chart shows suicidality rates for all participants by religion. Latter-day Saints are the left hand bar. Stars mark statistically significant results compared to Latter-day Saints. So, Latter-day Saints have statistically significant lower rates of suicidality than the other groups.
Finally, we come to LGBTQ who consider or attempt suicide. Chart 4 shows that LGBTQ members again have lower rates of suicidality.
Chart 4: Figure 3A from Dyer, Goodman, and Wood. This chart shows suicidality rates for LGBTQ by religion. Latter-day Saints are the left hand bar. Stars mark statistically significant results compared to Latter-day Saints. So, LGBTQ Latter-day Saints have statistically significant lower rates of suicidality than the other groups.





Why does the Church do better?

Chart 5: Figure 3B from Dyer, Goodman, and Wood. Once social connectedness, family connectedness, and drug use is adjusted for, the suicidality rates are not statistically different for any group.

There are many known risk factors for suicidality. For example, those who abuse alcohol or other substances are more likely to feel depressed, contemplate suicide, and attempt suicide. So, if the Church kept you from drinking, that would probably lower your suicide risk.

This study decided to adjust for known benefits. So, they then looked at LGBTQ suicide rates once family connectedness, social connectedness, and drug use was taken into consideration.

When that is done, there is then no difference between Latter-day Saints and other religious groups' rates of suicidality. So, one plausible hypothesis is that (1) being in the Church makes you more socially connected; (2) Families in the Church may have better connections; and (3) the Church discourages drug use.

We must remember that these are averages. There will undoubtedly be terrible families in the Church whose behavior increases their children's risk of depression, suicide, and other mental health problems. And there are also certainly equally strong families in other faiths, or in families of no faith.

On average, however, an LGBTQ person is better off in terms of depression and suicidality in the Church than out of it.

At the very least, it is dishonest and unfair to blame the Church for suicides in LGBTQ members. There is simply no evidence that the Church is to blame, and considerable evidence that on balance it is helpful.

Individuals may have different experiences, and certainly some families or people in the Church do things contrary to Church doctrine which could make things much worse. But that is not the Church's fault.

Third study - McGraw et al. (2023)

Looking at the same dataset as the second study,[77] the non-LDS authors concluded:

LGBTQ participants’ reports of higher family conflict and lower parental closeness were tied to higher depression, self-harm, and substance misuse, and these three factors were, in turn, associated with higher levels of STBs for LGBTQ youth in Utah. This path model did not differ significantly due to LDS versus non-LDS religious affiliation. ...

Among LGBTQ youth, non-LDS youth had higher mean levels of STBs, family conflict, depressive symptoms, self-harm, substance misuse, a lower mean level of parental closeness. ... [Slide 27–31] Non-LDS LGBTQ youth reported the highest STBs, family conflict, depressive symptoms, self-harm, and substance misuse scores, and had a lower [average] level of parental closeness scores, followed by LDS LGBTQ, non-LDS heterosexual … youth, and then LDS heterosexual … youth

So again, family conflict, lower family closeness, and substance misuse led (unsurprisingly) to more suicidal experience and behavior. These problems on balance were better in the LDS group than the non-LDS group, but when controlled for religion did not make a significant difference.

Suicide contagion

All of this matters a great deal, and the biggest problem is not that the Church and its members and leaders are slandered and tarred with causing the deaths of their LGBTQ brothers and sisters.

The reason this matters is that there is a phenomenon known as "suicide contagion." This is a well-recognized phenomenon whereby people's tendency to suicide can be increased or decreased based on how media and other voices talk about suicide.[78]

Psychiatric, psychologic, and suicide prevention agencies have done a great deal to publicize these risks, and have provided guides for media to talk about suicide in a helpful, not harmful.

A non-LDS expert on LGBTQ youth made this point very strongly:

For me, first off, scientifically it's not true. That is that, as a developmental psychologist, when we look at the wide population of youth who identify as gay or who have same-sex attractions, it appears to me when I look at the data that they're actually just as healthy, and just as resilient, and just positive about their life as are straight youth. … So from a scientific perspective, there is certainly no gay suicide epidemic. But the more problematic aspect for me is that I worry a great deal about the image that we are giving gay-identified youth.[79]

Telling gay youth that there is an epidemic breaks one of the cardinal rules of suicide prevention: Messages linking particular groups with high rates of suicide or mental illness.[80] Not only is this not true, as the quote above notes, but telling people the falsehood makes it more likely to happen!

Other messaging rules that the Church's critics often engage in include:

Don't include personal details

  • "Don’t include personal details of people who have died by suicide." - Sadly, many LGBTQ advocates think they are helping by telling tragic, dramatic, tear-jerking stories about specific suicides. Each suicide is a tragedy and a devastating outcome for family and friends. But publicizing the suicide in this way just makes it more likely that other depressed teens may identify with the victim, and thus be more likely to immitate them.

Don't portray suicide as more common than it is or a typical way of coping

  • "Don’t portray suicidal behavior as more common than it is or as a typical way of coping with adversity." - Again, when LGBTQ advocates insist that the Church's policies or doctrines lead to a great many suicides, and that nothing can stop this until the Church changes its doctrines, they ironically increase the risk of that happening. As the suicide prevention group cautions:
While we don’t want to minimize the magnitude of the suicide problem, we also don’t want to imply that suicidal behavior is what most people do in a given circumstance. The vast majority of people who face adversity, mental illness, and other challenges—even those in high risk groups—do not die by suicide, but instead find support, treatment, or other ways to cope.

Don't use language or data to suggest suicide is inevitable or unsolvable

  • Don’t use data or language that suggests suicide is inevitable or unsolvable - Calling suicides "an epidemic" (especially when there is no epidemic) plays right into this problem.

Don't oversimplify

  • Don’t oversimplify causes - Suicide is a complex subject. It is not helpful—in fact, it is downright harmful—to use a suicide death to tell a simple cause-and-effect story, such as "The Church opposed gay marriage, and so John killed himself." Suicide is almost always accompanied by significant mental illness, and mental illness almost by definition involves choices and thoughts that are not rational or reasonable.

Hurting when intending to help

Many of those who spread these rumors or propaganda probably think that they are helping solve a serious problem. If you are approaching the issue in this way, we encourage you to stop spreading false rumors, and to especially stop talking about this subject in ways that increases the risk of a mentally ill person acting on a suicidal thought or plan.

And, if you or someone you know is thinking or talking about suicide, please get help. Suicide is preventable, and there are many resources.

In the United States and Canada, dial 9-8-8 anytime to get help.

Reducing suicide risk

Steps that can help reduce suicidal thoughts and actions include some of the following encouraged by the Church:

Church encouragement to seek medical and mental health treatment

  • "The Church finds situations when the trained (mental health professional) is called in for assistance. There is a proper place for these professionally trained specialists. The Church has an organization for this purpose. It is called LDS Social Services. There are also other faithful Latter-day Saints who are in public or private practice and who can be called upon as a bishop feels the need."[9]

Church encouragement to develop conflict resolution skills

  • "Each of us is an individual. Each of us is different. There must be respect for those differences...We must work harder to build mutual respect, an attitude of forbearance, with tolerance one for another regardless of the doctrines and philosophies which we may espouse. Concerning these you and I may disagree. But we can do so with respect and civility." (Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley [1997], 661, 665).

Church encouragement to develop and maintain strong family ties

  • 1999: "Keep in mind that this is the same person you have always known: a child of God. Be grateful that this individual is willing to share his or her burden with you...Let it be understood that you value him or her and that this difficult journey will not have to be traveled alone."[10]
  • 2007: "I’d begin by recognizing the courage that brought your son, daughter, sibling, or friend to you. I’d recognize the trust that person has extended. Discussing the issue with someone of trust is a healthy first step to dealing with confusing feelings, and it is imperative that these first steps be met with compassion. Above all, keep your lines of communication open. Open communication between parents and children is a clear expression of love, and pure love, generously expressed, can transform family

ties."[11]

Church counsel regarding others' behavior toward members with same-sex attraction

  • 1974: "To "persecute" homosexuals would be wrong, just as it would be wrong for us to persecute anyone. We must try to understand why they have chosen this way of life."[12]
  • 1991 Letter from the First Presidency: "We encourage Church leaders and members to reach out with love and understanding to those struggling with these issues."[13]
  • 1995: "We should reach out lovingly to those who are struggling to resist temptation...[Letters from those with same-sex attraction expressing feelings of isolation and non-acceptance] surely show the need for improvement in our communications with brothers and sisters who are struggling with problems—all types of problems. Each member of Christ’s church has a clear-cut doctrinal responsibility to show forth love and to extend help and understanding."[14]
  • 1998: "We love them as sons and daughters of God. ... We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties."[15]
  • 2004: "Equal to my fears of going to the bishop were my feelings of unworthiness to be at church with people who were living good lives and had not indulged in the sins I had committed. I was sure the first Sunday I returned to church that everyone would see right into my soul and know what I was guilty of and the feelings I was struggling with. Instead, my anxieties were put to rest when members of the ward welcomed me back with loving fellowship."[16]
  • 2007: "You are a son or daughter of God, and our hearts reach out to you in warmth and affection. Notwithstanding your present same-gender attractions, you can be happy during this life, lead a morally clean life, perform meaningful service in the Church, enjoy full fellowship with your fellow Saints, and ultimately receive all the blessings of eternal life." [17]

Source(s) of the criticism
Critical sources

Do Church teachings against homosexual acts lead to bullying of gay youth or unchristian treatment of members or non-members with same-sex attraction?

Some members have, through ignorance or malice, doubtless used the sinful nature of homosexual acts to justify their decision to disparage, neglect, or mistreat those who are tempted toward such acts

Like members of all faiths, all Latter-day Saints do not live up to their ideals and principles perfectly. Some members have, through ignorance or malice, doubtless used the sinful nature of homosexual acts to justify their decision to disparage, neglect, or mistreat those who are tempted toward such acts. Such behavior is sinful, and requires repentance.

In this, as in all else, the example of Jesus is paramount

In this, as in all else, the example of Jesus is paramount. When brought a woman taken in adultery, Jesus refused to stone her:

So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the lastand Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn theego, and sin no more. (John 8:7-11)

It is important to recognize, however, that it is not cruel to teach that homosexual acts are sins—just as the adulterous woman would not have been well served if Jesus had winked at her sin. The Church and its members will continue to teach that homosexual acts are not worthy of those who are children of God. As the Church observed, "Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not 'tolerating' transgression."[81]

The Church has consistently taught that all people are children of God, and ought to be treated with love, dignity, and respect. This includes those with same-sex attraction, or those who commit homosexual sins.

1980s

In 1987, President Gordon B. Hinckley said of the AIDS/HIV epidemic:

There is a plague of fearsome dimensions moving across the world. Public health officials are greatly concerned, and everyone else should be. The Surgeon General of the United States has forecast an AIDS death toll of 170,000 Americans in just four years. The situation is even more serious in some other areas of the world.

AIDS is a commonly fatal malady caused primarily from sexually transmitted disease and secondarily from drug abuse. Unfortunately, as in any epidemic, innocent people also become victims.

We, with others, hope that discoveries will make possible both prevention and healing from this dread affliction. But regardless of such discoveries, the observance of one clearly understandable and divinely given rule would do more than all else to check this epidemic. That is chastity before marriage and total fidelity after marriage. ...

Having said this, I desire now to say with emphasis that our concern for the bitter fruit of sin is coupled with Christlike sympathy for its victims, innocent or culpable. We advocate the example of the Lord, who condemned the sin, yet loved the sinner. We should reach out with kindness and comfort to the afflicted, ministering to their needs and assisting them with their problems.[82]

1990s

In discussing this issue, Elder Dallin H. Oaks quoted the First Presidency:

"We are asked to be kinder with one another, more gentle and forgiving. We are asked to be slower to anger and more prompt to help. We are asked to extend the hand of friendship and resist the hand of retribution. We are called upon to be true disciples of Christ, to love one another with genuine compassion, for that is the way Christ loved us."[83]

He then said:

Kindness, compassion, and love are powerful instruments in strengthening us to carry heavy burdens imposed without any fault of our own and to do what we know to be right.[84]

Elder Oaks also taught:

Our doctrines obviously condemn those who engage in so-called "gay bashing"—physical or verbal attacks on persons thought to be involved in homosexual or lesbian behavior....

Despite such invitations and assurances, the Church and its members continue to experience misunderstandings about our positions on these matters....

A recent letter is illustrative:

"Another concern we have is the way in which our sons and daughters are classified as people who practice deviant and lascivious behavior. Perhaps some do, but most do not. These young men and women want only to survive, have a spiritual life, and stay close to their families and the Church. It is especially damaging when these negative references are spoken from the pulpit. We believe such talks only create more depression and a tremendous amount of guilt, shame, and lack of self-worth, which they have endured throughout their entire lives. There is sometimes a real lack of the pure love of Christ expressed to help them through their ordeals. We will all appreciate anything you can do to help with the plight of these much misunderstood children of our Father in Heaven. If some of the General Authorities could express more sensitivity to this problem, it would surely help to avoid ... schisms that are caused within families. Many simply cannot tolerate the fact that Church members judge them as ‘evil people,’ and they, therefore, find solace in gay-oriented lifestyles."

These communications surely show the need for improvement in our communications with brothers and sisters who are struggling with problems—all types of problems. Each member of Christ’s church has a clear-cut doctrinal responsibility to show forth love and to extend help and understanding. Sinners, as well as those who are struggling to resist inappropriate feelings, are not people to be cast out but people to be loved and helped (see 3 Nephi 18꞉22-23,30,32). At the same time, Church leaders and members cannot avoid their responsibility to teach correct principles and righteous behavior (on all subjects), even if this causes discomfort to some.[85]

President Hinckley taught: "Nevertheless, and I emphasize this, I wish to say that our opposition to attempts to legalize same-sex marriage should never be interpreted as justification for hatred, intolerance, or abuse of those who profess homosexual tendencies, either individually or as a group."[86]

Each holder of the priesthood also watches to "see that there is no iniquity in the church, neither hardness with each other, neither lying, backbiting, nor evil speaking." (D&C 20꞉54).

2000s

In October 2000 conference, while speaking about people in same-sex relationships, President Boyd K. Packer taught:

We understand why some feel we reject them. That is not true. We do not reject you, only immoral behavior. We cannot reject you, for you are the sons and daughters of God. We will not reject you, because we love you (see Heb. 12꞉6-9; Rom. 3꞉19; Hel. 15꞉3; D&C 95꞉1).

You may even feel that we do not love you. That also is not true. Parents know, and one day you will know, that there are times when parents and we who lead the Church must extend tough love when failing to teach and to warn and to discipline is to destroy.

Elder Jeffry R. Holland reiterated the need for a warm and supportive atmosphere at Church toward those with SSA:

Someone said that if we plant a garden with good seed, there will not be so much need of the hoe. Likewise, if we fill our lives with spiritual nourishment, we can more easily gain control over inclinations. This means creating a positive environment in our homes in which the Spirit is abundantly evident. A positive environment includes consistent private and public worship, prayer, fasting, scripture reading, service, and exposure to uplifting conversation, music, literature, and other media.

This same environment extends to experiences at church. Some with same-gender attractions have unresolved fears and are offended at church when no offense is intended. On the other hand, some members exclude from their circle of fellowship those who are different. When our actions or words discourage someone from taking full advantage of Church membership, we fail them—and the Lord. The Church is made stronger as we include every member and strengthen one another in service and love (see D&C 84꞉110).[87]

A booklet prepared by the Church in 2007 noted the need for improved kindness from Church members:

Some people with same-gender attraction have felt rejected because members of the Church did not always show love. No member of the Church should ever be intolerant. As you show love and kindness to others, you give them an opportunity to change their attitudes and follow Christ more fully.[88]

In 2009, Elder Bruce C. Hafen spoke on this subject, and his address was placed on the Church's official website:

Remember President Hinckley’s confidence in you: "Our hearts reach out to [you]. We remember you before the Lord, we sympathize with you, we regard you as our brothers and sisters." And President Packer has echoed, "We do not reject you… We cannot reject you… We will not reject you, because we love you." With that kind of leadership, I pray that all Church members are learning to be more compassionate and understanding.[89]

2010s

In 2010, the Church issued an official statement:

...we have all witnessed tragic deaths across the country as a result of bullying or intimidation of gay young men. We join our voice with others in unreserved condemnation of acts of cruelty or attempts to belittle or mock any group or individual that is different – whether those differences arise from race, religion, mental challenges, social status, sexual orientation or for any other reason. Such actions simply have no place in our society.

This Church has felt the bitter sting of persecution and marginalization early in our history, when we were too few in numbers to adequately protect ourselves and when society’s leaders often seemed disinclined to help. Our parents, young adults, teens and children should therefore, of all people, be especially sensitive to the vulnerable in society and be willing to speak out against bullying or intimidation whenever it occurs, including unkindness toward those who are attracted to others of the same sex. This is particularly so in our own Latter-day Saint congregations. Each Latter-day Saint family and individual should carefully consider whether their attitudes and actions toward others properly reflect Jesus Christ’s second great commandment - to love one another.

As a church, our doctrinal position is clear: any sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong, and we define marriage as between a man and a woman. However, that should never, ever be used as justification for unkindness. Jesus Christ, whom we follow, was clear in His condemnation of sexual immorality, but never cruel. His interest was always to lift the individual, never to tear down.

Further, while the Church is strongly on the record as opposing same-sex marriage, it has openly supported other rights for gays and lesbians such as protections in housing or employment.[90]

In October 2012 general conference, Elder Dallin H. Oaks said:

When we consider the dangers from which children should be protected, we should also include psychological abuse. Parents or other caregivers or teachers or peers who demean, bully, or humiliate children or youth can inflict harm more permanent than physical injury. Making a child or youth feel worthless, unloved, or unwanted can inflict serious and long-lasting injury on his or her emotional well-being and development.9 Young people struggling with any exceptional condition, including same-gender attraction, are particularly vulnerable and need loving understanding—not bullying or ostracism.[91]

Did Elder Boyd K. Packer's talk "To Young Men Only" encourage physical assaults on gay people?

Violence is not usually the best response to a problem, but everyone is entitled to protect themselves (or others) against sexual harassment or sexual assault by any means necessary—including violence

It is claimed that Elder Boyd K. Packer's talk "To Young Men Only" encourages "gay bashing" or physical assaults on gay people.

The Church does not teach that violence is the best response to problems. However, everyone is entitled to protect themselves (or others) against sexual harassment or sexual assault by any means necessary—including violence. This applies to all: men and women, gay and straight. As Wikipedia notes, often the victim is blamed for the harasser's acts:

Retaliation and backlash against a victim are very common, particularly a complainant. Victims who speak out against sexual harassment are often labeled troublemakers who are on their own power trips, or who are looking for attention. Similar to cases of rape or sexual assault, the victim often becomes the accused, with their appearance, private life, and character likely to fall under intrusive scrutiny and attack.[17] They risk hostility and isolation from colleagues, supervisors, teachers, fellow students, and even friends. They may become the targets of mobbing or relational aggression....

In this case, it is Elder Packer and all members of the Church who come in for criticism and attack because the unacceptable sexual harassment was homosexual. Readers should ask themselves how they would react if the story was about a woman sexually harassed by a man.

Critics who make this claim are either ignorant of the contents of then-Elder Packer's talk, or are deliberately misrepresenting it for polemical gain.

To understand, we will consider four aspects:

  1. The relevant full text of Elder Packer's remarks will be provided.
  2. Some background information will be provided. Some non-members may not understand the context of the experience described by Elder Packer (missionary companions on a full-time mission for the Church), and so this will be explained.
  3. We will then analyze the story and advice he gives, recognizing that the critics have misrepresented it almost beyond recognition.
  4. Some broader issues which this charge raises will be considered.

#1 Elder Packer's Remarks

Elder Packer said:

I repeat, very plainly, physical mischief with another man is forbidden. It is forbidden by the Lord.
There are some men who entice young men to join them in these immoral [homosexual] acts. If you are ever approached to participate in anything like that, it is time to vigorously resist.
While I was in a mission on one occasion, a missionary said he had something to confess. I was very worried because he just could not get himself to tell me what he had done.
After patient encouragement he finally blurted out, "I hit my companion."
"Oh, is that all," I said in great relief.
"But I floored him," he said.
After learning a little more, my response was "Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it, and it wouldn't be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way"
I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it. You must protect yourself. [92]

#2: Background information

Missionary companions

Males in the Church serve full-time missions for two years. During this time, they are expected to dedicate themselves to full-time service of the Lord, His Kingdom, and people in and out of the Church. Missionaries are forbidden from dating or engaging in any romantic activities during this period of time. Furthermore, each missionary is assigned a "companion"—this is another missionary with whom the young man lives and works.

Missionaries are forbidden to go anywhere without their companion. Companions live in the same apartment, sleep in the same room, and go everywhere together. When out of the apartment, missionaries are taught that they are never to be alone or unaccompanied by their companion (save for trips to the bathroom and the like). Keeping missionaries together in this way serves at least two purposes:

  1. Missionaries are protected from temptation, and it is hoped that they will also avoid behavior which might reflect poorly upon their mission and the Church
  2. Perhaps more importantly, missionaries are protected against false accusations. No missionary will ever be alone, and so there will always be another witness to his acts or behavior. Thus, if a missionary were (for example) falsely charged by a malicious witness with a crime, the missionary would have both his own and his companion's testimony regarding his innocence.

A missionary who intentionally leaves his companion may be in serious trouble, and could be sent home from his mission.

Missionary covenants

All members of the Church are expected to observe the law of chastity. This means that no sexual activity outside of marriage is permitted. Furthermore, missionaries attend the temple prior to going on their missions, where they reaffirm this commitment. [93] As noted above, missionaries further promise to not even engage in dating or other romantic activity while in full-time Church service.

#3: Examining the story

We are now able to examine the story told by Elder Packer.

  • They story is not about people with same-sex attraction, but about people who are trying to have sex with you against your will.
  • Elder Packer talked about "physical mischief with another man", "men who entice young men to join them in these immoral acts", and "If you are ever approached to participate in anything like that". Elder Packer has long made a distinction between sexual acts and sexual attraction. He has repeatedly said sexual attraction is not a sin and those with same-sex attraction "need feel no guilt".[94]
  • The response only makes sense in the context of an act: "it is time to vigorously resist" and "You must protect yourself". How do you vigorously resist someone else having same-sex attraction? This story is about a missionary who wanted an unwilling companion in a compromised position to join him in homosexual activity, not about a companion who simply confessed that he was gay.
  • The extent of the attempt to have sex with the missionary is not disclosed, but at the least it was sexual harassment, while potentially up to and including sexual assault and attempted rape. Either case warrants self-defense.
  • The missionary was in a compromised position. As detailed above, he was supposed to stay in close quarters with his companion. He could not simply say "No thanks, I don't want to have sex with you" and walk away. He lived with the person sexually harassing him. We are not told for how how long the sexual harassment continued.
  • The story is not about members of the Church going out and beating up gay people. Elder Packer is also clear that he does not "recommend" the physical response which the missionary launched on his companion—it was not an ideal response. But, he does not "omit it" if necessary to "protect yourself."
  • Thus, it is clear that the missionary did what he did to defend himself against a sexual advance. This was not a matter of the companion saying, "By the way, I'm gay, I hope you can love and accept me anyway."

Sexual harassment

  • Elder Packer has given similar advice to heterosexual members of the Church both before and after this talk, and Church magazines have also published multiple articles discussing self-defense courses and the legitimacy of self-defense in cases where there is a sexual threat.
  • Sexual harassment of any sort is completely unacceptable. The United Nations defines sexual harassment against women as:
such unwelcome sexually determined behavior as physical contact and advances, sexually colored remarks, showing pornography and sexual demands, whether by words or actions. Such conduct can be humiliating and may constitute a health and safety problem.[95]

The European Union notes that harassment is:

unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, or other conduct based on sex affecting the dignity of women and men at work. This includes unwelcome physical, verbal or nonverbal conduct. ... [96]

There is absolutely no context in Church mission life where any sort of romantic attachment or engagement would be appropriate—with a companion or someone else, of the same gender or someone else. Thus, any sexual advance is unwelcome and utterly inappropriate, and the guilty party would know that unequivocally. By definition, such behavior must be sexual harassment at a minimum, and might be sexual assault depending upon the details. Furthermore, the guilty party would have expressly promised never to engage in such behavior or anything like it.

This is made worse when the offender is a companion, someone who has promised to protect and look out for the spiritual and physical well-being of the companion.

  • Missionaries are expected to be together at all times. The work and live together. They can never be apart. Any invitation to homosexual sex would be an extremely intimidating situation. (This ignores the fact that there could have been an element of attempted force or coercion in the story—we are not told, though this is suggested when Elder Packer says that he does not omit the option of physical violence if necessary to protect oneself.)
  • The story did not recommend violence, even if you are solicited for sex. Elder Packer clearly pointed out that he "was not recommending" the physical attack which the missionary launched on his companion—it is not an ideal response. But, he does not "omit it" if necessary to "protect yourself." You wouldn't use the term "protect" to promote gay-bashing, but to make it clear that the missionary did what he did to defend himself against a sexual advance.
  • Elder Packer was speaking in the 1970s; during this time period few young members (like most young Americans) would have had much exposure to even the idea of homosexuality. The missionary in question could well have been entirely naive about such things, and not even known that such behavior existed. To be suddenly confronted by encouragement to act in such a way, by someone who was supposed to be a second witness of his own faithfulness to Church doctrine and mission rules, would have been incredibly shocking, and even terrifying. If the Elder forces him into acts, who will believe him? To whom can he go for help? (We see, in the story, how difficult it was for him even to describe the experience to Elder Packer, who had to spend considerable time before he would tell the story.)

In short, it is false and extremely unfair to characterize Elder Packer's story as advocacy of "gay beating" or violence against homosexuals simply because of their desires or inclinations, or their decision to have consensual sex with others. Instead, it is a sad but realistic admission that at times even violence may be necessary, as a last resort, to protect oneself.

#4: Further thoughts to conclude

Sexual harassment is unacceptable

The bias against men in the critics' version of this story is disappointing. The matter is perhaps easier to understand if we change the roles a bit. How would we react if an LDS young woman was on a mission, and told that she must spend every minute of the day with an LDS man? They must travel together, sleep in the same room, live together in what are generally cramped quarters. Now, let us imagine that the man propositions the young woman, and urges her to violate the law of chastity—would we think her out of line if she struck him?

Sexual harassment is unacceptable, regardless of whether men or women are the target. It does not matter if the harasser is homosexual or heterosexual—such behavior is everywhere and always wrong.

Anyone who has experienced sexual harassment can attest that it is an extremely frightening and oppressive experience. It is understandable that faced with such a situation—especially one which the missionary probably have never dreamed he would encounter from another male, much less his missionary companion—that the reaction would be terror and a panicked decision to do whatever it took to make sure he was safe.

No critic would dare say anything if an LDS sister missionary defended herself against the sexual suggestions, advances, or aggression of a male LDS missionary, because such a charge's bigotry against the victim is too blatant. But, as soon as the victim is a male and the aggressor seeking homosexual gratification, suddenly the aggressor becomes the victim, and those who support the victim in self-defense are vilified.

This double standard would not exist if the gender roles were altered. This suggests that the critics are not trying to look at the situation fairly, but are simply trying to score points against the Church and its leaders.

Men can be victims of sexual harassment

Some believe that since the missionary was a male, he could not have been a victim of sexual abuse. They argue that men only have sex when they want to and this missionary was in no real danger from his companion. This is not the case. Studies estimate that one in 6 men have experienced sexual abuse.[18] All forms of sexual abuse, including sexual harassment, can have a lasting negative impact on the victims, even males. The web site Male Survivor says this about the effects of sexual abuse:

While some studies have found males to be less negatively affected, more studies show that long term effects are quite damaging for either sex. Males may be more damaged by society's refusal or reluctance to accept their victimization, and by their resultant belief that they must "tough it out" in silence.[19]

Critics who insist that the Elder should not have protected himself against the sexual advances of his companion not only do a disservice to this Elder, but to the millions of men who have experienced sexual abuse. It is important that men know that they are not at fault if they are victims of sexual abuse. They must know that they have the right to vigorously resist unwelcomed sexual advances. Elder Packer's advice is a refreshing reversal of society's apathy towards male victims of sexual assault.

Church teachings on the right to self-defense

Boyd K. Packer

  • "Do not let anyone at all touch or handle your body, not anyone!" - Boyd K. Packer, "Why Stay Morally Clean," New Era (July 1972): {{{pages}}}. off-site
  • "Never allow others to touch your body in a way that would be unworthy, and do not touch anyone else in any unworthy way." - Boyd K. Packer, Ensign (May 2009). off-site

Church magazines

  • There is a good chance that many women will at some time need to know how to avoid rape, mugging, robbery, or any of numerous other violent crimes. We cannot turn away from facts; these assaults occur regularly in public places and in private homes. A certain amount of preparation, a "healthy paranoia," might very well save a life....If you decide you must fight back, use your keys, purse, feet, or fingernails as weapons to throw the attacker off guard or to get free. Although it sounds cruel, always strike for the eyes and face. The momentary stunning effect of wounds to the face will give you the chance you need to run." Esther R. Tutt, "Random Sampler: Protect Yourself," Ensign (September 1987). off-site
  • "We need to be absolutely clear that there is such a thing as justified self-defense. You have the right to protect yourself against physical harm if you are attacked. You have a right to use physical force to protect virtue, family, freedom." - Larry A. Hiller, "Somebody's Going to Get Hurt!," Ensign (September 1997). off-site
  • If someone is attempting to hurt us physically—even to destroy us—shouldn’t we resist in self-defense? The Doctrine and Covenants says "that all men are justified in defending themselves … from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded" (D&C 134꞉11). Larry E. Dahl, "The Higher Law," Ensign (August 1999). off-site
  • Self-defense courses for youth are suggested in the New Era in at least 1980, 1982, and 1992.


Are Church family members taught to reject their LGBT children, thereby forcing many of them to become homeless?

Homelessness among LGBT youth in America is considered "an epidemic"

Reports have appeared in the American media stating that large portions of the homeless youth in Utah are gay. Critics imply that the substantial LDS population in this area explains these high numbers of homeless youth. It’s inferred that LDS families force children with non-heterosexual orientations out of their homes.

Homelessness among LGBT youth in America is considered "an epidemic." LGBT youth are homeless more often than straight youth all over the country, not just in Utah. A recent survey of LGBT youth in America found that while feeling more disconnected from peers and communities than youth across the country, LGBT youth in Utah actually enjoyed better and more supportive and accepting connections to family than youth nationwide. No statistics have ever been generated to show causal links between LDS affiliation and homelessness among LGBT youth.

Parents have a duty to love and take care of their children

Furthermore, believing in a moral code does not automatically result in the rejection of those who struggle with the code or who break the code. Parents have a duty to love and take care of their children. However, some parents may ignore the counsel of Church leaders and the scriptures and force LGBT children out of their homes. The Church is clear that this is not in harmony with the gospel, and that such parents are not worthy to hold temple recommends. The teachings of the Church help family members love and respect their children, regardless of sexual orientation or behavior. This love and respect leads to an increase of the child's mental and physical health.[97]

There are several problems with the assertion that LDS families in Utah reject and expelled LGBT children from their homes:

1) Rates of homelessness among gay youth in Utah are similar to those found in other areas of the US. The high incidence is not limited to states with large LDS communities.

2) A national survey of LGBT youth in America found that youth in Utah actually enjoy better support from adults and family members than national averages. However, the youth reported more problems with peers and larger social structures and the media focused on these negative statistics. So far, the media have ignored the positive numbers on family support.

3) A causal connection between homelessness among gay youth and the LDS Church has never been substantiated with data. It remains merely an assertion and an expression of prejudice.

4) Church leaders and scriptures explicitly teach that children have claim on their parents for support. In addition to this responsibility, parents and other family members are instructed to extend unconditional love regardless of individual behaviors.

While reports of homelessness among gay youth are sad and startling, they aren’t out of line with other data collected in other US states

Statistics on sexual orientation among homeless youth in Utah are typically derived from a survey given to youth ages 15 to 22 who access services for the homeless in Utah. It’s a written survey administered by Volunteers of America Utah. VOAU regularly surveys homeless youth using their facilities, inquiring about many factors including sexual orientation, the reasons for homelessness, and family background. In news items from 2, a VOAU vice-president is quoted saying a recent survey revealed 42% of homeless youth using VOAU services self-identified as LGBT.[98]

While reports of homelessness among gay youth collected by VOAU are sad and startling, they aren’t out of line with other data collected in other US states.

The percentage of homeless youth throughout all of the US who self-identify as LGBT moves between 20 and 40 percent.[99] Most of the time, Utah posts rates of homeless gay youth at around one third, in the middle of the national range.[100] The finding of 42% is a high point. All gay youth, not just those in states with large LDS populations, experience homelessness at rates disproportionate to the rest of the population. Nationwide, the problem has been called "an epidemic." [101] This doesn’t diminish the tragedy of the Utah figures but it does strengthen the notion that the Utah findings are typical of American society and are not aberrations arising from subcultures like the LDS Church.

In 2008, the homeless rate for LGBT youth in Utah rose above the national average

In 2008, the homeless rate for LGBT youth in Utah rose above the national average. When questioned about the 2008 numbers, one manager of a program for homeless youth suggested it might have resulted from a change in the way youth were asked about their sexuality. Instead of asking them to identify themselves as straight, gay, lesbian, or transgendered, respondents were allowed to choose "other than heterosexual." [102] It’s an option respondents might have been more comfortable with since many of them feel they’re still forming their identities and resist narrower definitions.

Family Support for LGBT Youth in Utah

In 2012, the Washington D.C. based Human Rights Campaign released the partial results of an online survey of LGBT youth from across America. The survey recruited respondents through online social media and at places described as "LGBT youth centers." [103] 10,030 LGBT youth between the ages of 13 and 17 responded and their data were compared to those of 510 "straight" youth who were already members of online panels used in market research. HRC acknowledges issues with sampling place limitations on the survey data. The report on the survey explains, "Traditional measures of margin of error do not apply and the results here may not be representative of this population as a whole." [104]

Setting aside concerns with the methodology, the survey does yield some interesting results. When the survey first appeared in the media, emphasis was placed on differences between national averages and averages of youth in Utah. Most repeated were figures showing Utah youth were more likely to be verbally harassed and feel like they didn’t "fit in" in their communities.

However, the media seem to have ignored data showing LGBT youth in Utah were better connected to support from adults and family members than national averages.

Utah youth replied that they were "happy" 38% of the time while the national number, though close, is slightly lower at 37%.

When asked if they had "no adult to turn to" 29% of LGBT youth nationwide agreed while only 24% of Utah youth agreed. In Utah, LGBT youth are more likely to have an adult they can rely on involved in their lives.

LGBT youth inside Utah and across the country reported being "out" to immediate family at similar level with Utah youth being slightly more open at 58% instead of the national average of 56%. However, Utah youth were more open with their extended families. 34% of Utah youth were "out" with their extended families while on the national level only 25% of youth were "out" with their extended families.

When asked if they had an adult they could go to when worried or sad, 59% of Utah youth said "yes." That’s far more than the 49% of youth across the country who report having access to this kind of emotional support from adults.

It’s possible that these supportive adults could be social workers or other non-family members. However, two factors point away from this possibility. The first is that Utah youths report greater than average feelings of animosity between themselves and the local and state governments that would be funding and supporting social agencies. The second factor is that, when asked if their families were "not accepting" of their LGBT identity, youth in Utah were less likely (29%) to say they were not accepted than their peers in the rest of the US (33%).[105]

Utah youth tend to feel more accepted in their families than other LGBT American youth

According to the HRC survey data, Utah youth tend to feel more accepted in their families than other LGBT American youth, not less. This finding runs counter to the assumption that LDS homes are more prone to break off ties with non-heterosexual children.

The results of the HRC survey depict Utah as a state where LGBT youth tend to feel more comfortable and connected to adults in general and to their families in particular than other LGBT American youth. Whether reported in the media or not, the data can speak for themselves to defy critics’ assertions and prejudices.

Failing to report on areas where Utah performs better in caring for LGBT youth than the nation as a whole is not the only foul committed by media outlets. They have also mistakenly reported a direct connection between being LGBT and being homeless because of being "kicked out" by intolerant parents. Either due to ignorance or perhaps for more cunning reasons, media covering the story have made statements claiming the 42% of homeless youth in Utah who are LGBT "report experiencing family rejection and being kicked out of their homes." [106] This is simply wrong. The 42% figure refers only to the proportion of homeless youth who self-identify as LGBT. It says nothing about the reasons why this 2% are homeless. The youths' reasons for leaving home are as complex and varied as they are. Apart from not being borne out by any data, the idea that such a perfect correlation could exist between any two social factors (including factors like being LGBT and being kicked out of one's home) is highly unlikely.

Nothing yet released in any of the data collected definitively links LDS affiliation with homelessness in LGBT youth

Nothing yet released in any of the data collected by VOAU or HRC definitively links LDS affiliation with homelessness in LGBT youth. When asked about the causes of homelessness in LGBT youth, a VOAU vice-president told the Salt Lake Tribune the reasons for homelessness were mixed. He named economic factors (especially since the recession began), lapses in foster care, and abuse as well as irreconcilable differences between parents and children about sexual orientation.[107]

Even when sexual orientation was the most commanding issue, it is sometimes the children, not the parents who insist on the separation that makes the child homeless.

And, as always, there are other faith groups in Utah besides the LDS Church. They also have children who identify as LGBT. In the Salt Lake Tribune’s coverage of the story in June 2012, the young woman interviewed about her experience of being kicked out of her home due to her sexual orientation was from a religious background that was not LDS.[108] It’s just one anecdotal shred of evidence but it does reveal a problem with the assumption that all homeless LGBT youth in Utah are being victimized by the LDS Church.

Should the case arise where an LDS parent did force a child to leave home because of that child's sexuality, the teachings of the Church are quick to denounce the parent's behavior

Should the case arise where an LDS parent did force a child to leave home because of that child's sexuality, the teachings of the Church are quick to denounce the parent's behavior. LDS scripture makes clear that parents have a duty to care for their children regardless of the circumstances. D&C 83꞉4 reads:

All children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age.

Luke 17:2 reads:

It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

In 1992, the Church issued a statement to Church leaders saying:

If a person with homosexual problems chooses not to change, family members may have difficulty maintaining feelings of love and acceptance toward the person. Encourage them to continue loving the person and hoping that he or she may repent.[109]

In 1995, The Family: A Proclamation to the World taught:

Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. "Children are an heritage of the Lord" (Psalms 127꞉3). 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 love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to 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.[110]

In 2007, Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman had an interview in which they were asked what they would do if they had a child who decided to be in a same-sex relationship. Elder Oaks responded:

It seems to me that a Latter-day Saint parent has a responsibility in love and gentleness to affirm the teaching of the Lord through His prophets that the course of action he is about to embark upon is sinful. While affirming our continued love for him, and affirming that the family continues to have its arms open to him, I think it would be well to review with him something like the following, which is a statement of the First Presidency in 1991: "The Lord’s law of moral conduct is abstinence outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife, appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage. Any other sexual conduct, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior is sinful. Those who persist in such practices or influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline.

My first responsibility as a father is to make sure that he understands that, and then to say to him, "My son, if you choose to deliberately engage in this kind of behavior, you’re still my son. The Atonement of Jesus Christ is powerful enough to reach out and cleanse you if you are repentant and give up your sinful behavior, but I urge you not to embark on that path because repentance is not easy. You’re embarking on a course of action that will weaken you in your ability to repent. It will cloud your perceptions of what is important in life. Finally, it may drag you down so far that you can’t come back. Don’t go that way. But if you choose to go that way, we will always try to help you and get you back on the path of growth...

Surely if we are counseled as a body of Church membership to reach out with love and understanding to those ‘struggling with these issues,’ that obligation rests with particular intensity on parents who have children struggling with these issues... even children who are engaged in sinful behavior associated with these issues.[111]

In the same interview, Elder Wickman responded:

With all, it needs to be done in the spirit of love and welcoming that, as Elder Oaks mentioned, ‘You’re always my son.’ There’s an old maxim which is really true for every parent and that is, ‘You haven’t failed until you quit trying.’ I think that means both in terms of taking appropriate opportunities to teach one’s children the right way, but at all times making sure they know that over all things you’ll love them...

That is to say we continue to open our homes and our hearts and our arms to our children, but that need not be with approval of their lifestyle. Neither does it mean we need to be constantly telling them that their lifestyle is inappropriate.[112]

Families with members with same-sex attractions, including those in same-sex relationships, are strengthened through living the principles of love and respect taught by Jesus Christ. The sister of a woman (Leigh) who is involved in a sexual relationship with another woman wrote an "Ensign" article in which she describes how the Church has helped her with her relationship with her sister:

I know the best thing I can do to have a close relationship with my sister is to have a close relationship with Heavenly Father and His Son. Leigh recently commented that it has been through the way our family has loved her that she has felt what she understood to be God’s love." [113]

While we are taught to love and treat everyone with kindness, the Church puts particular weight on the way we treat our family members, including those who are attracted to the same sex. In order to enter into the temple, a member must first answer this question:

Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?

If there is anything that is not in harmony with the teachings, they are not worthy to hold a temple recommend.

Further citations which illustrate these same principles include:

Elder Quentin L. Cook in 2009:

It is equally important that we be loving and kind to members of our own faith, regardless of their level of commitment or activity. The Savior has made it clear that we are not to judge each other. This is especially true of members of our own families. Our obligation is to love and teach and never give up. The Lord has made salvation "free for all men" but has "commanded his people that they should persuade all men to repentance." [114]

Introduction to Criticism

Did Church leaders ever teach that masturbation can cause someone to have a homosexual orientation?

Critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints aver that President Spencer W. Kimball asserted that masturbation causes one to be attracted to the same sex in his 9 book Miracle of Forgiveness.

President Kimball wrote the following:

Most youth come into contact early with masturbation. Many would-be authorities declare that it is natural and acceptable, and frequently young men I interview cite these advocates to justify their practice of it. To this we must respond that the world's norms in many areas—drinking, smoking, and sex experience generally, to mention only a few—depart increasingly from God's law. The Church has a different, higher norm.
Thus prophets anciently and today condemn masturbation. It induces feelings of guilt and shame. It is detrimental to spirituality. It indicates slavery to the flesh, not that mastery of it and the growth toward godhood which is the object of our mortal life. Our modern prophet has indicated that no young man should be called on a mission who is not free from this practice.

While we should not regard this weakness as the heinous sin which some other sexual practices are, it is of itself bad enough to require sincere repentance. What is more, it too often leads to grievous sin, even to that sin against nature, homosexuality. For, done in private, it evolves often into mutual masturbation—and thence into homosexuality.[115]

This article will examine this charge and conclude that the notion that masturbation causes one to have a homosexual orientation is not and never has been taught by the Church.

Response to Criticism

Masturbation, according to President Kimball, may lead to the practice of homosexuality rather than a homosexual orientation

Commenting on President Kimball's claims above, Gregory L. Smith wrote:

This purported link between self-stimulation and homosexuality has often been ridiculed. O’Donovan refers to Kimball’s "absurd theory that masturbation leads to homosexuality."[116] And, such skepticism is justified if one reads homosexuality as homosexual orientation in the modern sense. Most people masturbate sometime, and few of these are gay.
Such an analysis assumes and relies on modern definitions, however. As I have shown, leaders’ use of the term homosexuality in this period — especially the homosexuality that they sought to discourage — was almost exclusively concerned with behavior.[117]
Seen in this light, Kimball’s claim becomes both more plausible and more understandable. It is important to remember that he had long experience counseling practicing homosexuals (19, 68-70).[118] He would likely have learned that solo masturbation while entertaining homosexual fantasies would often precede acting on those fantasies with another person. From that perspective, Kimball’s claim is less controversial and may even be valid.
Kimball was not alone in these realizations. Clinicians with exposure to the homosexual demi-monde had long remarked that homosexual masturbatory practices tended to precede homosexual acts with others, though the former did not always lead to the latter.
At the turn of the twentieth century, early sexologist Havelock Ellis wrote of a correspondent "who went to a French school, [and] told me that all the older boys had younger accomplices in mutual masturbation. … At my school, manual masturbation was both solitary and mutual; and sometimes younger boys, who had not acquired the habit, were induced to manipulate bigger boys. … In after-life they showed no signs of inversion [i.e., homosexuality]."[119]
In Albert Moll’s Sexual Life of the Child (1912), he wrote:

It is an indisputable fact that many boys … readily take to sexual practices with others. Examples of this constantly occur in [same-sex] boarding schools … they begin sexual practices very early in life (mutual masturbation and intimate physical contact, especially contact involving the genital organs).[120]

In an effort to reassure the reader that co-education of boys and girls would not be unduly risky, Moll pointed out that "even if we believe that in isolated instances coeducation may lead to unfortunate results in the way of [hetero]sexual practice. … We have to think of the fact that by the separation of the sexes during childhood we may favor the development of homosexuality."[121]
Moll and Havelock evidently did not think that masturbation inevitably lead to homosexual behavior, much less what is today called orientation. But, Moll would draw precisely the same conclusion as Kimball regarding behavior in the dry prose of academic German science:

The German Imperial Criminal Code … assert[s] that homosexual tendencies appearing in the child necessarily indicate the future development of permanent homosexuality. [Moll disagrees.] …
The chief danger associated with the appearance of sexual perversions lies in the fact that the child thus affected … endeavors again and ever again to revive these pleasurably-toned sensations … and … as soon as the genital organs are sufficiently mature, the boy or girl obtains sexual gratification by masturbating simultaneously with the imaginative contemplation of perverse ideas. Such perverse psychical onanism, accompanied or unaccompanied by physical masturbatory acts, is eminently adapted to favor the development of the perversion. Obviously, the actual performance of the corresponding perverse sexual act will be just as dangerous as its perversely associated masturbation. Thus, a boy who is homosexually inclined may masturbate while allowing his imagination to run riot upon homosexual ideas; or he may take to homosexual acts with one or more other male persons. Every sort of gratification that is associated with perverse images is dangerous; and no less dangerous is the spontaneous cultivation of such perverse sexual images.[122]

Moll saw a risk related to masturbation among the "homosexually inclined" — it would encourage unwanted behavior, but not create most inclination to that behavior.[123] Kimball, with more brevity, would write "masturbation too often leads to grievous sin, even to … homosexuality. For, done in private, it evolves often into mutual masturbation — practiced with another person of the same sex — and thence into total homosexuality."[124]
This was, in fact, precisely what a study of "non-patient" adult male homosexuals "drawn from the community" found in the same year that The Miracle of Forgiveness was published:

Of the homosexual men, all of them had practiced self-masturbation at some time during their lives. … Even during the peak of their sexual outlet by homosexual means between the ages of 20 and 29, almost all of the subjects (97%) were engaged in self-masturbation...
Homosexual behavior

Cognitional Rehearsals — Those were reported in almost all of the men (99%). In 97% it was stated that cognitional rehearsals had already started before age 20. …

The majority of the subjects (86%) had already had homosexual contacts before the age of 15. …

Of the men that were engaged in homosexual activity before age 15, the large majority (93%) practiced mutual masturbation … [and] a minority (19%) practiced [homosexual] intercourse. …

Mutual masturbation was abandoned by the majority of the subjects after the age of 29. Even those who practiced it between the of 20 and 29, tended to engage in it only occasionally.[125]

For this population, Kimball was right — one started with fantasies ("cognitional rehearsals") ultimately accompanied by masturbation, progressed to mutual masturbation, and eventually abandoned that for greater intimacies. One can quibble about whether masturbation "caused" these homosexual acts in a technical sense, but it is hard to see the behaviors as utterly unrelated. And behavior was what concerned Kimball.
In fact, he would have said that the person chose solo acts that simply made it easier to later choose other acts with someone else — one sin "leads to" another (71). He did not see the relationship as deterministic:[126]
Small indiscretions evolve into larger ones and finally into major transgressions which bring heavy penalties. … Warning signals and guidelines are given to reduce the danger of one’s being blindly enticed into forbidden paths. …
Those who yield to evil are usually those who have placed themselves in a vulnerable position.[127]
And, he saw other similar sins as preludes to heterosexual ones in the same way: "My beloved young folks, do not excuse petting and body intimacies. I am positive that if this illicit, illegal, improper, and lustful habit of ‘petting’ could be wiped out, that fornication would soon be gone from our world."[128][129]

Smith cites "a present-day queer studies author" that further contextualizes how President Kimball understood homosexuality:

Once the patient’s will-power or reason was compromised by masturbation [it was thought] … "reversion" to the primordial bestial type would be the result. … the slide from masturbation to homosexuality seems bizarre from a twenty-first century perspective. However, that is partly because current definitions of masturbation are very narrow compared to the definitions operative in the nineteenth century. We think of masturbation as self-stimulation only," while the nineteenth century did not consider anything but intercourse to be a homosexual act, even if it involved same-sex genital play.[130]

The same author observes that nineteenth-century thinkers thought that

There were two categories of inverts [i.e., homosexuals]. First, there were those whose condition was a result of self-induced degeneracy through willful vice. … However, increasingly influenced by the personal disclosures of inverts themselves, many nineteenth century physicians began to believe there was a second group. … Maybe some people are born with the gonads and genitalia of one sex but the brain and neurological system of the other. …

But it might not be fair to punish [these] congenital inverts, many physicians and sexologists believed, because their actions were not truly voluntary. As James Kiernan put it, "There can be no legal responsibility where free determination of the will is impaired." Congenital inverts were naturally weak of will … unable to resist the perverse urges that their degenerate condition aroused. Such individuals might undergo episodic periods of organically produced sexual furor during which they were entirely devoid of self-control.[131]

Thus, as Smith concludes:

If these distinctions are understood, then Kimball’s argument makes further sense. Some believed that those with an in-born attraction for the same sex could not control their actions. Other homosexuals "learned" such behavior via a free-will choice to engage in masturbation, which, in some, could progress to group masturbation and ultimately to homosexuality (i.e., intercourse).
The nineteenth century theorists might not condemn those who were "innate" homosexuals who had not brought their habit upon themselves through masturbatory habits. But they did not believe this group could control themselves either — their compulsive activity would be almost a type of madness. (By analogy, today’s society would not condemn a schizophrenic for her hallucinations, though it might well institutionalize her against her will if she sought to harm others as a result of those hallucinations.)
Church doctrine, however, revolted at the idea that any normal person was unable to control their behavior, however they might be tempted.[132] So Kimball focused on avoiding the acts that could strengthen temptation and lead to further unwanted behavior.
Like Kimball, neither Ellis nor Moll saw same-sex mutual masturbation as fully "homosexual," per se but observed that it could (in some cases) precede homosexual intercourse. This is a different conceptual world than ours.[133]

Conclusion

Thus, President Kimball is not saying that masturbation causes one to have a homosexual orientation. President Kimball says that masturbation could lead to the practice of homosexuality. The church rarely (if ever) talks about the causes of a particular sexual orientation. The church is much more interested in learning to control our thoughts, feelings and behaviors rather than sexual orientation. Many other leaders have also cautioned about preoccupation with sex and about arousing sexual feelings that should only be expressed in marriage. Masturbation arouses sexual feelings outside of marriage. This could lead to sexual acts performed outside of marriage. If a person has opposite-sex attractions, it may lead to the practice of heterosexuality outside of marriage, which is considered just as much of a sin as the practice of homosexuality.

Do Church leaders recommend marriage as "therapy" for those with same-sex attraction?

The prophets and general authorities have, in their written statements, long been clear that marriage is not to be seen as a "treatment" for same-sex attraction

It is claimed that Church leaders have advocated that those with same-sex attraction marry those of the opposite sex as part of the "therapy" for overcoming their same-sex desires or inclinations.

Like members of all faiths, all Latter-day Saints do not live up to their ideals and principles perfectly. Some members and leaders have doubtless encouraged some people with same-sex desires to marry someone before they were ready. Such a practice has been discouraged by statements by the Church's highest authorities.

As with all decisions relating to marriage, such matters are ultimately the responsibility of the parties involved.

1970s

President Kimball wrote a pamphlet entitled "Hope for Transgressors", in which he addressed leaders who were helping men who were involved in homosexual behavior. He said:

When you feel he is ready, he should be encouraged to date and move his life towards the normal. It is proper that a girl should be interested in a boy and a boy should be interested in a girl.

While marriage was mentioned as a possibility, it was not presented as a part of the repentance process or a cure. The idea of marriage was to be introduced only when the young man was ready, not as a means to be ready. There have been disastrous marriages that have resulted from people getting married before they were ready, but there are many marriages that have been very successful, especially those who have headed President Kimball's advice to wait until after you are ready before marriage.

1980s

In 1986, Elder Oaks had an interview with CBS. This was the discussion:

CBS: The Church has recommended in the past marriage as a part of repentance, when you're engaging in homosexual...

ELDER OAKS: I don't know whether that has been recommended by individual bishops or priesthood leaders counseling persons in individual circumstances. I just don't know that. Marriage is not usually thought of as an act of repentance.

CBS: As part of repentance from ...there have been several cases cited of when a homosexual who wants to remain within the fold and is fighting his feelings will go to a bishop or will go for counsel and what is recommended is that you repress those feelings and get married and have children and that will set you on a better path. Is that foreign to you? Does that sound...

ELDER OAKS: I don't know whether that has been recommended or not because the counseling sessions you refer to are very confidential counseling sessions and when the bishop comes out of that counseling session he doesn't report to anyone. When the person he's talking to comes out of that session they're free to talk to anyone and say anything without fear of contradiction. So I don't know. I just don't know what has been said in such sessions. [134]

In 1987, President Gordon B. Hinckley said:

The Lord has proclaimed that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and is intended to be an eternal relationship bonded by trust and fidelity. Latter-day Saints, of all people, should marry with this sacred objective in mind. Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices, which first should clearly be overcome with a firm and fixed determination never to slip to such practices again. [135]

1990s

In Understanding and Helping Those Who Have Homosexual Problems, the Church stated:

Marriage should not be viewed as a way to resolve homosexual problems. The lives of others should not be damaged by entering a marriage where such concerns exist. Encouraging members to cultivate heterosexual feelings as a way to resolve homosexual problems generally leads them to frustration and discouragement. However, some people have reported that once they are freed from homosexual problems, heterosexual feelings have gradually emerged. [136]

2006

Elder Oaks said:

We are sometimes asked about whether marriage is a remedy for these feelings that we have been talking about. President Hinckley, faced with the fact that apparently some had believed it to be a remedy, and perhaps that some Church leaders had even counseled marriage as the remedy for these feelings, made this statement: "Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices." To me that means that we are not going to stand still to put at risk daughters of God who would enter into such marriages under false pretenses or under a cloud unknown to them. Persons who have this kind of challenge that they cannot control could not enter marriage in good faith.

On the other hand, persons who have cleansed themselves of any transgression and who have shown their ability to deal with these feelings or inclinations and put them in the background, and feel a great attraction for a daughter of God and therefore desire to enter marriage and have children and enjoy the blessings of eternity - that’s a situation when marriage would be appropriate. [137]

2007

Elder Holland said:

For various reasons, marriage and children are not immediately available to all. Perhaps no offer of marriage is forthcoming. Perhaps even after marriage there is an inability to have children. Or perhaps there is no present attraction to the opposite gender... Recognize that marriage is not an all-purpose solution. Same-gender attractions run deep, and trying to force a heterosexual relationship is not likely to change them. [138]

How do Mormons view the issue of heterosexual marriage for people with same-sex attraction?

The Church does not recommend marriage for everyone with same-sex attraction

The Church does not recommend marriage for everyone with same-sex attraction. They recommend being and open and honest before marriage, which correlates with scientific evidence for successful marriages. Even outside the church, people with same-sex attraction are marrying an opposites sex partner at rates higher then those who are committing to a same-sex partner.

The Church encourages all of its members to be open and honest with their spouse

The Church encourages all of its members to be open and honest with their spouse. (See Same-sex attraction/Honesty) In particular, they have discouraged members with same-sex attraction from using marriage as personal therapy or from lying in order to get married. However, they have said marriage can be appropriate in certain situations. Elder Oaks stated:

"We are sometimes asked about whether marriage is a remedy for these feelings that we have been talking about. President Hinckley, faced with the fact that apparently some had believed it to be a remedy, and perhaps that some Church leaders had even counseled marriage as the remedy for these feelings, made this statement: "Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices." To me that means that we are not going to stand still to put at risk daughters of God who would enter into such marriages under false pretenses or under a cloud unknown to them. Persons who have this kind of challenge that they cannot control could not enter marriage in good faith. (See Same-sex attraction/Marriage as therapy)

On the other hand, persons who have cleansed themselves of any transgression and who have shown their ability to deal with these feelings or inclinations and put them in the background, and feel a great attraction for a daughter of God and therefore desire to enter marriage and have children and enjoy the blessings of eternity — that’s a situation when marriage would be appropriate.

President Hinckley said that marriage is not a therapeutic step to solve problems."[20]

Some critics have argued that by creating a culture which allows people with same-sex attraction to enter a marriage with a member of the opposite sex, the Church sets up its members for failure and heart-ache.

Some people have never had an attraction to the opposite sex, but develop an attraction for their spouse

Some critics have claimed that it is impossible for a man with same-sex attraction to develop a "great attraction" for a daughter of God (or a woman with same-sex attraction to develop a great attraction for a son of God) and therefore marriage is impossible and the Church should stop talking about it.

We know from anecdotal evidence that many people with same-sex attractions have developed an attraction for their spouse. Some people have never had an attraction to the opposite sex, but develop an attraction for their spouse. Other people have always had some level of opposite-sex attraction. (The term same-sex attraction can be applied to anyone who is attracted to the same sex, regardless of intensity or presence of opposite-sex attractions.) Other people have done all they could and have never been able to develop an attraction for the opposite sex. There is a great variety of ways people experience their sexuality, but regardless of the attractions a person experiences now or in the future, everyone can live the gospel, either through marriage or celibacy. To say no one with same-sex attraction can develop an attraction for a potential spouse denies the experience of many people. It would be just as naive as saying everyone with same-sex attraction can develop an attraction for a potential spouse.

Marriages where one spouse is attracted to the same sex are more prone to divorce and dissatisfaction

Marriages where one spouse is attracted to the same sex are more prone to divorce and dissatisfaction. The Church does not recommend marriage in all cases. For example, the Church recommends being open and honest with a spouse before marriage. Research by Buxton found that if a man with same-sex attraction were to enter a marriage without disclosing their attractions, the marriage had a 85% chance of failure within three years after the sexual attractions were discovered.

Most often, the couple choose not to stay together after the disclosure. However, for those who did try to make their marriages work, they found relatively high success rates after being open and honest. The study concluded:

"The significant finding is that about half of those who tried to make their marriages work succeeded, an important figure for couples who are dismayed by the fifteen percent figure to keep in mind. This low figure is based on all marriages where the husband came out."[21]

On the other hand, research by Kays found that open and honest communication lead to higher rates of stability and satisfaction in marriage. They found that some of the couples "report having a highly satisfying and stable relationship, similar to that of heterosexual marriages."[22]

Prevalence of marriages

According to the Straight Spouse Network, there are two million opposite-sex marriages in the United States where one of the spouses is attracted to the same sex. According to The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States, 3.5% of men married to women and 2.1% of women married to men reported same-sex attraction. Those are people who are actually married. Compare that with US Census Bureau's estimate that there are 646,464 same-sex couples in the United States. This includes both those who consider themselves married and those who do not. While marriage may not work for everyone with same-sex attraction, it seems that even in modern America, more people with same-sex attraction choose committed relationships with people of the opposite sex than with those of the same sex.

It is important to note that these figures include everyone who self-reported having same-sex attraction. It does not include those who did not self report same-sex attraction, nor did it report the degree of same-sex attraction. Same-sex attraction includes both those who only attracted to the same sex as well as those who have attraction to both sexes.


This section is a chronology of statements from primary and secondary sources. Sources may be viewed by following the citation links.

Is it hypocritical for the Church to oppose same-sex marriage, when its members practiced plural marriage?

There is a significant difference between laws prohibiting polygamy and laws prohibiting same-sex marriage

Critics of Mormonism argue that it is hypocritical for the LDS Church to oppose same-sex marriage, when the Church itself had an alternative form of marriage.

The Church supports all of the rights for same-sex couples that they sought for polygamous families plus some. Same-sex marriage is doing more than extending rights to same-sex couples, but is setting a new standard that excludes people with same-sex attraction who are living the gospel standards. The Church never sought to force polygamy on other people, yet the Supreme Courts and many gay right organizations are seeking to take away rights from people who do not live up to the new standards.

There is a significant difference between laws prohibiting polygamy and laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. Anti-polygamy laws did not allow men to live with their wives. Men were arrested for living in the homes where their children lived so that they could fulfill their parental responsibiliies. However, even where laws do not allow for same-sex marriage, same-sex couples may form a family and live together. They may even choose to hold their own "marriage" ceremony and introduce each other as husband or wife.

The Church has supported rights for all people to pursue their own happiness according to the dictates of their own consciences, both for themselves and for others

The Church has supported rights for all people to pursue their own happiness according to the dictates of their own consciences, both for themselves and for others. The church never sought for polygamy to be held up as a national standard, requiring all citizens to accept a moral equivalence between polygamy and monogamy. In fact, the Church has already championed rights for people with same-sex attractions that go beyond any right they ever sought for themselves in their practice of polygamy. The right to set a new standard for marriage that would apply to the rest of the United States was not a right that the Church sought for polygamous families. It should not be a right that same-sex couples should seek for themselves.

Different levels of rights

Often, when we talk about rights, different kinds of rights get lumped together into one group. Everyone knows that humans have certain inalienable rights, but we often don't discuss what happens when those rights conflict. There are several different kinds of rights associated with sexual practices.

One basic right is the right to practice your desired sexual relationship. In most modern societies, any number or gender of consenting adults can usually practice their desired relationship without fear of legal retribution. But, even in the most liberal societies, this right is generally tempered by the right of other people to disagree about the morality of that relationship.

Another right is the right to legal protection from discrimination. This would include laws that would penalize people for treating you differently because of your sexual practices. For example, in most countries, it is illegal to treat an inter-racial couple or a same-sex couple differently when it comes to housing or employment. The church has been a strong supporter of protection against discrimination in housing and employment for people with same-sex attraction, including same-sex couples.

Another set of rights includes government help in maintaining your family. This would include legal recognition of your relationship and associated rights such as visitation rights. It may also help subsidize the cost of your relationships, through tax breaks and other benefits. Some modern societies have extended these rights to same-sex couples, and the church has publicly stated that they do not oppose these rights.

A final right that might be discussed is to have your government adopt your sexual relationship as a model, requiring it to be taught in schools as the moral equivalent of traditional marriage. The church is strongly opposed to this infringement of their religious right to determine their own standards of sexual morality according to the dictates of their own consciences.

Rights associated with plural marriage

When the church supported plural marriage, they were seeking for that most basic of rights - the right to practice their religion. They were not seeking for the United States to recognize their plural marriages, to subsidize their relationships with tax breaks, or to force all citizens to accept it as the moral equivalent of their own monogamous traditions. They only sought to be left to practice their religion in peace.

But the federal government would not allow them even this most basic of rights. Husbands were forcibly separated from their wives and children. Men who tried to sneak into their homes to provide food for their families were arrested, if they were caught. Some moved to other countries so they could continue to be with their families.

Rights for same-sex couples

There are many rights that same-sex couples do not have. The church has publicly supported many rights and have pressed for changes in legal system to afford these rights to same-sex couples. The rights that the church supports for same-sex couples goes BEYOND any right that they have ever sought for polygamous families.

The Church has no problem with people living life as they see fit when it doesn't interfere with other rights. However, as is often the case, when some rights expand, others diminish. For example, while supporting the rights of people with same-sex attraction to be free from discrimination in employment and housing, the church was in essence restricting the rights of landlords to choose their tenants and employers to choose their employees.

Many people think legalizing same-sex marriage is a necessary step to ensure that same-sex couples have the rights they need to protect their families from discrimination. They do not understand why they Church would be opposed to these rights. As stated earlier, the Church is not opposed to these rights, but adopting same-sex marriage as a national standard equivalent to opposite-sex marriage goes beyond simply living peacefully with those who choose to live a different standard. It is disregarding the old standard and replacing it with a new standard. This will have a detrimental effect on those who do not live up to the new standard.

New standard being introduced with same-sex marriage

The movement to legalize same-sex marriage is setting a dangerous standard of what is expected for people with same-sex attractions. It used to be that society expected people with same-sex attraction to get married to people of the opposite-sex. This type of expectation can cause damage for people with same-sex attraction who are not ready for marriage, and has been opposed by the Church for decades. (See Same-sex attraction/Marriage as therapy

Now, a new expectation is beginning to form that people with same-sex attraction can't have a fulfilling and faithful marriage with someone of the opposite sex and that they must marry someone of the same sex. Expectations of any sort are dangerous and hurt people who do not meet those expectations. About half of faithful members of the Church with same-sex attraction are heterosexually married, and many others have found fulfillment in celibacy. The new standard being adopted by several courts does not have room for these faithful members.

For example, the California Supreme Court ruled that, for people with same-sex attraction, their "choice of a life partner will, by definition, be a person of the same sex", and that was what their "true identity" should be. Later, Judge Walker ruled that the marriages of many members of the church with same-sex attraction was "unrealistic". The Iowa Supreme Court ruled that these relationships were "unappealing" and was "no right at all".

While many same-sex marriage supporters do not wish to harm those who follow the law of chastity, many major organizations have actively sought to take away rights from those people who do not live up to the new standard. For example, the Human Rights Campaign has actively opposed anti-discrimination employment rights for gay people who do not have gay sex.[23] It is ironic that while the Church has been actively lobbying to extend employment rights for all LGBT people, the Human Rights Campaign has worked and has succeeded in taking away those exact same rights from LGBT people who live Church standards.

By the Supreme Courts encoding this new standard into law, people with same-sex attraction who do not live up to the standard can be discriminated against in the private sector. For example, Apple recently removed an app from its iTune collection because the organization who put it up was composed of gay Christians who lived the law of chastity. A spokesperson for Apple explained that having an app for gay people who live the law of chastity "violates the developer guidelines by being offensive to large groups of people". [24][25][26] There is a difference between seeking for the right to live an alternative lifestyle and taking away rights from those who do not choose your lifestyle because you find it "offensive". It is interesting to note this organization has made a statement supporting people's right to choose same-sex relationships.[27]

Isn't the Church's opposition to same-sex marriage hypocritical, considering that they used to ban black from holding the priesthood until 1978?

The Law of Chastity is doctrine with scriptural precedent, whereas the priesthood ban was a practice that was always said to be temporary

President McKay taught:

There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this church that the negroes are under a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the negro. We believe that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed. And that's all there is to it. (Sterling M. McMurrin affidavit, March 6, 1979. See David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism by Greg Prince and William Robert Wright. Quoted by Genesis Group)[28]

The priesthood ban was not based on a choice

Just because a black man was denied the priesthood before 1978, does not mean he did anything wrong. It was a practice that was applied to all black men and had nothing to do with the choices of the individual person. Being black was not a choice that he made. Following the law of chastity is a choice. Everyone can follow the law of chastity, regardless of sexual orientation. If someone chooses to have sexual relationships outside of a heterosexual marriage, that is a worthiness issue and is a choice that they are making.

It was prophesied that the priesthood ban would be reversed

It was prophesied that the priesthood ban would be reversed, whereas we are told the law of chastity would always be in place.

For example, in reference to black people, Brigham Young taught:

"The time will come when they will have the privilege of all we have the privilege of and more."[139]

The prohibition on homosexual behavior has repeatedly been declared as a never-changing standard.

President Hinckley taught:

Prophets of God have repeatedly taught through the ages that practices of homosexual relations, fornication, and adultery are grievous sins.[140]

A cursory review of the historical record confirms his view:

1983

Likewise, make it clear to your students what the gospel cannot do. Once individuals or nations have departed from the prescribed path, their behavior may be legalized, but it cannot be and will not be legitimized by the Lord. For example, the gospel can cure, but it cannot condone, homosexuality. It can cure mortals from the need to pursue heedless abortion, but once they have left the straight and narrow path, it cannot guide them through the dark thicket of inconsistent alternatives which lie on either side of that path.[141]

2012

Do not tamper with the life-giving powers in your body alone or with members of either gender. That is the standard of the Church, and it will not change. As you mature, there is a temptation to experiment or explore immoral activities.[142]

2013

Marriage between a man and a woman is fundamental to the Lord’s doctrine and crucial to God’s eternal plan. Marriage between a man and a woman is God’s pattern for a fulness of life on earth and in heaven. God’s marriage pattern cannot be abused, misunderstood, or misconstrued. Not if you want true joy.....Regardless of what civil legislation may be enacted, the doctrine of the Lord regarding marriage and morality cannot be changed.[143]

What we do know is that the doctrine of the Church—that sexual activity should only occur between a man and a woman who are married—has not changed and is not changing.[144]

Outside the bonds of marriage between a man and a woman, all uses of our procreative powers are to one degree or another sinful and contrary to God’s plan for the exaltation of His children…. [L]aws legalizing so-called "same-sex marriage" do not change God’s law of marriage or His commandments and our standards concerning it. We remain under covenant to love God and keep His commandments and to refrain from serving other gods and priorities—even those becoming popular in our particular time and place.[145]

Central to God’s plan, the doctrine of marriage between a man and woman is an integral teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and will not change." "If it is being suggested that the church’s doctrine on this matter [same sex marriage] is changing, that is incorrect. Marriage between a man and a woman is central to God’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. As such, traditional marriage is a foundational doctrine and cannot change.[146]

But man’s laws cannot make moral what God has declared immoral. Commitment to our highest priority—to love and serve God—requires that we look to His law for our standard of behavior. For example, we remain under divine command not to commit adultery or fornication even when those acts are no longer crimes under the laws of the states or countries where we reside. Similarly, laws legalizing so-called "same-sex marriage" do not change God’s law of marriage or His commandments and our standards concerning it. We remain under covenant to love God and keep His commandments and to refrain from serving other gods and priorities—even those becoming popular in our particular time and place.[147]

2015

When pressed on whether he’s leaving any room for movement [on same sex marriage or acts] in the future, Christofferson simply said, "No."[148]

2016

There is no change in the Church’s position of what is morally right. But what is changing—and what needs to change—is helping Church members respond sensitively and thoughtfully when they encounter same-sex attraction in their own families, among other Church members, or elsewhere.[149]

Central to God’s plan, the doctrine of marriage between a man and woman is an integral teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and will not change:

As a doctrinal principle, based on the scriptures, the Church affirms that marriage between a man and a woman is essential to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. The Church also affirms that God’s law defines marriage as the legal and lawful union between a man and a woman.

Only a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife should have sexual relations. Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same sex, are sinful and undermine the divinely created institution of the family.[150]

2019

These changes [to policies regarding same-sex marriage and children raised in such marriages] do not represent a shift in Church doctrine related to marriage or the commandments of God in regard to chastity and morality. The doctrine of the plan of salvation and the importance of chastity will not change.[151]

2020

McKay Coppins, a Latter-day Saint writing for The Atlantic, quoted Russell M. Nelson (then president of the Church):

But while some of these changes have been celebrated as signs of progress, Nelson has not budged on key issues. When I asked him what he’d say to LGBTQ people who feel that the Church doesn’t want them, he told me, "God loves all his children, just like you and I do," and "There’s a place for all who choose to belong to his Church." But when I asked whether the prohibition on same-sex relationships might someday be lifted, he demurred. "As apostles of the Lord, we cannot change God’s law," he said. "We teach his laws. He gave them many thousands of years ago, and I don’t expect he’ll change them now."[152]

2022

President Dallin H. Oaks:

Those who do not fully understand the Father’s loving plan for His children may consider this Family Proclamation no more than a changeable statement of policy. In contrast, we affirm that the Family Proclamation, founded on unchangeable doctrine, defines the kind of family relationships where the most important part of our eternal development can occur.[153]

The priesthood ban needed to be reversed so all of God's children could have the blessings of the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, whereas the Law of Chastity, as it stands, already allows all people these blessings.

Scriptural precedence

  • Jesus Christ taught that marriage is between a man and a woman, whereas He did not teach blacks would not receive the priesthood. (See Christ's teachings on homosexuality)
  • The Law of Chastity has scriptural precedence, whereas the priesthood ban did not.

It's cruel to create a false expectation that the doctrine will change.

As a final contention, it is cruel to create a false expectation that the doctrine will change. Creating such just fosters more disappointment, depression, possible suicidality, etc. in the person with same-sex attraction each time they hear that the Church's doctrine won't change. It's advisable that we, as members of the Lord's Church, not make promises that can't be kept. We need to "mourn with those who mourn and comfort those who stand in need of comfort." That is true; but we also need to "stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death[.]"[154] As Elder D. Todd Christofferson has taught, "[t]here’s no kindness in misdirecting people and leading them into any misunderstanding about what is true, what is right, what is wrong, what leads to Christ and what leads away from Christ."[155]

In the Church of Jesus Christ, what are the ramifications from denying a gay identity?

No harm has been demonstrated in not having a homosexual orientation identity

Critics of Mormonism argue that in order to be happy and healthy, a person with same-sex attraction needs to identify as gay and have a same-sex relationship.

No harm has been demonstrated in not having a homosexual orientation identity, and in some cases, it may even prove beneficial. There are, of course, many questions about homosexuality that have not been studied scientifically, but Latter-day Saints nevertheless can be sure about the wisdom of following the example and teaching of the Lord's chosen servants. Not only can members with same-sex attraction be content rejecting a gay identity, but they can gain greater clarity about things and find great joy in preparing themselves for all of the eternal blessings the Lord promises them through His Gospel.

The church encourages members to view themselves as sons and daughters of God

The church encourages members to view themselves as sons and daughters of God, and discourages any identity that interferes with that identity. Members who refer to themselves as straight, gay or lesbian are free to go on as all other members, but are advised not to identify themselves primarily by their sexual feelings.

See also: LGBT identity

Taking on a sexual identity, whether gay or straight, has not been shown to have any benefit over those who choose not to assume a sexual identity. Most of the people with same-sex attractions who have not had a homosexual experience also do not identity as gay.[156] Critics argue that it is not healthy for homosexual people to reject a gay identity or suppress their homosexual attractions. They argue that the only way to be well-adjusted is to come out as a gay person. Many faithful members of the church as well as other Christians have found peace and joy in rejecting a gay identity. Others have incorporated a gay identity into a lifestyle of celibacy or heterosexual marriage.

Because of the massive opposition to people who want to reject a gay identity, a task force set up by the APA investigated the matter. They found that there is no clear harm in denying a gay identity. They found that for some people, a religious identity was stronger than their sexual identity, and instructed counselors not to preclude the goal of celibacy, but to help clients determine their own goals in therapy, and that together with support groups, the therapy can change a client's sexual orientation identity. Dr. Glassgold, the leader of the taskforce, summarized the findings by saying that there has been little research about the long-term effects of rejecting a gay identity, but there is "no clear evidence of harm" and "some people seem to be content with that path."[157]

Due to the results of this study, the task force recommended sexual orientation identity exploration for clients with unwanted same-sex attractions. Psychologists are recommended to help clients explore which sexual orientation identity best suits their needs and values. It is then recommended that psychologists help clients transition to their new identity. They list as possible new sexual orientation identities for people with same-sex attractions as:

  1. Heterosexual
  2. LGBT
  3. Disidentify from LGBT (such as ex-gay)
  4. No specific sexual orientation identity[158]

A person could assume any of these identities and still be a member of the Church in good standing. None of these identities have been found to cause any harm.

Effects of adopting a gay identity

While there is no evidence that the failure to adopt a gay identity is harmful for people with same-sex attractions, there is evidence that adopting a gay identity may lead to undesired results for some people.

There is a strong correlation between identifying as gay or lesbian and having gay sex. This is an important part for members who want to follow the law of chastity. A study by the Social Organization of Sexuality found that 60% of men and 68% of women who were attracted to the same gender have never engaged in homosexual behavior. This number differs from those who identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual. For them, only 13% of men and 4% of women have never engaged in homosexual behavior.[159] This lead the researchers to conclude that sexual identity (i.e., how people label and conceive of themselves) was a stronger indicator of sexual behavior than sexual orientation (i.e., the feelings or inclinations which people have).

Dr. Gary Remafedi, the director of the Youth and AIDS Projects at the University of Minnesota, did a study on people with same-sex attraction. He found that those who adopted a gay or bisexual identity at an earlier age were more likely to attempt suicide than those that did not.[160]It is not clear why this is the case. Another study on Norwegian adolescents found that when sexual attraction, identity and behavior were factored together, only homosexual behavior was predictive of suicide.[161] It may be that those who adopt a gay identity at a younger age are more likely for suicide simply because they are more likely to have gay sex, and not because of their sexual identity in and of itself. Another possible explanation may be because of increased exposure to bullying and intimidation of people who identify as gay, which bullying the Church strongly opposes. Whatever the reason, it seems that youth with same-sex attractions who do not adopt a gay identity may be less prone to suicide.

Research by Schneider found that for some married me with same-sex attraction, a strong homosexual identity was associated with difficulties in marital satisfaction.[162] Other research by Yarhouse found that the sexual identity of a spouse with same-sex attraction was an important resilient factor in helping marriages succeed.[163]

Research seems to indicate that adopting a gay identity may have a negative impact on youth and married men.

If same-sex attraction is something that occurs naturally, why can't God and the Church accept it by allowing sealings of LGBT couples?

Introduction to Question

Some have brought up the sensitive question of why gay marriage and other LGBT relationships can't be accepted by God and the Church if the characteristic is innate. Some struggle to find a purpose in the command to not engage in homosexual behavior. Some secularist critics and even members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who support same-sex marriage co-opt this issue as a means of openly and directly challenging the Church's opposition to same-sex relationships and marriages. This article examines that sensitive question/criticism.

It must be understood that some people are very sincere when asking these questions and that the questions deserve to be treated as such when sincerity is sensed. Others simply want to emotionally manipulate people into faith crisis over this issue. Great discernment is needed to know whether one is the former or latter in any given situation.

Response to Question

Feelings are Not Being

It is important to remember that just because something occurs naturally, that doesn't mean that it is therefore a good thing. This is what is known as the Is-Ought Fallacy in philosophy. There are plenty of things that occur naturally that we don't consider good such as depression, anxiety, and so forth. Many animals kill each other after mating.[164]

Brigham Young University professor Ty Mansfield pointed out something important in regard to feelings not forming identity:

"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!"[165]

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.

The Latter-day Saint Argument for Marriage

We should turn to Latter-day Saint scripture to figure out why the Church values marriage as much as it does and why is refuses to acknowledge same-gender sexual behavior and romantic relationships.

In 1831, Joseph Smith gave a revelation to the Shakers living in Ohio regarding some of their beliefs. As part of their religious system, they forbade people to marry and made them celibate. This revelation reissues the Lord's definition of marriage to the Shakers:

15 And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man.
16 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;
17 And that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made.

This revelation makes several crucial points about the Latter-day Saint position on marriage:

  1. Marriage is ordained of God
  2. Marriage is defined as being between one man and woman
  3. We were designed by God to be married this way.
  4. Our design is not shown in the sexual orientation we have but our biological gender.
  5. We were designed in the pre-mortal existence to be married man and woman.

We might ask why this marriage arrangement is the ideal one? We believe that it is because the Lord endorses the conjugal view of marriage. What is the conjugal view of marriage? Another website explains:

The conjugal view holds that marriage is a union between a man and a woman who share a domestic life oriented towards child-bearing and child-rearing. In other words, procreation (creating new human life) is the unifying good of a marriage relationship. A "unifying good" is that activity that most completely unites the partners in the relationship — the purpose towards which they coordinate their joint activities.
Let’s illustrate what this means: Consider a boyfriend and a girlfriend who share a deep emotional connection and enjoy spending time with each other. They have no particular plans for the future, and have made no commitments to each other. They may be united by many things, including mutual enjoyment, or whatever shared hobbies they pursue. Imagine that the girlfriend suddenly becomes pregnant. At that moment, their futures change completely — a whole host of duties suddenly arise that fundamentally changes their relationship.

They are now united by something more than just mutual enjoyment and emotional connection — they are united by an innocent human person, who physically embodies their union. While their relationship may still involve love and a deep emotional connection, raising the child becomes that thing that most completely unites them. This is what it means to say that child-raising is the unifying good of the relationship. They will probably consider getting married, because that is what marriage is about. In fact, if they don’t get officially married, but continue to live together and raise their kids together, many governments will still consider them married anyway (in what is called "common law marriage").

The change that occurred in their relation strikes at the heart of marriage, from the conjugal view. Marriage is when a man and a woman say to each other, in essence, "Let us extend our emotional union into something more permanent, by starting a family together." That is, a married couple arranges their lives and joins their families in anticipation of child-birth and child-raising. A pregnancy may be an unexpected interruption to a boyfriend and girlfriend, which fundamentally changes their relationship. However, as much as a child might change the lives of a married couple, she does not change the nature of their relationship. Marriage creates that difference from the get-go (before children are ever conceived), by enwrapping the relationship in norms (expectations) of permanence and fidelity. This is because marriage is oriented towards procreation. It points couples that direction.[166]

There are some objections that people have raised to this that we address below.

Latter-day Saint scripture also provides some evidence that the union of man and woman creates the spirits people in the next life (D&C 132꞉63).

Objections to Church Standard

The Argument from Personal Revelation

There are often claims from members of the Church who identify as LGBTQAIP+ and other members of the Church who support same-sex marriage that they have received personal revelation that the Church is wrong about this issue and that it will eventually accept LGBT sealings, relationships, and so on in the future. Since this is a topic that involves the ontological makeup of the entire human family as well as their eternal destiny, this type of revelation does not lie within the stewardship of those that identify as LGBT or those that support same-sex marriage, but with the prophet of God (Doctrine and Covenants 28꞉2-4; 42:53-60; 112:20). The Savior told us that the one way we could protect ourselves against deception is to hold to his word (JS-Matthew 1꞉37) and he announces himself as the source of the revelation declaring that our telos as men and women is to be united maritally and sexually (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 (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 (Alma 12꞉9).

Main article: 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?

The Argument from Priesthood Restriction

As an additional means of justifying opposition to the Church's position on same sex marriage, some point to the pre-1978 restrictions on people of African descent from holding the Church's priesthood or officiating in temple ordinances, including the Church's disavowed explanations for the restrictions. If the Church was wrong about their explanations for that, could it be wrong about this issue? This has been examined in another article on the FairMormon wiki.

Main article: Isn't the Mormon opposition to same-sex marriage hypocritical, considering that they used to ban black from holding the priesthood until 1978?

Conclusion

Many LGBT members of The Church of Jesus Christ do not need to hear the points listed in this article. Many understand these points clearly but may simply need someone to love and empathize with their struggle. Members of the Church are placed under covenant at baptism to mourn with those who mourn and comfort those who stand in need of comfort (Mosiah 18꞉8-9) and should be open to helping these good men and women when they need it most.

Alternatively, there may be some that begin to debate against the Church's position out of sincere frustration and sadness or simple spite. First, those who wish to help these individuals will need to dig deep and find out why these individuals are debating against the Church's position. Some may still need to simply have someone love them and empathize with them. Others may be past that and be debating, as mentioned, out of simple spite and emotional manipulation. In these instances, members of the Church should follow the other part of their baptismal covenant as outlined in Mosiah 18꞉8-9 and "stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in[.]"

As a final word which we wish to emphasize:

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..

See also: Since there are people that are born intersex, experience gender dysphoria, or identify as transgender, does this invalidate the Latter-day Saint ("Mormon") doctrine of eternal male and/or female gender?

2010 ================================================= On October 10, 2010, President Boyd K. Packer of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles spoke during the Church's semi-annual general conference.

Portions of President Packer's talk caused a firestorm of protest and, often, misrepresentation. This article examines President Packer's address, and compares it to past talks given by President Packer. It is meant as an examination, not an interpretation. FAIR does not seek to provide official interpretation for the words of our leaders. However, we believe that President Packer's address has been misunderstood and misrepresented, and hope that our analysis will show that.

Critics have claimed:

  • President Packer's talk was just about homosexuality;
  • Calls to overcome inclinations towards illicit sexual behavior was a call to change sexual orientation;
  • President Packer made statements at variance with official Church policy;
  • President Packer was "muzzled" by other members of the LDS "hierarchy";
  • President Packer's address has been "censored," or otherwise "suppressed" because of public outcry.
  • President Packer believes or claims that homosexual feelings/temptations are chosen by those so afflicted.
  • President Packer is guilty of "hypocrisy," unchristian conduct, and/or contributing to the suicides of homosexuals.
  • President Packer teaches that the "only option" for "sexual minorities" is "to become heterosexual."
  • President Packer is not "trying to be like Jesus," since he is wrong to teach that "there is no such thing as a godly homosexual relationship."

President Packer did not specifically mention same-sex attractions or same-sex relationships during his talk. He did reference substitutions for marriage, with a very strong reference towards same-sex relationships, but everything he said should and could be applied equally toward illicit heterosexual behavior. There was no reference in his talk which condemned same-sex attractions, and such an interpretation would conflict with numerous previous statements made by President Packer.

Such tactics are nothing new in politics, and are certainly not new when directed at members of the Church. As President Packer once indicated, he is more concerned about communicating his message than worrying about those who will intentionally misrepresent him:

While we must act peaceably, we need not submit to unfair accusations and unjustified opposition…As I grow older in age and experience, I grow ever less concerned over whether others agree with us. I grow ever more concerned that they understand us. If they do understand, they have their agency and can accept or reject the gospel as they please.[167]

And, while even a few members of the Church will reject the united voice of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve on the sinful nature of homosexual acts, as well as all other sexual acts outside of marriage, President Packer once remarked:

There are those within the Church who are disturbed when changes are made with which they disagree or when changes they propose are not made. They point to these as evidence that the leaders are not inspired.
They write and speak to convince others that the doctrines and decisions of the Brethren are not given through inspiration.
Two things characterize them: they are always irritated by the word obedience, and always they question revelation. It has always been so.[168]

The core of President Packer's message has been ignored and obscured—that core is that God will reveal to those who desire above all else to do his will how they should choose and how they should act. Obedience—a sign of faith—must always come before revelation and knowledge. But, only both revelation and faith can resolve this issue outside of politics, polemics, and propaganda tactics.

Our temptations and weaknesses do not define who we are, nor do they dictate our acts and choices. President Packer has been misrepresented and sometimes vilified in part so listeners will not even seriously consider the fundamental question—does God speak to prophets and apostles in our day? And, if so, has he spoken to them about what all would agree is a vital matter?

But then, as now, the world did not believe. They say that ordinary men are not inspired; that there are no prophets, no apostles; that angels do not minister unto men—not to ordinary men. That doubt and disbelief have not changed. But now, as then, their disbelief cannot change the truth. We lay no claim to being Apostles of the world—but of the Lord Jesus Christ. The test is not whether men will believe, but whether the Lord has called us—and of that there is no doubt. We do not talk of those sacred interviews that qualify the servants of the Lord to bear a special witness of Him, for we have been commanded not to do so. But we are free, indeed, we are obliged, to bear that special witness.[169]
Regardless of the opposition, we are determined to stay on course. We will hold to the principles and laws and ordinances of the gospel. If they are misunderstood either innocently or willfully, so be it.

   —President Boyd K. Packer, October 2010 General Conference

President Packer's talk was presented to a world-wide audience. The original audio and visual files continue to be available on the Church's official website. The originals have also been provided to those who produce material for the blind and print disabled, a clear sign that the Church does not intend to "suppress" or repudiate them.

Misrepresentation and misunderstanding began soon after the talk was delivered. (Ironically, though President Packer did not mention same sex attraction specifically—and despite the fact that he both opened and closed his talk with a discussion of pornography—many listeners applied his wording and reasoning solely to issues of homosexual temptation.) The resulting flurry of comment and complaint led a Church spokesman to indicate that President Packer's meaning had been clarified in the published version of the talk:

The Monday following every General Conference, each speaker has the opportunity to make any edits necessary to clarify differences between what was written and what was delivered or to clarify the speaker’s intent. President Packer has simply clarified his intent.[170]

The published version is now available on-line. The key passage of interest is compared in the table below.

Spoken Version Edited Print Version
Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, He is our Heavenly Father. Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Remember, God is our Heavenly Father.

Clearly, the Church cannot be intending to suppress or hide President Packer's original comments, since it continues to make his original address available. Church spokesmen have also pointed out directly to the media that the printed version has been clarified. This would be a strange way to run a cover-up.

It is also clear in context that President Packer's meaning in the original talk is reflected in the edited print version. For example, in both his spoken and printed version, immediately following the above phrases, President Packer said/wrote:

Paul promised that "God . . . will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." You can, if you will, break the habits and conquer an addiction and come away from that which is not worthy of any member of the Church. As Alma cautioned, we must "watch and pray continually."
Isaiah warned, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

In context, President Packer was clearly speaking about being able to resist temptation. His use of the word "tendencies" led some to assume that he was arguing that such inborn temptations could be eliminated. But, such a reading is inconsistent with the scriptural citation which he uses to prove his point—Paul does not argue that Christians will be freed from temptation, but rather that they need not yield to temptation. It would indeed make little sense for God to allow us to have temptations we could not resist—such a state contradicts the core LDS doctrine of moral agency (see D&C 101꞉78).

The same scripture was used in a discussion of same-gender attraction by Elder Dallin H. Oaks in 2006:

The distinction between feelings or inclinations on the one hand, and behavior on the other hand, is very clear. It’s no sin to have inclinations that if yielded to would produce behavior that would be a transgression. The sin is in yielding to temptation. Temptation is not unique. Even the Savior was tempted.
The New Testament affirms that God has given us commandments that are difficult to keep. It is in 1 Corinthians chapter 10, verse 13: "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." (emphasis added)[171]

Subject of the talk

President Packer never mentioned same-sex relationships or same-sex attractions even once during the entire talk. That has been inserted later by critics of the church. During his talk, he had one concrete example, and that was of a husband looking at pornography. There is no doubt that his words were meant to be applied to same-sex relationships as well, especially given references to legalizing immorality and the recent battle over Proposition 8. However, it would be inaccurate to say he was singling out same-sex relationships or that what he said only applied to same-sex relationships.

By starting off with a the heterosexual example of unnatural affection towards pornography, he made sure that those with opposite-sex attractions were not under the false assumption that they were off the hook. Any inclination towards the impure and unnatural, including pornography, fornication, adultery, prostitution, or rape with either gender by either gender can be overcome, whether it is homosexual or heterosexual in nature. There is no reason to assume that his comments only referred to those with same-sex attraction and did not apply equally to those who struggle with the improper expression of opposite-sex attractions. Many people with opposite-sex attractions incorrectly believe they are "preset" to indulge in illicit behavior. His talk was about overcoming any type of temptation, not just those of a homosexual nature.

Feelings vs. acts

Another area of confusion is whether by asking people to overcome inclinations towards the impure, Elder Packer was asking them to change their sexual orientation. Answering this requires us to understand that his comments were directed towards both those with same-sex attractions and those with opposite-sex attractions.

The man who had a problem with pornography did not need to lose all attraction to the opposite sex in order to overcome his tendency towards pornography. A single member with opposite-sex attractions does not need to lose all attraction to the opposite sex in order to overcome his or her tendency towards pre-marital sex. Likewise, a member with same-sex attractions does not need to lose all attraction to the same-sex in order to overcome tendencies towards same-sex acts.

It is easy to think that because Elder Packer had references to Proposition 8, that he was referring only to same-sex attractions. Proposition 8 was about same-sex relationships or acts, not about same-sex attraction. The Church's leaders in general, President Packer in particular, have made a very strong distinction between the two. While President Packer is clearly teaching that you can choose not to be in a same-sex relationship, he is not saying you can choose not to have same-sex attractions. Same-sex relationships would be considered a counterfeit for marriage. Same-sex attraction would not. Interpreting his message to mean that same-sex attraction can be changed in this life contradicts his long- and frequently-expressed stance that experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin and may not ever be overcome in this life.[172]

Speaking of same-sex attractions, he said:

"That may be a struggle from which you will not be free in this life. If you do not act on temptations, you need feel no guilt."[173]

President Packer's talk continued a long tradition of emphasizing the difference between sinful acts (including, but not limited to, homosexual ones), and those individuals tempted to commit such acts because of strong desires or feelings. These include multiple talks given by Pres. Packer over a period of thirty years.

The message of the gospel has never been that if you pray hard enough or had enough faith that God would take away all trials and temptations in this life. The message is that we are free to choose good or evil, not that we can avoid ever being enticed by the evil in the first place. The emphasis of the church has always been on controlling behavior by overcoming temptations, not by eliminating all temptations from our lives.

The emphasis on actions is even clearer when put together with the surrounding paragraphs. As printed in the Ensign, the section reads:

We teach a standard of moral conduct that will protect us from Satan’s many substitutes or counterfeits for marriage. We must understand that any persuasion to enter into any relationship that is not in harmony with the principles of the gospel must be wrong. From the Book of Mormon we learn that "wickedness never was happiness."
Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Remember, God is our Heavenly Father.
Paul promised that "God … will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." 14 You can, if you will, break the habits and conquer an addiction and come away from that which is not worthy of any member of the Church. As Alma cautioned, we must "watch and pray continually."

There are many things that fall under the category of "counterfeits for marriage", such as pornography, prostitution, same-sex relationships, and so forth, but same-sex attraction would not be included in that group. His message seems to be that no one is preset to enter into any type of sexual relationship, and that any tendency or temptation to do anything impure (such as pornography or be in a same-sex relationship) can be overcome so that the impure act is not performed. Same-sex attractions is not a relationship, nor an act. President Packer has been very clear in distinguishing the two, while critics tend to blur the difference.

The usage of overcome in other scriptures

Many people have had issues with the usage of the word "overcome" in conjunction with desires to enter immoral relationships. Overcoming is an important part of the Church's teachings. Bishop McMullin taught:

"But as with all mortal conditions, if the inclination of same- or opposite-gender attraction leads a person to violate the laws of God or to mar one’s immortal possibilities, this inclination needs to be controlled and overcome."[174]

Learning to overcome is prevalent throughout scripture, and has been generally applied to everyone, without singling out any particular sexual orientation.

Revelations 3:21

To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

D&C 75꞉16

And he who is faithful shall overcome all things, and shall be lifted up at the last day.

D&C 76꞉53

And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true.

D&C 63꞉47

He that is faithful and endureth shall overcome the world.

D&C 64꞉2

For verily I say unto you, I will that ye should overcome the world; wherefore I will have compassion upon you.

D&C 76꞉58-60

Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God — Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s. And they shall overcome all things.

D&C 63꞉20

Nevertheless, he that endureth in faith and doeth my will, the same shall overcome, and shall receive an inheritance upon the earth when the day of transfiguration shall come.

Here are some scriptures showing if you do not overcome, but instead are overcome, you will not make it into heaven.

D&C 52꞉18

And again, he that is overcome and bringeth not forth fruits, even according to this pattern, is not of me.

D&C 50꞉8

But the hypocrites shall be detected and shall be cut off, either in life or in death, even as I will; and wo unto them who are cut off from my church, for the same are overcome of the world.

2 Peter 2:19

For of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

Past talks on the same issue

It would be unlikely for President Packer espouse a position on issues of same sex attraction or other sexual sins which differed from his long-expressed position. He has long emphasized that although the attractions might not be reversed, the sin can be overcome.

(These talks are compared in table form on a separate page, and discussed by their date of delivery below.)

1978

In 1978, at President Spencer W. Kimball's request, then-Elder Packer addressed BYU on the subject of homosexual temptation.[175] It is clear from this early talk that Elder Packer regarded such temptations as deep, and relatively fixed. He even went so far as to indicate that those thus afflicted might have to spend the rest of their lives resisting such temptations. This view is in keeping with both his original address of October 2010, and the clarification issued in print.

Significantly, in neither case does it match with the claim which critics wish to put in President Packer's mouth—that temptations to homosexual acts can, in all cases, be eliminated from one's life. President Packer taught precisely the opposite more than thirty years earlier. He made it very clear that in at least some cases, the member might well struggle for their entire life to resist these temptations or tendencies. After having compared such struggles to the need to undergo serious surgery, he said:

[194] And yet our hospitals are full to overflowing with patients. They count it quite worthwhile to submit to treatment, however painful. They struggle through long periods of recuperation and sometimes must be content with a limited life-style thereafter, in some cases in order just to live. Is it not reasonable that recuperation from this disorder might be somewhat comparable?...
[195] Now, I hope I will not disappoint you too much if I say at once that I do not know of any quick spiritual cure-all. Setting aside miracles for the moment, in which I firmly believe, generally I do not know of some spiritual shock treatment that will sear the soul of an individual and instantly kill this kind of temptation-or any other kind, for that matter. No spiritual wonder drug that I know of will do it. The cure rests in following for a long period of time, and thereafter continually, some very basic, simple rules for moral and spiritual health....Establish a resolute conviction that you will resist for a lifetime, if necessary, any deviate thought or deviate action. Do not respond to those feelings; suppress them. Suppression is not a very popular word with many psychologists. Look what happened to society when it became unpopular!...
[196] Bad thoughts often have to be evicted a hundred times, or a thousand. But if they have to be evicted ten thousand times, never surrender to them. You are in charge of you. I repeat, it is very, very difficult to eliminate a bad habit just by trying to discard it. Replace it. Read in Matthew, chapter 12, verses 43 to 45, the parable of the empty house. There is a message in it for you....
[197] With physical ailments we always want a quick cure. If a prescription hasn't worked by sundown, we want to get another one. For this ailment there is no other prescription that I know about. You will have to grow away from your problem with undeviating—notice that word—undeviating determination. The longer you have been afflicted, or the more deeply you have been involved, the more difficult and the longer the cure. Any relapse is a setback. But if this should happen, refuse to be discouraged. Take your medicine, however bitter it tastes.
[198]...you yourself can call upon a power that can renew your body. You yourself can draw upon a power that will reinforce your will. If you have this temptation-fight it!...
[198]...Oh, if I could only convince you that you are a son or a daughter of Almighty God! You have a righteous spiritual power-an inheritance that you have hardly touched. You have an Elder Brother who is your Advocate, your Strength, your Protector, your Mediator, your Physician. Of Him I bear witness. The Lord loves you! You are a child of God. Face the sunlight of truth. The shadows of discouragement, of disappointment, of deviation will be cast behind you.[176]

1990

In 1990 General Conference, then-Elder Packer said:

My message is to you who are tempted either to promote, to enter, or to remain in a life-style which violates your covenants and will one day bring sorrow to you and to those who love you.
Growing numbers of people now campaign to make spiritually dangerous life-styles legal and socially acceptable. Among them are abortion, the gay-lesbian movement, and drug addiction…For Latter-day Saints, morality is one component which must not be missing when these issues are considered—otherwise sacred covenants are at risk! Keep your covenants and you will be safe. Break them and you will not….
Several publications are now being circulated about the Church which defend and promote gay or lesbian conduct. They wrest the scriptures attempting to prove that these impulses are inborn, cannot be overcome, and should not be resisted; and therefore, such conduct has a morality of its own. They quote scriptures to justify perverted acts between consenting adults….
All of us are subject to feelings and impulses. Some are worthy and some of them are not; some of them are natural and some of them are not. We are to control them, meaning we are to direct them according to the moral law….
We receive letters pleading for help, asking why should some be tormented by desires which lead toward addiction or perversion. They seek desperately for some logical explanation as to why they should have a compelling attraction, even a predisposition, toward things that are destructive and forbidden.
Why, they ask, does this happen to me? It is not fair! They suppose that it is not fair that others are not afflicted with the same temptations. They write that their bishop could not answer the "why," nor could he nullify their addiction or erase the tendency.
We are sometimes told that leaders in the Church do not really understand these problems. Perhaps we don’t. There are many "whys" for which we just do not have simple answers. But we do understand temptation, each of us, from personal experience. Nobody is free from temptations of one kind or another. That is the test of life. That is part of our mortal probation. Temptation of some kind goes with the territory.
What we do know is where these temptations will lead. We have watched these life-styles play themselves out in many lives. We have seen the end of the road you are tempted to follow. It is not likely that a bishop can tell you what causes these conditions or why you are afflicted, nor can he erase the temptation. But he can tell you what is right and what is wrong. If you know right from wrong, you have a place to begin. That is the point at which individual choice becomes operative. That is the point at which repentance and forgiveness can exert great spiritual power….
A tempter will claim that such impulses cannot be changed and should not be resisted. Can you think of anything the adversary would rather have us believe?
The Lord warned, "Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea." (Mark 9:42.)
Now, in a spirit of sympathy and love, I speak to you who may be struggling against temptations for which there is no moral expression. Some have resisted temptation but never seem to be free from it. Do not yield! Cultivate the spiritual strength to resist—all of your life, if need be....
You may wonder why God does not seem to hear your pleading prayers and erase these temptations. When you know the gospel plan, you will understand that the conditions of our mortal probation require that we be left to choose. That test is the purpose of life. While these addictions may have devoured, for a time, your sense of morality or quenched the spirit within you, it is never too late.
You may not be able, simply by choice, to free yourself at once from unworthy feelings. You can choose to give up the immoral expression of them.
The suffering you endure from resisting or from leaving a life-style of addiction or perversion is not a hundredth part of that suffered by your parents, your spouse or your children, if you give up. Theirs is an innocent suffering because they love you. To keep resisting or to withdraw from such a life-style is an act of genuine unselfishness, a sacrifice you place on the altar of obedience. It will bring enormous spiritual rewards.[177]

Clearly, the same themes of a distinction between temptations and acts and the potential need for life-long resistance to unworthy temptations are present.

1995

In 1995 General Conference, Elder Packer said:

Save for those few who defect to perdition after having known a fulness, there is no habit, no addiction, no rebellion, no transgression, no offense exempted from the promise of complete forgiveness…. You may tell yourself that your transgressions are not spiritually illegal. That will not work; neither will rebellion, nor anger, nor joking about them. You cannot do that. And you don’t have to do it….
I repeat, save for the exception of the very few who defect to perdition, there is no habit, no addiction, no rebellion, no transgression, no apostasy, no crime exempted from the promise of complete forgiveness. That is the promise of the atonement of Christ.
How all can be repaired, we do not know. It may not all be accomplished in this life. We know from visions and visitations that the servants of the Lord continue the work of redemption beyond the veil….
Some members wonder why their priesthood leaders will not accept them just as they are and simply comfort them in what they call pure Christian love.
Pure Christian love, the love of Christ, does not presuppose approval of all conduct. Surely the ordinary experiences of parenthood teach that one can be consumed with love for another and yet be unable to approve unworthy conduct.
We cannot, as a church, approve unworthy conduct or accept into full fellowship individuals who live or who teach standards that are grossly in violation of that which the Lord requires of Latter-day Saints.
If we, out of sympathy, should approve unworthy conduct, it might give present comfort to someone but would not ultimately contribute to that person’s happiness.[178]

2000

In 2000, President Packer taught:

If you consent, the adversary can take control of your thoughts and lead you carefully toward a habit and to an addiction, convincing you that immoral, unnatural behavior is a fixed part of your nature.

Here we see the same idea expressed in Pres. Packer's 2010 talk—immoral behavior is not a fixed, unalterable part of one's nature. One can choose behavior, despite strong inclinations and temptations, as he goes on to explain:

With some few, there is the temptation which seems nearly overpowering for man to be attracted to man or woman to woman....
The gates of freedom, and the good or bad beyond, swing open or closed to the password choice. You are free to choose a path that may lead to despair, to disease, even to death (see 2 Ne. 2꞉26-27).
Do not experiment; do not let anyone of either gender touch your body to awaken passions that can flame beyond control. It begins as an innocent curiosity, Satan influences your thoughts, and it becomes a pattern, a habit, which may imprison you in an addiction, to the sorrow and disappointment of those who love you (see John 8꞉34; 2 Pet. 2꞉12-14, 18-19).
Pressure is put upon legislatures to legalize unnatural conduct. They can never make right that which is forbidden in the laws of God (see Lev. 18꞉22; 1 Cor. 6꞉9; 1 Tim. 1:9-10).
Sometimes we are asked why we do not recognize this conduct as a diverse and acceptable lifestyle. This we cannot do. We did not make the laws; they were made in heaven "before the foundation of the world" (D&C 132꞉5; D&C 124꞉41; see also Alma 22꞉13). We are servants only….
We understand why some feel we reject them. That is not true. We do not reject you, only immoral behavior. We cannot reject you, for you are the sons and daughters of God. We will not reject you, because we love you (see Heb. 12꞉6-9; Rom. 3꞉19; Hel. 15꞉3; D&C 95꞉1).
You may even feel that we do not love you. That also is not true. Parents know, and one day you will know, that there are times when parents and we who lead the Church must extend tough love when failing to teach and to warn and to discipline is to destroy.
We did not make the rules; they were revealed as commandments. We do not cause nor can we prevent the consequences if you disobey the moral laws (see D&C 101꞉78). In spite of criticism or opposition, we must teach and we must warn.
When any unworthy desires press into your mind, fight them, resist them, control them (see James 4꞉6-8; 2 Ne. 9꞉39; Mosiah 3꞉19). The Apostle Paul taught, "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it" (1 Cor. 10꞉13; see also D&C 62꞉1)....:Some think that God created them with overpowering, unnatural desires, that they are trapped and not responsible (see James 1꞉13-15). That is not true. It cannot be true. Even if they were to accept it as true, they must remember that He can cure and He can heal (see Alma 7꞉10-13; Alma 15꞉8).

Here again, President Packer uses the same scripture from Paul to illustrate that temptations do not inevitably translate into acts. He goes on to teach that some temptations and inclinations will not be overcome in this life:

That may be a struggle from which you will not be free in this life. If you do not act on temptations, you need feel no guilt. They may be extremely difficult to resist. But that is better than to yield and bring disappointment and unhappiness to you and those who love you.[179]

We note again that those who do not act on such temptations are not guilty of any sin—just as Pres. Packer taught in his 0 talk, and as the clarifications (not alterations) to the meaning of that talk argued.

2003

In 2003, President Packer again taught these same ideas, including the principle that only acts make one a sinner or subject to Church discipline:

There are words we would rather not say. They describe things that we would rather not think about. But you are inescapably exposed to temptations in connection with fornication, adultery, pornography, prostitution, perversion, lust, abuse, the unnatural, and all that grows from them....
Some work through political, social, and legal channels to redefine morality and marriage into something unrestrained, unnatural, and forbidden. But they never can change the design which has governed human life and happiness from the beginning. The deceiver preys upon some passion or tendency or weakness. He convinces them that the condition cannot be changed and recruits them for activities for which they never would volunteer....
In the Church, one is not condemned for tendencies or temptations. One is held accountable for transgression. (D&C 101꞉78; A+of+F 1꞉2) If you do not act on unworthy persuasions, you will neither be condemned nor be subject to Church discipline.[180]

2006

In 2006, President Packer again taught against the idea that we must inevitably sin because of temptations or tendencies:

It is a wicked, wicked world in which we live and in which our children must find their way. Challenges of pornography, gender confusion, immorality, child abuse, drug addiction, and all the rest are everywhere. There is no way to escape from their influence.
Some are led by curiosity into temptation, then into experimentation, and some become trapped in addiction. They lose hope. The adversary harvests his crop and binds them down....
The angels of the devil convince some that they are born to a life from which they cannot escape and are compelled to live in sin. The most wicked of lies is that they cannot change and repent and that they will not be forgiven. That cannot be true. They have forgotten the Atonement of Christ.[181]

(These talks are compared in table form on a separate page.)

Editing an apostle?

Some few have expressed surprise or disappointment that an apostle's remarks would be edited for publication. Others have assumed that such editing represented a "reigning in" of President Packer by other members of the "Mormon hierarchy." Such an uncharitable reading is inconsistent with the evidence that President Packer's views on this issue have not changed.

Furthermore, it is relatively common practice—in and out of the Church—to edit talks after their presentation prior to publication. President Packer himself expressed his appreciation for those of his fellow leaders or Church employees who, in the past, have suggested changes in his wording to avoid confusion:

I was asked to write an article for the Improvement Era. It was returned with the request that I change some words. I smarted! The replacement words didn't convey exactly what I was trying to say. I balked a bit, and was told that Richard L. Evans, then of the Seventy and magazine editor, had asked that the changes be made....Now, though that article is piled under thirty-five years of paper, I'm glad, very glad, that if someone digs it out, I was "invited" to change it.
After one of my first general conference talks, I received a call from Joseph Anderson [secretary to the First Presidency]. In a very polite way he said that President McKay and his counselors suggested that I add one word to the text of my talk. Would I mind doing that? Actually the word was in my text, I just failed to read it at the pulpit. A most embarrassing lesson—the First Presidency! It was easier when Elder Evans corrected my work; even easier when one of my associates was kind enough to do it.
Only last Friday while putting together some things for a presentation, I read part of it to some brethren from BYU. I noticed they looked at one another at one place in my reading, and I stopped and asked if there was a problem. Finally one of them suggested that I not use a certain scripture that I had included even though it said exactly what I wanted to convey. How dare they suppose that a member of the Twelve didn't know his scriptures! I simply said, "What do you suggest?" He said, "Better find another scripture," and he pointed out that if I put that verse back in context, it was really talking about another subject. Others had used it as I proposed to use it, but it was not really correct. I was very glad to make a change.
Now you may not need a correlating hand in what you do, but I certainly do. This brother lingered after the meeting to thank me for being patient with him. Thank me! I was thankful to him. If I ever make that presentation, it will only be after some of our Correlation staff have checked it over for me.[182]

President Packer's message was clear to many who heard it.[183] Some honestly misunderstood him, and some seem to have actively sought a hostile reading. In this context, a clarification was appropriate so there can be no excuse for mistaking his meaning.

Propaganda and tactics

Many people could have innocently misunderstood President Packer's comments. The idea that just because you have certain feelings does not mean you have to act upon them is becoming more and more foreign to people outside the church. If someone does not understand this distinction, they could easily interpret a call to avoid illicit sexual relationships, including a strong reference to same-sex relationships, as a call to change your sexual orientation. Unfortunately, that misinterpretation seems to have spread, making it harder to understand Elder Packer's real intent.

It is important that those with same-sex attractions do not feel guilt for same-sex attractions, and this type of misrepresentation of the Church's teachings only compounds the problem. While many might not understand the distinction the Church makes, many people do understand the distinction but insist on perpetuating the misunderstanding. Making it sound like President Packer is trying to tell people they have to change their sexual orientation garners more sympathy towards their cause than making it sound like President Packer was telling people they can choose not to have gay sex.

This tactic is harmful, and so it is no surprise that those opposed to the Church's teachings resort to it. President Packer is an apostle of God and many members with same-sex attraction sustain him as such. If they come under the false impression that an apostle of God is telling them they can change their sexual orientation, then they will feel more pressure to do so, which can result in guilt and depression—or (as the Church's critics likely hope will happen) members with same-sex attraction will conclude that President Packer is not to be heeded because his "advice" to change their orientation doesn't succeed. He is not, they will then conclude, inspired or directed by God in his counsel. This misunderstanding, fostered by some enemies of the Church's teachings and doctrines, would then drive people away from keeping their covenants, continued faith in the atonement of Christ, and sustaining the prophets and apostles.

The actual message delivered by the Church and President Packer that "if you do not act on temptations, you need feel no guilt" can easily become lost among the misrepresentation and misunderstanding.

Blurring the distinction between gay sex and same-sex attractions is not a new tactic. They match techniques which some have long advocated.

Main article: Detailed examination of critics' tactics
Source(s) of the criticism
Critical sources
  • Affirmation [LBGT group of current, former Mormons who disagree with Church teachings about chastity], "Boyd K. Packer's Homophobia," (large website banner with links to various articles)
  • Laura Compton, "Edits to Boyd K. Packer's Talk," mormonsformarriage.com (blog post) (8 October 2010; 07h53)
  • Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Questioning (LGBTQ) Affirmative Psychotherapist Guild of Utah, "An Open Letter To Members of the LDS Community," (October 2010).
  • 'Dallin', "Thoughts on the revisions to Pres. Packer’s talk," prolusionsix (blog post) (9 October 2010).
  • Dave Hoen, "Edits to Boyd K. Packer's Talk," mormonsformarriage.com (blog post) (8 October 2010; 11h00)
  • Human Rights Campaign, press release, "HRC to Mormon Apostle: Your Statements Are Inaccurate and Dangerous: Mormon Leader’s Inaccurate Statements Yesterday Fuel Anti-LGBT Violence, Teen Suicides," (4 October 2010).
  • Jana Rieses, "LDS Apostle Boyd K. Packer Is Wrong About Homosexual Relationships," Flunking Sainthood (beliefnet.org blog), (4 October 2010).
  • Peggy Fletcher Stakc, "Apostle: Same-sex attraction can change," The Salt Lake Tribune (4 October 2010).
  • Peggy Fletcher Stack, "Packer talk jibes with LDS stance after tweak," The Salt Lake Tribune (11 October 2010) off-site

Critics' direputable tactics

Given that same-sex attraction is a charged issue with political overtones, it is not surprising that some sincerely misunderstood President Packer's talk. Hopefully the clarification offered addressed their concerns.

Just as there are those who could sincerely misunderstand President Packer's talk, there are those who choose, for whatever reason, to purposely misunderstand. Certainly, not all with same-sex attraction, who categorize themselves as homosexuals, or who are supportive of homosexual relationships are in this latter group, but there are some who consider themselves leaders of the gay community or gay activists who do fall into this category. For them, it is not politically expedient to accept any clarifications that may be offered because they disagree with the theological categorization of homosexual acts as "sinful." The actions taken by such individuals as a reaction to clarification was noted by the Deseret News:

Instead of seeking genuine common ground around issues of mutual concern, activists began this week with a grossly misguided caricature of the LDS Church's support of traditional morality.
The tactic is now all-too familiar: take a statement out of context, embellish it with selective interpretation, presume hostile intent, and then use the distortion to isolate an entire group, in this case a church.[184]

Such tactics (pulling statements out of context, interpreting selectively, presuming hostile intent, and stereotyping) are not new in the battle for public perception and support. In fact, tactics such as this have been specifically encouraged in the gay activist community. In 1993, two gay activists wrote a call-to-arms to their community, in which they outlined the strategies that they felt would be most successful in securing societal tolerance of homosexual acts as normal and appropriate. Among other techniques, they suggested "a propaganda campaign" (xxviii):

There's a naive notion among folks in general—especially among gays—that you can argue a person out of a prejudice (such as homohatred) by overwhelming him with facts and logic about the group he hates. This is untrue....
Logically speaking, nothing whatever is either disgusting or sinful, except as one feels it to be so...
...if we're going to enter into arguments with [those who disagree with us] we'd better have a strong emotional appeal in our back pocket.
...it gets a little tiresome to keep seeing and hearing [gays who]... damn all proposals as politically incorrect to precisely the degree that they rely upon cunning manipulation rather than pugnacity....
...thus, propagandistic advertising can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths...who are 'not Christian.' It can show them being criticized, hated, shunned. It can depict gays experiencing horrific suffering as the direct result of homohatred—suffering of which even most bigots would be ashamed to be the cause....Note that the bigot need not actually be made to believe that he is such a heinous creature, that others will now despise him, and that he has been the immoral agent of suffering....Rather, our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof....
...The objection will be raised...that we would 'Uncle Tommify' the gay community; that we are exchanging one false sterotype for another equally false; that our ads are lies; that that is not how all gays actually look; that gays know it, and bigots know it. Yes of course—we know it, too. But it makes no difference that the ads are lies; not to us, because we're using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies, and far more wicked ones....[185]

These tactics, outlined with such clarity, seemed to be almost a script for the reaction to President Packer's talk from organizations that promote homosexual relationships. Simply put, many dislike talk of sin, and are angered by those who claim to warn against it with divine authority. Many realize that they have not prevailed via a reasoned, rational discussion of the facts, and know that an emotional appeal is the only way of achieving their goals.

It is not surprising, then, that some activists have responded to President Packer's warning by attacking the messenger, reading him in a hostile light, caricaturing his message, reading his mind, and ascribing a variety of distasteful or even evil motives to him or the Church and its members. This should be recognized for what it is—an effort to vilify the messenger, downplay the totality of the message, and shame those who might listen to it, all part and parcel of political machinations.[186]

Table comparing Boyd K. Packer talks on homosexual behavior over time

Element 1978 1990 1995 2000 2003 2006 2010

Unsought feelings, thoughts, or temptations are not sins.

Is sexual perversion wrong?

There appears to be a consensus in the world that it is natural, to one degree or another, for a percentage of the population. Therefore, we must accept it as all right….

The answer: It is not all right. It is wrong! It is not desirable; it is unnatural; it is abnormal; it is an affliction. When practiced, it is immoral. It is a transgression

You may not be able, simply by choice, to free yourself at once from unworthy feelings. You can choose to give up the immoral expression of them.

We cannot, as a church, approve unworthy conduct or accept into full fellowship individuals who live or who teach standards that are grossly in violation of that which the Lord requires of Latter-day Saints

With some few, there is the temptation which seems nearly overpowering for man to be attracted to man or woman to woman.... If you do not act on temptations, you need feel no guilt.

In the Church, one is not condemned for tendencies or temptations. One is held accountable for transgression. (See D&C 101꞉78; A of F 1:2.) If you do not act on unworthy persuasions, you will neither be condemned nor be subject to Church discipline.

If you are bound by a habit or an addiction that is unworthy, you must stop conduct that is harmful. Angels will coach you, and priesthood leaders will guide you through those difficult times…. You can, if you will, break the habits and conquer an addiction and come away from that which is not worthy of any member of the Church.

One may have to resist for a lifetime.

Establish a resolute conviction that you will resist for a lifetime, if necessary, any deviate thought or deviate action. Do not respond to those feelings…[I]f they have to be evicted ten thousand times, never surrender to them….

No spiritual wonder drug that I know of will do it. The cure rests in following for a long period of time, and thereafter continually, some very basic, simple rules for moral and spiritual health.

Some have resisted temptation but never seem to be free from it. Do not yield! Cultivate the spiritual strength to resist—all of your life, if need be....

How all can be repaired, we do not know. It may not all be accomplished in this life.

That may be a struggle from which you will not be free in this life.

There is no quick cure.

I do not know of any quick spiritual cure-all…[to] instantly kill this kind of temptation-or any other kind, for that matter

It is not likely that a bishop can tell you what causes these conditions or why you are afflicted, nor can he erase the temptation…

Every soul confined in a prison of sin, guilt, or perversion has a key to the gate. The key is labeled "repentance." If you know how to use this key, the adversary cannot hold you. The twin principles of repentance and forgiveness exceed in strength the awesome power of the tempter.

1 Corinthians 10:13 cited (no temptation above what one can bear)

The Apostle Paul taught, "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it" (1 Cor. 10꞉13; see also D&C 62꞉1).

Paul promised that "God . . . will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it."

Some falsely claim that such acts are inevitable.

It is not unchangeable. It is not locked in. One does not just have to yield to it and live with it…. If you are one of the few who are subject to this temptation, do not be misled into believing that you are a captive to it. That is false doctrine!... You have a God-given right to be free and to choose. Refuse the unnatural; choose the moral way. You will know, then, where you are going. Ahead is but the struggle to get there.

A tempter will claim that such impulses cannot be changed and should not be resisted.

If you consent, the adversary can take control of your thoughts and lead you carefully toward a habit and to an addiction, convincing you that immoral, unnatural behavior is a fixed part of your nature.

Some think that God created them with overpowering, unnatural desires, that they are trapped and not responsible (see James 1꞉13-15). That is not true. It cannot be true. Even if they were to accept it as true, they must remember that He can cure and He can heal (see Alma 7꞉10-13; Alma 15꞉8).

The angels of the devil convince some that they are born to a life from which they cannot escape and are compelled to live in sin. The most wicked of lies is that they cannot change and repent and that they will not be forgiven. That cannot be true. They have forgotten the Atonement of Christ

There is also an age-old excuse: "The devil made me do it." Not so! He can deceive you and mislead you, but he does not have the power to force you or anyone else to transgress or to keep you in transgression….

Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies ["temptations" in print version] toward the impure and unnatural. Not so!

Those who so sin are not rejected.

Oh, if I could only convince you that you are a son or a daughter of Almighty God! You have a righteous spiritual power-an inheritance that you have hardly touched. You have an Elder Brother who is your Advocate, your Strength, your Protector, your Mediator, your Physician. Of Him I bear witness. The Lord loves you! You are a child of God. Face the sunlight of truth. The shadows of discouragement, of disappointment, of deviation will be cast behind you…. God bless you, the one. You are loved of Him and of His servants.

Now, in a spirit of sympathy and love, I speak to you who may be struggling against temptations for which there is no moral expression….While these addictions may have devoured, for a time, your sense of morality or quenched the spirit within you, it is never too late.

Pure Christian love, the love of Christ, does not presuppose approval of all conduct. Surely the ordinary experiences of parenthood teach that one can be consumed with love for another and yet be unable to approve unworthy conduct.

We understand why some feel we reject them. That is not true. We do not reject you, only immoral behavior. We cannot reject you, for you are the sons and daughters of God. We will not reject you, because we love you

Did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) ever conduct aversion therapy?

Aversion Therapy at BYU - Detailed information regarding aversion therapy,

The Church never conducted aversion therapies of any sort. However, aversion therapy was conducted at BYU in the 1970s

The Church never conducted aversion therapies of any sort. They never recommended it, and they never mandated it However, like many other places in the western world, aversion therapy was conducted at BYU in the 1970s. At this time, aversion therapy was applied to a number of behaviors. At BYU the therapy was conducted following standards published by professional societies and unlike other places, it was only conducted on adults who gave their permission. The Church does not oversee research at BYU.

In this particular case, a graduate student and his faculty mentor at Brigham Young University conducted a clinical study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality

The Church is a religious body, not a medical institution. People who are members of the Church or go to BYU do a great variety of things. The Church does not take responsibility for everything done by a member or for everything done by someone at BYU (despite what one might think, not everyone at BYU is a member of the Church).

In this particular case, a graduate student and his faculty mentor at Brigham Young University conducted a clinical study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. Ego-dystonic homosexuality is a condition where an individual's same-sex attraction is in conflict with his idealized self-image, creating anxiety and a desire to change. At the time, the American Psychiatric Society considered ego-dystonic homosexuality to be a mental illness, and aversion therapy was one of the standard treatments. Experiments were only run on those who had expressed a desire for the therapy, and all of the subjects indicated they had improved as a result of the therapy. The experiments adhered to the professional standards of the time. As stated in the paper that reported the results of this research, the research was never endorsed by BYU.

Church leadership does not dictate nor oversee the details of scientific research at Brigham Young University. Like many universities, there are many different research projects going on with many different views on many different subjects. The Church is not responsible for every view held by one of its researchers. The church itself has never recommended aversion therapy.

The church has posted on its website an interview with the following quote:

"The Church rarely takes a position on which treatment techniques are appropriate for medical doctors or for psychiatrists or psychologists and so on. The second point is that there are abusive practices that have been used in connection with various mental attitudes or feelings. Over-medication in respect to depression is an example that comes to mind. The aversive therapies that have been used in connection with same-sex attraction have contained some serious abuses that have been recognized over time within the professions. While we have no position about what the medical doctors do (except in very, very rare cases — abortion would be such an example), we are conscious that there are abuses and we don’t accept responsibility for those abuses. Even though they are addressed at helping people we would like to see helped, we can’t endorse every kind of technique that’s been used."

President Kimball once cited reputable medical sources indicating that the practice of homosexuality could be abandoned through treatments, but he did not specify any treatments by name. The point President Kimball wanted to make, and that the church still makes, is that sexual actions can and must be controlled.

The church does not direct or oversee scientific research at BYU and does not mandate what experiments are to be done or not to be done

The church does not direct or oversee scientific research at BYU and does not mandate what experiments are to be done or not to be done. At BYU, as at other universities, students and professors have a variety of opinions and approaches and have significant freedom to pursue their own academic interests.

As an example, retired BYU professor William Bradshaw has presented biological evidence supporting his view that homosexuality is not an acquired tendency and lifestyle.[29] Bradshaw is free to share this view at BYU even though the church does not have a particular position on the causes of same-sex attraction and certainly believes that the lifestyles we follow represent a choice.

In the 1970's, there were a variety of opinions about how to treat mental disorders. Some professors and students were partial to the behaviorist movement to treat mental illnesses while others focused on verbal therapy. Today, the APA recommends cognitive therapies to help people who feel distress about their sexual orientation, but, in the 1970s, it was unclear which approach was best. If a professor or a graduate student favored one approach over another, it was because they favored that approach, not because it was mandated by the Church.

Academic freedom at BYU

Main article: Mormonism and education

The fact is that every member of the BYU community is free to espouse his or her own theories. As long as they remain in line with standards published by the professional societies and with the school’s academic freedom policy, all are free to pursue their own line of thinking. Actually, this situation is one of the requirements for university accreditation, and BYU is an accredited university.

It should also be remembered that, contrary to the popular caricature of the church, Latter-Day Saints are encouraged to think for themselves and find their own answers to questions, without coercion from church leadership. Doctrine and Covenants 58꞉26 reads:

For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

And it was Joseph Smith himself who famously said:

I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. [History of the Church 5:340]

======================= AVERSION ==================================

What was the history of BYU and aversion therapy for treating homosexuality?

Aversion Therapy at BYU - Detailed information regarding aversion therapy,

In the mid-1970s a graduate student, Max McBride, conducted a study entitled Effect of Visual Stimuli in Electric Aversion Therapy

In the mid-1970s a graduate student, Max McBride, conducted a study entitled Effect of Visual Stimuli in Electric Aversion Therapy. It appears that the study was conducted during 1974 and 1975 with the average length of treatment during the study being three months. The results of this study were published in August 1976 as McBride's PhD dissertation in the BYU Department of Psychology. McBride's research has recently been sensationalized and several incorrect claims have been made about his study. The following facts need to be kept in mind as the study is evaluated.

Basis for the study. BYU did not pioneer the use of aversion therapy as a treatment for homosexuality and it ceased use of the therapy decades before the APA stopped recommending the practice. BYU was one of many places where research in this area was done. McBride's dissertation contains over 17 pages of documentation discussing other studies from across the discipline in which aversion therapy had previously been applied to male homosexuality. In fact, the purpose of the McBride's study was not to determine the effectiveness of aversion therapy in treating homosexuality. That question was generally accepted, at the time, to have been satisfactorily answered in the positive as a result of previous studies at other institutions.

Supervision. The study was conducted under the supervision of Dr. D. Eugene Thorne, who also served as McBride's PhD committee chairman. All study procedures followed common medical practice. McBride acknowledges the assistance of medical professionals at the Salt Lake City Veterans Hospital in designing the study and completing the statistical analysis.

Population. The study was limited to ego-dystonic homosexuality and did not involve any treatment of ego-syntonic homosexuality. The volunteers for McBride's study were all men whose same-sex attraction was contrary to their desires and who wanted to change their sexual orientation.

Subjects. McBride discusses the subjects chosen in the following excerpt from his dissertation:

Seventeen male subjects were used in the study, 14 completed treatment. Selection was on the basis of clinical evidence of homosexuality; absence of psychosis (no prior history); desire for treatment; no history of epilepsy, alcoholism or drug addiction.

Disclosure. McBride describes the procedures used to ensure full disclosure of what the subjects were to expect. We quote from his dissertation:

It was mandatory that all subjects chosen to participate sign and have witnessed a prepared statement explaining (a) the experimental nature of the treatment procedure, (b) the use of aversive electric shock, (c) the showing of 35 mm slides that might be construed by subject as possibly offensive, and (d) that Brigham Young University was not in any direct way endorsing the procedures used. This was to insure that all subjects were in full agreement and understanding as to what the treatment procedure would involve, provide and demand from them.

Nature of the study. The techniques used by McBride followed the standard aversion therapy procedures of the time. The volunteers were subjected to electric shocks applied to their upper arms while being shown both clothed and nude pictures of men. They were able to choose to end the shocks by switching to nude and clothed pictures of women.

Materials. The materials used in the study consisted of nude pictures of men and women and pictures of clothed men and women taken from current fashion magazines. None of the pictures displayed or even implied sexual acts. In fact, the thing being investigated in McBride’s study was not the effectiveness of aversion therapy, but the relative value of clothed versus nude pictures in this type of therapeutic procedure.

In the years since the study, some of the study participants have talked publicly about their experiences

In the years since the study, some of the study participants have talked publicly about their experiences. Many of these reports are troubling to read, as are similar reports from participants in studies at other universities and facilities of the time. While it seems likely that the McBride study was traumatic to some of the individuals involved, it must be remembered that participation in the study was voluntary, each participant had a clear explanation beforehand what the study would entail, and participants could leave the study at any time they wanted. Indeed, three of the seventeen participants in the study did not remain to its completion. These points are not mentioned to minimize the experiences of these participants in any manner; they are only made so that the professional and ethical context of the study can be properly evaluated.

It is also important to note that aversion therapy as a treatment for homosexuality was not a major element of BYU research. In the APA task force report, BYU's contribution to the field of aversion therapy was not covered. This is probably because BYU's involvement was too minor to include. Other universities had more participants and many conducted their studies later than BYU.

Did BYU ever use vomiting as part of aversion therapy?

Aversion Therapy at BYU - Detailed information regarding aversion therapy,

Vomiting was not used

McBride's thesis thoroughly describes the methods used to induce aversion. He did not use vomiting. This fact is verified in the interview with Dr. Thorne, available as the FAIR podcast referenced above, as well as by a specific statement to this effect from BYU:

The BYU Counseling Center never practiced therapy that would involve chemical or induced vomiting.[30]

Most of the accusations of using induced vomiting come from: 1) a person who admits that he never underwent therapy and 2) from the "documentary" 8: The Mormon Proposition (which contains several false accusations as detailed here). These two accounts are not consistent with each other. In short, there is no reliable documentation of the use of induced vomiting at BYU.

Did BYU ever force students to undergo aversion therapy?

Aversion Therapy at BYU - Detailed information regarding aversion therapy,

Participation was voluntary

Aversion therapy was completely voluntary at BYU. Participants could enter and leave as they wish. In an interview with FAIR, Dr. Thorne explained that the voluntary nature was essential to get scientific results. He said any type of pressure for the participants to give certain answers would jade the results of the study. For this reason, they would not have accepted referrals from the Honor Code office even if they had been given. There was also a strict separation between what they did and what the honor code office knew about so as to remove any possibility of "pretending" to have certain results to please the honor code office. As reported in the thesis, participants could drop out at any time for whatever reason, as evidenced by the fact that some did.

How does aversion therapy performed at BYU in the 1970s relate to medical and psychological science as understood at that time?

Aversion Therapy at BYU - Detailed information regarding aversion therapy,

Aversion therapy is a standard technique that is still used today for a variety of treatments

Aversion therapy is still used today for a variety of treatments, such as gambling, smoking, alcoholism, and violence. A 2010 article in Psychology Today states "To date, aversion therapy using shock and nausea is the only technique of quitting [smoking] that offers decent gambling odds." [187] The Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders has this entry for aversion therapy:

A patient who consults a behavior therapist for aversion therapy can expect a fairly standard set of procedures. The therapist begins by assessing the problem, most likely measuring its frequency, severity, and the environment in which the undesirable behavior occurs. Although the therapeutic relationship is not the focus of treatment for the behavior therapist, therapists in this tradition believe that good rapport will facilitate a successful outcome. A positive relationship is also necessary to establish the patient's confidence in the rationale for exposing him or her to an uncomfortable stimulus. The therapist will design a treatment protocol and explain it to the patient. The most important choice the therapist makes is the type of aversive stimulus to employ. Depending upon the behavior to be changed, the preferred aversive stimulus is often electric stimulation delivered to the forearm or leg. [188]

Over the years, the methods have been refined and approved. Today, we have decades of research that were not available in the 1970s

Over the years, the methods have been refined and approved. Today, we have decades of research that were not available in the 1970s, giving us a better understanding of where aversion therapy would be effective and where it would not be effective. The methods of the 1970s may seem crude compared to today's standards, but today's standards will probably seem crude in another 40 years. Forms of aversion therapy are still used today by mainstream psychologists to treat a variety of conditions.

History of therapy and homosexuality

Homosexuality was once illegal in many countries, and those convicted were forced into various therapies against their wills.[31]

In 1966, Martin E.P. Seligman conducted a study at the University of Pennsylvania which showed positive results in applying aversion therapy to help people stop engaging in homosexual behavior. According to Seligman, this led to "a great burst of enthusiasm about changing homosexuality [that] swept over the therapeutic community." [189] Research was conducted by researchers at many institutions, including universities like Harvard and King's College in London.

Historically, there were two types of homosexuality that were treated, ego-dystonic homosexuality and ego-syntonic homosexuality. Ego-dystonic homosexuality is a condition where an individual's same-sex attraction is in conflict with his idealized self-image, creating anxiety and a desire to change. Ego-syntonic homosexuality describes a situation where the subject is content with his or her sexual orientation. Ego-dystonic homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychological Association (APA) until 1987, and an ego-dystonic sexual orientation is still considered a mental illness by the World Health Organization (F66.1). [190]

Even after the APA declassified ego-dystonic homosexuality as mental illness, aversion therapy could still be used to treat distress over sexual orientation, though not the sexual orientation itself. Persistent and marked distress about sexual orientation is still classified as a sexual disorder in the DSM-IV under Sexual Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (302.9). It was not until 1994, that the American Medical Association issued a report that stated "aversion therapy is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians" [191] and it was not until 2006 that using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality became a violation of the codes of conduct and professional guidelines of the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association.

In 2009, a task force was commissioned by the American Psychological Association to investigate therapies used to treat homosexuality, including aversion therapy. They reported:

Early research on efforts to change sexual orientation focused heavily on interventions that include aversion techniques. Many of these studies did not set out to investigate harm. Nonetheless, these studies provide some suggestion that harm can occur from aversive efforts to change sexual orientation...

We conclude that there is a dearth of scientifically sound research on the safety of SOCE [sexual orientation change efforts]. Early and recent research studies provide no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes among people who have undergone efforts to change their sexual orientation or the frequency of occurrence of harm because no study to date of adequate scientific rigor has been explicitly designed to do so. Thus, we cannot conclude how likely it is that harm will occur from SOCE. However, studies from both periods indicate that attempts to change sexual orientation may cause or exacerbate distress and poor mental health in some individuals, including depression and suicidal thoughts. The lack of rigorous research on the safety of SOCE represents a serious concern, as do studies that report perceptions of harm (cf. Lilienfeld, 2007). [192]

Ego-syntonic homosexuality was not addressed in the BYU studies, though it was a subject of research performed at other institutions. Furthermore, BYU only treated adults. Other institutions, such as UCLA, treated children as young as 6.[32]

Aversion therapy at other institutions

A significant number of hospitals and universities historically offered aversion therapy as a way to treat homosexuality. It would be impossible to list all of them, but here are a few of the major places where people were involved in research using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality:

Author Year Number Institution Type Publication References and Notes
Max

1935

?

New York University

Aversion therapy

Psychological bulletin

  • Max, Louis William. "Breaking Up a Homosexual Fixation by the Conditioned Reaction Technique: A Case Study," Psychological Bulletin (Washington, D.C.), Vol. 32 (1935): p. 734·
Freund

1960

67

University of Toronto

Aversion apomorphine therapy

Adult sexual interest in children

  • Kurt Freund, "Assessment of pedophilia," in Cook, M. & Howells, K. (eds.), Adult sexual interest in children, London: Academic Press, 1981, pp. 139-179.
James

1962

1

Glenside Hospital (Bristol, U.K.)

Aversion apomorphine therapy

British Medical Journal

Miller

1963

4

Howard University

Hypnotic-Aversion

Journal of the National Medical Association

Thorpe, Schmidt, Brown, Castell

1964

-

Banstead Hospital

Imaginary aversive therapy

Behavior Research Therapy

Golda, Neufelda

1964

39

Guy's Hospital

Imaginary aversive therapy

Behavior Research Therapy

McGuire, Vallance

1965

39

Southern General Hospital

Aversive shock therapy

British Medical Journal

MacCulloch, Pinschof & Feldman

1965

4

Crumpsall Hospital, Manchester, UK

Anticipatory avoidance with aversion shock therapy

Behavior Research and Therapy

  • MacCulloch, M. J., Feldman, M. P. and Pinschof, J. M., "The application of anticipatory avoidance learning to the treatment of homosexuality—III : The sexual orientation method,"] Behaviour Research and Therapy Volume 4, Issue 4, November 1966, Pages 289-299
Solyom & Miller

1965

6

Allan Memorial Institute

Aversion shock therapy

Behavior Research and Therapy

  • Solyom, L., & Miller, S. (1965) A differential conditioning procedure as the initial phase of the behavior therapy of homosexuality. Behavior Research and Therapy, 3, 147-160.
MacCulloch & Feldman

1967

43

Crumpsall Hospital (Manchester, U.K.)

Anticipatory avoidance with aversion shock therapy

British Medical Journal

Bancroft & Marks

1968

-

Institute of Psychiatry and Maudsley Hospital

Electric aversion therapy

Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine

Fookes

1969

27

?

aversion shock therapy

British Journal of Psychiatry

Bancroft

1969

16

?

aversive shock therapy

The British Journal of Psychiatry

McConaghy

1969

40

The University of New South Wales

aversion apomorphine therapy

The British Journal of Psychiatry

Barlow

1973

-

The University of Mississippi

Variety

Behavior Therapy

Birk, Huddleston, Miller, & Cohler

1971

18

Joint project from Harvard and University of Chicago

Aversive shock therapy vs. associative conditioning

Archives of General Psychiatry

  • Lee Birk, MD; William Huddleston, JD; Elizabeth Miller; Bertram Cohler, PhD, "Avoidance Conditioning for Homosexuality," Archives of General Psychiatry. 1971;25(4):314-323. This study, published in 1971, involved eight treated subjects and eight placebo subjects. A follow-up study was conducted two years after the original treatment. The study was published in the Archives of General Psychiatry.
Feldman, MacCulloch, & Orford

1971

63

Crumpsall Hospital

Aversive therapy

-

  • Feldman, M. P., MacCulloch, M. J., & Orford, J. E (1971) Conclusions and speculations. In M. P. Feldman & M. J. MacCulloch, Homosexual behaviour: Therapy and assessment (pp. 156-188), New York: Pergamon Press.
Colson

1972

1

Illinois State University

Olfactory aversion therapy

Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry

  • Charles E. Colson, "Olfactory aversion therapy for homosexual behavior," Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry Volume 3, Issue 3, September 1972, Pages 185-187. Concluded that olfactory aversion therapy provides many advantages over more traditional forms.
Segal & Sims

1972

1

Murray State University

Covert Sensitization

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

Hallam & Rachman

1972

7

King's College, London

aversion shock therapy

Behaviour Research and Therapy

Hanson & Adesso

1972

1

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Desensitization and aversive counter-conditioning

Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry

  • Richard W. Hanson, and Vincent J. Adesso, "A multiple behavioral approach to male homosexual behavior: A case study", Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry Volume 3, Issue 4, December 1972, Pages 323-325. This study took place in 1972, involved a single male subject, and included a follow-up six months from the original treatment. The study was published in the Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry.
McConaghy, Proctor, & Barr

1972

40

Prince Henry Hospital (Sydney, Australia)

Apomorphine aversion conditioning

Archives of Sexual Behavior

Callahan & Leitenberg

1973

23

Carmarillo State Hosp., California

aversion shock therapy

The Journal of Abnormal Psychology

McConaghy & Barr

1973

46

University of New South Wales, Institute of Psychiatry of New South Wales

Classical conditioning, avoidance conditioning

The British Journal of Psychiatry

Tanner

1974

16

Center for Behavior Change

aversion shock therapy

Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry

McConaghy

1975

31

University of New South Wales

Aversion shock therapy

Behaviour Research and Therapy

  • N. McConaghy, "Aversive and positive conditioning treatments of homosexuality", Behaviour Research and Therapy Volume 13, Issue 4, October 1975, pages 309-319 This study used both aversive conditioning against homosexuality and also positive conditioning toward heterosexuality. It concluded that the positive conditioning was ineffective.
Tanner

1975

16

Northeast Guidance Center

Aversion shock therapy

Behavior Therapy

Freeman & Meyer

1975

9

University of Louisville

Aversion shock therapy

Behavior Therapy

McConaghy

1976

157

University of New South Wales

Aversion apomorphine therapy

The British Journal of Psychiatry

James

1978

40

Hollymoor Hospital, England

Anticipatory avoidance, desensitization, hypnosis, anticipatory avoidance

Behavior Therapy

McConaghy, Armstrong, & Blaszczynski

1981

20

University of New South Wales

Aversive therapy

Behavior Research and Therapy

Purpose of psychological therapy

The purpose of therapy is to help patients towards their desired goals. One of the fundamentals in the field is patient self-determination. It is the patient who sets the goals, not the therapist. Aversion therapy, which is still administered today to help smokers, is not administered as a way to torture the subjects for smoking, but to help them achieve their goal of being smoke-free. Similarly, the therapy at BYU was administered to people who felt distress about their sexual lives. The purpose of the therapy was to relieve that stress. The volunteers for the study sought help to change their homosexuality and medical associations of that time recommended this therapy as just one among several.

An analysis of similar aversion therapy studies indicate that they may have caused or exacerbated distress and poor mental health, especially depression and suicidal thoughts. (For more information on suicides, see Same-sex attraction/Suicide.) Whether or not these effects were experienced by the participants at the studies run at BYU could not be determined. There is an inherent risk in therapy for mental illnesses. As with many experiments, the risks were not fully understood at the time they were being run.


Notes

  1. ↑ [citation needed]
  2. ↑ [citation needed]
  3. ↑ Russell M. Nelson, "Choices for Eternity," Worldwide Devotional for Young Single Adults, 15 May 2022 {[link|url=https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/broadcasts/worldwide-devotional-for-young-adults/2022/05/12nelson?lang=eng}}
  4. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "Same-Gender Attraction," Ensign (October 1995): 9.
  5. ↑ "To The One," address given to twelve-stake fireside, Brigham Young University (5 March 1978); reprinted in Boyd K. Packer, That All May Be Edified (Bookcraft, 1982), pp. 186–200, emphasis added; italics in original. GL direct link
  6. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman, "Same Gender Attraction," interview with Church Public Affairs (2006). off-site
  7. ↑ "Orientation," American Psychological Association (last accessed 27 November 2010).
  8. ↑ [citation needed]
  9. ↑ Laumann, Edward O. , The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States 299
  10. ↑ [citation needed]
  11. ↑ Definition of Homosexuality, dictionary.reference.com, s.v. "homosexuality," (last accessed 27 November 2010).
  12. ↑ [citation needed]
  13. ↑ [American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style (Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005), 201.
  14. ↑ Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) Media reference guide (last accessed 27 November 2010).
  15. ↑ [citation needed], (emphasis added)
  16. ↑ [citation needed], (emphasis added)
  17. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "President Kimball Speaks Out on Morality," New Era (October 1980): 39.
  18. ↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, "Reverence and Morality," General Conference (April 1987).
  19. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "Free Agency and Freedom," Brigham Young University 1987-88 Devotional and Fireside Speeches (Provo: BYU Publications, 1988), 46-47; an edited version is available in Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate, Jr., eds., The Book of Mormon: Second Nephi, The Doctrinal Structure (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1989), 13-15.
  20. ↑ First Presidency, letter, 14 November 1991.
  21. ↑ Richard G. Scott, "Making the Right Choices," General Conference (October 1994)., (emphasis added)
  22. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "Same-Gender Attraction," Ensign (October 1995): 9.
  23. ↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, "Stand Strong Against the Wiles of the World," General Conference (Women's Meeting, Sept 1995).
  24. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Ye Are The Temple of God," General Conference (November 2000).
  25. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "The Standard of Truth Has Been Erected," General Conference (October 2003).
  26. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman, "Same Gender Attraction," interview with Church Public Affairs (2006). off-site
  27. ↑ Jeffrey R. Holland, "Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction," Ensign (October 2007): 42-45.
  28. ↑ Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, God Loveth His Children (Intellectual Reserve, 2007).
  29. ↑ G. Todd Christopherson, "Moral Discipline," General Conference (October 2009).
  30. ↑ Bruce C. Hafen, "Elder Bruce C. Hafen Speaks on Same-Sex Attraction," report of address given to Evergreen International annual conference, 19 September 2009.
  31. ↑ Michael Otterson, "Church Responds to HRC Petition," (12 October 2010).
  32. ↑ Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Handbook 2: Administering the Church—2010 (Intellectual Reserve, 2010). Selected Church Policies and Guidelines 21.4.6
  33. ↑ American Psychiatric Association (May 2000). "Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues". Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists.
  34. ↑ [citation needed]
  35. ↑ "Helping Those Who Struggle," 42-45.
  36. ↑ 36.00 36.01 36.02 36.03 36.04 36.05 36.06 36.07 36.08 36.09 36.10 36.11 36.12 36.13 36.14 36.15 36.16 Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermaneutics (Abingdon Press, 2010).
  37. ↑ David F. Greenberg, The Construction of Homosexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), 195-196.
  38. ↑ 38.0 38.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named harper
  39. ↑ D. Michael Quinn, Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example (University of Illinois Press, 2001), 1– ( Index of claims )
  40. ↑ Bruce C. Hafen, "Elder Bruce C. Hafen Speaks on Same-Sex Attraction," report of address given to Evergreen International annual conference, 19 September 2009.
  41. ↑ As quoted by Adam Olson in Maintaining the Course
  42. ↑ [citation needed]
  43. ↑ {{NC||
  44. ↑ [citation needed]
  45. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "President Kimball Speaks Out on Morality," New Era (October 1980): 39.
  46. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Balm of Gilead," General Conference (October 1987).
  47. ↑ "Free Agency and Freedom," Brigham Young University 1987-88 Devotional and Fireside Speeches (Provo: BYU Publications, 1988), 46-47; the edited version printed here is found in Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate, Jr., eds., The Book of Mormon: Second Nephi, The Doctrinal Structure (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1989), 13-15.; cited in Dallin H. Oaks, "Same-Gender Attraction," Ensign (October 2005): 9.
  48. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Covenants," General Conference (October 1990).
  49. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "For Time and All Eternity," General Conference (October 1993).
  50. ↑ Richard G. Scott, "To Be Healed," General Conference (April 1994). (italics in original)
  51. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "Same-Gender Attraction," Ensign (October 1995): 9.
  52. ↑ Richard G. Scott, "Trust in the Lord," General Conference (October 1995).
  53. ↑ Richard G. Scott, "Finding Joy in Life," General Conference (April 1996).
  54. ↑ Neal A. Maxwell, "According to the Desires of [Our Hearts]," General Conference (October 1996).
  55. ↑ Henry B. Eyring, "Do Not Delay," General Conference (October 1999).
  56. ↑ Neal A. Maxwell, "Content With The Things Allotted Unto Us," General Conference (April 2000).
  57. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "He Heals the Heavy Laden," General Conference (October 2006).
  58. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman, "Same Gender Attraction," interview with Church Public Affairs (2006). off-site
  59. ↑ Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, God Loveth His Children (Intellectual Reserve, 2007).
  60. ↑ Jeffrey R. Holland, "Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction," Ensign (October 2007): 42-45.
  61. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Cleansing the Inner Vessel," Ensign (October 2010).
  62. ↑ Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, God Loveth His Children (Intellectual Reserve, 2007). (italics added)
  63. ↑ Interview With Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Lance B. Wickman: "Same-Gender Attraction," (undated).
  64. ↑ The Mormons, Interviews: Jeffrey R. Holland, pbs.org (30 April 2007).
  65. ↑ Address given by Elder Bruce C. Hafen at the Evergreen International annual conference, 19 September 2009.
  66. ↑ Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "The Divine Institution of Marriage," (13 August 2008).
  67. ↑ Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "The Divine Institution of Marriage," (13 August 2008).
  68. ↑ Michael Otterson, Statement to SLC Council, 10 November 2009.
  69. ↑ rich Goode and Nachman Ben-Yehuda, Moral Panics: The Social Construction of Deviance (Wiley-Blackwell, 1994), 147.
  70. ↑ W. Justin Dyer, "book review," Brigham Young University Studies 59 no. 1 (2020), 226.
  71. ↑ Ryan M. Hill and Jeremy W. Pettit, “Suicidal Ideation and Sexual Orientation in College Students: The Roles of Perceived Burdensomeness, Thwarted Belongingness, and Perceived Rejection Due to Sexual Orientation,” Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior 42/5 (October 2012): 567, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1943-278X.2012.00113.x.
  72. ↑ Lars Wichstrøm and Kristinn Hegna, “Sexual orientation and suicide attempt: a longitudinal study of the general Norwegian adolescent population,” Journal of Abnormal Psychology 112/1 (February 2003): 144–151, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12653422/.
  73. ↑ Layne Williams, Amy Fife, Hal Boyd, “No correlation between youth suicide and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” Idaho Statesman (22 September 2019), https://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article235270667.html
  74. ↑ Thomas Joiner, Lonely at the Top: The High Cost of Men's Success, kindle loc. 4114-16. See also his Why People Die By Suicide, loc 1720. Evan M. Kleiman and Richard T. Liu, “Prospective Prediction of Suicide in a Nationally Representative Sample: Religious Service Attendance as a Protective Factor,” The British Journal of Psychiatry 204 (2014): 262, https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.113.128900; Tyler J. VanderWeele et al., “Association between Religious Service Attendance and Lower Suicide Rates among US Women,” JAMA Psychiatry 73/8 (2016): 845–851, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2016.1243. Leilani Greening and Laura Stoppelbein, “Religiosity, Attributional Style, and Social Support as Psychosocial Buffers for African American and White Adolescents’ Perceived Risk for Suicide,” Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior 32/4 (Winter 2002): 404–417, https://doi.org/10.1521/suli.32.4.404.22333; Tobias Teismann and others, “Religious Beliefs Buffer the Impact of Depression on Suicide Ideation,” Psychiatry Research 257 (1 November 2017): 276–278, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2017.07.060. Erminia Colucci and Graham Martin, “Religion and Spirituality along the Suicidal Path,” Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior 38/2 (April 2008): 229–244, https://doi.org/doi:10.1521/suli.2008.38.2.229.The academic sources here are from Dyer, Goodman, and Wood cited below.
  75. ↑ Stephen Cranney, "The LGB Mormon Paradox: Mental, Physical, and Self-Rated Health among Mormon and Non-Mormon LGB Individuals in the Utah Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System," Journal of Homosexuality 64/6 (2017): 731–744, https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2016.1236570.
  76. ↑ Justin Dyer, Michael Goodman, and David Wood, "Religion and Sexual Orientation as Predictors of Utah Youth Suicidality," BYU Studies Quarterly 61/2 (2022), off-site
  77. ↑ James S. McGraw, Meagan Docherty, Jay R. Chinn, and Annette Mahoney, “Family, Faith, and Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviors (STBs) Among LGBTQ Youth in Utah," Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity 20/2 (2023): 257-258, https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000517
  78. ↑ Joiner, Why People Die of Suicide, loc. 1846–49.
  79. ↑ Ritch Savin Williams, interview, “A Look At The Lives of Gay Teens,” All Things Considered, National Public Radio (21 October 2010), http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130732158.
  80. ↑ “The Messaging ‘Don’ts’,” suicidepreventionmessaging.org (accessed 23 January 2024), https://suicidepreventionmessaging.org/safety/messaging-donts
  81. ↑ Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "The Divine Institution of Marriage," (13 August 2008).
  82. ↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, "Reverence and Morality," General Conference (April 1987).
  83. ↑ "An Easter Greeting from the First Presidency," Church News (15 April 1995), 1.
  84. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "Same-Gender Attraction," Ensign (October 2005): 9.
  85. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "Same-Gender Attraction," Ensign (October 2005): 9.
  86. ↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, "Why We Do Some of the Things We Do," Ensign (Nov 1999): 52. off-site
  87. ↑ Jeffrey R. Holland, "Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction," Ensign (October 2007): 42-45.
  88. ↑ Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, God Loveth His Children (Intellectual Reserve, 2007).
  89. ↑ Bruce C. Hafen, "Elder Bruce C. Hafen Speaks on Same-Sex Attraction," report of address given to Evergreen International annual conference, 19 September 2009.
  90. ↑ Michael Otterson, "Church Responds to HRC Petition," (12 October 2010).
  91. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "Protect the Children," Ensign (November 2012).
  92. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "To Young Men Only," priesthood session, general conference, 2 October 1976. (emphasis added)
  93. ↑ See Boyd K. Packer, The Holy Temple (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1980), 162. ISBN 0884944115.; James E. Talmage, The House of the Lord: a study of holy sanctuaries, ancient and modern (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Deseret News, 1912), 100.
  94. ↑ http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/ye-are-the-temple-of-god
  95. ↑ United Nations General Recommendation 19 to the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women; cited at "What Is Sexual Harassment?" (accessed 10 March 2012) (emphasis added)
  96. ↑ As cited at "What Is Sexual Harassment?" (accessed 10 March 2012) (emphasis added)
  97. ↑ Family Acceptance in Adolescence and the Health of LGBT Young Adults
  98. ↑ Jessica Gail, "Utah, one of the worst places to be LGBT and homeless," Utah Public Radio, June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10, 2012. http://upr.org/post/utah-one-worst-places-be-lgbt-and-homeless
  99. ↑ Nicholas Ray, "Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered youth: an epidemic of homelessness," National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute and the National Coalition for Homelessness, 2006. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/HomelessYouth.pdf
  100. ↑ "Throw-Away Kids," originally published in qSaltLake, Aug 12,2008. Online copy at affirmation.org accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.affirmation.org/homelessness/throw-away_kids.shtml.
  101. ↑ Nicholas Ray, "Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered youth: an epidemic of homelessness," National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute and the National Coalition for Homelessness, 2006. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/HomelessYouth.pdf
  102. ↑ "Throw-Away Kids," originally published in qSaltLake, Aug 12,2008. Online copy at affirmation.org accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.affirmation.org/homelessness/throw-away_kids.shtml.
  103. ↑ "Growing up LGBT in America: HRC Youth Survey Report, Key Findings," Human Rights Campaign, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/Growing-Up-LGBT-in-America_Report.pdf.
  104. ↑ "Growing up LGBT in America: HRC Youth Survey Report, Key Findings," Human Rights Campaign, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/Growing-Up-LGBT-in-America_Report.pdf.
  105. ↑ Rebecca Trounson, "Gay teens less likely to be happy, nationwide survey finds," The Salt Lake Tribune. June 7, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/54262370-68/gay-percent-lgbt-survey.html.csp.
  106. ↑ Melinda Rogers, "LGBT youth find safe haven at homeless drop-in shelter," The Salt Lake Tribune. June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54274630-78/lgbt-utah-youths-center.html.csp.
  107. ↑ Melinda Rogers, "LGBT youth find safe haven at homeless drop-in shelter," The Salt Lake Tribune. June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54274630-78/lgbt-utah-youths-center.html.csp.
  108. ↑ Melinda Rogers, "LGBT youth find safe haven at homeless drop-in shelter," The Salt Lake Tribune. June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54274630-78/lgbt-utah-youths-center.html.csp.
  109. ↑ Understanding and Helping Those With Homosexual Problems
  110. ↑ "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," General Conference ({{{date}}}).
  111. ↑ "Same-Gender Attraction," General Conference (2006).
  112. ↑ "Same-Gender Attraction," General Conference (2006).
  113. ↑ "The Best Thing I Can Do for Leigh," General Conference (2009).
  114. ↑ Quinton L. Cook, "Our Father’s Plan—Big Enough for All His Children," General Conference (April 2009).
  115. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1969), 77–78.
  116. ↑ Connell "Rocky" O’Donovan, "‘The Abominable and Detestable Crime against Nature’: A Revised History of Homosexuality and Mormonism, 1840-1980," Connell O’Donovan (website), last revised 2004, http://www.connellodonovan.com/abom.html. This is a revised version of Connell "Rocky" O’Donovan, "‘The Abominable and Detestable Crime Against Nature’: A Brief History of Homosexuality and Mormonism, 1840-1980," in Multiply and Replenish: Mormon Essays in Sex and Family, Essays on Mormonism Series, No. 7, ed. Brent Corcoran (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1994), 138-40. In that earlier version, he omits the word "absurd."
  117. ↑ Compare Welfare Services Packet 1, 8: "homosexuality is possible only with others."
  118. ↑ See also Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, ix–x.
  119. ↑ Havelock Ellis, Studies in the Psychology of Sex, vol. I (1905; repr., New York: Random House, 1942), 240, italics in original, https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.179937/page/n287/mode/2up.
  120. ↑ Albert Moll, The Sexual Life of the Child, trans. Eden Paul (1912; repr., London: George Allen & Unwin, Ltd: 1923), 265, https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.200468/page/n275/mode/2up.
  121. ↑ Ibid, 267, italics added.
  122. ↑ Ibid, 313-14, emphasis added.
  123. ↑ A[lbert] Moll, Les perversions de l’instinct genital: étude sur l’inversion sexuelle basée sur des documents officiels, 6ième edition, traduit par Pactet et Romme (Paris: Georges Carré et C. Naud, 1897), 197, 200, 207-209, https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_tpoaAAAAYAAJ/page/n249/mode/2up.
  124. ↑ Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, 78. Taylor Petrey's Tabernacles of Clay claims that because of Kimball’s views, LDS Social Services needed to "offer some clarification." But masturbation can hardly "lead … to homosexuality" if Kimball believed it to be a homosexual act in itself. Even mutual masturbation, for Kimball, is only a stepping stone to "total homosexuality."
  125. ↑ Marcel T. Saghir, Eli Robins, and Bonnie Walbran, "Homosexuality: II. Sexual Behavior of the Male Homosexual," Archives of General Psychiatry 21 (August 1969): 219-23, underlining in original represents a subject heading.
  126. ↑ Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, 215.
  127. ↑ Ibid., x, 15.
  128. ↑ Kimball, "Love Versus Lust," BYU Speeches of the Year 1965, 30.
  129. ↑ Gregory L. Smith, "Feet of Clay: Queer Theory and the Church of Jesus Christ," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 43 (2021): 209–213.
  130. ↑ Ladelle McWhorter, "From Masturbator to Homosexual: The Construction of the Sex Pervert," in Cyd Cipolla et al, eds., Queer Feminist Science Studies: A Reader (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2017), 118.
  131. ↑ McWhorter, "From Masturbator to Homosexual," 120, emphasis added.
  132. ↑ Smith, "Feet of Clay," 225–27.
  133. ↑ Smith, "Feet of Clay," 214–15.
  134. ↑ An Interview with Elder Dallin H. Oaks on Homosexuality and AIDS
  135. ↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, "Reverence and Morality," General Conference (April 1987).
  136. ↑ Understanding and Helping Those Who Have Homosexual Problems
  137. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman, "Same Gender Attraction," interview with Church Public Affairs (2006). off-site
  138. ↑ Jeffrey R. Holland, "Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction," Ensign (October 2007): 42-45. off-site
  139. ↑ Brigham Young, Speech given in Joint Session of the Utah Legislature, February 5, 1952 in Fred Collier, The Teachings of President Brigham Young (Salt Lake City, UT: Collier's Publishing, 1987), 43.
  140. ↑ [5]
  141. ↑ Neal A. Maxwell, "Those Seedling Saints Who Sit Before You," CES Symposium on the Old Testament, August 1983, https://si.lds.org/library/talks/ces-symposium-addresses/those-seedling-saints-who-sit-before-you. [Note that here Elder Maxwell follows usage of homosexuality that was then current, especially among Church leaders: they saw homosexuality as behavior not as an orientation. Thus homosexual sin can be cured—for homosexual temptation or orientation is not a sin. (Though it is a burden for many that might be lightened or removed in accord with the Lord’s will.)]
  142. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "How To Survive in Enemy Territory," address on the centennial of Seminary program, 22 January 2012, http://seminary.lds.org/history/centennial/eng/how-to-survive-in-enemy-territory/.
  143. ↑ Russell M. Nelson, "Decisions for Eternity," general conference, October 2013 [footnotes make it clear he is speaking of same-sex marriage; these have been omitted here.
  144. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "Leadership Training: Chastity and Fidelity," video, [1:01-1:14 timestamp] https://www.lds.org/pages/lt/hwb84sun4af0o2tjwwyt?lang=eng.
  145. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "No Other Gods," general conference, October 2013, https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/no-other-gods.p27.
  146. ↑ Church statement, cited in Tad Walsh, "LDS Church responds to inquiries about Harry Reid comment," Deseret News (7 November 2013), https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865590140/LDS-Church-responds-to-inquiries-about-Harry-Reid-comment.html. See also "Church Responds to Inquiries on ENDA, Same-Sex Marriage," press release (11 November 2013), http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-to-inquiries-on-enda—same-sex-marriage
  147. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "No Other Gods," Ensign (November 2013), https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/no-other-gods?lang=eng.
  148. ↑ Daniel Woodruff, "LDS apostle explains church's evolution on LGBT issues, says members' politics may differ from doctrine," KUTV (14 March 2015), http://www.kutv.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/Tonight-at-10-LDS-apostle-opens-up-on-evolution-of-church-s-support-for-new-antidiscrimination-law-102821.shtml#.VQZN9i6zFQB.
  149. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "Love One Another: A Discussion on Same-Sex Attraction," https://mormonandgay.lds.org/articles/love-one-another-a-discussion-on-same-sex-attraction.
  150. ↑ "Church Leaders," <https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/gay/leaders?lang=eng> (21 October 2020). This comes from the Church's official website on same-sex attraction and the same statement remains there today.
  151. ↑ Church Newsroom, "April 2019 General Conference News and Announcements," (3 April 2019), https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/first-presidency-messages-general-conference-leadership-session-april-2019#oaks
  152. ↑ McKay Coppins, "The Most American Religion," <https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/01/the-most-american-religion/617263/> (18 December 2020).
  153. ↑ Church News Staff, "President Dallin H. Oaks: ‘Divine Love in the Father’s Plan’," Church News, April 3, 2022, https://www.thechurchnews.com/general-conference/2022-04-03/president-oaks-april-2022-general-conference-gods-love-salvation-eternal-marriage-248346.
  154. ↑ Mosiah 18꞉9.
  155. ↑ "Church Provides Context on Handbook Changes Affecting Same-Sex Marriages," <https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/handbook-changes-same-sex-marriages-elder-christofferson> (21 October 2020).
  156. ↑ Laumann, Edward O. , The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States 299 link
  157. ↑ A New Therapy on Faith and Sexual Identity: Psychological Association Revises Treatment Guidelines to Allow Counselors to Help Clients Reject Their Same-Sex Attractions
  158. ↑ [citation needed] was footnoted as "task.force"
  159. ↑ Laumann, Edward O. , The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States 299
  160. ↑  [needs work] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/87/6/869
  161. ↑  [needs work] http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0021-843X.112.1.144
  162. ↑ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2079706 [citation needed]
  163. ↑ http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a923933982~db=all~jumptype=rss [citation needed]
  164. ↑ Katherine Ellen Foley, "Some animals kill each other after sex because their distinction between hungry and flirty is blurred," last modified February 14, 2017, https://qz.com/909885/some-animals-kill-each-other-after-sex-because-their-distinction-between-hungry-and-flirty-is-blurred/.
  165. ↑ Ty Mansfield, "'Mormons can be gay, they just can’t do gay': Deconstructing Sexuality and Identity from an LDS Perspective," (presentation, FairMormon Conference, Provo, UT, 2014).
  166. ↑ "The Conjugal vs. Revisionist Views of Marriage," Discussing Marriage, accessed May 4, 2021, https://discussingmarriage.org/the-conjugal-vs-revisionist-views-of-marriage/#.YJG5gkhKjRZ.
  167. ↑ An address given at the Church Educational System fireside at BYU on 1 February 1998; reproduced in Boyd K. Packer, "The Peaceable Followers of Christ," Ensign (April 1998): 62.
  168. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Revelation in a Changing World," Ensign (November 1989): 16.
  169. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "A Tribute to the Rank and File of the Church," Ensign (May 1980): 65.
  170. ↑ Scott Taylor, "Mormon youths support President Packer through Facebook," Deseret News (11 October 2010) off-site
  171. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman, "Same Gender Attraction," interview with Church Public Affairs (2006). off-site
  172. ↑ Gregory L. Smith, "Shattered Glass: The Traditions of Mormon Same-Sex Marriage Advocates Encounter Boyd K. Packer," Mormon Studies Review 23/1 (2011): 61–85. off-site wiki
  173. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Ye Are The Temple of God," General Conference (November 2000).
  174. ↑ Bishop Keith B. McMullin, "Remarks," given at 20th annual Evergreen International conference held in Salt Lake City, 18 September 2010.
  175. ↑ "I was asked on one occasion by President Kimball if I would care to talk to the students at Brigham Young University on the subject of perversion. I begged him to excuse me from doing it, for I thought myself incapable of talking on that subject to a mixed audience. Later I repented of having declined the invitation and worked with great care to do as he had asked me to do. While "To the One" was given before a large audience at a Brigham Young University fireside, I singled out the afflicted individual for help, and also tried to inform and guide anyone who might have responsibility to help "the one" find his way." - Boyd K. Packer, That All May Be Edified (Bookcraft, 1982), 154.
  176. ↑ "To The One," address given to twelve-stake fireside, Brigham Young University (5 March 1978); reprinted in Boyd K. Packer, That All May Be Edified (Bookcraft, 1982), 186-200, emphasis added; italics in original.
  177. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Covenants," General Conference (Oct 1990). (emphasis added)
  178. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "The Brilliant Morning of Forgiveness," General Conference (October 1995). (emphasis added)
  179. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Ye Are The Temple of God," General Conference (November 2000). (emphasis added) (italics in original)
  180. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "The Standard of Truth Has Been Erected," General Conference (October 2003). (emphasis added)
  181. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "I Will Remember Your Sins No More," General Conference (April 2006). (emphasis added)
  182. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "Talk to the All-Church Coordinating Council," (18 May 1993).
  183. ↑ See, for example, (Gay) Mormon Guy, "President Packer's Talk... From a (Gay) Mormon Perspective," blog post (14 October 2010) off-site
  184. ↑ Editorial, "A call for civility following Mormon Apostle Boyd K. Packer’s address," Deseret News (10 October 2010).
  185. ↑ Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's (Plume, 1990), 112, 139-141, 151-154. ISBN 0452264987
  186. ↑ For extensive examples and a discussion, see Gregory L. Smith, "Shattered Glass: The Traditions of Mormon Same-Sex Marriage Advocates Encounter Boyd K. Packer," Mormon Studies Review 23/1 (2011): 61–85. off-site wiki
  187. ↑ Nigel Barber, Ph.D., "Smoking: Most effective quitting technique little known," February 17, 2010
  188. ↑ "Aversion Therapy," Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders
  189. ↑ Seligman, Martin E.P., What You Can Change and What You Can't: The Complete Guide to Self Improvement Knopf, 1993; ISBN 0-679-41024-4, p. 156
  190. ↑ "Mental and behavioural disorders," International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision Version for 2007
  191. ↑ "Health Care Needs of Gay Men and Lesbians in the U.S.," American Medical Association Report, 1994
  192. ↑ "APA Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation." (2009). Report of the Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Question: What is the scriptural basis for the restriction on homosexual sexual behavior in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
  1. REDIRECTThe Family: A Proclamation to the World#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?
Articles about Plural marriage
Doctrinal foundation of plural marriage
Introduction of plural marriage
Plural marriage in Utah
End of plural marriage


Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual: "Do not speculate about whether plural marriage is a requirement for the celestial kingdom"

Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual, LESSON 140:

Do not speculate about whether plural marriage is a requirement for the celestial kingdom. We have no knowledge that plural marriage will be a requirement for exaltation.[1]

Gospel Topics: "During the years that plural marriage was publicly taught, all Latter-day Saints were expected to accept the principle as a revelation from God"

Gospel Topics on LDS.org:

During the years that plural marriage was publicly taught, all Latter-day Saints were expected to accept the principle as a revelation from God. Not all, however, were expected to live it. Indeed, this system of marriage could not have been universal due to the ratio of men to women. Church leaders viewed plural marriage as a command to the Church generally, while recognizing that individuals who did not enter the practice could still stand approved of God. Women were free to choose their spouses, whether to enter into a polygamous or monogamous union, or whether to marry at all. Some men entered plural marriage because they were asked to do so by Church leaders, while others initiated the process themselves; all were required to obtain the approval of Church leaders before entering a plural marriage.[2]

Charles W. Penrose (Improvement Era): "it is not stated that plural marriage is thus essential"

Charles W. Penrose in the September 1912 Improvement Era:

Question 4: Is plural or celestial marriage essential to a fulness of glory in the world to come?
Answer: Celestial marriage is essential to a fulness of glory in the world to come, as explained in the revelation concerning it; but it is not stated that plural marriage is thus essential.[3]

Did early Mormon leaders teach the plural marriage was a requirement for exaltation?

Some 19th century Church leaders taught that plural marriage was a requirement for those wishing to enter the highest degree of the celestial kingdom

To obey the Lord's commands in all things is necessary for exaltation. (Our inevitable failure to live perfectly requires the grace of Christ's atonement.) Members of the Church in, say, 1860 who refused to follow the counsel of prophets and apostles put their spiritual standing in jeopardy. Likewise, members who refuse to obey present counsel are at risk.

Because Mormons do not currently practice plural marriage, does this mean that early leaders who taught that is was required were wrong?

The purpose of modern prophets is to give the Saints the will of God in their particular circumstances

Joseph Smith wrote specifically of the issue of plural marriage:

This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed...in obedience there is joy and peace unspotted, unalloyed; and as God has designed our happiness—and the happiness of all His creatures, he never has—He never will institute an ordinance or give a commandment to His people that is not calculated in its nature to promote that happiness which He has designed, and which will not end in the greatest amount of good and glory to those who become the recipients of his law and ordinances. [4]

LDS doctrine also holds that the prophet, when speaking in an official capacity, speaks on behalf of the Lord:

whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same. (D&C 1꞉38)

Critics of the Church often come out of an inerrantist background, or draw on arguments first formulated by religious inerrantists or fundamentalists. In an inerrantist religion, God's instructions cannot change with circumstances—if they did, then the Biblical record would not be sufficient, on its own, to guide us. Since inerrantists require, above all, that the Bible be the sole authority, they must assume that God's requirements are always the same.

Bible examples

However, even the Bible gives many examples of God giving new instructions because of new circumstances, or contravening previous instructions:

In each case, failure to obey carried significant penalties. Yet, when proper authority altered or rescinded a command, spiritual disaster followed those who did not obey the new instructions.

John Taylor

President John Taylor said:

Where did this commandment come from in relation to polygamy? It also came from God. It was a revelation given unto Joseph Smith from God, and was made binding upon His servants. When this system was first introduced among this people, it was one of the greatest crosses that ever was taken up by any set of men since the world stood. Joseph Smith told others; he told me, and I can bear witness of it, "that if this principle was not introduced, this Church and kingdom could not proceed." When this commandment was given, it was so far religious, and so far binding upon the Elders of this Church that it was told them if they were not prepared to enter into it, and to stem the torrent of opposition that would come in consequence of it, the keys of the kingdom would be taken from them. When I see any of our people, men or women, opposing a principle of this kind, I have years ago set them down as on the high road to apostacy, and I do to-day; I consider them apostates, and not interested in this Church and kingdom. [5]

If early Church leaders taught that plural marriage was required, does this mean that current members are not capable of achieving exaltation?

There is no doctrine in the Church that states that plural marriage is the norm, or that it is something that will be required for exaltation

The fact that the modern Church does not approve of or practice polygamy does not mean that present members of the Church believe that the principle of plural marriage is false—rather, they believe that it is a principle only to be practiced when the Lord commands it for His purposes.(See Jacob 2꞉27-30.) There is no doctrine in the Church that states that plural marriage is the norm, or that it is something that will be required for exaltation.

Does D&C 132 state that polygamy is required for our exaltation?

The verse that is cited as supporting this cannot be logically read as a support of polygamy being required for exaltation

Some critics have claimed that D&C 132:4 supports the notion that polygamy is required for exaltation in the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.[6] The text reads as follows:

For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory

There are a number of problems with the assumption that this supports polygamy. The following points should demonstrate the appropriate context and thus provide a better exegesis of the relevant passages:

  • An 1831 revelation through Joseph Smith defines the everlasting covenant as "the fulness of my gospel, sent forth unto the children of men, that they might have life and be made partakers of the glories which are to be revealed in the last days" (D&C 66:2; see also 133:57). All mortal who inherit celestial glory will enter into this covenant (D&C 76:101; D&C 131:2), which is comprised of bonds that cannot be broken (D&C 78:11).
  • The everlasting covenant existed even before the world was organized. "Wherefore, I say unto you that I have sent unto you mine everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning" (D&C 49:9; italics added). From the beginning, God has made covenants with mortals on earth and as they comply with them, they are blessed with exaltation (D&C 6:1, 14:7, 132:23). Compliance begins with baptism (D&C 22:1-4) and is completed through temple ordinances including eternal marriage sealings (D&C 131:2, 132:4, 18-20).
  • The Lord's pattern is to reveal the everlasting covenant to believers on earth. Then, when it is lost through apostasy, He reveals it again to a living prophet as a "new" covenant. That prophet is authorized to teach and is given priesthood authority to administer the requisite ordinances. Joseph Smith taught "…in all ages of the world, whenever the Lord has given a dispensation of the priesthood to any man by actual revelation, or any set of men, this power has always been given" (D&C 128:9).
  • The scriptures indicate that this covenant was made with Adam (Moses 6:54-55), Enoch (JST Genesis 9:21-23, 13:13), Noah (Genesis 9:16), Abraham (Genesis 17:7, 13, 19), Jacob (1 Chronicles 16:17), and Moses and the Children of Israel (Leviticus 24:8, Numbers 25:13, Jeremiah 32:40). Although Christ came in the meridian of time, He is the mediator of this covenant (Hebrews 13:20). Joseph Smith taught that the everlasting covenant would be reestablished through him (D&C 1:17-22; see also 15) "to be a light to the world, and to be a standard for my people, and for the Gentiles to seek to it, and to be a messenger before my face to prepare the way before me" (D&C 42:9).
  • The first public references to the new and everlasting covenant of marriage came in May 1843 when the Prophet taught that "[w]e have no claim in our eternal comfort in relation to eternal things unless our actions and contracts and all things tend to this end." Then two months later, on July 16, he became more specific. According to William Clayton, "He [Joseph Smith] showed that a man must enter into an everlasting covenant with his wife [notice the use of the singular] in this world or he will have no claim on her in the next."
  • The verses surrounding verse 4 explain that once the covenant is revealed to a people, this covenant must be obeyed—that is, once the sealing ordinance is introduced among God’s followers on earth, they must marry according to that covenant or incur divine condemnation. The revelation reads:

4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

5 For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.

6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.[7]
  • Later verses in the revelation demonstrate that the "covenant" that must be obeyed is eternal marriage, not plural marriage. Verse 19 promises exaltation to a man who marries a wife monogamously by proper authority and they live worthily. The threat of damnation in these verses is directed at individuals who have the opportunity to be sealed in eternal marriage, but instead choose a civil union or some other form of matrimony. They are "damned" in the sense that they "remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity" (D&C 132:17) and are not married in the next life. This threat of eternal consequences is similar to that accompanying other covenants and ordinances. For example, a person cannot reject baptism when the opportunity is presented and thereafter expect a second chance to accept it without penalties (see Alma 34:33-35; D&C 45:2).
  • The revelation further explains how a husband and "a wife" will be exalted if they are sealed by proper authority and they live worthily: "Verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, . . . [it] shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things" (D&C 132:19). Modern polygamists are all condemned because their marriages are not authorized. See D&C 132:18, 38.

Verse 19 does make use of the indefinite article "a wife" instead of a possessive pronoun (i.e. "his wife") or the definite article (i.e. "the wife" which wouldn't make sense grammatically), but that can simply be because both monogamous and polygamous marriages are in harmony with the covenant.

What all of these points should demonstrate is that the covenant of eternal marriage was necessary for exaltation and not specifically polygamous sealings.

D&C 132 itself says that a man must marry a wife "by [God's] word, which is his law". Thus, it is likely that plural marriage was necessary for exaltation when commanded (and exaltation would be an appropriate reward for keeping such an extremely difficult commandment) and it is not necessary for exaltation now since the commandment was rescinded by the Lord's word to his prophet Wilford Woodruff in 1890.



Source(s) of the criticism
Critical sources

Notes

  1. ↑ "LESSON 140: Doctrine and Covenants 132:1–2, 34–66," Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual, 488 (2013).
  2. ↑ "Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah", Gospel Topics (2013)
  3. ↑ "Peculiar Questions Briefly Answered," Improvement Era 15:11 (September 1912)
  4. ↑ Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 volumes, edited by Brigham H. Roberts, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957), 5:135. Volume 5 link
  5. ↑ John Taylor, "Our Religion Is From God," (7 April 1866) Journal of Discourses 11:221.
  6. ↑ Jeremy Runnells, "Letter to a CES Director" April 2013 edition
  7. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 132:4–6

Question: What is sexism?

Introduction to Question

It has become increasingly common for feminist critics of the Church (whether member or non-member) to assert that many things about its practice, belief, and history are sexist. In order to adequately respond to this criticism, it will be necessary to define sexism so that we can all be sharp moral thinkers about this and other important issues. Having something deemed sexist is a serious accusation to face and Latter-day Saints should be prepared to respond intelligently but also sensitvely to those that have faced sexism and perceive it in the Church.

In the Sunday Afternoon session of the October 2017 General Conference of the Church, Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles taught that "[w]e need to embrace God’s children compassionately and eliminate any prejudice, including racism, sexism, and nationalism. Let it be said that we truly believe the blessings of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ are for every child of God."[1] Elder Neil L. Andersen of the Quorum of the Twelve quoted Elder Ballard's words favorably and affirmatively in that very same session.[2]

The Book of Mormon boldly declares that God "inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile."[3] It also informs us that “the Lord esteemeth all flesh in one”.[4] Finally, it tells us that we, as God’s children, “shall ​​​not​ esteem one flesh above another, or one man shall not think himself above another”.[5]

See also: Question: Are the scriptures misogynistic/sexist?

Sexism is condemned by God.

With that in mind, let's explore the definition of sexism philosophically. Doing so may help ameliorate some concerns that women and men have regarding the Church and the perceived sexism within it.

Those who believe that they have substantive philosophical or scriptural objections to the arguments presented in this article are free to make them to FAIR editors at this link.

Both the main body and footnotes of this article contain valuable information regarding this question and we encourage reviewing both.

Response to Question

To respond to this question, we'll need to gradually construct and explain the definition of sexism that most people hold to today. We'll start with what most consider the defining or central belief of sexism.

Belief in the Superior Moral Worth of One of the Sexes

The first very obvious definition of sexism has to do with the belief of the inherent increase or decrease between the two genders in terms of moral worth: men being inherently superior to women or women being inherently superior to men. When we say "moral worth" we mean that, for instance, if we had two men and two women tied to two strands of a train track and we get to decide who lives and dies by pulling or not pulling a lever, we would prefer to save the two men over the two women because they are more valuable to long term successes of a particular population. This inherent moral worth is supposedly recognized in either men or women because of a particular positive or negative characteristic shared by one sex but not the other. If you believe that any man is going to be inherently more intelligent than a woman, for instance, you may want to only allow men to be your leaders and do everything you can to save men from danger like the trolley problem just described. You'll assign more inherent moral worth to men because of their greater intelligence. Thus, moral worth decides the kinds of opportunities that we afford to men or women depending upon how much inherent moral worth we recognize in them and that moral worth is assigned because of things we consider positive characteristics like strength, intelligence, etc or things we consider negative characteristics like maybe sloth or neuroticism. All can agree that this is sexism.

Important to note here that whether we consider a particular kind of characteristic positive or negative is a function of the morality we subscribe to.[6] For instance, a person who believes in virtue theory as taught by Aristotle and believes that our telos is to exhibit positive traits like courage and altruism will believe that any antithetical and corresponding vice such as cowardice and egotism are negative. Someone that believes in divine command theory and believes that God has commanded us to be cowardly and egotistical may not consider those traits negative.

Misogyny and Misandry

We need to add to our definition something about misogyny and misandry in connection to sexism. Misogyny is defined simply as the hatred of women or the hatred a single woman because she's a woman. Misandry is defined as the hatred of men or the hatred a single man because he is a man. When you hate a man or woman because they are a man or woman, it is necessarily the case that you have a hatred of all men or all women. If you have a hatred of all men or women, you are a misogynist or misandrist. If you have a hatred of a particular person because they are a man or woman, you're are a misandrist or misogynist. If you have misogyny or misandry in your heart as an attitude towards women or men, you will, by definition, also believe yourself as superior to women or men which is sexism. You will also likely (but not necessarily) deny them opportunities on the basis of their gender. You will be slightly more likely to commit acts of violence against them or verbally hurt them. There are times when people can have misogyny or misandry in their heart that we can empathize with even though that misogyny or misandry is still wrong. For example, some man may have some misogyny in his heart because he has been hurt too many times by women whom he has dated. He can exclaim loudly his disdain or hatred of women. His hatred will come with a reason that he's conjured in his mind. "I hate women!" "Why do you hate women?" "They're liars and cheaters!" We have a categorical statement from the man. All women are liars and cheaters.

Now, the vast majority of people who are in this type of situation quickly recognize that they've made a passionate and obviously wrong claim as they talk through their frustrations with someone. However, it still remains a fact that this man made a claim about women that comments on their inherent moral worth as human beings and gives a reason for that perceived lesser worth. Misandry or misogyny is necessarily connected to sexism. These people's hatred of women or men and the necessarily sexist beliefs they'll adopt because of that hatred are of course still wrong, but we can empathize with that misogyny/misandry and sexism to an appropriate degree and seek, with love and by the Spirit, to heal their hearts of the pain they've felt that is causing the very generalized, disdainful attitude of and belief about men or women.

Another example of misogyny or misandry would be seen if, for instance, if two children, one a boy and the other a girl, can come to a person's door on Halloween and that person can intend to give both children candy but deny giving candy to one of the children when they see that that child is a girl. In this example, we don't have any reason to deny the candy to the girl other than an irrational hatred of all women. With the belief of an increase in moral worth between sexes, we're valuing men, for instance, for a very particular characteristic they supposedly all have inherently over all women. With misogyny and misandry, we hate either men or women and thus don't want to provide them certain things or opportunities for things. The belief above might be called rational sexism and misogyny/misandry might be called irrational sexism. Misogyny/Misandry differ themselves from the belief above because they're passionate and irrational. They have a necessary connection to sexism though.

Of course, misogyny or misandry do not have to be manifested by explicit, passionate rhetoric but can also be manifested through more subtle statements of aversion, contempt, dislike, or prejudice. The key, as before discussed, is to carefully analyze when someone is making a sincere affirmation of truth and when they’re not. That can only be done with accuracy in the experiential moment.

Important to note is that either misandry or misogyny must be coupled by the absence of hatred for the other sex or merely less hatred for the other sex in order to be connected to sexism. If one is both a misandrist and a misogynist and hates them both equally then they are perhaps more accurately described as a misanthrope: someone who hates humanity as a whole. A person can hate both sexes equally and be merely a misanthrope and not a sexist. They can hate both sexes but hate one more than the other and be both a misanthrope and a sexist. This latter attitude might be termed unequal misanthropy.

One can now see the tight association between sexism and misandry/misogyny. They're not the same, but closely related. One is a belief about the sexes, the other is an attitude toward the sexes. Both can shape the types of opportunities that we want to afford to either.

Many today seem to operate under a very different definition of misogyny and it basically is "anything that I don't like". For example, many condemn the pro-life or anti-abortion political position as being misogynistic. In reality, it isn't misogynistic at all. It's a position that wants to enact civil legislation to protect the unborn from unjust and premature death. Many feminists see access to abortion as liberation from the benighted fetters of child-bearing, child-rearing, and family life. Moral people see access to abortion as depriving women of their greatest flourishing and superpower. In a similarly irrational vein, some people condemn any unflattering portrayal of a person that is a woman as misogynistic. The author recently heard a Lutheran pastor say that he hates the book of Hosea because of its language—language he describes as "extremely misogynistic" and "so sexist and misogynistic".[7] What was that misogynistic rhetoric? The use of the motif of an unfaithful wife or prostitute to describe Israel's idolatry and apostasy. That's not misogyny, that's using a morally negative and accurate motif to describe idolatry and apostasy. This definition of misogyny and its application in modern religious and political discourse is similar to a child being denied a cookie from the cookie jar or a young man being denied 100$ to buy some Nike shoes and that child or teen asking their parents why their parents hate them. All rational minds should be aware of this definition and application of "misogyny", reject them and refute them whenever they are presented, and thus cut them at their roots in culture.

Now we should move into discussion of stereotypes.

Stereotypes

We recognize the existence of stereotypes: ideas that people can have about the attributes about another specific segment of the human population. Some of these stereotypes can be true and some can be untrue. Many believe that the belief in stereotypes about a certain group of people is inherently harmful.

It is certainly true that stereotypes can lead to discrimination. It's a much more debatable thing to affirm that the belief in stereotypes is of itself discrimination.

We recognize that a lot of our humor as human beings is built on playing on stereotypes. The animated sitcom The Simpsons is famous for how it plays comedically on all the stereotypes that one can find in the United States. Some would say that the use of stereotypes in humor is wrong. But that also seems debatable. Does a joke really harm anyone? Especially when the content of jokes is not sincerely believed by the one relaying it? To be sure, some things relayed by comedians are the truth as they perceive it told as jokes. Detecting playful, rhetorical elbows to the rib, on the one hand, and detecting sincere affirmations cloaked as jokes seems to most often be a matter of listening and experiencing rather than providing a concrete set of criteria that we use to sift material.

Some stereotypes are simply true. Others are true and important. For instance, women, on average and in general, tend to have more oxytocin receptors in their brains. Oxytocin is one of the most important chemicals in human bonding. Women (on average and in general) thus more naturally choose careers that are focused on people rather than things (like men). Their brains are (on average and in general) primed to be people-oriented, emotionally observant, nurturing creatures. That's what makes them particularly apt to be mothers to their children and it makes it so that women are more likely than men to stay at home and take care of children. That is a true stereotype of women and it's important. It's not sexist to show how men and women think and behave differently. Women's nurturing aptitudes are beautiful manifestations of femininity and female nature. They are manifestations of what makes women wonderful. They are manifestations of the nature of the Divine Feminine that Latter-day Saints believe in. It is because of this nature of women that the Church encourages them to be mothers so that their feminine nature can be most fully and frequently expressed and glorified.

We should also recognize that the stereotypes themselves should also be demeaning instead of merely untrue. Because we can certainly affirm untrue stereotypes that are just silly or benign like "most women wear white shirts" or "most men have stickers on their laptops." To demean is "to lower in character, status, or reputation." Thus the stereotypes should be about things that we use to elevate or lower the mental image or respect that we have for someone in order to be considered demeaning: things like wealth, intelligence, attractiveness, strength, coordination, etc.

The most we should and probably can say as far as incorporating stereotypes into a definition of sexism is to say that the sincere affirmation of untrue and demeaning stereotypes is a form of sexism. The least we can say is that the sincere affirmation of untrue and demeaning stereotypes leads to sexism.

Now we should talk about how we can know when someone is acting with rational sexism or irrational sexism even when they don't declare it or make it obvious.

The Games of Goods

Say that a man is being interviewed for a job and he is declined that job. The job is given to a woman. The man can ask his would-be employer why. The employer can say that it was because the man didn't have as high educational attainments as the woman did. Assume for the sake of argument that the man was able to find out the educational attainments of the woman and found that he actually had better accolades than her. It instantly became more likely that the man didn't get the job because of rational sexism or misandry. What are the other keys that we have to know whether or not we or someone we love is the victim of rational sexism or misogyny/misandry? To understand that, we have to talk about justice and how we define it.

We most often think about justice in terms of stuff or opportunities to get stuff. If I deny stuff or opportunities for stuff to someone on the basis of sex, I'm necessarily carrying a belief in sexism. For instance, going back to our candy example, if two children, one a boy and the other a girl, can come to a person's door on Halloween and that person can intend to give both children candy but deny giving candy to one of the children when they see that that child is a girl. This would be an example of injustice and misogyny. Similarly, we can deny one of the genders the opportunity of playing sports and competing for awards. Thus we can discriminate with stuff (like the candy)or opportunities to get stuff (like awards granted by merit in competition). But there are other conditions that need to be met in order for us to make a valid accusation of sexism or misogyny/misandry.

Let's consider things like scrunchies, bras, or panties for women. We typically provide all those things for women but not for men. Why? Because men typically don't want those things. Returning to the candy example, say that all that we have as candy for the children are Heath bars. What if the girl simply doesn't want a Heath bar and refuses us giving it to her? Have we done something sexist by not giving her the Heath bar? Of course not! Thus, stuff or opportunities must be wanted in order to infer that someone has done something sexist.

Sometimes things are needed to preserve our health or life. Say there are two people, one male and the other female, that are stranded in the desert in need of water to survive. They stumble upon me and I have water to give to them. I give water only to the female but not the male. Clearly something we would consider an example of sexism. Thus, sometimes stuff or opportunities for stuff must be needed.

There are certain times when stuff or opportunities for stuff must be merited such as in competitive sporting events, scholarships for school, and many jobs. Denying someone an award or medal when they haven't earned it can't be unjust. Denying someone an award or medal when they have earned it is unjust.

These are among the conditions that must be met in order to know when someone is denying us an opportunity based in either sexism or misandry/misogyny: want, need, and merit. We set up different games in society for determining when we will supply certain goods to certain people. Some games are games of want (such as for getting bras, panties, and scrunchies), others of need (such as water in the desert), and others of merit (such as awards for competitive events). We can call these the different games of goods.

This gives us the definition that most people live by and that those who make this criticism seem to base their criticism on:

Belief in the inherent increase or decrease of moral worth between the sexes because of a particular characteristic, misogyny, misandry, unequal misanthropy, the sincere affirmation of untrue and demeaning stereotypes regarding either sex, and/or denying someone stuff or opportunity for stuff on the basis of sex when that stuff or opportunity for stuff is wanted, needed, or, when appropriate, merited.

We can call this DS1 (definition of sexism #1). This is the definition of sexism that most people operate under, but it is still not a sufficient conceptualization of what sexism is. There is still one more requirement that the denial of stuff on the basis of sex needs to meet in order to qualify as legitimate sexism.

DS2

Let's consider this deeper and go back to our candy example. Say that the two children come to the door and the man simply doesn't have enough candy to give to both of them. He has one piece for the boy and no more for the girl. He doesn't have time to go to the store that is right next to his house and get more because his wife suddenly went into labor and he needs to get her to the hospital. Would we say that the man has done something sexist to the little girl? It would be patent nonsense to try and argue that. Of course, it does suck for the little girl; but we wouldn't hold that man morally accountable for not giving that child candy. He didn't have any other option. The author is sure that we wouldn't say that that man has done something unjust or sexist. There was both a practical (not having candy) and a moral consideration (his wife being in dire need of support and transportation to the hospital) that precluded the man giving candy to the girl. This is an extreme example and an obvious one, but its purpose is to demonstrate that there is no person on earth that can accept any other definition of sexism and justify the man taking his wife to the hospital and every rational mind would affirm that the man should take his wife to the hospital. It shows that everyone must accept this definition of sexism and that the debate regarding sexism must include talk of certain occasions in which the greater good demands that we deny one of the sexes a particular opportunity or thing. The debate must consider whether a particular instance of perceived sexism (since something perceived is not necessarily reality) isn't really sexism given a greater good to which we all aspire and that rationally precludes the possibility of giving one or more opportunities to either of the sexes. It must also consider whether the potential greater good is actually the greater good and whether it actually justifies us in restricting opportunities from someone on the basis of sex. That should be a locus and focus of debate.

This definition applies in even less dire circumstances. Say just that the boy and girl come to the door and the man doesn't have any candy for the children. It would be a cumbersome request to tell that man to get more candy to bring to the boy or girl. The boy or girl should cease their want of and request for candy from the man by recognizing that they're asking too much of him to get them candy. There's a practical reality, the lack of more candy, that precludes him from providing candy to the girl or boy. Thus the debate should consider whether there are either moral or practical circumstances that are not that dire but still important that preclude us from offering the same stuff/opportunities to both sexes.

There will be times when the moral reason involves someone's sex and times where it does not. In the candy example above, the practical and moral reasons did not touch someone's sex. There are other occasions where the preclusion of giving an opportunity to one of the sexes is based in their sex. Such is the case, for instance, with separated bathrooms and locker rooms. We know that men are built to be sexually attracted to women and are, on average and in general, stronger and taller than women. We segregate bathrooms and lockerooms because of someone's sex in these instances. Segregating sexes precludes them entering certain spaces at certain times because of their sex.

Given these considerations, we must expand our definition of sexism to DS2:

Belief in the inherent increase or decrease of moral worth between the sexes because of a particular characteristic, misogyny, misandry, unequal misanthropy, the sincere affirmation of untrue and demeaning stereotypes regarding either sex, and/or denying an individual or group stuff or opportunity for stuff on the basis of sex when it is possible to be given (given the absence of either a practical or moral reason for restricting that stuff/opportunity for stuff from them) and when it is either wanted, needed, or, when appropriate, merited.

This definition of sexism is almost guaranteed to help many in their continued efforts to have faith in the Church and to be sharp moral thinkers about sexism. It may become clearer as people read articles that have been or will be written about this topic in relation to the Church.

One can now survey all of the requirements that must be met in order to a valid accusation of sexism to be made. If stuff or an opportunity for stuff is denied and it was possible to be given, needed, wanted, or merited, then it must necessarily be the case that that thing or opportunity is being denied on the basis of something that is likely unjust such as your gender, religion, sexuality, race, nationality, or other things. Knowing the conditions which must be met for stuff or an opportunity to be given helps us to detect prejudicial and unjustified discrimination even when it is not declared or manifested explicitly/obviously.

The Connections Between the Belief, the Attitude, and the Action

We have this separation now between a belief (of an increase or decrease in inherent moral worth), an attitude (misogyny, misandry), and a particular kind of action (denying stuff or opportunities for stuff) given certain circumstances. Here are the logical connections to keep in mind about them.

  1. The attitude necessarily entails that someone holds the belief.
  2. The attitude will likely carry someone to the action but not necessarily. They may refrain from the action but still carry the attitude.
  3. The belief does not necessarily entail that someone has the attitude of misogyny nor will take the action given circumstances.
  4. The particular action given circumstances necessarily entails that someone has the belief and suggests that someone may have the attitude but does not necessarily entail that someone has the attitude.

Review

To review:

  1. DS1: Belief in the inherent increase or decrease of moral worth between the sexes because of a particular characteristic, misogyny, misandry, unequal misanthropy, the sincere affirmation of untrue stereotypes regarding either sex, and/or denying someone stuff or opportunity for stuff on the basis of sex when that stuff or opportunity for stuff is wanted, needed, or, when appropriate, merited.
  2. DS2: Belief in the inherent increase or decrease of moral worth between the sexes because of a particular characteristic, misogyny, misandry, unequal misanthropy, the sincere affirmation of untrue stereotypes regarding either sex and/or denying an individual or group stuff or opportunity for stuff on the basis of sex when it is possible to be given (given the absence of either a practical or moral reason for restricting that stuff/opportunity for stuff from them) and when it is either wanted, needed, or, when appropriate, merited.

DS2 and the Potential for Partial Qualitative Equality as Justice

The potential wisdom of DS2 can be demonstrated now as we consider a few different imaginable definitions of equality and their potential relationship to the Gospel.

Most today consider the word "equality" to be something that is intuitively-derived and obvious to any rational mind. But, with DS2 in mind, we might consider other definitions of equality as potentially viable and demonstrate that things like DS1 is not the only rational definition of sexism.

Most today hold to a version of equality that says that equality is giving both the same amount and the same type of stuff or opportunities to get stuff to all people. We might term this full qualitative equality. It's demonstrated in the photo below. Since this article is about sexism, we'll take males and females as our example. 'M' represents males and 'F' represents females.

Full Qualitative Equality Better.png

But DS2 allows us to consider two other imaginable definitions of equality. One we might call non-qualitative equality where different segments of the human population—in this case men and women—receive the same amount of stuff or opportunities for stuff but none of the same type or nature of stuff or opportunities for stuff as other segments. That is demonstrated with the image below.

Non-Qualitative Equality Better.png

The other version of equality DS2 makes imaginable may be termed partial-qualitative equality where different segments of the human population receive the same amount of stuff or opportunities for stuff and at least some of the same type or nature of stuff or opportunities for stuff as other segments. That is demonstrated with this image.[8]

Partial Qualitative Equality Better.png

Now, it's seems impossible that we'll ever live in a society where non-qualitative equality becomes a reality. It doesn't make sense why we'd ever give just peanut butter and honey sandwiches to men and only peanut butter and jelly sandwiches to women, for example. It seems absurd that we'd differentiate the type of opportunity we give to men and women in every instance. But partial-qualitative equality may be a viable option for understanding equality. It's wisdom is in showing, in tandem with DS2, that it is not necessarily the case that we have to be the same or be given the same stuff/opportunities for stuff in order to be equal.

We can take the Family Proclamation as our example. Many have criticized the Proclamation for what they perceive are its strict and clean partition of gender roles between men and women—men being tasked only as presiders, providers, and protectors and women only as nurturers of children. First, we should note that there are problems with that interpretation of the Proclamation. But let's just imagine that it were the case that men and women were given such a strict separation of roles. We recognize that marriage is a procreative relationship between a man and a woman. We recognize that majority scholarly opinion tells us that there are sex-based, biologically-determined, psychobehavioral differences between men and women that make us more apt for certain tasks—men as providers and women as nurturers, for example.[9] We also recognize that nations need labor in order to function economically. They need men and women to be married and have babies and they need those babies to grow up and become productive citizens of that nation. Without men and women having babies, societies would not be able to replace their labor force as older humans enter advanced age and die. There may be (and, in the author's view, are) problems with some of these assertions. But could we consider that it is at least possible for men and women to be given strict gender roles and still be considered just under the before-discussed definitions of sexism and equality? Yes, we can. That is the wisdom of DS2 and partial-qualitative equality because, again, they allow us to at least consider, without a more intense threat of being deemed sexist, that it is not necessarily the case that we have to be the same or be given the same stuff/opportunities for stuff in order to be equal. That's the whole basis of philosophies like gender complementarianism where men and women are both by nature and role different from one another yet complement each other in the child-bearing and rearing relationship.[10] DS2 and partial qualitative equality give us a more expansive and, in the author's assessment, rational way of judging issues related to sexism and equality. These definitions of sexism and equality may allow us to make sense of much of the moral standards that are presented to us in scripture and other moral conflicts we see today between modernity and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

To be sure, in each case that we are considering restricting certain opportunities from one sex and not the other, we will have to consider very carefully whether there is an adequate moral or practical justification for doing so: something that supersedes the wants, needs, and merits of one of the sexes. And, in perhaps the vast majority of cases, the author believes that it won't be necessary to restrict opportunities from one sex and give those same opportunities to the other. But we just wish to open the door philosophically for more careful consideration of sexism and equality in light of the Gospel.

DS2 and partial qualitative equality do exist in today's society in ways that do go noticed, to be sure, but not remembered and appreciated. A perfect example is the separation we make between boys and girls sports. We have different leagues for the two sexes. We make the different leagues because we know that boys and girls typically have different abilities as far as strength, speed, and visuospatial processing is concerned because of differing testosterone levels between the two. If we were to place men and women together, men would typically have a competitive advantage over girls. So we give girls the same amount of opportunities to compete for awards in the same sports as boys, but not the same type of opportunity in that we don't allow them to compete against men. The same goes for other sex-segregated places such as “restrooms, changing rooms, spas, college dormitories, and other areas in which women may be in states of undress, sleeping, or vulnerable in other ways.”[11]

Because example like these are not remembered and appreciated, and without a clearer and more consistent defense of DS2 and partial-qualitative equality, DS1 and full-qualitative equality becomes the de facto philosophy for most of society.

We can achieve partial qualitative equality when, in every instance that we are using either a moral or practical consideration to justify restricting a certain opportunity or type of opportunity from one of the sexes, we use that same moral or practical consideration to justify restricting a corresponding opportunity from the other sex. So when we restrict girls from playing in boys sports because men are on average and in general faster, stronger, and taller than women, we would similarly restrict boys from playing in girls sports because they are, on average and in general, faster, stronger, and taller than women. If we restrict opportunities from both sexes using the same moral or practical justifications, then the natural result is partial-qualitative equality and use of DS2 to create it. But opportunities may not need to be restricted from the other sex in every instance under consideration. It seems at least imaginable that we could, for example, unilaterally take away an opportunity from males in one instance and give that to females and then, in another instance, unilaterally take away an opportunity from females and give that to males. We can achieve partial-qualitative equality that way as well.

There will be some cases where equality is not possible. Returning to our candy example, a man might just run out of candy. There's a practical consideration that allows him to only give candy to one of the children.

Our goal should be to provide equality wherever possible.

One reason that today's feminists have pushed against things like DS2 and partial qualitative equality is a belief that gender is a social construct. In another article we've responded to that notion.

Main article: Question: Is gender a social construct?

Deriving Other Definitions from This Analysis

What's interesting is that one can substitute the word "races" for the word "sexes", "hatred of a particular race" for "misandry or misogyny", and "race" for "sex" and have a very coherent, very defensible definition of racism.

One can substitute "people of a homosexual sexual orientation" for "sexes", "hatred of those with same-sex attraction or an individual because they have same-sex attraction" for "misandry or misogyny", and "non-heterosexual sexual orientation" for "sex" and have a very coherent, very defensible definition of homophobia.

One can do similar substitutions for nationality, religion, etc. and come up with very coherent definitions of xenophobia, islamophobia, mormophobia, anti-semitism, and all other unjustified forms of discrimination.

How the Demands of Love and Equality May Be At Odds With Each Other Sometimes And Why, At Times, That's Morally Okay

It is important now to here state and make the case that the demands of love and equality may be at odds with each other and that, at times, that may be morally justified.

Let's take the Savior's atonement as our example. We recognize Jesus Christ as the only sinless lamb of God sent to be slain on behalf of the sins of the entire world. God did not demand that we suffer like Jesus did in order to receive, for instance, the gift of resurrection from death. What the Gospel tells us is that Jesus offered himself as a sacrifice as an offering of grace. Grace is defined as giving someone something even when they didn't deserve it or earn it in anyway. It's likely that, if God held equality as a virtue that must be held inviolate at all times, that we should suffer like the Savior suffered. Then we would be equal since we would be deprived of the same comforts that Jesus was deprived of during his atonement. What the Savior teaches us is that we must sometimes sacrifice the satisfaction or compensation of our wants, needs, and/or merits for the greater good. The Savior taught us that "[g]reater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."[12]

We might also apply this understanding to areas of Church history and doctrine where we perceive inequalities. We must recognize and trust that God would not command something like, say, polygamy if he didn't believe that that command instructed us perfectly in the demands of love. We are trying, as God's children, to become gods like him and take on his nature.[13] His nature is defined by his perfect embodiment of love.[14] Therefore, his commands must be instructions in understanding the fullest definition of love and putting it into practice so that we learn love both intellectually and experientially. The Savior tells us this much.[15] We recognize that one of the purposes of polygamy was to raise up a covenant seed to God.[16] The end of raising up a covenant seed rapidly could have only been done by one man impregnating multiple women. The constraints of biology demanded polygyny. That naturally delimited the opportunities for sex for women. There was an inequality between men and women. But the greater moral good demanded it. It may be proper to understand that the demands of love superseded the need for equality for a time.

Main article: Question: Is polygamy sexist?

But we might now ask "Okay, sure, there may be times when love demands that we forego equality. But shouldn't we be compensated later for our sacrifice? The Savior was certainly compensated for his sacrifice by being placed 'at the right hand of God'.[17] We're trying to create Zion where we become 'of one heart and one mind, dwelling in righteousness, with no poor among us'.[18] The scriptures are replete with references to equality. Like where God says that 'if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things'.[19] Shouldn't God be morally obligated compensate us at some point so that we all become equal or are just repayed for the times where we forewent our equality in order to serve the greater good?[20] Doesn't he even tell us several times that we will be compensated?[21]"

It is true that the Lord often compensates us for our obedience and will compensate us for much of it either now or in the future. Really it's not a compensation for our obedience so much as it is an act of love for an act of love. The covenants that the Lord cuts with us are not to be understood as transactions but moreso as instructions in how loving people should try to relate to each other. But love demands something more than having love reciprocated. Love sometimes demands, as the Savior demonstrates, that we give acts of service to others as acts that may not receive reciprocation. We are going to be made equal with the Savior in terms of power and blessings at some point and become gods ourselves if we remain righteous.[22] But we will not suffer like the Savior suffered. We will not be made equal with him that way (or rather, he will not be made equal with us and can't be since his Atonement is already accomplished). Thus, while people who love each other should try to reciprocate the acts of their lovers, loving people should not expect reciprocation from their beloved. Even if that reciprocation is not given, we should continue to love and not demand reciprocation.

Main article: Question: How do Latter-day Saints understand the concept of love?

All this demonstrates that the demands of love and equality may be at odds with each other. In some cases, like the Savior's, permanently. We should seek equality as much as possible, and recognize that equality is something that we should all value very, very highly since it is the condition that we will inherit and be expected to maintain when we become gods; but we should recognize that there may be times where equality is simply not possible—and really not even desirable—given the demands of love.

There may be cases, now or in the future, where God may want to restrict opportunities from one of the sexes either permanently or for at least a persistent, enduring amount of time given the demands of love—that which leads to our greatest collective and individual flourishing—and it may be that our "equality" comes because we are equally valuable to the working of a divine order that by necessity restricts certain stuff and opportunities for stuff from one of the sexes permanently or persistently—similar to cogs in a machine. We may play very different roles from one another, but without playing that role the machine won't work like it's supposed to. We'd all be equally important to the working of the machine. We should be open to this possibility.

God's Ways Are Higher Than Ours

We will need to remember that it may not be possible to know everything that God has in mind by restricting certain opportunities from anyone. God reminds us that "my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."[23]

We should remember that it may be wisest to simply trust God when we don't have a good explanation for why he may have done something. We should allow him to surprise us.

President Dieter F. Uchtdorf related the following story in the April 2008 General Conference of the Church:

In 1979 a large passenger jet with 257 people on board left New Zealand for a sightseeing flight to Antarctica and back. Unknown to the pilots, however, someone had modified the flight coordinates by a mere two degrees. This error placed the aircraft 28 miles (45 km) to the east of where the pilots assumed they were. As they approached Antarctica, the pilots descended to a lower altitude to give the passengers a better look at the landscape. Although both were experienced pilots, neither had made this particular flight before, and they had no way of knowing that the incorrect coordinates had placed them directly in the path of Mount Erebus, an active volcano that rises from the frozen landscape to a height of more than 12,000 feet (3,700 m).


As the pilots flew onward, the white of the snow and ice covering the volcano blended with the white of the clouds above, making it appear as though they were flying over flat ground. By the time the instruments sounded the warning that the ground was rising fast toward them, it was too late. The airplane crashed into the side of the volcano, killing everyone on board.

It was a terrible tragedy brought on by a minor error—a matter of only a few degrees.

Through years of serving the Lord and in countless interviews, I have learned that the difference between happiness and misery in individuals, in marriages, and families often comes down to an error of only a few degrees.[24]

The author would add communities like the Church and nations to the list of entities that can know the difference between happiness and misery by mere degrees.

The great Greek philosopher Aristotle taught that all things have a telos or purpose for which they were designed. As someone or something either adheres to or is used according to its telos, that thing or person flourishes. The Lord’s standards and the opportunities he decides to afford or not afford us are granted in part based off of a deep understanding of our nature: who and what we are as humans; what we were built for. Misunderstanding our nature as human beings by even just a few degrees may mark the difference between our greatest individual, communal, and national happiness and something less than that. Creating law, whether divine or mortal/civic, based on a misunderstanding of our nature risks forgoing our fullest flourishing individually and collectively for something less than our fullest flourishing. There may be things about our nature that God understands and we don’t. As an all-knowing being that is also of our same species, we should afford him our trust in determining, through his prophets, what our telos is as men and women, what opportunities he will and will not afford us, what the best understanding of gender is, when to hold or not hold equality inviolate, and so on. Forcing the Lord’s hand like Joseph Smith did in giving Martin Harris the Book of Mormon manuscript may create dysfunction for our lives individually and collectively as a Church and even as a society.

Conclusion

It's the authors belief that many of the concerns that men and women have about perceived sexism in the Church will be helped by recognizing that certain opportunities may be denied them because of higher moral goods that supersede either their wants, needs, or merits or because practical considerations preclude us from giving them stuff and opportunities. FAIR will likely author future articles under this definition of sexism as it seems to make sense of many accusations of sexism against the Church. Hopefully, this argument will continue to hold philosophically and this definition of sexism will help us to become sharper moral thinkers and be more intelligent as well as more sensitive defenders of the Church.

This definition of sexism has been used to answer the questions about the Church listed below.

Main articles: Question: Are the scriptures misogynistic/sexist?, Question: What does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teach about modesty and what is its importance?, Question: Is Heavenly Mother not talked about more because the prophets are sexist?, Question: Why do women not hold priesthood offices in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?, and Question: Is polygamy sexist?
Articles about Plural marriage
Doctrinal foundation of plural marriage
Introduction of plural marriage
Plural marriage in Utah
End of plural marriage

Is polygamy sexist?

Introduction to Question

Some worry that the historical practice of polygamy as well as contemporary theology about polygamy is sexist.

At least a few fear that Church doctrine implies or teaches that a spouse might have to practice plural marriage in the eternities without the approval or desire of their first spouse. This stance has been most passionately argued by Latter-day Saint poet Carol Lynn Pearson in her book The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy: Haunting the Hearts and Heaven of Mormon Women and Men.[25]

The observation that grounds this assertion is that polygamy fragments women's emotional and sexual opportunities as a wife. As Brian C. Hales has argued:

In the case of a new plural wife who would have remained unmarried if monogamy was exclusively practiced, her "emotional and sexual opportunities as a wife" are increased from zero to some fraction depending on how many other wives the man has. However, the other wives’ opportunities are diminished as a result of the new plural matrimony.[26]

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ and the symbol of the cross


Jump to details:


Question: Does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints prohibit its members from using playing cards?

Introduction to Question

It is frequently asserted by both members and non-members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that the leaders of the Church have forbidden members from using playing cards.

This article gives history to this assertion as well as perspective for its normativity today among contemporary Latter-day Saints.

Response to Question

Katie Lambert for LDS Living

An article by Katie Lambert, an author that wrote on this question for LDS Living (the official magazine of Deseret Book, a Latter-day Saint book retailer owned by the Church), gives great insight and history into this issue.

Faith and Beliefs: Playing Cards

Another great response came from David Snell, host of the Faith and Beliefs segment of the YouTube channel Saints Unscripted:

Question: What does the Lord intend by commanding that we refrain from “loud laughter”?

Notes

  1. ↑ M. Russell Ballard, "The Trek Continues!" Ensign 47, no. 11 (November 2017): 106. Emphasis added.
  2. ↑ Neil L. Andersen, "The Voice of the Lord," Ensign 47, no. 11 (November 2017): 124.
  3. ↑ 2 Nephi 26:33. Emphasis added.
  4. ↑ 1 Nephi 17:35
  5. ↑ Mosiah 23:7
  6. ↑ One may need to be more familiar with the philosophy of morality in order to grasp this argument fully, but we do need to talk about this here. Be sure to sign up for an introductory ethics course or purchase an introductory textbook in order to learn more.
  7. ↑ Bob Ierien @knothead9620, "Episode 4 | #answer to pigeonsarefun1214 My least favorite book of the Bible: Hosea. #askpastor #askontiktok #pastorsoftiktok #progressiveclergy #progressivechristian #biblegeek #hosea," TikTok, December 7, 2022, https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRqVucBJ/. To be fair to the pastor, he also laments how the rhetoric has been used against women in the past by other Christian denominations. That we can sympathize with more. But the mere use of the motifs in Hosea as misogynistic and/or sexist is wrong.
  8. ↑ One will see that only qualitative equality is impossible. One will also observe that full quantitative equality is a necessary feature of any imaginable definition of equality. We must at least receive the same amount in order to be truly equal.
  9. ↑ For commentary on the biologically-determined, sex-based, psychobehavioral differences between men and women, see Bruce Goldman, "Two minds: the cognitive differences between men and women," Stanford Medicine, Stanford University, May 7, 2021, https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html; 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, Male, Female: The Evolution of Human Sex Differences, 3rd ed. (Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association, 2020).; "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/; Amber N. V. Ruigrock et. al, “A meta-analysis of sex differences in human brain structure,” Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 39 (2014): 34–50; Larry Cahill, “A Half-Truth is a Whole Lie: On the Necessity of Investigating Sex Influences on the Brain,” Endocrinology 153 (2012): 2542; “His Brain, Her Brain,” Scientific American, October 1, 2012. The most thorough coverage the author has seen in one book is in Charles Murray, Human Diversity: The Biology of Gender, Race, and Class (New York: Twelve, 2020), 11–127. 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 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.
  10. ↑ Of course, differences are differences. Men and women could be different and not complement each other. The theology of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and many if not most Christian denominations affirms that our differences as men and women are complementary.
  11. ↑ Hypatia, “Preferred Pronouns: At What Cost?” Public Square Magazine, October 7, 2022, https://publicsquaremag.org/sexuality-family/does-it-really-matter-what-pronouns-i-use/.
  12. ↑ John 15:13
  13. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 132:19–20
  14. ↑ 1 John 4:8
  15. ↑ Matthew 22:34–40; John 14:15
  16. ↑ Jacob 2:30
  17. ↑ Moroni 7:27
  18. ↑ Moses 7:18
  19. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 78:4
  20. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 82:10
  21. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 1:10; 56:19; 112:34; 124:121; 127:3
  22. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 76:58
  23. ↑ Isaiah 55:8–9
  24. ↑ Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “A Matter of a Few Degrees,” Ensign 38, no. 5 (May 2008): 57–58.
  25. ↑ Carol Lynn Pearson, The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy: Haunting the Hearts and Heaven of Mormon Women and Men (Walnut Creek, CA: Pivot Point Books, 2016). For reviews that expose the weaknesses of Pearson’s position and approach, see Allen Wyatt, "Scary Ghost Stories in the Light of Day," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 23 (2017): 137–160; Brian C. Hales, "Opportunity Lost," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 23 (2017): 91–109. Pearson's work is sadly dated in many issues of history—she has not kept up on this field, and in some matters it seems her education in them stopped in the 1970s. Her work is useful because it diagnoses a problem that some women do struggle with. The difficulty is that Pearson's proposed remedy—the repudiation of plural marriage as a doctrine—is unwise and would be unhelpful. Instead, worries about doctrine can be alleviated by learning true doctrine and more accurate history coupled with revelation, rather than insisting that doctrine must be changed because we don't like the conclusions that some people have mistakenly drawn.
  26. ↑ Hales, "Opportunity Lost," 97n4. Hales has repeatedly made this assertion in his publications. See another instance in Brian C. Hales and Laura H. Hales, "Lending Clarity to Confusion: A Response to Kirk Van Allen’s 'D&C 132: A Revelation of Men, Not God'," FairMormon Papers and Reviews 1 (2015): 4
  27. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 59:15
  28. ↑ Doctrine & Covenants 88:121
  29. ↑ Luke 6:21
  30. ↑ Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 432.
Retrieved from "https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/index.php?title=Latter-day_Saint_teachings/Clarifying_Latter-day_Saint_Teachings&oldid=216950"