Since its release in September of 1995, perhaps no other official Church text in the last 20 years has elicited more debate as to its nature, meaning and importance than The Family: A Proclamation to the World (hereafter in this post to be referred to as “the Family Proclamation” or simply, “the Proclamation). I haven’t run the numbers on it, but I imagine it’s probably safe to say that no other non-scriptural document has been referenced more in General Conference in the last 20 years.
But therein lies the problem. Is the Family Proclamation scripture? More importantly, is the Church treating it as scripture without taking the necessary steps to canonize it?
Well, that largely depends on what definition of “scripture” you’re using.
There’s the D&C 68 definition of scripture:
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.
The “they” in that verse is referring specifically to Orson Hyde and other Elders called on missions. So, we’re talking about the inspired utterances of missionaries. I would posit, however, that while we surely value the holy utterances of our missionaries, their preachings are not considered actual scripture according to modern Mormon lexicon.
And then there’s the widely accepted Mormon use of the word scripture to describe the standard works our religion recognizes: the Holy Bible (KJV), Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, Pearl of Great Price and Official Declarations 1 and 2.
In the sense of the latter, it’s a matter of simple fact that the Family Proclamation is not scripture. It hasn’t ever been presented to the general membership for acceptance in the pantheon of canonized Mormon scripture.
All of which raises the question: does it really matter whether it’s scripture or not?
Regardless of all of the relative disagreements about certain parts of the Proclamation (one man/one woman only, gender roles, etc.), I think it’s safe to say we can all agree that the general assertion that families are important. We should all strive to be the best parents possible is helpful for the world to hear, right?
But it would seem that, to the Church, it does matter that the Proclamation be accepted by the general membership as scripture. Let me explain.
Those of you involved in Primary, as I am, will probably know where I’m going with this. If you didn’t know already, this year’s Primary theme is “Families Are Forever.” Much of the 2014 Sharing Time Manual derives its material from the Family Proclamation.
Nothing earth-shattering about that.
But take a look closer at the way the Proclamation is being presented to the children.
Each month of the manual features a scripture that speaks to that month’s theme. In many (I would argue most, although I don’t have data to back this up), wards, standard operating procedure is to either pin up the featured scripture each month, or actually have a Primary child recite the scripture as part of opening or closing exercises.
Imagine my surprise when, a few Sundays ago, a member of our Primary presidency announced that one of the Primary children would be reciting that week’s scripture, and we proceeded to hear an excerpt from the Proclamation.
I’m sure no one else in the room even took notice of this little nuance. I did, however, which led me to further examination of the Sharing Time manual.
If April was a subtle hint at how the Church wishes its membership to view the Proclamation, October is a full-court press. Its theme: “‘The Family: A Proclamation to the World’ Came from God to Help My Family.”
Interesting. So now we have the Church curriculum department not only subtly suggesting excerpts from the Proclamation be shared in Primary identically to how our canonized scripture is represented, but now we are not-so-subtly implying that the Proclamation is a revelation from God.
Many of you may remember Elder Packer’s notable General Conference talk from 2011 in which his reference to the Proclamation as “a revelation” over the pulpit was later redacted in the official written and published version of the talk.
Take a look at Week 1 of October’s Sharing Time outline. It teaches our children that the Proclamation is effectively the same as the 10 Commandments which, according to scripture, were written on stone tablets by the very finger of the Lord.
The Proclamation then appears directly under a photograph of the Holy Bible.
And so it continues. November’s scripture? Another Proclamation excerpt.
What does it all mean? Why does any of it matter?
I think it does. Or, at least, it matters to me. It matters to me that we teach our children accurately and precisely. I’m not going to sit here and tell you that I think my children (I have a 6- and 4-year old in Primary) are being taught false doctrine.
But they are being taught false context. And in some ways, that can be just as damaging.
Teaching false context sets us up for problems in our hierarchical, dogmatic church. According to my study of Church history, Joseph Smith envisioned a system in which all members felt an ownership in what was being taught and accepted.
Subtle abuse of context in this manner, whether well intended or not, chips away at the essence of the kind of Church the Prophet Joseph envisioned: one of common consent.
For the Church to even be subtly implying that the Family Proclamation is scripture or a direct revelation from God without involving the membership in the canonization process is not only an abuse of context, it is an abuse of trust.
This is not the Church of the Brethren. It is not the Church of the Correlation Committee. It is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. “Latter-day Saints”… that is you and that is me, and we have just as much right to weigh in on what is and is not official scripture.
Another reason it matters is that we know all too well the perils of accepting the un-canonized teachings of our prophets and apostles as eternal truths. From polygamy to Adam-God theory to the priesthood ban, our history is rife with the chief among us setting their philosophies up as eternal truth, only to see them tumble over time.
Where is the wisdom in teaching our children that a document that takes a hard line on God’s exclusive acceptance of heterosexual marriage and the eternal nature of gender is scripture when we’re only a few short decades removed from the Brethren openly teaching that homosexuality is a disease? Can’t we slow down a bit and just accept the Proclamation for what it is — a proclamation written by men?
Or, alternatively, if the Brethren are that sure that the document contains eternal truths dictated by God and effectively written in stone, why not put it to the membership? Let it become our document to accept or reject.
It seems the Church is perfectly content to have its cake and eat it to in this instance. Perhaps it’s on our own heads that we don’t care enough to stand up and saying anything about it.
After all, it’s only scripture. Right?
Nice summary. We had our daughter read a different scripture last week instead of the excerpt from the proc. The child in senior primary did the same. Thus far no child has read this excerpt. We’ll see if this continues.
Also annoying is the song the kids are learning this month in Primary.
Geoff – Are you referring to the one that the father is to “preside, provide” and the mother is to “care, prepare”, etc.? We’re doing that song in primary as well (I’m a CTR 7 teacher) and I about died when I first heard it.
Loved this James! This is really important for people to understand the difference between canon, scripture, and proclamations.
Thanks, Lori. Sad fact is that I’m pretty sure the majority of members don’t really care about the distinction. I spoke with both my bishop and my stake president about it. My bishop brushed me off without a discussion. My stake president, to his credit, sat down and talked about it with me, but still was not persuaded.
Great write up. Honestly, this is a very important that needs to be covered. The Proclamation is being slowly slipped into Church discourse as if it were revelation and already scripture. Nothing in that document is binding upon the members of the Church.
Because adoptive families are such a minority in the church, many don’t realize how painful the proclamation is for adoptees and adoptive parents.
Most of the ‘arguments’ agains the proclamation have to do with gender roles, but the fact is that the proclamation is just one more way of assuring that those who do not produce and raise biological children or who are not being raised by their biological parents are children of a lesser God.
The Proclamation is, I agree very painful to adoptive families as they are being left out of the whole eternal family equation. As are divorced single parent families whose temple sealings are broken. Single parents are marginalized even though, to my understanding, they constitute nearly half of the families in the church. The Proclamation seems to blame them, along with gays, for the breakdown of the two-parent family. Should their children have to sit through Primary and hear, just as their parents do, how they are not good enough? There are thousands of worthy, wonderful, educated, on-the-ball women who have no one to marry, or no one decent enough to marry. Either the men available are not worthy, nor ambitious, nor are they plentiful enough. Maybe too many of the ones there are are involved in pornography or are divorced because they have not been faithful husbands. Yet, single women, along with gays (who seem to me to mind their own business, not hurting anyone) are used as scapegoats for the breakdown of the ideal family. Let’s put the blame where it belongs: economics, lose of social morals, etc. I often wonder what the church is doing to bolster even two-parent families–where are the lessons on parenting and marriage, on problem-solving and coping? What is being done to encourage men to be better and take on responsibility? Why, oh why, is the Church targeting single parents who already have too much on their plates rather than giving them the love, support, and acceptance they desperately need? I can only read the Proclamation as an “ideal,” and, ironically, some of the synonyms for ideal include “unattainable,” illusory,” and, indeed, even “fairy tale.”
I enjoyed your article, James.
Exhibit A under the category of the Proclamation not being scripture, I think, was when Elder Packer referred to it as “revelation” in the October 2010 General Conference.
This language was changed to read “guide” before publication.
Although it is clear to me that the Proclamation is in no sense of the word “scripture” or “revelation,” the fact it is frequently treated as such by members speaks to a wide-spread hunger for latter-day revelation.
You know, the kind of revelation the Church says it gets on a frequent basis but has a tough time demonstrating.
Good observation. I had an earlier draft of this post which contained a reference to the redaction of “revelation” in Elder Packer’s talk, and this was also a point of discussion with my stake president. He wasn’t aware of the redaction and found that bit quite interesting. Not interesting enough to do anything about it, though.
This has been a significant issue in my mind for some time. One tremendous downside, is if (or when) parts of the Proclamation are refuted/changed (similar to blacks and the Priesthood), how many members will have their testimonies shattered because what they were taught in primary as doctrine….wasn’t doctrine.
I think this is really the central issue, and one I’d like to explore more. It would seem to me reading between the lines that the Brethren may actually be split on how to treat the Proclamation, with some of them (Packer, for example) seeing it as scripture and revelation and others not being fully comfortable with the small but very significant nuances that some of us find troublesome.
And so it sits in limbo, being treated yet not formally acknowledged as scripture.
I’m not sure what the official process is to canonize something, but it seems to me that they could do that if they wanted to. Certainly the membership would vote in the affirmative and it would be lauded as another manifestation that GOD is at the helm of this church. Lacking real revelation, members will reach for whatever evidence they can to validate their faith in a prophet who never prophesies.
But it seems to me that there must be someone in the church leadership who has enough foresight (might they even be a seer??) to know that the church is going to have to change on the issue of homosexuality eventually (like they did with the priesthood ban), and canonization of the Proclamation would make that much harder.
But setting that aside, it is very interesting to me that the Proclamation seems to be creeping into the curriculum disguised as scripture. Why be so sneaky? Perhaps because they are trying to indoctrinate your primary kids at earlier ages that homosexuality is bad? I dont know, but I agree its troubling.
Porter, we don’t fully know the internal process that goes on at Church HQ, but we do know that when something is canonized, it is presented to the membership for a sustaining vote, as was done for the D&C, PGP, and OD1/OD2.
I think your observation is spot on in that there is someone at least at the level of the Q12 or FP who is not fully comfortable with the Proclamation as a binding document so as to prevent its canonization. If not, I don’t really see a reason why it would not have been already.
I’m sorry, but this is just silly. By your narrow definition of scripture you would exclude any conference talk or Ensign article from being used in primary curriculum (or any other teaching manual).
There is nothing new in the Family Proclamation. Nor does is contradict any revelation or doctrine set forth in scripture (unless you are hung up on Matthew 22:30). The Family Proclamation simply summarizes long established and canonized doctrines and scriptures.
Furthermore, fundamental to Mormon belief is that modern revelation supersedes ancient writ or tradition. In that light, current general conference talks are scripture. Ensign articles are scripture. Patriarchal Blessings are personal scripture. And certainly, a document crafted by the prophet, his councilors, and every member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles — all men whom we sustain as prophets, seers and revelators — is scripture.
For those of you so concerned with canonized scripture regarding homosexuality, can you provide a single canonized example where any so-called gay marriage was ordained of God? Can you provide any instance where sodomy or any other same-sex sex act was referred to in any way short of outright condemnation? No. It would seem that if any doctrine was rooted in false philosophies of men, it would seem to be in regard to newly fabricated notions regarding “gay marriage.”
I don’t object to conference talks being used in primary. But I do object to conference talks being compared directly to the standard works, which is precisely what is being done by the current Primary curriculum.
I could be persuaded by modern revelation if I saw strong evidence of it. But I see the Q12 and FP doing more of mingling their own personal philosophies with scripture than making bold declarations of the Lord’s will for his people as did Joseph Smith — which, not coincidentally, he saw fit to canonize by common consent.
See a pattern here?
Name Withheld wrote: “In that light, current general conference talks are scripture. Ensign articles are scripture.”
Here is my question, then.
Was it scripture when Boyd K. Packer called the Proclamation a “revelation” in General Conference, or was it scripture when the word was changed to “guide” for publication in The Ensign?
The correction of Elder Packer’s use of the word “revelation” is clear evidence that what is spoken of over the pulpit or declared in writing by The First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve Apostles are not the wild eyed opinions and “personal philosophies” of individuals in those bodies. It is evidence that if something is not accurate, a correction is made – even if it is of the president of the Quorum of the Twelve.
Furthermore, this underscores how deliberate and precise these men are when speaking as a body, such as when making joint declarations like the Family Proclamation. I do not believe that one single word of that document is without the prayerful consent of all fifteen of those men whom I sustain as prophets, seers and revelators. Furthermore, every point of doctrine can be backed up by deep reserve of ancient and modern scriptural references and prophetic teachings.
What scriptural or prophetic justification do pro same-sex marriage advocates have? Nothing. There is nothing that positively affirms doctrinal support for the practice of gay marriage. Instead, proponents of the lifestyle struggle to twist, dismiss, discount and reinterpret clearly written biblical passages in an attempt to prove that the bible doesn’t specifically condemn same-sex relationships. And these same advocates, who have absolutely no doctrinal basis for their belief in gay marriage, have the temerity to to question the legitimacy of the Family Proclamation? Serenity now!
What on earth are you talking about? What in the Family Proclamation do you think the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve made up? There is nothing in it that is contrary to scripturally based doctrine regarding the eternal nature of the family and the law of chastity. These doctrines have not changed. I realize it is inconvenient for people trying to create a scriptural carveout for gay marriage when none exists. But that doesn’t mean it is the Family Proclamation is false doctrine — it means the practice of gay marriage is false doctrine.
The eternal nature of gender and prescribed gender roles are not well spelled out in the scriptures. Yes, you have Paul going on about subservient women, but I think we all recognize that those weren’t binding, eternal comments.
I don’t see Christ giving much of a hoot as to where human beings put what organs into what orifices so much as he cares about treating each other with compassion, love, respect and to serve and lift one another, regardless of our respective sins.
You may call that moral relativism, and that’s fine. But I challenge you to read the New Testament with an eagle eye focused on the words of Christ and not come away with a sense that he wanted us to stop focusing on rules and laws and start focusing solely on love, compassion and service.
That is the Savior that I follow. Not one who is so hyper-focused on dogma and strict religious norms.
“I don’t see Christ giving much of a hoot as to where human beings put what organs into what orifices”
You have got to be kidding!?!
Law of Moses: Do not have sex with people to whom you are not married
Jesus: Do not even THINK about having sex with people to whom you are not married
The teachings of Jesus are certainly not more permissive than The Law of Moses with regard to sexual morality. Under the Law, our actions condemn us. Jesus taught that not only our actions, but our thoughts condemn us. So if you read the New Testament with an eagle eye, you will soon discover that Jesus’ teaching are far tougher.
Yes yes yes thank you!!!
Sorry, but your argument supporting the proclamation sounds exactly like arguments we used to hear all the time supporting the priesthood ban.
Let’s change just a couple words of your statement and see how it sounds:
Can you provide a single canonized example where any black man was ordained to the priesthood? Can you provide any instance where black people were referred to in any way short of an outright cursing? No. It would seem that if any doctrine was rooted in false philosophies of men, it would seem to be in regard to newly fabricated notions regarding “racial equality.”
No doubt history will prove people like you wrong yet again. If you want a modern prophecy, here’s one: Within 50 years, your original comment will look just as absurd to you as the version I modified does now.
Times are changing, and even a church as dogmatic as yours must change eventually or be lost in obscurity.
The policy change regarding blacks holding the priesthood is not the same thing as the issue of gay marriage. Having dark skin is not a sinful behavior and has never been described as such in scripture (although marked skin could be a consequence of sinful behavior). Homosexual acts have been clearly identified as being sinful behaviors. They aren’t the same; one is sinful and the other is not.
There are scriptural examples of the gospel being taken to races outside of the covenant. Moses, for example, married a black woman. Peter’s experience in Acts 10 demonstrated a church leader being directed to take the gospel to all peoples of the earth.
In modern days, Joseph Smith was enthusiastic about blacks joining the church and participating in the priesthood. True, he opposed mixed marriages and instructed missionaries that they could not teach black slaves without the permission of their owners, but he personally ordained Elijah Able, a black man and former slave, to the office of an Elder in the Melchizedek Priesthood (March 3, 1836). Brother Able was later called to the Quorum of Seventy and served a mission for the church. The exclusion of blacks did not begin until well after Joseph’s death.
President David O. McKay concluded that the prohibition of blacks from holding the priesthood was the only major church policy for which he could find no scriptural or revelatory basis. The same cannot be said regarding the gay marriage. There are no scriptural, revelatory or historic examples of same-sex marriages being ordained of god or by his servants, the prophets.
The notion that the church will change it’s view on homosexuality and gay marriage is pure speculation by those hopping to pressure the church into making the change, but it is doctrinally baseless.
No it isn’t scripture, and yes it is a problem that it is being described as such.
Withheld, if the curriculum committee want to use the Proc, or indeed excerpts from conference talks, that’s one thing, I have no particular objection. Where I do draw the line is in using the descriptor scripture, and in having excerpts from the proclamation take the place of the usual scripture.
I am reminded of a GD lesson I attended a few months ago now in which the teacher said he was going to read a scripture, and then read a few lines from the proclamation. I protested strongly at the description, and then faced some back and forth from other class members that it was scripture until I pointed out it hasn’t been canonised. The teacher suggested that perhaps that and conference talks (which were also raised) could count as ‘scripture lite’.
A new edition of the scriptures came out last year. With the new chapter headings for the D&C. Had the will been there, the proclamation could have been canonised and included. That it wasn’t says something to me.
Yes, I had to op out of singing time in Primary the other week after music time started reviewing the second and third verses.
I’m the primary chorister – skipping verses 2&3 FYI . . . also, it was incredibly disturbing to me to sit in Primary during opening exercises when the child reads the scripture and then we repeat it back to them . . . and that month they have 3-4 year olds stand, have the pripres member whisper “marriage between a man and woman is ordained of God”, child says it, and then we all chant it back in unison. Primary is rough this year. Is it always this bad?
Thanks for writing this up, James. I was recently called as Primary pianist, and this has been driving me absolutely batty. I do damage control with my kids, but it’s kind of discouraging that an entire generation of children is being taught that this document is scripture. And “The Family is of God” song is not only offensively stereotypical and exclusive, but artistically it as one of the worst songs I’ve ever heard sung at Church. My kids like to tease me by pretending they’re going to choose it for FHE song, since they know how much I detest it.
You know, James, after giving this some more thought, I am going to have to suggest that the Proclamation, though not scripture and not revelation, is actually treated as something greater than scripture.
Here I am thinking of the framed versions of the Proclamation for sale at Deseret Book and hanging on the walls of many Mormon homes.
What scripture gets that kind of treatment?
The only things that even come close are pictures of the temple and the First Presidency.
I think we are confronted with a situation where a “proclamation” has gained a more-than-canonical status without ever being canonized.
I was living in Arizona, where I’d gone to graduate school, at the time the Proclamation came out. I recall the earlier news of the push for same-sex marriage in Hawaii (I didn’t know, at the time, of the Church’s earlier involvement with Prop 2 in California!). On the heels of what was happening in Hawaii, friends with ties to Utah told me of a committee that had been set up by Church leaders to draft a document framing the Church’s position on ‘the family.’ Not long after this my Bishop spoke of the “Proclamation on the Family,” and of how home teachers would shortly be delivering a specially embossed document in a protective ‘canister’ to each family. I didn’t really understand at the time what the Proc/Croc was all about — until the Home Teacher brought my family our copy. On opening the canister, and glancing through the pretty document, I groaned. Right at that moment, I realized that it had been drafted (cobbled together?) to stake the Church’s “right” to define “family” as they saw it; that it was all in reaction to, and fear of, same-sex marriage.
I have no faith in that document!
Of course the family is precious. But it is so whether one is straight or gay. I don’t know of any same-sex parenting couples who love their ‘families’ less than do hetero families. In fact, the Mormon gay and lesbian couples I’ve know who are raising children — whether the children’s origins are from previous hetero-marriages, adoptions, surrogacy — are doing an outstanding job of parenting!
Coming from Africa as I do, I believe in the adage: It takes a whole village to raise a child. In my thinking, a child who is surrounded by extended family (or friends) where there are positive male and female role models will not be the poorer for having 2 dads or two moms! Were the LDS Church more welcoming of the same-sex couples who are raising children, there would be a ready supply of both male & female role models. As it stands, now, gays and lesbians who are couples are still now welcome in every clime of the Church!
Marilyn, I agree with this wholeheartedly:
There are two brief Sunday school classes (I believe they are 4-week classes), one on marriage prep, and one on marriage and family, that are offered sometimes in some wards, but they are often taught only to a handful of people. And if you look on the church’s website you can find a parenting guidebook.
But this is not enough. These classes need to be taught to EVERYONE. And this needs to be a much bigger focus. I think sometimes it is assumed that if you grew up in the church, went on a mission, and got married in the temple, you should be prepared for marriage and family life, and that if you have difficulties you will be able to resolve them on your own as a couple. In my experience, this is the exception rather than the rule. Church curriculum needs to focus more on this.
Some people may argue that the Proclamation focuses on this. The Proclamation teaches the ideal, and it tells us to build our families on the teachings of Christ. But it doesn’t really go beyond general principles, and it doesn’t teach us what to do if problems arise (other than a general sometimes-circumstances-aren’t-ideal-and-extended-family-should-help-out clause). And I guess this is where personal revelation comes into play. But just because we should be praying about what to do to improve our families, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have frequent church lessons and meetings focused on this as well. The family is, after all, “central to the Creator’s plan.”
To me the proclamation is first and foremost a political statement written to keep women and LGBT people in a subordinate place. I teach CTR6 in primary. I was disgusted to see it used in April as the monthly scripture to be recited in primary. It seemed creepy to ask 3-6 year olds to recite support for exclusively heterosexual marriage.
I enjoyed this thought-provoking post. And indeed, it is true how this aspect in Mormon Culture has slipped in that is justified by DC 68 that whatever the Brethren say is immediately scripture. We’re taught in the church to put the conference report right next to our scriptures because the conference report is just as good as the Bible or our Triple combos. Many don’t realize though, as you pointed out, that this scripture in D&C 68 was talking about not just the missionaries or the church leaders, but all Elders in the church in general. So if this is true, does that mean that I have to take notes on what my EQ instructor teaches in our quorum meeting and take his lesson verbatim as the word of the Lord? And this is where I want to make my point.
Lessons and talks in the church should be (and hopefully for the most part are) based off of the scriptures and should turn us to the scriptures and more importantly, to Him who can save. I don’t believe that the intent of talks from General Conference is that we have to take them at face value, but rather the intent is that they provoke us to ponder about what’s been said and then seek out the answers from the scriptures and prayer. If what’s been said makes sense to us spiritually, we can find scriptures to back it up, and most importantly, the Spirit speaks to us that it’s true. When these things come together, then we can be assured that it’s true. If you learn about the definition of “prophet” in the scriptures, it’s not “the president of the church and everything he says and does is what God would say and do”, but rather it’s simply “inspired teacher”. And that’s what we need to remember: the Brethren are inspired teachers. The Proclamation isn’t official scripture, but there are many truths in it that are indeed backed by scriptures and gospel principles that can help us learn that what the Proclamation teaches is true.
Another reason why talks in conference point us to the scriptures and prayer is because there are lots of things we can really only learn from the scriptures that the church can’t come out and say in conference. There are lots of things the church can’t straight-up say to the public or else they’d get in trouble. It’s sad how the church has to play ball with society, but if they don’t then it’d be bad PR and then it would offend lots of people who weren’t ready to hear certain things and then no one would want to learn more about the church. So instead, they simply point us to the scriptures and hope that we’re ready enough and in tune enough with the Spirit to learn these certain doctrines. That’s why the church is always pleading with us to read the scriptures as much as we can, or else we won’t learn about these truths. They also do this with the temple. There are so many things we can learn from the temple that they can’t say in conference or else there’d be an uproar. One thing in particular is that women do in fact hold the priesthood and we can learn that from not only the temple but also from the scriptures (D&C 107). These answers are right in front of us but we don’t find them because we’re either not ready yet spiritually or we’re always looking to the church to make an official statement to confirm things. And that’s why so many people have issues with the Proclamation is simply because they don’t study it and seek out scriptures and gospel principles that can back up what the Proclamation teaches. And as far as adopted or broken families go, we need to remember that Jesus is the Great Judge and that He will make all things right again. We of course won’t ever know how He will make these things right again simply because we’re human and with our finite minds there are many things we won’t be able to learn or understand in this earth life. But what we can do is trust in God that He’ll make things right. See, none of these things I said were lined out word for word in the Proclamation but things I’ve learned from the scriptures and the gospel, and it makes sense. I know that some people can’t just take the “trust in God” answer, but what else out in the world can bring you better peace than knowing that God loves you and wants the best for you (2 Nephi 26:24)?
We are created in the image of God, male and female and are to become one flesh in marriage. That’s not possible with two people of the same sex. Homosexual behavior is a sin. We’re can be compassionate to others but that will not change that fact.
Agreed. And it is a warning to the world of the consequences that follow the destruction of the family. I’m saddened that members of the church can’t see the slippery slope we are on.