Is the family proclamation political? This is what I hear a lot, right? If you're bringing it up too much or if
you're talking about it almost at all, you must be coming from a right-wing perspective
and this is a political agenda that you have, Greg, or anybody else. If you're
bringing up the family proclamation, I want to go over that because we need to understand where this comes from, right?
The proclamation on the family from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints didn't come out of a
vacuum, right? It was issued in a very specific cultural, political, and legal
environment combined with prophetic insight. Now, this episode is brought to
you by Wavemakers podcaster cruise. Would love to see you on this. We are sailing down the Mexican Baja with
Jasmine Rapolley, David Boyce of 52 Churches in 52 weeks, Dave Butler of Plain and Precious Things. I can hardly
wait to see his presentations. We've got the Paul brothers from the Stick of Joseph, Carden Ellis from Ward Radio,
and Jacob Hansen from Thoughtful Faith and yours truly. Great presentations meeting these people in person, bringing
the online community to the ship where we can meet face to face. There's a lot of energy for this. We're very excited
about it. It's November 15th through 22nd. You can find out more by going to quickdia.com, cwycia.com.
at the top trips and events and scroll down to wave makers. Would love to see you there. Here we go.
[Music]
All right. The family proclamation did not come out of a vacuum, right? And it is very political in one sense and not
political all in another. But but we've got to understand how the family
proclamation came to be. Number one. And number two, the fact that everything becomes politics, especially with
identity, right? Gender, with marriage, with family as a whole. the relationship
between parents and children, all of these things are becoming more and more and more political and it's just going
to get worse. So, this idea of of this is a political thing you're bringing up.
You may not be coming from a political position. I don't think I am when I state this, but the politics are thrown
onto the issues. The politics, let's look at specifically within the family
proclamation. You have got marriage between a man and a woman ordained by God, right? Between a man and a woman,
huge political issue. You've got the relationship with kids and everything from adoption there to parents' rights
at school. How about gender roles which are outlined in the family proclamation?
No, not at all political, right? The law of chastity, very political. These are
all things that in our times have become more and more political. And in the '9s
when the family proclamation was issued in 1995 from President Hinckley at a Relief
Society meeting, you you had a very interesting political environment.
Right? In the early to mid 1990s, you had a time of increasing debate over family, gender roles, feminism,
abortion, and same-sex relationships or even same-sex marriage. For the church,
these were not abstract debates. They were direct issues about the doctrine
that the church supported. Right? These touch doctrines of eternal family, marriage, covenants, the plan of
salvation as a whole, exaltation. And so leaders saw a need to publicly
articulate the belief of the church about divinely revealed truth with
family and gender, our identity. And they went on apart from just Gordon B. Hinckley announcing this in 1995,
September of 1995. We're getting the 30th anniversary of this. I'll go over that in a minute. Leaders frequently
were warning about the attacks on the family. We were getting hit from all
sides. We still are. It's much, much worse than it was then. And this is in
general conference that we were getting these warnings. In the early 1990s, 93
to be exact, Hawaii became the first US state where same-sex marriage was
seriously tested in the courts. The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled in Bear versus Luen.
Denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples was a form of sex discrimination, they said, unless the
state could pro prove a compelling reason otherwise. This became the big
tremor in the US with marriage and not just to the church but to almost all
religious organizations in the United States. Because if Hawaii legalized gay
marriage, then the other states would be forced to recognize those unions under
the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution. So everybody would have to basically accept it. And a reminder,
right, this is long before Oberfell. is 20 years before overfell plus. And so
part of the thought process was the church was going to have to recognize same-sex marriage. And of course the
thought process which still goes on today, what would this mean for a bishop
who is conducting a and presiding over a marriage ceremony? What does this mean
about the temple? So after this ruling, the church became very active in Hawaii
to basic very active, right? very activist in the sense that they were
fighting against this legalization effort. The local leaders and members encouraged and joined coalitions
defending traditional marriage. And of course, the church leaders identified
that it was necessary to articulate a prophetic standard on the family. These
are the events that are happening around them. What's going on in the US? They took that as an impetus. They took that
and and made had an initiative to make sure they articulated the beliefs of the
church and the doctrine of the church. It was necessary to do that. We're actually, I think, at a position today,
30 years later, where we looked at that proclamation on the family in 1995 and
thought it was a nothing burger. It's like whatever. I mean, yeah, we understand this little thing going on in the US, but all this other stuff here I
or in Hawaii, but all this is is just kind of like, of course, everybody understands this. I think we're in a
position today and it's not even close actually where there is a much larger percentage of members of the church
especially younger members of the church up say 18 to 30 and younger and not just
limited to them that are confused about the position of the church on some of
these things in the sense that they hope for change. It's like do we need to come
out with another proclamation on the family? Right? There was cultural confusion in the mid '90s. What do we
have today within the church? So, the church becomes directly involved with the legal and legislative battles in
Hawaii. In '95 and '96, it coordinated with local coalitions to oppose the
legalization of same-sex marriage. And church leaders wanted to be sure that
the teachings of the church were widely understood by their own members and by
the public. And so the response of all of this was the family proclamation. Now, of course, add in prophetic
insight, understanding number one, we're going to build this off of eternal
eternal doctrinal truths, and we can see what's coming. You see that title wave
coming in? You're not going to put up barriers and think that you're going to stop this. It doesn't mean you don't
try, but Babylon is going to be Babylon. So in this environment right this is
where we get the response from the church with the family proclamation. So what is it responding to? It is
responding to political movements to change the definition of marriage. That's number one. It's responding to
feminism and the roles of of gender in the home. It's responding to uh division
between parental rights and state rights. It's responding to gender
fluidity. These are all political movements
and the church actually got very political in their efforts to push back.
And oftentimes the family proclamation was used as a tool to activate members
for uh whatever the prop was in uh 2000, right? Prop 22 in California in 2000 and
of course later the big one Prop 8 in 2008. Was that just a political agenda
by the church? I want to compare that to what's happening today and what's the
big hoopla over the the the story at fair and the Q&A at fair and
understanding why this discussion is happening. Everything that is built up to that point.
That event did not happen in a vacuum either. And the big response comes from
a response to political movements against identity and gender, against
marriage, against gender roles, and against the family attacks on the family. Again, there is more confusion
in the church today on these issues than there was in 1995. And it's not even
close. So, when people say, "Well, Greg, you're just being political about that. You've got an anti-woke agenda." This is
what one person said. that you've got an anti-woke agenda which is more important to you than being a disciple of Christ.
And of course they bring up peacemaking. I I that does not compute to me at all.
First of all, a disciple of Christ would support the family proclamation. As Julie Beck, the president of the Relief
Society once famously said, if something is anti-f family, it is antirist. The
reason she can get away with saying that is number one, it's true. And number
two, the doctrine of the family and the order of the family, the traditional family,
that means a mother and a father and their children. Not everything is perfect around that,
but that's the ideal. And the doctrine of Christ are bound
together completely because of exaltation. taking full
advantage of the atonement of Jesus Christ, the doctrine of Christ, is to allow you and your family and those that
choose through agency, but allow the opportunity for you and your family to
live forever as exalted beings. That is the point. That is the purpose of the
church. The purpose of the church is not to help you get to the celestial, the
terrestrial kingdoms. The purpose of the church is to support you as an
individual and your family to gain exaltation. So you cannot pull these two
things apart. So when you stand up for the family proclamation, are you being political?
The church was. It was defining its doctrine and it was being political.
Now, I'm not saying they want to be political outside of going directly towards certain issues on same-sex
marriage, especially back in the 70s. It was the ERRA that they were fighting, which was gender roles and their concern
with the the turning things upside down. That didn't really matter. We didn't
need the ERA to turn everything upside down in the family. So, you know, when I talk about the family proclamation, when
I brought everything up from fair on this, it was not from a political position, but there's no way to get away
from the entire thing being political. But don't excuse it as a political
agenda. That's what I I have a really hard time listening to people do that
are typically in agreement with me on the Family Proclamation. Maybe on all of it, maybe on even on
every point, but man, if you stick up for this thing, if you bring this up in some way, that must be more important to
you than being a disciple of Christ. Was that more important to the church than
being a disciple of Christ when they formed the family proclamation in that environment? What is it more important
to the church to be political when they brought it up several times all the time
in general conference fighting against what was happening in the United States and Canada? Why would they do that by
the way? Why was that such a big issue? Why did they have members calling us
even in Arizona calling people in in in California to talk about this and on
Prop 8? Look, that was a very difficult thing. There was some horrible consequences that came out of that
people I know. So why the sacrifice? Why the attempt? Why be political about it?
It's because it goes to the very very core of the doctrine of Christ and the
doctrine of the restored gospel. Now let's keep going past the family proclamation 1996. You've got this
domino effect, right? The US itself, the US, not the church, the United States
comes up with the defense of marriage act, right? The doma, right? that was passed by Congress defining marriage
federally as between one man and one woman. So the church right alongside
other most all other religious organizations supported the efforts of
DOMA and they used the proclamation as a doctrinal and moral foundation for their
members and for outside organizations. and you go into the late 90s and into
the 2000s, there is a growing use of the proclamation, right? The the
proclamation was cited repeatedly in legal briefs, public statements, and
grassroot campaigns just like in Prop 22 in 2000 in California and Prop 8 in
California in 2008. Inside the church, it became a teaching standard, quoted in
lessons, seminary, missionary work, and family home evenings. remember those.
So, I'll ask you again. When you stand up for the Family Proclamation, are you being political? I don't think there's
any way around that you're actually being political because you're discussing hot political topics. The
Family Proclamation, whether you like it or not, is a lightning rod because it goes against everywhere that Babylon has
moved. It's saying no, no, no, no to these
changes in our culture. no to the destruction of the family.
Now, I will say this, what I've discovered in this whole event, um, is there is a dark corner,
especially on X, of mostly anonymous accounts from men
that want to turn all of these things into a witch hunt, like the the the fair Q&A into a witch hunt. That makes no
sense. Look, I brought this whole thing up to begin with, but not as a witch hunt.
I brought it up because people need to be aware of what is happening. And going
after someone isn't going to change anything. It's just going to make you feel good that somehow you have a moral
victory. And to those individuals, I I wish you would stick to the principles. Stick to
the principles. Stick to the family proclamation. Let the brethren do their
job. You do your job as a citizen and as a member of the church.
Now, a couple more points I want to talk about. This is all from discussions that have been on Facebook X comments in the
in the videos that I did on this whole issue and and personal conversations I've had with friends and others.
There there's a there's a discussion that comes up. And by the way, this is the thing that I am very happy about
with all of this is that there is a large discussion good discussion happening with this a very broad
discussion. We can't put our heads in the sand on all of these things that this is a much larger issue than
than many realize. It's already causing an immense amount of confusion for
members of the church. One discussion that's coming up is what about orthodoxy? How can you be so orthodox
about things? I want to state something very clearly from my end. I understand maybe from X and other people that talk
about this uh this issue may may feel very differently than I do. But there is
no litmus test in the sense of the family proclamation for someone being a member of the church because a member of
the church can choose that maybe they don't even want exaltation. May may they don't want to follow the
word of wisdom, right? May maybe they don't want to follow the law of chastity. That's their option. That's
their decision, their prerogative. But from my standpoint, I've never put a litmus test for someone being a member
of the church on the family proclamation. Now, has the family proclamation been used as a
litmus test? Yes. Anybody who is involved with BYU and CES knows that
those policies have changed in the last couple of years. And there are there's more of a focus on those elements of the
family proclamation in the hiring process and the interviewing process. And there should be because the
political environment around us, especially found within academia, has
accepted these things, hook, line, and sinker, and they're not things that should be taught to students at BYU. Not
advocated for at least. And I'm sorry if that if you don't agree with that, fine.
But members of the church don't pay for their kids to go to BYU to be
indoctrinated into a woke ideology and identity ideology into queer theory and
gender studies. They can go to any university practically and get that in
spoonfuls anywhere. I'm going to come back in a second on a couple of statements from the first presidency on
the family proclamation from the 30th anniversary which is coming up here in September.
But orthodoxy, look, I you're not orthodox. Sorry. You're not orthodox if
you don't follow the family proclamation or or support it. That's that's okay, right? I my
orthodoxy doesn't need to be your orthodoxy. I don't care. I'm going to put my arm around you. I'm going to be your friend.
You You could even be someone who doesn't even believe in the church. I've got friends that don't believe in the church. It it that are still in the
church. I I'm I'm your friend. I'm happy to I'm happier at church. I'm happy we can communicate.
Right. All right. I I'm not putting a litmus test out there for members of the church. Now, for much of the family
proclamation, some of those tenants are issues for a
temple recommend already. So those, you know, certainly the law of chastity. So
there's a litmus test to to be templeworthy to some degree. That's certainly not all of the family
proclamation. And then there's another one that I've seen where it's like,
you know, people that are afraid that we're limiting down uh what is orthodox
in the church to just what we believe about the family. No, I I there might be some people that
do that, but that's not what the big hoopla is about. The issue is the amount
that this has intruded, permeated our culture, the the the
identity and family and gender issues into our culture and into the church.
That's the issue. You know, back in the 70s, it's sex, drugs, and rock and roll.
It's wait till you're married. It's stay away from drugs. Those are the big
things you're pushing on because those were the problems at the time. Were you just focused in on drugs and
teaching kids about drugs and and and the law of chastity and that's all you
reduce the gospel to? These things are political because they are made
political by the world. The church has responded to them both doctrinally and
politically at times with the family proclamation. So whether you're coming at this from a
political standpoint outside of the church or you're coming to it understanding the depth of the doctrine
that is the foundation for the family proclamation. It's going to be political whether you like it or not.
Please to you members that support the family proclamation do not call people out for being
political. It's just another way to silence people on the family proclamation. I'm not saying about
people that use the family proclamation all the time and they're they're they're trying to use it sometimes as a bully
club, but be careful because most people don't most people
don't do that. And they can bring up the family proclamation simply because they love the beauty of
the doctrine of the family and they see that it is threatened
in culture and in the church. So I want to bring up the for the you
know the the NZN coming up uh in September. They're celebrating the 30th anniversary of the family proclamation
which I think is amazing, fabulous, incredible. Uh, by the way, under the comm's department, this is done under
the comm's department. Um, but here, you know, you've got a few things that I think are really important for us to
point out. For example, they have one article here in the enzyme enzen, which
is for our day, right? The family proclamation is for our day. It's not
for the 90s. It It's not for the 19th century. It's for our day, right? We
need this as a guide for our day. It says 30 years after the proclamation on the family was introduced to the world,
its divine principles are more precient and valid than ever. Why? Because of the
political environment that we live in and the attack on the traditional family. Secondly, they've got an article
here called By Divine Design: Apostolic Teachings on the Family. Uh, I want to
go over just a couple of these quotes that I think are fantastic. Right? This is from President Nelson. This was back
in 2007 as Elder Nelson. He says, I quote from Elder Nelson, "Pivotal to
God's plan is the family. It is it's the plan of salvation for exaltation." In
fact, a purpose of the plan is to exalt the family. The earth was created so
that we as premortal spirit children of our father in heaven could come to the earth and obtain physical bodies. We are
here to be tried and tested. We are here to choose liberty and eternal life or to
choose captivity and death. And best of all, we are allowed to fall in love, to
be married, and to invite children into our families. Secondly, from President
Delan H. jokes. Those who do not fully understand the father's loving plan,
right? This is the center of the 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 irrevocable doctrine defines the kind of family
relationships where the most important part of our eternal development can
occur. All right? So, this is not changeable. These are not changeable doctrines. And
this is an important thing to understand. And people that are even on the right with this, people that support the family proclamation, they don't like
this either. There's some of them that are like, "Oh, well, everything's changeable." You know, remember the blacks and the priesthood, they changed
that. Remember polygamy? They changed that. Those are not core doctrines. Those are policies and procedures that
the church enacted for a time. Everybody knew that blacks were eventually going to receive the
priesthood. The the ceiling, and I don't care what some people say, there's some scholars out there that tried to say
that the ceilings are different. They changed in the 60s. And no, the the practice of sealing a man and a woman
together in in a temple marriage has always been the same. And I have brought
this up several times over the years because I knew this is going to be a very hot topic for same-sex marriage in
the temple. When I was interviewing me Michelle Stone about polygamy, I brought this up for this very reason. Uh she
wasn't happy with me. She thought I was trying to advocate for polygamy, but I explained to her, look, plural marriage
is not the plurality of wives in a marriage with a man, right? We have to
get that out of our head. That is not the practice. That is not what was going on. You didn't have, you know, five
women around an altar with one man and and and have a marriage with all five women. That's not what plural marriage
means. It should be called plural marriages, right? It's one man and one woman in a
marriage and then they have their kids. And if the man is practicing polygamy back then, he would have another
marriage with another woman and between th one man and one woman and they would
have their kids, right? That that's how it was practiced. That hasn't changed.
It's a horrible argument to make on the polygamy thing. Not not for the polygamy deniers. I'm not talking about that. I'm
talking about marriage in the temple. And here's the problem with believing
that it is changeable. Say you've got a a young gay man who is
trying to hold on with everything he can to the church, but he goes to an organization, and
there are several of these today that say, "Don't worry about it. You be your authentic self. Go be your authentic
self because as soon as these old white men die out in leadership, this is going
to change and temple marriage will be accepted in the church, gay marriage as a whole and gay relationships will be
accepted in the church. So you go on and live your gay lifestyle and eventually
the church will catch up to you. And I've spoken to several gay men that have
same-sex attraction that are horrified at the support that type of support
in the guise of love and and and compassion that people
within the church are offering. This is so bad and gotten so bad that a
professor has written an 82page paper. I did an episode on this not too long ago
about a shadow faith within the LDS church within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And it's published
in an academic journal. It's worse than you think it is. I I don't want to be a
doomsdayer here. I'm just telling you that the issue is not the Q&A at fair.
It's not the comm's director. It's not your job. It's not my job. The issue is
much broader. It is confusing to people which is why I
love this 30th anniversary here of of the family proclamation where we can get these kind of support and push this out
there. This will not change.
One of the things they've done here for the engine articles is one of the articles is just the family proclamation
which is great because like the scriptures we don't usually read it. We refer to it. We talk about it. We
understand the order of the family, but not many people go back and read this, at least on any kind of a regular basis.
It is amazing. I'm not going to go through all of that right now. I've done this in another interview with someone else that's coming up very shortly. Uh
going over the order of the proclamation and of the family and and what's in here. But I do want to just go over the
last two paragraphs of of the of the proclamation. And and this is what
people who either do not support the family proclamation and hope it will change, right? I call it a hope in
change over a hope in Christ because it's against the doctrine of Christ.
But uh here's the last two paragraphs. We warned that individuals who violate
covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring or who fall fail to fulfill
family responsibilities will one day sound stand accountable before God.
Okay, I'm going to read that again. Oh, we hate judgment. Stop judgment, Greg. No, I truth is two sides.
I'm going read it again. We warned 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. But Greg, I need
to be my authentic self. Look, I give grace. I give mercy to
individuals that ha that that have issues with this of both identity and lifestyle.
Okay? But there is an ideal. There's an ideal that we can't let go of. I did not
grow up with an ideal situation in family, right? My parents divorced when I was six years old.
I I didn't have a father in the home. He's amazing father. He did everything he could. An amazing person
and and probably the biggest hero in my life. But that doesn't mean that they taught something different that they
didn't still teach about the the ideal. Right? In my case, I've been very fortunate because I have an amazing wife
and and we do have had a a mother and a father in the home for our kids the
entire time they were growing up and now and I and I hope that we are an anchor to them still as they're adults. I'm not
going to advocate for something different than the ideal. I'm going to love all that are in all situations, but
I'm not going to let go of the ideal. It goes on further. We warned that the disintegration of the family. Think
about everything that attacks that traditional family. Identity, marriage itself, fidelity,
sexual relationship, the law of chastity, division between state and parent rights with children. Yes, gender
roles. Right. We warned that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and
nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. But if you bring it up, Greg, it's just
political. Last paragraph. We call upon responsible citizens and
officer officers of government everywhere to promote those measures
designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of
society. You can call that political or not. Why are they calling for that? Because
it's what's going to destroy us. The disintegration of the family will destroy any civilization, not just ours.
I'm glad this discussion is happening. It needs to happen. We need to take
We can't put our heads in the sand on this. We need to understand what's going on out there. We need to protect our
families. We need to protect our children while still loving others. and
and sustaining and supporting the brethren. You get on X, it is absolute
unbelievable these anonymous accounts especially and what they're saying.
These are people that are either already enemies of the church or they cannot
parse out destroying the church and the heads of the church from an employee or
from policies and understand that that if you cut the head off of the church,
the whole thing falls. Maybe that's really what you want because if you could be right, if you're right, well,
that's all that matters. The church is the greatest organization on earth and
it's not even close. And that's whether you're a believer or not. I think that if you really looked inside of it that
you could find that. But one of its greatest strengths is the doctrines of
restoration, of exaltation, of who we are, what our purpose is. And these are built around
the doctrine and order of the family pulling on the powers of the atoning
sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Don't try to separate those.
