The Prophetic Purpose of the Proclamation
Posted by Connor on June 4th, 2007
It has now been almost twelve years since The Family: A Proclamation to the World was read in the General Relief Society Meeting and given as a prophetic proclamation to the world at large. Since that time, I believe we have seen an increased and highly organized attack on the family from many angles that illustrates just how prophetic and timely this document was.
Prefacing the proclamation, President Hinckley first discussed its import in that 1995 meeting:
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. (Gordon B. Hinckley, “Stand Strong Against the Wiles of the World,” Ensign, November 1995, 100)
The Prophet here tells us that because of sophistry, deception, allurement and enticement, he and his colleagues have felt the need to warn and forewarn. Obviously, then, this proclamation was not given so much for the problems in 1995 as it was for later years when its doctrines, values, and principles would most be under attack. Ordained as seers, President Hinckley, his counselors, and the twelve apostles are able to discern and witness events long before they happen, and thus give inspired warnings to the members of the church concerning that which is to come. I would suggest that we read the Proclamation with that thought in mind—that these warnings and promptings come from men who can see.
Do we sufficiently understand the prophetic purpose of this proclamation? Do we guide our family lives by its precepts and uphold the values it promotes? Do we comprehend and boldly defend the doctrines contained therein? Do we see?
As the attack on the family increases—be it social, economic, emotional, educational, physical or otherwise—this prophetic document will become more and more relevant in solving the problems that plague our society. We would all be wise to heed its counsel and promote its teachings, in a concerted effort to avoid “tak[ing] on the slow stain of the world”.
Perhaps one of the most overlooked doctrines taught in the proclomation is how the plan of salvation is centered around the family. This gets me to thinking that all those who partake of the plan of salvation will be with their families forever in the kingdom of god. Nowhere in all of scripture is the plan of salvation coupled directly with family togetherness and relations. WOW!
Comment # 1 left by Rob Osborn on June 4th, 2007
If indeed the “plan of salvation is centered around the family,” it is interesting to me that the Book of Mormon makes no mention at all of this idea, despite containing the “fullness of the gospel.” Any thoughts on why this would be?
Comment # 2 left by kodos on June 4th, 2007
If indeed the “plan of salvation is centered around the family,†it is interesting to me that the Book of Mormon makes no mention at all of this idea, despite containing the “fullness of the gospel.†Any thoughts on why this would be?
We learn that the Book of Mormon contains the “fulness of the gospel” from the two following verses:
Now, your question seems to imply that if the Book of Mormon does indeed contain the fulness of the gospel, then it should contain every doctrine ever revealed of God pertaining to the gospel. However, one of tte articles of faith says:
This would indicate, then, that the “fulness” doesn’t necessarily mean everything pertaining to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Elder Nelson explains what the fulness of the gospel is:
As Elder Nelson teaches, the fulness of the gospel indicates a knowledge of the atonement of Christ—the fundamental building block of the gospel and the key to understanding the depths and mysteries that no doubt will take an eternity to comprehend and learn. So while the Book of Mormon does teach of families and make important mention of them, one must not assume that it need describe the doctrine of eternal families in order to be qualified as containing the fulness of the gospel.
Comment # 3 left by Connor on June 4th, 2007
Thanks for the context on this Connor. I tend to see the Proclamation in isolation, as just a statement (a proclamation). President Hinckley’s words about it really emphasize for me just how important it is to keep our vision of these doctrines clear. It reminds me a little of the Lord’s mention in D&C 89:4 of “evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days.” There’s a bigger picture to these doctrines that can be easy to forget when we look at them alone–the Proclamation or the Word of Wisdom. It’s about more than happy families or physical health…
Wow, thanks for the reminder.
Comment # 4 left by Naiah on June 4th, 2007
Connor, I’m really interested in the idea that there has been “an increased and highly organized attack on the family from many angles” since 95. Could you elaborate with some specifics about where you see this attack?
Comment # 5 left by Kristine on June 4th, 2007
So while the Book of Mormon does teach of families and make important mention of them…
I don’t think the BoM comes anywhere close to even alluding to the idea that the “plan of salvation” is, as you claim, “centered around the family.” Then how “central” can the family really be?
Comment # 6 left by kodos on June 4th, 2007
Let me reiterate what I take to be Kristine’s question, but maybe a bit more bluntly … how exactly were the warnings in the Proclamation on the Family “prophetic” in the sense that you’re using the term — foreseeing things long before they happen? It’s not as if the societal forces that it decries were only on the distant horizon. Weren’t they already basically present?
I’m not wanting to argue with your claim that prophets may be able to foresee future calamities, or that it is their job to warn mankind about them. But it seems to me we’re not paying them or their prophetic abilities respect when we say we see “evidence” of their “prophetic-ness” that isn’t really there. Isn’t the Proclamation simply a reaction to societal trends, rather than a statement that predicts future trends? Sure, perhaps the drive for gay marriage became stronger after the Proclamation, but it’s not as if no one else saw it coming.
It’s like the old chestnut that says “The Church was organized in 1830! Look at all the amazing inventions that came out after 1830!” And then trying to imply there’s some amazing coincidence going on that can only be explained by obvious divine intervention in the affairs of mankind. But of course, if 1880 was the year, or 1750 was the year, we’d be making the same claims (no more or less plausibly) and be seeing the same “amazingness.” Puh-leeez.
I think it’s a mistake to act like church statements that anticipate trends that anyone could have anticipated are somehow incredibly prescient or amazing in their foresight.
Aaron B
Comment # 7 left by Aaron Brown on June 5th, 2007
I’m supposed to be on a blogging vacation, but….
Kristine: I’m not sure that there is a need to center on the exact year, just becasue the PotF was sent out in 1995 does not require that certain attacks must have started on or after 1995 for the document to be prophetic.
There are several sources the document social problems stemming from the breakdown of the traditional family in recent years. Former Senator Patrick Moynahan wrote some books tracing social problems in the United States to family breakdown in recent years.
There is also a book called ‘The War Against the Family’ by William D. Gairdner that is packed with stats and charts and data whichis applicable to many western societies. This book was written in the early ’90s. This book is huge so I may just provide the chapter titles to give you a taste:
The State vs. the Family
The Popular Illusions: Ten Unnecessary Obstacles
The Traditional Family System
The Antifamily Tradition
The Swedish Lesson
The Family at a Glance
Compulsory Miseducation: Looking After Their Minds
Looking After Their Souls: Moral Values and Sex-Ed
Looking After Their Bodies
The Solution: Take Back the Scholls
The Feminist Mistake: Women Against the Family
Women at War: On the Military, Daycare, and Home Fronts
Radical Homosexuals vs. the Family
The Invisible Holocaust: Abortion vs. the Family
Killing with Kindness: Euthanasia vs. the Family
Blessing Our Trespasses: The Church vs.the Family
Turning Wrongs into Rights: The Law vs. the Family
So anyway, there are several sources that can provide ample evidence for traditional family breakdown and the associated social problems over the last decade or so. I do not think we must show an absense of those problems prior to ‘95 in order to believe in the prophetic nature of the declaration.
Comment # 8 left by Eric Nielson on June 5th, 2007
AaronB:
Again, I don’t see the need to show a line in the sand in 1995 that charts changes from their to believe in the prophetness of this declaration. Maybe I do not understand?
Was there no adultry prior to Moses delivering the 10 commandments? No stealing? Does this mean that Moses simply was reacting to social trends?
It is amazing to me how easily we can write things off as some kind of social administration or mere coincidence. Puh-leez.
Comment # 9 left by Eric Nielson on June 5th, 2007
Aaron - “prophetic” means so much more than “foretelling” or “prediction.” To say that this document is prophetic isn’t meant to say that the authors knew something that it was impossible for anyone else to know or predict. It means that they foresaw the future, and saw a need for this document. The proclamation would have to be worded unequivocally to give the Saints a certain grasp on the will of the Lord. Though the principles in the proclamation are nothing new, and though the problems it addresses have not spontaneously generated since the release of the proclamation, within its phrases are sure, certain and highly controversial statements of doctrine. There is no doubt where the Church stands on the issues in the proclamation.
Frankly, I think those who are hoping for a retraction of the beliefs therein are hoping in vain. That is the prophetic import of the proclamation - that there will come a time when these doctrines will separate those willing to heed the will of the Lord from those who list to obey the “sophistry that is passed off as truth.”
Thank you for posting this, Connor, it has come at a time in my life when I needed to be reminded that I am not alone. Anyone up for starting an Mormon Conclave?
Comment # 10 left by SilverRain on June 5th, 2007
Actually, Aaron’s asking a different question than I was–my question is based on the fact that, in the last decade or decade and a half, the divorce rate is down, abortion and teen pregnancy rates are down, the birthrate is up… By just about any measure, the American family seems to be doing well. So, if there is an attack, it seems like it has been pretty unsuccessful. I’m genuinely curious to understand where you see the problems. I live in the bluest of blue states, and I’m surrounded by people who care about their children’s education, social development, health (including abstinence from alcohol, drugs, and sex), moral training, and the welfare of other people’s children, as well. I’m puzzled by the sense that “the world” is falling apart and Mormons are the last defense of the American family under siege. Please tell me, specifically, what you see or what statistical findings contribute to your sense of increasing attack.
(Personally, I’m inclined to think that the factors that most seriously threaten family success in the U.S. come from economic pressures, rather than social or moral decay. But that’s probably a long discussion for another day.)
Eric, thanks for providing those sources. It helps me know where you’re coming from, even though I think both Moynihan and Gardner have been widely and convincingly discredited.
Comment # 11 left by Kristine on June 5th, 2007
Is it possible that we are misunderstanding the Proclamation? We automatically assume that it is meant to rally the troops against gay marriage, abortion, and sex education in schools. Is it possible that we are seeing the proclamation partially in light of our existing biases?
I’m curious as to how we interpret the data that follows. The source is that notorious anti-family rag, The Wall Street Journal.
Comment # 12 left by Mark IV on June 5th, 2007
I agree that “prophetic” has more meanings than just “prediction,” and if they are what we’re talking about, than I’ve got no beef here. It just seemed to me that the tone of the post was such that focus was being put on the “the Brethren are ahead of their time” theme, which I don’t think really applies here (or in most of the contexts where it is applied, quite frankly).
Aaron B
Comment # 13 left by Aaron Brown on June 5th, 2007
Kristine,
You are right that the economic factor is a large one. Morality is a huge issue, and whether it be divorce, adultery, fornication, or pornography, it’s my belief that such problems have increased in magnitude in the last decade or so, aided especially with the internet as a new medium for disseminating pornography and invading our homes.
Let us not forget that the Proclamation is not to the United States, but to the world at large. When referencing statistics, we must take into account those of other countries as well. So while divorce may be down in the United States (based on the study you prefer to agree with), it may be skyrocketing in others.
As inflation rises, fixed incomes stagnate, and the dollar (and other currencies) continue to be debased, more and more mothers are finding themselves compelled to seek employment in order to sustain a family. Whereas Dad and Grandpa could support their family, our dollar has much, much less purchasing power, while costs are much higher. This economic circumstance means that many SAHMs must look for ways to help bring in the bacon in order to support the family. When both parents are off at work, the children are put into daycare, outsourced to other adults who are charged with their well being instead of being at home in a nurturing environment with their own parents.
There are several other factors which I believe, when compounded, constitute a rise in the number of problems families face in our day. Many are not new, but the “traditional family” (Dad working, Mom staying at home, the kids coming home after school to interact with their parents and develop close relationships with them and each other) is being eroded away as external influences continue to compete for our time, money, and energy.
Comment # 14 left by Connor on June 5th, 2007
Kristine:
I am certainly no scholar in the area. I just know than when and where I grew up all the kids on the baseball, football, basketball teams and in the schools seemed to have a mother and a father, and shared the same last name. In my community now I am frequently roped into coaching soccer and other youth teams, and we also volunteer at the schools occasionally. It is getting rare where I currently live to see any kids that have both parents living at home, or that even have the same last name. It gets to be a real pain trying to keep track of which parent to call and who belongs to who.
Comment # 15 left by Eric Nielson on June 5th, 2007
Eric, I know a lot of really great, loving, committed families where the kids and parents have different last names. I know of lot of moms who adore their children and are great at their jobs, and their kids seem to be doing just fine. I think our view of the past is often too rosy, and our fears can unnecessarily cloud our perception of the present and future. It seems to me that there’s a great deal we can do to strengthen families without critiquing the particular structure of those families–good on you for coaching and working with kids!
Comment # 16 left by Kristine on June 5th, 2007
Thanks Kristine.
Now just some questions that may sound more blunt than I intend, Hopefully you can fill in for my inadaquacy.
Is it possible that divorce rates are down (not necessarily low) because people are just not bothering with marriage as much anymore? It might be interesting if there were statistics that included those who were cohabitating but are not anymore as a functional divorce.
Also, is it perhaps unwise for us to wait until all the sociaologists and the like unanimously agree that there is a breakdown happening with the traditional family and that it has links to many social problems, instead of heeding the warnings of our prophet?
Perhaps what you are saying is that we can follow the prophet without criticizing ‘the world’ so much.
Comment # 17 left by Eric Nielson on June 5th, 2007
“Perhaps what you are saying is that we can follow the prophet without criticizing ‘the world’ so much.”
Something like that. One of the things I love about President Hinckley is how upbeat he is, and ready to see the good around him. I see a lot of great things around me. Just yesterday on the subway, I watched a young man wearing enormously baggy pants and a skull-and-crossbones do-rag push his little girl’s stroller into the subway, sit down, unzip the Tommy Hilfiger diaper bag, and carefully, skillfully, tenderly feed his daughter rice cereal and strained bananas. I don’t think that could have happened without some of the changes that are regularly decried in the conservative press and by many church members. But it was beautiful, and I can’t help thinking that God must have been pleased by it. I suspect that most social trends among human beings are as crazy and inscrutable a mix of good and bad as most human beings are, and that we ought to celebrate what is “virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy” wherever we find it (even among feminists and liberals and unconventional family arrangements!).
Comment # 18 left by Kristine on June 5th, 2007
What is meant by the title of this post, “Prophetic Purpose”?
Is ‘prophetic’ meant to be a description of the origin (it was revealed by God), a description of the content in relation to the future (it happens to foresee future events), or a description of Conner’s understand of its purpose (God revealed the purpose to Conner)? Or is it neither of these and a prescription of how we ought to understand the Proclamation?
The problem with much of this discussion is that we know very little of the origins of the proclamation. Just because it was presented by the President of the Church does not mean that it was revealed by God - even if the President of the Church claims it was (B Young’s Adam-God Doctrine is a prime example of this). As far as I’m aware, I have not heard any official claim of how this document originated. Was it revealed as such (how much of the D&C was revealed)? My understanding is that it was not, but was rather written by a committee . Is it a living breathing document subject to edits and change? As far as I’m aware, it is not considered scripture, nor has it been officially presented as such.
While it is signed by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve (at least I think it is), D. Michael Quinn’s work in his Mormon Hierarchy adequately shows that often this is not a sign of agreement, but rather to preserve the illusion of political unanimity among the leaders.
Anyways, the point of my comment is that discussion of the ‘Prophetic Purpose’ of the the proclamation in any descriptive sense is problematic because we know very little of the origins of the proclamation and whether or not they actually were prophetic (in a revealed sense - not authoritative sense).
Comment # 19 left by the narrator on June 5th, 2007
I have to say that I expect a little more from a symposium than ‘we would all be wise to heed its council.’
Perhaps you can explain how a proscribed list of qualities of a good family is going to save us all? In practical terms, how is this useful? Doesn’t it just make people whose families haven’t worked out the way they planned feel bad? Has it changed the church, or has it not been embraced, and why or why not? How much of the proclamation is new doctrine, and how much is a restatement of existing doctrine, and what are the sources of that doctrine?
Give us something more than, ‘Do we see?’
Comment # 20 left by Norbert on June 5th, 2007
Norbert,
(Please note that I am sharing something very sensitive about myself, my upbringing, and the state of my family as an adult. I have no wish to debate this matter. I am simply responding to your idea that the Proclamation makes people with imperfect families feel bad. Please dont’ make me feel bad for sharing this personal information about myself. Thanks.)
As someone who grew up in a family that was, to say the least, ‘broken,’ (my mom walked out and never came back when I was seven, and I spent the rest of my childhood in daycares/with a home babysitter/as a latchkey kid) and who has embarked on a marriage and family of her own that are far from perfect (on my second marriage with one child from each), I have to say that the Proclamation does not make me feel bad, but rather gives me (us) a guide, a goal, something to follow and to model ourselves after. My husband and I are both converts, and we have a great appreciation for such counsel as is given in it.
I’m just one person, but I felt I should share my experience.
Comment # 21 left by Naiah Earhart on June 5th, 2007
In the PBS documentary, Elder Marlin K. Jensen said…
How much does the Proclamation reinforce these cultural mores and stereotypes that make life even more difficult for those who do not fit the *ideals* as discussed in the Proclamation? Is it kicking those who are already down?
Comment # 22 left by the narrator on June 5th, 2007
The gospel of Jesus Christ is full of such ideals.
‘Be ye therefore perfect’ (Matt. 5:48)
Can’t get much more ideal than that. Does Christ here kick those who are down by saying such a thing? Personally I don’t think so. Certainly we should be patient and understanding with each other, but we should also try to teach and stand up for gospel principles also. It may be difficult, even impossible to do that without unintentionally offending someone sometimes. I am afraid I am not always very good at this.
Comment # 23 left by Eric Nielson on June 6th, 2007
I think it is impossible to stand for something without offending someone, especially in this society where standing for something is seen as a weakness and people are eager to take offense. It is important to do what you can, to discuss ideas and behavior without condemning people, and to let those who choose to be offended be offended without getting offended yourself.
It’s certainly not easy.
Comment # 24 left by SilverRain on June 6th, 2007
Eric,
You can’t compare Christ’s ideal to be perfect with the Church’s ideal of the traditional family. The former puts everyone on equal ground. The latter excludes many against their will. The former (depending on your interpretation) is either achievable or unachievable by all. The latter is achievable for some, and impossible for others. The kicking occurs when those for whom the ideal is impossible are told they aren’t good enough as they watch others live the ideal.
Comment # 25 left by the narrator on June 6th, 2007
Narrator:
I do not understand how ‘The latter … [is] impossible for others’.
Comment # 26 left by Eric Nielson on June 6th, 2007
Eric,
Some parents can’t have children. Some people just can’t get married. Some faithful homosexuals just can’t straighten up. Some kids won’t have loving parents. Some spouses won’t fit the bill. Some people are just in circumstances where no matter how faithful they are, the Proc ideal is out of reach.
Comment # 27 left by the narrator on June 6th, 2007
It may be out of reach in the immediate now, but it is always something to reach for in the future. Call it the light at the end of a tunnel, if you will.
There is nothing adamantly prohibitive in any of the conditions you cite…
Those who cannot bear children, can adopt.
Those who for whatever reason do not marry in this life, can carry that hope always, and can look forward to a possible union in the next.
Those who struggle to reconcile homosexual urges can choose to change how they see that challenge in their life; it is undoubtedly a deeply humbling and difficult choice to make, but tearing down and rebuilding parts of one’s identity is possible. I know. It can be done. I won’t say any more on that, but I know.
Children who lack loving parents can look forward to a time when they themselves are the parents and can build their family up in a better way than they had as children.
As for spouses who, as you say, do not fit the bill, there is always hope, always humility, always the possibility of change. If my husband, of all people, can come around and find faith and join the church, then anyone’s can. I have seen the miracle, myself.
I, myself, live outside the “Proc ideal” as you call it, and yet, it does not offend me. Those who choose to be offended are choosing to be offended, and well, that has little to nothing to do with the Proclamation itself, and more to do with their choice to be offended. We’be been couseled in scripture and in modern times to not be easily offended, and it is, in fact our choice.
Comment # 28 left by Naiah Earhart on June 6th, 2007
narrator,
Our leaders have address exceptions even as they say they are usually teaching the rule. I included a couple of quotes in my recent post that addressed your concern specifically. Our leaders say that we should do our best, live the gospel, and trust in the Lord and His promises. That doesn’t give us license to do whatever we want; we still have to live according to God’s laws. But there is much hope there for nearly every situation the ideal family can come about, either in this life or the next. Mortality means that things won’t always be ideal, but we are to do our best to aim toward that and hope for it and live worthy of it.
Comment # 29 left by Michelle on June 6th, 2007
Naiah (#28), Thanks for being willing to share your personal experience in seeing the Proclamation as affirming ideals to work towards, rather than a condemnation of anyone whose life doesn’t perfectly mirror those ideals. I agree with your statement, “Those who choose to be offended are choosing to be offended.”
I also agree with Michelle (#29) that our leaders clearly teach that if we are trying our best to live a righteous life here in mortality, we can be assured that we will eventually receive all the opportunities and blessings needed to be exalted.
I think we can be wise in the way we teach those ideals in Church settings, and emphasize future hopes for those in less than ideal situation now.
My husband is not sealed to his parents, because they divorced when he was a child. When he joined the Church in college, he didn’t agonize about coming from a broken home; but he did actively work toward the goal of being sealed to a companion to start forming an eternal family of his own.
No matter what the latest statistics may say about what is happening in the U.S. or other countries of the world, just a look at the popular media presentations of sexual relationships convinces me that the family as described in the Proclamation is definitely coming under increasing attacks. I am grateful for the warning we have been given to be alert to how those attacks might be impacting me and my family, so we will be less likely to be deceived.
Comment # 30 left by RoAnn on June 6th, 2007
RoAnn, the media portrayal of families is an interesting example. I hadn’t really thought about it since we got rid of our TV years ago, but I definitely think there are a lot of destructive messages there. I miss Little House on the Prairie!
One media tactic that I never hear decried by Mormons, but which I’d love to see tackled in the context of calling on nations to enact laws and regulations that strengthen families, is the pernicious advertising to “tweens” and even younger kids that teaches them that certain products are “cool” and their parents are primarily old fuddy-duddies trying to keep them from the coolness and happiness that they will get by buying Product X. (Juliet Schor’s _Born to Buy_ is a must-read for her description of these techniques and her study of their effects)
Comment # 31 left by Kristine on June 6th, 2007
Kristine, I love that idea.
Comment # 32 left by Michelle on June 6th, 2007
South Park has an episode about this.
Comment # 33 left by the narrator on June 6th, 2007