Episodes

SPECIAL EPISODE: The Backdrop and Context of The Family A Proclamation to the World


The Family: A Proclamation To The World – How was it created?  Why was it created?  What is the timeline for its creation?  Today in a special joint episode Radio Free Mormon and Bill Reel from Mormon Discussion tackle these questions and more.  Want to know the backdrop and context of the creation of the LDS Proclamation on the family?  Well here it is and we hope you enjoy!!!!!

RESOURCES:

https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/10/oaks_paper1984.pdf
http://rationalfaiths.com/from-amici-to-ohana/
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2017/10/the-plan-and-the-proclamation?lang=eng
https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/archive/worldwide-leadership-training/2008/02?lang=eng
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/cleansing-the-inner-vessel?lang=eng
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFCWUoXr1Dg
https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V45N01_CO.pdf
https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng&old=true
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1995/10/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world?lang=eng

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/01/16-273-amicus-petitioner-major_religious_organizations.pdf

Play

56 thoughts on “SPECIAL EPISODE: The Backdrop and Context of The Family A Proclamation to the World

  1. I was never the sharpest knife in the drawer, but please, does someone have a good explanation as to why the church has gone to such extremes to be in conflict with same sex marriage?

    What is their reasoning for objecting so loudly to people doing behind closed doors whatever they feel is right for the individuals involved?

    Sorry for being unaware; please forgive. I just don’t understand the reason for the extent the church is willing to go to, to oppose private action.

    And how does gay marriage ‘undermine’ traditional marriage?

    Some answers or opinions please, and thanks for considering my questions.

    • Gale, of course the reasoning may be different between apostle to apostle, and they may not be honest to themselves to the real reason, so I will give my best guess.

      For one, it doesn’t work with the Plan of Salvation at all – so any backing off with the gay marriage issue is basically an admission God’s plan is made up. How are they going to justify that God’s plan really isn’t to be together forever and have large families – or that a gay person’s plan is different and they aren’t subject to what straight people are?

      Gender dynamics are huge in the church as well and homosexuality isn’t compatible with it. How can they say a woman’s nature is to nurture children if they accept homosexuality? Clearly in that lesbian couple someone will need to be a breadwinner. What about the priesthood? How will that work in a household with a lesbian couple? Would they just need to admit it’s not needed?

      • Thank you Julie for the explanation. I fit the description of “clueless”, so thanks for filling me in.

        God bless,

        Gale

    • Hi, Gale.

      I think it is safe to say the reason the church has gone to such extremes is because gay marriage strikes at the very heard of LDS doctrine.

      LDS doctrine has come to be centered on the heterosexual sex act. This is what eternal life consists of.

      There is no way the church can see of reconciling gay marriage with that. Marriage must be able to procreate spirit children in the eternities.

      Any marriage not capable of doing so cannot, by definition, constitute the kind of marriage required for godhood/exaltation.

      Even though the Encyclopedia of Mormonism is correct that the exact method of creating spirit children has not been revealed, current church leadership believes differently.

      That is my take on it, anyway.

      Thanks for listening!

      RFM

      • Thank you RFM,

        I truly didn’t understand what the fuss was all about, but you helped me see the why behind the church’s drive to be homophobic and exclusionary.

        God bless,

        Gale

  2. Bill and RFM:

    Great podcast!! Thank you! I wanted to add a little if I may. The 1984 position paper by Elder Oaks had its genesis even earlier. When Elder Oaks was president of BYU in the 1970’s he oversaw the formation of a mysterious program called “The Values Institute”. It’s purpose was to “prove the prophets correct” about homosexuality and debunk scientific notions that homosexuality was inborn, and to find methods and means to fight against gay activists, including political means. The Institute failed, or course, because what the Church was teaching about homosexuality at the time was just flat-out wrong. But there were some later off-shoots of The Institute. Some of the faculty surfaced in the officially “not connected to the Church” reparative therapy program called Evergreen. And Oaks went on to the Apostleship, where the 1984 position paper was presented very early on in his ministry. I’ve included a link to a blog post I made years ago on this subject. If you follow the links in the post, you can see internal memos and letters between Oaks and the Brethren on this issue. Thx!

    http://nealspensieve.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-mormon-stonewall.html

    • Dear Neal,

      Thanks so much for the information. I had no idea about the Payne Papers. And the memos you link to from Elder Oaks to Elder Monson are astounding.

      Remarkable stuff!

      Excellent blog post, too, btw!

      • Thanks RFM! And thanks again for the excellent podcasts! I love to hear your perspective on things. 🙂

  3. Oh yes, and you can see in one of the letters (1979) the start of the Church’s deceptiveness in trying to hide their involvement in these efforts – in this case trying to make a book on homosexuality look like it’s source was not the Church, even though the Church sponsored and funded it. The book never got printed, but that idea of “going dark” was used later on, as your podcast mentioned.

  4. Neal…I just went to your site, read your article, and also looked at the Payne papers you referenced, something I had never seen.

    WOW!…

    Bill and RFM….this podcast?

    WOW!!!!!!!!!!

    This is some solid and seriously eye-opening material! I was aware of some of it, but not pulled together in this more tidy package. Thanks for the research and hard work.

    • Thanks Rob. That’s part of gay Mormon history I hope does not get erased. I’m looking forward to Greg Prince’s new book on Gay Mormon History, which I hope will include a lot of this material.

  5. PS….Neal, you have a quote from Wilkinson in there?…

    Pure hate. That is ASTONISHING to me the witch hunt at the “Y” in those days (and in many ways today still!)

    • Yes Rob, there were a lot of witch hunts that extended even into the administration of Dallin Oaks as BYU president. The electrocution experiments also took place under his watch. Did you read some of the other articles linked throughout the blog post? Lots of interesting bits there. The main takeaway for me is that even when the Church’s tactics failed (The Values Institute), the Church took it “underground”, with black-ops support for Evergreen (now NorthStar), Prop 8, etc. But the stage for The Proclamation was set way earlier than most realize. The Church, or at least some members of the Brethren, are determined NOT to entirely let go of the attitudes and notions of 40-50 years ago. They don’t want to be wrong.

      • Neal…I have a close friend–an ex-bishop who is gay. He has since left the church. Living the lie was too much for him to take any longer.

        I’ve learned A LOT from this dear friend.

        He underwent this shock therapy, and in his opinion, the only thing it accomplished was to really mess him up. I’ve also held him while he wept–and I don’t mean a few little tears, I’m talking the deep soul wrenching sobs of utter agony–and listened to him beg God for relief, to be “healed”, to be cured…ANYTHING other than being born wrong (so he felt).

        This friend has no memory of being anything other than gay. And his whole life he felt like a freak because of it. He was a high achiever in an attempt to combat his struggles. But after years of prayer, fasting, scriptures, having his genitalia electrocuted in the name of LDS Therapy, etc…he is still gay.

        So Neal,…though I am not gay, I have empathy, and I understand from that perspective some of this pain that gay folks go through.

        My only feeling is one of love, kindness, and acceptance. I love my friend. He is as gay as they come, and I am heterosexual…and it doesn’t bother me one bit to hug this big burly man, tell him I love him, and that we are OK.

        Oh wow!…..guess what,…being friendly with gay people doesn’t make me gay either. Go figure…another myth I was taught dispelled.

        • Rob,

          I have no words to express the sorrow I feel that your friend went through these awful experiences. Mine were awful, but not as awful as his. The Church needs to learn a lesson from Huckleberry Finn – you can’t pray a lie! Having gays try to pray away their attractions is blasphemy, because we are not broken to start with! The Church clings to this destructive notion that gay = broken. The end result is that everyone gets hurt.

  6. The proclamation is truly inspired. I’m glad that God made a public declaration back then so in our current times of confusion. There is no question about what a family should be. We live in a morally bankrupt society that gets more wicked by the day. A lot of people ie Bill Reel like to espouse bankrupt ideas and morals but following the Gospel as taught by Christ and his Prophets and Apostles is the sure way back to him. Bill Reel philosophy is do whatever you want as long as you can put a nuance rationalization to it.

    • I have to disagree.

      Bill Reel’s philosophy is to reach out in love, tolerance and compassion to those marginalized and demonized by the church to which he belongs.

      THAT is the “Gospel as taught by Christ.”

      Nuff said.

    • I must have missed God making his public appearance. Could you provide a little more information about God and His public declaration? Just the normal “who, what when, where and how”.

  7. So I think it’s fair to assume that these men (our Q’12 & First Presidency) are trying to carry out the will of the Lord as they see fit.

    With little empathy and understanding to the plea of gays all over the world. In their hearts of hearts they wish to carry out the will of God without receiving literal revelation although they have now convinced or deceived themselves that they are and have received revelation that this is the will of the Lord and this is how he does it and and it has always been.

    Would it be fair to assume then that our leaders are intentionally deceiving us? Or perhaps it would be too devastating for the church to be transparent with the narrative that we have created for ourselves?

    It’s interesting how Jack Naneek’s podcast sort of correlates with this. Our leader’s try, but don’t trust us with the truth?

    I think they tried to establish the church rules as the law of the land as best they could. Honestly, I’m not sure any more, I’ve lost a lot of respect and admiration for the top leadership of our church. I don’t know if I can trust them anymore. It’s hard to know who to trust, I’m just going to have to trust in myself.

    • Good comments, David.

      Learning to trust yourself is the first step toward spiritual growth.

      Whether they know it or not, keeping the members in subjection to the directives of their leaders is the path to spiritual atrophy.

      Only by learning to trust the spirit of God that is in YOU can you grow spiritually.

      That is what Jesus was trying to teach people in the New Testament.

      It is as hard for people to get that message today as it was back then.

      Especially for people who are members of an organized religion.

    • Perfect point. It is very hard to know who to trust! The conflicting teachings, statements, proclamations, whatever…so much conflicting stuff WITHIN the Church forces one to ask: WHO CAN I TRUST????

  8. Bill, you say “I played the game when I didn’t know what the game was.” But now, you DO know what the game is. AND, you know about the game of church history. How can you keep playing? You used the word “fidelity” in this podcast. Where is your fidelity to truth? I am not attacking you, only asking the question based on your podcasts themselves. One cannot strain out bits of truth from the history and the current happenings of the Church to find the “true church”. It just doesn’t work that way. I’m sure I’m not the only one asking this question about the fence you are sitting on. Thank you for your consideration in answering the question.

    • Bill…I love you and you know who I am. I want to second Shauna’s post. My interest is curiosity, but its genuine.

      I’m out and have no desire to return. The LDS church, IMHO, lies extensively; its their standard operating procedure, something they have done for over a century now. Their justification seems to be they believe the ends justify the means; or as BY felt, the church is at war with the gentile world, and war justifies things otherwise considered wrong.

      I know there are other reasons besides spiritual why people may remain LDS. But you seem to be more focused on the doctrines that are being colluded by apologists and GAs who seek to maintain a narrative that is, in many respects, blatantly false.

      Bill,…why do you stay in?

    • I have been fully honest about my motives. I stay in the tension for my own growth and to help others wake up to their own development. Whether folks stay or leave Mormonism matters little. I do not proclaim things I do not believe in and I fully acknowledge that the narrative we have told is deeply inaccurate.

      • Bill…we are good. Like I said above, people stay in for different reasons…and that is fine. Though I am out, I am also taking a stand of love: in or out doesn’t matter as much to me as the type of person someone chooses to be.

        Even though I’m out, I hope to be a loving kind individual regardless.

  9. I will have to let Bill answer this for himself.

    But if he is indeed sitting on the fence as you suggest, I just hope it doesn’t affect his priesthood.

  10. Have any of the opposing parties cited these facts to exclude amici briefs on the grounds of recent fabrication?

    • The Hawaii case was over by the end of the 1990’s so it would be a moot point.

      And of course, the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision recognizing a constitutional right to gay marriage makes it double-moot.

      ;^)

  11. Found this in a LDS Magazine article. Ir relates to the claim of Packer about the conferences. It does show that the proclamation was issued after the conferences were already over.

    Salt Lake City was chosen for the historic Stand for the Family conference as it was in Salt Lake that the first International Conference on the Family, in conjunction with the United Nations, was convened in June of 1995. Over 600 delegates from 56 countries participated. President Thomas S. Monson, then an apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was the keynote speaker and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir performed for the closing session, held in the Tabernacle on Temple Square.

  12. Pingback: Resources on “The Proclamation on the Family” (UNDER CONSTRUCTION) – The Family: A Proclamation to the World

  13. This is what the New Testament has said about homosexuality. But you guys could careless.
    Romans 1
    26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
    27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
    28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
    29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
    30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
    31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
    32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

    • Tim,…didn’t the bible also teach that it was God’s will to slaughter even the little children as Joshua led the Israelites across Jordan?

      So God says that little children are innocent, and yet this same God says its right to slaughter them?

      I’m using this example because I believe it calls into question the Bible,…and for the following reasons I also call into question Paul’s words.

      Look at LDS prophets and what they’ve said. For example, what about the statements condoning killing people issued by Brigham Young? The racist statements issues by Mark Peterson and others…and the discriminatory policies for centuries by the church?

      At some point compassion has to come into play.

      Paul, in verse 29 above, links (as you suggest) homosexuals to murderers, etc. And a hardline interpretation, like may GAs have used, of Paul’s words can be construed to be quite harsh. But we know that GA statements in the past were often culturally driven.

      I have a friend who is homosexual. He has prayed for years to be “healed”. It didn’t work. I am 100% certain he is not a murderer. So, because Paul said it,…must be true?

      I think Paul is ranting. And I think to call someone who struggles with something that has caused such serious pain in his life a murderer (as Paul seems to be doing) is blaming the victim.

      This is the type of the thing that causes division amongst groups and communities.

      Have you ever known someone who has struggled, in the church, their whole life with gay feelings,…and have you seen them during that struggle–the pain they have endured?

      I know several, and I have to tell you from personal observation and experience I have yet to see a single one of those people, both men and women, choose their sexual feelings. They REALLY WISH THEY COULD choose….because then they could choose different.

      Blaming the victim is not a good way to address this concern. Jesus said that ‘ALL’ the Law and the Prophets depend on love.

      Is Paul blaming the victim here? What do you think Paul is trying to say?…and since ALL the Law and the Prophets is determined by love, how does love fit into what Paul is saying?

    • Thanks for the obligatory quote from Romans, Tim.

      When we come to understand that Elder Oaks can get things terribly wrong in a General Conference talk, it is not so hard to see how Paul could have gotten the same things terribly wrong in a letter he wrote 2,000 years ago.

      But this does bring up a question. Why is it that the LDS Church has never tied its teachings against homosexuality to the Bible? It would seem the obvious thing to do, as you have done.

      I don’t know the answer to this, but expect there is one.

      Somewhere.

      P.S. It’s “you guys COULDN’T care less.” ;^)

    • Hi Tim,
      This is what the New Testament says:

      John Chapter 8:
      3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

      4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

      5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

      6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

      7 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.
        

    • No, Paul did not mince his words, Tim.

      Not even when he wrote in Galatians that Christians who get circumcised should go all the way and cut off their entire male member.

      Ouch!

  14. @33:30 – Mother Fudger… bwaaahahaha so true

    Also, were there any other cases in the US in the 90’s that the LDS church or Catholic church could have or tried to file briefing with concerning LGBT?

    And… to be clear, was the church finally successful in getting standing with their filing in the Hawaii case after being able to submit the proclaimation as an exhibit? I didn’t hear you guys actually say… or could have missed it.

    Great podcast.

    • That is a great question, John.

      In all the reading I have done on this issue, I haven’t found anybody actually answering the question of whether the LDS Church’s second bid to get standing was successful.

      Maybe you could research that and let us know.

      Of course, as I am sure you realize, whether the Hawaii court actually granted the church’s second attempt to file amicus curae briefing based on the claimed standing provided by the Family Proclamation has little to do with why it was the Family Proclamation was created in the first place.

      But a very interesting question nonetheless!

  15. This is an OUTSTANDING podcast! Very informative and puts KEY ISSUES into context. The 1995 Proclamation and these outlined events requires that we consider core issues in Mormonism: Authority, Revelation methods, Nature of Man, Creation, Political activism, etc.
    — Close observers see many troubling developments striking the core of Mormon truth claims and throws into question the ROLE OF THE INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH in society.

    Kudos to Bill and RFM for this Fantastic Podcast which puts so much into context and clarifies how this issue is pressing multiple hot buttons and enabling a clearer view “behind the curtain.” (The view behind the curtain is MUCH DIFFERENT than what we understood it to be….)

    • Thanks for the comments, namtokmuu!

      You are right that the historical backdrop of the Family Proclamation, together with the most recent story by Elder Oaks of its creation, does put many core issues in Mormonism front and center.

      It is the gift that keeps on giving!

  16. Rob

    Old Testament and New Testament days were harsh there is no doubt but. And the church has become more empathetic.

    There are men and women who have a natural instinct to have an affair view pornography abuse alcohol or drugs or be physically abusive etc. To some people that is the way they are and have no desire to change. Changing negative behavior that seems to be innate is always difficult and may take a lifetime to change. But that is the standard god has set. Just because negative behavior can be hard to change does not make it acceptable. It’s man that accepts behavior that is abhorrent to God. The standard on behavior particularly homosexual behavior has not changed. For thousands of years civilized societies agreed that the behavior was immoral. Now society tells people with a propensity toward harmful behavior such as pornography, open relationships, sodomy etc to go do what pleases you even if it’s considered immoral by God.

    • Tim, a few things I have to question.

      You mentioned “changing negative behavior that seems to be innate”….are we talking changing behavior here, or changing the innate sense of who a person is?

      Can a behavior NOT be innate? Isn’t a behavior often a reflection of something that is intrinsic to a person? This brings up the question of whether homosexuality is a choice or innate, and if its a choice, can’t someone just choose to be “heterosexual”? Its important to make a distinction here. I ask because I have seen several statements where the LDS Authorities seem to believe IT IS A CHOICE–meaning, homosexuals have chosen to be that way.

      You say that “civilized societies agreed that the behavior was immoral”. What civilized societies? The Greeks were civilized, and they allowed latitude for this. The Romans were civilized, and they allowed latitude for this. You have made an unwarranted generalization here.

      You say the standard about homosexual behavior has not changed. What standard?…that homosexual behavior of all types is condemned?…by who? If I recall, hasn’t gay marriage become legal in the United States? Seems like a change to me…

      I know several gay people. NONE of those I know have an attitude of “in your face,…I’ll do what I want”. Not one of them.

      One of my friends was, at one time, a LDS bishop. He “forced” himself, as SWK said he should, to get married. This was a choice. He would sit in his Bishop’s office and have other men come in and beg him for help to change their feelings because they to had homosexual desires. He would weep with them–he had NO ANSWERS–because he himself, living in opposition to his own internal feelings, was given no answers.

      I have a question. Since you believe God condemns homosexual behaviors…do you believe a kind, generous god would allow someone to be “born wrong”?

      I know several honest homosexual people who have spent, in some cases over 50 YEARS! applying the doctrines and counsel of the LDS authorities. It didn’t work.

      So what of the counsel by men like BKP and others that God can “fix” what BKP and you say is broken? It didn’t work for those I know. And they REALLY HAVE TRIED. What about the shock therapy administered to the genitalia of these people in the name of LDS Obedience that messed them up for the rest of their life? it didn’t work.

      The church has retrenched itself, and now depends completely on condemning the “behavior”…meaning homosexual individuals must remain celibate for the remainder of their lives. And LDS authorities have said in many places that sexual feelings of this type are earthly, and will be “fixed” in the next life. And, the LDS authorities have no proof of any type their statements are true.

      Anyone can say: “in the next life, you will be rich!”…..or “in the next life, you will no longer be a man,..but a woman”.

      See,…I said it. It was easy…I just did.

      Doesn’t make it true. And, there is nothing to hang that on…nothing.

      Brigham Young said that the penalty for interracial marriage is death on the spot and it will “always be so”. He declared this as a prophet, speaking for God. And he was wrong.

      SWK told homosexual men that they should “force themselves” to get married, and the result was a generation of divorce (I know 2 individuals personally who followed this advice, and are now divorced). Elder Oaks said that these “irregularities” have been corrected. SWK was wrong.

      BRM, in his letter to Eugene England flat out said God allows false doctrine to be taught, and the church has, on RARE occasions (like the priesthood ban) indicated in so many words mistakes have been made. It appears the church can be wrong.

      I think, after witnessing the pain, first hand, of individuals I know and love, who have pleaded with GOD for relief, that in this case, the church is again wrong.

      Homosexuality is not a choice. The intrinsic feelings and longings are not “chosen”. And one thing you have missed is that being gay doesn’t affect your sexuality…It is PART of who you are: it is a very defining part of your entire ‘self’.

      This is a key aspect that is missed by virtually everyone who tries to separate homosexuality from sexual preference.

      I once had an aha moment years ago. A friend of mine,…a gay man, had made a decision to leave the church because the power in the “priesthood” was false. He had fasted unceasingly, prayed unceasingly, and had therapy, read scriptures, been promised healing (for what?…being born wrong?)…etc. He had spent 15 years living a lie in his marriage. He was through. The promised blessings were unfulfilled, and there was nothing else he could do–he had TRIED it all. This friend did NOT consider the shock therapy…but perhaps that would be needed (I say sarcastically because it was so successful anyway…right?).

      As we talked, he mentioned something to me that changed me. He said: “People don’t understand anything about homosexuality. Being gay is not about sex–and almost all straight LDS people think it is. This is so totally wrong. Being gay affects everything there is about a person. I’m gay, and it affects how I see the world: my taste in music, food, housing, associations, work, recreation…everything. Being gay is part of who I am at the very core.”

      I don’t want to be offensive in this next comment….so please forgive me. But racism in the United States has and continues to be horrible. But consider this for a moment.

      Lets take a black man. And lets tell that man his skin color doesn’t have anything to do with him, because in the next life he will be resurrected “white”. (parenthetically I know several LDS people who actually believe this–since the idea that a black skin is a curse still survives). Anyway,…lets make sure that this “black man” knows that his skin color–his ethnic identity REALLY has nothing to do with his skin color. That all of his feelings, his history, his life–everything about him, has no affect on him, because after all, skin color is not an intrinsic part of who he is.

      This idea if absurd…utterly. And, to then try to convince that black man that his feelings about being black are “wrong” is offensive in the extreme.

      Skin color, ethnic history, and everything else DOES MATTER!

      My goodness…isn’t this world big enough to allow for diversity?

  17. Thank for this. I was previously familiar with most of the presented material, but completely unaware of Sister Clyde’s remarks and the General RS Presidency’s plan to have a familiy divesity themed meeting. Wow!
    Imagine how much comfort and hope and acceptance such a meeting could have given to countless members in non traditional family situations. Instead that meeting became the beginning of these members being pushed further to the margins because of the fervor surrounding the PoF. Tragic.

    To use a political term, they rallied their base with the PoF. Like most, I bought in hook, line and sinker. Referred to it often in my many years as a energetic and (dare I say) popular Gospel Doctrine, Quorum and Early Morning Seminary instructor. I was sure it was going into the scriptures (I suppose it still may) and found it curious that it didn’t make it into the new editions in 2011(?). I’m now quite glad it didn’t.

  18. Bill and RFM….

    Thank you so much for this amazing Podcast and discussion. I have just finished listening to it for the third time and love the detailed resources you provided to back up the facts to this sordid, incredible story. I have heard mention of the legal ramifications of the Family Proclamation, but this Podcast sheds new light on this “recent church history.”

    We have all been rocked in one way or another by historical facts and details that have come to light about the early days of the church and Joseph Smith’s dealings with God, Translation(s), Revelations, Priesthood Power, Polygamy, etc. It is very interesting to hear about recent history that also includes interpretations (or lies) about Revelation, Polygamy, the church’s public vs. private definition of marriage, etc.

    Thank you so much for the effort to put this together. RFP….your podcasts are a new favorite, and I love the historical details and cynical delivery of your topics! Keep up the great work!

    • Glad you like the episode, Elder Van Halen!

      I think there is something else we can learn from knowing the history of the Family Proclamation (elsewhere referred to as the “Crock-Proc.”)

      This episode scratches the surface of how deeply involved the LDS Church was in combatting gay marriage from the early 1990’s all the way up until they finally lost in 2015 when the U.S. Supreme Court declared it constitutionally protected.

      Only when you know how invested LDS leadership was in this battle can you get an understanding for why it is they would be so angry upon losing in 2015 that they would do something as reactionary as sneak the November policy into the leadership manuals.

      It doesn’t excuse it in the least. It was foolhardy and mean-spirited.

      But it does help us understand why they did so.

      • I would love it if you two could do a similar research podcast on the historical events leading up to the lifting of the priesthood ban in 1978. That too was called a revelation. If you choose to go down that path, I could put you in touch with a close family member who worked at the church office building in 1978 and has stories about the people and processes involved.

  19. Rob

    Can you name a civilization in the last 1000 years that has accepted homosexual behavior. A society that accepts it during its moral decline and the end of civilization ie Romans doesn’t qualify in my opinion.

    Also your argument about skin color is completely irrelevant. Skin color has no basis on behavior.

    Homosexual behavior is immoral and always will be. At least to God it will always be the case.
    On the other hand human kind if you look throughout history has no moral compass :atrocities genocide racism sexual crimes rape incest pedophilia homosexual behavior etc.

  20. Started listening to this last night.

    I’ve read the Oaks 1984 paper before. Do we know what it is? It looks like some type of internal memo? Is that the case? Do we know how it became public?

    I’m not an appellate attorney but it seems like the bar to be able to submit an amici brief is pretty low. Are the Hawaii court records which initially denied the Church the right to submit an amici brief available? What about the one that actually allowed the Church to submit its amici?

    Is RFM an attorney?

  21. A clarification: In 1993, the United Nations declared 1994 to be “The Year of The Family”, and during 1994, there were conferences on the Family. So, Packer’s reference is not to the conference on women, but on the year of the family UN focus. Check it out.

  22. Pingback: MHH07: 1st Presidency Succession, Oreos and Boundaries – Mormon Happy Hour Podcast

  23. Your fudge dialogue was the best. I still laugh hearing it. and hearing you laugh is great. Keep up the great commentary.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*