{"id":40826,"date":"2020-09-11T09:16:59","date_gmt":"2020-09-11T14:16:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/?p=40826"},"modified":"2020-09-16T23:45:34","modified_gmt":"2020-09-17T04:45:34","slug":"come-follow-me-and-the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/2020\/09\/come-follow-me-and-the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world\/","title":{"rendered":"“Come, Follow Me” and The Family: A Proclamation to the World"},"content":{"rendered":"

The \u201cCome, Follow Me\u201d manuals for 2021\u2019s course of study are available online now.\u00a0 Looking ahead to the next year, I have been curious to see if they were going to stick strictly to the scriptures related to the history of our modern dispensation (Doctrine and Covenants and parts of the Pearl of Great Price), or if they were going to focus on our Church\u2019s history via the Saints<\/em> volumes and have relevant sections of the scriptures discussed along the way.\u00a0 The authors the manuals chose to go with the former, focusing on the scriptures\u2014with a major exception.\u00a0 On the week of December 13-19, 2021<\/a>, rather than studying canonized sections of the Doctrine and Covenants or the Pearl of Great Price, we\u2019re studying \u201cThe Family: A Proclamation to the World.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0 The implications of the proclamation being the one of only two documents that is not part of the Standard Works being studied as the central text for a week sends a signal\u2014the manual’s authors seems to feel that the proclamation is on par with the canonized scriptures in importance.\u00a0 Yet, the proclamation is not officially accepted as part of our canon at this time.\u00a0 To me, this indicates that either someone in Salt Lake City has possibly set a goal for the document to join the Standard Works by the end of next year or this is a move in a process of essentially canonizing the proclamation without actually putting it to a vote of common consent in the Church.<\/p>\n

The standard procedure that has crystalized around canonization in the Church is to have the general membership vote during General Conference to accept a document into the Standard Works. \u00a0An early revelation to Joseph Smith declares that: \u201cFor all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church by the prayer of faith\u201d (D&C 28:13).\u00a0 Similarly, later leaders of the Church have affirmed that Church membership needs to accept something as binding and authoritative for it to be authoritative.\u00a0 For example, President Joseph F. Smith stated that: \u201cNo revelation given through the head of the church ever becomes binding and authoritative upon members of the church until it has been presented to the church and accepted by them.\u201d[1]<\/a>\u00a0 We see this being followed in the procedures used to canonize the Doctrine and Covenants in 1835,[2]<\/a> the Pearl of Great Price and additional sections of the Doctrine and Covenants in 1880,[3]<\/a> the addition of two accounts of visions to the scriptures in 1976,[4]<\/a> and both Official Declarations.[5]<\/a>\u00a0 In all of these cases, they were accepted as binding and canonical through a vote during a General Conference of the Church. By this reasoning and precedent, in order for \u201cThe Family: A Proclamation to the World\u201d to become binding and authoritative upon Latter-day Saints in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we would need to vote on it.<\/p>\n

Of course, we\u2019re not entirely systematic in our beliefs as Latter-day Saints, so there is some disagreement about the approach described above for canonization or acceptance of something as authoritative and binding.\u00a0 For example, President George Q. Cannon stated that: \u201cIt seems nonsensical that the Prophet of God should submit to such a test as [common consent], and not deem the revelations he received authentic until they had the approval of the different quorums of the Church.\u201d[6]<\/a>\u00a0 Elder Bruce R. McConkie likewise wrote that:<\/p>\n

Members of the Church may vote to publish a particular revelation along with the other scriptures, or the people may bind themselves by covenant to follow the instructions found in the revealed word. But there is no provision in the Lord’s plan for the members of the Church to pass upon the validity of revelations themselves by a vote of the Church; there is nothing permitting the Church to choose which of the revelations will be binding upon it, either by a vote of people or by other means.[7]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

These statements indicate that the authority of a revelation does not originate with the general membership of the Church, but in its nature as a revelation.\u00a0 The logic can also be extended to other documents produced by Church leaders.<\/p>\n

We see that the authority of documents issued by Church leaders comes before they are voted upon by the Church on a number of occasions.\u00a0 For example, the policy announced in Official Declaration #2 came into effect when it was announced by Church leaders rather than after it was voted on during a general conference\u2014the first ordinations of black men after the press release on 9 June 1978 took place on 11 June, while the official acceptance of the declaration by the Church took place months later, on 30 September 1978.[8]<\/a>\u00a0 Likewise, many of the revelations accepted as authoritative when the Doctrine and Covenants was voted upon in 1835 were put into action and practice long before that vote was taken (sending people on missions, organizing the Church\u2019s structure and systems, etc.).\u00a0 What this indicates is that the authority of a document within the Church and whether it is printed as a part of the Standard Works (canonized) are two separate, though interrelated questions.<\/p>\n

This creates something of a hierarchy of authority when it comes to texts used within the Church, with the official Standard Works at the pinnacle as our primary canon.\u00a0 In other words, canonization and printing in the Standard Works is important for establishing which texts are considered to be most <\/em>authoritative and widely-studied in the Church, but not the only authoritative documents in the Church. \u00a0There does seem to be a secondary canon of publications and texts that are regarded as authoritative in the Church, but subject to change over time (such as the study helps published with the Standard Works, the current hymnal, the current handbooks of the Church, the current official history of the Church, etc.).\u00a0 You can go further down that rabbit hole and create a whole tiered system of authority for Church texts, but the relevant point is that \u201cThe Family: A Proclamation to the World\u201d is one of these documents that is being treated as authoritative but not part of the Standard Works. \u00a0It seems less likely to be subject to change than the examples given above, though, which makes its position different.\u00a0 It isn\u2019t really a revelation either\u2014more a summary statement of doctrine.\u00a0 Over a decade ago, Nate Oman suggested on this blog that \u201cThe Family: A Proclamation to the World\u201d might be seen as being similar to \u201cThe Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Twelve\u201d\u2014”not a revelation but an authoritative interpretation\u201d that is highly influential in the Church because it \u201cserve[s] to orient us collectively toward interpretation\u201d of our sacred texts.[9]<\/a>\u00a0 To a certain degree, however, the level of dedication to referencing and bolstering the authority of the proclamation displayed by Church leaders over the years since Oman wrote that OP may have pushed the document further towards becoming a sacred text in and of itself rather than merely an authoritative interpretation of our sacred texts.<\/p>\n

From the start, the proclamation was intended to be an authoritative statement of belief by the Church.\u00a0 As early as 1984, Dallin H. Oaks wrote a document based on the idea that \u201cit may be desirable for the Church to make a public statement on proposed legislation affecting the rights of homosexuals,\u201d making suggestions about what to include in a public statement of this sort that foreshadowed the proclamation.[10]<\/a>\u00a0 Following this, during the 1990s, the Church attempted to intervene in Hawaii\u2019s first same-sex marriage case, Baehr v. Lewin<\/em>, but was thwarted in their first attempt on the grounds that the church couldn\u2019t demonstrate that it had any \u201cproperty or transaction\u201d in the case at hand.[11]<\/a>\u00a0 Around the same time, President Boyd K. Packer recalled that: \u201cThere came a movement in the world having to do with the family. The United Nations called a council on the family in Beijing, China. We sent delegations to that council on the family and to other councils that were held.\u201d\u00a0 The leaders of the Church felt that the council was actually anti-family in its orientation, \u201cand then it was announced that one of them would be held near our headquarters, and we thought, \u2018Well, if they are coming here, we had better proclaim ourselves.\u2019\u201d[12]<\/a> \u00a0The two moments in history came together\u2014the need for something authoritative for the Church to use in legal battles over LGTBQ rights and the opportunity to take a stand for traditional families on an international stage\u2014and seem to have served as a catalyst for the proclamation to be crafted as an official statement of belief.<\/p>\n

The statement was written by the Quorum of the Twelve with input from the First Presidency.[13]<\/a>\u00a0 President Hinckley announced the document at a general Relief Society meeting in 1995, prefacing it with the remark that the proclamation was meant to be \u201ca 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.\u201d[14]<\/a>\u00a0 Since then, many voices have pushed for it to be treated as quasi-scriptural, without the formal vote of Church members accepting it as binding upon them.\u00a0 Today, foremost among the advocates of viewing the proclamation as nearly canonical in authority is President Dallin H. Oaks.\u00a0 For example, just one year ago, he stated that:<\/p>\n

The wise cautions of Elders D.\u00a0Todd Christofferson and Neil\u00a0L. Andersen in earlier general conference messages are important to remember. Elder Christofferson taught: \u201cIt should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church.\u201d<\/p>\n

In the following conference, Elder Andersen taught this principle: \u201cThe doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk.\u201d\u00a0The family proclamation, signed by all 15 prophets, seers, and revelators, is a wonderful illustration of that principle.[15]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

While tangential to his main topic, the passing reference to the authority of \u201cThe Family: A Proclamation to the World\u201d was an intentional effort to bolster the document, reminding Church members of the unified front that the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency took in crafting the document at its outset and the weight and authority that approach gives to the document.<\/p>\n

Elsewhere, President Oaks has been even more strident in his efforts to convince members to treat the proclamation as authoritative.\u00a0 In another general conference talk, he proclaimed that:<\/p>\n

Those who do not believe in or aspire to exaltation and are most persuaded by the ways of the world consider this family proclamation as just a statement of policy that should be changed. In contrast, Latter-day Saints affirm that the family proclamation defines the kind of family relationships where the most important part of our eternal development can occur. \u2026<\/p>\n

Converted Latter-day Saints believe that the family proclamation \u2026 is the Lord\u2019s reemphasis of the gospel truths we need to sustain us through current challenges to the family. \u2026<\/p>\n

\u2026 The proclamation on the family is a statement of eternal truth, the will of the Lord for His children who seek eternal life. It has been the basis of Church teaching and practice for the last 22 years and will continue so for the future. Consider it as such, teach it, live by it, and you will be blessed as you press forward toward eternal life.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Beyond his somewhat harsh efforts to cast those who view the document as \u201ca statement of policy that should be changed\u201d as standing outside the ranks of converted Latter-day Saints who are seeking eternal life, he went on to make embracing the proclamation a litmus test for faithfulness in the Church, expressing that he \u201cbelieve[s] our attitude toward and use of the family proclamation is one of [the] tests for this generation.\u201d[16]<\/a>\u00a0 (And yes, that last litmus test quote is included in the \u201cCome, Follow Me\u201d manual for the week studying the proclamation.)\u00a0 This approach to addressing the subject of the proclamation is a strong-armed tactic aimed at making members view the document as the<\/em> authoritative statement on family values in the Church.<\/p>\n

It may be that \u201cThe Family: A Proclamation to the World\u201d is more analogous to two declarations added as appendices in the original edition of the Doctrine and Covenants.\u00a0 These two declarations\u2014one on government and law<\/a> and the second on marriage<\/a>\u2014were added, almost as an afterthought, during the canonization of the Doctrine and Covenants in 1835.\u00a0 Both were statements of belief, or summaries of the Church\u2019s position on the issues their titles indicate.\u00a0 The former is still around as Section 134, and the latter was dropped from the Doctrine and Covenants at a later date (marriage practices in the Church changed a bit after 1835).\u00a0 They served as responses to legal needs and public accusations against the Church.\u00a0 They also weren\u2019t technically revelations, but included nonetheless as authoritative declarations of where the Church stood on the issues discussed in each.\u00a0 Whether or not “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” is ever added to the Doctrine and Covenants is subject to debate (there was an excellent opportunity to do so when the 2013 edition of the scriptures was being prepared that was not taken, for example), but it does serve as similar function to these older declarations.<\/p>\n

In any case, \u201cThe Family: A Proclamation to the World\u201d is an interesting document in its standing in the Church.\u00a0 The proclamation has served as the standard of traditional family values in the Church for a quarter of a century now.\u00a0 Powerful church leaders\u2014President Oaks foremost among them\u2014have worked to practically canonized the document in how it is treated through the means of rhetoric about its authority without actually calling for a general vote, leaving it in a position of standing outside of the Standard Works while often being treated as on par with the Standard Works in authority (as indicated by its treatment in the new manual).\u00a0 It seems possible that a vote for canonization will be taken at some point within the next few years, but it will be interesting to see how voting would actually take place in the worldwide Church if that course is pursued, where only a fraction of membership is represented at the Conference Center (particularly at the pandemic-limited general conferences this year), but I am grateful to not be in the position of having to work out the logistics of that type of momentous occasion. Regardless, with this fall being the 25th anniversary of the proclamation’s announcement, I think we can expect it to be a major subject at General Conference next month.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Some potential questions for discussion:<\/strong><\/p>\n