The Relevance of Joseph Fielding Smith's Teachings Today| On Family and Liberalization of Abortion

The inaugural issue of the January 1971 edition of the Ensign provides a message from the then First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Namely, Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee as the first counselor, and N. Eldon Tanner as the second counselor.

Given the present social climate today - my reflection turns toward the teachings of our past leaders. Granted, when accessing the first issue of the Ensign at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints official website a notification regarding the archive content reminds us that the articles may reflect practices and languages of an earlier time.

Examining and studying some of these teachings reflects an ongoing understanding of what earlier Prophets and Apostles were warning members of the Church concerning cultural and societal norms.

Today, I want to examine what Joseph Fielding Smith shared in the First Presidency message. His thoughts focused on some key issues that are still prevalent today. His message appeared not only as divine inspiration in guiding members of the Church, and as wise counsel about gospel principles concerning the family, but he warned members of the faith regarding the increasing trend of social and cultural issues.

My purpose is two-fold: First, is there significant relevance to what President Joseph Fielding Smith shared that we are to understand and live out today? Second, is what President Joseph Fielding Smith sharing revealing prophetic wisdom and counsel regarding what has now become more problematic as acceptable social norms?

Family and Its Social, Cultural, and Eternal Purpose

President Joseph Fielding Smith opens up with a reminder of the importance of the family unit in the Plan of Salvation.

"As you listen and read, may I remind you of just how important the family unit is in the overall plan of our Father in heaven. In fact, the Church organization really exists to assist the family and its members in reaching exaltation."

As Latter-day Saints, have we forgotten the importance of this? Have many members of our faith moved further away from the idea and understanding of how important family is about possessing an eternal perspective?

For me, the Gospel is key to not only calling people unto repentance and inviting people to come unto Christ, but it is also key in assisting individuals toward an assurance of faith and reaching their divine potential because of the Gospel. It is only through the atonement we receive grace and forgiveness of sins.

No wonder President Joseph Fielding Smith provided the following observation:

Family unity and family commitment to the gospel are so important that the adversary has turned much of his attention to the destruction of families in our society. On every side there is an attack on the basic integrity of the family as the foundation of what is good and noble in life.

Consider the following observation Rachel Allison makes in an article published on the United Families website regarding the Cause and Effect: Family Disintegration and Society Chaos:

We are hearing and reading more and more religious leaders speak up for the preservation of the family.  They are seeing and understanding the destructive trends of our society for what they are…civilization killers. One such religious leader who spoke out recently was M. Russell Ballard, a leader in the Mormon Church. “Much of the world has lost its way in particular with regards to priorities and values in our homes.” “Happiness is directly related to home and family.  There is no genuine happiness separate and apart from the home. No service is greater than that which promotes and preserves family life.”

Ryan N. S. Topping writes the following in his article The Long War Against the Family (Part I) published on the Crisis Magazine website calling attention to the charge that the progressive cultural elite has long perpetuated prejudices against the family... Topping provides three categories in which this occurs:

1. The assertion that marriage constricts men and women where they are less free
2. Assumption that children are more of a burden
3. Insistence that sexual differentiation is fiction

His argument focuses on how these three ideas represent, as it were, three waves of the anti-family movement of the past 150 years. Topping also observes that the first comes from the contribution of Marxist ideology, the second focuses on eugenicist ideals, and the third is the fruit of the recent gender theorists and propaganda.

Topping goes on and observes:

Social conservatives too often play a battle of catch-up with the progressive left.  We marvel at abortion; we worry over divorce; we wonder at the rise of the homosexual lobby. It is right that alarm is sounded.  But even before lobbying, if the family is ever to regain its natural position of prominence, conservatives need to recover the memory of how the “traditional family” lost its way. 

Does Topping have a point in what he is sharing? Has the traditional family in American Society (and for a broader aspect - within a Global society) lost its way?

President Joseph Fielding Smith addresses the social and cultural issues facing the faithful members of the church at that time. First, President Smith gave attention to how private and government efforts to limit the size of families, sometimes under the guise of saving the world from overpopulation, and how this ideology seemed to be gaining acceptance among many faithful members.

In his July 18, 1969, speech - Special Message to the Congress on Problems of Population Growth - before the Congress of the United States, President Richard Nixon remarks on the increasing frequency of population growth worldwide and presented problem:

One of the most serious challenges to human destiny in the last third of this century will be the growth of the population. Whether man's response to that challenge will be a cause for pride or for despair in the year 2000 will depend very much on what we do today. If we now begin our work in an appropriate manner, and if we continue to devote a considerable amount of attention and energy to this problem, then mankind will be able to surmount this challenge as it has surmounted so many during the long march of civilization.

According to an NPG Forum Paper by Lindsey Grant, this speech, and the dedicated resources under the Nixon administration led to the creation of Article X in the Public Health Service Act of 1970. Grant shares how this led to the creation of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future.

The growing concern of population growth within the United States, and globally, came on the rise of contraception use within family planning services. The Center for Disease Control published a paper on December 3, 1999, Achievements in Public Health, 1900-199: Family Planning, regarding the Article X and Family Planning:

Family size increased from 1940 until 1957, when the average number of children per family peaked at 3.7 (14,15; CDC, unpublished data, 1999). In 1960, the era of modern contraception began when both the birth control pill and intrauterine device (IUD) became available. These effective and convenient methods resulted in widespread changes in birth control (16). By 1965, the pill had become the most popular birth control method, followed by the condom and contraceptive sterilization (16). In 1965, the Supreme Court (Griswold vs. Connecticut) (17) struck down state laws prohibiting contraceptive use by married couples.

In 1970, federal funding for family planning services was established under the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act, which created Title X of the Public Health Service Act (18). Medicaid funding for family planning was authorized in 1972. Services provided under Title X grew rapidly in the 1970s and 1980s; after 1980, public funding for family planning continued to shift to the Medicaid program (18).

Since 1972, the average family size has leveled off at approximately two children, and the safety, efficacy, diversity, accessibility, and use of contraceptive methods has increased. During the 1970s and 1980s, contraceptive sterilization became more common and is now the most widely used method in the United States (16,19,20). IUD use increased during the early 1980s, then declined because of concerns about intrauterine infections (16). In the 1980s and 1990s, the use of condoms increased among adolescents, presumably because of growing concern about human immunodeficiency virus infection and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) (21-23). Since 1991, increased use of long-acting hormonal contraception (Depo-Provera [Registered] [Pharmacia & Upjohn, Inc., Peapack, New Jersey] and Norplant [Registered] [Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, St. Davids, Pennsylvania])**** also have contributed to the decline in adolescent pregnancy rates (24,25). Emergency use of oral contraceptive pills might reduce the risk for pregnancy after unprotected intercourse by at least 74% (26). Noncontraceptive health benefits of oral contraceptives include lower rates of pelvic inflammatory disease, cancers of the ovary and endometrium, recurrent ovarian cysts, benign breast cysts and fibroadenomas, and discomfort from menstrual cramps (27).

Given the social and cultural climate - it is no wonder President Joseph Fielding Smith centered his message on the importance of Family. It also raises the question: What significance does this have for us today? Furthermore, it raises an additional question - do we as Latter-day Saints balance out the eternal principle of family responsibly and ethically with that of a burgeoning increase of family disintegration seen over the years?

Liberalization of Abortion

The United States Supreme Court ruled against a Texas statute banning abortion. This landmark legal decision issued on January 22, 1973, effectively legalized a woman's right to an abortion and protected by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. On June 14, 2022, the United States Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade, holding to the idea there was no longer a federal constitutional right to abortion.

According to History.com, abortion before Roe v. Wade was only legal before a woman could first feel the movements of the fetus. Early regulations concerning abortion were enacted between the 1820s and 1830's and dealt with the sale of dangerous drugs that women used to induce abortions. It was not until the American Medical Association was established in the late 1850s that the call for the criminalization of abortion.

President Joseph Fielding Smith remarked that this liberalization of abortion throughout the world suggested an existing ideal where the sacredness of life is disregarded.

Not only was there a liberalization of abortion in our nation, and subsequently worldwide, but the history of abortion is also tied into eugenics and population pruning. In horticulture, population pruning is a practice that involves the selective removal of certain parts of a plant, such as branches, buds, or roots. This pruning technique ensures healing and prevents the risk of decay and disease. Similarly, the liberalization of abortion developed out of the idea and concept of pruning unborn children, sterilization of undesirable individuals, and decreasing population in certain ethnic groups.

The founder and pioneer is Margaret Sanger. Her belief focused on a personal creed of state use of compulsory sterilization and segregation.

John J. Conley, S.J. published an article in America the Jesuit Review on November 27, 2017, titled: Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist - Why are we still celebrating her? He writes:

Sanger’s eugenics creed is clearly stated in her speech “My Way to Peace” (1932). The centerpiece of the program is vigorous state use of compulsory sterilization and segregation. The first class of persons targeted for sterilization is made up of people with mental or physical disability. “The first step would be to control the intake and output on morons, mental defectives, epileptics.” A much larger class of undesirables would be forced to choose either sterilization or placement in state work camps. “The second step would be to take an inventory of the second group, such as illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, dope-fiends; classify them in special departments under government medical protection and segregate them on farms and open spaces.” Those segregated in these camps could return to mainstream society if they underwent sterilization and demonstrated good behavior. Sanger estimates that 15 million to 20 million Americans would be targeted in this regime of forced sterilization and concentration camps. In Sanger, the humanitarian dream of a world without poverty and illness has deteriorated into a coercive world where the poor, the disabled and the addicted simply disappear.

Conley also shares that Sanger's eugenics project carried its own racial preoccupation. This is reflected in a letter dated December 10, 1939, to Clarence Gamble. According to Conley, Margaret Sanger explains the nature of her organizations outreach to the African American community and quotes:

The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

He also cites how Sanger proudly recounts her address to the women of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, N.J. This, according to Conley, is written in her autobiography.

According to a 1957 interview with Mike Wallace, Sanger stated:

I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world , that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically. Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they’re born. That to me is the greatest sin, that people can commit. (Sanger)

This writer and Mindful Latter-day Christian Living and Apologetics do not support nor endorse cigarette smoking - the video does promote cigarette and tobacco use which was socially and culturally acceptable at the time of this interview

In her own words, Margaret Sanger preached that birth control, and abortion within that understanding, supposedly alleviate women suffering unwanted pregnancies and control the population to alleviate poverty. She also claims to be a born humanist.

Liberalization of Abortion and, the proliferation of supporting abortion without ethical boundaries and parameters has increased to the point that it has become a threat to bearing and raising children today.

Howard Kainz published an article titled Natural Law and Abortion at Crisis Magazine and addresses how natural law relates to the life principle. He cites St. Thomas Aquinas Summa:

The natural law related to the life principle, according to St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa (Q. 94, 1a2ae), is the first specific precept of natural law, and relates to the tendency of all beings to remain in existence. As applied to humans, it is the “law of self-preservation” for each individual — the instinctive tendency we all have to nurture our existence and maintain it at all costs, unless some supervening rationale demotes this tendency to secondary importance. The corollary duty for us who observe this law operative in some other individual is to respect that tendency, and do nothing to impede it, as long as that individual does not forfeit his rights in some way (e.g., by unjust, lethal aggression).

Kainz further observes:

Aquinas then goes on to enunciate the second specific precept of the natural law, common to humans as well as other animals — namely, to nurture and make provision for their offspring. As applied to humans, who require immensely longer care and education than other animals, the requirements are proportionally more stringent. This law is associated with the instinctive desire of persons to have offspring and their willingness to invest immense energy in children’s upbringing and well-being — even to the point of personal sacrifice, and even to sacrifice of life.

The main “empirical” proof that this is indeed a law of nature is in the emotions and inclinations — the powerful love most parents feel for their offspring, often maintained in spite of setbacks and unrequited love. Parents reflecting on these appetitive phenomena might suspect that they are being subjected to something like a computer program. Nevertheless, like all instincts, the impetus to care for offspring can be interdicted or redirected, depending on circumstances — including, for humans, not only external environmental circumstances, but also prevailing ideas, ideals, and ideologies.

Kainz also addresses the exception to natural law - as it pertains to abortion - about the threat to the mother's life and health and the case of incest and rape:

Those who apply the first precept often make an exception for situations threatening the life of the mother, since there is a conflict between two rights to life. But, in light of the second precept, a conflict of rights obtains also in the cases of rape and incest. For, if every woman has a right to conceive and procreate, and if this right implies that she has a right to make that choice voluntarily, no more obvious infractions of that right than rape and incest can be contemplated.

Proponents supporting the liberalization of abortion always criticize pro-life advocates with emotional pleading related to cases of incest and rape. According to an article published in USA Today on May 24, 2019, by contributing writer Alia D. Dastagir, shares that only 1% of abortions performed were due to rape and only 0.5% were due to incest.

Political leaders, Pro-Choice advocates, and other leaders consistently argue that abortion is a reproductive right. Denying this reproductive right is a denial of women's right to proper reproductive care and health. Senator Patty Murray, speaking at the HELP Committee Meeting, challenges Pro-life politicians and advocates.

Her statement is a passionate critique of Republican policies on abortion, emphasizing the harm caused to women and families by restrictive abortion laws. It frames the issue as one of fundamental freedom, arguing that no one should be forced to continue a pregnancy against their will. The statement highlights the widespread impact of post-Dobbs abortion bans, detailing heartbreaking stories of women denied essential care and the broader consequences for healthcare access, especially for marginalized groups.

Senator Murray further accuses Republicans of seeking to control women’s bodies and points to their support for extreme measures like national abortion bans and fetal personhood laws, which could criminalize abortion and restrict other reproductive healthcare options. The statement calls these actions a threat to women's autonomy and broader health services.

Despite the dire warnings, it underscores a strong public backlash, with abortion rights winning in every vote since Dobbs. She passionately concludes with a commitment from Democrats to fight for the restoration of abortion rights, pledging to pass the Women’s Health Protection Act and protect reproductive freedoms.

Speaking on the proliferation of how abortion is liberalized, defended, and upheld in our society and culture today; President Russell M. Nelson spoke on how Abortion is an assault on the defenseless in the October 2008 edition of the Ensign.

President Nelson agrees that abortion is limited to a necessary medical intervention in the case of a threat to a mother's health or the case of rape and incest:

Concern for the health of the mother is a vital one. But circumstances in which the termination of pregnancy is necessary to save the life of the mother are very rare, particularly where modern medical care is available. Another concern applies to pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. This tragedy is compounded because an innocent woman’s freedom of choice was denied. In these circumstances, abortion is sometimes considered advisable to preserve the physical and mental health of the mother. Abortions for these reasons are also rare.

He further cautions on the medical necessity of abortion due to potential congenital malformation and harmful effects of certain infectious or toxic agents in the first trimester of pregnancy being real. His caution focuses on terminating pregnancy are of great consideration.

Liberalization of Abortion has focused more on terminating unwanted pregnancies; not because of medical threats to the mother or child, or due to incest or rape. Instead, the liberalization of abortion is focused on providing abortion on demand as a form of birth control. According to President Nelson, elective abortion is legalized on the premise that a woman is free to choose what she does with her own body. He further remarks that each of us is, to an extent, free to think, plan, and do. He points out that we are not free to choose the consequences.

President Nelson succinctly affirms this:

They have freedom of choice—to begin or not to begin that course. When conception does occur, that choice has already been made.

Yes, a woman is free to choose what she will do with her body. Whether her choice leads to an astronaut’s mission or to a baby, her choice to begin the journey binds her to the consequences of that choice. She cannot “unchoose.”

When the controversies about abortion are debated, “individual right of choice” is invoked as though it were the one supreme virtue. That could only be true if but one person were involved. The rights of any one individual do not allow the rights of another individual to be abused. In or out of marriage, abortion is not solely an individual matter. Terminating the life of a developing baby involves two individuals with separate bodies, brains, and hearts. A woman’s choice for her own body does not include the right to deprive her baby of life—and a lifetime of choices that her child would make.

President Nelson further observes that the laws of liberalization of Abortion, and present political support for Abortion as a reproductive right is in direct violation of God's divine law and commandments:

Abortion has been legalized by governing entities without regard for God and His commandments. Scriptures state repeatedly that people will prosper only if they obey the commandments of God.

In essence, liberalization of abortion, advocating for abortion as a reproductive right without healthy and ethical safeguards is a disregard for natural law and divine commandments when it pertains to the sacredness and sanctity of life.

Conclusion

Reflecting on the teachings of President Joseph Fielding Smith and their resonance with today’s cultural and societal shifts, it becomes evident that the preservation of the family is not only central to the Gospel but crucial to societal stability. The adversary’s targeted attacks on the integrity of the family reveal the prophetic wisdom in Smith’s counsel. From family disintegration to the liberalization of abortion, the erosion of moral values continues to impact our homes and communities. These trends highlight the necessity of revisiting eternal principles to fortify the family against these pervasive challenges.

In revisiting past prophetic teachings, it’s clear that the principles of family unity, moral accountability, and the sanctity of life remain as relevant today as they were decades ago. President Smith’s call to defend the family is a reminder that societal norms often diverge from eternal truths, emphasizing the need for individuals and families to anchor themselves in Gospel teachings.

In the next article, I will expand on the theme of addiction and its devastating impact on families. How addiction not only isolates individuals but also fractures relationships, erodes trust, and disrupts the family’s divine purpose. It will delve into the cautions and warnings leaders have shared about addiction’s ripple effect, offering insights into how faith-based principles can foster healing, resilience, and restoration for families affected by this pervasive issue. This exploration aims to inspire a renewed commitment to supporting family members and helping them navigate the challenges of addiction with grace and faith.

I invite you to share your thoughts in the comment section.

Addressing Anti-Mormon Rhetoric: Marriage, Childbirth, and Worship in LDS Beliefs

 

Michelle Grimes raises tough questions about LDS beliefs, criticizing practices like marriage, childbirth, and worship. Her critiques feed into common anti-Mormon rhetoric, often misrepresenting what Latter-day Saints truly believe. This post offers a careful response, grounded in scripture and LDS teachings, to clarify these misunderstood doctrines. By addressing these issues, we can better understand the faith and counter misinformation. I invite you to share your thoughts, ask questions, and join the discussion below.

Understanding the Concept of Worship in LDS Theology

Worship in the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) is more than just a Sunday activity or vocalized praise. It is an all-encompassing expression of love and dedication to God, deeply tied to how members live their daily lives. Within LDS theology, acts like prayer, service, obedience, and striving to become more Christlike are all part of worship. To address the anti-Mormon rhetoric that often distorts these practices, it’s essential to understand LDS worship as an integrated and sacred way of life.

Defining Worship: Knowledge, Love, and Obedience

Elder Bruce R. McConkie, a prominent LDS apostle, taught that worship is tied to all righteousness. Simply put, for Latter-day Saints, worship is not limited to hymns or prayers. McConkie described worship as a combination of knowledge, love, and obedience. This triad includes learning God's will, loving Him with all one’s heart, and showing that love through faithful living.

What does this mean practically? It means worship is:

• Daily devotion: Studying scriptures such as the Bible and the Book of Mormon to understand God's plan.
• Intentional choices: Living righteously by following commandments, even when it’s hard or unpopular.
• Christlike service: Helping those in need, as Christ served others.

Through worship, members align their lives with God’s purposes, transforming these acts into more than simple rituals—they become sacred expressions of devotion. The idea counters common anti-Mormon rhetoric accusing LDS beliefs of being works-based. Instead, actions are viewed as faithful responses to God’s love.

Worship Beyond Prayer and Praise

If you think worship is confined to a chapel, think again. LDS doctrine views worship as taking many forms, each inspired by a desire to glorify God. From public gatherings to personal sacrifices, everything can be an element of reverence.

Here are some key take aways Latter-day Saints worship beyond prayer and praise:

1. Covenants and Ordinances: Participation in sacred ordinances, like baptism and the temple endowment, reflects deep reverence and commitment to God. In fact, temples are seen as spaces for the highest form of worship.

2. Family-Centered Activities: LDS members believe strengthening families through prayer, scripture study, and evening devotionals is an essential way to worship.

3. Consecration and Tithing: The act of giving, whether through donations or offering one’s time, is considered a form of worship. It signals trust in God’s blessings and commitment to His work.

4. Sabbath Observance: Taking a day to rest and focus on Christ brings members closer to Him—both individually and collectively.

Worship for Latter-day Saints transcends mere rituals. It’s in the everyday effort to live by faith, such as forgiving others or caring for a neighbor. These expressions enrich not only one’s own relationship with God but also build stronger communities.

For critics who say worship in the LDS Church is overly formal or lacks spirituality, this comprehensive view provides a different perspective. Worship isn’t boxed in—it’s interwoven with a person’s entire existence. It’s not about checking religious to-do lists but about shaping a Christ-centered life.

---

Do you see a broader connection between worship and daily life in your own practices? Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments below. I’d also love it if you’d like or share this post to spark more thoughtful discussion.

Responding to Michelle Grimes's Critique

Michelle Grimes's critique of Latter-day Saint beliefs often zeroes in on practices like marriage, childbirth, and perceived notions of worship. This section provides a focused response, demonstrating how these sacred elements are integral to LDS worship and doctrinal understanding. Misrepresentations of these principles often ignore their spiritual depth and scriptural foundation. Let’s explore these key topics in-depth to provide clarity.

Marriage as Worship

In LDS theology, marriage is far more than a social institution; it’s a covenant with eternal implications. Drawing from Ephesians 5:25-32, marriage is likened to the relationship between Christ and His Church. Paul teaches that husbands should love their wives as Christ loves the Church, emphasizing a selfless, sanctifying love. For Latter-day Saints, this scriptural pattern elevates marriage to an act of worship.

Marriage, when centered on God, invites couples to mirror Christlike qualities—unconditional love, service, and unity. It becomes a daily practice of sacrifice and humility, fostering personal growth and shared spirituality. Critics often overlook this spiritual dimension, portraying it as mere tradition. But for those who live it, marriage is a sacred partnership aimed at building eternal families and glorifying God.

Childbirth as a Divine Act

Childbirth is viewed as a continuation of God’s work in LDS teachings, directly tied to the plan of salvation. Psalm 127:3 says, "Children are a heritage of the Lord," highlighting that they are divine blessings. Becoming a parent isn’t simply a biological event; it’s a spiritual calling.

Within the LDS faith, the act of bringing life into the world aligns with God’s commandment to multiply and replenish the earth (Genesis 1:28). For Latter-day Saints, childbirth symbolizes a partnership between parents and God, reaffirming His trust in humanity. Beyond the physical, raising children is seen as an investment in eternity—nurturing souls to have faith in Christ.

Critics like Michelle Grimes might interpret this emphasis as placing undue weight on family roles, but it’s rooted in the profound belief that families are eternal. It’s not about cultural expectations; it’s about aligning with a divine purpose.

Miracles and Worship

Miracles—whether healing, resurrection, or divine intervention—are integral to LDS faith. They aren’t just extraordinary events but confirmations of God’s power and love. In John 11, when Christ raised Lazarus from the dead, it wasn’t merely a display of power. It was an act of compassion, reinforcing faith and glorifying God.

For Latter-day Saints, performing or witnessing miracles is intertwined with worship through service. Take priesthood blessings, which call on God’s power to heal. To some, this might seem mystical or even ceremonial, but for believers, it’s profoundly personal. It demonstrates reliance on God’s will and a prayerful effort to serve others.

Miracles also remind us of God’s presence in daily life. Whether dramatic or subtle, these experiences deepen faith and enhance one’s ability to worship in gratitude. Critics often frame LDS worship as rigid or transactional, but miracles showcase its deeply spiritual and relational focus.

A Broader Definition of Worship

One of the cornerstones of LDS teachings is that worship goes beyond traditional rituals. For Latter-day Saints, worship encompasses service, covenant-keeping, and living with purpose every single day. This comprehensive view aligns closely with Christ’s invitation: “If ye love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15).

In practice, this broader worship might look like:

• Caring for others: Volunteering, supporting neighbors, or simply showing kindness reflects God’s love.
• Honoring covenants: Participating in ordinances such as baptism and temple worship connects the individual with God in a deeply personal way.
• Daily devotion: Prayer, scripture study, and standing firm in one’s faith—even in the face of criticism—are worshipful acts.

Why does this matter? It redefines worship as an active, living expression of faith. It’s not confined to Sundays or specific locations. As a response to anti-Mormon rhetoric, this expansive view demonstrates how LDS members strive to make every action meaningful in their relationship with God.

---

I’d love to hear your take—does this change how you view worship? If you found this section helpful, leave a comment below or share it with a friend. Let’s keep the conversation going!

Scriptural Foundations for LDS Worship Practices

Understanding Latter-day Saint worship requires looking deeply at its scriptural basis. For members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, scripture isn’t just a source of guidance—it’s the cornerstone of how they live, worship, and view their relationship with God. Key doctrines surrounding marriage, parenting, and miracles are all rooted in sacred texts like the Bible and the Book of Mormon. These scriptures provide clarity, inspire daily actions, and invite believers into a more profound commitment to living in harmony with God’s commandments.

The Role of Scriptures in Defining Worship

Scriptures play a vital role in explaining how Latter-day Saints approach worship through marriage, family, and miracles.

1. Marriage as a Sacred Covenant
   The Bible sets a powerful precedent for viewing marriage as deeply spiritual. Ephesians 5:25–32 compares marriage to Christ’s relationship with His Church, highlighting love and self-sacrifice as divine attributes within marital relationships. For Latter-day Saints, marriage isn’t just about two people—it’s a covenant with God. Likewise, modern revelation found in the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C 131:1-4) teaches that eternal marriage is essential for achieving the highest blessings from God. Scriptures validate this belief by portraying marriage as much more than a temporal contract; it’s an eternal partnership for spiritual growth and unity.

2. Parenting as a Divine Responsibility
   Being entrusted with children is a key part of God’s plan. In Psalm 127:3, children are described as a heritage from the Lord, emphasizing the sacred duty of raising them in righteousness. Latter-day Saints turn to teachings like those found in the Book of Mormon, specifically Mosiah 4:15, which urges parents to teach their children to “walk in the ways of truth and soberness.” Parenting is seen not just as a biological responsibility but as a divine partnership with God, reinforcing faith within the family and preparing children for their own spiritual paths.

3. Miracles as Manifestations of Faith
   Miracles are another scriptural theme deeply tied to LDS worship practices. Accounts like Christ raising Lazarus in John 11:25-44 or healing the sick in Mark 5:25-34 serve as reminders of God’s compassion and power. For Latter-day Saints, miracles like priesthood blessings or modern-day healings are viewed as extensions of these biblical events, grounded in faith and prayer. The Book of Mormon also speaks of miracles, teaching that they occur “according to the faith of the children of men” (Ether 12:12). These experiences strengthen members’ trust in God, making miracles an active part of worship.

Scripture isn’t just read; it’s lived. These key texts guide worship by shaping how members engage in their relationships, family roles, and acts of faith. They offer both inspiration and practical instruction, making them integral to worship practices in the LDS faith.

Do these scriptural foundations change how you view LDS worship? Feel free to share your perspective in the comments below. I’d love to hear your thoughts!

Examining Life After Ministries’ Approach

Life After Ministries (LAM) presents itself as a resource for those transitioning away from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). While it claims to offer support and open discussions, its methods and strategies often contradict these intentions. Many former members of the LDS faith who turn to LAM for guidance find that instead of fostering understanding, the organization often silences dissenting views and perpetuates anti-Mormon rhetoric.

Claims of Openness to Dialogue

Life After Ministries markets itself as a place for open dialogue and mentorship. Its messaging suggests a welcoming environment where questions are encouraged, and personal experiences are validated. But is that what users truly encounter? Evidence shows that the organization often shuts down alternative views and enforces a rigid anti-Mormon narrative.

There are repeated instances where LAM's materials—and even its approach to mentoring ex-Mormons—suggest a narrow and one-sided conversation. This happens in several ways:

• Selective Representation: LAM amplifies criticisms of LDS teachings while ignoring nuanced beliefs or constructive responses from Latter-day Saints. Their content is heavy on critiques yet light on facilitating meaningful conversations.
• Silencing Testimonies: Those who engage with LAM forums or platforms looking to share their LDS perspectives report being blocked or ignored. A consistent pattern emerges—LAM doesn’t engage with or publish content that challenges their anti-LDS stance.
• Aggressive Tactics: Rather than seeing theological differences as opportunities for dialogue, LAM employs tactics designed to disrupt LDS faith practices. For instance, their "witnessing tips" include recommending interruptions when someone shares their testimony.

At its core, this approach contradicts claims of fostering open dialogue. True conversation requires respect—a willingness to listen even when disagreements arise.

Imagine trying to have a conversation where the other party keeps cutting you off mid-sentence. Would you feel heard? LAM’s strategy of silencing and disregarding different views can feel isolating for those genuinely searching for truth or healing.

This raises important questions. Can a ministry truly help someone transition if it refuses to hear their personal faith experiences? And how effective is LAM at guiding individuals when it focuses on tearing down rather than building bridges? Critics argue that this approach is not only unhelpful but could alienate people seeking genuine spiritual guidance.

What has your experience been with groups offering "open dialogue"? Comment below—I’d love to hear your take on this.

The Importance of Open Dialogue

Open dialogue is not just a buzzword. It’s a way to break barriers, foster understanding, and build bridges, especially within complex topics like faith. In discussions about the LDS Church, having candid and respectful conversations allows both clarity and compassion to emerge. It helps address misconceptions and creates a space where mutual respect can flourish.

Creating Spaces for Understanding

Open dialogue thrives in spaces where people feel safe to share their views, even when they differ. Encouraging constructive conversations requires intentional effort, especially in emotionally charged or controversial topics involving spirituality and belief systems. So, how do we create these spaces?

1. Listen Without Judgment
   Ever been in a conversation where you felt unheard because the other person was preparing their rebuttal? That’s what we have to avoid. Listening—truly listening—means focusing on understanding, not just responding. To build dialogue, I focus on asking, “What can I learn from their perspective?” instead of assuming my stance is the final word.

2. Find Common Ground
   Diverse perspectives don’t mean we’re light-years apart. Often, shared values—like love for family, devotion to faith, or a desire for truth—can ground conversations. For instance, both critics and defenders of the LDS Church often care deeply about honesty and spiritual fulfillment. Highlighting these points can transform disagreements into meaningful exchanges.

3. Respect Boundaries
   Some topics might hit emotional nerves. Open dialogue doesn’t mean pushing people beyond what they’re comfortable discussing. A sign of respect is recognizing when certain lines shouldn’t be crossed. Healthy discussions involve mutual consent on where the conversation is headed.

4. Ask Thoughtful Questions
   Genuine curiosity is disarming. Questions like, “What led you to feel that way?” or “What does this mean to you personally?” open doors to better understanding. The goal is not to “win” the argument but to enrich understanding on both sides.

When we prioritize mutual respect and empathy, dialogue becomes a tool for growth instead of division. Constructive conversations allow individuals, whether current members, former members, or curious outsiders, to explore LDS-related topics freely. These interactions don’t eliminate disagreements, but they make space for progress instead of standoff.

Open dialogue about LDS beliefs, critiques, and questions can feel complicated. But it’s through these authentic conversations that real, lasting understanding begins to take root. What has worked for you when engaging in tough conversations about faith? Share your insights in the comments—I’d love to learn from your approach.

Conclusion

Marriage, childbirth, and miracles hold deep sacred meaning in Latter-day Saint beliefs. These aren't just traditions; they represent faith in action and a connection to God’s eternal plan. Worship in the LDS faith goes beyond words—it is woven into everyday choices and sacred commitments.

Criticisms that misrepresent worship practices misunderstand their purpose and depth. By rooting these acts in scripture and devotion, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints aim to live by Christ’s example. This perspective invites reflection on how worship can shape a life of service, love, and faith.

I’d love to hear your thoughts. Do these insights shift your understanding? Share, comment, and let’s keep this dialogue alive!

The Family: A Proclamation to the World Stands Firm and True Today

Photo by Ioann-Mark Kuznietsov on Unsplash

In the January 1971 inaugural issue of the Ensign of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the then First Presidency gave the following message:

Family unity and family commitment to the gospel are so important that the adversary has turned much of his attention to the destruction of families in our society. On every side there is an attack on the basic integrity of the family as the foundation of what is good and noble in life. ... Liberalization of abortion laws throughout the world suggests the existing disregard for the sacredness of life. Families are torn apart by increasing use of illegal drugs and the abuse of legal drugs. Contempt for authority by more and more young people usually begins with disrespect and disobedience in homes. Respected magazines proclaim, "the myth of motherhood" and champion the more radical ideas of women's liberation. [Message from the First Presidency - Joseph Fielding Smith]

This First Presidency message goes on to say:

The primary function of a Latter-day Saint home is to ensure that every member of the family works to create the climate and conditions in which all can grow toward perfection. For parents, this requires a dedication of time and energy far beyond the mere providing of their children's physical needs. For children, this means controlling the natural tendency toward selfishness. [Ibid.]

On September 23, 1995, President Gordon B. Hinckley presented The Family: A Proclamation to the World as an outline and guide regarding God's theology of the family, marriage, gender and more. It also provides counsel for home and family improvements and a warning about the consequences of the disintegration of the family (The Family: A Proclamation to the World-History)

This proclamation came over 24 years after the inaugural issue of the Ensign, and statement of the then First Presidency Message regarding the family. And for the past 26 years - this proclamation stands firm and true for all Latter-day Saints, and all of the world. However, this does not prevent it's plain and precious truths to be attacked, dismantled, and criticized.

One such criticism comes from an Op-Ed article written by Richard Davis and published in the Sunday, December 26, 2021, edition of the Salt Lake Tribune. This writer happened to have seen a posting on his Facebook newsfeed by another fellow Latter-day Saint member where the article is shared. And the reader's assessment and commentary regarding this Op-Ed article shares these thoughts:

This Tribune Op-Ed (attached) clearly disfavors the FamProc.

But for what reason? The author doesn't argue that the document conflicts with Church teachings past and/or present. The author doesn't argue the document contradicts Jesus' words or teachings or revelations. The author doesn't cite research on gender dysphoria or the difficult plight of transgender persons. He doesn't claim the document is sexist or that it exercises unrighteous dominion. The author gives but one, single, solitary reason:

People are increasingly accepting of gay marriage so a double-down on the FamProc makes us look outdated and out-of-touch.

That's it.

The editorial suggests the author's LDS, yet he seems unaware that Christ was radically uninterested in the *approval* of his ideas. In fact, Christ knew that his followers would be hated for these ideas—these truths (“If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world…the world hateth you." John 15:19; see also John 17:14, 16). 

The Op-Ed article by Richard Davis as printed in the Salt Lake Tribune

Non-Canonized Argument Refuted

I agree with my fellow Latter-day Saint. One reads the op-ed and there appears to be only one main criticism and that is the increasing acceptance of same-sex marriage. However, there is another underlying criticism that Davis offers. It is in this statement of the Op-Ed article:

The Family: A Proclamation to the World" has never been canonized by a vote of the church in general conference; it was only announced.

This statement comes after Davis remarks:

The Lesson on this proclamation was unusual because Sunday School addresses the scriptural canon of the church - the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. 'The Family: A Proclamation to the World' has never been canonized by a vote of the church in general conference; it was only announced

Whether the Proclamation has or has not been officially canonized as scripture does not make it less authoritative. Actually, the Family: A Proclamation appears to have come from divine revelation.

Shari Drew wrote a book - Insights from a Prophet's Life: Russell M. Nelson (2019) and is quoted:

One day in 1994, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles spent the day in their council room in the Salt Lake Temple discussing issues surrounding the family. They considered everything from the increasing ubiquitous nature of pornography to potential anti-family legislation of various kinds. This was not a new discussion, but that day the entire agenda revolved around this one vital topic - The Family: A Proclamation to the World - as quoted from Insights from a Prophet's Life: Russell M. Nelson

The quote continues:

The Twelve reviewed both doctrine and policies, considering those things that could not be changed - doctrine - and those things that possibly could be - policies. They discussed issues they saw coming, including an intensified societal push for gay marriage and transgender rights. 'But that was not the end of what we say. ... We could see the efforts of various communities to do away with all standards and limitations on sexual activity. We saw the confusion of genders. We could see it all coming.'

Ibid

The conclusion was that there needed to be a statement outlining the Church's stand on the family. According to various Church Leaders remarks on the development of The Family: A Proclamation to the World, we learn that it was based on:

• Divine Revelation after study, prayer, meditation, and discussion
• Based on established doctrines of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ - to include all standard works of the Church
• According to President Boyd K. Packer, many leaders of the Church attended various conferences on the Family that were sponsored by the United Nations and notices marriage was not mentioned
• The Proclamation was reviewed and approved and announced due to a conference on family that appeared to convene in Salt Lake City

Therefore, the historical background on the development of The Family: A Proclamation to the World rebuts Davis's assertion that the document was not merely an announcement it was a firm declaration of truth and doctrine based on revelation, prayer, meditation, and study by the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - Gordon B. Hinckley.

Culture War: Gospel of Christ always conflicts with social and cultural Ideologies

When Christ began his ministry - his teachings conflicted with the long-held traditions of the religious leaders. They also conflicted with a prevalent view and belief that the messiah would come and liberate the city, the people, and the nation of Israel from the foreign occupation of the Roman Empire. They were not expecting a messiah that would come to call men unto repentance, to preach that the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Nor were they expecting someone who would declare that he'd lay his life down and on the third day - raise up from the dead. And Christ knew the hearts and imaginations of men. This is the reason he counseled his disciples on multiple occasions that the world hates him:

If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. ... If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours. But all these things will they do unto you for name's sake, because they know not him that sent me. ... He that hateth me hateth my Father also. ... But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without cause (John 15:17-25, KJV)

Yet Richard Davis appears to question the motivation behind the First Presidency, and the firm teaching of eternal truths, pure doctrine of Christ, and revelation by stating:

Also, church leaders have said that church members should put the culture wars behind them. Although there are many parts of the proclamation that nearly everyone would agree with, the family proclamation was part of the culture war. It was church leadership setting down a marker against same-sex marriage. One of the church leader's quotes in the teacher's manual that could be shared with the class … said that the proclamation declarations are "visibly different from some current laws, practices, and advocacy of the world in which we live:" and continued to include same-sex marriage and child rearing by same-sex couples as examples.

Davis continues:

This kind of language, along with the proclamation's call to change government policy to reflect the proclamation, seems to be intended to reignite the culture wars rather than end them.

While I agree that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do well not to get caught up in the culture wars that pit firm, clear, plain spiritual truths and doctrines against prevailing worldly and social attitudes that undermine said teachings - sometimes we must take a stand and on what scripture teaches.

And if Davis had actually spent any serious amount of time in scripture study, the Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, he'd come to know and understand that whenever our Heavenly Father calls a prophet and commissions that person with a work - it is to call men unto repentance. It is to call men unto Christ. To receive salvation and eternal life. And yet the Savior laments on the reality of the human condition and nature:

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto the, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not. Behold, your house is left unto you desolate

Matthew 23;37 (cf Matthew 23-1-39)

This statement of the Savior comes after a list of woes pronounced upon the Pharisees, scribes, and religious leaders for their hypocrisy and neglect of the Law (Torah).

Samuel the Lamanite Preaching the Gospel and calling the wicked unto Repentance Helaman 13:4

In 1 Nephi, we continually read the rebuking of Laman and Lemuel because of their wickedness, stubbornness, and hard-heartedness. The cry of the Father unto them to shake of the chains by which they are bound (2 Nephi 1:13). Samuel the Lamanite standing on the wall and prophesying while arrows are being strung and shot toward where he was preaching (Helaman 13:4). In the Pearl of Great Price, we learned that Adam, Enoch, Noah, and many others were called to preach and call men unto repentance (Moses 6). The reason? In the calling of Enoch to preach unto the children of men - God declares:

...I am angry with this people, and my fierce anger is kindled against them; for their hearts have waxed hard, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes cannot see afar off; And for these many generations, ever since the day that I created them, have they gone astray, and have denied me, and have sought their own counsels in the dark; and in their own abominations have they devised murder, and have not kept the commandments, which I gave unto their father, Adam. Wherefore, they have foresworn themselves, and, by their oaths, they have brought upon themselves death; and a hell I have prepared for them, if they repent not: And this is a decree, which I have sent forth in the beginning of the world, from my own mouth from the foundation thereof, and by the mouths of my servants, thy fathers, have I decreed it, even as it shall be sent forth in the world unto the ends thereof. ... Say unto this people: Choose ye this day, to serve the Lord God who made you. (Moses 6:27-68)

And the reason the Gospel is preached in a manner to where it is to call all men unto repentance:

Behold Satan hath come among the children of men, and tempteth them to worship him; and men have become carnal, sensual, and devilish, and are shut out from the presence of God.

Moses 6:49

Furthermore, Scripture tells us the following truths. Mosiah 3:19 teaches that the natural man is an enemy to God (See, Robert Millets Essay: The Natural Man: An Enemy to God). This is also reflected in the teachings of the Apostle Paul where he says:

For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, his none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness

Romans 8:5-10

And in the letter to the Christians at Corinth:

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2:14)

There are many other scriptures that not only call all men and women unto repentance, but they also call us all into a life of obedience to our Heavenly Father's will and teachings. This includes upholding the sacredness and sanctity of marriage as ordained of God despite the cultural and social influence today.

Thus, the argument that The Family: A Proclamation to the World is seen as an intention to ignite the culture wars rather than end them - is a non-sequitur. Because what Christ reveals - and from what the Father reveals - generally goes against prevailing social norms, attitudes, and beliefs. Pure doctrine of Christ is constantly in conflict with presenting culture because the world stands against the truth of who Christ is. They'd rather deny Christ, and the Father, in order to erect their own version and idol to please their itchy ears and carnal mindsets.

To end the culture war means to either accept the world and be of the world - or accept Christ and take up one's cross daily and be transformed by the renewing of their mind on the things of God (Luke 9:23, Romans 12:1-2).

Apostasy - A Moral Choice

Richard Davis appears to make this point quite clear when he shares his thoughts:

Bringing back the culture wars is not likely to help the church to retain young adults who have no problem with same sex marriage. Nor is it likely to aid the church's missionary work, particularly among young people. Instead, the more probable consequence is more people walking away from the church because they view it as homophobic.

He further states:

The first thing that church members viewing that lesson read was a statement by a church leader declaring that "our attitude toward and use of the family proclamation is [a test] for this generation. I pray for all Latter-day Saints to stand firm in that test.

He then concludes with this sentiment:

However, if the exclusion of others beyond the traditional nuclear family (mother, father, children) that is implicit in the family proclamation becomes a litmus test, many church members, and particularly its next generation, may not pass.

And the quote Richard Davis is referring to (which he neglects to actually quote - instead, cherry-picks one word - is from The Plan and the Proclamation given at October 2017 General Conference by Elder Dallin H. Oaks (which gives insight into the nature, purpose, and reason for the Proclamation). Elder Oaks actually quotes President Ezra Taft Benson in his concluding remarks:

Forty years ago, President Ezra Taft Benson taught that “every generation has its tests and its chance to stand and prove itself.” I believe our attitude toward and use of the family proclamation is one of those tests for this generation. I pray for all Latter-day Saints to stand firm in that test.

The test being referred to is whether or not we are willing to endure sound doctrine and truths revealed by God's servants. If people turn away - they do so of their own accord and willingness. Yet, there are consequences such individuals may face. Consequences that have an eternal impact if they refuse to turn from the views of the world and walk the path of repentance and seek forgiveness. Yet, many will continue to walk away.

Upon teaching the disciples, many found such things difficult to hear and understand. Because of this, many of His disciples turned and walked away (John 6:60). Personal apostasy is a moral choice. That is the blessing of mortality. We have the freedom to choose. Deuteronomy 30:15 tells us that the Lord has set before us life and good, death and evil. If we choose life and good - we are blessed. If we choose to turn away, God will deny us, and we shall perish (Deuteronomy 30:15-18). In 2 Nephi 2;27, we read:

Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.

These two passages speak to a profound and spiritual truth - we are free to choose for ourselves. We either choose Christ and follow Him and are blessed with life and righteousness and immortality and eternal life; or we choose self, and follow our vain imaginations, our carnal minds, embrace the sophistries of the culture and society, live and love according to the dictates of the world. Because, to choose the latter - one is choosing eternal death, according to the will of the flesh and the evil which is therein, which giveth the spirit of the devil power to captivate, to bring you down to hell, that he may reign over you in his own kingdom (2 Nephi 2:29).

There is no middle ground when it comes to Gospel of Jesus Christ. We do not have the luxury of picking and choosing those things that we want to accept and believe in and then toss out those things that we disagree with because of present cultural and social influence. Christ himself declared that he is the truth and the life, and no person can come to the Father except through Him (John 14:6). He also is the light that has come into the world and yet many rather remain in darkness because if they were to come into the light - their deeds would be exposed and shown for what they are (John 3:19).

A Call to Repent and Turn Away and Come unto Christ

The wonderful message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the reality that all of us mess up. All of us sin. Many of us struggle in this life to find meaning and purpose. We are neither better or worse than anyone else. The truth is that our Heavenly Father desires us to repent, to turn our hearts toward Him, and to seek forgiveness through the infinite atonement of Jesus Christ. Many scripture passages speak to the blessings toward those who turn away from their folly, from their wickedness, vain imaginations, and rebellious and sinful ways. He draws near unto us. He is willing to forgive us. After all - this is the heart of the parable of the prodigal son. All of us are on the road of repentance - seeking forgiveness. It is our own personal journey.

This is where the heart and love of God and Christ rests. So also, it ought to be where our own hearts and love should rest as well. Embracing those who have fallen away and made their return back to the faith. To embrace them, forgive them, support them, and encourage them to live the principle truths and commandments that our Heavenly Father has already taught us.

And this is the invitation to those who are finding themselves question The Proclamation. Find themselves experiencing a sense of loss, confusion, and lacking any direction. Our Heavenly Father desires for each of us to return to Him. To experience the blessings of immortality and eternal life. To taste the sweetness of forgiveness and peace that the world is never able to offer.

It is only if we are able to turn our hearts and minds over to Christ, to take up our cross and follow him, and walk in true obedience and humility. If we are not willing to do so, it is because of our pride and the love of the world - for the world despises Christ and denies his truth and authority - changing Christ to that of man's desires, imaginations, and will - to serve man's carnal and vain imaginations and ego.

Therefore, choose you this day whom you will follow - Christ, our savior and redeemer, or the world that is influenced by the carnality and temptations of the adversary.