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

 

The First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1971

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. 

Deep Dive Regarding Criticism and Anti-LDS Rhetoric and How to Respond

 

Mindful Latter-day Saint Apologetics: Defending Faith with Clarity & Confidence

Welcome to a thought-provoking exploration of Latter-day Saint Apologetics, where faith meets reason. This AI-generated podcast is based on four published articles offering faithful, well-reasoned, and effective responses to ongoing criticism of Latter-day Saint beliefs, teachings, history, and doctrine.

📖 In this episode, we cover:
✔️ How to thoughtfully navigate and respond to anti-Mormon rhetoric
✔️ Identifying and addressing toxic apologetics and faith-damaging discourse
✔️ Defending Latter-day Saint Christian beliefs with intellectual rigor and spiritual strength
✔️ The impact of social media on faith and how to remain resilient

🎧Access the Audio and Resource Overview through Google Notebook LM AI

📜 Read the Articles Here:
🔹Blogger Article Source: Protecting Faith Dialogue from Toxic Apologetics and Narcissistic Traits

🔹WordPress Article Source: Toxic Christian Apologists - Characteristics and Impact on Faith 

🔹WordPress Article Source: Weaponizing Social Media: How Toxic Apologetics Threaten Faith and Testimony of Latter-day Saints

🔹WordPress Article Source: Handling Anti-Mormon Rhetoric: Resilient Strategies of Latter-day Saint Christians

💙 Support This Work & Make a Difference!
If this podcast and YouTube channel bring value to you, please consider donating to sustain and expand this vital effort. Your urgent financial support ensures we continue producing faith-building content. Every contribution—big or small—is deeply appreciated.

🔗 Donate today through this PayPal link and be a vital part of this mission

📌 Subscribe, Like, & Share to help spread truth and defend faith with strength and understanding!
#LDSApologetics #MormonFaith #LatterDaySaints #DefendingTheFaith #ChristianApologetics #FaithfulAnswers #ToxicApologetics #ResilientFaith #GospelTruth

Unveiling the Truth: LDS Beliefs on Polygamy, Exaltation, and Jesus Christ Explained

This is a thorough Latter-day Saint apologetic response addressing the post titled "No Mormon Polygamy Means No Salvation" by Michelle Grim of Life After Ministry. The response focuses on clarifying misconceptions about Latter-day Saint (LDS) beliefs, providing scriptural and doctrinal commentary, and identifying logical fallacies present in the critique.

Polygamy in LDS History: Context and Misconceptions

Polygamy, or plural marriage, is often misunderstood and misrepresented in discussions about the LDS faith. Historically, the practice was introduced in the early 19th century as a commandment through the Prophet Joseph Smith. It was a specific practice for a time, rooted in divine instruction and covenant theology. Latter-day Saints believe that polygamy, like other ancient practices (e.g., animal sacrifice or specific dietary laws), was a situational commandment given by God for His purposes and was later discontinued under divine direction in 1890.

Critics like Michelle Grim assert that salvation in Mormonism is dependent on polygamy, which is a false characterization. LDS doctrine emphasizes that salvation is achieved through faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, receiving the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end (see 2 Nephi 31:20). 

At some point the LDS Church will fall to their knees to either worship or acknowledge He’s exalted. For now, ask a Mormon to define exaltation. Also ask why the Mormon Jesus was exalted if He wasn’t practicing polygamy. If they say He was a polygamist ask for verification, i.e. biblical proof.

You’ll notice in their version of exaltation there’s no mention of Jesus at all. Exaltation is synonymous with true salvation in Mormonism and there is no true salvation without polygamy.

While polygamy was practiced by some Latter-day Saints in the past, it is neither required nor practiced in the modern Church. As Bruce R. McConkie stated in Mormon Doctrine, exaltation is synonymous with eternal life and is made possible through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, not through the practice of polygamy.

The claim that Jesus Christ practiced polygamy is also a misconception often attributed to early LDS cultural speculation but is not a doctrinal teaching of the Church. The focus of LDS Christology is on Jesus as the divine Savior who lived a sinless life and provided salvation for all humanity.

On the Term "Mormon Jesus"

The term "Mormon Jesus" is a pejorative phrase coined by counter-cult ministries to mock and deride LDS sacred beliefs about Jesus Christ. Latter-day Saints worship the true Christ as described in the Bible, whom they believe is the Son of God, the Savior, and the Redeemer. The title "Mormon Jesus" creates a false dichotomy and misrepresents Latter-day Saint beliefs.

The difference lies in theological interpretations. Latter-day Saints affirm the biblical teachings of Christ's divine sonship, premortal existence, role as Creator, and exaltation with the Father. However, the LDS understanding of Christ includes additional scripture (e.g., the Book of Mormon) and insights into His mission, but this does not equate to worshiping "another Jesus" (2 Corinthians 11:4).

Exegetical Commentary on Revelation 2–3: Seven Promises and Exaltation

Exaltation is also tied into the idea of eternal progression where we bring glory to God through ongoing sanctification and glorification. It is the highest form of salvation where we are invited to live with our Heavenly Father and partake in his divine nature. What this means is that through the restoration of the sealing power of the keys of the priesthood — families possess the opportunity to be exalted together. It is the aspect of where we understand the nature and meaning of the fulness of the Gospel. 

The Apostle John writes upon the nature of this in Revelation. Given to him by Christ himself: 

Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is the new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name. he that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit hath saith unto the Churches. (Revelation 3:12–13, KJV).

What is interesting here is that John’s revelation begins as a command to write unto the Seven Churches. Christ, then, addresses each church individually. Within each of these, John records several times where Christ refers to individuals overcoming and receiving Glory. Dressed in garments of white linen, and even purchasing refined gold. 

• Writing to the Church in Ephesus: Christ ends with, “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to unto the Churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
• Writing to the Church of Smyrna: Christ ends with, “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death
• Writing to the Church in Pergamos: Christ ends with, “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth”
• Writing to the Church in Thyatira: Christ says this, “And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father. And I will give him the morning star. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches.” 
• Writing to the Church in Sardis: Christ gives John this message, “He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches”
• Writing unto the Church in Philadelphia: Christ says this to John the Revelator, “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.” 
• Writing to the Church of the Laodiceans: John records Christ saying, “I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyeslave, that thou mayest see. AS many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the Seven Churches.”

Elijah’s visitation to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery involved the restoration of priesthood keys. These keys gave Joseph Smith the power and authority to bind heaven and earth through sacred temple ordinances. A fulfillment of biblical prophecy. Along with sacred temple ordinances pertaining to the salvation and exaltation of humanity. Through the restoration of these keys, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints receive:

• A New Name: “I will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.” Echoes the sacred temple ritual where individuals receive a new name. This symbolizes a personal and sacred connection with God, known only to the Individual and God. It is binding covenants and blessings. We see this occur throughout the Old and New Testament. Jacob wrestled with God and when the Lord touched his hip — Jacob requested a blessing. God gave him a new name, Israel, and a blessing. Peter, when giving his confession as a response to the Saviors question, received a new name and a blessing to receive the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. 
• Temple Garments and Clothing: Revelation is rich with symbolism and one of those involves believers being “clothed in white raiment”. This clothing represents purity, holiness, and preparation for divine presence. White raiment also represents the need for spiritual cleanliness and worthiness to stand before God. 
• Exaltation: Partaking from the Tree of Life signifies eternal life and the presence of God. Along with this is the promise of “not being hurt by the second death”. An implication of protection from spiritual death — an idea central to the doctrine of exaltation. Matthew 28:10 is a good reminder where Christ taught that we are not to fear those who have the capability to kill the body. We are to fear God who has the power and authority to destroy both body and soul. 
• Kingship and Divinity: The symbolism of Power over notions and ruling “with a rod of iron” gives insight into divine authority. Kingship parallel’s priesthood power and authority. The blessing and promise here is to become like Christ. To share in his divine nature and authority as we are seated with him on his throne. A promise that the mother of the two sons of Zebedee requested of Christ. To which, Christ says: “…but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.” (Matthew 20:20–23). 
• Power and Authority: Along with Kingship and Divinity, they symbolism of being made as a “pillar in the temple of my God” reflects priesthood authority and the sealing power associated with that. Meaning, individuals are not mere participants, they are integral and permanent aspects of fulfilling God’s will and purpose. It is this priesthood power and authority that further assists God in bringing to past the immortality and eternal life of humanity. In essence, priesthood power and authority are the divine structure of God’s kingdom here on earth. 
• Receiving the Morning Star: For me, this came as a shock as I sat down to study out this week’s come follow me. A significant and profound symbol. Revelation 22:16 identifies Jesus Christ as the Morning Star. Isaiah 14:12 — one reads about how Lucifer is the fallen Morning Star. Contextually, it is referring to a particular king. However, the Hebrew is helel and means “shining one” or “light-bearer”. Both Christ and the Adversary are referred to as “morning stars” and “Light bearers” or “shining ones”. Job gives further evidence that at the dawn of creation, the morning stars sang together with the Sons of God (Job 38:7). Morning Star symbolizes Christ’s preeminence, divinity, and glory. The promise that Christ will give those who overcome the “morning star” is profound in that Christ is saying that we will be rewarded by sharing in his glory. It is the ultimate blessing and gift of God where we receive divine light, guidance, and the promise of becoming like Christ — embodying all his attributes and qualities. 

Here is the clarity of the Morning Star. Since it symbolizes Christ’s divine nature and glory. His role as the light of the world (John 8:12). And his preeminence over all creation (Colossians 1:15-19). The blessing Christ imparts unto all those who overcome, as he overcame, this world refers to promise of sharing in his glory, divinity, and authority. A promise of becoming Christ-like. Because he is the light of the world, and we come to follow him — we partake in this light and participate in the eternal work of bring people unto Christ. It is the core essence of temple ordinances — to bring people into sacred covenantal relationship with God in order to become like Christ. To share in his divine nature and glory. To partake of his eternal life and light. 

• Recognition and Eternal Identity: The seventh blessed promise to those who overcome, as Christ has overcome the world, refers to eternal recognition, hope, and identity. Through the keys of the priesthood restored by Elijah — temple ordinances bind earth and heaven whereby our names are not blotted out. Instead, they are written in the Book of Life. Not only written in the book of life, God’s name and the name of the New Jerusalem is written upon us. This further signifies eternal identity and recognition. Temple ordinances and covenants essentially secure our eternal place in God’s kingdom and presence — only if we are faithful and obedient in maintaining worthiness and honoring our covenants before him. 

For me, these promises written to the seven churches, reflect God’s divine plan through the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. Restoration of the keys of the priesthood regarding temple sealings and ordinances by Elijah gives hope and meaning. Helping each of us to realize the sacred significance of what temple rituals symbolize when it comes to our covenants, teachings, and symbolize when it comes to our covenants, teachings, and symbolic worship. All to unite us in sacred bonds for all eternity. 

Acts 7:55–56: Stephen's Theophany

In Acts 7:55–56, Stephen witnesses a profound vision of "the glory of God" and "Jesus standing on the right hand of God." This passage reinforces the LDS understanding of the Godhead as three distinct persons—God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost—united in purpose but separate in identity. Stephen’s vision confirms Christ's exalted role and His continuing ministry as our advocate with the Father (1 John 2:1).

Exodus 15:2 and Isaiah 24:23: The Lord as Salvation and Glory

Exodus 15:2 declares, “The Lord is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation.” This verse reflects the foundational belief that God is the source of deliverance. Latter-day Saints affirm that salvation comes through Jesus Christ, who enables us to overcome sin and death.

Isaiah 24:23 describes YHWH’s glory in Zion, seated among His elders. This parallels Christ’s prayer in John 17:5, where He asks the Father to restore the glory He had before the world’s foundation. Latter-day Saints interpret this as Christ’s divine premortal status and His exaltation, which believers may also attain through Him.

Exaltation and Becoming New Creations in Christ

Paul teaches in 2 Corinthians 5:17 that those in Christ are new creations. This transformation involves sanctification and becoming like Christ. Latter-day Saints emphasize that exaltation is not self-granted but a gift through the grace of Jesus Christ, requiring faith, repentance, ordinances, and enduring discipleship. Scriptures like Philippians 2:9–11 and Hebrews 1:3 further affirm Christ’s exalted position and His role in bringing the faithful to glory.

Addressing Logical Fallacies in Grim’s Post

1. Strawman Argument: Grim misrepresents LDS beliefs by conflating polygamy with salvation and portraying Latter-day Saints as worshiping a different Jesus. These distortions divert from actual LDS teachings.

2. Ad Hominem Attacks: The term "Mormon Jesus" is a derogatory label intended to undermine LDS beliefs rather than engage with them respectfully.

3. False Equivalence: Equating historical polygamy with eternal salvation ignores the broader context of LDS doctrine, which prioritizes faith in Christ and covenant-keeping.

Conclusion

This response demonstrates that the LDS Church worships Jesus Christ as the Savior and Redeemer of the world, teaches exaltation through Him, and does not require polygamy for salvation. Critics like Grim often rely on distortions and inflammatory rhetoric that fail to represent LDS beliefs accurately. Latter-day Saints invite all to study these teachings in their fullness, through scripture, prayer, and personal revelation.

Debunking Myths: A Thoughtful LDS Response to Claims of Racism in Church History

Photo by Viviana Rishe
on Unsplash

A thoughtful and mindful response to Michelle Grim’s critique from Life After Ministry begins with the recognition that discussions about historical issues, particularly those involving race and religion, require nuance, sensitivity, and respect. Below, I’ll address several dimensions of her post while offering an apologetic response rooted in Latter-day Saint theology and a broader historical and theological perspective.

Historical Context and Presentism

One significant issue in Michelle Grim’s critique is her reliance on presentism—judging historical figures and actions by modern standards rather than understanding them within their historical context. When addressing racism within the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it’s vital to acknowledge the broader cultural, social, and political environment in which the Church emerged. The early 19th century was a time when racism was entrenched in American society, manifesting in slavery, discriminatory laws, and widespread prejudice.

The Latter-day Saint movement did not exist in a vacuum, and its early leaders, like most people of their time, were influenced by the cultural milieu. However, what differentiates the Church is its trajectory of progress toward inclusivity and its scriptural emphasis on the unity of humankind. While mistakes were made—such as the priesthood and temple restrictions for individuals of African descent, which persisted until 1978—these were not unique to the Church but reflected broader societal norms.

It’s disingenuous to isolate the Church’s history of racial policies without examining the pervasive racism found across Christianity and society during the same period. For example, many Christian denominations supported slavery, segregation, and even used the Bible to justify these practices. Grim’s critique falls into a special pleading logical fallacy by singling out the Latter-day Saints without addressing the same or worse issues within broader Christendom.

Christianity’s Complicated History with Racism

Michelle Grim critiques the LDS Church as if it stands apart from the broader history of Christianity, yet Christianity as a whole has faced significant struggles with racism, anti-Semitism, and even violence. Historical examples include:

1. Slavery and Segregation in Christian America: Many prominent Christian leaders and denominations supported slavery, segregation, and white supremacy. Even after abolition, some Christian institutions resisted integration and civil rights.

2. Anti-Semitism: Christian anti-Semitism has roots extending back centuries, culminating in devastating atrocities, such as the Inquisition and pogroms.

3. Biblical Genocide and Difficult Scriptures: Michelle references Jeremiah 48:10 to accuse Latter-day Saints of deceit, but difficult passages like 1 Samuel 15—where God commands the destruction of the Amalekites, including women and children—present challenges for all Christians who take the Bible seriously. These scriptures, while divinely inspired, must be understood through the lens of historical and cultural context.

4. Ongoing Struggles: Racism has not been entirely eradicated from any Christian community. This reality should inspire humility and collective effort rather than judgment and self-righteous condemnation.

Elder Alexander B. Morrison’s Remarks

Elder Alexander B. Morrison’s 2000 article, No More Strangers, is an essential part of this discussion. His statement that the Church has “from its beginnings stood strongly against racism in any of its malignant manifestations” must be understood as aspirational rather than a denial of historical imperfections. Morrison’s remarks emphasize a key theological tenet of Latter-day Saint belief: that all are children of God, equal in worth and divine potential.

Unfortunately, racism—the abhorrent and morally destructive theory that claims superiority of one person over another by reason of race, color, ethnicity, or cultural background—remains one of the abiding sins of societies the world over. The cause of much of the strife and conflict in the world, racism is an offense against God and a tool in the devil’s hands. In common with other Christians, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regret the actions and statements of individuals who have been insensitive to the pain suffered by the victims of racism and ask God’s forgiveness for those guilty of this grievous sin. The sin of racism will be eliminated only when every human being treats all others with the dignity and respect each deserves as a beloved child of our Heavenly Father.

Rather than framing his statement as a denial of historical mistakes, it should be seen as a call to repentance and reflection. Morrison’s comments point to the Church’s efforts to move forward, emphasizing the need for dignity and respect among all people. 

If we are to build and maintain strong and righteous individuals and caring communities in the future, we must break down the barriers which separate us from others and build bridges needed to create peace and harmony. This can occur only if we respect, understand, accept, and appreciate others for the admirable qualities they possess. As we respect the right of others to believe and worship as they wish, for example, and they reciprocate those commitments, we join together in respecting, understanding, accepting, and appreciating our differences and each other. People of different backgrounds, cultures, outlooks, capacities, and interests thus are bound together as a community based on common values where the inhabitants are “of one heart and one mind, and [dwell] in righteousness” (Moses 7:18).

The 1978 revelation that extended the priesthood to all worthy males regardless of race was a watershed moment, underscoring the Church’s capacity for divine guidance and progression.

Logical Fallacies and Hypocrisy

Michelle Grim’s post relies on ad hominem attacks and special pleading, where she holds the LDS Church to a standard she does not apply to other Christian traditions. Her critique lacks acknowledgment of the broader historical realities of racism in Christianity or the strides the Church has made in addressing its past. This approach undermines her credibility and raises questions about her motives—whether they are truly to foster understanding or to sow division.

Additionally, the conflation of historical complexities with outright lies ignores the Church’s public acknowledgments and ongoing efforts to confront its history. For example, the Gospel Topics Essay on Race and the Priesthood candidly addresses the Church’s past policies and emphasizes the divine unity of all humankind.

A Call for Charity and Understanding

While it’s easy to point fingers and accuse, the Christian call is one of charity, forgiveness, and humility. Latter-day Saints do not claim perfection in their history or leaders. The Church openly teaches that its leaders, while divinely inspired, are also human and fallible. This is consistent with the broader Christian understanding that God works through imperfect people.

Grim’s critique, though well-intentioned, misses an opportunity for meaningful dialogue. Instead of fostering division, we should focus on how all Christians can work together to combat racism, prejudice, and inequality.

Conclusion

The history of race in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, like in Christianity as a whole, is complex and evolving. While mistakes have been made, the Church’s trajectory demonstrates a sincere commitment to improving and living up to its divine ideals. Elder Morrison’s article serves as a testament to the Church’s efforts to move forward in love and unity. Rather than dwelling on past errors, let us focus on building bridges and following Christ’s example of compassion, inclusivity, and grace.

Responding to Glen E. Chatfield’s “Speaking Against Polygamy Brings Damnation”

 

Engaging in a thoughtful and respectful discussion with critics of the Latter-day Saint faith is often challenging, particularly when the conversation lacks nuance or context. Glen E. Chatfield's recent blog post, "Speaking Against Polygamy Brings Damnation," is an example of this difficulty. While criticism is expected in matters of faith, the lack of historical understanding and the tone of his arguments make constructive dialogue nearly impossible.

Previously, I provided a commentary on Life After Ministry’s post about polygamy, offering a contextual analysis rather than a defense or refutation. My goal was to frame the practice of polygamy within the historical and cultural realities of Joseph Smith’s time—focusing on the persecution faced by early Church members and the evolving legal framework surrounding polygamy. This analysis sought balance and fairness, acknowledging the complexities of history rather than reducing them to simplistic judgments.

Unfortunately, many critics, including Mr. Chatfield, seem to approach these topics with rigid confirmation biases. Rather than fostering open discussions or exploring historical nuance, they rely on short, dismissive posts filled with inflammatory language and ad hominem attacks. Such tactics are not conducive to genuine conversation; they are, quite frankly, designed to silence opposing views rather than engage with them.

Attempts at Dialogue

A few years ago, I’ve extended invitations to Mr. Chatfield to engage in a respectful and thoughtful discussion. These offers have been declined or ignored. This refusal to engage in dialogue speaks to a broader issue among some critics of the Latter-day Saint faith: a reluctance to have their assumptions challenged. Instead of inviting scrutiny, they often position themselves as authoritarian voices, presenting their perspectives as the sole "truth" without opening the door to meaningful analysis or debate.

Mr. Chatfield’s approach—echoing unexamined claims and rejecting contextual discussion—raises questions about his commitment to honest discourse. His comment sections, for example, appear to be filled with one-sided conversations, often under pseudonyms, that lack context, substance, or relevance. Whether these “conversations” are genuine or orchestrated, they do little to foster understanding or credibility.

Addressing Common Misconceptions

A recurring critique is that any reference to historical context is an attempt to "soften evil" or defend indefensible actions. This accusation misunderstands the purpose of context. Historical context does not excuse or justify actions; it provides the framework to understand why certain decisions were made and how they were influenced by cultural, social, and legal factors of the time. Without this understanding, history becomes little more than a caricature—stripped of depth and complexity.

For example, the quotes often cited by critics, such as those from Heber C. Kimball or the Journal of Discourses, must be read within the framework of their time. It’s important to recognize the theological and societal pressures shaping these statements rather than cherry-picking quotes to support preconceived narratives. Dismissing context entirely is intellectually dishonest and undermines any claim to objective analysis.

Critics like Mr. Chatfield also frequently misrepresent the historical development of polygamy within the Church. Joseph Smith’s revelations on plural marriage, while controversial, were rooted in a theological framework that many early Saints believed to be divinely inspired. Similarly, the later renunciation of polygamy under Wilford Woodruff was not a convenient abandonment but a response to significant legal and political pressures. These events are complex and multifaceted, and reducing them to accusations of “serial adultery” ignores the broader historical and doctrinal landscape.

Faith, Nuance, and Dialogue

The claim that the Bible unequivocally supports a single form of marriage also overlooks the complexities of scriptural history. While monogamy is a clear ideal in many biblical narratives, instances of polygamy, such as those involving Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon, complicate the conversation. These examples do not invalidate God’s commandments but illustrate the human struggle to align with divine principles. Critiquing polygamy in the Latter-day Saint context while ignoring these biblical precedents reveals a selective approach to scripture that lacks consistency.

Ultimately, productive discussions require an openness to learning, a willingness to engage in good faith, and a recognition of nuance. Critics like Mr. Chatfield, who dismiss context and rely on inflammatory rhetoric, miss an opportunity to contribute meaningfully to the broader dialogue about faith, history, and theology. Instead of fostering understanding, they perpetuate division and misunderstanding.

As members of the Latter-day Saint community, we should strive to engage with critics respectfully, providing thoughtful and well-reasoned responses. At the same time, it’s essential to recognize when dialogue is unproductive and move forward in our efforts to build bridges with those willing to engage in sincere and honest conversations.

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.