Busting Myths about the Family Proclamation
Thirty years ago, in a meeting most of the world ignored, fourteen Apostles and a Prophet of God presented a proclamation. That proclamation would become one of the most quoted, debated, and misunderstood documents in modern religious history. When President Gordon B. Hinckley read "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" on Sept 23, 1995, few could have predicted the intense controversy and cultural battles that would hit us during the next 30 years, nor that this uncontroversial nine-paragraph statement would become the great divider of the Church.
Yet the apostles who crafted it knew exactly what they were doing. And three decades later, their prophetic foresight has been vindicated. As the Church has made its stand, Satan has responded from both without and within the Church. One tactic he utilizes within the Church is to spread myths and misconceptions about the Proclamation itself, hoping to undermine its authority and the confidence of members in its teachings.
Let's separate the truth from the myths.
NOTE: I drafted this article in September. I had no idea Elder Rasband would deliver many of these points in his Conference talk just a few days later.
Myth #1: "It was written by lawyers"
Here's how the "legal origin" narrative goes:
The proclamation was originally written by Church lawyers or Church public affairs committees in response to the antifamily legislation and an international focus on the family. It was then subsequently simply approved (not written) by Church leaders of the 1990s who were unaware of and could not foresee the unique complexities of the world today, such as the rise in issues surrounding gender and sexual orientation.
After all, the Proclamation was announced right as states across the US first started debating same-sex marriage in a serious way. And the Proclamation was heavily used by the Church in amicus briefs after its release. Maybe Church lawyers told the First Presidency the document would carry more weight in the courtroom as a sincere religious belief if it were written as an ecclesiastical statement of faith?
The true origin of the proclamation
Here's the Proclamation's true, detailed origin story, direct from its authors. I'm quoting various sources together that I'll link at the end:
One day [early] in 1994, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles spent a day in their council room in the Salt Lake Temple discussing issues surrounding the family. They considered everything from the increasingly 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 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 saw," Elder Nelson explained. "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 [in early 1994!!]" ([1])
[That same year there was] a world conference on the family sponsored by the United Nations in Beijing, China. We sent representatives. It was not pleasant what they heard. They called another one in Cairo. Some of our people were there. I read the proceedings of that. The word marriage was not mentioned. It was at a conference on the family, but marriage was not even mentioned.
It was then they announced that they were going to have such a conference here in Salt Lake City. Some of us made the recommendation: "They are coming here. We had better proclaim our position ([2])… We must declare ourselves!" ([3])
[So,] during the fall of 1994, at the urging of its Acting President, Boyd K. Packer, the Quorum of the Twelve discussed the need for a scripture-based proclamation to set forth the Church's doctrinal position on the family. A committee consisting of Elders Faust, Nelson, and Maxwell was assigned to prepare a draft, and Elder Oaks later replaced Elder Maxwell on the committee. ([4])
Elder Faust, senior to the other two, suggested they each write a draft and then bring them together. Out of that initial merged document came a version for each member of the Twelve to review and revise. "Prayerfully we continually pleaded with the Lord for His inspiration on what we should say, and how we should say it," Elder Oaks explained. "We all learned 'line upon line, precept upon precept,' as the Lord has promised." ([1])
Their work [on the proclamation], for which Elder Nelson was the principal draftsman, was completed over the Christmas holidays. The draft was submitted to the First Presidency on January 9, 1995, and warmly received. Over the next several months, the First Presidency took the proposed proclamation under advisement and made needed amendments. ([4])
And so the members of the Twelve wrote that proclamation. It was considered word by word by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. ([3])
Myth #2: The Relief Society Presidency First Heard It When Everyone Else Did
Because the members of the Quorum of the Twelve alone wrote the Proclamation, some have assumed that Church leaders– and the Relief Society leadership in particular– were kept completely in the dark about the announcement and heard it for the first time along with the rest of the Church.
To support this claim, critics point to an interview Sister Okazaki gave at the end of her life where she grumbled a bit that her presidency wasn't part of the drafting process. But critics take this one quote and use it to build the narrative that the Relief Society was completely blindsided by the announcement.
The miracle of the Relief Society meeting
While critics love that clip of Sis. Okazaki's late life account, they ignore what she and presidency all actually said at the time:
The document had just received approval from the combined First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve when, in March 1995, President Howard W. Hunter passed away and President Gordon B. Hinckley became President of the Church. Though the senior Brethren encouraged him to read the proclamation at the April general conference, President Hinckley felt it was too early in his presidency to make a major policy statement. ([1]) President Hinckley had a lower right-hand drawer in his desk. Many joked that if something ended up in that fated right hand drawer, it would never be seen again. So, members of the Quorum would tease him about whichever drawer the Proclamation was in…
[During the next few months], Relief Society General President Elaine L. Jack (president from 1990 to 1997) met with her counselors Aileen H. Clyde and Chieko Okazaki to plan the September 1995 general Relief Society meeting… That year there was a desire for a change in the approach and substance of the meeting. The Relief Society General Presidency sought to place greater emphasis on the family, with particular attention to women's needs. Their hope was for the meeting to serve as a means for the Lord to strengthen, unite, and clearly articulate his teachings on the family…
This focus on the family became the obvious theme, but how exactly they would implement the theme was still unknown. President Jack remembers, "We really wanted to focus on the family, but… we had some concern about the meetings just being talking heads, one person speaking after another." After some counseling and deliberation, some ideas came to fruition. President Jack explains, "We thought, 'Let's do a video about Relief Society or about some of the concerns and how we might deal with them.'" After a few attempts, the presidency still didn't feel settled on it, so they decided to forgo the effort. The decision regarding the video was made just one week prior to the conference, leaving a gap that needed to be filled, but the presidency had no backup plan to fill it.
As the conference neared, President Jack and her counselors met with Elder Robert D. Hales, their first contact with the Quorum of the Twelve. After discussing a variety of topics, including the plans for the conference, Elder Hales suggested that "perhaps we [the Relief Society General Presidency] would like to meet with the First Presidency… We of course agreed wholeheartedly… We did attend the meeting in the East board room with the presidency. They were very warm and complimentary in greeting us…"
During the meeting, President Hinckley sought the counsel of the Relief Society General Presidency regarding the women of the church. Sister Clyde recalled that President Hinckley asked them many things… "This was a wonderful opportunity for us to speak about the circumstances we had found. Each of us contributed from our own perspective… Chieko [Okazaki] spoke about the many who are hurting and Aileen [Clyde] spoke about the women's main concern being their families and the economic circumstance… We felt very satisfied, and listened to, and warmly received by the First Presidency."
After talking for a while, President Hinckley explained, "The real reason I've talked with you for a long time is that I'm trying to decide… We have written a proclamation on the family and it's my responsibility to decide when to present it. And you've already invited me to speak at your meeting on Saturday." He recognized that the meeting was taking place that weekend, and it was already Tuesday. According to Sister Clyde, he graciously continued, "I don't want to overwhelm your meeting. We want to hear from you sisters and we want the sisters to hear from you. So, you've already asked me to speak and I've prepared remarks and they'll take about eleven minutes. But this is a very important thing. [If] I were to announce this proclamation to the family… I'm afraid it would overwhelm the meeting.'"
[The sisters responded]: "President Hinckley, this is obviously very important and our concern for the family is very important. And let's let that concern overwhelm the meeting!" … "Before we left the meeting President Hinckley said, 'Thank you. You've helped to clarify my thinking.'" [And] President Jack recalled, "It was a warm and comfortable meeting. We felt very heard as a presidency. As we left the room that day, we spoke so positively about our experience. We were thrilled to have had that experience. Each member of the presidency was delighted with the outcome…"
When we went out, [Elder Oaks] drew us over to a little vestibule and sat us down. And he said, 'Do you understand that you have just been in an historic moment? … I have never seen a prophet make a decision in a meeting like that, about something we have spent a year with. And we didn't know how to advise him as to when… He was really wrestling with when to do it [and] I think he made the decision to read that proclamation dependent on your response. I think he made it right there while you were visiting.'"
Myth #3: The Apostles and Prophets didn't foresee how social values would "evolve"
Some have suggested that the Church was simply reciting a few beliefs on the family they thought were "safe" to use against the handful of gay marriage debates in 1995. The Church never wants to offend anyone or stir the pot, the reasoning goes, so they must have had no idea how controversial and "harmful" their statements would become in later years. If they had known how deeply societal values would evolve in the coming decades, they never would have issued it in the first place.
Prophetic boldness and foresight
Here again the Prophets told us the real story:
[In the 1994 Temple meeting, the Apostles] 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 saw," Elder Nelson explained. "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." ([1])
And they knew the hard feelings that would be stirred up:
During the period that the proclamation was being drafted, Church leaders grew concerned about efforts to legalize same-sex marriage in the state of Hawaii. As that movement gained momentum, a group of Church authorities and Latter-day Saint legal scholars, including Elder Oaks, recommended that the Church oppose the Hawaii efforts. At the same time, Elder Oaks anticipated the effect of that public opposition.
"This would touch off an ugly nationwide debate for the hearts and minds of Americans in which the Church would step into a serious vacuum of leadership," he forecast in his journal. "I feel (and said) that this is the time and that is what the Lord wants us to do, but it is a serious step that can only be taken by a united First Presidency and Twelve."
The proposal to oppose the Hawaii legislation was approved by the First Presidency and the Twelve on January 6, 1995, catapulting the Church into a prominent role in opposing same-sex marriage.
The Family Proclamation was submitted to the First Presidency just three days later. They knew what they were doing.
Myth #4: The status of the Family Proclamation
Here we have two related myths:
- The Family Proclamation is canon/scripture.
- The Family Proclamation is just policy, not doctrine.
The true status of the Proclamation: Official doctrine, but not canon
Even though you can find the Proclamation under the "Scriptures" menu in the Gospel Library app, the Brethren have been careful to avoid calling the Proclamation "canon" or "scripture" because those terms have specific meanings. Canonization is an actual process wherein a document goes through a sequence of steps:
- A revelation or proclamation is received by the President of the Church and he proposes its canonization.
- It receives unanimous approval from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.
- It is presented to the Church membership for a sustaining vote in general conference (this vote need not be unanimous, but there is disagreement between past Church leaders on what would happen if a sizable chunk of members opposed the vote).
The Proclamation was written and approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, but it was not proposed for canonization. Thus, critics of the Proclamation love to point out that when Pres. Packer called the Proclamation "a revelation" in his October 2010 conference talk, that statement was later edited to refer to it as merely "a guide."
However, something need not be officially canonized to be binding. While the Proclamation cannot be technically classified as scripture until it has undergone the canonization process, it is one of the most authoritative non-canonical declarations ever received. Pres. Hinckley, Pres. Oaks, Pres. Packer, Pres. Eyring, Pres. Ballard, Elder Christofferson, and scores of other leaders have all testified that the Family Proclamation is both revelatory and doctrinal. All involved in its creation have consistently affirmed the hand of the Lord in its drafting and refinement, and have even called it "scripturelike." As Elder Rasband taught just a few days ago, "The proclamation on the family is, as President Hinckley stated, doctrine, my dear brothers and sisters." As Pres. Oaks, our next Prophet taught, "Those who do not fully understand the Father's loving plan for His children may consider this family proclamation no more than a changeable statement of policy. In contrast, we affirm that the family proclamation [is] founded on irrevocable doctrine."
Myth #5: The Church is stepping away from the Family Proclamation
We've all watched the tone and timbre of General Conference addresses soften over the past 30 years as the Brethren have become more guarded and gentle in their language. As I described in my earlier post, we've also seen a concerning pattern of mixed messaging from local leaders, Church middle management, and Church-owned institutions on LGBTQ+ topics during the past 5 years. All this leads some orthodox members to worry (and progressive members to hope) that the Church is quietly distancing itself from the principles of the Family Proclamation.
The continued prominence of the Proclamation
If the Church really is gradually distancing itself from the Proclamation, we would expect to see a gradual decline in its citation and use in General Conference. And fortunately, that's an easily quantifiable hypothesis. So I wrote a script to scrape every General Conference address since the Proclamation was introduced in 1995. I've published all the data plus a bunch of nerdy graphs here. The results are telling.
Apostolic references to the Proclamation fluctuate from year to year, but there is no definite decrease in references to it over the past 30 years. In fact, the first few years of Pres. Nelson's presidency hold the highest number of references of all time, with one out of every four or five Apostolic talks referencing the Proclamation in 2018 and 2019. Conferences where no Apostle cites the Family Proclamation are rare, and this most recent conference saw one out of every five Apostolic talks reference it.
Lest you think maybe the Apostles are on board, but not the other authorities, here again, we see no marked decline in references, and sometimes non-Apostolic speakers even outpace the Apostles. For example 29%– almost one in three talks by non-Apostolic speakers in April 2024 referenced the Proclamation, the highest percentage since 1998.
Over the past 30 years, almost one out of every ten talks on average cites the Family Proclamation. Pres. Oaks wasn't kidding when he promised:
The proclamation on the family is a statement of eternal truth, the will of the Lord for His children who seek eternal life. It has been the basis of Church teaching and practice for the last [30] years and will continue so for the future.
Myth #6: Not every Apostle has agreed with the Proclamation
Every leader has different emphases and styles, and some have been more vocal about the Proclamation than others. Using the same analysis I used above, I confirmed that some newer Apostles have never publicly referenced the Family Proclamation in their talks. This is to be expected– it takes a few years to cover many subjects in your talks. But one very senior Apostle has never mentioned it in his talks, either (a point commonly brought up by progressive members who hope he will become president of the Church and change the doctrine). Has there been dissent among the Apostles?
The unanimous support of all Apostles
The Family Proclamation is unique in that this particular Proclamation bears no signatures. Some see that as a tacit admission that there was not unanimity among the Apostles. But again, the data doesn't bear that out. Every member of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve who was alive for its creation has used the Proclamation in their talks, articles, and other teachings. Every single one.
And what of the Apostles who joined after the Proclamation was issued? May I suggest that the Family Proclamation lacks signatures because it is timeless. Each Apostle who joins the Quorum "signs on" to the Proclamation by virtue of his ordination. And this isn't just my conjecture; Elder Rasband indicated as much in his September 2025 BYU devotional address, then reiterated the point in his Conference address a few days ago:
When I was called as an Apostle in 2015 [20 years after the Proclamation was issued], I was advised that I now carried the responsibility as a member of the Council of the Twelve to teach the proclamation… "This proclamation is now yours. Your name [pointing to the words 'Council of the Twelve Apostles' in the title] is right here. Feel it and teach it like you own it."
So, does Elder ___ support the Proclamation? You bet he does!
Why Myths Matter
Why spend time debunking misconceptions? Consider the words of Pres. Oaks:
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.
Right now, a sizable portion of the Church in Western countries is failing that test. One bellwether: BYU Professors have been surveying incoming students for many years about their views of the Family Proclamation. Recently, a large number of students have begun answering that they see the Proclamation as merely a changeable policy or legal statement.
Satan is real, and he hates the clear witness of the Family Proclamation. These myths about its origin, about its status, and its supposed waning relevance are all part of his "carefully calculated" strategy to undermine the Family Proclamation. You and I have watched family and friends– good, honest people– who waver in their support for these revelatory words because of these popular myths.
No wonder Pres. Nelson, Pres. Oaks, Elder Rasband, and others have felt it important in recent years to re-emphasize the prophetic nature and divine origin of the Family Proclamation. And we can, too.
Sources
Here are the five sources I heavily quoted from above:
- Pres. Nelson's biography by Sheri Dew
- Pres. Packer's February 2003 BYU Devotional
- Pres. Packer's 1998 interview with Deseret News
- Pres. Oaks's biography by Richard Turley
- Delivering the Family Proclamation from BYU Religious Studies Center, 2003
If you want some more good reading, may I recommend the following:
- Seership and World Conferences: The Divine Origin and Inception of the Family Proclamation
- FAIR Latter-day Saints article on the Proclamation
- Family proclamation proving prophetic by Pres. Ballard
- Historical Context and Background of The Family: A Proclamation to the World
- Elder Rasband's September 2025 BYU devotional address
- Elder Rasband's October 2025 General Conference address
- Pres. Oaks's Oct 2017 talk
- The Family Proclamation in Context by Michael Goodman
- A Woman's Influence on the Delivery of The Family Proclamation by Barbara Morgan Gardner and Olivia Osguthorpe
- The Divine Origin of the Family Proclamation by Bryan Korth
- Faith and Families by Pres. Nelson
- Q&A on the Family Proclamation by Mormonr
