In 1995, the LDS Church issued a statement called “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” This Proclamation was recently the topic of study in LDS Sunday School classes. I believe many Latter-day Saints misuse this Proclamation to push a politically conservative agenda.
What are LDS “Proclamations”?
The Church has issued six Proclamations throughout its history. They are considered to be statements from the Church of Jesus Christ to the world. (Hence, the subtitle of this one).
Unlike the “Declarations,” which are contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, Proclamations do not announce new doctrine or practices. They do not give those who are members of the Church any information they should not already know. Church members are not the primary audience for a Proclamation.
A life of its own
The “Family Proclamation” has been treated by many members of the Church as if it were canonized scripture. It is not. Some Utah families have a framed copy of the Family Proclamation on the wall in their home.
There is even a website called “The Family Proclamation.org” which was put up by an organization called, The Skyline Research Institute. It is not clear on the website who this organization is, or what their connection is to the LDS Church. However, the address they list for accepting contributions is identical to the address of the Salt Lake City law firm, Kirton McConkie, which is the Church’s law firm.
The “Institute” claims that their goal is “to support (and not debate) the principles of ‘The Family: A Proclamation to the World.'” They also claim that the Proclamation (or perhaps their website, the antecedent is not clear) is “the ultimate home and family improvement guide.”
Despite the deceptive “official LDS” look of this site, and its unattributed use of multiple LDS Church videos and documents, one might applaud their efforts to provide information and tools that are intended to strengthen families. The problem is that they appear to be promoting a singular definition of “the family” that has become archaic.
The nuclear family vs. the extended family
In the March 2020 issue of The Atlantic, David Brooks wrote a cover article entitled, “The Nuclear Family was a Mistake.” Brook’s article traces the history of the gradual change from extended families living together to the nuclear family living apart. His title is a reference to what was lost in the change.
During this period (1950-1965), a certain family ideal became engraved in our minds: a married couple with 2.5 kids. When we think of the American family, many of us still revert to this ideal. When we have debates about how to strengthen the family, we are thinking of the two-parent nuclear family, with one or two kids, probably living in some detached family home on some suburban street. We take it as the norm, even though this wasn’t the way most humans lived during the tens of thousands of years before 1950, and it isn’t the way most humans have lived during the 55 years since 1965.
David Brooks
In his article, Brooks shows how the nuclear family came about as people left the extended family farms and took factory jobs in the city. He also shows how the arrangement was dis-empowering to women and hard on marriages. The nuclear family worked better for the affluent (who could pay for the extended support that used to come from the extended family) than for the working class.
Extended families have two great strengths. The first is resilience. An extended family is one or more families in a supporting web. Your spouse and children come first, but there are also cousins, in-laws, grandparents—a complex web of relationships among, say, seven, 10, or 20 people. If a mother dies, siblings, uncles, aunts, and grandparents are there to step in. If a relationship between a father and a child ruptures, others can fill the breach. Extended families have more people to share the unexpected burdens—when a kid gets sick in the middle of the day or when an adult unexpectedly loses a job.
David Brooks
A detached nuclear family, by contrast, is an intense set of relationships among, say, four people. If one relationship breaks, there are no shock absorbers. In a nuclear family, the end of the marriage means the end of the family as it was previously understood.
This quotation shows why David Brooks believes the nuclear family was “a mistake.” It had no back up, no resilience.
Many of us older folks grew up in nuclear families and therefore consider that to be the ideal, the norm. The truth is, however, that the strict nuclear family model was always structurally fragile, and, in any case, it is an historical artifact that is not coming back.
Looking forward to the Millennium, not backward to the 1950s
I believe that if we read the Family Proclamation as advocating the superiority of the Nuclear Family Model of the 1950s, we are reading it far too narrowly. Members of the Church should ask themselves what the Proclamation is reminding them to do, not as an excuse to insist on what others should believe.
If we look back to Adam, Eve, and Seth (remember Able was killed and Cain was cast out), we can see that the nuclear family is the starting point, but it is not the goal. The Church’s essential work, with genealogy and temple ordinances, is to reunite all of our Heavenly Father’s very large extended family throughout all of time.
The nuclear family is but a very small part of a much larger picture. To define “family” as “nuclear family” is to misunderstand the purpose of the Restoration.
Sources
Tad Walch, “The church has now issued 6 proclamations in its history. Here’s a look at each,” Deseret News, April 5, 2020.
Ziff, “Who Wrote the Proclamation on the Family?“ Zelophehad’s Daughters (a group blog), February 19, 2013.
David Brooks, “The Nuclear Family was a Mistake” The Atlantic, March 2020.
Good insight.
The origin of the Proc has been traced to an amicus brief composed by Kirton & McConkie on behalf of the church during the pivotal 1990’s Hawaiian Supreme Court gay rights case that would have been precedent-setting for the entire country. The language of that amicus brief (or letter sent as a “friend of the court” by an interested organization or person – stating their opinion and siding with the defense or prosecution) was the origin of the Proc. It was penned by lawyers, not the Q15. The word “proclamation” sounds like “declaration” or “revelation” but the distinction was debated by the Q15 and the word “Proclamation” specifically chosen. I think that most Saints haven’t parsed the word out and think that it is “revelation” or doctrinal “declaration”. Nope. The new parlance avoided both those scenarios. (See the Wikipedia entry on the Proclamation for the citations to its first appearance as an amicus brief and history. This history has also been cited in several other places across the bloggernacle).
Furthermore, Cheiko Okazaki and Elaine Jack (who were in the General RS Presidency at the time) were totally blindsided when President Hinckley read it over the pulpit at General Conference. Okazaki talked about the fact that the RS should have been consulted- it defined roles for women, mentioned women. That had been the protocol. At the very least, they should have been notified before it roll-out, but in a stunning breach of church admin policy – the Q15 kept them completely in the dark. Being excluded and not sustained was the most painful point in her tenure- something that gnawed at her even as an emeritus. Nowadays- we hear testimony from the RS that when women are involved in policy or content, the brethren include them (I’m thinking specifically about how the General aux officers were queried for their opinions during the debates to lower the missionary age for sisters). But, many aux officers have told horror stories of being steamrolled. I tend to think that Jack and Okazaki (women who had distinguished careers and who were acutely aware of cultures that never succumbed to the nuclear family) would have given important counsel about it.
Yeah. Not a fan of the Proc. I wish the church would stop printing it in our current scripture set.
I could go on about the harm it does to men- who are spiritually stunted as they are culturally excluded from developing identities as “nurturers” in lieu of following purely worldly male stereotypes that emerged from the John Wayne/nuclear family era. To be clear- that stereotype in no way represents Jesus- the tender nurturer- a shepherd who spent time w children, extended
Families and women, who spoke about gathering us like a chicken gathers chicks under the wing.
And likewise, women have a strong “mother bear” instincts to protect and provide. Similarly, they are harmed when culturally suppressed from developing those innate and essential parental roles. And let’s not even start talking about the fact that being a SAHM is a luxury that most lower class women cannot obtain. Since the 1920s when the concept of the “housewife” emerged as a new upper class ideal- Mormon women have been burdened with tremendous guilt and shame – levied on them by upper middle class (corporate) male church leaders. The concept of spending quality family time is true. Prioritizing family- is an important reminder. But yeah, it doesn’t always work out like the upper class expects. We should clean up the Proc or move on from it.
Thank you. I’ve literally come to view it as a marketing tool for missionaries and members to entice others with this vision of perfection that is largely unattainable for most families, and leaves crippled and insecure humans when they cannot create this ideal unit. It can be so destructive.
Eventually the proc will have to be abandoned as we are forced to admit diversity in sexuality, much like we have had to admit complexion is not a consequence of sin.