The family proclamation teaches that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children. Courtesy of Intellectual Reserve, Inc.

Keywords: family, marriage, prophets, culture, revelation, doctrine

In recent years, some of the surviving original authors of “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” (namely, President Russell M. Nelson and President Dallin H. Oaks) have felt the need to disclose important details about the line-upon-line revelatory process of the writing and announcement of this historic document.[1] The coming forth of the family proclamation includes the important details regarding not only its writing and announcement [2] but its origin (where it came or originated from) and inception (what initiated the conception and writing). An understanding of this revelatory process is further complemented by an awareness of significant details regarding the origin and inception of this prophetic document, including the influence of world conferences held by the United Nations during the few years prior to the introduction of the family proclamation in September 1995.

Many contributing factors likely influenced the origin, inception, and ultimately the coming forth of the family proclamation. For example, the political and sociocultural context of the United States in the decades leading up to its announcement has been well established, demonstrating the need for the proclamation on the family.[3] Additionally, in the decade following the September 1995 announcement of the family proclamation, some of the original authors[4] referenced the significant impact of world conferences on their motivation to unite as prophets and seers to seek the Lord’s direction in crafting a proclamation that would declare to the world his position on the family—“the revealed, true role of the family in the eternal plan of God.”[5]

Thus, the purpose of this article is to review statements of the original authors of the proclamation regarding these world conferences of the United Nations (UN) and determine what they saw, as divinely prepared and called prophets and seers, that influenced the origin and inception of the proclamation. Important contextual details regarding these world conferences will be presented, including the conceptual view of the family as “the natural and fundamental group unit of society” that was established at the creation of the United Nations in its founding document, the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[6] Additional details will demonstrate how nearly fifty years later, as part of the 1994 International Year of the Family, world conferences of the UN would be the stage for a rapidly growing and influential antifamily movement dismissing the family’s role as the fundamental unit of society.

Before reviewing and examining the important details of these world conferences and their influence on the origin and inception of the family proclamation, this article will first lay out some foundational teachings regarding prophets being called as seers or watchmen divinely prepared and positioned to forewarn God’s children from the worldly opposition to his family-centered plan. Selected prophetic statements and teachings from the twentieth century, including those made by the original authors of the proclamation in the decade leading up to the announcement of the proclamation, will demonstrate how they saw the pending philosophical storm regarding the family and the widening gap and growing debate between the world’s and the Lord’s view of the family leading up to the world conferences of the 1990s. Taken together, this article will reaffirm that the coming forth of the family proclamation, including its origin and inception, is inextricably connected to the seership and revelation of prophets and apostles.[7]

The Coming Forth of the Proclamation and Modern-Day Opposition

Fundamental to God’s plan as proclaimed in the family proclamation is that “exaltation can be attained only through faithfulness to the covenants of an eternal marriage between a man and a woman.”[8] Thus, the family proclamation teaches “that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.” It affirms that “gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” It declares that “God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.”[9] Given the social and political environment of today’s world, coupled with Satan’s ongoing efforts to thwart the exaltation of God’s children, these teachings on the centrality of the family are being met with increasing opposition.

In recent years, this opposition has been directed towards the proclamation itself, resulting in inaccurate narratives that question the divinely directed origin and authorship of the proclamation, leading some to question “what role God and revelation played in its inception.”[10] For example, some narratives purport that 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. As manifested in this journal, religious educators of the Church are responding to and correcting such narratives given the growing concern that “how members view the family proclamation can have profound consequences on their testimony of the restored gospel, the role of prophets and apostles, and doctrines related to gender, sexuality, and the family.”[11] Consequently, these narratives have led many Church members, especially among the younger generations, to consider the family proclamation to be merely an outdated statement of policy and in need of major modification in order to align with today’s progressive view of the modern family. Its teachings are subsequently dismissed to avoid hurt and contention due to its perceived political incorrectness and insensitivity.

Together with the other articles in this journal, the findings of this article regarding the origin and inception of the family proclamation surrounding the context of world conferences will help correct these misleading narratives, reaffirming its divine origin and authorship: it was “revealed by the Lord Jesus Christ to His Apostles for the exaltation of the children of God.”[12] The hope is that this article will invite parents and teachers to see the family proclamation as “a statement of eternal truth, the will of the Lord for His children who seek eternal life,”[13] empowering God’s children to choose to listen to, draw from, and apply this prophetic declaration of the Lord’s revealed truths as they navigate the complexities and realities of this mortal journey.

“Watchmen” and the Origin of the Family Proclamation

In scripture prophets are called “watchmen” (see Isaiah 52:8; Isaiah 62:6; Ezekiel 33:2), who have been divinely positioned to “observe,”[14] warn, and forewarn against the adversarial attacks and deceptions of this fallen world. The Lord has called prophets and seers in each dispensation with the “divine commission to dispense the gospel to the inhabitants of the earth” (Bible Dictionary, “Dispensations”). In their authorized capacity as seers and revelators, they reveal and reaffirm the truths and principles regarding God’s work and glory—to bring to pass the eternal life of all his children (see Moses 1:39). They watch for anything that impedes the exalting purpose of God's plan for his children, including the centrality of the family in “the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.”[15] Called to declare and reaffirm “standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family,”[16] they warn that “the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets” and urge citizens and governments throughout the world to “promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.”[17]

As watchmen on the towers of the world during the twentieth century, these seers and revelators were paying careful attention to a slow and subtle gap growing between the world's view of the family and the role of the family in God’s plan. They could see how this widening gap would ultimately undermine the family as the fundamental unit of society and would create confusion about the centrality of the family in society and in God’s plan. Like trained forecasters of a pending storm, they observed and warned about the formation of a philosophical storm, all to prepare and safeguard God’s children against this approaching attack on the family.

The Mounting Need for a Reaffirmation of the Centrality of the Family

Throughout the history of the Church, prophets and seers have taught about the centrality of the family in God’s plan and forewarned about the adversarial attack on and resulting disintegration of the family if we fail to protect it as the “fundamental unit of society.” Prophetic teachings leading up to the proclamation further exemplify these prophets’ divine capacity as seers and revelators and demonstrate their preparation to issue a proclamation that would declare and reaffirm to the world the centrality of the family in God’s plan of exaltation.

The declaration of that eternal truth did not begin in 1995. It was established by God the Father when he created Adam and Eve and united them as husband and wife. This was the beginning of the family and the unfolding of the institution of heaven on the earth that would make possible the two prerequisites of eternal life—“physical birth and spiritual rebirth”—providing the divine setting for our becoming like our Heavenly Father.[18] As President Julie B. Beck taught in her position as Relief Society General President of the Church, “The Creation of the earth provided a place where a family could live. It was a creation of a man and a woman who were the two essential halves of a family. It was not about a creation of a man and a woman who happened to have a family. It was intentional all along that Adam and Eve form an eternal family. It was part of the plan that these two be sealed and form an eternal family unit.”[19] Since that time, prophets and seers have declared, reaffirmed, and protected this eternal truth.[20]

In this current dispensation, through the Prophet Joseph Smith the eternal order of the family was restored and the further unfolding of the eternal nature of this institution of heaven continued.[21] And as in every previous dispensation, the adversary uses any means possible to discredit what is central to the exaltation of God’s children, including the family.[22] Unique to this dispensation, the adversary nurtures and leverages worldly philosophies and debates about the importance of the family as the fundamental unit of society to instill confusion and contention.

Early in the 1900s, seers began to forewarn about this adversarial attack on the family, the dangers of family disintegration, and the need to protect the family as the fundamental unit of society. For example, in the April 1905 general conference, Elder Hyrum M. Smith warned that if contention in the family were to go unchecked, it would mean “the disintegration of that family, and the scattering of its members.”[23] A decade later in 1915, seers saw the need to protect the family from this disintegration. President Joseph F. Smith and the First Presidency called on parents in the Church to gather their children once each week for a “Home Evening,” saying “if the Saints obey this counsel, we promise that great blessings will result.”[24] From that point forward, prophets, seers, and revelators would urge members to follow the prophetic council to have weekly home evening, emphasizing both blessings and protection from the increasing worldly attack on the family unit.

In the October 1922 general conference, Elder David O. McKay referred to the home as “the fundamental unit of society” where the teaching of the gospel would influence generations.[25] In multiple talks in the 1940s, Elder Steven L. Richards, speaking on the eternal importance of the family, expressed concern regarding the increasing “tragic evils in domestic life today”—that is, divorce, neglect, and abuse of children—“because of the disintegration of family life,” stating that “this very disintegration has been responsible in no small measure for the growth of the disorders and ‘isms’ in government and society which have so plagued the world and which today constitute our greatest menace.”[26]

Given the subtle yet divisive worldly philosophies emerging from the sexual revolution in the 1960s, prophets and seers continued to warn and forewarn of the implications of immorality that would lead to the disintegration of the family as the basic and fundamental unit of society. While serving as the ninth prophet of the Church, President David O. McKay would repeat the same teaching regarding the home as the fundamental unit of society in the April 1966 general conference.[27] Then in October 1966, President N. Eldon Tanner of the First Presidency addressed the growing issue of “family disintegration,” both in society and in the Church.[28] During that same conference President Hugh B. Brown, also of the First Presidency, further emphasized the societal and doctrinal importance of the family:

Marriage, the family, and the home are among the most important subjects of our whole theological doctrine, and as the family is the basic and fundamental unit of the Church and of society, its preservation and its righteous needs should take precedence over all other interests. . . . We repeat, marriage and the family are the basic and fundamental units of our society. . . . We must ensure that this way of life contains the basic requirements and fulfills the fundamental purposes of that family life if it is to continue throughout the eternities.[29]

In the October 1976 general conference, President Spencer W. Kimball (the twelfth President of the Church) reported on both the progress of the Church and the societal challenges being faced requiring a protection of the family as “the basic school of virtue.”[30] He then quoted an American author of the time: “Throughout history, nations have been able to survive a multiplicity of diseases, invasions, famines, earthquakes, epidemics, depressions, but they have never been able to survive the disintegration of the family.”[31]

On April 6, 1980, under the direction of President Spencer W. Kimball, then-Elder Gordon B. Hinckley[32] issued to the world a proclamation in recognition of the sesquicentennial anniversary of the organization of the Church “concerning its progress, its doctrine, its mission, and its message.”[33] Regarding the doctrine of the Church, President Hinckley proclaimed, “We affirm the sanctity of the family as a divine creation and declare that God our Eternal Father will hold parents accountable to rear their children in light and truth, teaching them ‘to pray, and to walk uprightly before the Lord’ (D&C 68:28). We teach that the most sacred of all relationships, those family associations of husbands and wives and parents and children, may be continued eternally when marriage is solemnized under the authority of the holy priesthood exercised in temples dedicated for these divinely authorized purposes.[34]

Six months later, as he opened the October 1980 general conference, President Spencer W. Kimball spoke on the doctrine of the family and the authority of prophets and seers to protect that eternal truth when in danger:

From the beginning, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has emphasized family life. We have always understood that the foundations of the family, as an eternal unit, were laid even before this earth was created! Society without basic family life is without foundation and will disintegrate into nothingness.

Therefore, whenever anything so basic as the eternal family is imperiled, we have a solemn obligation to speak out, lest there be critical damage to the family institution by those who seem to be deliberately destructive of it.[35]

President Kimball proceeded to boldly describe the breakdown of moral standards evident in the increase of pornographic media, divorce, abortion, permissiveness, and the redefining of the family “out of existence.” He emphasized that these problems facing families stemmed from failure to obey the seventh commandment (see Exodus 20:14), reaffirming that “total chastity before marriage and total fidelity after are still the standard from which there can be no deviation without sin, misery, and unhappiness. The breaking of the seventh commandment usually means the breaking of one or more homes.”[36]

Given the seriousness of this breakdown of morality and the destructive implications to the family, President Kimball led a renewed Church-wide emphasis on morality, referring to articles he authored that would be included in the Ensign and New Era where he would “speak out frankly and at length on the subject of morality.”[37] He then forewarned,

Many of the social restraints which in the past have helped to reinforce and to shore up the family are dissolving and disappearing. The time will come when only those who believe deeply and actively in the family will be able to preserve their families in the midst of the gathering evil around us. . . . We of all people . . . should not be taken in by the specious arguments that the family unit is somehow tied to a particular phase of development a mortal society is going through. We are free to resist those moves which downplay the significance of the family. . . . We know the family to be eternal. We know that when things go wrong in the family, things go wrong in every other institution in society. Those who, whether in ignorance or malice, attack the family are setting in motion an awful and needless cycle of misery and despair, for they will search in vain and pain for substitutes, and the wisdom of the worldly wise shall perish publicly for their folly concerning the family.[38]

While President Kimball was not part of the writing of the family proclamation, his prophetic seership and visionary forewarning set the stage for its coming forth, preparing its future authors to continue to watch for and protect God’s children from the worldly breakdown of moral standards and family. Decades after the announcement of the family proclamation, President Nelson [39] echoed this prophetic and visionary forewarning as he reflected on its origin and inception, declaring that “our stand ultimately boils down to the law of chastity,” a law and commandment that has been decreed by God and cannot be changed even by prophets.[40]

In the decade leading up to the family proclamation, those who would be involved in its discussion, inception, and writing were being prepared and called as prophets and seers.[41] As divinely called seers, they would be uniquely positioned to act as watchmen and observe the growing gap between God’s family-centered plan and the worldly philosophies that were redefining the family and perpetuating its disintegration. In their divine and authoritative capacity to teach and protect the laws of God,[42] these prophetic leaders were being prepared to unitedly proclaim to the world God’s pattern and purpose of marriage: protecting the family as the fundamental unit of society, central to the exaltation of God’s children.

Growing World Debates on the Family and the Inception of the Proclamation

Although the date when Church leaders began writing the proclamation is not certain, discussions leading up to its inception began sometime in 1994,[43] and the actual writing took nearly a year,[44] ending with its approval by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve in March 1995.[45] Discussions among seers demonstrated an awareness of the subtle yet growing antifamily movements within social and governmental debates throughout the world. These debates considered the family unit as the cause of current social problems and thus proposed solutions that not only dismissed the family as the fundamental unit of society but also would lead to the creation of policies and laws removing the protection of the family and undermining its function in society. Reflecting on discussions of these antifamily solutions, President Nelson referred to the “efforts of various communities to do away with all standards and limitations on sexual activity” and “the confusion of genders. . . . We could see it all coming.”[46]

Conference talks given in 1994 and 1995 by the original authors of the proclamation[47] further demonstrate their watchman-like awareness and warnings regarding these international debates taking place on the stages of world conferences. As seers they saw the growing worldly confusion about the definition of family manifested in proposed antifamily laws and policies in response to various social issues. For example, while acknowledging society’s increased attention to family values, Elder Neal A. Maxwell[48] cautioned that the political policies created in response to these trends were unfortunately replacing parents instead of encouraging marriage, the empowerment of parents, and the sustainment of families. He further warned that rhetoric alone would not bring reform. Many individuals, he claimed, regarded the decline of family “as regrettable but not reversible,” and while many did worry about the “spilling social consequences [of the decline of family], [they were] busy placing sandbags downstream, even when the frenzied use of sandbags often destroys what little is left of family gardens. A few regard[ed] the family as an institution to be drastically redefined or even to be rid of.”[49] President Boyd K. Packer also acknowledged this time of worldly debate and confusion regarding the family, describing how in the world, “like a ship without a rudder, without a compass, we drift from the family values which have anchored us in the past.” He further demonstrated an awareness of worldly solutions that did not include protecting the family as the fundamental unit of society when he noted that these “solutions” could lead to the disintegration of the family: “World leaders and court judges agree that the family must endure if we are to survive. At the same time, they use the words freedom and choice as tools to pry apart the safeguards of the past and loosen up the laws on marriage, abortion, and gender. In so doing, they promote the very things which threaten the family.”[50]

In his first conference address in October 1994 as the newly sustained fourteenth President of the Church, President Howard W. Hunter[51] referred to a “worried society” that was beginning to see the implications of the disintegration of the family. Given the efforts of the “world’s councils and deliberations” that were moving further away from the Lord’s revealed definition of family, he emphasized the authority of prophets and apostles to “preserve and protect the family as the foundation of society.”[52]

The awareness and forewarnings about the rapid growth of an antifamily movement on an international level were clearly at the forefront of the announcement of the family proclamation in September 1995 during the general Relief Society meeting.[53] President Hinckley[54] warned against the “wiles of the world.”[55] Echoing the warnings and teachings of recent prophets and seers, his bold, watchman-like descriptions of the world included the following:

• “A world of turmoil, of shifting values”
• “Shrill voices” betraying and casting aside “time-tested standards of behavior [and] virtue”
• “The moral moorings of our society have been badly shaken”
• “Seductive voices of self-gratification”
• “Slough of filth . . . moving like a flood across the world”
• “Shifting values”
• “Sophistry . . . passed off as truth”
• “Allurement and enticement to take on the slow stain of the world”[56]

In these and other prophetic statements and teachings of the twentieth century, including those in the decade and year leading up to the writing and announcement of the family proclamation, it is clear that as seers, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve were observing and preparing for the growing worldwide momentum of an antifamily movement. In turn, the Lord directed his seers to warn and forewarn all God’s children, demonstrating that both the origin and inception of the proclamation were rooted in response to a worldly debate regarding the definition of the family and its place as the fundamental unit of society.

World Conferences and the Proclamation

Additional statements and teachings made by these prophets and seers in the few years following the announcement of the family proclamation give further clarity to the origin and the inception of the document and how it stemmed from the international debate on the stage of the UN and world conferences in the early 1990s. This section will highlight statements and teachings made by President Boyd K. Packer and President M. Russell Ballard.

On multiple occasions, President Packer[57] acknowledged the influence of world conferences of the UN influencing the inception of the family proclamation, including one planned for Salt Lake City as part of the UN’s 1994 International Year of the Family. First, on September 10, 1998, at the creation of the School of Family Life at Brigham Young University, President Packer spoke about the coming forth of the proclamation, encouraging faculty of the newly formed school to use it as their “charter.” He specifically referred to two UN world conferences: the International Conference on Population and Development that was held in Cairo in September 1994, and the World Conference on Women that was held in Beijing in September 1995. He explained how these two world conferences were examples of “powerful and sinister forces [at] work against the family . . . [a] monstrous yet quiet, ominous plague moving among us. They have redefined the family.” He further warned that “they work to restructure laws relating to parents and children and to sponsor legislation which would erase protection given to the traditional family and to sacred relationships. In turn they build protection for the most degrading of all human conduct.” Specifically referring to the origin and inception of the family proclamation, he explained, “When it was announced that a United Nations Year of the Family Conference would be held in Salt Lake City, with delegates coming from abroad, the Brethren decided to declare our position in a proclamation: ‘The Family: A Proclamation to the World.’ This Proclamation was written and carefully considered by the First Presidency and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve.”[58]

A month later, during a November 1998 event recognizing the upcoming 1999 Second World Congress of Families,[59] President Packer explained while addressing the coming forth of the family proclamation that it was prompted by the announcement of a UN conference on the family in Salt Lake City as part of the UN’s International Year of the Family. He then stated, “In council, we thought we must declare ourselves. . . . 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, and now is printed in many, many languages and distributed worldwide.”[60]

Five years later, during a 2003 BYU devotional, President Packer again referred to the coming forth of the family proclamation, emphasizing that it was issued by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve:

I can tell you how [the family proclamation] came about. They had 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.”[61]

Similar references to world conferences were made by President M. Russell Ballard[62] as he reflected on his involvement in the coming forth of the family proclamation. During a 2003 BYU devotional, President Ballard explained:

As we travel the world, we see things—both within the Church and outside the Church. We were troubled by much of what we were seeing. We could see the people of the world wanting to define the family in ways contrary to God’s eternal plan for the happiness of His children. Various world conferences were held dealing either directly or indirectly with the family. Major agenda items were introduced by some delegates that would have greatly weakened the family; yet, through the significant contributions of Church leaders, members, and other like-minded people, the language and thus the effects of those proposals were softened.

In the midst of all that was stirring on this subject in the world, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles could see the importance of declaring to the world the revealed, true role of the family in the eternal plan of God. We worked together through the divinely inspired council system that operates even at the highest levels of the Church to craft a proclamation that would make the Lord’s position on the family so clear that it could not be misunderstood.[63]

The United Nations and World Conferences

Given the statements by Presidents Packer and Ballard, it is clear that the UN and associated world conferences largely influenced the inception of the family proclamation. While prophets and seers were warning about and responding to the disintegration of the family (including by introducing the family proclamation), in the second half of the twentieth century, scholars as well as religious and political leaders throughout the world were engaging in a growing debate about the family as the fundamental unit of society. The following section will describe how the formation of the UN[64] and the creation of “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (UDHR)[65] are both at the center of the world conferences of the 1990s and the international debate regarding the family as the fundamental unit of society.

Much of the international deliberations about the family stemmed from the UDHR, a defining document of the UN that was approved in 1948. Believed to be the world’s most widely translated nonbiblical document (it has been translated into five hundred languages),[66] the UDHR has been considered “a moral yardstick by which the nations could measure their own and each other’s progress in protecting human dignity,”[67] a cornerstone of world peace,[68] and the principal international legal affirmation and standard for measuring the expression, implementation, protection, and development of human rights.[69] Given the diversity of world philosophies regarding human rights, the UDHR stands “as a monument [of] a collaboration that in some cases extends not only across disciplines but over generations.”[70]

As it was being drafted there was much debate regarding whether to use the word family in the UDHR.[71] One of the more commonly quoted articles of the UDHR, Article 16(3), states that “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.” Given the diverse philosophies regarding individualism, socialism, and collectivism, there was significant debate concerning whether the rights of the family unit should be placed at the same level as individual and autonomous human rights.[72] Thus, the approved language[73] that “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society” and is entitled to protection through laws and policies has become almost scriptural or authoritative in international debates, both in accepting and questioning its application to the issues of today.[74]

Despite the social-science evidence that demonstrates what happens when the family is disrupted as the fundamental unit of society, an international debate regarding the family began to emerge. This was due to subtle shifts that began in the 1960s related to an increasing emphasis on population control and again in the 1970s due to the emergence of a more radical women's rights lobby. As Aguirre and Wolfgram observe, “This fundamental shift in attitude began to frame the family in the language and context of human rights and population control. The understanding and treatment of the family as a group began to be seen as detrimental to women, a source of exploitation and abuse that hampers women’s full development and infringes on their human rights. As a result of this shift, policymakers and theorists began to break down a once organic entity, united by blood and kinship, into a collection of autonomous individuals bound together by contract and goodwill.”[75]

The international stage for these debates regarding the family as the fundamental unit of society included world conferences sponsored by the UN. The United Nations addresses the many issues pertaining to human rights by holding world conferences that include international governmental and nongovernmental delegates as well as members of advocacy and special-interest groups.[76] The frequency and influence of these world conferences, especially pertaining to issues impacting children, population, women, marriage, and family, dramatically increased in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and they are still held today.[77] Preparatory committee (PrepCom) meetings leading up to these world conferences include nongovernmental advocacy and special-interest groups that are very vocal and could significantly influence the language of recommendations and documents to be further reviewed and discussed at the world conference. The outcomes of these UN-sponsored world conferences are formal resolutions that are then presented to and potentially adopted by the UN General Assembly, the main policymaking branch of the United Nations.

Resolutions from these conferences can be seen as recommendations or encouragements for individual nations to consider, providing language and themes as they address local policies and laws while maintaining their nation’s sovereignty. However, when a resolution is officially adopted or ratified by the UN General Assembly, it can become binding, like an international treaty. It is established as “an international standard . . . requiring a nation to give up a degree of its sovereignty, assenting to changing its laws, even cultural traditions, in order to comply with internationally imposed mandates.”[78] Although individual nations are still able to choose whether or not to ratify these resolutions, there can be international implications for failure to comply with and implement UN policies and mandates. For example, “the ability of a developing nation to access international funds is often tied to compliance with international treaties and conference documents. Some countries have eventually signed treaties and documents out of economic necessity.”[79]

Observers of and participants in these world conferences have expressed concern about both the process for creating declarations and the implications of these declarations on international law. On this international stage of world conferences, including the PrepComs leading up to them, the process included achieving consensus based on debate and negotiation (versus democratic vote) on significant issues such as gender equality and the role of the family. This process empowered small but vocal special-interest groups in dictating the outcome of negotiations.[80] As an active participant in both PrepCom and UN world conferences in the early 1990s and a cofounder of the United Family International organization,[81] author Susan Roylance observed that “the international norms and standards created and defined in these [UN-sponsored] conferences either directly or indirectly impact the laws and policies of all nations.”[82] Richard Wilkins, an expert on international family law as well as both a participant in and an observer of these world conferences, explained that “this international process is developing a body of international law—on issues ranging from water quality to family law to interpersonal relations—[and is] changing legal expectations more dramatically, and more rapidly, than at any other time in human history.”[83] Wilkins warned that “ill-conceived or otherwise unsound international declarations [that is, UN resolutions] pose dangers, not because they directly displace [domestic] law, but because they inevitably shape that law.”[84] An example of this shaping of domestic law is the growing number of references by the US Supreme Court (and other judiciary levels) that “cite developing international law [from these world conferences] as ‘evidence’ of the ‘meaning’ of the United States Constitution.”[85]

These UN world conferences held in the early 1990s significantly framed the international debate on the family and ultimately influenced policy initiatives and national laws regarding the family.[86] Together with their respective PrepCom meetings, they “brought the institution of the family to the center of political debate within international legal and policy-making circles, particularly at the United Nations.”[87] Given the radical agendas of many special-interest groups to redefine the family while promoting the autonomy of the individual, these groups have made “persistent efforts to redefine not only the relationships within the family unit, but the very concept of ‘family’ itself.”[88]

Specifically, key events and world conferences in the early 1990s created a perfect storm, giving stimulus to the flood of antifamily philosophies, catalyzing alluring and enticing confusion. First was a 1989 UN resolution declaring 1994 to be International Year of the Family (IYF).[89] Building on Article 16(3) of the UDHR, which states that “the family constitutes the basic unit of society and therefore warrants special attention,” the UN began preparations for an international focus on the family that was guided by the theme “Family: resources and responsibilities in a changing world” and the motto “Building the Smallest Democracy at the Heart of Society.” International events during 1994 were planned to include a culminating and celebratory conclusion of the IYF in March 1995 in Salt Lake City, Utah.[90]

In preparation for the IYF, the UN requested that two upcoming world conferences that had already been scheduled years earlier give special attention to matters related to the family. These two world conferences were the International Conference on Population and Development, to be held in Cairo in September 1994,[91] and the World Conference on Women, to be held in Beijing in September 1995.[92] The PrepComs held leading up to these meetings were filled with loud and shrill voices casting aside the moral moorings of family and reflecting the subtle shifts that began in the 1960s and 1970s regarding population control and radical women’s rights. Many of these voices framed the family, particularly motherhood,[93] as harmful to society and a “source of exploitation and abuse that hampers women’s full development,” infringing on their basic human rights. Leveraging the UN’s approval process of consensus (versus majority vote) in order to change language adopted from the 1948 UDHR, influential special-interest groups defined the family and its members “in terms of an evolving, progressive notion of rights, . . . [so] that the ties that bind the family [were] no longer permanent or sacred, but transitory, breakable, and subject to intervention and redefinition.”[94] New definitions of family were introduced, “[leaving] the public and its policymakers with an ambiguous term that potentially include[d] any group wishing to call itself ‘family.’”[95]

Those who were trying to combat and slow this momentum made reference to the UDHR and Article 16(3), as well as other references to marriage and family, in order to emphasize the need to protect the family as “the natural and fundamental unit of society.” However, these efforts were met with growing factions claiming that the UDHR was “practically obsolete and in need of major modifications.”[96]

Draft documents created during the PrepComs that would influence approved resolutions produced at the world conferences reflected the seductive voices and sophistry redefining the family. For example, in the draft document of the 1994 Cairo world conference on population and development, “the only time the word ‘marriage’ appeared in the draft document’s chapter on ‘the family’ was in a passage deploring ‘coercion and discrimination in policies and practices related to marriage.’”[97] Similarly, one reading the draft document of the 1995 Beijing world conference on women “would have no idea that most women marry, have children, and are urgently concerned with how to mesh family life with participation in broader social and economic spheres.”[98] In the end, neither of these drafts moved forward as adopted resolutions, but the momentum of these antifamily movements within the UN and world conferences had been solidified.

The above details related to the UN, the UDHR, and the associated world conferences of the 1990s in connection with the International Year of the Family give further understanding and context to the strong influence of these world conferences on the divine origin and inception of the proclamation. It is clear that what President Packer referred to as the “monstrous yet quiet, ominous plague moving among us” was the building of protections for individual rights at the cost of the family and its ability to raise and protect children. In their authorized capacity as prophets and seers, Church leaders saw the need to declare to the world the “revealed, true role of the family in the eternal plan of God.”

Conclusion

Two findings emerged from this article regarding the origin and inception of the proclamation. First, as the Lord’s seers during the latter half of the twentieth century, the members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve were observing with great concern the increasing momentum of the disintegration of the family on an international level, which was made manifest in the rapid growth of an antifamily movement at world conferences of the United Nations. Second, in response to what these Church leaders saw coming in their authorized capacity as prophets and revelators for all the world, they were divinely directed to declare in a proclamation to the world the role of the family in God’s plan.

Today, possibly more than any other time in history, there is much confusion and debate regarding the role of the family in the world and in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Sister Sheri Dew, a former counselor in the Relief Society General Presidency, wisely teaches that the root cause of our confusion about doctrine and its application in mortality “comes from the combination of a steady diet of the philosophies of the world juxtaposed against a superficial understanding of the gospel. That combination is spiritually deadly.”[99] Given its divine origin and inception, the family proclamation has become a needed doctrinal anchor during this unique time of confusion and opposition regarding the centrality of the family, further demonstrating how the family proclamation is inextricably connected to seership and revelation. While the world is “shouting in our ears that these principles [regarding the family] are outdated, limiting, or no longer relevant,”[100] Heavenly Father, through his chosen prophets and seers, has reaffirmed to the world the teachings of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, particularly those declared in the family proclamation, thus helping all his children strive for exaltation in a declining world.

In their authorized capacity to teach, protect, and preserve God’s family-centered plan, and in response to the antifamily philosophies manifested in world conferences, prophets and seers were directed by the Lord to declare and reaffirm in a proclamation to the world that “marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the destiny of his children.”[101] To protect this exalting truth of marriage and family from an ever-changing world that once affirmed but now is rejecting the family as the fundamental unit of society, God has directed his authorized watchmen to warn and call his children to action: “We warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.”[102]

Notes

[1] See “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” ChurchofJesusChrist.org. For a description of the writing and announcement of the family proclamation as described by the original authors, see the following: Sheri Dew, Insights from a Prophet’s Life: Russell M. Nelson (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2019), 208–13; Richard E. Turley, In the Hands of the Lord: The Life of Dallin H. Oaks (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2021), 215–16; Dallin H. Oaks, “The Plan and the Proclamation,” Ensign or Liahona, November 2017, 30–31; and Oaks, “Divine Love in the Father’s Plan,” Liahona, May 2022, 101–104.

[2] For a detailed compilation of the writing process and announcement of the family proclamation, see Michael A. Goodman and W. Justin Dyer, “The Family Proclamation: The Secular and Spiritual Context,” in this issue.

[3] See Goodman and Dyer, “Family Proclamation,” in this issue. See also Dyer and Goodman, “The Prophetic Nature of the Family Proclamation,” in Latter-day Saints in Washington, DC: History, People, and Places, ed. Kenneth L. Alford, Lloyd D. Newell, and Alexander L. Baugh (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2021), 134–53.

[4] At the time of the origin, inception, discussions, writings, and announcement of the family proclamation during 1994–95, the following apostles would have been part of this revelatory process (listed in order of calling seniority): Ezra Taft Benson, Howard W. Hunter, Gordon B. Hinckley, Thomas S. Monson, Boyd K. Packer, Marvin J. Ashton, L. Tom Perry, David B. Haight, James E. Faust, Neal A. Maxwell, Russell M. Nelson, Dallin H. Oaks, M. Russell Ballard, Richard G. Scott, Robert D. Hales, Jeffrey R. Holland, and Henry B. Eyring. Depending on when the process of writing the proclamation began, the First Presidency would have consisted of Ezra Taft Benson, Gordan B. Hinckley, and Thomas S. Monson (November 1985 to May 1994), or Howard W. Hunter, Gordan B. Hinckley, and Thomas S. Monson (June 1994 to March 1995). Elder Ashton passed away in February 1994, and Elder Holland was called to replace him in June 1994. The family proclamation was complete and approved by the brethren in March 1995, shortly before President Hunter passed away. President Hinckley became prophet with President Monson and President Faust serving as his counselors in April 1995. The vacancy in the Twelve was filled by President Eyring that same month, after the writing of the family proclamation was completed but before it was read by President Hinckley at the general Relief Society meeting on September 23, 1995. At the time of this article, Presidents Nelson, Oaks, Eyring, and Ballard, as well as Elder Holland and President Eyring, are the only Apostles currently living that were part of the inception, writing, and announcement of the family proclamation.

[5] M. Russell Ballard, “The Sacred Responsibilities of Parenthood” (Brigham Young University devotional, August 3, 2019), 1–2, speeches.byu.edu.

[6] UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Resolution 217A (December 10, 1948), https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.

[7] See Dew, Insights, 213.

[8] Oaks, “Divine Love,” 103; see also Doctrine and Covenants 131:1–3.

[9] “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”

[10] Dyer and Goodman, “Prophetic Nature,” 144.

[11] Dyer and Goodman, 144.

[12] Oaks, “Plan and the Proclamation,” 31.

[13] Oaks, “Plan and the Proclamation,” 30.

[14] President Russell M. Nelson has emphasized that “The Lord Jesus Christ, whose Church this is, appoints prophets and apostles to communicate His love and teach His laws. . . . Each of the Lord’s apostles is in a position to observe and feel the love that Heavenly Father has for His children.” Nelson, “The Love and Laws of God” (Brigham Young University devotional, September 17, 2019), 3, speeches.byu.edu; emphasis in bold added.

[15] “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”

[16] Gordon B. Hinckley, “Stand Strong Against the Wiles of the World,” Ensign, November 1995, 100.

[17] “The Family: A Proclamation to the World”; emphasis added.

[18] D. Todd Christofferson, “Why Marriage, Why Family,” Ensign or Liahona, May 2015, 51–52.

[19] Julie B. Beck, “Teaching the Doctrine of the Family,” Ensign, March 2011, 12.

[20] President Kimball taught, “From the beginning, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has emphasized family life. We have always understood that the foundations of family, as an eternal unit, were laid even before this earth was created!” Kimball, “Families Can Be Eternal,” Ensign, November, 1980, 4.

[21] Based on revelation, Joseph Smith taught that “Marriage [is] an institution of heaven, instituted in the garden of Eden.” Joseph Smith, “History, 1838–1856, volume B-1,” November 24, 1835, 656, in The Joseph Smith Papers, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-b-1-1-september-1834-2-november-1838/110. While Joseph Smith taught of the sealing power and a “welding link” that would bridge multiple generations back through time and into the eternities, “he never fully elaborated on how this chain was to be forged.” See Richard E. Bennett, Temples Rising: A Heritage of Sacrifice (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2019), 86, 126.

[22] President Oaks has taught, “Satan’s most strenuous opposition is directed at whatever is most important to the Father’s plan. Satan seeks to discredit the Savior and divine authority, to nullify the effects of the Atonement, to counterfeit revelation, to lead people away from the truth, to contradict individual accountability, to confuse gender, to undermine marriage, and to discourage childbearing.” Oaks, “The Great Plan of Happiness,” Ensign, November 1993, 72.

[23] Hyrum M. Smith, in Conference Report, April 1905, 47.

[24] Joseph F. Smith, Anthon H. Lund, and Charles W. Penrose, “Editors’ Table: Home Evening,” Improvement Era, June 1915, 734.

[25] David O. McKay, in Conference Report, October 1922, 78.

[26] Stephen L. Richards, in Conference Report, April 1947, 90.

[27] David O. McKay, in Conference Report, April 1966, 107.

[28] N. Eldon Tanner, in Conference Report, October 1966, 46, 49.

[29] Hugh B. Brown, in Conference Report, October 1966, 101, 104.

[30] Spencer W. Kimball, “A Report and a Challenge,” Ensign, November 1976, 7.

[31] Michael Novak, “The Family out of Favor,” Harper’s Magazine, April 1976, 42, quoted in Kimball, “Report and a Challenge,” 7–8.

[32] President Hinckley was called to the Quorum of the Twelve October 5, 1961. He would be called as a counselor to the First Presidency in July 1981 and serve in that capacity until being called as the fifteenth President of the Church in March 1995. President Hinckley subsequently announced and read the family proclamation in the general Relief Society meeting of the Church in September 1995.

[33] “Proclamation from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles,” Ensign, May 1980, 52; President Hinckley was charged with reading this proclamation aloud at the conference.

[34] “Proclamation,” 52.

[35] Kimball, “Families Can Be Eternal,” Ensign, November 1980, 4.

[36] Kimball, “Families Can Be Eternal,” 4.

[37] Kimball, 4. For the articles he refers to here, see Kimball, “President Kimball Speaks Out on Morality,” Ensign, November 1980, 94–96, or New Era, November 1980, 38–46.

[38] Kimball, “Families Can Be Eternal,” 4–5; emphasis added.

[39] President Nelson was sustained as an apostle in April 1984 and was serving in that role in 1994–95 during the inception and writing of the family proclamation.

[40] Quoted in Dew, Insights, 212.

[41] See footnote 4. Specifically, three of the key authors were sustained as apostles in the 1980s: President Nelson and President Oaks in 1984, and President Ballard in 1985. President Nelson and President Oaks both acknowledge that they acted as part of a committee assigned to prepare the initial draft of the family proclamation, with President Nelson being the “principal draftsman.” See Dew, Insights, 209; and Turley, Hands of the Lord, 215.

[42] See Nelson, “Love and Laws,” 3–4.

[43] See Dew, Insights, 208; and Turley, Hands of the Lord, 215.

[44] See Oaks, “Plan and the Proclamation,” 30.

[45] For further details regarding the writing of the family proclamation, see Goodman and Dyer, “Family Proclamation,” in this issue.

[46] Dew, Insights, 208.

[47] For a more thorough review of conference talks in 1994 and 1995 by the original authors of the family proclamation, see Goodman and Dyer, “Family Proclamation,” in this issue.

[48] Elder Maxwell was ordained as an apostle in July 1981 and was serving in that role in 1994–1995 during the inception and writing of the family proclamation.

[49] Maxwell, “Take Especial Care of Your Family,” Ensign, May 1994, 89.

[50] Packer, “The Father and the Family,” Ensign, May 1994, 19.

[51] President Hunter served as President of the Quorum of the Twelve prior to his calling as the fourteenth president of the Church in June 1994. As President of the Church he would have been part of the discussions among the Twelve and the subsequent refining and final approval of the proclamation at the beginning of March 1995, prior to his passing on March 3, 1995.

[52] Howard W. Hunter, “Exceeding Great and Precious Promises,” Ensign, November 1994, 9.

[53] For a description of President Hinckley counseling with the Relief Society General Presidency in preparation for the announcement of the family proclamation, see Barbara Morgan Gardner and Olivia Osguthorpe, “Delivering the Family Proclamation: Insights from Former Relief Society General President Elaine L. Jack,” in this issue.

[54] President Hinckley was called to the Quorum of the Twelve on October 5, 1961. Before he became President of the Church, he served as a counselor in the First Presidency beginning in July 1981.

[55] Hinckley, “Stand Strong,” 99.

[56] Hinckley, 98–101.

[57] President Packer was sustained as an apostle in April 1970 and began serving as Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve in June 1994. Up through June 1994, President Hinckley and President Monson (both senior to President Packer) were serving as counselors to President Benson. Upon President Benson’s passing, both served as counselors to President Hunter until his death in March 1995, after which President Hinckley was sustained as President of the Church with Presidents Monson and Faust as counselors.

[58] Boyd K. Packer, address to Brigham Young University School of Family Life, September 10, 1998, copy in author’s possession.

[59] The World Congress of Families was organized by Allan Carlson, president of the Howard Center for Family Religion and Society. The First World Congress of Families was held in Prague in 1997. Many other profamily, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) also became involved. Richard Wilkins, a law professor at BYU, played a significant role in the Second World Congress of Families in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1999. Many members of the Church attended this conference to become involved in promoting family values in international settings. This was not a UN conference, but it helped coordinate profamily leaders in their participation in the UN conferences. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Congress_of_Families.

[60] Quoted in R. Scott Lloyd, “Looking Forward to Congress of Families,” Deseret News, November 28, 1998.

[61] Packer, “The Instrument of Your Mind and the Foundation of Your Character”(Brigham Young University devotional, February 2, 2003), 6, speeches.byu.edu. As a matter of clarification, the Cairo conference was held in September 1994 and the Beijing conference was held in September 1995. More will be stated about these conferences later in this article.

[62] President Ballard was sustained as an apostle in October 1985 and was serving in that role in 1994–95 during the inception and writing of the family proclamation.

[63] Ballard, “Sacred Responsibilities of Parenthood.”

[64] For a detailed history of the United Nations, see “History of the United Nations,” United Nations, https://www.un.org/en/about-us/history-of-the-un/. Founded in 1945 on the heels of two world wars and the atrocities of the Holocaust, the UN was created by fifty-one “member states” or nations. The founding charter, which continues to guide the work of its now nearly two hundred member states, emphasizes the promotion of “fundamental human rights” with the hope to avoid another world war (“United Nations Charter: Preamble,” United Nations, https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/preamble). One of the purposes of the United Nation is to “achieve international cooperation” in the “promoting and encouraging [of] respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion” (“United Nations Charter, Chapter 1: Purposes and Principles,” United Nations, https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/chapter-1). Today the UN claims itself to be “the one place on Earth where all the world’s nations can gather together, discuss common problems, and find shared solutions that benefit all of humanity” (“About Us,” United Nations, https://www.un.org/en/about-us).

[65] The United Nations has had a significant impact on the family since its inception, beginning with one of the first and possibly most significant documents crafted by the UN: “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (UDHR). With its charter’s emphasis on protecting fundamental human rights, the UN created the Human Rights Commission. The commission was made up of eighteen representatives of governments that included Australia, Belgium, Soviet Byelorussia (BSSR), Chile, China, Egypt, France, India, Iran, Lebanon, Panama, the Philippines, the UK, the US, the USSR, Uruguay, and Yugoslavia. From these representatives, a smaller group of eight countries were selected to create the preliminary drafts of the UDHR. Eleanor Roosevelt of the US was elected the chair of the full commission, Peng-Chun (P. C.) Chang of China its vice president, and Charles Malik of Lebanon the rapporteur. The other five representatives came from Australia, Chile, France, the USSR, and the UK. The committee was also assisted by the UN Division of Human Rights, led by Secretariat Peters John Humphrey of Canada. In the end, “The eminent team that nurtured the UDHR eventually included Eleanor Roosevelt, P. C. Chang, Charles Malik, René Cassin of France, and Secretariat Humphrey in the most influential roles.” Fengyu Duan, “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Modern History of Human Rights,” SSRN (2017): 12. See also Johannes Morsink, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Origins, Drafting, and Intent (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999); and Mary Ann Glendon, “The First Lady and the Philosopher: Eleanor Roosevelt, Charles Malik, and the Human Rights Project,” in The Forum and the Tower: How Scholars and Politicians Have Imagined the World, from Plato to Eleanor Roosevelt (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011).

[66] See UN General Assembly, “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” See also Lynn D. Wardle, “The Family: The Foundation of Human Rights,” International Journal of the Jurisprudence of the Family 7, no. 61 (2016): 70. According to the UN, all five hundred translations of the Universal Declaration are available online. See “About the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Translation Project,” UN Human Rights, Office of the High Commissioner, https://www.ohchr.org/en/human-rights/universal-declaration/universal-declaration-human-rights/about-universal-declaration-human-rights-translation-project.

[67] Glendon, “First Lady,” 202.

[68] Duan, “Universal Declaration,” 11.b

[69] For a detailed history of the drafting of the UDHR see Johannes Morsink, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Origins, Drafting, and Intent (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999); Johannes Morsink, Article by Article: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights for a New Generation (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2022).

[70] Glendon, “First Lady,” 202.

[71] The term family is referenced six times in the UDHR: (1) In the preamble, “the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family ”; (2) Article 12, “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence”; (3) Article 16(1), “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family”; (4) Article 16(3), “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State”; (5) Article 23(3), “Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity”; and (6) Article 25(1), “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family.”

[72] For examples of the description of the nature of these debates, see Glendon, “First Lady.” -; Wardle, “Family: The Foundation.”

[73] It is interesting to note the language that was proposed by some but not accepted as family’s place in society was debated. During the debate to ensure that the word family was included in a document on human rights, one of the drafters from Lebanon argued that “the family was the cradle of all human rights and liberties. It was in the family that everyone learned to know his rights and duties and it would be inexplicable if everything were mentioned except the family’s right to existence.” In turn the drafter proposed that Article 16(3) should include the following language: “The family deriving from marriage is the natural and fundamental group unit of society. It is endowed by the Creator with inalienable rights antecedent to all positive law and as such shall be protected by the State and Society.” Morsink, Universal Declaration, 254–56.

[74] It is worth noting how both the family proclamation and UDHR have been challenged today as being outdated and in need of revisions given issues related to gender and sexual orientation. Maria Sophia Aguirre and Ann Wolfgram observe that “certain factions within the UN seemingly see the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, regarded by a majority of countries and by international law as the most authoritative international instrument on human rights, as practically obsolete and in need of major modifications, if not outright substitution.” Aguirre and Wolfgram, “United Nations Policy and the Family: Redefining the Ties that Bind: A Study of History, Forces, and Trends,” Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law 16, no. 2 (2002): 117.

[75] Aguirre and Wolfgram, “United Nations Policy,” 116.

[76] Susan Roylance speaks on the typical process of these conferences: “Usually, the individual citizens of a participating country have no idea how they are being represented in United Nations conferences, and there is no way for them to remove the “delegates” for their country, if they are misrepresenting the will of the people, other than changing the President of their country. The country delegates are usually representatives of the State Department, and chosen by the President, or executive branch of the government. . . . The U.N. negotiations are never a democratic process—with a vote to determine the final outcome. Instead, negotiations will continue, and continue, until “consensus” is reached, or, there is no more disagreement expressed. (The more “sensitive” issues are often decided in the middle of the night.) This process gives considerable power to the Chairman of the negotiations, who can choose who will speak, and make arbitrary decisions as to the outcome of the discussion. And, there is no method for a ‘count’ or ‘re-consideration’ of the ‘final decision’ by the Chair. Once the Chairman states that the matter is “so decided,” all discussion must cease. This is a process that can give greater ‘power’ to a small, but ‘very vocal’ group of negotiators.” Roylance, UN Negotiating Guide, Edition Four (Gilbert, AZ: United Families International, 2019), v.

[77] See Roylance, UN Negotiating Guide.

[78] Gracia N. Jones, “U.N. Agencies and Conferences: With Reports Pertaining to Women and Children,” in Roylance, The Traditional Family in Peril: A Collection of Articles on International Family Issues (South Jordan, UT: United Families International, 1995), 90.

[79] Roylance, UN Negotiating Guide, v.

[80] See note 76.

[81] United Families International is a pro-family organization that regularly monitors UN developments and is having a major impact on the debates and negotiations at PrepCom and World Conferences. See unitedfamilies.org for a description of their involvement in the 1990s and an explanation of their mission.

[82] Roylance, Mothers and Fathers Defending Marriage and Family In the Halls of the U.N. (South Jordan, UT: Roylance Publishing, 2004), iv; see also Roylance, Traditional Family in Peril, 89–108; and Roylance, UN Negotiating Guide, i–ii, v.

[83] Richard G. Wilkins, “International Agreements and Domestic Law: They Don’t Displace, But They May Define,” in Roylance, Traditional Family in Peril, 150. For an inspiring account of Richard Wilkins’s involvement as a delegate in a UN conference and the influence of the teaching of the family proclamation following its announcement, see Ester Rasband and Richard Wilkins, A Sacred Duty: A True Account of a BYU Law Professor’s Journey to Defend the World’s Families (Salt Lake City; Bookcraft, 1999).

[84] Wilkins, “International Agreements,” 150.

[85] Wilkins, “Foreword,” in Roylance, UN Negotiating Guide, i. This reference contains other examples of the shaping of domestic law by UN conferences.

[86] Aguirre and Wolfgram expound, “A clear definition of what constitutes a family, as well as an understanding of the legal characterization within international law of relationships among family members, is of primary importance. It is upon these basic understandings that policies regarding the family are promulgated in the international arena, many domestic laws regarding the status of the family are formed, and a large spectrum of regulations that involve the family, from medical and benefit plans to sex education classes, are designed.” Aguirre and Wolfgram, “United Nations Policy,” 115.

[87] Aguirre and Wolfgram, “United Nations Policy,” 114.

[88] Aguirre and Wolfgram, “United Nations Policy,” 114.

[89] See “International Year of the Family” and “International Year of the Family (IYF) 1994,” United Nations, un.org.

[90] https://www.deseret.com/1995/3/15/19164375/world-focus-on-s-l-gathering. See also https://www.deseret.com/1995/4/17/19170068/u-n-gatherings-threaten-families. For a statement by the First Presidency endorsing the International Year of the Family see https://www.thechurchnews.com/1994/1/1/23257579/year-of-family-endorsed-by-the-first-presidency.

[91] See “International Conference on Population and Development 5–13 September 1994, Cairo, Egypt,” United Nations, https://www.un.org/en/conferences/population/cairo1994.

[92] See “Fourth World Conference on Women, 4–15 September 1995, Beijing, China,” https://www.un.org/en/conferences/women/beijing1995.

[93] See Roylance, Mothers and Fathers Defending, 3–10.

[94] Aguirre and Wolfgram, “United Nations Policy,” 118–19.

[95] Aguirre and Wolfgram, “United Nations Policy,” 117.

[96] Aguirre and Wolfgram, “United Nations Policy,” 117. For further description of this effort to minimize the authoritative nature of the UDHR, see note 16.

[97] George Weigel, “What Really Happened at Cairo,” First Things, February 1995, 24–31.

[98] Mary Ann Glendon, “What Happened in Beijing,” First Things, January 1996, 30–36.

[99] Dew, Women and the Priesthood (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2014), 210–11.

[100] Bonnie L. Oscarson, “Defenders of the Family Proclamation,” Ensign or Liahona, May 2015, 15.

[101] “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”

[102] “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” emphasis added.