Leaked Videos Shows The Brethren Are Deeply Concerned About YSAs

Although the 2016 October General Conference has just ended a few hours ago, the biggest news about the LDS Church may not be about what was said during General Conference, but what the Church leaders have said behind closed doors away from public view. Someone has uploaded videos of internal discussions among senior leaders of the LDS Church on YouTube account called "Mormon Leaks." These videos show Church leadership being briefed on a variety of topics such as YSAs & Marriage, politics, and marijuana. After each presentation, they talk about the impact these topics could have on the LDS church.

Two of those videos will be of interest to those who are young single adults in the LDS Church. One video shows Church authorities receiving a presentation on the topic of single Mormons delaying marriage. Another video shows the Brethren sharing their concerns about the young single adults in the Church.

The LDS Church has quickly put out a response to today's leak. Their response is below. 

LDS church spokesperson Eric Hawkins said in a statement to 2News, "Most of these videos appear to be from briefings received by senior Church leaders between 2007 and 2012. In these committee meetings, presentations are routinely received from various religious, political and subject matter experts on a variety of topics. The purpose is to understand issues that may face the Church, and is in pursuit of the obligation Church leaders feel to be informed on and have open discussion about current issues. This is an informational forum, not a decision-making body."

The Brethren work hard to stay informed and current on the issues of our day. It appears that these meetings is just one way they work to stay informed about current events and issues that are of interest to the LDS Church.

The videos of the Brethren talking about YSAs are available below.

Talking about single Mormons delaying marriage



Sharing their concerns young single adults in the Church

A Novel Understanding Of Gender Roles in The Proclamation on the Family

I was reluctant to write this blog post but I have been encouraged to do so by certain individuals because they find my reading of the Proclamation on the Family (PoF) fascinating and original.  So, I am taking the plunge and adding this blog article to the current and ongoing discussion about equality and gender roles within the LDS Church.

My intent and hope in writing this post is not to provide a solution to issues revolving around equality and gender roles in the Church. This isn't meant to support the conservative or progressive view on these issues. It isn't intended to increase tension among men, women and Church leaders. This is only to get people to see this issue in a new light (hopefully) and to open up a new avenue of discussion on these matters. Finally, what I am about to share is NOT the official doctrine of the LDS Church nor should it ever be taken as such. It is strictly and absolutely MY opinion and reading of the Proclamation of the Family.

With that being said, here's how I read the Proclamation on the Family. In my eyes, the basic and simple point of the PoF is that men and women don't have any gender roles until they are married and have children. That's what I believe the essential message of the Proclamation on the Family to be. 

Let me walk you through how I came to that perspective on the Proclamation on the Family. 

The Proclamation on the Family starts out with a statement that gender is eternal. 

"All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshipped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize their divine destiny as heirs of eternal life."

Not only do we learn that gender is eternal, but that we were not genderless in the preexistence. We were male and female before we came to earth. Although God created gender, creating gender is not the same as creating roles. These two concepts are separate and should not be conflated together. 

Unfortunately, LDS culture and society society have been commingled with LDS doctrine to such a degree that LDS practices are assumed to be LDS doctrine despite no doctrinal foundation or justification for such beliefs and it is now almost difficult to tease these two concepts apart because they are so embedded in LDS thinking and behavior because people have mingled these two things together as if they are LDS doctrine.

A careful reading of the PoF and other sources does not and cannot support that when God  spiritually and physically created men and women, He also created the roles that would accompany each gender. God merely created gender, humans created most of the roles. Almost all gender roles are arbitrary because they were created by society and culture with the exception that men and women don't have any gender roles until they are married and have children.

"The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare 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.

We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan."

In my reading of the PoF, we learn a few things. First, the first commandment to get married is an obligation that falls equally on both genders. The obligation must be fulfilled by men and women. It appears from the PoF (as well as other scriptural sources) that the Lord’s doctrine that men and women are to both be active players in finding a spouse.

Secondly, we also learn there is something unique about the "First Commandment" that is different from almost all the other commandments the Lord has given. In order for the commandment to get married to be satisfied, it requires a man and a woman to come together in marriage. In other words, it takes two people to obey this one commandment whereas almost all other commandments require each individual to obey them on their own. Men and women are both needed to create a marriage. A man can't be married unto himself and a woman can't do that either. Men and women need each other to satisfy that obligation. That's why if you read the entire PoF, there's no mention of gender roles when it comes to dating. It isn't a man's job to find a spouse and it isn't a woman's job to find a spouse. Its an equal obligation. 

Additionally, we learn that God actually gave two distinct and separate commandments to men and women instead of one. If you read the PoF carefully and read the scriptures carefully, you realize that men and women must satisfy the "First Commandment" (marriage) to satisfy the "Second Commandment" (be fruitful and multiply/procreate).  In other words, God intended that men and women must be husband and wife before (condition precedent) they can be fathers and mothers. This concept is affirmed in the passage below:

"Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalm 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity."

From the paragraph above we learn that men and woman as husband and wives are both under the same obligation to have children. Again, the commandment to have children is another one of those rare instances where it takes two people (men and women) to obey a single commandment. It is an obligation that both men and women are equally required to obey although women carry the heavier burden than men do in this instance. 

It is worth pointing out that men and women can become mothers and fathers without having to be husband and wife. Thus, the PoF recognizes that " Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers"  will "be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations" of rearing "their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live." Thus, even if you haven't satisfied the first commandment of getting married, you are still under the commandment as fathers and mothers to raise and provide for their children.

We also learned that children are "entitled" to having parents. This is the first and only time in the PoF where any "right" is mentioned.

Finally, we learn that marriage is essential to God's plan for His Children. Children can only be created within the confines or parameters of marriage so that they can relocate from the preexistence to earth and arrive in a safe and healthy environment for them to begin their life on earth.

So far, we haven't seen any gender roles described or proscribed to men and women. We have only seen that gender is eternal, that both genders must be married before they can be parents. That's what the PoF teaches so far. 

But if you read the PoF carefully, you will find that there the gender roles for both men and woman are very simple and there is only one role for men and women. 

"By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed."

In the way I read the LDS Church's Proclamation on the Family, there is on only one gender role that men and women each have. For men, "fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families." For women, "Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children." We also learn that men and women are to help each other in the one roles that each gender has. Men and women are to assist each other in these roles as equal partners.

I don't see any other assigned gender role for men and women in the PoF. That's all there is.

If you notice, there is no gender roles when it comes to house hold chores, dating, employment, church callings. Its not there. Also notice that the gender roles for men and women aren't trigged until they have been (1) married and (2) have children. Gender roles don't happen until both requirements are satisfied. That means that according to the PoF, there are no gender roles for men and women prior to marriage. It also implies that there are no gender roles for married couples either. Only when they have children do the the simple gender roles assigned to men and women kick in.

The Proclamation on the Family (PoF) doesn't mention the gender roles and the Priesthood either. (an omission I find fascinating). You would have to look else where for why women can't or shouldn't (or why they can or should) hold the Priesthood (an argument I am intentionally avoiding here). But if you are looking strictly at the PoF, it does seem to imply that the unmarried women (or women with full-grown children) could hold the priesthood. However, you are free to have that debate in the comments section of this article although I encourage (and prefer) you talk about gender roles in the Church.

That, dear readers, is how came to the idea that the only gender role men and women have according to the Proclamation. These roles are only triggered upon the event of lawful marriage and procreation of children within that marriage. Men and women simly don't have any gender roles until they are married and have children.  Society through various means get boys and girls to do certain things in preparation as husband and wives and mother and fathers. However, they should not be assumed that they are the inherent and permanent gender roles for men and women. Women and men like to do certain things but again, these things should not be conflated with actual gender roles of women. They are merely preferences.

Biology and genetics are the only natural limitations on men and women. However, again, they are not to be conflated with gender roles. They are merely to be understood as natural and normal physical limitations just as being Deaf or blind are natural physical limitations. Sometimes my Deafness will naturally limit me to doing certain things and other times it won't. Or I can get around these physical barriers through technology and/or pure determination.

I understand that for some people, they may find my interpretation of the PoF to be patriarchal. I don't think it is and it was never intended to be that way. It was simply to challenge the current understanding of gender roles and to present a novel and unique way of understanding gender roles as outlined in the PoF.

To me, I find the PoF to be traditional/conservative and progressive at the same time. LDS Doctrines can be viewed as being the most liberal theology in the world and it applies here on the issue of gender roles. 

The gender roles as I read in the PoF are realistic and simple. The only gender roles men and women have occur only in marriage and it only relates to the raising of children in the home. That's it. That means all other gender roles are not eternal, doctrinal or important or essential. Anything outside of that is rather subjective and arbitrary which are based on unsound justifications.

I think that's fairly liberating for both men and women because it escapes the inherent double standards and double binds that men and women place on one other and amongst each other (as in internal and external pressures) while having a more simpler (and less stifling) roles for both men and women.

To me it implies that God is only concerned with the eternal truths and obligations that transcend time, geography, culture, tradition and society and that at the end of the day, we find the truth to be simple in its concept and execution. Only humans can muck up a concept so simple and elegant.

It was humans who added unnecessary layers of complexity onto a simple doctrine through media, entertainment, culture, society, tradition, history and (yes) religion. Also, we have made unwarranted connections, assumptions and leaps in logic about gender roles merely because a person does "A" it necessarily follows that they do "X, Y, or Z." 

But at the same time, humans created these additional roles because of survival or because it was practical or because it saved time and energy.  There was some need for it, for some reason, in the past that was useful for men and women. Many of these roles weren't done to oppress but out of some necessity. However, some roles eventually became a tool for oppression.  Finally, we can’t assume that all past social practice is beneficial in the future. It is good for society and in the Church to reevaluate these things from time to time. 

This brings me to the current discussion on gender roles. The additional gender roles that humans have placed on top of the one, single, assigned role for men and women as outlined in the PoF, can be stifling and choking at times. There are lots of things that men and women have to do because they are culturally or societally or religiously induced rigid expectations. Women aren't the only ones who have issues with gender roles. Men do too.  Both have men and women legitimate complaints about the roles and duties the Church places on us and whether or not they are equal. 

But there is one scriptural passage that I gives me hope for both men and women with regards to gender roles in the future. The prophet Isaiah explained that during the millennial reign of Christ, the roles and behaviors of animals will radically change:

“The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. 

“And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

“And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’ den.

“They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.” (Isa. 11:6–9.)

If the natural behaviors and roles of animals (predator and prey) can be radically changed, there is a strong but subtle implication that the behavior of humans beings will radically change as well. I don't think that the roles that men and women have within the parameters of a lawful marriage and procreation of children within that marriage will change. I think that the behaviors of men and women will change which will affect how the genders interact with one another.

I hope this article was enlightening as well as entertaining and thought provoking. 

I look forward to hearing your insights and ideas on this subject in the comments section.

Busting The Myth That LDS Guys Don't Want To Get Married

Dallin H. Oaks, in his talk "Desire," given during the April 2011 General Conference, read a letter from a single sister who claimed that LDS men have no desire to make any kind of commitment to a woman:

"Single men, please consider the challenge in this letter written by a single sister. She pleaded for “the righteous daughters of God that are sincerely searching for a worthy helpmeet, yet the men seem to be blinded and confused as to whether or not it is their responsibility to seek out these wonderful, choice daughters of our Heavenly Father and court them and be willing to make and keep sacred covenants in the Lord’s house.” She concluded, “There are many single LDS men here that are happy to go out and have fun, and date and hang out, but have absolutely no desire to ever make any kind of commitment to a woman.^"

The sister's claim that men have no desire to make a commitment to a woman is not true: 

"But according to what may be the biggest study of single people ever, that image is, like the enthusiasm for the chocolate, quite false.

Single men are, on the whole, as likely to want to get married as single women, the survey found. They are more likely than women to be open to dating people of a different race or religion, more prone to falling in love at first sight, more eager to combine bank accounts sooner and more likely to want children. (That distant choking sound you hear is thousands of women finding this news hard to swallow.)

The study — of 5,200 people ages 21 to over 65 who weren't married, engaged or in a serious relationship — was funded by Match.com, which has a vested interest in understanding the partnerless. But it was carried out by an independent company in conjunction with Rutgers University anthropologist Helen Fisher, social historian Stephanie Coontz and the evolutionary-studies program at Binghamton University. (Evolutionists are all over mate selection, which is the academic term for dating, because those who successfully pair up and procreate send their DNA into the next generation. Think of it as survival of the flirtiest.)

Their findings put the lie to the impression that all guys are Seth Rogen–esque commitmentphobes who regard the dating scene as a kind of all-you-can-meet buffet for their enjoyment. "This study confirms what my research on the brain shows," says Fisher. "The mechanisms for attachment for men and women are exactly the same. Just as many men want to get married as women do."

But the figures need to be parsed carefully. While overall, as many men as women wanted to marry, age played a big role in their preferences. Younger (ages 21 to 24) and older men (50 and up) were more favorably disposed to legal lifetime unions than their female peers. In the between years — the decades when women must pay heed to a uterine deadline — the ratios shift the other way."

The conclusion of the study is this: 

"From the get-go, women are fussier about whom they'll consider for a partner. More men (80%) than women (71%) don't care about the race of a love interest, and many more men (83%) than women (62%) are flexible on their date's religious beliefs. It's not simply, the figures suggest, that guys are more pro-marriage than has been believed; it's that women are less so than the stereotypes would have it."

One of the authors of the study is Dr. Hellen E. Fisher who is a professor of anthropology and a researcher of human behaviour at Rutgers University. She is one of the leading highly qualified "expert" on the biology of love and attraction given that she has studied romantic interpersonal attraction for over 30 years. Dr. Fischer says that her study destroys the myth that men are don't want to commit to a woman:

"But I have long wanted to bust myriad myths about the other half of the human race–men. Single in America does it in spades. This national survey clearly shows that men are just as eager to marry as women are; 33% of both sexes want to say “I do.”  Moreover, men in every age group are more eager than women to have children.  Even young men.  Among those between ages 21 and 34, 51% of men want kids, while 46% of women yearn for young.  Men are less picky too.  Fewer men say it is  important to find a partner of their own ethnic background (20% of men vs 29%  of women said this is a “must have” or “very important”); and fewer say they want someone of their own religion (17% of men vs 28% of women said this is a “must have” or “very important”).   Men are also more likely to have experienced love at first sight, as well as open to introducing a date to their parents sooner.

Perhaps most impressive:  In a committed relationship, men are less likely to say they need personal space (58% vs 77% of women); less likely to want nights out with friends (23% vs 35% of women); less eager to own their own bank account (47% vs 66% of women); and less likely to want to take a vacation on their own (8% vs 12%).  Remarkably, men under age 45 are also more willing  than older men and women to enter a committed relationship with someone who has everything they were looking for in a partner, but whom they do not find sexually attractive.  And just as many men under 35 believe you can stay married to the same person forever (84%).

I study the brain in love.   My colleagues and I have put over 60 men and women ages 18-57 into a brain scanner to study the brain circuitry of romantic passion.  We found no gender differences.  This Single in America study supports what I have long suspected: that men are just as eager to find a partner, fall in love, commit long term and raise a family.   It’s an illuminating, indeed myth-shattering, new set of scientific data.  And the sooner we embrace these findings, and fling off our outmoded and unproductive beliefs about both sexes, the faster we will find--and keep--the love we want." 

I think if this study was conducted among LDS people, you would get the same results or close to it. However, the idea that LDS men are refusing to commit to marriage is bogus. If non-LDS men are more pro-marriage than their non-LDS female counter parts, I would think that LDS men would be even more pro-marriage than is asserted by the single sisters of the Church. 

Which brings me to a point that Elder Oaks makes after reading the letter from the sister:

"I am sure that some anxiously seeking young men would want me to add that there are some young women whose desires for a worthy marriage and children rank far below their desires for a career or other mortal distinctions. Both men and women need righteous desires that will lead them to eternal life."

And Elder Oaks is right. Both the single LDS men and women need to have the righteous desires to get married. There are many wonderful men and women who are doing all that they can to be married in the temple. There are also many men and women in the church who are putting off marriage.

At some point, both the LDS Church and members of the Church need to stop perpetuating this myth that men are dragging their feet to the Temple because its simply not true. The truth is that there are many men and women who are dragging their feet to the temple.

There has been a great debate raging among single LDS women and men in the church on the subject of dating and marriage. Too many people are blaming the opposite sex for why there has been a decline in dating. Both men and women in the Church have been pointing the finger at the opposite sex and blaming them for their single status.

The blame game ends now. Today. 

The only person who is responsible for finding a eternal companion is YOU. You are accountable and responsible for that. No else is responsible for your dating life. You have the agency to choose to ask that girl out or not. You have the agency to choose to say yes or no to that date. If you choose not to ask that person out or say yes to a request for a date, the only consequence is that you missed an opportunity for a date.

I'd like leave you with a question for my readers to ponder: 

Does He really have a preference for one dating approach over another?  In other words, does Heavenly Father care, in the eternal scheme of things, whether the boy asked the girl out or the girl asked the boy out so long as the couple got married worthily in the Temple?

It is Not Good For Men AND Women To Be Alone

Larry Barkdull, wrote an article for Meridian Magazine, called Why It Is Not Good For Man To Be Alone. He argues that only men (not women) are under the duty to not remain alone, or single because it his Priesthood duty to obey and fulfill the commandment to be married in the temple. The basis for his argument rests primarily on the passage in the Bible and the Pearl of Great Price that states that “it is not good that the man should be alone.”(Genesis 2:18, see also Moses 3: 18 and Abraham 5:14) The simple and major flaw of his article is that he believes that this scripture applies only to men.

The truth is that that scripture applies to BOTH men and women.

Whenever the word, “man” is used in the in the scriptures, it has always referred to both men and women. President Hinckley explained that the “word man and the word men are used in scripture without also mentioning the words woman and women. I emphasize that these terms are generic, including both sexes. They are so used in the scripture and have been used in other writings through the centuries of time." (Gordon B. Hinckley, “Daughters of God,” Ensign, Nov 1991, 97) Thus, the idea that it is not good for males to be alone also applies to females. It is not good that either gender remain single.

The scriptures support President Hinckley's statement. The Bible is clear that the responsibility to avoid remaining single falls on both men and women’s shoulders because it teaches that we should “let every man have his own wife and let every woman have her own husband.” (1 Corinthians 7:2). The Lord’s doctrine that men and women are to both be active players in finding a spouse is reinforced with the teaching that “neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.” (1 Corinthians 11:11-12)

It is clear that forming a bond of marriage requires both a man and a woman and that neither gender have a passive or active role to play in obtaining celestial marriage. Men and women are both needed to create a marriage. It is the responsibility of both genders to actively and aggressively work on creating that marriage since neither men or women can be without the other in the eyes of the Lord. This concept is affirmed by Prophet Howard W. Hunter, who explained that men and women cannot “fill the measure of their creation without the other.” (Howard W. Hunter, “Being a Righteous Husband and Father,” Ensign, Nov 1994, 49)

Larry Barkdull cites D&C 132:4, D&C 132:5-6 and D&C 132:19-20 as support for his contention that ONLY men are under the obligation to avoid being single. That is not true. Those scriptures are clearly gender neutral and are applicable to men AND women.

For example, D&C 132:5-6 reads:

"For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world. And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God."

Note the use of the word "all." This clearly shows that the Lord had both men and women in mind concerning all who enter into the temple and are under the duty to abide by the Celestial law. The connection between Priesthood as being the power to act in God's name and the Priesthood holder’s duty to get married in the temple is extremely weak. He attempts to establish this link by citing D&C 132: 23:

"Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same."

Once again, Brother Barkdull misses the key word "all" which means that the revelation was given to both genders and that they are both under the obligation to obey the commandment to obtain the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. His interpretation would be correct had the passage said "all men." But it doesn't say that. It just says "all" which clearly is gender neutral and therefore applies to both men and women.

Brother Barkdull is clearly stretching the scriptures so that it fits nicely into his thesis. The problem is that upon closer scrutiny and careful reading of the scriptures, the passages won't comply with his erroneous interpretation. He correctly points out that the Priesthood is the authority, given by God to man, to perform ordinances in his name but then he makes a giant, unsubstantiated, leap into arguing that males are under a Priesthood covenant to be married in the temple. The link he's attempting to make is that the revelation of Celestial Marriage applies only to males and as he states that "once a man learns of the law, he must obey it or face serious consequences. "

What do the scriptures and the Prophets tell us about the Priesthood? What it tells us is that God delegated the power and authority to Man, which in turns, makes it possible for us to receive and perform the ordinances needed for salvation. Had God not delegated the Priesthood to Man, the existence, or possibility, of such saving ordinances would not occur on earth. In other words, had God withheld His power from us, there would be no baptism, sacrament, Priesthood blessings or temple. The saving ordinances wouldn't have come into existence unless God first delegated his authority to Man.

Brother Barkdull's article is a good example of a shoddy exegesis of the scriptures. He attempts to force the scriptures to fit his thesis and commits several major errors which makes his analysis of the scripture stating “it is not good that the man should be alone” extremely flawed.

The simple gospel truth is that BOTH men and women should not be alone.