3

The Mormon church claims,

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.

As stated by Boyd K. Packer as a CES Conference (re-stated in FairMormon)

Is this true?

EDIT:

A similar conference was said to be held in Salt Lake City,

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.”

Which would make it appear as though Packer was referring to the conferences the WOW attended,

UAW became aware that three International Women’s Conference’s had been held and that the fourth was soon to be held in Beijing, China. It was determined that the Utah Association of Women would also attend, which representatives did. ... 1999

WOW invited to attend the 1st World Family Policy Forum at BYU. WOW was represented at the UN Cairo +5 Population Conference at The Hague, Netherlands.

Plus a variety of Salt Lake events after. None appeared to be international.

  • 2
    Does he mean the [1995 World Conference on Women](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Conference_on_Women,_1995)? I can't find any UN-sponsored event in Beijing titled "World Conference on the Family". – ff524 Aug 16 '17 at 03:51
  • 2
    Like @ff52 I'm wondering what conferences he's referring to. I'm looking at the [UN website](http://www.un.org/en/events/archives/2008.shtml) and I don't see anything that really fits. They list a "International Conference on Population and Development" that happened in Cairo in 1994 but it's a real stretch. – Laurel Aug 16 '17 at 03:55
  • I can't say for sure. When I search for "conference family Cairo" (or Beijing) I don't see anything either. Mormon friends are saying that it might have been a small conference by the Pope or something. –  Aug 16 '17 at 04:13
  • I was told that within a short period after (yrs), a similar conference was held in Salt Lake. –  Aug 16 '17 at 04:18
  • 10
    I wonder why a conference on family matters *ought* to mention marriage? ;-) – DevSolar Aug 16 '17 at 08:49
  • 4
    I think that for any modern view of the world, marriage isn't necessarily included in family anymore. You have so many different types of arrangement that aren't even close to the traditional marriage and constitute very much what we understand by family that I'm not surprised at all by this. I can live together with my SO, raise my kids, etc without marrying, and being perfectly happy. – T. Sar Aug 16 '17 at 12:24
  • 5
    They typically see the lack of emphasis on the traditional family as an attack. But regardless of opinions on the family, the fact that the conferences mentioned in the quote were not targeted discussions on the family, but rather gender equality/women's rights, would seem to contradict the apparent intent of the quote. Which would appear to be an attempt to demonstrate that the rest of the world is distancing itself from traditional marriage. Regardless of the truth of the statement, citing the conferences is misdirected. –  Aug 16 '17 at 13:48
  • 3
    @CPerkins I'm not convinced there was no conference. The LDS [proclaimed their position in 1995](https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng&old=true). I found a better list of what [UN events in 1995](http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001397/139705eo.pdf). I'm wondering if it's something to do with "The second International Day of Families". – Laurel Aug 17 '17 at 21:14
  • Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "(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. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.". –  Aug 23 '17 at 12:05
  • 1
    So in my interpretation of this, the United Nations do not consider marriage a necessity to form a family. And it is the **family** — not the marriage — that is the "natural and fundamental group unit of society". –  Aug 23 '17 at 12:08
  • @MichaelKarnerfors - seeing as how they are constantly referencing marriage in the context of the family throughout that passage, I'm not seeing the separation that you are. I think they acknowledge that the marriage is often the foundation upon which the family is built/organized, but not always. – PoloHoleSet Aug 23 '17 at 14:32
  • @PoloHoleSet You are just saying the same as I do: that marriage is not a **necessity** to form a family. –  Aug 23 '17 at 14:34
  • @MichaelKarnerfors - well, since that reflects actual reality in the world, yes. I'd have no basis for saying otherwise. The point of what I'm stating is that I don't think the UN thinks the obvious reality requires them to stake out any particular position, one way or the other. Your comment seemed to be saying they were doing so (We think family is a fundamental right. We also, specifically, don't think marriage is necessary for family). Sorry if I read that wrong. – PoloHoleSet Aug 23 '17 at 14:40

0 Answers0