On the 22 of February 2012, the Salt Lake Tribune reported on a proposed bill in the Utah legislature that would allow government funded schools the option of opting out of “sex education” classes and prohibiting instruction in the use of contraceptives in those schools that chose to keep the courses on “sex education”.
As I have written in the past, here and here, Church leaders have shown opposition to both government schools as well as birth control. They have also been in strong opposition to so called “sex education”.
As President J. Rueben Clark Jr., of the First Presidency said,
“All that the schools have taught sex facts on all their teachings have torn away the modesty that once clothed sex. Their discussions tend to make it sometimes seem to make sex animals out of boys and girls. The teachings do little but arouse curiosity for experience.
A word on chastity can begin in one sentence, two words: Be chaste. That tells everything. You do not need to know all the details of the reproduction processes in order to keep clean. Be chaste because God commanded it. That is all there is to it.” -Conference Report, October 1949, p. 194
An editorial in the official Church News said,
“Sex education belongs in the home. . . . Movements to place sex education in nearly all grades of public schools can end only in the same result which came to Sweden.” April 1, 1967
There are numerous statements by many different General Authorities condemning so called “sex education” in government schools, but since many only except official statements as “binding”, let’s skip right to this letter from the united voice of the First Presidency,
“We believe that serious hazards are involved in entrusting to the schools the teaching of this vital and important subject to our children. This responsibility cannot wisely be left to society, nor the schools; nor can the responsibility be shifted to the Church. It is the responsibility of parents to see that they fully perform their duty in this respect.” First Presidency, as quoted in “Policies and Procedures,” New Era, Nov 1971, p. 47
Though I hesitate to point out any specific reason beyond “because God’s servants said so”, I think one of Ezra Taft Bensons points against “sex education” is worthy of pointing out,
“When you make a close study of the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (known as SIECUS), which is the major organization pushing sex education in the schools, and read their literature and learn of their amoral leadership, you can better appreciate why the Church is opposed to sex education in the schools, whether it is called family living program or by any other name. I commend the parents who have worked to keep it out of their schools and those who have pushed it out or are attempting to do so. They must love their children.” Conference Report, April 1969, p.11-15
Though this was said in 1969, it could very well have been said yesterday as anyone can see in this expose on Planned Parenthoods indoctrination program found here. WARNING: NOT FOR CHILDREN
Even if this bill doesn’t pass, will those among us who still feel government schools is our best and/or only option take the opportunity to be the 0.05% to take home what the leaders of the Lords Church says belongs in the home?