In an interview, Vice President JD Vance recently said, “there is a Christian concept that you love your family and then you love your neighbor, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens, and then after that, prioritize the rest of the world.” [1] This idea, Vance went on later to say, is called “ordo amoris,” [2] Latin for the “order of loves.” Many arguments for the truth [3] or falsehood [4] of Vance’s remarks followed, most notably Pope Francis’ strong reaction against it. [5] This article, after outlining the theological teaching Vance invokes from its original sources (both philosophical and scriptural), elaborates on the concept from a Latter-Day Saint perspective. Drawing on teachings unique to modern scripture and restored doctrines—particularly the ordinances of salvation and exaltation, culminating in the doctrine of temple sealings—this article’s treatment of ordo amoris offers a new skew on this debate and the practical application of this Christian idea to moral-political questions.
The Theological Tradition of Ordo Amoris
Augustine’s treatment of the order of loves appears in On Christian Doctrine. He states the matter simply: “all men are to be loved equally. But since you cannot do good to all, you are to pay special regard to those who, by the accidents of time, or place, or circumstance, are brought into closer connection with you.” This he compares to choosing by lots who one ought to benefit. The lot for specific, regular, special benefit has fallen on those brought into closer connection with us. Those, by nature, most closely united to us happen to be the members of our families. Next, of course, would come those in geographic-social proximity, friends and acquainted neighbors. What would follow is those physically closer with whom we are not familiar. The pattern described would continue thereon outward. [6]
Thomas Aquinas provides a similar account in Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Question 26, titled “Of the Order of Charity.” In that section Aquinas argues there is an order in charity, [7] that God ought to be loved more than neighbor or self, [8] that one ought to love oneself more than one’s neighbor, [9] that one ought to love blood relatives more than others, [10] that one ought to love those closer to us more than others, [11] and that one ought to love some neighbors more than others. [12] Furthermore, he concludes by arguing that the order of charity continues as described in heaven. [13] Aquinas makes particular use of the scriptures and the arguments of Aristotle in providing his account.
Merely on the surface of the question, it seems that Vance’s account of things accords surprisingly closely with the philosophical and theological tradition on which he was drawing.
The Biblical View of Ordo Amoris
Turning to Biblical teachings in line with Ordo Amoris, though many parts of the Bible point in this direction, this section will treat only four examples, proceeding chronologically through the Bible.
First, in the 10 Commandments (Exodus 20:1-17) many of the laws forbid sinful actions against all men, but only God (the first table of the decalogue) and one’s parents (the 5th commandment) are the subjects of specific positive obligation. [14] Paul (Ephesians 6:2) also adds the helpful observation that the commandment to honor one’s parents has a special status as “the first commandment with promise,” that is, the first commandment in the scriptures with a specific promise attached to obedience: “Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land.” Particular attention to one’s relationship with one’s parents, over and above one’s obligations within most any other kind of relationship, is given special status in the Bible from the very beginning.
Second, Christ reiterated “the great commandment in the law” in Matthew 22:36-40, in which he quotes Deuteronomy 6:5 (among other places) and Leviticus 19:18, to the effect that we are to love God and our neighbor as the first and second great commandments, commandments upon which “hang all the law and the prophets.” But the standard by which we are to love our neighbor is “as thyself,” that is, we must first properly love ourselves if we are to love our neighbors how we ought; if a man hates himself, he cannot very well keep this commandment. Learning to love oneself, ordering this as a primary concern in the distribution of love, stands as an implicit prerequisite element of this command. And of course, neither love of neighbor nor self is fully possible without seeking individually to love God with our whole being. In these highest of commandments is evinced, in basic form, the heart of the order of loves.
Next, in Ephesians 5:22-33 Paul addresses the dynamics between husband and wife. First, wives are to “submit” themselves to their husbands “as unto the Lord.” [15] He then creates a more detailed analogy: as Christ is to the Church, so the husband is to the wife, “Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.” Often these verses receive criticism from a feminist perspective, but Paul does not end his discussion at this point, leaving the husbands to be compared with God and the wives to submit to them, but he also notes the reciprocal obligations husbands owe their wives in this formulation of their relationship: “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.” [16] A wife must submit, yes, but her husband must in turn love her with Godly love, and be willing to lay down his life, if needs be, for her sake, that she might be presented “holy and without blemish” at the last day. Paul continues, the husband must love his wife as his own body or as himself, adding a reference to Genesis 2:23-24, indicating that loving one’s wife is that same as loving oneself, as they are one flesh. Perhaps it goes without saying, but it is difficult to imagine such specific and detailed obligations as those described here applied to people in general everywhere in the world. That is to say, a married person has special responsibilities of love to his or her spouse not generally owed to all mankind.
Finally, in 2 Peter 1:1-12 we are given advice from the chief apostle on partaking in “the divine nature,” in order to make our “calling and election sure.” To achieve that lofty goal, we must begin with faith, the belief in the truth, moving thence to virtue. [17] To seek virtue is to act in accordance with the highest standard of morality, in this case with the truth treasured up by faith. Virtue focuses in these verses on internal improvement in the individual soul. From faith unto action of the highest kind in virtue we are next to move to knowledge. [18] By seeking to be virtuous from one’s faith, knowledge naturally follows as experience confirms the truth of our beliefs. To knowledge we are to add temperance, patience, and godliness. These three all denote theological virtues, once again having to do with individual excellence. Up to this point, Peter has only pointed toward the individual’s need for improvement; no mention of external duty has factored in. This changes, of course, in verse 7, in which Peter enjoins first brotherly kindness, then charity. An emphasis on self-love holds for Peter in his presentation here as it did above in Matthew and Ephesians. Indeed, this list suggests the order of loves as presented in the theological tradition holds true for Peter. Not only in ordo amoris are we to love ourselves before others, but we are to love our “brothers” before neighbors we do not know. Peter lists brotherly kindness before charity. As all the elements in the list seem to build on each other, it is reasonable to conclude this with the last two items in the list dealing with loving others. The first part of the list describes how to properly love God and oneself, the second part turns to instruction on loving others. First, we are to love our brothers. This translates the Greek word philadelphia and likely (as in other uses of the word in the New Testament) refers primarily to “brothers in Christ.” Whatever the specific meaning of brotherly kindness, its separation from charity indicates that relative obligations in each case differ.
It is possible Peter’s presentation in these verses represents simply rhetoric. Perhaps he wished to emphasis the virtues highlighted and found the order presented convenient and powerful to do so. Furthermore, it would be absurd to suggest that these virtues should not be pursued somewhat simultaneously. The opportunity to love a neighbor need not be ignored because love of self or brother has not been fully accomplished. Nevertheless, Peter’s presentation, whether intended as rhetoric or a rudimentary argument as outlined above, contains a basic logical sequence which comports with the representations of ordo amoris elsewhere in the scriptures. On its own it would not mean much. In the larger picture Peter offers one more witness for this doctrine.
The Good Samaritan, or “Who is my neighbor?”
The Pope’s response to Vance’s comments can be summarized with the following quote: “The true ordo amoris that must be promoted is that which we discover by meditating constantly on the parable of the “Good Samaritan” (cf. Lk 10:25-37), that is, by meditating on the love that builds a fraternity open to all, without exception.” [19] The Pope finds Vance’s “concentric” account of ordo amoris at variance with the teaching in that story. However, the Good Samaritan does not seem, subject to a careful reading, to enjoin merely universal love, but rather follows the same pattern described above, particularly as shown in Augustine. Augustine noted that chance will often put someone in need in our path. Should this occur, we are obligated by the bonds of charity to lend whatever means we possess to assisting them. The suffering Jew in the story happens to be in the path of the Samaritan as he goes on his own way. The Samaritan was not on a service mission, he had not sought a destitute neighbor. He was in neither the Jew’s land nor his own but was somewhere on the way between Jerusalem and Jericho. In this circumstance, as he went about his normal life, by providence a political-religious rival or enemy was in his path, and the Samaritan, in Christ’s words, was a neighbor to him. This geographic proximity demonstrated God’s will to the Samaritan, and he followed it, unlike the other men who passed the suffering victim by. A final detail worth noting, the good Samaritan did not bring the Jew to his home, but to an inn which seemed to be in a different town than his own (because he had to leave him there to get back on his way). He offered what help he could in the way of compassion and financial assistance, but he offered him neither his own bed and clothing nor his child’s bread. The Samaritan, as far as the scriptures seem to show, also followed ordo amoris, even as he extended his charity to an exceptionally struggling neighbor. [20]
In the original story the opportunity to do good for a neighbor in need (an enemy no less!) came from an extraordinary interaction in the course of the characters’ normal lives. The Pope’s application of the principle to contemporary politics essentially calls on Christian statesmen to say “the people you interact with normally need your charity, but so do people from another country that you do not interact with normally. I will bring them next door so you will be obligated to care for them as well.” Once a person enters his proximate area, a Christian becomes obligated by the bonds of charity to assist. Indeed, a ruler may find it in his political capacity to invite refugees or immigrants from other nations he sees suffering; however, if the ruler’s own population, his own fellow-citizens by whom he was elected still have dire need of the resources he might promise those not currently in the country, of different citizenship, [21] then he is obliged to support his own population before that of another country. [22]
This article does not pretend no other application of this parable can or should be made, including a reading like the Pope’s. The key is careful attention to detail. The Pope’s reading is not the only orthodox understanding of the parable. Indeed, his reading seems incomplete without considering the other elements of the parable taken note of here. The only suggestion the presentation in this part of the paper wishes to forward is that more than one good reading of the parable is possible. This section offers another approach to the parable comporting with the teachings of the gospel of Christ but yielding different political conclusions than those reached by Pope Francis in his rebuke of the Vice President.
Ordo Amoris and the Latter-Day Saints
Latter-Day Saints will easily accept the biblical teachings above and thus will have no difficulty embracing the philosophical reasoning comporting therewith. Granting this broad agreement with the Christian tradition generally, we now turn to certain teachings specific to Latter-Day Saints which supplement and extend the application of this concept. First, the words of Latter-Day prophets, church policy, and modern scripture, then a discussion of saving ordinances, particularly the doctrine of temple sealings.
As in any Christian sect, the leaders of the Church often emphasize the need for broad charity for mankind, and particularly those in special need. For example, Joseph Smith said “A man filled with the love of God, is not content with blessing his family alone, but ranges through the whole world, anxious to bless the whole human race.” [23] More recently the Church has frequently encouraged its members to embrace the opportunity to help foreign refugees amidst various international crises. [24] Furthermore, the missionary service of people of all ages in the Church blesses the children of God the whole world over both spiritually and temporally. However, these facts do not negate the reality that Church leaders have consistently emphasized the need for a hierarchy in our approach to these matters.
The emphasis on the family in the church (given a more doctrinal basis below) probably represents the clearest example of this. Rex D. Pinegar emphasized this in in his 1990 talk “Home First,” [25] wherein he quotes the famous warning from President David O. McKay “No other success can compensate for failure in the home.” This teaching, liberally applied, would include excessive Church or charitable service at the expense of familial prosperity, health, and stability. Much has been written and said about “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” The fact of that document’s existence reemphasizes the importance of this point. The Latter-Day Saint leadership consistently emphasizes the importance of the home over and above the Church in most temporal and spiritual needs. [26]
Another repeated point among general authorities is the responsibility to “build up Zion” wherever we are. The call “come to Zion” once literally meant gathering physically to Adam-Ondi-Ahman, Nauvoo, or Deseret. Since the late 1800’s this call now means “strengthen the stakes of Zion,” wherever one might be. [27] This goes along with President Gordon B. Hinckley’s famous reminder “Your obligation is as serious in your sphere of responsibility as is my obligation in my sphere. No calling in this church is small or of little consequence.” [28] Were the gathering into Zion still primarily a geographical migratory phenomenon, this reminder would ring hollow. But we are called to stay where we are and create a well-secured corner in the great tabernacle of the restored Church, strengthening our particular stake, improving the structural integrity of the whole by focusing, individually, on the part most immediately relevant to each. Not everyone can or should be the President of the Church. Our focus is on our family, our ward or branch, our stake or district, and our region first and foremost. Following the well-considered advice of Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf, you must “stand close together and lift where you stand.” [29]
Church policy on material assistance for those in need follows a similar pattern. “Fast Offerings,” like all donations, are gathered at the ward level. Unlike other donations, however, these funds are meant for temporal assistance on the local level first and foremost. As a practical matter, many wards in the Church use most or all of the fast offerings gathered every month at the local level. However, as the General Handbook notes “Bishops are not required to limit fast-offering assistance for ward members to the amount of donations collected within the ward.” [30] The practical meaning of this policy, then, goes like this: fast offerings provide for temporal needs locally, as administered by the bishopric. If a local congregation’s offerings exceed their needs, the money then enters a pooled fund. Any congregation whose offerings do not meet the needs of its members can draw from this fund. The funds start first locally, then go on to benefit the whole church, at each local level, as needed.
The spirit of the Church’s pattern of focusing first on the home, then the local Church community, then the broader Church embodies a famous verse in Mosiah. The poor are comforted in their inability to give to the needy. Those who have enough to subsist for themselves, but not to be very generous with their substance ought to say in their hearts “I give not because I have not, but if I had I would give,” (Mosiah 4:24-25). Brother Joseph’s quote which notes our urgency to bless the whole human race still holds true. We wish to do good to all men. But all of us, in our own ways, are too poor in time, talent, or resources to adequately serve any corner of the world other than our own, and even that we accomplish imperfectly. Thus, with King Benjamin we must long to do good to all mankind together, but remember our first responsibility under the order of charity is to our family and community. Whatever superabundance we discover thereafter can flow over to others. We are reminded in that same chapter that we must not “run faster than we have strength,” (Mosiah 4:28) but that like the widow with her mites, following the injunction of President Jeffrey R. Holland, we must “do what we can,” [31] and accept that this is all we can do, our hearts imperfectly fulfilled yearning for the wellbeing of our fellow men to the contrary notwithstanding.
The most important area of expansion on the concept of ordo amoris among Latter-Day Saints comes in the ordering of the ordinances of salvation and exaltation, culminating in temple sealings. The first salvific ordinances are baptism and confirmation. These are undertaken individually and provide cleansing, the gift of the Holy Ghost, and admission into the Lord’s Church. Once these have been done, men are invited in the ensuing years to serve others through receiving the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods by covenant. The next step for all is to receive the first ordinances of exaltation at the temple in the initiatory and endowment. All the listed covenants and ordinances to this point are individual. They consist in promises made between God and the person only, with certain obligations to others adopted as a part of the covenants. However, the final required ordinance one receives expands this vision beyond the individual for the first time.
Latter-Day Saints must, by the power of God, be sealed for time and all eternity to their spouses if they wish to live in God’s presence. This is an absolutely essential step, the capstone to the other covenants and ordinances in this life (D&C 131:1-4). The sealing is a marriage ordinance between a man and a woman. This covenant involves not only oneself and God, but another person. The couple covenants together, as well as individually and mutually with God under the sealing ordinance. From marriage children naturally follow in most cases. [32] Those born “under the covenant” become a part of the sealing in their family, though they have not made a covenant themselves. They receive the blessings of their parents’ sealing until they reach an age to make the covenant personally.
Sealings and other ordinances are necessary for the salvation and exaltation of all mankind, even those who did not have the opportunity to make those covenants in this life. This truth is revealed in the final verses of the Old Testament, which testify of the return of Elijah the prophet “before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.” Elijah’s mission is to bring about a change, “he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse,” (Malachi 4:5-6). Joseph Smith had this reiterated to him many times in the midst of the Restoration of the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Brother Joseph wrote on these verses in particular and said, although he would prefer a “plainer translation,” that the truth shines through as written: “It is sufficient to know, in this case, that the earth will be smitten with a curse unless there is a welding link of some kind or other between the fathers and the children, upon some subject or other—and behold what is that subject? It is the baptism for the dead.”
Brother Joseph does not specifically mention other proxy ordinances “for the dead,” since before his own death he had only begun to recognize the necessity of such performances, having only recently revealed the temple ordinances for the living. Ultimately, all who accept the gospel of Jesus Christ, in this life or the next, (Cf: D&C 138) must receive all the ordinances of the gospel, and they too, like us, must enter into the “new and everlasting covenant of marriage” if they wish to obtain the highest heaven. Our hearts are turned to our fathers because it is our obligation to form the welding link from our own families through the generations, if possible, back to Adam in one unbroken covenant chain. When this work is completed, everyone ever born will be given the opportunity to participate in every ordinance of salvation. The chain will eventually spread to connect the entirety of the human race. We are united as children of God, and we will ultimately be sealed as such in God’s eternal family, united as spouses, siblings, and children.
Family is the key to the whole picture. As Aquinas argues, the same dynamics of the order of charity will exist in the eternities, Latter-Day Saints agree and extend his argument, proclaiming “the same sociality that exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory.” What is bound on earth is bound in heaven in every meaningful sense, but most importantly for the social institution of the family. This sociality, of course, is not restricted to the family. Friendship, neighborhood, and other forms of kinship should, under the same principle, exist in the next life.
The nature of these covenants, once again, points up the logic of ordo amoris, casting it in a new light. The final goal, the consummation of all the work we do in the temples in this life is to unite all of God’s children through the ordinances. However, the first step is always to seek to enter into such a covenant for oneself first and foremost. Furthermore, we are not asked to haphazardly do these ordinances for the dead, but we are to turn our hearts to our fathers. Though any service in the temple is commendable, we are asked to focus on our own family lines as a primary matter. After we have sufficiently focused on our own families in this great work of salvation, our attention can turn to others.
The order of the ordinances, then, begins with the individual, moving thence to one’s marriage, then outward to one’s children, focusing next on ordinances for one’s dead relatives, and finally expanding these efforts to include all of God’s children.
One final point on this front. Work for the dead, efforts to gather Israel through missionary work, international charity work of various kinds and so on can and should occur simultaneously with the work of individual and familial salvation. The ordo amoris of ordinances outlined above provides not a purely chronological account of these works (though that is important too), but an ontological one. The ordinances build on one another as the covenants they represent increase in gravity. However, the process of conversion and the obligations of the covenants do, indeed, enjoin and require all sorts of service to others outside of one’s immediate family throughout life. Take, for example, young missionaries, many of whom are still working out their own testimony and salvation before God. We send these young Saints out to preach to and serve people in some land other than their home for 18-24 months. This article’s emphasis is not to enjoin “isolationism” holistically in one’s own life nor politically. The aim is merely to point to the coherence of the order of loves and its specific application to Latter-Day Saints.
Ordo Amoris as a Political Principle?
I do not intend to argue in favor of Vice President Vance’s particular application of the principles outlined in this article. The policies surrounding immigration and international aid on the federal level in the United States are complicated and reasonable people can and do disagree on them all the time. My purpose for this article is to bring clarity to the discussion around the question of ordo amoris. Whether one like’s Vance’s use of the doctrine or not, his understanding of the doctrine broadly aligns with various sources in his own and even in the related Latter-Day Saint tradition. From theologians and the Bible to modern prophets and restored doctrines, the basic contours of the order of loves seem ever the same: although we are obliged to love all men, our immediate efforts must almost always focus on those providence sets in our paths. How politicians might make use of this teaching is between them, their constituents, and God.
NOTES:
[1] Recorded by Fox news: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o98Po0lWZxE&t=274s Beginning around time mark 4:40. [Back to manuscript].
[2] In a post on X: https://x.com/JDVance/status/1885073046400012538?lang=en --- [Back to manuscript].
[3] Ex: https://www.compactmag.com/article/jd-vance-is-right-about-the-ordo-amoris/ --- [Back to manuscript].
[4] Ex: https://www.ncronline.org/opinion/guest-voices/jd-vance-wrong-jesus-doesnt-ask-us-rank-our-love-others --- [Back to manuscript].
[5] Explained here https://thecatholicherald.com/ordo-amoris-according-to-jd-vance-and-pope-francis/ --- [Back to manuscript].
[6] It is perhaps worth noting a striking similarity between Augustine’s account summarized here and that offered by the Roman Philosopher Cicero of human sociability in On Duties Book 1, Sec. 50-55. Cicero’s writings were essential in Augustine’s education, as explained in his Confessions. [Back to manuscript].
[7] First Article [Back to manuscript].
[8] Second and Third Articles [Back to manuscript].
[9] Fourth Article [Back to manuscript].
[10] Eighth Article [Back to manuscript].
[11] Seventh Article [Back to manuscript].
[12] Sixth Article [Back to manuscript].
[13] Thirteenth Article [Back to manuscript].
[14] Aquinas notes the particular obligation to parents in indicating our duty to love our family before our neighbor. [Back to manuscript].
[15] Echoing Genesis 1:16 [Back to manuscript].
[16] Aquinas does address these verses in the section cited above, but he specifically excludes this verse, leaving the obligation between the wife as to the Lord, and the husband to love his wife only as his own body, with no reference to his loving her as Christ loves the church. It was suggested to me by my colleague Colin Brown that Aquinas’ account is supposed to be “natural” and not theological, that he left out that crucial verse because it is a profound religious point, but not a clearly “natural” explanation of the marriage relationship and its obligations. Whatever the reason, inclusion of this verse clarifies some of the difficulties between obligations to spouse and parents that unfold elsewhere in Aquinas’ account. [Back to manuscript].
[17] Virtue, in the original Greek is arete, which literally means excellence, as in other uses of the word in ancient Greek texts. Latter-day Saints often err toward assuming scriptural references to virtue universally point toward chastity. This often produces errors in scriptural interpretation. The original Greek fortunately rescues this verse from such unfortunate pigeon-holing. [Back to manuscript].
[18] In Alma 32:33-34 we are taught that knowledge comes from applying one’s faith in action. [Back to manuscript].
[19] https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2025/documents/20250210-lettera-vescovi-usa.html --- [Back to manuscript].
[20] Politically, the application the Pope wishes to make of this story would go more like the following: The rulers of Samaria heard tell of great suffering in Judea. Many Jews were being robbed and left for dead on the highway side. To prevent this from happening, the leader sent letters inviting the sufferers out of their homeland and into his country, where his people could provide from their own resources in service of the sufferers needs. Certain members of the local Samaritan villages expressed discomfort to the leader about his plan to bring in thousands of men from an enemy country which was known for hating their people and religion. The local people noted a lack of resources to care for an imported population, but the leader was deaf to their words. He knew that the people of Judea were his neighbors, and so he was responsible to care for their needs. Of course, this version of events hardly resembles the story. Applying it in this manner requires one to avoid any details in the account and follow only the perceived “feeling” many (apparently including Pope Francis) associate with the parable. [Back to manuscript].
[21] The logic of the relative needs of his population still applies to the charge that the Christian statesman must, necessarily, treat an asylum seeker as a neighbor. Indeed, he might consider the motives of those coming en masse, creating a political and humanitarian crisis at the border and in large cities across the United States. If assistance for one’s own people’s needs is to be lent to those belonging to another country, what is to stop refugees and immigrants politically (and religiously for that matter) from coming specifically to take advantage of that assistance? What if some of these immigrants is not a legitimate refugee, but a drug or human trafficker, as many cases have revealed? Would vetting and prudence be considered uncharitable? The Christian statesman, as any Christian, is at liberty to use his judgment, not forced to adhere to a specific understanding of a doctrine pushed upon him by political antagonists. [Back to manuscript].
[22] For example, recently hurricane victims in North Carolina were told FEMA lacked funds to help them: https://www.wral.com/consumer/5onyourside/hurricane-helene-western-nc-funding-crisis-february-2025/. In some measure this apparently followed FEMA allotting funds to pay for hotels to house illegal immigrants and asylum seekers in New York City, per the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/11/nyregion/fema-fired-nyc-migrant-hotels.html. There are, of course, nuanced political explanations for these events. However, the principle of providing any disaster funds to noncitizens when citizens stand in need comports well with the principle articulated here. [Back to manuscript].
[23] Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, Chapter 37 [Back to manuscript].
[24] Ex: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/refugee-outreach. https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-leaders-encourage-women-of-the-church-serve-refugees, and https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2016/04/refuge-from-the-storm?lang=eng#p27 --- [Back to manuscript].
[25] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1990/04/home-first?lang=eng#p38 --- [Back to manuscript].
[26] Particularly visible in the adjustments toward the “home-centered church supported” curriculum of Come Follow Me and the attendant adjustments to meeting schedules. [Back to manuscript].
[27] See https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1973/04/strengthen-the-stakes-of-zion?lang=eng#title1, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2002/10/come-to-zion-come-to-zion?lang=eng#p19, and https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2008/10/come-to-zion?lang=eng#p37 for three examples spanning the last 52 years. [Back to manuscript].
[28] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1995/04/this-is-the-work-of-the-master?lang=eng#p29 --- [Back to manuscript].
[29] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2008/10/lift-where-you-stand?lang=eng#title1 --- [Back to manuscript].
[30] Section 22.5.2.4 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/22-providing-for-temporal-needs?lang=eng&id=p160#p160 --- [Back to manuscript].
[31] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2014/10/are-we-not-all-beggars?lang=eng#p14 --- [Back to manuscript].
[32] Though there are variations from this specific list, including sealing of children to parents in the temple when occasion calls for it, this is the natural progression of the ordinances in the ideal situation. Any and all priesthood covenants are of course valuable and legitimate no matter when they happen, if they are undertaken faithfully. For the sake of demonstrating the principle with clarity, this article presents the most simple, natural progression of the ordinances, not to denigrate other paths, but to show the progression of the ordinances as neatly as possible. [Back to manuscript].
Full Citation for this Article: Richards, Ted (2025) "Ordo Amoris and The Latter-Day Saints," SquareTwo, Vol. 18 No. 1 (Spring 2025), http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleRichardsOrdoAmoris.html, accessed <give access date>.
Would you like to comment on this article? Thoughtful, faithful comments of at least 100 words are welcome.