I Wish The Canon Would Expand Just A Teeny Bit

[Stone holm]

I'm not sure what "more stable" form you think this will eventually evolve to. People just living together? Common law relationships?

Where will this end up "by the year 3000" once evolutionary forces have picked a better alternative to marriage?

I have no idea. Also, I did not say a better alternative to "marriage" -- what I was talking about was alternatives to the traditional nuclear family. We may see grandparents playing a greater role than they now play -- or it may be a network of friends. I think "marriage" is likely to remain the preeminent indication of a stable relationship between adults, but what comes to be the nature of "family" -- I think that will change, unless we implement some relatively drastic economic changes fairly soon to restore the family as a cohesive economic unit. Have felt that for quite some time. And don't get me wrong, i don't think that whatever does evolve will necessarily be "better" than the traditional nuclear family was back when it was more of a cohesive economic unit -- I don't think there was any greater engine for freedom and progress than the middle-class family in a small business and family farm economy. Its just we don't have that kind of economy anymore.

[Stone holm]

Well, first of all, I don't really know that I believe this, but second of all, it does not matter if they are as economically viable as they used to be -- it only has to be that the difference between stable husband-wife-children families and other systems remain relatively the same for families to be "viable" as an approach.

This concept you have about it being so bad, I am not doing "CFR" but I am curious -- Do you have any objective economic and scientifically derived data to support this or is it rather someone's theory with - possibly some support if we cherry pick but nothing actually amounting to real evidence?

I should also mention, there is a certain way I hope you can support this view because it would play well nicely with some ideas I have. However, I don't see it.

So you do agree that the American traditional family is in something of a crisis -- I mean more than 50% of all first marriages crash and burn, and the rate of failure on 2nd and 3d is much, much higher. Do you attribute that to what? The rise of homosexuality? Pornography? The pill? Abortion? Decline in Church Attendance? Perhaps the reform of divorce laws? Maybe, but I rather doubt it. There has been two major revolutionary things which in my mind have happened -- one is the decimation of the American Middle-Class and the other well quite frankly probably the pill. What do you see as the cause?

[Ahab]

I think "marriage" is likely to remain the preeminent indication of a stable relationship between adults, but what comes to be the nature of "family" -- I think that will change, unless we implement some relatively drastic economic changes fairly soon to restore the family as a cohesive economic unit.

The nature of a family is always going to be the same regardless of how cohesive it is as a unit. A family consist of a potential-Father and a potential-Mother, whether or not they have children together (biologically) at a particular moment in time. Nothing else is or ever could be a family, although something else may be "called" a family. A family is what it is, and it will always be that.

And don't get me wrong, i don't think that whatever does evolve will necessarily be "better" than the traditional nuclear family was back when it was more of a cohesive economic unit -- I don't think there was any greater engine for freedom and progress than the middle-class family in a small business and family farm economy. Its just we don't have that kind of economy anymore.

Yes we do, and we always will, otherwise there will never be any more children.

[DBMormon]

You are advocating apostasy.

I am advocating humor

[Stone holm]

The nature of a family is always going to be the same regardless of how cohesive it is as a unit. A family consist of a potential-Father and a potential-Mother, whether or not they have children together (biologically) at a particular moment in time. Nothing else is or ever could be a family, although something else may be "called" a family. A family is what it is, and it will always be that.

Yes we do, and we always will, otherwise there will never be any more children.

Interesting, so you think that concept has always been with us like from the pilgrims onward? Or say in western civilization say from the ancient Greeks onward, say like in Sparta?

[CASteinman]

So you do agree that the American traditional family is in something of a crisis -- I mean more than 50% of all first marriages crash and burn, and the rate of failure on 2nd and 3d is much, much higher. Do you attribute that to what? The rise of homosexuality? Pornography? The pill? Abortion? Decline in Church Attendance? Perhaps the reform of divorce laws? Maybe, but I rather doubt it. There has been two major revolutionary things which in my mind have happened -- one is the decimation of the American Middle-Class and the other well quite frankly probably the pill. What do you see as the cause?

Yes, I think that there is a crisis, but I do not think it is related to economic advantage. Which is what you were presenting and talking about specific remedy ideas.

But I am wondering if there is any evidence to support the lack of economic advantage. If that could be shown it would be interesting to me. But I think you have an assumption that cannot be demonstrated by any evidence.

And that is what I was hoping you could provide.

As for what I think the cause is -- I think we are reaping the rewards of WWII. I think that the disruption of that war is something we are still living with and paying for. And there were echoing disruptions that followed. These include sexual "liberation", no fault divorce and soon to be -- gay marriage. All destructive influences.

[CASteinman]

I think that will change, unless we implement some relatively drastic economic changes fairly soon to restore the family as a cohesive economic unit.

Maybe you are right. But is this just a hunch -- a feeling? Or do you have some data? Because I really wish I could see some data.

[Stone holm]

Maybe you are right. But is this just a hunch -- a feeling? Or do you have some data? Because I really wish I could see some data.

Nah its just hunch of a country lawyer watching what is going on around him and listening to a multitude of offspring. I am not sure how you would actually go about proving what is or is not having an impact because there are so many changes hitting the fan right now. But viewed from the lens of a person who grew up in a small town in the 50's and 60's where the town businesses were all locally owned businesses surrounded by a countryside filled with family farms and family owned resorts, and knowing how the families worked. And looking back and seeing all, and I do mean all of that gone and having observed the impact on town after town -- you start to see how first the communities start falling apart and losing cohesion, and then the families start falling apart and losing cohesion. Although I don't condone gay marriage for religious reasons, I fail to see how gay marriage provides any threat to traditional marriage. And to be frank with you, my opinion has evolved over the years -- and the gay community where it has established a toehold has actually dramatically improved the communities in just about every category except public education. They may have a deleterious impact on public education because they refuse to take leadership roles there due to the fact that in our culture gays are frequently accused of pedophilia, hence the smart ones try not to have anything to do with school whatsoever except when they have to because of their kids or their employment. So I don't see them as a threat to much of anything.

[CASteinman]

Nah its just hunch of a country lawyer watching what is going on around him and listening to a multitude of offspring. I am not sure how you would actually go about proving what is or is not having an impact because there are so many changes hitting the fan right now. But viewed from the lens of a person who grew up in a small town in the 50's and 60's where the town businesses were all locally owned businesses surrounded by a countryside filled with family farms and family owned resorts, and knowing how the families worked. And looking back and seeing all, and I do mean all of that gone and having observed the impact on town after town -- you start to see how first the communities start falling apart and losing cohesion, and then the families start falling apart and losing cohesion. Although I don't condone gay marriage for religious reasons, I fail to see how gay marriage provides any threat to traditional marriage. And to be frank with you, my opinion has evolved over the years -- and the gay community where it has established a toehold has actually dramatically improved the communities in just about every category except public education. They may have a deleterious impact on public education because they refuse to take leadership roles there due to the fact that in our culture gays are frequently accused of pedophilia, hence the smart ones try not to have anything to do with school whatsoever except when they have to because of their kids or their employment. So I don't see them as a threat to much of anything.

Well, you have given me an idea.. for a research project. I do not know if I am equipped to conduct it. But its an idea.

I think, however, that there is no special economic pressure on families in terms of it not being a viable model. I think the pressure is social/covetousness/sin.

[mathonihah]

One fine quote from Joseph Smith that I would definitely like to be canonised is the following:

“A fanciful and flowery and heated imagination beware of; because the things of God are of deep import; and time, and experience, and careful and ponderous and solemn thoughts can only find them out.”

I think that many people have been guilty of that in the past; and many more have been guilty of falling for it.

[bcuzbcuz]

I believe if the second coming has not occurred by the year 3000, that our concept of "family" will be substantially different than it is now. Traditional nuclear family child rearing is currently falling apart along with the traditional family. That has, in my humble undocumented opinion, absolutely nothing to do with pornography, gay marriage, abortion, or the failure to recite prayers in school. What it has to do with is the destruction of the middle-class and the destruction of the family as a viable economic unit, in other words we no longer have as many family businesses or farms, men and women now are very unlikely to work together at a business or on a farm, and the kids are rarely if ever involved in the family business or farm. So unless something is done to reverse this economic trend, then society will continue to experiment until it comes up with a better model for creating stable relations between adults and rearing children. If we are really serious about saving the traditional family, then we need to get serious about fixing the economic and social barriers we now have to making the family a viable economic unit, rather than wasting time arguing about the definition of "marriage". I suspect that what we are going to eventually see evolve otherwise is the formation of social groups which in essence raise the children which may or may not involve married couples -- heck we are kind of already in transition to that as fewer and fewer children are being raised in the presence of both biological parents -- and our culture makes it incredibly difficult for step-parents to actually function as parents. So we have a lot of single women raising children with the assistance of grandparents, siblings, and friends.

I find a great deal of merit in what you say. Society has moved a long way from the traditional paradigm of "family". "Family" used to encompass the idea of child rearing, work, income, welfare and social net all wound in a framework that not only had all involved in a close physical proximity but where all could actively partake and recieve in common good.

Each one of the factors I listed is now separate and almost requires that close proximity not be a factor. Work and child rearing, schooling and social involvement draw in conflicting directions. Previous economies of scale that fostered a "family business" no longer hold true, nor is it a paradigm that is even sought after. Family members are divided by age and interest.

In our entertainment, not only are commercials pitched to target audiences, but the method and media for entertainment varies by gender, age, wealth and social factors.

We have gone from societies that taught that family members "must" contribute to overall welfare and moved to societies where family members wonder "if" or "why" they should contribute to overall welfare. "What's in it for me?" is far more common than sharing loaves and fishes.

I personally don't think there is any "going back to the good old days". No matter how much the church struggles to maintain family, it amounts to nothing more than kicking against the pricks.

[Stone holm]

I find a great deal of merit in what you say. Society has moved a long way from the traditional paradigm of "family". "Family" used to encompass the idea of child rearing, work, income, welfare and social net all wound in a framework that not only had all involved in a close physical proximity but where all could actively partake and recieve in common good.

Each one of the factors I listed is now separate and almost requires that close proximity not be a factor. Work and child rearing, schooling and social involvement draw in conflicting directions. Previous economies of scale that fostered a "family business" no longer hold true, nor is it a paradigm that is even sought after. Family members are divided by age and interest.

In our entertainment, not only are commercials pitched to target audiences, but the method and media for entertainment varies by gender, age, wealth and social factors.

We have gone from societies that taught that family members "must" contribute to overall welfare and moved to societies where family members wonder "if" or "why" they should contribute to overall welfare. "What's in it for me?" is far more common than sharing loaves and fishes.

I personally don't think there is any "going back to the good old days". No matter how much the church struggles to maintain family, it amounts to nothing more than kicking against the pricks.

You may have said it more eloquently than I. I don't think we can go back to the "good old days", and I wouldn't want to as those days were not really all that good. I do, however, think that it is possible to make the economic and social changes that were the "good" in those older days. That belief was one of the strong motivators for me to pack up my family and leave established roots in Indiana and move to Vermont. At the time we arrived in Vermont it did not have a single Wal-Mart in the State and was desperately fighting to maintain and create local businesses. We now have two or three Wal-Marts, but the fight goes on to the extent that one community actually forced a Wal-Mart out of town. Whether Vermont can win this fight is still questionable, but it is a fight worth fighting.

[thesometimesaint]

Sometimes the pricks need a good swift kick.

[Stone holm]

Sometimes the pricks need a good swift kick.

Not just long persuasion and long suffering, etc.