Family As The Most Important Unit In Society

[blooit]

I think most christians agree with the concept that the family is the backbone of society. Like so many other Mormon/Evangelical beliefs, they phrase it differently, but mean basically the same thing. Something hit me this week, though, regarding this belief.

I always thought of this concept, that the family is the most important unit in society, was primarily a spiritual concept. Basically, if the family falls apart, God will make sure that the nation fails. Accepting a new job as a school superintendent has given me a new understanding of this. The relation is much more direct, and a natural outcome of the failure of the family. For example, heavy reliance on government services and funding is largely an outgrowth of failures within the individual families in our nation. I am surprised by the number of conservative, christian families who willingly pass their family duties to schools and educators - at the expense of others.

I really am worried about the well being of our nation as we continue to devalue the importance of the family. We talk it up all the time, but often we do not follow our words with actions. It seems clearer and clearer to me in my current position that our nation really is struggling as a direct result of the disintegration of the family.

[RobertAC]

I would tend to agree. I have a hard time understanding why some men and women keep popping out kids, but provide no financial, spiritual, intellectual, or emotional support to them.

I can see this too on a larger scale -- the extended family that is our community. Too often I get wrapped up in my job and I do not contribute to the well-being of my neighborhood and my city. Government cannot provide everything. A strong community collectively depends upon us.

[thesometimesaint]

I think most christians agree with the concept that the family is the backbone of society. Like so many other Mormon/Evangelical beliefs, they phrase it differently, but mean basically the same thing. Something hit me this week, though, regarding this belief.

I always thought of this concept, that the family is the most important unit in society, was primarily a spiritual concept. Basically, if the family falls apart, God will make sure that the nation fails. Accepting a new job as a school superintendent has given me a new understanding of this. The relation is much more direct, and a natural outcome of the failure of the family. For example, heavy reliance on government services and funding is largely an outgrowth of failures within the individual families in our nation. I am surprised by the number of conservative, christian families who willingly pass their family duties to schools and educators - at the expense of others.

I really am worried about the well being of our nation as we continue to devalue the importance of the family. We talk it up all the time, but often we do not follow our words with actions. It seems clearer and clearer to me in my current position that our nation really is struggling as a direct result of the disintegration of the family.

Marriage and family are closely related regardless of religion. Is a successful Hindu family in India more or less successful because they worship multiple Gods?

Congrats on your new Job.

We all rely on governments to provide the services we can not afford to pay for by ourselves. IE; For about $30 a month I get sewer service and all the safe clean water I want. Few in America worry about if their governmental tested water that comes out of their tap is safe to drink. Access to clean safe drinking water is a big deal in the third world. Do you recommend that we go back to a time when that service wasn't available, but the individual family had to depend on themselves.

Few in America have the time, talent, and resources to teach all that is learned in our schools. Do those children do without a quality education through no fault of their own.

Talk is cheap compared to actually doing something about a problem. As they say: You talk to talk, but do you walk the walk? As a society we need to strengthen BOTH our families and our social institutions.

Edited September 21, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[cinepro]

I think most christians agree with the concept that the family is the backbone of society. Like so many other Mormon/Evangelical beliefs, they phrase it differently, but mean basically the same thing. Something hit me this week, though, regarding this belief.

I always thought of this concept, that the family is the most important unit in society, was primarily a spiritual concept. Basically, if the family falls apart, God will make sure that the nation fails. Accepting a new job as a school superintendent has given me a new understanding of this. The relation is much more direct, and a natural outcome of the failure of the family. For example, heavy reliance on government services and funding is largely an outgrowth of failures within the individual families in our nation. I am surprised by the number of conservative, christian families who willingly pass their family duties to schools and educators - at the expense of others.

I really am worried about the well being of our nation as we continue to devalue the importance of the family. We talk it up all the time, but often we do not follow our words with actions. It seems clearer and clearer to me in my current position that our nation really is struggling as a direct result of the disintegration of the family.

What do you think we should do to correct the situation? As long as people have the freedom to make babies, there's not a lot we can do.

And in order for me to believe things are getting worse, I'd have to be convinced that there was a time in the past when things were much better. If you look at the world (or USA) as a whole, I'm not so sure that we're worse off now than we were in the past. Once you get past the Leave it to Beaver caricature of a certain demographic in a certain period of time, you can find an awful lot that was wrong. And I'm not so sure I'd trade our problems for theirs.

[Bob Crockett]

I would tend to agree. I have a hard time understanding why some men and women keep popping out kids, but provide no financial, spiritual, intellectual, or emotional support to them.

Because the mandate to multiply and replenish the earth says nothing about only doing so if you have the financial, spiritual, intellectual or emotional ability to do so. When the Bible says the meek (poor) shall inherit the earth, there is certainly evidence today that that is happening, while the financially and intellectual capable folk don't want kids.

[cinepro]

Hopefully this isn't too political, but this reminds me of this article from today's LA Times:

http://www.latimes.c...0,3934557.story

That worldview, focused on church and not government, is part of the culture of American Mormonism, paradoxically rooted in both self-reliance and communitarian idealism. It may help explain the roots of Mitt Romney's conservatism, which in many ways mirrors the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

And regarding the photo for the story, are there always two guys sitting in the front of Relief Society?

Edited September 21, 2012 by cinepro

[RobertAC]

Because the mandate to multiply and replenish the earth says nothing about only doing so if you have the financial, spiritual, intellectual or emotional ability to do so. When the Bible says the meek (poor) shall inherit the earth, there is certainly evidence today that that is happening, while the financially and intellectual capable folk don't want kids.

Brother, you said a mouthful! I am a professional without children and many of my fellow professionals are the same way. Some of my cousins -- who have a low value of work and education -- have no problem rolling in the sheets and bearing kids which they neither support nor have any contact. It saddens me as to what lives these children will have.

[Bikeemikey]

I don't think that either evidence that the nation is struggling or that the family is disintegrating has been provided. Perhaps it is a yes on both accounts.

The more important evidence you would need to present is that present struggling is the result of disintegrating families.

I personally find that families are more prone to disintegrate due to extreme hardship (struggling) rather than the other way around.

[Glenn101]

I always thought of this concept, that the family is the most important unit in society, was primarily a spiritual concept. Basically, if the family falls apart, God will make sure that the nation fails. Accepting a new job as a school superintendent has given me a new understanding of this. The relation is much more direct, and a natural outcome of the failure of the family. For example, heavy reliance on government services and funding is largely an outgrowth of failures within the individual families in our nation. I am surprised by the number of conservative, christian families who willingly pass their family duties to schools and educators - at the expense of others.

I think that heavy reliance on government services and funding has had a large influence in the failure of the families.

Glenn

[Bob Crockett]

Brother, you said a mouthful! I am a professional without children and many of my fellow professionals are the same way. Some of my cousins -- who have a low value of work and education -- have no problem rolling in the sheets and bearing kids which they neither support nor have any contact. It saddens me as to what lives these children will have.

Therein lies a major problem. The financially and educationally secure look down on the rest of us for having kids -- therein lies the reason for expanding Muslim and Hispanic birthrates. They shall inherit the earth. (Hmm, fulfilling prophecy, it seems.)

[Ahab]

I think most christians agree with the concept that the family is the backbone of society. Like so many other Mormon/Evangelical beliefs, they phrase it differently, but mean basically the same thing. Something hit me this week, though, regarding this belief.

I always thought of this concept, that the family is the most important unit in society, was primarily a spiritual concept. Basically, if the family falls apart, God will make sure that the nation fails. Accepting a new job as a school superintendent has given me a new understanding of this. The relation is much more direct, and a natural outcome of the failure of the family. For example, heavy reliance on government services and funding is largely an outgrowth of failures within the individual families in our nation. I am surprised by the number of conservative, christian families who willingly pass their family duties to schools and educators - at the expense of others.

I really am worried about the well being of our nation as we continue to devalue the importance of the family. We talk it up all the time, but often we do not follow our words with actions. It seems clearer and clearer to me in my current position that our nation really is struggling as a direct result of the disintegration of the family.

I've heard that phrase about the family before but I see an even more fundamental unit in society - the individual. Maybe what is meant is that before there can be a society there needs to be a family to produce individuals, rather than talkng about the individual units in society.

Anyway, as I see it, to have good families it takes good individuals - individuals with good common sense on issues of morality and a good work ethic including doing things for others out of the charity in their own hearts. I'm defining work as doing anything that takes effort to do it, rather than a "job" someone may have to get money for things in this world.

Think of how much better the world would be if we did things for other people without any concern for getting some money. Think of teachers teaching because they want to help students learn, rather than to earn a paycheck with which they think they can buy the work output of other people.

Time and time again I hear of teacher layoffs because the school system can't affort to pay the teachers, but what if they all volunteered to teach and other members of society saw to it that they had food and clothing and shelter and everything else they needed based on their charity for the teachers who didn't teach for money. I think that with the way the world is set up, teachers unions would forbid that, because the unions would focus on making sure the teachers got paid with money, but what if the whole world was turned upside down and did things different than the way we are doing things now.

People out there working to help others because of their desire to help others, based on true charity in their own hearts.

[CV75]

And in order for me to believe things are getting worse, I'd have to be convinced that there was a time in the past when things were much better. If you look at the world (or USA) as a whole, I'm not so sure that we're worse off now than we were in the past.

Let’s assume the family’s "report card" for its contribution to society was never better than it is today; that things were never better. Yet the same things that were going wrong in the past are still going wrong today despite our having more access to knowing about them and other examples of modern progress and advantages. The improvements and advancements in just about any temporal and spiritual area you can name have evidently not been channeled into making things go any better for the family. This means that all things considered, something is getting worse today by not getting better in light of the great advantages families have today, and at best by merely trading new ways of manifesting old problems.

I think the LDS principles involved here are "sinning against the greater light", or, "where much is given much is expected." If families are no better off and have simply changed the nature of how they go wrong, they are not only still doing something wrong by not learning from years and years of practice, but they are doing them wrong in spite of the restored gospel, improved lifespans, education, medicine, information, wealth, science, etc.

[Damien the Leper]

My friend Tom and his husband Mike have been together since Tom was 16 and Mike 18. They are now 31 and 33. I didn't know them when they first started dating but I have had the opportunity to get to know them as individuals and as a couple. What I found admirable was that early on in their relationship they had established ground rules for a successful relationship. First they each had their own parents as models. Having been raised in faith based homes, they recognized the sanctity of chastity prior to marriage/commitment ceremony. Like other relationships, they have had their ups and downs but their willingness to persevere and overcome the challenges that are part of the package deal.

Mike's younger sister, however, did not share in the ethics that she had been raised with. From what I recall, she began using drugs and she got pregnant by a man she had a fling with. Eventually, the consequences of her actions caught up to her and she was arrested by cops while she was trying to buy drugs. It was difficult for their family because she was pregnant and in jail at the same time. She had been sentenced for several years because their were other charges.

While in prison she started to clean up and develop a sober mind and conscience. She had her lawyer file with the court an appointment to her brother Mike and his husband Tom. She appointed them as the legal guardians of her baby and asked that they adopt her.

The baby is now 4 years old and is being raised by loving parents who provide stability, a home and safety.

We can't lose hope in the love of family. My friends are amazing examples of what family to be modeled after.

[The Nehor]

What do you think we should do to correct the situation? As long as people have the freedom to make babies, there's not a lot we can do.

And in order for me to believe things are getting worse, I'd have to be convinced that there was a time in the past when things were much better. If you look at the world (or USA) as a whole, I'm not so sure that we're worse off now than we were in the past. Once you get past the Leave it to Beaver caricature of a certain demographic in a certain period of time, you can find an awful lot that was wrong. And I'm not so sure I'd trade our problems for theirs.

I agree. The rose colored glasses of the past hide the real problems our ancestors dealt with. Families may have been more stable but was that due to a genuine attempt to keep them strong or societal pressure to stay intact? Is the rot new or have changes just made it more visible? I personally have no desire to go back to the "good old days" of traditional values like racism, McCarthyism, and Cold War hate. I like C.S. Lewis's appraisal of the impact of technology. It gives us the power to do greater good and greater evil. We will, as we almost always do, do a bit of both remedying one evil and aggravating another.

I do not know if we are better off or worse off. I think LDS are for the most part better off. Persecution is light and we are largely accepted. I suspect God planned this so we can get our duties done. When we are done or if we fail it will get worse.

[Calm]

Families may have been more stable but was that due to a genuine attempt to keep them strong or societal pressure to stay intact?

Or not having the economic options of independence that are available now to many more individuals.

Studies are pretty clear that one of the most important indicators of success in school is parental involvement. I believe this has been even demonstrated in such government programs as Headstart where the achievements of the early intervention disappear over time because the parent isn't pushed to be involved once the program ceases (need to take the dog to the vet for vaccinations so don't have time to look up a source right now, my memory says that TSS might have been the one that drew this to my attention awhile back so maybe he knows an easy reference).

[Ahab]

My friend Tom and his husband Mike have been together since Tom was 16 and Mike 18. They are now 31 and 33. I didn't know them when they first started dating but I have had the opportunity to get to know them as individuals and as a couple. What I found admirable was that early on in their relationship they had established ground rules for a successful relationship. First they each had their own parents as models. Having been raised in faith based homes, they recognized the sanctity of chastity prior to marriage/commitment ceremony. Like other relationships, they have had their ups and downs but their willingness to persevere and overcome the challenges that are part of the package deal.

Mike's younger sister, however, did not share in the ethics that she had been raised with. From what I recall, she began using drugs and she got pregnant by a man she had a fling with. Eventually, the consequences of her actions caught up to her and she was arrested by cops while she was trying to buy drugs. It was difficult for their family because she was pregnant and in jail at the same time. She had been sentenced for several years because their were other charges.

While in prison she started to clean up and develop a sober mind and conscience. She had her lawyer file with the court an appointment to her brother Mike and his husband Tom. She appointed them as the legal guardians of her baby and asked that they adopt her.

The baby is now 4 years old and is being raised by loving parents who provide stability, a home and safety.

We can't lose hope in the love of family. My friends are amazing examples of what family to be modeled after.

If more families were like the "family" of that same sex couple there would be fewer families, unless maybe there were enough people willing to give their child up for adoption. Not the best model to follow, but it's better than some other options.

Ideal families are families that stay together with both the Mother and Father taking care of their own children, righteously, as their children follow the righteous examples of their parents and do the same things.

[Tacenda]

I think there are healthier relationships now. Remember the phrase "children should be seen not heard"?

[The Nehor]

I think there are healthier relationships now. Remember the phrase "children should be seen not heard"?

Again, we remedy one evil but exacerbate another. We are kinder to children but less kind to the elderly.

[wenglund]

My friend Tom and his husband Mike have been together since Tom was 16 and Mike 18. They are now 31 and 33. I didn't know them when they first started dating but I have had the opportunity to get to know them as individuals and as a couple. What I found admirable was that early on in their relationship they had established ground rules for a successful relationship. First they each had their own parents as models. Having been raised in faith based homes, they recognized the sanctity of chastity prior to marriage/commitment ceremony. Like other relationships, they have had their ups and downs but their willingness to persevere and overcome the challenges that are part of the package deal.

Mike's younger sister, however, did not share in the ethics that she had been raised with. From what I recall, she began using drugs and she got pregnant by a man she had a fling with. Eventually, the consequences of her actions caught up to her and she was arrested by cops while she was trying to buy drugs. It was difficult for their family because she was pregnant and in jail at the same time. She had been sentenced for several years because their were other charges.

While in prison she started to clean up and develop a sober mind and conscience. She had her lawyer file with the court an appointment to her brother Mike and his husband Tom. She appointed them as the legal guardians of her baby and asked that they adopt her.

The baby is now 4 years old and is being raised by loving parents who provide stability, a home and safety.

We can't lose hope in the love of family. My friends are amazing examples of what family to be modeled after.

I have a friend who really loved his dog and whose dog really loved him (the dog is now deceased). They got along better than between most humans. My friend would even refer to his canine companion as his "mate," and even consider him to be a part of his family--perhaps even more so than some other members of his family that he didn't get along with so well. They made each other immensely happy.

Since these kinds of loving relationships between human and animals tend to be the rule rather than the exception (whereas with homosexual couples it tends to be the exception), I was going to suggest this as an example of what families ought to be modeled after. However, then I remembered that family models ought to entail more than just shared love. They are first and foremost about perpetuating and progressing the human/heavenly species.

As such, I prefer to promote the model that both religionists and secularist have long agreed is the most evolved and potentially successful--i.e. a family which is headed by two biologically related parents, and the result of marriage between a man and a woman, and this even given, and to some extent because of, the less than optimal heterosexual statistics (which are still better than those among homosexual relations).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Damien the Leper]

If more families were like the "family" of that same sex couple there would be fewer families, unless maybe there were enough people willing to give their child up for adoption. Not the best model to follow, but it's better than some other options.

Ideal families are families that stay together with both the Mother and Father taking care of their own children, righteously, as their children follow the righteous examples of their parents and do the same things.

First, it's a family and not a "family". Second, there isn't going to be a shortage of reproducing heterosexuals anytime in the next thousand years.

Whether you or conservative religionists agree with the structure of that family or not is absolutely irrelevant.

[Damien the Leper]

I have a friend who really loved his dog and whose dog really loved him (the dog is now deceased). They got along better than between most humans. My friend would even refer to his canine companion as his "mate," and even consider him to be a part of his family--perhaps even more so than some other members of his family that he didn't get along with so well. They made each other immensely happy.

Since these kinds of loving relationships between human and animals tend to be the rule rather than the exception (whereas with homosexual couples it tends to be the exception), I was going to suggest this as an example of what families ought to be modeled after. However, then I remembered that family models ought to entail more than just shared love. They are first and foremost about perpetuating and progressing the human/heavenly species.

As such, I prefer to promote the model that both religionists and secularist have long agreed is the most evolved and potentially successful--i.e. a family which is headed by two biologically related parents, and the result of marriage between a man and a woman, and this even given, and to some extent because of, the less than optimal heterosexual statistics (which are still better than those among homosexual relations).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You really should stop with your illogical and very disrespectful comments simply because you do not approve of their relationship. My friends have a relationship that is just as sacred and strong and admirable as their heterosexual parents.

[The Nehor]

You really should stop with your illogical and very disrespectful comments simply because you do not approve of their relationship. My friends have a relationship that is just as sacred and strong and admirable as their heterosexual parents.

You do realize this is an LDS messageboard right? What reaction were you expecting?

[MiserereNobis]

You do realize this is an LDS messageboard right? What reaction were you expecting?

Probably exactly the one he got, if he is intelligent, which meant that he wanted it by making that post.

By the way, Valentinus, Joseph Stalin made male homosexuality a criminal offense punishable by 5 years in prison with hard labor. So if your friends were living in the worker's paradise symbolized by your profile picture, they'd be in the gulag. Lucky for them they live in America.

No communist country allows same-sex marriages or unions; only the democracies do. Perhaps you should rethink your communist stance?

[The Nehor]

Probably exactly the one he got, if he is intelligent, which meant that he wanted it by making that post.

By the way, Valentinus, Joseph Stalin made male homosexuality a criminal offense punishable by 5 years in prison with hard labor. So if your friends were living in the worker's paradise symbolized by your profile picture, they'd be in the gulag. Lucky for them they live in America.

No communist country allows same-sex marriages or unions; only the democracies do. Perhaps you should rethink your communist stance?

What many of the talk-radio Republicans want Haiti has too.

For some reason everyone imagines that we can do the same things and expect paradise despite all evidence to the contrary.

[Damien the Leper]

You do realize this is an LDS messageboard right? What reaction were you expecting?

A more respectful one or did you not read Wade's post?

Edited September 23, 2012 by Valentinus