Something "Big" Coming Down Tomorrow?

[William Schryver]

I was totally blown away by the Priesthood session, let me tell you. At the moment I can't remember hardly anything about it, except that President Uchtdorf talked about airplanes (nothing new there!), but take it from me, all three members of the First Presidency speaking one after another in succession, with President Monson at the very end, was rather like the "finale" of a particularly good fireworks display. I absolutely have to watch that again. For me, Conference is over. Nothing could possibly top that.

Es war unbeschreiblich.

Elder Christofferson's address should be required reading for every 18-year-old male in this country.

[William Schryver]

DavidB,

I think the first part of this thread should be seen as an M. Night Shaymalan movie. Once you know the twist, in re-reading the original narrative William's intent seems clear -- at least to me. Credit where credit is due: William is quite clever. He had me sitting on the edge of my seat and once I realized William's true intent I felt quite silly.

Seth

I have never seen (that I know of) an M. Night Shaymalan movie, but somehow I doubt they would be very popular among the participants of this message board.

At any rate, I won't be attempting any more subtle parody on this board in the future. This is a place where one needs to paint with broad strokes. Very broad.

[jwhitlock]

I just want to add that D&C 8 is a pattern for how we should find answers and these verses are of particular importance:

Section 9 continues with this instruction on how to receive revelation and includes these verses:

These are great scriptures, and catch the essence of how the Church is - and should be - guided by revelation when it comes to decisions affecting the whole body of Christ.

[ERayR]

Or lack of revelations from heaven. We are indeed hungry for that.

Why? You are having trouble with what you have now.

[ERayR]

Elder Christofferson's address should be required reading for every 18-year-old male in this country.

I would carry that further and say for every member.

[William Schryver]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this. Is it a bad thing? Should major changes be an ongoing part of the Church institutional process? Or are we actually mature enough as a Church now that we are in the stage of just needing to make adjustments here and there as circumstances dictate?

I'm reminded of a phrase from one of my favorite hymns; "Change and decay in all around I see, oh Thou who changest not, abide with me." I personally take solace in the fact that we are in a period where the Church stands firm and major change is not needed - at least until rapidly deteriorating events right before the return of Christ mandate more significant responses.

I agree.

Even so, I don't think we should underestimate the significance of this particular change regarding the minimum age of missionaries. I'm not sure we can presently envision all of the long-term consequences. It will be interesting to look back in 10 or 20 years and examine the question. I do think we've probably been losing quite a substantial percentage of young men between the ages of 18 and 19. Having one's missionary service dovetail immediately with graduation from high school will become, in my judgment, one of those things where we look back and ask: "How could we have ever done it otherwise?" We'll wonder why we ever thought it was smart to wait until age 19.

[jwhitlock]

I have never seen (that I know of) an M. Night Shaymalan movie, but somehow I doubt they would be very popular among the participants of this message board.

At any rate, I won't be attempting any more subtle parody on this board in the future. This is a place where one needs to paint with broad strokes. Very broad.

You ought to see "The Village" if you get a chance.

And I don't think you should give up on the subtle parody; it serves a very necessary purpose, when done properly. For those who are willing to learn, it helps them see some of their own flaws and make course corrections. It is also great entertainment, watching those who won't learn get wound up trying to deal with it.

[William Schryver]

I would carry that further and say for every member.

I was tempted, many times during his talk, to jump up and yell "Yes!" while looking around at all the young men in the congregation at my stake center. Man, he really laid it out in clear terms, didn't he?

[ERayR]

I was tempted, many times during his talk, to jump up and yell "Yes!" while looking around at all the young men in the congregation at my stake center. Man, he really laid it out in clear terms, didn't he?

Indeed he did. I suspect our bishop to use it for a priesthood lesson topic.

[jwhitlock]

Even so, I don't think we should underestimate the significance of this particular change regarding the minimum age of missionaries. I'm not sure we can presently envision all of the long-term consequences. It will be interesting to look back in 10 or 20 years and examine the question. I do think we've probably been losing quite a substantial percentage of young men between the ages of 18 and 19. Having one's missionary service dovetail immediately with graduation from high school will become, in my judgment, one of those things where we look back and ask: "How could we have ever done it otherwise?" We'll wonder why we ever thought it was smart to wait until age 19.

Definitely. The pull of the world in that one year between high school and mission can be quite intense.

[Tacenda]

Why? You are having trouble with what you have now.

What do you think? Good to see you on the board, btw.

[Zeta-Flux]

Zeta, my friend, read these posts and perhaps you will understand a bit better my intention in starting this thread last night:

Post 1

Post 2

Post 3

Post 4

Post 5

I absolutely did NOT make any prediction of some great revelation. I was merely underscoring the interesting phenomenon of these kinds of rumors frequently making the rounds prior to our general conferences.

As for today's announcement, I have made my sentiments concerning them rather clear in my posts from today. I think this is a momentous change, and one that will have a significant impact on the membership of the Church going forward.

Then I misunderstood your original intent. That misunderstanding had the unintended consequence of greatly lessening the announcement in my eyes. I was expecting something more.

I suppose my reaction to your initial posts could also be viewed as "underscoring the interesting phenomenon of these kinds of rumors".

[Scott Lloyd]

I was tempted, many times during his talk, to jump up and yell "Yes!" while looking around at all the young men in the congregation at my stake center. Man, he really laid it out in clear terms, didn't he?

Here's my published reporton Elder Christofferson's address.

I didn't have room to include them (the online reports are virtually identical to what will appear in print next weekend) but a couple of my favorite gems were when he talked about young men being so addicted to cyberspace that they are "of the world but not in the world."

Also, when he quoted the university professor as saying too many male college students come into class with their backward baseball caps and their "the word processor ate my homework" excuses while the women are checking their day planners and asking for recommendations for law school.

Add-on: Re-reading my report, I now see that I did include the bit about "of the world but not in the world."

Edited October 7, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

It sounded like he was suggesting the young adults see themselves as mentors for those younger than them. Was this what he meant or more of role models?

[Calm]

DavidB,

I think the first part of this thread should be seen as an M. Night Shaymalan movie. Once you know the twist, in re-reading the original narrative William's intent seems clear -- at least to me. Credit where credit is due: William is quite clever. He had me sitting on the edge of my seat and once I realized William's true intent I felt quite silly.

I was 50/50 on whether it was real or not, you are right that it is quite clear when read with that assumption but I found reading it without the assumption equally plausible. Perhaps that is a sign of a good parody.

[Scott Lloyd]

It sounded like he was suggesting the young adults see themselves as mentors for those younger than them. Was this what he meant or more of role models?

One could certainly draw both of those ideas from his address.

But I think his use of the phrase "young adult men" in this instance pertained to those in their early 20s or so, including young fathers and perhaps quorum advisers, even young bishops. Although it definitely could apply to older brothers.

That's how I perceived it, anyway.

Edited October 7, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[rongo]

This is simply a policy change. It seems a good one and I am grateful for it but I would not call it revelation based on how it was relayed

Brigham Young made an important point in his remarks when laying the southeast cornerstone of the Salt Lake Temple: "It is only when experience fails that revelation is necessary" (April 6, 1853. Journal of Discourses 2:32).

We can see the wisdom, application, and potential benefits in many policy changes. I don't believe that God micro-manages or "remote controls" every or even most policy decisions, locally or universally. Rather, He does not "command in all things . . . [but expects us to] do many things of our own free will" (D&C 58:26-27). I think He expects people to "study things out" in the heart and mind, pray for confirmation, and move forward even in the absence of direct confirmation. In fact, He often does not give us revelation, even when we are worthy and desperately need it. This is a tremendous source of personal growth and experience:

"If I do not know the will of my Father, and what He requires of me in a certain transaction, if I ask Him to give me wisdom concerning any requirement in life, or in regard to my own course, or that of my friends, my family, my children, or those that I preside over, and get no answer from Him, and then do the very best that my judgment will teach me, He is bound to own and honor that transaction, and He will do so to all intents and purposes" (Brigham Young, February 17, 1856. Journal of Discourses 3:205).

(I wrote a lengthy paper that dealt largely with this: http://www.fairlds.org/authors/jones-mckay/well-nigh-as-dangerous )

What this means is that we see policy changes and adjustments, some of which are hugely successful, and some of which are not and lead to other policy changes and adjustments. God steps in and gives explicit revelation or correction where necessary, but He oftenallows His chosen leaders to use their collective experience and wisdom to study things out in their minds and attack challenges and problems without having to be commanded in all things.

[Deborah]

I didn't have room to include them (the online reports are virtually identical to what will appear in print next weekend) but a couple of my favorite gems were when he talked about young men being so addicted to cyberspace that they are "of the world but not in the world."

Sounds like a message greatly needed. My son is always complaining about how much he doesn't like Priesthood because everyone is just busy on their little machines. My grandson also hates it for the same reason. I think it's just plain rude aside from not being conducive to the spirit. And yes I've heard the excuse but my scriptures are on there. I think people should go back to carrying their scriptures in a book, at least at church. But then I'm getting old.

[William Schryver]

I was 50/50 on whether it was real or not, you are right that it is quite clear when read with that assumption but I found reading it without the assumption equally plausible. Perhaps that is a sign of a good parody.

I think it's more a sign of why I should simply refrain altogether from participating on message boards. This is hardly the first time I have been horribly misunderstood and evoked strong negative reactions from people when nothing could have been further from my original intention.

I am glad that this thread has finally evolved into a pleasant and profitable discussion. I will therefore leave it to those better equipped and able than I to carry on a worthwhile conversation.

[William Schryver]

Brigham Young made an important point in his remarks when laying the southeast cornerstone of the Salt Lake Temple: "It is only when experience fails that revelation is necessary" (April 6, 1853. Journal of Discourses 2:32).

We can see the wisdom, application, and potential benefits in many policy changes. I don't believe that God micro-manages or "remote controls" every or even most policy decisions, locally or universally. Rather, He does not "command in all things . . . [but expects us to] do many things of our own free will" (D&C 58:26-27). I think He expects people to "study things out" in the heart and mind, pray for confirmation, and move forward even in the absence of direct confirmation. In fact, He often does not give us revelation, even when we are worthy and desperately need it. This is a tremendous source of personal growth and experience:

"If I do not know the will of my Father, and what He requires of me in a certain transaction, if I ask Him to give me wisdom concerning any requirement in life, or in regard to my own course, or that of my friends, my family, my children, or those that I preside over, and get no answer from Him, and then do the very best that my judgment will teach me, He is bound to own and honor that transaction, and He will do so to all intents and purposes" (Brigham Young, February 17, 1856. Journal of Discourses 3:205).

(I wrote a lengthy paper that dealt largely with this: http://www.fairlds.org/authors/jones-mckay/well-nigh-as-dangerous )

What this means is that we see policy changes and adjustments, some of which are hugely successful, and some of which are not and lead to other policy changes and adjustments. God steps in and gives explicit revelation or correction where necessary, but He oftenallows His chosen leaders to use their collective experience and wisdom to study things out in their minds and attack challenges and problems without having to be commanded in all things.

Excellently said, Br. Jones. I could not agree more fully.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think it's more a sign of why I should simply refrain altogether from participating on message boards. This is hardly the first time I have been horribly misunderstood and evoked strong negative reactions from people when nothing could have been further from my original intention.

I hope you're not including me in the group who has horribly misunderstood you. Once you hinted at what you were up to, I took it for the parody you intended and moved on.

[Scott Lloyd]

Sounds like a message greatly needed. My son is always complaining about how much he doesn't like Priesthood because everyone is just busy on their little machines. My grandson also hates it for the same reason. I think it's just plain rude aside from not being conducive to the spirit. And yes I've heard the excuse but my scriptures are on there. I think people should go back to carrying their scriptures in a book, at least at church. But then I'm getting old.

Doborah, I can't think of a single instance in the past when I haven't wholeheartedly agreed with what you've posted on this board.

But if you will glance at some of my posts on the "New Scripture Editions for 2013?" thread, you'll see why I can't accept that the appropriate use of electronic devices at church is rude or inconducive to the Spirit or that it is what Elder Christofferson had in mind when he made this comment.

Edited October 7, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[William Schryver]

I hope you're not including me in the group who has horribly misunderstood you. Once you hinted at what you were up to, I took it for the parody you intended and moved on.

Not at all, Scott. In fact, over the years, I feel like you and I have been more "in sync"; more in accord with one another than very few others.

I have an extremely high regard for you and for your irrepressible boldness in standing for the truth and the kingdom.

[rongo]

Elder Christofferson's address should be required reading for every 18-year-old male in this country.

I really enjoyed Elder Christofferson’s talk. It was a lot like a combined 5^th Sunday discussion we had in my ward several months ago. I wanted to address men not leading and presiding over their families, women not helping by nagging and hounding ineffectively, and special pitfalls of child-raising ---- especially boys ---- in our world. The specific problems needing to be addressed were: men abdicating their leadership responsibilities, placing the burden of leading out in scripture study, FHE, prayer, spiritual exhortation, etc. solely on the sisters; sisters not exhorting their husbands to change in psychologically effective ways; sisters spending too much time on hobbies and interests at the expense of their children; and parenting designed to intentionally and directly prepare and preserve children from modern hazards.

I showed a few slides from Thor Heyerdahl’s Easter Island trip, and his excavations on the island of Rapa Iti (largest pyramid ruins in Polynesia). The island culture coddled men, with the women working the fields, repairing the huts, and preparing a week’s supply of poi. The men fished, slept, and lounged around. Heyerdahl offered cash money to hire all of the men on the island to excavate, which was a boon for them because they could better obtain goods from Tahiti using money instead of barter goods. After working for one day, the lazy men went on strike and demanded exorbitant fees.

When Heyerdahl refused this extortion, a Corsican woman who had married a Rapa Itian man rallied the women and they told Heyerdahl that they would excavate. After two days of boycotting taking care of their men’s needs, and working at the dig, the men sued for peace and agreed to work hard for the original terms. Morongo Uta (my MDDB screen name stems from Heyerdahl's research) was excavated.

This was a humorous intro into our discussion, with obvious application for both men and women (many women felt like the women of Rapa Iti, and many men saw the need to not be the men of Rapa Iti). You will notice how closely the handout (not enough time to get into these, but available for reading at leisure) matches Elder Christofferson’s sources and the direction he was going in last night.

Supplemental Information and Material for ‘The Men and Women of Rapa Iti’ (Maricopa 5^th Ward, April 29, 2012)

Biochemistry, Physiology, and Male/Female Differences

The hormone testosterone shows up six to seven weeks after conception (all embryos begin as “female”), when the Y chromosome begins a dramatic spike in its production. This hormonal bath damages the brain and alters its structure (and color). [1] The corpus callosum, the rope of nerves that connects the left and right halves of the brain, is made much less efficient (the number of electrical transmissions between halves is sharply reduced for life). Men have to think longer about what they believe and feel, while women can readily access both halves and know instantly how they feel about things. [2] This also causes language development in men to be localized in either the left or right half of the brain, while women’s language development is typically evenly distributed between halves. Women are therefore generally more articulate and verbal than men. [3] Boys’ bodies are again flooded with testosterone at the beginning of puberty, which transforms them into men. After puberty, men have fifteen times more testosterone than women, while women have 10 times more estrogen. [4]

Testosterone dominates many aspects of human interaction. Working women have higher levels of testosterone than stay-at-home mothers, and daughters of working mothers have more testosterone than daughters of housewives. “In naval medical tests, midshipmen have been shown to have higher average levels of testosterone than plebes. Actors tend to have more testosterone than ministers . . . Although high testosterone levels often correlate with dominance in interpersonal relationships, it does not guarantee social power. Testosterone levels are higher among blue-collar workers than among white collar workers . . . Trial lawyers have higher levels of testosterone than other types of lawyers. It is even possible to tell who has won a tennis match, not by watching the game, but by monitoring testosterone in saliva samples during the match. The winner’s T production rises sharply, and the loser’s falls. The ultimate winner experiences a post-game surge, while the loser sees a collapse. This is true even for people watching sports games . . . Testosterone is a facilitator of risk . . . Without the influence of testosterone, the cost of risks seems to outweigh the benefits. With testosterone charging through the brain, caution is thrown to the wind.” [5]

Serotonin is a hormone that carries information between nerve cells. It pacifies and soothes emotions, helps people control impulsive behavior, and facilitates good judgment. Wild monkeys with low serotonin levels are much more likely to take dangerous leaps from branch to branch. Spinal taps of convicted murderers and arsonists reveal extremely low levels of serotonin. Depression and suicidal tendencies are closely related to low serotonin levels. Women typically have much more serotonin than men. [6]

The amygdalla is an almond shaped structure in the brain that overrides logical brain function when there is a perceived threat and makes the adrenal glands secrete adrenalin and other hormones that increase heart and breathing rates. The amygdalla never forgets fearful moments, which is why traumatized people have such a hard time getting over traumatic events. [7] When the amygdalla perceives a threat or challenge, it fires electrical impulses to the hypothalamus (which initiates adrenalin production and release in the adrenals) and calls for a surge in testosterone. The amygdalla is much larger in men than in women, which helps explain why men are more likely than women to be volatile or engage in risky behavior. [8]

Differences between Men and Women

Canadian psychologist Barbara Morrongiello: Girls tend to think hard about potential for injury and hold back if they find it. Boys tend to take chances if they think the danger is worth the risk. Impressing others (and especially, later, girls) is usually considered worth the risk. Story: a mother scolded her son who had climbed on the roof to get a ball. Asking him if he realized he could fall, the boy thought for a minute, and said, “Well, I might not.” [9]

Hasbro Toys tried to market a doll house that both boys and girls could play with with equal interest. In product testing, they found that true “unisex” play was impossible: girls played “house,” using the items in the traditional way (dolls getting married, having families, doing things they had seen their mothers do, etc.). Boys “catapulted the baby carriage off of the roof, and generally messed up the play for the girls.” [10]

Boys 2 Men: Navigating the Mine-field and Getting Them Safely to Manhood

Boys are six times more likely than girls to have learning disabilities, three times more likely to develop drug addiction, and four times more likely to be diagnosed as emotionally disturbed. They are at greater risk for schizophrenia, autism, sexual addiction, alcoholism, bed wetting, and antisocial and criminal behavior. Boys are twelve times more likely to commit murder, and their rate of death in car accidents is greater than 50%. 77% of juvenile delinquency-related court hearings involve males. [11]

Boys under fifteen years old are fifteen times more likely to be admitted to psychiatric hospitals [12] and five times more likely than girls to commit suicide.[13] 80% of all suicides for all age groups are males under the age of 25.[14] Suicide among black adolescent males has increased 165%.[15]

“From elementary grades through high school, boys receive lower grades than girls. Eighth grade boys are held back 50% more often than girls. By high school, boys account for 2/3 of the students in special education programs. Fewer boys now attend and graduate from college. 59% of all master’s degree candidates are now women, and the percentage of men in graduate-level programs is shrinking each year. When eighth grade students are asked about their futures, girls are now twice as likely as boys to say they want to pursue a career in management, the professions, or business . . . Boys account for 71% of all school suspensions.”[16]

Unique Educational Challenges for Boys

Elementary school classrooms are designed primarily by women to fit the temperament and learning styles of girls. Harvard psychologist William Pollock said, “Girls care more about school. They cope with it. Boys don’t. Boys are taught at a tempo that doesn’t fit them. They are taught in a way that makes them feel inadequate, and if they speak up, they are sent to the principal.”[17]

Psychologist Michael Thompson, author of Raising Cain: Protecting the Emotional Life of Boys: “Boys feel like school is game rigged against them. The things at which they excel --- motor skills, visual and spatial skills, exuberance ---- do not find as good a reception in school.”[18]

“I remember sitting in my chair in first grade and thinking, ‘If they would just let me stand up. If only I could stand!’ Millions of boys are like this. They have powerful afterburners but no rudder. They are in agony when required to endure long periods of relative inactivity, prohibitions on noise, and environments where everything is nailed down tight. They long to run, jump, wrestle, laugh, and climb, which the system won’t tolerate. By fourth grade, boys are saying the teachers like girls better. They are probably right.”[19]

Importance of Parents and Family

More than half of all babies born in the United States today are born out of wedlock. Only 34% of all children born in the United States today will live with both biological parents until age 18. 62% of mothers with children under three are employed outside the home (it was 31% in 1975). 72% of mothers with children under 18 currently work.[20] [Busyness of mother + absence of father = what? --- mvj]

Fathers

Infants as young as six weeks old can distinguish between a mother’s and a father’s voice. By eight weeks, babies can distinguish between their mother’s and their father’s caretaking methods. Infants are born with a drive to find and connect with their fathers. In almost all languages, children learn to speak the word for “father” before the word for “mother.” The reasons for this are unknown. Toddlers are especially obvious in their craving for father: they seek out their father, ask for him when he’s not home, and are fascinated by his voice when talking to him on the phone. “Teenagers express fatherneed in more complex ways, competing with their father and testing his limits. For many sons and daughters, it is only at the death of their father that they discover the intensity and longevity of their fatherneed, especially when it has gone begging.”[21]

Boys without fathers are twice as likely to drop out of school, twice as likely to go to jail, and four times as likely to need treatment for emotional and behavioral problems as boys with fathers.[22]

Divorce is difficult for children of both sexes, but it is devastating for males. Harvard psychologist Dr. William Pollock traces this to the lack of a consistent role model to teach boys directly and indirectly what it means to be a man and properly manage emotions.[23]

Sociologist Peter Karl: “Because boys spend up to 80% of their time with women, they don’t know how to act as men when they grow up. When that happens, the relationship between the sexes is directly affected. Men become helpless and more and more like big kids.”[24]

In the Pilanesberg National Park in northwestern South Africa, rangers became alarmed by increasing violence from young bull elephants ---- especially directed towards white rhinos. Without provocation, a mass epidemic of trampling and gorings threatened to spiral out of control. Because this is not typical elephant behavior, it was very hard to explain. The problem was finally traced to government programs that sought to reduce elephant populations in a controlled way by killing the older animals. The young rogue elephants were orphaned when they were calves, but under normal circumstances, dominant older males would have kept the young bulls in line and served as role models. Introducing old male elephants into the Park immediately stopped the young rogue elephant behavior, and without any discernible action on the part of the old elephants. Their mere presence was apparently enough.[25]

Zig Ziglar quoted an associate, Bill Glass, who counseled men in prison for twenty-five years: “Among the thousands of prisoners I’ve met, not one of them genuinely loved his dad. 95% of the men on death row I’ve met hated their fathers.”[26]

Of the 1,202,107 people in state or federal prison in 1998, 94% were male. Of the 3,452 awaiting execution, only 48 were women (1.4%).[27]

Hallmark executives decided to set up a table in a federal prison on Mother’s Day and invite any inmate who wanted to to send a free card to his mom. The lines were so long, they had to make a second trip to get more cards. Because of the success of the event, they decided to do the same thing on Father’s Day. This time, no one came. Not one prisoner wanted to send a card to his dad (many had no idea who their fathers even were).[28]

Bill Houghton (construction executive, responsible for hiring, managing, and firing thousands of employees over his life), when asked what he looked for when hiring employees: “I look primarily at the relationship between the man and his father. If he felt loved by his dad and respected his authority, he was likely to be a good employee. I won’t hire a young man who has been in rebellion against his dad. He will have problems with me, too.”[29]

Boys who had sexual intercourse at an early age tended to have experienced two or more parental transitions (divorce, remarriage, repartnering, etc.). Only 18% of early-promiscuous boys studied came from intact families, while 57% of boys who were virgins into late high school came from homes that had not experienced divorce.[30]

Mothers

(Harvard longitudinal study): 91% of college men who reported not having a close relationship with their mothers developed coronary artery disease, hypertension, duodenal ulcers, and alcoholism by midlife. Only 45% of the men who reported being close to their mothers had similar health problems. 100% of those who reported maternal distance had these health problems by late life.[31]

“Working mothers worry that if they leave their infants and toddlers in the care of others, relationships with their children will be affected. News from the federal government says they are right to be concerned. Longer hours spent in child care during the first three years of life lead to less positive interaction between mother and child. In other words, the bond between mother and child is affected negatively by early day-care experiences . . . There is a direct correlation between the amount of time spent in day care and traits such as . . . defiance and disobedience . . . Dr. Jay Belsky, one of the study’s principal authors, said children who spend more than thirty hours a week in child care ‘are more demanding, more noncompliant, and more aggressive . . . they score higher on . . . cruelty, bullying, meanness, talking too much, and insisting that demands be fulfilled immediately.’[32] This is not good news for the 13 million preschoolers, including 6 million infants and toddlers, who are in child care in the United States.”[33]

Importance of Dinnertime Together?

During a meeting with Arizona bishops and stake presidencies in 2009, Elder L. Tom Perry referred a question about the best things we can do to strengthen families to President Garn, the Mesa temple president. Surprisingly, he answered, “having dinner together every night” as the single biggest thing we could encourage people to do. Most seemed to expect something more profound. This is actually borne out in several studies. A Cincinnati Children’s Hospital study found that adolescents whose parents ate dinner with them five times a week or more were much less likely to be on drugs, be depressed, or be in trouble with the law. They were also more likely to be doing well in school and have supportive friends. Surprisingly, the benefits were found even for families that didn’t eat together at home. Families that ate out often experienced the same results. The teens who fared the worst had parents who ate with them three times a week or less.[34] Dr. Catherine Snow from the Harvard Graduate School of Education carried out a longitudinal study of families over eight years. She found that dinner time had more of an impact with child development than playtime, school, or even reading with parents.[35]

Busy, Tired, and Harried Families

French scientist Jean-Henri Fabre conducted an experiment with caterpillars who march in unison, following each other. He lined them around the inner edge of a flowerpot and observed them as they marched in a circle. At the end of the third day, he put pine needles, their favorite food, in the middle of the pot. They continued marching in a circle for four more days without breaking the circle. Then, one at a time, they died of starvation, inches away from their ideal food source.[36]

“With the rise of electronic communications, devices, and toys, the link between generations and transference of family traditions is being severely weakened. The social capital of America is shrinking” i.e., children are developing less and less social and interacting skills).[37]

“It is becoming less common these days for a teenager to have time isolated for focused interaction with family members. Most of the time they spend with family members can be called ‘family and time:’ family and TV, family and dinner, family and homework, etc. The lives of each family member are usually so jam-packed that the opportunity to spend time together doing unique activities --- talking about life, visiting special places, playing games, and sharing spiritual explorations ----- has to be scheduled and planned. Few do.”[38]

The Problem of Too Many “Half-Men” in the World

“Every time you raise a loving, wise, and responsible man, you have created a better world for women. Women today are having to bond to half-men, with boys who were not fully raised to manhood, don’t know how to bond, don’t know what their responsibilities are, and don’t have a strong sense of service.”[39] Compare this with George Bernard Shaw’s comment about 19^th century Mormon polygamy, which he used to criticize the manhood of his day: “It’s better for a woman to have a quarter share in a first-rate man, than to have a second-rate man all to herself.”

[DavidB]

Your post #47 was a personal attack on Will, characterized by your use of the accusative "you" several times in condemning him.

Jwhitlock, as I stated, if refuting claims of another is a personal attack, then some much for defending anything.

If refuting ones.claims is a personal attack, then much of what is self described as "apologetics" is a personal attack.

Is it a personal attack to suggest that you sort of predictably show up in a thread wherein William's actions/intent are in question?