Elder Oaks' Address: Parental Immorality And Its Effects On Children

[USU78]

Elder Oaks' address during October's Saturday morning session was remarkable for several reasons: http://www.lds.org/general-conference/watch/2012/10?lang=eng&vid=1882918373001&cid=11

More than anything else, he addressed his statements to all for whom children's best interests motivate action and belief.

He acknowledged, frighteningly to me, that there are a goodly number for whom those best interests motivate nothing, since their own selfish interests trump any consideration of any other interest, let alone children's.

Substance abuse.

Prostitution.

Sexual exploitation.

Enforced armed service.

Pornography.

Divorce.

Infidelity.

Homosexuality.

And most significantly, Abortion.

Together they constitute societal suicide.

Quaere: How long before the boobirds start savaging him as they've savaged Elder Packer for decades now?

From his demeanor, I suspect he knew dang well what would be coming and challenged 'em: "Bring it on."

A "Samuel on the wall" moment if ever we have seen one.

[LDSGuy]

I thought it was a bold talk. I imagine there will be some reaction like that of Pres. Packer's talk. However, I don't know if the atmosphere is as charged as it was then.

Edited October 8, 2012 by LDSGuy

[cinepro]

"Enforced armed service"?

Please explain!

Edit: Never mind. I just listened to it and he is referring to young children being forced to fight as soldiers, not compulsory service in general.

Edited October 8, 2012 by cinepro

[USU78]

"Enforced armed service"?

Please explain!

Edit: Never mind. I just listened to it and he is referring to young children being forced to fight as soldiers, not compulsory service in general.

Yup. You are 10% correct, sir! The largely West African phenomenon is evidently spreading . . . and how horrible is that?

[KevinG]

"Enforced armed service"?

Please explain!

Edit: Never mind. I just listened to it and he is referring to young children being forced to fight as soldiers, not compulsory service in general.

That was in the context of the earlier sentence. Criticize his grammar or use of bullet points but please don't read too much into it.

[USU78]

That was in the context of the earlier sentence. Criticize his grammar or use of bullet points but please don't read too much into it.

I wanted to use a term other than conscription or compulsory to indicate its marked departure from nation-states' practices. I became more aware of the practice about 5 years ago, when my elder daughter read this http://www.alongwaygone.com/ for a freshman symposium at USU. Sad, sad stuff.

[Rivers]

I liked this talk because so many conference speakers keep talking about the family being under attack but don't elaborate on it a whole lot. This talk presented a very detailed argument on how the family is under attack and what the consequences are for children. It was definitely the most interesting talk I have heard in conference for a long time.

What I found interesting was the part when he was discussing same sex marriage. He discussed the fact that it was a social experiment in which we have yet to see the results rather than completely demonizing it.

[BlueDreams]

What I found interesting was the part when he was discussing same sex marriage. He discussed the fact that it was a social experiment in which we have yet to see the results rather than completely demonizing it.

Yeah, I really found that especially interesting. It was a succinct critique to SSM that I've kinda had as a concern but never have the correct words for. Plus I think it linked with the overall cultural expectation of marriage and it's structural parameters/priorities.

Overally I appreciated his talk, especially for it's mention of international issues that are facing children. I also think it could be used to expand the meaning of what it means for women to nurture and rear children....I think it's not solely in a individual private household, but also in helping the social and publice development to create and overall environment that protects and cares for the coming generation.

With luv,

BD

With luv,

BD

[DavidB]

What I found interesting was the part when he was discussing same sex marriage. He discussed the fact that it was a social experiment in which we have yet to see the results rather than completely demonizing it.

"social experiment" is the nice way of demonizing. Rarely, if ever, will you find the terminology "social experiment" used in publications which are not seeking to demonize ssm.

I would venture to say that The Church will never look upon ssm as anything other than a counterfeit.

The Church supports limited rights to SS couples, but adoption is not one and I would venture to say calling a SSM couple with/out children a family is also something the Church would not do. In my opinion to acknowledge SSM couples with/out children a "family" would undermine the whole premise of "the family is under attack".

[USU78]

"social experiment" is the nice way of demonizing. Rarely, if ever, will you find the terminology "social experiment" used in publications which are not seeking to demonize ssm.

I would venture to say that The Church will never look upon ssm as anything other than a counterfeit.

The Church supports limited rights to SS couples, but adoption is not one and I would venture to say calling a SSM couple with/out children a family is also something the Church would not do. In my opinion to acknowledge SSM couples with/out children a "family" would undermine the whole premise of "the family is under attack".

How is it a good thing to mess with something that's worked for millenia without any idea at all what the likely outcome would be?

[KevinG]

How is it a good thing to mess with something that's worked for millenia without any idea at all what the likely outcome would be?

Well the sexual revolution worked out so well for women and children...

[Kenngo1969]

...

With luv,

BD

With luv,

BD

Thanks for the extra "Luv" Sister Blue! I'll take all the Luv I can get!!!

(Sorry; couldn't resist!)

[Bikeemikey]

How is it a good thing to mess with something that's worked for millenia without any idea at all what the likely outcome would be?

I think it would be reasonable to say that people have procreated for millenia. As long as people procreate we will have families. Some will be good some will be bad. This is more likely going to be based on the character of the people in the family itself, not the make up of the family.

Within the family (over the Millenia) there have been horrific abuses of power and individuals, esspecially women and children.

Our church supports wonderful, loving, nurturing families. Such families are made up of good loving, honest individuals.

Also, if the family has provided us the society that has got us to this point why not assume that the present cultural changes that are moving emphasis to other forms of relationships (non-conventional families) are not actually the result of the impact of family over time.

The whole point is we don't know what will happen. I however believer that the USA (and other first world nations) are great societies because of their capacity to push into the unknown in an attempt to enhance the human race.

I also fundamentally agree that we have a church have an important role with in these communities to caution and temper such exploration with excellent talks like this. I really enjoyed his talk.

[The Grimace]

How is it a good thing to mess with something that's worked for millenia without any idea at all what the likely outcome would be?

Marriage works, yet infidelity and divorce are rampant? Hmmmmm......

[USU78]

Marriage works, yet infidelity and divorce are rampant? Hmmmmm......

Take a look at the single motherhood [best indicator of criminality, STDs, foetal alcohol syndrome/effect, ignorance and poverty for children] ## in 1960 . . . then look at them in 1970 . . . then 1980 . . . then 1990 . . . then 2000 . . . then 2010. In those 50 years, from the time when there was certainly infidelity and some divorce, we have gotten to the point that a goodly # of those children never gestate fully . . . and an unacceptably high # of them fall into the statistical categories noted above.

Yet the oh so sophisticated purveyors of societal wisdom coming out of the Ivy League still worship at the idol of self-indulgence, and compel the rest of us to live with the consequences of their narcissism.

Sorry. You couldn't be more wrong.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well, USU already has this thread wrapped up.

Interesting points.

[cinepro]

Take a look at the single motherhood [best indicator of criminality, STDs, foetal alcohol syndrome/effect, ignorance and poverty for children] ## in 1960 . . . then look at them in 1970 . . . then 1980 . . . then 1990 . . . then 2000 . . . then 2010. In those 50 years, from the time when there was certainly infidelity and some divorce, we have gotten to the point that a goodly # of those children never gestate fully . . . and an unacceptably high # of them fall into the statistical categories noted above.

Yet the oh so sophisticated purveyors of societal wisdom coming out of the Ivy League still worship at the idol of self-indulgence, and compel the rest of us to live with the consequences of their narcissism.

Good news!

[USU78]

Good news!

Yup. Great news indeed . . . abortion rates being what they are, especially of black/part-black babies and Downs babies, the overall birthrate has gone down . . . following the overall birth trends.

Sing Te Deum and Non Nobis!

[KevinG]

Wrong chart Cinepro. He was talking about birth rates to single mothers.

Not so good news when you consider Father Absence statistics on crime and other social ills.

http://www.fatherhood.org/media/consequences-of-father-absence-statistics

[The Grimace]

Take a look at the single motherhood [best indicator of criminality, STDs, foetal alcohol syndrome/effect, ignorance and poverty for children] ## in 1960 . . . then look at them in 1970 . . . then 1980 . . . then 1990 . . . then 2000 . . . then 2010. In those 50 years, from the time when there was certainly infidelity and some divorce, we have gotten to the point that a goodly # of those children never gestate fully . . . and an unacceptably high # of them fall into the statistical categories noted above.

CFR on all of those claims, please.

[The Grimace]

Yup. Great news indeed . . . abortion rates being what they are, especially of black/part-black babies and Downs babies, the overall birthrate has gone down . . . following the overall birth trends.

Sing Te Deum and Non Nobis!

CFR that abortion is the cause of the lowered birth rate, especially amongst black/part-black babies and Down's Syndrome babies, as shown in the graphs above.

[USU78]

CFR that abortion is the cause of the lowered birth rate, especially amongst black/part-black babies and Down's Syndrome babies, as shown in the graphs above.

Well . . . let's look at the 92% of Downs foetuses being aborted: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/w_ParentingResource/down-syndrome-births-drop-us-women-abort/story?id=8960803#.UHVVOlHz6qp; and then let's look at the phenomenon that has been called, rightly in my opinion, black genocide: http://blackgenocide.org/black.html. After doing so, let's think about the declining birthrates in the industrialized West, here specifically the US and I can pull the European trends if you insist: http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/censusstatistic/a/aabirthrate.htm.

Now, if you can count, you can take the estimated 13M abortions of black foetuses since Roe v. Wade and add them back into the birthrate for the same period. Can you honestly imagine a universe where the birthrate for US blacks would not have been affected by such a number? Really? Honestly?

And are you genuinely doubtful of such a thing?

Or are you just being a smartaleck? This stuff is in the air we breath. Nobody paying attention could have missed such news stories.

[The Grimace]

Well . . . let's look at the 92% of Downs foetuses being aborted: http://abcnews.go.co...03#.UHVVOlHz6qp; and then let's look at the phenomenon that has been called, rightly in my opinion, black genocide: http://blackgenocide.org/black.html. After doing so, let's think about the declining birthrates in the industrialized West, here specifically the US and I can pull the European trends if you insist: http://usgovinfo.abo...aabirthrate.htm.

Now, if you can count, you can take the estimated 13M abortions of black foetuses since Roe v. Wade and add them back into the birthrate for the same period. Can you honestly imagine a universe where the birthrate for US blacks would not have been affected by such a number? Really? Honestly?

And are you genuinely doubtful of such a thing?

Or are you just being a smartaleck? This stuff is in the air we breath. Nobody paying attention could have missed such news stories.

I can imagine a world where more people are using birth control...are you genuinely doubtful of such a thing, or are *you* just being a smart aleck?

But, just for giggles, here are few facts - odds of Down Syndrome babies go up with the age of the mother. Adjusting for maternal age and odds of having a Down's baby between 15-19, the effect on live births per 1000 is negligible. Plus, to support your hypothesis, you'd have to show that black mothers, 15-19, are seeking medical care at the same rate as mothers who are older, and that these mothers are making decisions based on medical tests for Down Syndrome.

That said, you haven't shown that the cause of a declining birth rate is access to abortion. What about access to education, access to birth control (condoms, the pill, injections, etc), or access to Plan B, the morning-after pill (which, btw, is NOT abortion - it brings about early and sudden menstruation regardless of whether an ovum is present, thus making impregnation impossible).

So, USU78, care to give it another try? Can you please link decline in birth rate to a higher rate of abortions, beyond your "it's obvious and you (Grimace) are not using common sense"?

[The Grimace]

bump for usu78.

[webbles]

access to Plan B, the morning-after pill (which, btw, is NOT abortion - it brings about early and sudden menstruation regardless of whether an ovum is present, thus making impregnation impossible).

I believe a lot of people against abortion consider morning-after pill as an abortifacient because it prevents a fertilized egg from implanting.