The Attack On The Family

[Tacenda]

I read recently they may be easing the restrictions on broadcasting or taking a look at it Frontal nudity and the "f" bomb might be okay on t.v. in the future. I think I want to throw up. Give me "I Love Lucy" and twin beds in their bedroom anytime. It's getting so scary now.

[bcuzbcuz]

I read recently they may be easing the restrictions on broadcasting or taking a look at it Frontal nudity and the "f" bomb might be okay on t.v. in the future. I think I want to throw up. Give me "I Love Lucy" and twin beds in their bedroom anytime. It's getting so scary now.

"I Love Lucy" and twin beds were no more a reflection of family than full frontal nudity is. They are merely distractions. The use, or misuse rather, of language is an issue that has long bothered me. Words repeated often enough lose context and meaning. I can deal with the "f" word since it has lost all meaning by its continual misuse to mean absolutely anything, thus nothing.

The misuse of language is not only on popular TV shows but even in news presentations. Words are twisted beyond recognition. Even here, on this board, we see that the use of a phrase in conference can be interpretted to mean whatever the listener wants it to mean.

I think it would be appropriate for the GA's who express themselves about the "Attack on the Family" to clarify and be specific in what they mean. It is of no use to throw out a value laden expression and then leave it open to interpretation. If they mean it to be a return to the 50's, it ain't gonna happen. If they want to come with concrete proposals about how the current stresses of economics, violence in the home, keeping teenagers away from harmful influences and how societal pressures can be dealt with, I'm all ears.

[BlueDreams]

I think it would be appropriate for the GA's who express themselves about the "Attack on the Family" to clarify and be specific in what they mean. It is of no use to throw out a value laden expression and then leave it open to interpretation. If they mean it to be a return to the 50's, it ain't gonna happen. If they want to come with concrete proposals about how the current stresses of economics, violence in the home, keeping teenagers away from harmful influences and how societal pressures can be dealt with, I'm all ears.

I figure every other talk (as well as talks previously dealing with families/spouses/children) would give a fair indication as to what that would mean to them. If it makes you feel better the actual phrase "attack on the family" isn't a direct quote I can find in the recent general conference. I doubt any of them are calling for a return to the 50's. Especially since many more spousal relationships did not follow this counsel: "Practices from any place or any time in which husbands have dominated wives or treated them in any way as second-class partners in marriage are not in keeping with divine law and should be replaced by correct principles and patterns of behavior."

Rather they are calling for a christ-centered, covenant bound household, that are raised in love/righteousness. Anything that doesn't meet up to that standard or at least lead to it, falls short. Any cultural practice or personal belief that upholds a standard that is not in line with gospel principles and the eternal nature of marriage would be seen as a fragmenting and degradation of truth. This loss, IMO, is the attack. No modern decade has gotten that down perfectly....but we (as multiple societies/cultures) aren't any closer and a strong case could be made that much of it is further away than ever and continuing to fall from God's standards for marriage and family.

Wtih luv,

BD

Edited April 13, 2013 by BlueDreams

[cinepro]

I like and agree with most of your analysis with one exception. I think single-parent homes are the result of the attacks -- not an attack in and of itself.

To be clear, I meant "voluntary single-parent homes", where a person chooses to have or adopt a child knowing in advance they are doing so without a spouse.

[thesometimesaint]

You're joking right?

Nope.

[thesometimesaint]

Utterly bogus.

Incorrect. The biggest single factor in divorce is money concerns. Next is a women's ability to support her family. Even the Church recognizes it with its micro-loan programs.

[ERayR]

I think it would be appropriate for the GA's who express themselves about the "Attack on the Family" to clarify and be specific in what they mean. It is of no use to throw out a value laden expression and then leave it open to interpretation. If they mean it to be a return to the 50's, it ain't gonna happen. If they want to come with concrete proposals about how the current stresses of economics, violence in the home, keeping teenagers away from harmful influences and how societal pressures can be dealt with, I'm all ears.

They give you credit for having the ability to receive the promptings of the Holy Ghost and the intelligence to understand and act in your own sphere.

[CASteinman]

To be clear, I meant "voluntary single-parent homes", where a person chooses to have or adopt a child knowing in advance they are doing so without a spouse.

OK. I still don't know that counts as an injury or attack on marriage, but I understand that this is greyish area. I won't find fault with the single sister in my ward who is a nurse and adopts children who are damaged to help them thrive. But that is not the common story either.

[CASteinman]

Incorrect. The biggest single factor in divorce is money concerns. Next is a women's ability to support her family. Even the Church recognizes it with its micro-loan programs.

If only that were true I am still not sure if you would have a point but you might.

[thesometimesaint]

If only that were true I am still not sure if you would have a point but you might.

The question was "What precisely does the attack on the family entail"? I simply listed the two main factors in the attack. A couple of sociology classes would easily cleared up any confusion on your part.

[Rivers]

"I Love Lucy" and twin beds were no more a reflection of family than full frontal nudity is. They are merely distractions. The use, or misuse rather, of language is an issue that has long bothered me. Words repeated often enough lose context and meaning. I can deal with the "f" word since it has lost all meaning by its continual misuse to mean absolutely anything, thus nothing.

The misuse of language is not only on popular TV shows but even in news presentations. Words are twisted beyond recognition. Even here, on this board, we see that the use of a phrase in conference can be interpretted to mean whatever the listener wants it to mean.

I think it would be appropriate for the GA's who express themselves about the "Attack on the Family" to clarify and be specific in what they mean. It is of no use to throw out a value laden expression and then leave it open to interpretation. If they mean it to be a return to the 50's, it ain't gonna happen. If they want to come with concrete proposals about how the current stresses of economics, violence in the home, keeping teenagers away from harmful influences and how societal pressures can be dealt with, I'm all ears.

I liked Sister Rosemary M. Wixom's talk at conference. She addressed a very specific issue that is relevent in our day relating to the raising of children. I want to hear more talks like this one.

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/04/the-words-we-speak?lang=eng

[Rivers]

Incorrect. The biggest single factor in divorce is money concerns. Next is a women's ability to support her family. Even the Church recognizes it with its micro-loan programs.

Are you saying that the lack of of women education is an attack on families? It thought you said that women having education is bad.

[thesometimesaint]

Are you saying that the lack of of women education is an attack on families? It thought you said that women having education is bad.

I am saying that the lack of of women education is an attack on families.

[Rivers]

I am saying that the lack of of women education is an attack on families.

Ok. That makes much more sense.

[thesometimesaint]

Ok. That makes much more sense.

In a perverse way it COULD be argued that the education of women is an attack on the family. As the more education a woman has the smaller her family tends to become. But I would argue that a well educated woman ensures that her children are healthier, and more likely to survive childhood. So there is a lesser need for a large unsustainable family. IE: It is better to have 2-3 children that survive to adulthood than to have 10 children where only 1-2 survive.

[Pandorian]

After listening to the last few General Conferences, I've noticed that the "Attack on the Family" is frequently brought up. The General Authorities seem to be saying that this is the most significant problem in the world today since the family unit such a vital part of our society. I've become intrigued by this idea lately. I am being sincere when I ask this. What precisely does the attack on the family entail? I've heard a lot of people interpret this to be a reference to same-sex marriage, but I have a hard time buying that. There's got to be a lot more to it. I'd like to understand this issue a little better since it is such a prominent theme in the discourses from our leaders.

Recently some dingbat Liberal commentator said that we have to kill the idea that Children belong to their parents. If that isn't an attack on the family, I don't know what is.

http://www.gopusa.co...ty-not-parents/

This whole Idea that it "Takes a Village" and that the state should have more power over your kids than you do is extremely evil to me.

Edited April 13, 2013 by Pandorian

[thesometimesaint]

Recently some dingbat Liberal commentator said that we have to kill the idea that Children belong to their parents. If that isn't an attack on the family, I don't know what is.

http://www.gopusa.co...ty-not-parents/

This whole Idea that it "Takes a Village" and that the state should have more power over your kids than you do is extremely evil to me.

Quit listening to the bat crap crazy right wing noise machine. Without the support of the larger community we'd have no society at all. We are not tiny little islands of single families.

The State DOES have more power over your kids than you do. It ALWAYS has.

[CASteinman]

The question was "What precisely does the attack on the family entail"? I simply listed the two main factors in the attack.

Or more correctly, you listed two factors that you believe to be main elements in the attack.

A couple of sociology classes would easily cleared up any confusion on your part.

And yet they didn't. And really... how would they? After all this is your definition, not a textbook thing.

[thesometimesaint]

Or more correctly, you listed two factors that you believe to be main elements in the attack.

And yet they didn't. And really... how would they? After all this is your definition, not a textbook thing.

No. That IS what the sociology books say in print. Here is newspaper confirmation.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/money-fights-predict-divorce-rates/

[CASteinman]

No. That IS what the sociology books say in print. Here is newspaper confirmation.

http://economix.blog...-divorce-rates/

1. Irrelevant.

2 Correlation does not imply causation.

3. Correlation of one item say anything about other factors.

4. I note that you did not quote a sociology book in print. You quoted a blog.

[bcuzbcuz]

Recently some dingbat Liberal commentator said that we have to kill the idea that Children belong to their parents. If that isn't an attack on the family, I don't know what is.

http://www.gopusa.co...ty-not-parents/

This whole Idea that it "Takes a Village" and that the state should have more power over your kids than you do is extremely evil to me.

Infant mortality rates for the US rank it well below other countries with similar economies, democracy etc. Something must be wrong when the US ranks around 20th, (depending on the scale used). The US is, nevertheless, the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world. Is the low ranking of the US entirely dependent upon "liberal dingbat commentators" or is there a darker side to economics steered health care?

[CV75]

A problem with education in general is not the same thing as education of women being a problem.

A woman who is creating a problem with education in the way I described is part of the problem.

In general, in the days when men were afforded an education and women discouraged from it, men having a problem with education in the way I described created the problem. Once women were afforded and encouraged to get an education, women having a problem with education in the way I described only compounded the problem.

Education itself is not the problem, but its misapplication and the love of education (particularly the kind of education that denies God). Men once did this more than women, and once women joined in, the attcak on the family could only get worse.

Note that I did not list the education of women in my original post, but I thought sometimessaint's post merited some thought and discussion.

[CASteinman]

Note that I did not list the education of women in my original post, but I thought sometimessaint's post merited some thought and discussion.

OK, but he did not say what you said.

[CASteinman]

Infant mortality rates for the US rank it well below other countries with similar economies, democracy etc. Something must be wrong when the US ranks around 20th, (depending on the scale used). The US is, nevertheless, the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world. Is the low ranking of the US entirely dependent upon "liberal dingbat commentators" or is there a darker side to economics steered health care?

Irrelevant and false dichotomy.

Plus... Political.

Edited April 13, 2013 by CASteinman

[Alvino]

In a perverse way it COULD be argued that the education of women is an attack on the family. As the more education a woman has the smaller her family tends to become. But I would argue that a well educated woman ensures that her children are healthier, and more likely to survive childhood. So there is a lesser need for a large unsustainable family. IE: It is better to have 2-3 children that survive to adulthood than to have 10 children where only 1-2 survive.

I'm not convinced that this applies to the U.S. or first-world countries where Hispanics have less educational achievements than Whites yet their fertility rate is higher and their infant mortality rate is lower than that of Whites. Population growth rates and education are inversely correlated. If what you want is bigger families, with an increasing population, there seems to be a limit after which people reproduce less and population decreases.