Misdefining "family"

[Rob Osborn]

No one is disagreeing that the scriptures talk about a family as being a father. a mother and children.  No one is saying that the church calls a father, mother and children a family.  The question that is put before us is whether that is the ONLY definition of what a family is.  You are making the claim that this is the ONLY definition of a family.  As noted above, Christ himself clearly defined a family different than what you are claiming.

 

I would now like to ask for a CFR that the church ONLY defines a family as a father, mother and possibly children.  As you know from previous threads where you have not provided us with a CFR on this question, you were kicked out of the thread.  I would hope that you now could answer the CFR or take back your claim.

I see you left out one very important quote or "reference". Here it is-

Public opinion surveys indicate that people everywhere in the world generally consider the family as the highest priority; yet in recent years the broader culture seems to ignore or misdefine the family. Consider some of the changes of the past decade:

• In the name of “tolerance,” the definition of family has been expanded beyond recognition to the point that “family” can be any individuals of any gender who live together with or without commitment or children or attention to consequence.

http://www.lds.org/e...t-lasts-longest

I posted several times my reference to the Proclamation and was given the boot even though the document does state what a family is. Let there be no doubt from the above reference that the church does not recognize adefinition of family to include gay couples.

[Robert F. Smith]

And if we use the Heavenly Family referenced in stemelbow's post as a model, we would have to define the concept as husband, wife (father, mother) and offspring.

Although the nuclear family has recently become a virtual icon in Mormonism (witness the statue of mother, father, and child on Temple Square), Mosiah 2:5 suggests the primacy of the extended family, and our history and doctrine of polygyny might even suggest the primacy of complex families.  Yet, at a time in which single-parent families have become so common, even in the Mormon community, one wonders whether pat answers and ideal structures deal with practical reality:  See, for example, Stephen D. Ricks, "A Note on Family Structure in Mosiah 2:5," Interpreter 6 (2013):8-10, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-note-on-family-structure-in-mosiah-25/ .

Edited December 11, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Rob Osborn]

And I would like a CFR that this is church doctrine or even church policy.  Because when I talked to my stake president and bishop about this question they told me specifically that I could not have a gay room mate even if there was no sexual contact.  When you provide the CFR, then I will send it to my stake president and see if we can get this cleared up.

There may be a bigger issue here and the common judge in Israel (Bishop and Stake President) have the official say. If they feel you are just trying to go around the law of chastity here or find a loophole then they are going to rule the way they have and are justified in that ruling. Any appeal higher up in church leadership is not going to merit any action other than letting the Bishop judge in this scenario. If however you have made honest efforts to change your life into celibacy and stand in unison with the Brethren in the various policies regarding same sex marriage, homosexual behavior, etc, then of course nothing would be wrong with living with a roommate of someboduy of the same sex regardless of where a persons gender attraction lay.

 

  From what I have seen just on these threads it appears that you oppose the Brthren on almost every point regarding same sex marriage and some critical points in regards to homosexual behavior. Just based on that info, if I was your bishop, I also wouldn't extend full membership priveledges to you until you at least made strides to put away temptation and have support for the Church in where it stands on the issue. Here is a good Q and A by the church-

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction

[Scott Lloyd]

Although the nuclear family has recently become a virtual icon in Mormonism (witness the statue of mother, father, and child on Temple Square), Mosiah 2:5 suggests the primacy of the extended family, and our history and doctrine of polygyny might even suggest the primacy of complex families.  Yet, at a time in which single-parent families have become so common, even in the Mormon community, one wonders whether pat answers and ideal structures deal with practical reality:  See, for example, Stephen D. Ricks, "A Note on Family Structure in Mosiah 2:5," Interpreter 6 (2013):8-10, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-note-on-family-structure-in-mosiah-25/ .

I appreciate this and, for the record, I see the Church's definition of family as encompassing the concept of the extended family. We could hardly do otherwise and promulgate the doctrine of the sealing of progenitors and descendants across the generations.

 

I also agree that, in a temporal context, the definition does include single-parent families.

Edited December 12, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Ahab]

...

As used in the scriptures, a family consists of a husband and wife, children, and sometimes other relatives living in the same house or under one family head. A family can also be a single parent with children, a husband and wife without children, or even a single person living alone.

Eternal family

The Doctrine and Covenants sets forth the eternal nature of the marriage relationship and the family. Celestial marriage and a continuation of the family unit enable husbands and wives to become gods (D&C 132:15–20).

...

Let there be no doubt on how the LDS church defines family of the which a gay couple is "Not a family". There, I said my piece.

I think it helps to make things a little easier to understand when we realize that every child is the offspring of 2 people of the opposite sex who have had sexual relations with each other, regardless of whether or not those 2 people were "legally" regarded as a "married" couple, or in other words "legally" regarded as a "family".  

 

In other words, I think it helps to understand what a family by realizing what children are, rather than starting with the parents and then working down.

 

Once that is understood it should then be clear that there is no such thing as a single parent family with children, because every family with children has both a father and a mother regardless of whether either parent is "legally" married to the other.  And this is all based on the biological fact that it takes both a mother and a father to have offspring, with neither one being able to have children without the other.

 

I'm still trying to figure out how a single person can be considered a family, though.  Part of a family, yes, with that family being the family of his or her parents, but a family all on his own?  How does that work, exactly?  Can anyone explain that one to me?

[changed]

And some Mormons wonder why people think we don't view women as equals.

Other Christians don't even believe HM exists, so we're at least one leg up from that.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm still trying to figure out how a single person can be considered a family, though.  Part of a family, yes, with that family being the family of his or her parents, but a family all on his own?  How does that work, exactly?  Can anyone explain that one to me?

I agree with you. A single person can constitute a household, but hardly a self-contained family.

[stemelbow]

I think it helps to make things a little easier to understand when we realize that every child is the offspring of 2 people of the opposite sex who have had sexual relations with each other, regardless of whether or not those 2 people were "legally" regarded as a "married" couple, or in other words "legally" regarded as a "family".  

 

In other words, I think it helps to understand what a family by realizing what children are, rather than starting with the parents and then working down.

 

Once that is understood it should then be clear that there is no such thing as a single parent family with children, because every family with children has both a father and a mother regardless of whether either parent is "legally" married to the other.  And this is all based on the biological fact that it takes both a mother and a father to have offspring, with neither one being able to have children without the other.

 

I'm still trying to figure out how a single person can be considered a family, though.  Part of a family, yes, with that family being the family of his or her parents, but a family all on his own?  How does that work, exactly?  Can anyone explain that one to me?

 

Kids are popping up without sex even happening these days. 

[Ahab]

Kids are popping up without sex even happening these days. 

Even with a test tube it takes parts of both a woman and a man to make a baby.  Eggs. Sperm.  Womb.  That kind of thing.

 

Otherwise it's not really the same kind of being we are.

[Rob Osborn]

I think it helps to make things a little easier to understand when we realize that every child is the offspring of 2 people of the opposite sex who have had sexual relations with each other, regardless of whether or not those 2 people were "legally" regarded as a "married" couple, or in other words "legally" regarded as a "family".  

 

In other words, I think it helps to understand what a family by realizing what children are, rather than starting with the parents and then working down.

 

Once that is understood it should then be clear that there is no such thing as a single parent family with children, because every family with children has both a father and a mother regardless of whether either parent is "legally" married to the other.  And this is all based on the biological fact that it takes both a mother and a father to have offspring, with neither one being able to have children without the other.

 

I'm still trying to figure out how a single person can be considered a family, though.  Part of a family, yes, with that family being the family of his or her parents, but a family all on his own?  How does that work, exactly?  Can anyone explain that one to me?

I agree. I did some thiking on what you said and got to thinking it from the angle of Satan trying to destroy the "family". If Satanis successful in the cause of divorce which causes the family to disintegrate, regardless of how we define family, Satan has destroyed the family in that household. I believe even in the church we refer to the family as a father, mother and their children. Like you said, if we take away any one of tjose three its not really a family. You never see a newly wed couple call themselves a family. For instance- Mr. Evans doesnt introduce his partner, Mrs. Evans as his "family". You are right, families are children with a mother and father.

[Stone holm]

Obviously if the gay couple wanted to join the church they would have to live the law of chastity.  What if they promised to do so.  What would happen to the child?

 

If this is intended as an argument, it is a losing one.  Joseph studied and then rejected the Shakers which presumably this be like namely two men living together but maintaining complete celebacy while raising a child.  The adults would not be admitted to membership, the sins of the fathers (pun intended) would not be held against the child, at least not until he started championing their relationship at which point things would get essentially awkward for everyone involved.  Have you contemplated many three headed dwarfs lately?  Because this scenario sure sounds like one.

[Ahab]

I agree. I did some thiking on what you said and got to thinking it from the angle of Satan trying to destroy the "family". If Satanis successful in the cause of divorce which causes the family to disintegrate, regardless of how we define family, Satan has destroyed the family in that household. I believe even in the church we refer to the family as a father, mother and their children. Like you said, if we take away any one of tjose three its not really a family. You never see a newly wed couple call themselves a family. For instance- Mr. Evans doesnt introduce his partner, Mrs. Evans as his "family". You are right, families are children with a mother and father.

It's still a family even if the father and mother aren't "married" according to the law of the land, though, whether or not they are legally "divorced".   And the meaning behind "divorce" is to be separated, even if it's not a "legal" divorce, according to the law of the land.

 

The way I see it, what God wants is for each person to have a spouse with whom each can create their own family, independently and infinitely forever, so that their own family becomes the focus of their whole life as they help each other share the joy they both should have with each other as they live their lives as God lives his life.  It's to become a kingdom of their own making, with the children of each set of parents also having their own spouse to create their own family, independently and infinitely forever, etc etc etc.

 

People of the same sex can't have that with each other simply becuase they can't create their own children independently in their own "unit" in society, and people who can create their own children are not supposed to want to give them away to let other people raise them as their own children as if they (the actual father and mother) don't have that responsibility and are not accountable for doing that, themselves.   Some people don't seem to realize that children who are "adopted" still have their original mother and father as their parents, even if they have died or divorced or separated, and there will come a day when everything will be restored as it should be according to the will of God.

[toon]

Some people don't seem to realize that children who are "adopted" still have their original mother and father as their parents, even if they have died or divorced or separated, and there will come a day when everything will be restored as it should be according to the will of God.

 

Really?  Because I don't believe biological relationships are a necessary component of a family. 

[Ahab]

Really?  Because I don't believe biological relationships are a necessary component of a family. 

It would help you to believe it if you would first think about each person as a child, instead of as a parent or sibling.  Each person starts out as a child, and each child is the offspring of a mother and a father.  It's a biological fact and there is no getting around it.

 

You are a member of the family you are a member of because of your relationship to that family by blood.  It's the blood that binds you together as a family unit, otherwise you're just friends with each other and not really a family.

[california boy]

There may be a bigger issue here and the common judge in Israel (Bishop and Stake President) have the official say. If they feel you are just trying to go around the law of chastity here or find a loophole then they are going to rule the way they have and are justified in that ruling. Any appeal higher up in church leadership is not going to merit any action other than letting the Bishop judge in this scenario. If however you have made honest efforts to change your life into celibacy and stand in unison with the Brethren in the various policies regarding same sex marriage, homosexual behavior, etc, then of course nothing would be wrong with living with a roommate of someboduy of the same sex regardless of where a persons gender attraction lay.

 

  From what I have seen just on these threads it appears that you oppose the Brthren on almost every point regarding same sex marriage and some critical points in regards to homosexual behavior. Just based on that info, if I was your bishop, I also wouldn't extend full membership priveledges to you until you at least made strides to put away temptation and have support for the Church in where it stands on the issue. Here is a good Q and A by the church-

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction

 

That happened many years ago when I was trying to see if there was any place I could possible make a life in the church that was not filled with loneliness and despair.  I have since become quite curious about this whole policy against gay marriage that the church leaders have adopted.  I am not trying to change church policy on this matter.  The church can teach whatever it wants to teach.  But what I do fight against is those that claim this policy came from God. The moment the prophet tells the world that he has received a revelation on gay marriage, no matter what that revelation says, I will fall completely in line with God's will.  As you know, such revelation has not occurred.

 

We have learned by sad experience that when church leaders make up policies that prevent some of God's children from receiving temple blessings, they have been wrong.  It is not just the fact that black members were denied the temple blessings throughout their whole lives, but also the number of black people who never even participated in the gospel because of this racist policy and the number of people who would not join a church with such racist policies.  Think of how many lives were kept out of the gospel because of this policy.  Ooops.

 

I am fully aware of the law of chastity.  The scriptures and Christ are quite clear that sex outside of marriage is a grave sin.  So this policy against gay marriage has very profound repercussions for gay members.  Whenever a policy seems to run counter with the teachings and spirit of Christ's message while he was on this earth, I strongly question such policies.  

 

When church leaders have a policy against anyone being married, no matter who it is, it goes against the message of Christ.  Being celibate for life is not a teaching of Christ.  He taught of the importance of having a helpmate.  When the church has a policy that defines families as only a father/mother/children, it goes against the teachings of Christ.  (See Matthew 12:47-50)   To have a policy that some families should not exist goes against the teachings of Christ.  When a gay couple with a child has to be broken apart in order to participate in the gospel, that goes against the teachings of Christ.  When only straight people can become a family, that goes against the teachings of Christ.  When the church has a policy to keep anyone from not receiving the blessings of temple marriage, that goes against the teachings of Christ.

 

Look I get that most people on this board have no problem supporting the leaders of the church no matter what they say.  But if you are gay, and your life is completely impacted by a policy the church leaders have come up with that seems so counter to the gospel of Christ, then you tend to be a bit passionate against those that claim it is the will of God when the gospel of Christ seems to counter this entire policy.

 

How many gay members have left the church over this policy because they can not receive full temple blessings and believe that God loves them equally to their straight brothers and sisters and wants the same things for them in this life as well.  How many people have not listened to the missionaries because they believe that God loves all of His children equally and this policy is not in keeping with Christ's teachings.  For the time I have been on this board, the only thing I am saying about gay marriage is "Is this policy a big ooops?"

[california boy]

If this is intended as an argument, it is a losing one.  Joseph studied and then rejected the Shakers which presumably this be like namely two men living together but maintaining complete celebacy while raising a child.  The adults would not be admitted to membership, the sins of the fathers (pun intended) would not be held against the child, at least not until he started championing their relationship at which point things would get essentially awkward for everyone involved.  Have you contemplated many three headed dwarfs lately?  Because this scenario sure sounds like one.

An argument for what?

[Ahab]

For the time I have been on this board, the only thing I am saying about gay marriage is "Is this policy a big ooops?"

A big ooops in what sense?  And to who?

 

If by gay marriage you're talking about 2 people of the same sex having sexual relations with each other, whether married or not, then I recommend that you ask God whether or not what his prophets have said about it is true.  You do know how to tell whether or not someone is a prophet of God, don't you?  Just go with whatever God tells you both personally and through his prophets.  It's not as if you are or are going to be the only person on Earth who understands God's will on this issue.

 

From what God has taught me what he wants for you and me and every other person is to find a companion of the opposite sex who you can build a family with.  Same sex parters work great as friend and you can have as many friends as you want but if you want to have a family of your own someday you're going to need a partner of the opposite sex who can help you with that, and in a way that God will approve of.

[jwhitlock]

Although the nuclear family has recently become a virtual icon in Mormonism (witness the statue of mother, father, and child on Temple Square), Mosiah 2:5 suggests the primacy of the extended family, and our history and doctrine of polygyny might even suggest the primacy of complex families.  Yet, at a time in which single-parent families have become so common, even in the Mormon community, one wonders whether pat answers and ideal structures deal with practical reality:  See, for example, Stephen D. Ricks, "A Note on Family Structure in Mosiah 2:5," Interpreter 6 (2013):8-10, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-note-on-family-structure-in-mosiah-25/ .

My understanding has been that when the Lord introduced the various aspects of plural marriage to Joseph, He was trying (among other things) to teach the Saints and Joseph to think outside the box about the complexities of relationships as they exist in the kingdoms of glory. It's something that I believe we have difficulty grasping here, and so we tend to think in more structured terms about the relationships we have here. It's also the reason that I am fully convinced that all of the "poly" relationships as practiced by Joseph were under the direction of God, and not something that Joseph made up.

 

Having said that, although there will be complex relationships that we little understand in heaven, not all relationships are sanctioned by God. Some (as noted in D&C 132:7) are of this world only, and are not sanctioned by God out of this world. Other relationships are counterfeits offered in opposition to eternal relationships that the world attempts to rationalize as valid and equal to those eternal relationships.

 

Careful study of the scriptures and the prophets, done by the Spirit can provide us with some insight into valid eternal relationships, and which relationships are counterfeit and not sanctioned by God. Because developing valid eternal relationships seems to be of vital importance to God, and because the concepts surrounding those eternal relationships are being severely challenged by the world in the last days, I would expect to find a significant amount of counsel coming from the prophets where it concerns eternal relationships and the concept of family.

 

I have not been disappointed in that expectation.

[california boy]

A big ooops in what sense?  And to who?

 

If by gay marriage you're talking about 2 people of the same sex having sexual relations with each other, whether married or not, then I recommend that you ask God whether or not what his prophets have said about it is true.  You do know how to tell whether or not someone is a prophet of God, don't you?  Just go with whatever God tells you both personally and through his prophets.  It's not as if you are or are going to be the only person on Earth who understands God's will on this issue.

 

From what God has taught me what he wants for you and me and every other person is to find a companion of the opposite sex who you can build a family with.  Same sex parters work great as friend and you can have as many friends as you want but if you want to have a family of your own someday you're going to need a partner of the opposite sex who can help you with that, and in a way that God will approve of.

You don't see a big ooops in denying thousands of blacks from receiving temple blessings?  You don't see a big oops in this policy being a man made policy in stopping thousands from not wanting to join a church that has racial policies. 

 

Obviously I have asked God and I have studies this out A LOT.  The Spirit and conflicts with the message of the Savior tell me it just doesn't feel like a policy of God.  Combine that with the fact that homosexuality is not even mentioned in all of the gospels, the entire Book of Mormon, the entire D&C and the entire Pearl of Great Price.  Yet I am suppose to believe that God does not want homosexuals to marry.

[Stone holm]

You don't see a big ooops in denying thousands of blacks from receiving temple blessings?  You don't see a big oops in this policy being a man made policy in stopping thousands from not wanting to join a church that has racial policies. 

 

Obviously I have asked God and I have studies this out A LOT.  The Spirit and conflicts with the message of the Savior tell me it just doesn't feel like a policy of God.  Combine that with the fact that homosexuality is not even mentioned in all of the gospels, the entire Book of Mormon, the entire D&C and the entire Pearl of Great Price.  Yet I am suppose to believe that God does not want homosexuals to marry.

And so you throw the doctrine of continuation of the seed overboard because Christ was not as obsessed with matters sexual as our current day theologians are?

[David T]

There's a good case to be made for continuation of the seed in a gospel and eternal context to be one of adoption.There was a great BYU Studies paper on that recently. We are Abraham's, Moses, and Christ's seed and heirs through covenant and adoption. JS taught God found co-eternal intelligences and guided them. Adoption is the strongest and most consistently salvation-linked family bond in the scriptures.

Edited December 12, 2013 by David T

[Rob Osborn]

That happened many years ago when I was trying to see if there was any place I could possible make a life in the church that was not filled with loneliness and despair.  I have since become quite curious about this whole policy against gay marriage that the church leaders have adopted.  I am not trying to change church policy on this matter.  The church can teach whatever it wants to teach.  But what I do fight against is those that claim this policy came from God. The moment the prophet tells the world that he has received a revelation on gay marriage, no matter what that revelation says, I will fall completely in line with God's will.  As you know, such revelation has not occurred.

 

We have learned by sad experience that when church leaders make up policies that prevent some of God's children from receiving temple blessings, they have been wrong.  It is not just the fact that black members were denied the temple blessings throughout their whole lives, but also the number of black people who never even participated in the gospel because of this racist policy and the number of people who would not join a church with such racist policies.  Think of how many lives were kept out of the gospel because of this policy.  Ooops.

 

I am fully aware of the law of chastity.  The scriptures and Christ are quite clear that sex outside of marriage is a grave sin.  So this policy against gay marriage has very profound repercussions for gay members.  Whenever a policy seems to run counter with the teachings and spirit of Christ's message while he was on this earth, I strongly question such policies.  

 

When church leaders have a policy against anyone being married, no matter who it is, it goes against the message of Christ.  Being celibate for life is not a teaching of Christ.  He taught of the importance of having a helpmate.  When the church has a policy that defines families as only a father/mother/children, it goes against the teachings of Christ.  (See Matthew 12:47-50)   To have a policy that some families should not exist goes against the teachings of Christ.  When a gay couple with a child has to be broken apart in order to participate in the gospel, that goes against the teachings of Christ.  When only straight people can become a family, that goes against the teachings of Christ.  When the church has a policy to keep anyone from not receiving the blessings of temple marriage, that goes against the teachings of Christ.

 

Look I get that most people on this board have no problem supporting the leaders of the church no matter what they say.  But if you are gay, and your life is completely impacted by a policy the church leaders have come up with that seems so counter to the gospel of Christ, then you tend to be a bit passionate against those that claim it is the will of God when the gospel of Christ seems to counter this entire policy.

 

How many gay members have left the church over this policy because they can not receive full temple blessings and believe that God loves them equally to their straight brothers and sisters and wants the same things for them in this life as well.  How many people have not listened to the missionaries because they believe that God loves all of His children equally and this policy is not in keeping with Christ's teachings.  For the time I have been on this board, the only thing I am saying about gay marriage is "Is this policy a big ooops?"

This isn't a marriage issue at all. You feel that until gay marriage would become ratified that you are being picked on similar to the whole Blacks and the priesthood issue. First off, stop equating the two as if man has made some great error in denying gay people to marry. From the beginning of time God has instructed man and woman to be married and then multiply and replenish the earth. He has also instituted strict laws concerning matters of sexuality. The scriptures are clear against homosexual behavior. You make a false claim that God is silent on the matter .

http://www.openbible.info/topics/homosexuality

You are fighting an endless futile battle if you think the Lord is going to someday allow homosexual behavior.

[Stone holm]

There's a good case to be made for continuation of the seed in a gospel and eternal context to be one of adoption.There was a great BYU Studies paper on that recently. We are Abraham's, Moses, and Christ's seed and heirs through covenant and adoption. JS taught God found co-eternal intelligences and guided them. Adoption is the strongest and most consistently salvation-linked family bond in the scriptures.

Actually, Brigham Young taught that the vast majority of us were of Abraham and not by way of adoption, and though we honor adoption here, it has nothing to do with the continuation of the seed.

[Robert F. Smith]

There may be a bigger issue here and the common judge in Israel (Bishop and Stake President) have the official say. If they feel you are just trying to go around the law of chastity here or find a loophole then they are going to rule the way they have and are justified in that ruling. Any appeal higher up in church leadership is not going to merit any action other than letting the Bishop judge in this scenario. If however you have made honest efforts to change your life into celibacy and stand in unison with the Brethren in the various policies regarding same sex marriage, homosexual behavior, etc, then of course nothing would be wrong with living with a roommate of someboduy of the same sex regardless of where a persons gender attraction lay.

 

  From what I have seen just on these threads it appears that you oppose the Brthren on almost every point regarding same sex marriage and some critical points in regards to homosexual behavior. Just based on that info, if I was your bishop, I also wouldn't extend full membership priveledges to you until you at least made strides to put away temptation and have support for the Church in where it stands on the issue. Here is a good Q and A by the church-

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction

Probably not a good idea, Rob, to sit in judgment of participants in the discussions on this board.  Making it personal accomplishes nothing.  Just be nice and allow his bishop to sit in judgment if he so chooses.  That is not your prerogative.

[Robert F. Smith]

I appreciate this and, for the record, I see the Church's definition of family as encompassing the concept of the extended family. We could hardly do otherwise and promulgate the doctrine of the sealing of progenitors and descendants across the generations.

 

I also agree that, in a temporal context, the definition does include single-parent families.

I wasn't thinking so much of the human family writ large, but rather of the extended family as it existed only a short time ago in America:  At least three generations in one house.  In some societies that is even extended to the clan, in which aunts, uncles, and cousins also reside in a family compound with your family (I have Filipino friends who grew up that way), and that was the basis of many tribal societies up until recent times.  I consider the modern nuclear family far less healthy in every way than the old extended family.

 

Any sociologist or anthropologist can explain to you why the extended family is far healthier.  I suspect that our obsession with the nuclear family is itself destructive in many ways, from lack of live-in childcare (when both wife & husband work), along with the lack of wise oldsters on hand to act as a leavening influence on brash, youthful decision-making.  I'd look for the causes of the breakdown of families in that primacy of the unworkable nuclear family.  Moreover, both government and religious organizations have traditionally looked on the family as a competitor and have sought to diminish the power and privileges of the family.

 

It is a good thing that the LDS Church emphasizes that any Church function which conflicts with the needs of the family takes second place, but I would like to see efforts expended to make extended families once again the norm.  We have lost something precious, and it may be very difficult to put it back together again without rebuilding extended families.  We need tax incentives in areas of large family structures, care for one's kin at home (children or old folks), moving expenses specifically for the purpose of getting the extended family back together, etc.

 

It is easy for Satan to break up the nuclear family.  Let's make his job more difficult.