General Conference: Sustaining Traditional Marriage Definition

[rockpond]

The fact that anyone is even entertaining the notion of illicit sexual behavior one day being accepted in the Church is evidence of that.

 

I've not seen it so much in my own neighborhood, but I've certainly seen it on this board.

 

I'm not aware of anyone here "entertaining the notion of illicit sexual behavior" being accepted in the Church.

[rockpond]

Certainly.

 

In the urban school district next to us, it has become a badge of "honor" for young women ages 13 and up to have children out of wedlock. We've seen some with three children before they hit 20. Often the grandmothers of the young girls are the ones taking care of the children. The teenager's mother is often not even in the picture, and the teen herself doesn't care, because the school system provides full day care from early morning until well into the evening. Much of what the government does in enabling behavior has the unintended consequence of removing the responsibility of the teen caring for her children.  It's a very, very real problem.

 

Yeah, that's a good example.  And that reminds me that I guess I do know of a similar example albeit secondhand.  When my parents were serving their mission in England they told me how the government there provides apartments and financial support to unwed mothers to the degree that it is possibly enticing young women to get pregnant out of wedlock so that they can get their own place.  (If my details are wrong, don't shoot the messenger -- it's what my parents told me.)

[rockpond]

I don't know if it that difficult to find examples of the challenges to the family in today's society.  In my extended family and, if social polling is to be believed, divorce is at an all-time high.  More importantly, if the CDC is to be believed, 40.6% of all live births come from unwed mothers.  Of my six siblings three have been divorced and the rest of us have remained married to our first spouse for over 30 years.  

 

In addition, more people live together rather than in a marriage.  Combine this with the fact that 22% of our children live in poverty and I begin to wonder exactly how can anyone think that marriage is a strongly supported social construct in the the USA today?  

 

Rock, are you seriously questioning that the idea of having a family of a father and mother with children is under attack today or are you striving to close your eyes to reality?  This is not difficult to see or understand.  Maybe we should back up and have you define what you think society would look like to you and Daniel if the idea of the traditional family was actually under attack?  What would be different than what we see?  

 

I wasn't questioning the reality of Sister Oscarson's quote, I was asking for individual's real life examples because I couldn't think of anywhere in my own circles where "The sanctity of the home and the essential purposes of the family are being questioned, criticized and assaulted on every front."

[The Nehor]

Yeah, that's a good example.  And that reminds me that I guess I do know of a similar example albeit secondhand.  When my parents were serving their mission in England they told me how the government there provides apartments and financial support to unwed mothers to the degree that it is possibly enticing young women to get pregnant out of wedlock so that they can get their own place.  (If my details are wrong, don't shoot the messenger -- it's what my parents told me.)

 

This was true when I was on my mission in England. It was not general but amongst the counsel homes (government-given homes) it was not uncommon. I remember being asked how old you have to be in America to get your own home if you have a child. We were talking with one family and a mother and daughter got into an argument. The mother was encouraging her daughter to find a boy and get pregnant so she could move out and get her own house. The girl was trying to get into a university. I don't know what happened but I hope the girl stuck to her guns. Even if the couple are together and the father lives there this fact is often hidden to keep the house. More then once I heard mothers teaching their children to lie to government agents and tell them their dad did not live there even if he did.

 

This was not by any means universal. My understanding is that this form of welfare has been cut back since I was there. No idea what changed on a practical level.

[rockpond]

This was not by any means universal. My understanding is that this form of welfare has been cut back since I was there. No idea what changed on a practical level.

 

I don't know about it being cut back... my parents have only been home for a few years.  They described these single mothers receiving an apartment, baby supplies (crib, buggy, etc), and some form of allowance.

[The Nehor]

I don't know about it being cut back... my parents have only been home for a few years.  They described these single mothers receiving an apartment, baby supplies (crib, buggy, etc), and some form of allowance.

 

Sounds the same. Usually they got a small house when I was there. I was not near the major cities. I imagine in London and other areas of the south it was probably an apartment/flat instead.

[mormonnewb]

Certainly.

In the urban school district next to us, it has become a badge of "honor" for young women ages 13 and up to have children out of wedlock. We've seen some with three children before they hit 20. Often the grandmothers of the young girls are the ones taking care of the children. The teenager's mother is often not even in the picture, and the teen herself doesn't care, because the school system provides full day care from early morning until well into the evening. Much of what the government does in enabling behavior has the unintended consequence of removing the responsibility of the teen caring for her children. It's a very, very real problem.

STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT!

No one in "urban" areas teaches their children that out-of-wedlock births are something to aspire to. I've been to HUNDREDS of "urban" church services and never once heard the pastor say, "Go out and get knocked up. Thus says the Lord."

Sure, many urban teens are having babies out of wedlock, but it is no more "a badge of honor" than it is for Utah housewives to become addicted to prescription drugs (which, according to CNN, is also a rampant problem). So I'm more than okay with suggestions for how to deal with the problem, but let's not start from the premise that these people are morally-deranged.

[Scott Lloyd]

STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT!

No one in "urban" areas teaches their children that out-of-wedlock births are something to aspire to. I've been to HUNDREDS of "urban" church services and never once heard the pastor say, "Go out and get knocked up. Thus says the Lord."

Sure, many urban teens are having babies out of wedlock, but it is no more "a badge of honor" than it is for Utah housewives to become addicted to prescription drugs (which, according to CNN, is also a rampant problem). So I'm more than okay with suggestions for how to deal with the problem, but let's not start from the premise that these people are morally-deranged.

I'm quite certain that one is not apt to hear such a thing from a preacher in an urban church.

 

Instead the message is apt to come from, say, millionaire rap singers idolized by young people in such an environment, indicative of a street culture that does not value the nuclear family; marital fidelity; chastity; respect for womanhood; the rearing of children in a stable, two-parent home; honor; decency; that sort of thing.

Edited April 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Storm Rider]

Newb, what contributes to the high incidence of unwed mothers among urban populations?  I don't think anyone or any group actually encourages young women down this path, but it certainly does not seem to have any shame associated with such a  situation.

Edited April 4, 2015 by Storm Rider

[jwhitlock]

STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT!

No one in "urban" areas teaches their children that out-of-wedlock births are something to aspire to. I've been to HUNDREDS of "urban" church services and never once heard the pastor say, "Go out and get knocked up. Thus says the Lord."

Sure, many urban teens are having babies out of wedlock, but it is no more "a badge of honor" than it is for Utah housewives to become addicted to prescription drugs (which, according to CNN, is also a rampant problem). So I'm more than okay with suggestions for how to deal with the problem, but let's not start from the premise that these people are morally-deranged.

 

Perhaps you'd like to show me where I claimed they were being taught that in the churches. I"m not aware that I said that anywhere, but if it helps you with some kind of weird rationalization, then be my guest.

 

Do you have any experience with the peer pressure (and as Scott mentioned, the media hype) that produces this kind of behavior? That's where the "badge of honor" comes from, the same way that gangs encourage destructive conduct in order to "fit in". The moral perspective (which is a better description than your hyped phrase "morally-deranged") of these kids has been severely damaged by that peer and cultural pressure, and it is enabled by government policies and programs that let them avoid the consequences of such behavior (speaking of the young women).

 

If you're not willing to recognize what the root of the problem is, you'll never solve it. And that's true even when the clear root causes of those problems conflict with your world-view.

 

BTW, nice touch in twisting this to come back and infer something negative about the church and its members. You really like doing that, don't you.

[mormonnewb]

Newb, what attributes to the high incidence of unwed mothers among urban populations?  I don't think anyone or any group actually encourages young women down this path, but it certainly does not seem to have any shame associated with such a  situation.

 

I agree that the shame factor has decreased.  In yesteryear, when a teenager got pregnant, the family would take a trip "down south" and 6-8 months later, she would return with her "little brother."  This is no longer the case in urban AND non-urban neighborhoods.  But I wouldn't go so far as to claim that it is a "badge of honor" and that being an unwed mother is something that is glorified as part of "urban culture."

 

Now, as for why the spike in out-of-wedlock births, there are a myriad of factors (likely the same ones being experienced in non-urban areas, which has experienced an only slightly smaller spike in unwed motherhood).  As for the remaining disparity, I would GUESS that it comes down to economics.

 

I went to college with LOTS of rich kids.  It is my testimony that these kids were having more unmarried sex than any urbanite could even fathom (I know that i found it unfathomable ... although not altogether distressing ... pray for me).  But amazingly, I can't think of one young woman in my college of, say, 6,000 students who had a baby during those four years.  I suspect that the reason for this is two-fold: (1) Those young people were more "careful" because they had much more to lose (i.e., bright futures at investment banking houses and in government); and (2) When "mistakes" did happen, they had the money to pay for certain medical procedures.

 

However, I don't think the reason is because they had been raised with completely different values.  I certainly don't expect that many of them feared being "disowned" by their families or driven into social exile by their communities.  They simply had more reasons to avoid being unwed mothers because it could cost them professional opportunities; or just even social opportunities.  It's pretty difficult to spend your senior summer backpacking through Europe with a newborn in tow.  On the other hand, the urban young woman isn't faced with the same missed opportunities.  From her standpoint, she's going to be working in a dead-end job (with or without a baby).  Likewise, she isn't going to Europe no matter how many times she "chooses the right."  So being "careful" isn't as much of a concern.

 

But this isn't an indication that the urbanite doesn't know any better, or even that the behavior is being encouraged or promoted by others.  People with little or nothing to lose are just less careful ... period.  For example, I NEVER locked the doors or windows of my first car.  This wasn't because (as other have suggested), I was trying to emulate rappers.  I didn't lock the car up because it had a blue book value of about $38.  You don't install Lo-Jack on a $38 vehicle.  Neither do you wash it.  And it isn't because people who own clunkers don't "believe" in locking doors or being able to see the original paint color.  It simply because it isn't worth the trouble.

 

In short, my theory (and it's just that) is that many young "urban" people think of their life prospects as I viewed my first car.  It simply isn't worth a lot, so why bother taking good care of it.  Instead, you might as well try to get whatever enjoyment out of it while you can.  But once again, it isn't because people are standing by cheering them on.  It's simply a (not altogether irrational) response to a bad situation.

 

In my view, the real solution is to change their self-perceptions.  To get them to think that they have as much worth and value as the kids with whom I went to college.  Of course, the biggest challenge is that we must first convince ourselves that this is true.  And quite frankly, I don't think that us suburbanites have been "fully persuaded" on that question.

[jwhitlock]

 But I wouldn't go so far as to claim that it is a "badge of honor" and that being an unwed mother is something that is glorified as part of "urban culture."

 

Again I ask, do you have any experience at all in working with these young women, such as in a foster home environment? Do you have any idea at all of the peer pressure that fosters this attitude? Are you aware at all of the urban gang attitude that glorifies destructive behavior that is another symptom of what their cultural attitudes really are?

 

It's real, and trying to dismiss it as not real means that you will never solve that problem, because you will never acknowledge that basic attitudes need to change before real change can happen.

 

I, for one, admire the young people in such environments that rise above it. They do, despite your comments, realize that they have much to lose and much to live for, and so they fight the odds and the culture and the peer pressure and work to make something of themselves. They are people of strength and of character who realize that such "badges of honor" aren't worth anything and that peer opinions are fickle and shouldn't be used as life-guides.

 

One of the attacks on the family is the notion that responsibilities and consequences are something that can be avoided. As you noted, that's not only an attitude among urban kids, but among other social and economic groups as well. It's a clear symptom of the breakdown of the family structure in all of those areas, a lack of moral guidance, a lack of respect for appropriate authority, a lack of understanding of responsibility, and demands for entitlement, whether from the government or from rich parents who have no clue about the damage they do with unrestricted handouts.

 

The damage that dysfunctional families do to their children is immense. They become, in turn, dysfunctional members of society, perpetuating a vicious cycle of destruction among their own children.

 

I've seen it. It's real. Denying that those perspective exist means that proposed "solutions" will never solve those problems.

[mormonnewb]

Again I ask, do you have any experience at all in working with these young women, such as in a foster home environment? Do you have any idea at all of the peer pressure that fosters this attitude? Are you aware at all of the urban gang attitude that glorifies destructive behavior that is another symptom of what their cultural attitudes really are?

 

 

I don't deny that there are voices in the "culture" that advocate for destructive and immoral behavior, but that is the case in ANY culture.  For instance, while urban kids are listening to rap music, suburban kids are listening to heavy-metal and punk rock (which often has an equally destructive message).  Yet, I don't think that you would suggest that these musicians represent the dominant ethos of "suburban culture."  So why would you suggest that rappers speak for urbanites?

 

No urban parent says to his child, "Now, son, as Ice Cube has taught us ... $%^ the police!"  And above all, "Whoomp, there it is!"  When an urban parent tucks his/her child into bed, they say EXACTLY what you would say to your children -- "Thank God!  Study hard!  And stay out of trouble!"

 

I will concede that, sadly, many urban children have to tuck themselves into bed.  That is a REAL problem.  I'm simply pushing back against the idea that the dominant ethos of the community is so twisted that the kids don't actually know right from wrong.  Now, getting them to do the right thing is something that EVERY community struggles with.

[jwhitlock]

I don't deny that there are voices in the "culture" that advocate for destructive and immoral behavior, but that is the case in ANY culture.  For instance, while urban kids are listening to rap music, suburban kids are listening to heavy-metal and punk rock (which often has an equally destructive message).  Yet, I don't think that you would suggest that these musicians represent the dominant ethos of "suburban culture."  So why would you suggest that rappers speak for urbanites?

 

No urban parent says to his child, "Now, son, as Ice Cube has taught us ... $%^ the police!"  And above all, "Whoomp, there it is!"  When an urban parent tucks his/her child into bed, they say EXACTLY what you would say to your children -- "Thank God!  Study hard!  And stay out of trouble!"

 

I will concede that, sadly, many urban children have to tuck themselves into bed.  That is a REAL problem.  I'm simply pushing back against the idea that the dominant ethos of the community is so twisted that the kids don't actually know right from wrong.  Now, getting them to do the right thing is something that EVERY community struggles with.

 

We seem to be making progress here, though you're still struggling with what's really going on.

 

The example rockpond asked for was how the family was being destroyed. I gave one that readily came to mind because of my experiences. It did not in any way justify what is going on in suburban culture or anywhere else. It was simply an observation about the root causes (peer pressure, culture, music, etc.) that are of significant influence in urban culture. I readily admit that similar influences exist elsewhere, but they are somewhat more advanced in urban cultures. For instance, urban cultures have lead in out of wedlock births, and the rest of the country is following in that direction. So if we can understand the root causes of urban problems, we can more readily deal with those problems in all areas of society.

 

Though I never used the term "dominant", no one with experience in working with these kids can minimize the extensive nature of the problems which exist. Those who are able to escape those  negative influences are becoming the exception rather than the rule. And while there are many parents (including single mothers) who are struggling to counter the negative peer pressure and culture, they are many times fighting a losing battle.

 

There are parents, both urban and suburban, who are actively teaching their children unrighteous principles. They do exist. You can find them not only in dysfunctional families whose children are in foster care, but you can also find them in school PTO meetings, at sports games, in the malls, and other places. Some parents do indeed tuck their children in bed with "it's ok as long as you don't get caught".

 

This is reality. It happens. There are good families and parents with righteous intentions in all environments, but there is increasing pressure to succumb. I agree that it occurs in all areas of society, but urban areas often are more advanced in their problems, and very little is being done to strength families in those areas.

[mormonnewb]

We seem to be making progress here, though you're still struggling with what's really going on.

 

The example rockpond asked for was how the family was being destroyed. I gave one that readily came to mind because of my experiences. It did not in any way justify what is going on in suburban culture or anywhere else. It was simply an observation about the root causes (peer pressure, culture, music, etc.) that are of significant influence in urban culture. I readily admit that similar influences exist elsewhere, but they are somewhat more advanced in urban cultures. For instance, urban cultures have lead in out of wedlock births, and the rest of the country is following in that direction. So if we can understand the root causes of urban problems, we can more readily deal with those problems in all areas of society.

 

Though I never used the term "dominant", no one with experience in working with these kids can minimize the extensive nature of the problems which exist. Those who are able to escape those  negative influences are becoming the exception rather than the rule. And while there are many parents (including single mothers) who are struggling to counter the negative peer pressure and culture, they are many times fighting a losing battle.

 

There are parents, both urban and suburban, who are actively teaching their children unrighteous principles. They do exist. You can find them not only in dysfunctional families whose children are in foster care, but you can also find them in school PTO meetings, at sports games, in the malls, and other places. Some parents do indeed tuck their children in bed with "it's ok as long as you don't get caught".

 

This is reality. It happens. There are good families and parents with righteous intentions in all environments, but there is increasing pressure to succumb. I agree that it occurs in all areas of society, but urban areas often are more advanced in their problems, and very little is being done to strength families in those areas.

 

Okay, we're close enough together to consider this progress.

 

One last thing: In a couple instances, you have questioned whether I have any experience with urban youth.  To answer your question, I have quite a bit of experience with them.  More specifically, I WAS them.  I was born in Compton, California.  From your experience with urban youths, you've certainly heard of the place.  It is actually the home of "gangsta rap."  So I have a SLIGHT idea about what is happening in the hood.

 

That being said, I don't claim to have the answers to solving all of the ills of urban America.  I grew up on a block that produced a lawyer, a teacher, a police officer and a convicted murderer.  And quite honestly, I can't tell you that there was any substantive difference in how we were raised.  The convicted murderer grew up in a house with two (seemingly loving) parents.  I certainly don't remember anything terribly dysfunctional from the times I played at his house as a child.  Perhaps, when no one was around, his parents encouraged him to do "some killing" or maybe he got a hold of a bad rap album.  But I suspect that the answer is probably a lot more nuanced and that, without one or two lucky breaks that came my way, I might be having this same discussion on prisondialogue.com.

[california boy]

I don't know if it that difficult to find examples of the challenges to the family in today's society.  In my extended family and, if social polling is to be believed, divorce is at an all-time high.  More importantly, if the CDC is to be believed, 40.6% of all live births come from unwed mothers.  Of my six siblings three have been divorced and the rest of us have remained married to our first spouse for over 30 years.  

 

In addition, more people live together rather than in a marriage.  Combine this with the fact that 22% of our children live in poverty and I begin to wonder exactly how can anyone think that marriage is a strongly supported social construct in the the USA today?  

 

Rock, are you seriously questioning that the idea of having a family of a father and mother with children is under attack today or are you striving to close your eyes to reality?  This is not difficult to see or understand.  Maybe we should back up and have you define what you think society would look like to you and Daniel if the idea of the traditional family was actually under attack?  What would be different than what we see?  

 

 

 

So what are you looking for? None of my friends from high school stayed married to their first wife or husband, most broke up due to adultery. Most of the males refuse to get married again and have women over just for sex. Some of the women are in the same exact position. All of them have children who have been used in custody battles to"get back" at their spouse.  I think my wife and I are the only couple of the whole group still married to our original spouse. The hilarious part is we were told in a marriage and family life class at the local junior college that our marriage would never work because we got married too young. That was 42 years ago. We are not sealed  but we took the for better or for worse, in sickness or in health, until death do us part vows serious.

 

 

Finally! Some posts that actually identify the real forces that are attacking the family.  As I said in another thread, the number of gay marriages is only about .3-.5% of the population  Yeah that is right a half of one percent of the population at the most is a gay marriage.  Yet we have had countless threads on how evil SSM is and how THAT is what is destroying the family.  Scott alone has started what 3 or 4 threads just in the past week alone attacking SSM?  Maybe it is time to move off of SSM and on to the real problems facing LDS families today.

 

While the issues stated in these post are such a significant higher number that one wonders why anyone even feels the need to mention gay marriage is a factor in the breakdown of the family.  This attack on family is not because the definition of marriage is no longer one man one woman.  This attack on the family is because the entire definition mostly straight marriages have become optional.  It is by far the one man one woman/ending in divorce or not marrying that is the BIG problem.  So quit using gay marriage as the scape goat and address the real attacks on the family.

 

If there is any blame on the devaluing of marriage from gay marriage, it comes from religion that is pushing the idea that marriage is  ordained of God.  If you teach that marriage is ordained of God and no one else, what message does a couple get if they don't value God or religion?  Simply this.  Marriage is only important if you are religious.  For everyone else, it is just a legal document that is only valid until one of the people in the relationship no longer wants to be in the relationship.  

[jwhitlock]

Elder Perry's talk about the Vatican sponsored conference on the family is confirming the OP.

[Avatar4321]

President packer's talk affirmed the family too

[mormonnewb]

President packer's talk affirmed the family too

 

And we got to find out where babies come from.  Who knew?

[Avatar4321]

And we got to find out where babies come from.  Who knew?

mocking the gospel isn't exactly the healthiest move. Especially for a saint.

[Scott Lloyd]

And we got to find out where babies come from.  Who knew?

Such mockery of the Lord's anointed is not welcome on my thread. Take it elsewhere.

[Scott Lloyd]

mocking the gospel isn't exactly the healthiest move. Especially for a saint.

I guess we were on the same wave length.

[Scott Lloyd]

Elder Perry's talk about the Vatican sponsored conference on the family is confirming the OP.

Yes.

 

When I get time, I hope to post some direct quotes.

[mormonnewb]

mocking the gospel isn't exactly the healthiest move. Especially for a saint.

 

What isn't healthy is that you think that President Packer IS the Gospel.

[mormonnewb]

Such mockery of the Lord's anointed is not welcome on my thread. Take it elsewhere.

 

Oh, I didn't know that this was YOUR thread.  In that case, I humbly ask for YOUR forgiveness. Because Scott forbid that I make you angry enough to exercise your only real power -- to close down this thread.

 

I don't know how old you are exactly, but I do know that you are too old to be on message board yelling, "Mine!  Mine!  Mine!"  But to keep you from taking your marbles and going home, I will leave YOUR thread.

 

Or to put it in language that you will understand, "I didn't want to be in your stupid thread anyway!  So there!"