Is The Nuclear Family Really Irrelevant?

[USU78]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-sobering-evidence-of-social-science/2016/07/06/4a3831f8-42dd-11e6-bc99-7d269f8719b1_story.html?postshare=7021467896740794&tid=ss_fb

Quote

[T]he “tangle” of pathologies associated with the absence of fathers produces a continually renewed cohort of inadequately socialized adolescent males. Socializing them is society’s urgent business if it is to avoid chaotic neighborhoods and schools where maintaining discipline displaces teaching. Coleman documented how schools are reflections of, rather than cures for, the failure of families to function as the primary transmitters of social capital.

 

[The Nehor]

On the other hand if more fathers were present we would lose a major source of prostitutes and strippers. By having fathers present we are destroying jobs.

Edited July 8, 2016 by The Nehor

[longview]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

By having fathers present we are destroying jobs.

You are thinking way too narrow.  Responsible fathers create far more beneficial occupations and at the same time tamping down on the vice industries.  That way we come out light years ahead.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, longview said:

You are thinking way too narrow.  Responsible fathers create far more beneficial occupations and at the same time tamping down on the vice industries.  That way we come out light years ahead.

You have made me reconsider as I was definitely serious the whole time and not at all joking.

[longview]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You have made me reconsider as I was definitely serious the whole time and not at all joking.

Yeah, sometimes I can't tell considering that many on this board are "wild-eyed Bolsheviks" and do not believe in personal responsibility.  

Besides, you forgot to tag your "wisecrack" with an emoticon.  

[thesometimesaint]

36 minutes ago, longview said:

Yeah, sometimes I can't tell considering that many on this board are "wild-eyed Bolsheviks" and do not believe in personal responsibility.  

Besides, you forgot to tag your "wisecrack" with an emoticon.  

CFR

[Storm Rider]

On 7/7/2016 at 4:27 PM, USU78 said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-sobering-evidence-of-social-science/2016/07/06/4a3831f8-42dd-11e6-bc99-7d269f8719b1_story.html?postshare=7021467896740794&tid=ss_fb

 

Interesting, particularly when so much of academia, government, and almost all social organizations have been mindlessly destroying the family in exchange for "tolerance" (Gads, I despise the way this word is used today) and inclusiveness.  In their enlightened minds, society is better off by supporting anything but the nuclear family.  Women need to work outside the home in order to achieve their "true" potential; they need to be perceived as the equal of all males physically regardless of how many times it is demonstrated they are not (think military performance here), all sexual choices must be accepted without any consideration of health, logic, and any other standard except "I want".  Lastly, the male gender must be despised and labeled as violent rapists; the role of fatherhood is made to be feared by women and children.  Young males, in particular, must be ignored and unsupported in education and society in general in order to elevate females in their much delayed, true self-actualization.  

Then those same institutions come face-to-face with the reality of how poorly human society performs without the nuclear family and are stumped.  They ask themselves, "Why isn't our enlightened social engineering producing the very height of human achievement?"  Yet, they are never willing to admit their vision only brings social destruction and they are unwilling to pay the price of teaching what makes a social structure strong - the healthy, nuclear family.  

Edited July 9, 2016 by Storm Rider

[VideoGameJunkie]

The nuclear family is essential in the eternities as it is the most important unit.

[carbon dioxide]

The "nuclear family" may not be that important in society but that does not mean its not important or essential.  In fact, probably much of the terrible things that will occur in nations in the future with social breakdowns and war will be caused in part by the loss of the nuclear family and replacement with alternative families that are not as strong.  God is a God of many worlds.  He has seen what works and does not work in billions of world throughout the universe.  This earth is not a first time experiment for him.  So when God says this works and this does no work, he as far more data on the issue than anyone else.  We can think our society is different or special but not really.  Our society will reap what it sows and if it wants to change the laws of God for an alternative version that is our right and an agency but we should not blame or curse God for our downfall. We did it to ourselves. 

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

The nuclear family is essential in the eternities as it is the most important unit.

Not really. We will all be Sealed into one family in the eternities.

[Robert F. Smith]

20 hours ago, longview said:

You are thinking way too narrow.  Responsible fathers create far more beneficial occupations and at the same time tamping down on the vice industries.  That way we come out light years ahead.

You may have missed the facetious intent of the Nehor's comment.  

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

The nuclear family is essential in the eternities as it is the most important unit.

The nuclear family may be important, and after all there is even a statue dedicated to it on Temple Square, but it is not primary.  As thesometimesaint suggested, the extended family has priority (Mosiah 2:5), both here and hereafter.

[longview]

11 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

CFR

Ok.  Bob Crockett believes that the government was justified in looting the PEOPLE's Social Security LOCK BOX TRUST FUND, calling it nothing more than a "tax" to be used for any purpose (as if the people are NOT that concerned about having a stable retirement).  Here is my comment (see Bob's comments following shortly after) - - -

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66726-church-condemns-peaceful-protest/?page=5#comment-1209575394

Edited July 9, 2016 by longview

[Storm Rider]

8 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Not really. We will all be Sealed into one family in the eternities.

Explain how that works if there are no families to create that line of ancestors and progeny?  No explain if the nuclear family unit is not primary, what is?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, longview said:

Ok.  Bob Crockett believes that the government was justified in looting the PEOPLE's Social Security LOCK BOX TRUST FUND, calling it nothing more than a "tax" to be used for any purpose (as if the people are NOT that concerned about having a stable retirement).  Here is my comment (see Bob's comments following shortly after) - - -

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66726-church-condemns-peaceful-protest/?page=5#comment-1209575394

I am not sure you are representing the nuances of his view.  He appears to me to believe Social Security never should have existed in the first place and the so-called trust fund was a misunderstanding of what SS really was and is.

[longview]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

I am not sure you are representing the nuances of his view.  He appears to me to believe Social Security never should have existed in the first place and the so-called trust fund was a misunderstanding of what SS really was and is.

Nuanced?  It was FDR that cynically introduced the SS plan which EXPLICITLY required workers (and employers) to deduct from their paychecks (plus the employers' matching contribution) to go SPECIFICALLY into the trust fund.  Why do I say "cynically?"  Because he set the retirement age close to the life expectancy, expecting to reap a rich haul for more government programs.  Of course we all know that life expectancy has been improving ever since.

In the linked thread, Bob Crockett said this:

"Before and after LBJ the social security was just a tax.  A retiree did not ever have any sort of vested interest in the revenues of the program. If there isn't enough money in the program, the feds make it up by printing money or deficit spending.  Conservatives foolishly try to claim that at one time the social security program was something special and different. It wasn't."

It is VERY strange for Bob to claim that the workers did NOT have "any sort of VESTED interest."  The vast majority would strongly disagree.  They are very much aware of the SS deduction and it goes WITHOUT question that they looked forward to retirement with the comfort of knowing they will receive a monthly annuity.  IT IS THEIR MONEY, not government "entitlement" or "welfare."  The only benefit government provides in this case is "mandated savings" and the administration of investments and disbursement (sadly, too many people do not have the self-discipline to save for their retirement).

It is Bob who is unable to understand the distinction between:  (1) the value of long term compounding of investments in a secure fund: (2) paying retirees from current revenues (i.e. taxes on young workers).  I made this statement in the linked thread:

"This was an actuarially sound program based on mortality tables (insurance aspects), savings (reflecting the level of income of each participant), and conservative investments (the magic of long term compounding of interests and better protection against inflation).  BUT LBJ signed legislation during his presidency to allow the government to STEAL the money out of the "LOCK BOX TRUST FUND" which was NEVER paid back.  Liberals make the cynical excuse that IOUs would be paid back.  As you know, the government has the nasty habit of running deficits for most years (the debt is now a staggering tens of TRILLIONS of dollars).  Now we have two results:  1- government is forced to pay retirees with income tax from current workers (used to be several workers per retiree, but now approaching just two workers per retiree without the benefit of long term compounding of funds);  2- retirees are only receiving 1/3 of the annuity that they should have gotten if the LOCK BOX had not been breached (the government WASTED the other 2/3).  If the LOCK BOX had been preserved, it would NOT have mattered how many retirees there are compared with the number of workers.  The "Baby Boom" bulge would not have mattered because the compounding fund would have covered ALL of them.

Beware the subversion of government.  Beware the modern day "Amlicites" (those that want more oppressive governments)."

This example plus the many "government programs" (such as welfare and subversion of the education system, etc) have seriously degraded the stability and prosperity of the NUCLEAR FAMILY.

[thesometimesaint]

14 hours ago, longview said:

Ok.  Bob Crockett believes that the government was justified in looting the PEOPLE's Social Security LOCK BOX TRUST FUND, calling it nothing more than a "tax" to be used for any purpose (as if the people are NOT that concerned about having a stable retirement).  Here is my comment (see Bob's comments following shortly after) - - -

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66726-church-condemns-peaceful-protest/?page=5#comment-1209575394

Who here is a "wild eyed Bolshevik"? 

[thesometimesaint]

3 hours ago, longview said:

Nuanced?  It was FDR that cynically introduced the SS plan which EXPLICITLY required workers (and employers) to deduct from their paychecks (plus the employers' matching contribution) to go SPECIFICALLY into the trust fund.  Why do I say "cynically?"  Because he set the retirement age close to the life expectancy, expecting to reap a rich haul for more government programs.  Of course we all know that life expectancy has been improving ever since.

In the linked thread, Bob Crockett said this:

"Before and after LBJ the social security was just a tax.  A retiree did not ever have any sort of vested interest in the revenues of the program. If there isn't enough money in the program, the feds make it up by printing money or deficit spending.  Conservatives foolishly try to claim that at one time the social security program was something special and different. It wasn't."

It is VERY strange for Bob to claim that the workers did NOT have "any sort of VESTED interest."  The vast majority would strongly disagree.  They are very much aware of the SS deduction and it goes WITHOUT question that they looked forward to retirement with the comfort of knowing they will receive a monthly annuity.  IT IS THEIR MONEY, not government "entitlement" or "welfare."  The only benefit government provides in this case is "mandated savings" and the administration of investments and disbursement (sadly, too many people do not have the self-discipline to save for their retirement).

It is Bob who is unable to understand the distinction between:  (1) the value of long term compounding of investments in a secure fund: (2) paying retirees from current revenues (i.e. taxes on young workers).  I made this statement in the linked thread:

"This was an actuarially sound program based on mortality tables (insurance aspects), savings (reflecting the level of income of each participant), and conservative investments (the magic of long term compounding of interests and better protection against inflation).  BUT LBJ signed legislation during his presidency to allow the government to STEAL the money out of the "LOCK BOX TRUST FUND" which was NEVER paid back.  Liberals make the cynical excuse that IOUs would be paid back.  As you know, the government has the nasty habit of running deficits for most years (the debt is now a staggering tens of TRILLIONS of dollars).  Now we have two results:  1- government is forced to pay retirees with income tax from current workers (used to be several workers per retiree, but now approaching just two workers per retiree without the benefit of long term compounding of funds);  2- retirees are only receiving 1/3 of the annuity that they should have gotten if the LOCK BOX had not been breached (the government WASTED the other 2/3).  If the LOCK BOX had been preserved, it would NOT have mattered how many retirees there are compared with the number of workers.  The "Baby Boom" bulge would not have mattered because the compounding fund would have covered ALL of them.

Beware the subversion of government.  Beware the modern day "Amlicites" (those that want more oppressive governments)."

This example plus the many "government programs" (such as welfare and subversion of the education system, etc) have seriously degraded the stability and prosperity of the NUCLEAR FAMILY.

SSI has never been a "Locked Box".

SEE http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/11/03/Rand-Paul-Says-Social-Security-Being-Robbed-It-s-Not-True

[Calm]

Longview, I would have thought a "wild eyed Bolshevik' would have been more enthusiastic about the government covering retirement and welfare and not be condemning them.  Bob sounds more Libertarian from that post, haven't been keeping track though.  

The relevant part is later in the post, I can only copy what I can quote and the thread is locked so people will have to look for it themselves.

If that is your best example for a Bolshevik on the board...someone who considers the government should have kept its nose out of social programs and gives the impression he is against big government whether for conservative or liberal causes, I think you have failed.

This is off topic, political, and personal and Crockett isn't here much, so might not see to clarify; it seems wise to just drop it.

[Calm]

The next post down he specifies he is a Libertarian.

[MiserereNobis]

Let's not forget that for most of the world, "family" is not the nuclear family but the extended family.  It is a rather American and Western European view that the nuclear family is what family means.

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Let's not forget that for most of the world, "family" is not the nuclear family but the extended family.  It is a rather American and Western European view that the nuclear family is what family means.

Good to hear from you again.  Can you explain what you mean when you say the "extended family"?  I think you will find that an extended family is simply nuclear families united.  I think your position is more about word usage rather than anything of real difference. 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Good to hear from you again.  Can you explain what you mean when you say the "extended family"?  I think you will find that an extended family is simply nuclear families united.  I think your position is more about word usage rather than anything of real difference. 

The traditional family nearly everywhere in the world has always been the extended family, and often is a patriarchal clan with pater familias at the summit.  This was true of Abraham as it was of Lehi.  Such a family structure entails grandparents, their children and in-laws, and grandchildren (sometimes even greatgrandchildren), and can often include aunts, uncles and cousins.  In many traditional societies, such an extended family will live in the same compound, adding to the house(s) as necessary.    The isolated nuclear family is a very modern invention, and is very dysfunctional.  The West has adopted it at its peril.

Edited July 10, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Bernard Gui]

On July 7, 2016 at 1:27 PM, USU78 said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-sobering-evidence-of-social-science/2016/07/06/4a3831f8-42dd-11e6-bc99-7d269f8719b1_story.html?postshare=7021467896740794&tid=ss_fb

[T]he “tangle” of pathologies associated with the absence of fathers produces a continually renewed cohort of inadequately socialized adolescent males. Socializing them is society’s urgent business if it is to avoid chaotic neighborhoods and schools where maintaining discipline displaces teaching. Coleman documented how schools are reflections of, rather than cures for, the failure of families to function as the primary transmitters of social capital.

That rocket has already left the launching pad. It will take a Herculean effort to restore the nuclear family. By nuclear family, I mean father, mother, children, and extended family of grand-parents, aunts, uncles, and cousins living in perhaps not close proximity, but within a comfortable visiting distance. Some electronic devices make keeping in touch with more distant folks easier, but I believe it is better to have personal contact. Having spent all my life in the public schools (since the age of 5), I agree that the schools cannot be a substitute for the family (especially the father), no matter how many programs and how much money are directed to that cause. Unfortunately, the role of the father is being systematically eliminated, much to our detriment.

Edited July 10, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Storm Rider]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The traditional family nearly everywhere in the world has always been the extended family, and often is a patriarchal clan with pater familias at the summit.  This was true of Abraham as it was of Lehi.  Such a family structure entails grandparents, their children and in-laws, and grandchildren (sometimes even greatgrandchildren), and can often include aunts, uncles and cousins.  In many traditional societies, such an extended family will live in the same compound, adding to the house(s) as necessary.    The isolated nuclear family is a very modern invention, and is very dysfunctional.  The West has adopted it at its peril.

I think we are talking past one another.  I agree that the "family" is all the family which includes grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc.  I reject that the mom and dad and children standing as a solitary entity is the ideal.  It is the building block of the family.  Without a strong nuclear family, the building block, we cannot assemble the entire family and have a healthy organization.  

We see families existing with fathers missing and this produces a functioning entity but one that is weakened just as it is when mothers are missing.  

A healthy family is the extended family living in close proximity.  Today's world is challenging for these families to exist because in the US we have become so transient and the familial bonds between grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc. have become strained to maintain.  

Though many strive to create replacements blood remains significantly stronger than water.