New Article Marking 25 Years Since Family Proclamation

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I disagree.  You are presenting argument without reason,

Not so.  The Church teaches that marriage is an institution between a man and a woman.  Polygamy is a unique expression of that man-woman pairing.  In contrast, same-sex marriage is not a man-woman pairing.  Group marriages is not a man-woman pairing.

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

which is kind tough to do and you should commended for such a feat.  I'm sure it's difficult.  

Your remarks are increasingly unserious.

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Hah...I think I recall our Jacob 2 discussions of the past.  Not really eager to get back into reading 2 Sam into Jacob, but it's a memory at least.  

Perhaps that's for the best.  We don't seem to get very far in our discussions.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

49 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, of course, there are more marriages, but that is only because you are using gross figures.  As a percentage of the overall population, the marriage rate has decreased.  Only per capita figures or percentages have value:

Perhaps you can find the figures for 2019.  I couldn't find them.

 

50 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

53.6% was unmarried—that is, never married, divorced or separated, or widowed

so of these 3 groups of people, only never married have never been married. I was married but divorced, you can't seperate if you weren't together and you can be a widow or widowerer if you weren't ever married. So, obviously there is a 14% difference between 60 and 46 and I can't believe that of 3/4 of those groups constitute less than 14%, so as i see it the marriages are the same or better now than before, stats wise anyways

[Duncan]

47 minutes ago, Calm said:

But is the rate of marriage going up?

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/91-209-x/2013001/article/11788-eng.htm
2011

Hard to find specific recent analyses.  One page said the government was saving money by not collecting stats that weren’t being used enough to be worth it. 
 

Divorce rates are going down, speculation is that this is because fewer people are getting married (rate is going down) and they are getting married when older.

https://phys.org/news/2020-02-canada-divorce-revealingand-murky.html

i'm seeing yes and no, of rates going up or down. So many factors go into it. Unemployment, so the rates of marriages fell in the 30's, after WW2 they also declined due to lack of men, remarriages were high, divorces were high, etc. It would be nice to get stats on how many people would like to get married but for whatever reason can't.I think those stats mean more than people who actually get married, at least the idea of marriage is still around

Edited September 24, 2020 by Duncan

[Scott Lloyd]

56 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I disagree.  You are presenting argument without reason, which is kind tough to do and you should commended for such a feat.  I'm sure it's difficult.  

Hah...I think I recall our Jacob 2 discussions of the past.  Not really eager to get back into reading 2 Sam into Jacob, but it's a memory at least.  

Why do you bring up old arguments when you know they have been rebutted?

[Robert F. Smith]

51 minutes ago, Duncan said:

so of these 3 groups of people, only never married have never been married. I was married but divorced, you can't seperate if you weren't together and you can be a widow or widowerer if you weren't ever married. So, obviously there is a 14% difference between 60 and 46 and I can't believe that of 3/4 of those groups constitute less than 14%, so as i see it the marriages are the same or better now than before, stats wise anyways

You are guessing.  Give me hard stats.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Or another way of looking at it is a man & woman & children when the children become parents while remaining children of their Mother & Father.  The only kind of family any of us have ever been a part of if we are children of a man & woman who had parents.

It appears that you really don't know the difference.  Even today in some societies, extended families are the norm.  In the Philippines, for example, people may live in family compounds. Not only do grandparents and children and grandchildren live in the same house, but aunts, uncles and cousins, and greataunts, greatuncles, etc.., live in adjacent homes.  This is how clans and tribes used to live.  In America now this is increasingly very rare.  People are highly mobile, farming is no longer the norm, and so everyone scatters to the four winds, thus weakening family ties.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The reason I appreciated the citation you gave in the OP was precisely because it did not make a fetish of the nuclear family.  The same is true of the Proclamation, which nowhere mentions the word "nuclear," and does in no way delimit the family to man & woman & dependent children.  All the actual statements made in the Proclamation could as easily be accommodated by a multigenerational (extended) family -- which is what the piece you cited in the OP actually discusses.  And for good reason (Mosiah 2:5).

It doesn’t have to use the word “nuclear” when what is denoted and championed is by definition the nuclear family. 
 

If “nuclear family” is to you a political and triggering buzz phrase, call it something else, but the fact of the matter is that the Church has long taught that a married man and woman with their dependent children is the basic unit of society and an institution to be cherished and safeguarded. What do you think gave rise to the family home evening tradition, instituted by Joseph F. Smith in 1914 and given renewed emphasis by David O. McKay in 1964?

If anything, the family proclamation reaffirms this. 

[Ahab]

7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It appears that you really don't know the difference.  Even today in some societies, extended families are the norm.  In the Philippines, for example, people may live in family compounds. Not only do grandparents and children and grandchildren live in the same house, but aunts, uncles and cousins, and greataunts, greatuncles, etc.., live in adjacent homes.  This is how clans and tribes used to live.  In America now this is increasingly very rare.  People are highly mobile, farming is no longer the norm, and so everyone scatters to the four winds, thus weakening family ties.

I know enough to know that what an extended family is has nothing to do with where the members of that family live.  I suspect we'll probably live in the same house with many members of our family when we are in heaven though. But all of us still won't live in the same house, or even in the same city in heaven, or even on the same planet.  There is absolutely no way all of our Father's children would be able to live in the same house with him all at the same time.  And I think husbands will still want some alone time with their own wives without all of the children being around all of the time.  My wife and I will soon be living a lot closer to our children and even in the same house with 1of them, so-called permanently, but we'll still want to get away on our own at least sometimes.  People who talk as if they're planning to move in with our Father in heaven again will I am sure find out that they will only be visiting with him and even then only some of the time.

[Duncan]

25 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are guessing.  Give me hard stats.

"There were about 14.14 million married people living in Canada in 2019. This is an increase from the 12.07 million married people in Canada in 2000"

Voila

https://www.statista.com/statistics/443247/married-couples-in-canada/#:~:text=There were about 14.14 million,people in Canada in 2000.

Edited September 24, 2020 by Duncan

[Ahab]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It doesn’t have to use the word “nuclear” when what is denoted and championed is by definition the nuclear family. 
 

If “nuclear family” is to you a political and triggering buzz phrase, call it something else, but the fact of the matter is that the Church has long taught that a married man and woman with their dependent children is the basic unit of society and an institution to be cherished and safeguarded. What do you think gave rise to the family home evening tradition, instituted by Joseph F. Smith in 1914 and given renewed emphasis by David O. McKay in 1964?

If anything, the family proclamation reaffirms this. 

A nuclear family is the basic unit of a family, and of society in general, I agree with you on that point, but since all of us have parents who have parents going back forever there isn't anyone who has only a nuclear family. We are all part of extended families.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

A nuclear family is the basic unit of a family, and of society in general, I agree with you on that point, but since all of us have parents who have parents going back forever there isn't anyone who has only a nuclear family. We are all part of extended families.

Apparently you have me confused with someone who disagrees with you about that statement. 

Edited September 24, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Apparently you have me confused with someone who disagrees with you about that statement. 

Uh oh.  Look out.  You may soon find out that you agree with what Robert has been saying too.  

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I know enough to know that what an extended family is has nothing to do with where the members of that family live.  I suspect we'll probably live in the same house with many members of our family when we are in heaven though. But all of us still won't live in the same house, or even in the same city in heaven, or even on the same planet.  There is absolutely no way all of our Father's children would be able to live in the same house with him all at the same time.  And I think husbands will still want some alone time with their own wives without all of the children being around all of the time.  My wife and I will soon be living a lot closer to our children and even in the same house with 1of them, so-called permanently, but we'll still want to get away on our own at least sometimes.  People who talk as if they're planning to move in with our Father in heaven again will I am sure find out that they will only be visiting with him and even then only some of the time.

I don’t pretend to know what the arrangement will be in terms of proximity, but the sense I get is that our association with our Father will be a great deal closer and more permanent than you imply here. I don’t hold with the notion that we each will be off in our own independent spheres doing our own thing. Rather, what we do will be part and parcel of what our Father does. That’s the meaning of our being “One” with the Father and Son as the Father and Son are “One” (see John 17 and related passages elsewhere in scripture). 
 

God’s work and glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of mankind, including the future spirit offspring that might come to us as glorified, exalted and perfected beings. 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Uh oh.  Look out.  You may soon find out that you agree with what Robert has been saying too.  

I never disagreed with Robert about the multi-generational family. Where we differ is in his apparent minimizing of what the Church has taught regarding the importance of the immediate (or “nuclear”) family. 

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I never disagreed with Robert about the multi-generational family. Where we differ is in his apparent minimizing of what the Church has taught regarding the importance of the immediate (or “nuclear”) family. 

The extended family cannot exist without the nuclear family as its building block and the nuclear family is meaningless eternally without the extended family (our dead).

Quote

“Some members of the Church have wondered just what was meant by the words of the Prophet, that we without our dead could not be made perfect. Will not a man who keeps the commandments of the Lord, who is faithful and true so far as he himself is concerned, receive perfection? Yes, provided his worthy dead also receive the same privileges, because there must be a family organization, a family unit, and each generation must be linked to the chain that goes before in order to bring perfection in family organization. Thus eventually we will be one large family with Adam at the head, Michael, the archangel, presiding over his posterity”

 

[Ahab]

38 minutes ago, Calm said:

The extended family cannot exist without the nuclear family as its building block and the nuclear family is meaningless eternally without the extended family (our dead).

 

Hmm.  I think you have that backwards, but they both pretty much flow to and from the other.  I think of the extended family as the basis, though, with no beginning since it is eternal, and then from that each nuclear family is formed as children of some parents become parents themselves by producing children which further extend the extended family.

p.s.  corrected.  I now see that the nuclear family is what adds to the extended family which is what makes the nuclear family the building "block"

Edited September 24, 2020 by Ahab

[Ahab]

35 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t pretend to know what the arrangement will be in terms of proximity, but the sense I get is that our association with our Father will be a great deal closer and more permanent than you imply here. I don’t hold with the notion that we each will be off in our own independent spheres doing our own thing. Rather, what we do will be part and parcel of what our Father does. That’s the meaning of our being “One” with the Father and Son as the Father and Son are “One” (see John 17 and related passages elsewhere in scripture). 
 

God’s work and glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of mankind, including the future spirit offspring that might come to us as glorified, exalted and perfected beings. 

Ultimately, yes, what we do will be what our Father does, I hope, but I think we'll be able to learn from him and communicate with him without having to go to the same place where he is. Just try to imagine all of us in the same place, or even only those who are exalted all in the same place.  Not just from this planet but from every other planet he has created for his children as well.  There is just no way all of us would be able to be next to him with billions and billions of us qualified to be.  Just imagining trying to get an appointment with him boggles my mind. But fortunately, by the means of communication I have and am continuing to develop with him, I won't need to go to him to be able to learn all that he knows and does.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Duncan said:

"There were about 14.14 million married people living in Canada in 2019. This is an increase from the 12.07 million married people in Canada in 2000"

Voila

https://www.statista.com/statistics/443247/married-couples-in-canada/#:~:text=There were about 14.14 million,people in Canada in 2000.

Once again, Duncan, those are gross totals, but tell us nothing about what percentage of the overall population (which also grew) is married in any given year.  That percentage has been consistently going down now for decades.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It doesn’t have to use the word “nuclear” when what is denoted and championed is by definition the nuclear family. 
 

If “nuclear family” is to you a political and triggering buzz phrase, call it something else, but the fact of the matter is that the Church has long taught that a married man and woman with their dependent children is the basic unit of society and an institution to be cherished and safeguarded. What do you think gave rise to the family home evening tradition, instituted by Joseph F. Smith in 1914 and given renewed emphasis by David O. McKay in 1964?

If anything, the family proclamation reaffirms this. 

FHE is in no way connected with a hypothetical nuclear family.  The concept is far more widely based on whatever family is present, which would have been very different in 1914 than today.  I don't see the nuclear family being "championed" at all, despite your repeatedly saying that.  Here, from your own citation in the OP:

Quote

    “When I say families, I don’t [just] mean our modern concept of Mom, Dad, and children. I use the term the way the Lord uses it, as a synonym for kindred or multigenerational families, because everyone has a family. Our Heavenly Father’s plan for His children centers on this kind of family —with children who draw strength from ancestors many generations back and parents who seek to bless their posterity for generations to come.”  Elder Bradley D. Foster of the Seventy, “Gathering, Healing, and Sealing Families,” given at the RootsTech Family History Conference in Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, on Feb. 14, 2015.  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2020/09/seeing-yourself-in-the-family-proclamation?lang=eng&fbclid=IwAR3Dx2L968S0dePH_2JLTWf29xw5Z_ADcnACSEmkXYOJGdxyMZn9gsEmeR0 ,

 

[Calm]

Quote

Once again, Duncan, those are gross totals, but tell us nothing about what percentage of the overall population (which also grew) is married in any given year.  That percentage has been consistently going down now for decades.It 

39% in 2000 if going just by married population (12.07/30.69) divided by full population (this may be off if children are counted in full population)

Rate in 2019 is 38% (14.14/37.59)

Edited September 25, 2020 by Calm

[Duncan]

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Once again, Duncan, those are gross totals, but tell us nothing about what percentage of the overall population (which also grew) is married in any given year.  That percentage has been consistently going down now for decades.

are you talking about the replacement of "old marriages"? so for example, if one marriage was new and one marriage got divorced it balances out but next year no one gets married but two marriages get divorced or someone dies, the rate is going down, no new marriages are replacing the old ones. As i say I think the stats of who would like to get married is far more informative of the health of the idea of marriage, if 97% believe in marriage then that's great even though say 56% are actually married or were married

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

FHE is in no way connected with a hypothetical nuclear family.  The concept is far more widely based on whatever family is present, which would have been very different in 1914 than today.  I don't see the nuclear family being "championed" at all, despite your repeatedly saying that.  Here, from your own citation in the OP:

 

Whatever Elder Foster May have said, the family proclamation itself describes very clearly the structure of a married man and woman and their dependent children. That is transparently obvious. 
 

And if, as you seem to imply here, there was no such structure back in 1914!when President Smith instituted “family night,” that is certainly news to me. 

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Whatever Elder Foster May have said, the family proclamation itself describes very clearly the structure of a married man and woman and their dependent children. That is transparently obvious. 
 

And if, as you seem to imply here, there was no such structure back in 1914!when President Smith instituted “family night,” that is certainly news to me. 

The further back in time we go in America, the stronger the extended family features.  The reason for that was the rural and farm life which dominated America included multigenerational homes.  As America has urbanized, children have scattered to the four winds -- education, jobs, etc., taking them far from their pioneer roots, leaving mom and pop to their own devices.  Indeed, many LDS members in foreign countries still live in multigenerational settings, which is a huge advantage for growing children, who can depend upon more than one generation of parents to advise them and look after them.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Duncan said:

are you talking about the replacement of "old marriages"? so for example, if one marriage was new and one marriage got divorced it balances out but next year no one gets married but two marriages get divorced or someone dies, the rate is going down, no new marriages are replacing the old ones. As i say I think the stats of who would like to get married is far more informative of the health of the idea of marriage, if 97% believe in marriage then that's great even though say 56% are actually married or were married

The rate of people marring has been going down now for decades.  That is not a new phenomenon, and we can speculate on the reasons for that.  The notion that people always marry and have children at the same rate as before is not born out by the actual statistics.  Any of us doing genealogy knows that family size has also been rapidly going down for hundreds of years.  That is in no way accidental.

[Duncan]

11 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The rate of people marring has been going down now for decades.  That is not a new phenomenon, and we can speculate on the reasons for that.  The notion that people always marry and have children at the same rate as before is not born out by the actual statistics.  Any of us doing genealogy knows that family size has also been rapidly going down for hundreds of years.  That is in no way accidental.

this is all in Canada or all over the world, where are we talking here? I am only talking about Canada

I do genealogy too, I find the that yes, the amount of kids born to some families is quite high but so is the death rate. My European Grandfather's family had 11 children but only 5 lived, whereas my Canadian Grandfather's family, exact same time period, 7 kids all lived, with 2 dying as adults. It seems to depend on where one lived I guess. 

Edited September 25, 2020 by Duncan