New Article Marking 25 Years Since Family Proclamation

[stemelbow]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If a heterosexual marriage is "unable to reproduce," then it's an exception to the rule.  Categorically, heterosexual marriages contemplate and facilitate procreation.  Categorically, same-sex marriages do not.

I don't think we can or ought to argue from the margins.

Yes, really.

Special pleading.  And argument from the margins.  Anecdotal exceptions to the rule do not overcome the rule.

The sociological data are overwhelming in terms of the benefits of a child being raised in a home with a mother and a father.

I try to go by data as much as possible.  I've previously laid out some thoughts about SSM, and how it substantively differs from heterosexual marriage, here.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think its somewhat inconclusive at this point, mostly because the data is so small.    It will grow and we'll have a better feel for it in the future.  In the mean time, I'm not so sure you are correct in saying "the sociological data are overwhelming in terms of the benefits of a child being raised in a home with a mother and a father."  There are studies that show the opposite--children are better off with same sex parents married to each other.  But mostly it results in inconclusive or there is no difference.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/02/06/children-raised-by-same-sex-couples-do-better-school-new-study-finds/

https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/

Edited September 25, 2020 by stemelbow

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I would love to put this statement out on social media stating this as a Mormon view of marriage.  I am sure that would go over well.  This is so insulting, it is the kind of statement that would go viral.

 

Only 44% of families are married couples with children.  Are the rest not considered "true families" in your narrow mind?  Telling others they don't have a "true family" because it is not exactly like yours is insulting and WRONG.   I personally find you are so wrapped up in your LDS point of view that you are willing to trash other peoples families to be quite disgusting.  There are all kinds of families in this world.  

Another appeal to the world.  As if what the world thinks makes any difference at all regarding what is right or wrong or true or false or good or evil. 

Again, and I hope it will sink into your mind this time, those issues are not determined by what the world thinks.

And again, since you don't seem to understand something else I have said before, a true family (of our species) consists of a man & woman who are married (the actual sexual union) and at least capable of reproducing themselves because the man has sperm and the woman has eggs and when combined are capable of reproduction of the species. 

If you don't like that idea don't worry because you don't have to like it or agree with it or even understand it and it is still true anyway and you can't do anything about that to change it.

[Ahab]

49 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Marriage used to be a religious covenant until co-opted by the Roman state.  Marriage should revert to religion in all respects.  

Marriage refers to an actual union and when used to refer to people getting married it refers to a solemnization of a union of the people who are "getting married".  Not that the married couple is actually joining together sexually during the marriage ceremony but the wedding/marriage ceremony is symbolic of the sexual union that is naturally expected to take place during their lives, not only when the marriage is initially "consummated" but also at other times during their lives.

There are other things that can be "married" by joining them together but when referring to people getting married it refers to their actual physically sexual union.  Marriage is not the vows or the ceremony.  It is a union.

Edited September 25, 2020 by Ahab

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think it's more socially acceptable in the Church these days to wait.  In the past it I think it was more socially "expected" (but not really required) to not delay having kids.

For me, I am very grateful that my wife and I did not wait.  Having them drew my wife and I closer together, made us more committed to each other and our family, and helped us focus on education, employment, elimination of debt, and other important considerations.  It also made having a large family more feasible, as my wife was in her young 30s when we decided that six kids was a sufficient amount of multiplyin' and replenishin'.  I have reasonable expectations of becoming a grandfather before 50.  And my grandchildren will very likely have the chance to get to know not only their grandparents, but their great-grandparents, all four of whom are still alive and kicking.  ..................

My mother really enjoyed being a greatgrandma.  She remained a very active and aware woman to age 94.  Spent her last 20 years living with her youngest daughter in Southern California -- with a swimming pool, so all the greatgrandchildren would show up regularly.  I know a number of LDS families which have had or are having that multigenerational experience.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Another appeal to the world.  As if what the world thinks makes any difference at all regarding what is right or wrong or true or false or good or evil. 

Again, and I hope it will sink into your mind this time, those issues are not determined by what the world thinks.

And again, since you don't seem to understand something else I have said before, a true family (of our species) consists of a man & woman who are married (the actual sexual union) and at least capable of reproducing themselves because the man has sperm and the woman has eggs and when combined are capable of reproduction of the species. 

If you don't like that idea don't worry because you don't have to like it or agree with it or even understand it and it is still true anyway and you can't do anything about that to change it.

Like I said, you only see "real families" from a Mormon perspective.  Dismissing all other families as not being real is insulting and degrading.  Some of us live in a world far bigger than the .02% of the world population that happens to be members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Even within the Church, there are hundreds of thousands of families that are not "real" according to your miopic point of view.  

Honestly, it is no real wonder why so many really don't like Mormons.  Spewing this kind of disregard and lack of respect for other peoples families doesn't really seem like Christianity to most people.  Not only do I dislike your attitude towards other families, it is this kind of rhetoric that pushes me further away from ever associating with the Church again. I would never ever want to be associated with any organization that devalues other peoples families the way you are doing, especially one that calls itself a church.   It so goes against my life experience where I see so many families that you would consider not real, raising their children in a good wholesome environment.  

My partner currently is doing an art project in the back yard with one of our neighbor kids.  She is being raised by two moms.  She is thriving in that environment.  She is bright, athletic, articulate, kind, obedient.  Telling her she doesn't belong to a "real family" is just evil.

 

 

Edited September 25, 2020 by california boy

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

a heterosexual marriage is "unable to reproduce," then it's an exception to the rule. 

Wouldn't that depend on the percentage and how one defines "unable"?  If less than half of families have children (going off the stats given by cal boy), that is not an "exception".  

[Ahab]

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

Like I said, you only see "real families" from a Mormon perspective.  Dismissing all other families as not being real is insulting and degrading.  Some of us live in a world far bigger than the .02% of the world population that happens to be members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Even within the Church, there are hundreds of thousands of families that are not "real" according to your miopic point of view.  

Honestly, it is no real wonder why so many really don't like Mormons.  Spewing this kind of disregard and lack of respect for other peoples families doesn't really seem like Christianity to most people.  Not only do I dislike your attitude towards other families, it is this kind of rhetoric that pushes me further away from ever associating with the Church again.  It so goes against my life experience where I see so many families that you would consider not real, raising their children in a good wholesome environment.  

My partner currently is doing an art project in the back yard with one of our neighbor kids.  She is being raised by two moms.  She is thriving in that environment.  She is bright, athletic, articulate, kind, obedient.  Telling her she doesn't belong to a "real family" is just evil.

 

 

We all belong to a true/real family with a Mother and a Father, and actually many true/real families.  Every child has a birth Mother and a birth Father, of their mortal body, and a real Father and Mother in heaven as well, of their spirit body.  And we each have a LOT of true/real families in between our Father and Mother in heaven and our mortal true/real parents who gave birth to us, true/real parents we usually refer to as grand parents or great grand parents however great and grand they may be.  Those are the true/real parents.  The ones who were sexually involved in the process of actually creating or procreating those children.

And then in addition to those true/real parents some of us also have what we usually refer to as adoptive parents, people who were not involved in the actual creation or procreation of children but who agreed to take on some of the responsibilities that true/real parents are accountable to God for, even though they were not required by God to do that.  God may have suggested that the adoptive parents adopt some children of true/real parents, and even suggested that those children become sealed to those adoptive parents at which point they could be treated as though they were the children's true/real parents, but they were not required to take on that responsibility and it was something that is not the natural order of things.  But it does happen and it isn't necessarily a bad thing for people to become adoptive parents, or in a legal sense treated as if they are the true/natural parents.  Sometimes the true/real parents of children are abusive and unwilling to love and respect their own children and people other than the true/real parents feel compelled to try to take on those responsibilities.

So that's the kind of thing I would tell that little girl when I felt she was ready to understand her true/real family relationships.  She does have true/real parents.  Many of them. And she can love and respect her adoptive parents too.

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The ones who were sexually involved in the process of actually creating or procreating those children.

So you see a rapist or abusive partner and their victim as more of a true family than two people choosing to adopt children in need and caring for them together?

If biology is the primary requirement, there are a lot of destructive true families out there.

(not saying biology isn't important in family structure, just saying it doesn't create "true families" on its own and is not a required feature, though it is tied to less abuse overall https://www.center4research.org/child-abuse-father-figures-kind-families-safest-grow/ )

Edited September 25, 2020 by Calm

[Ahab]

Just now, Calm said:

So you see a rapist or abusive partner as more of a true family than two people choosing to adopt children in need and caring for them together?

If biology is the primary requirement, there are a lot of destructive true families out there.

Yes and yes.  It doesn't take very long to become a true/real parent, once a person's body is mature enough sexually, but that doesn't necessarily make that parent a good parent.

Parents can do some of the most wicked things a person can do, so becoming a parent is not an indication of a person becoming a good person.

And people who are not true/real parents can do some of the most wonderful things people can do, even though they are not true/real parents.

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Marriage refers to an actual union and when used to refer to people getting married it refers to a solemnization of a union of the people who are "getting married".  Not that the married couple is actually joining together sexually during the marriage ceremony but the wedding/marriage ceremony is symbolic of the sexual union that is naturally expected to take place during their lives, not only when the marriage is initially "consummated" but also at other times during their lives.

There are other things that can be "married" by joining them together but when referring to people getting married it refers to their actual physically sexual union.  Marriage is not the vows or the ceremony.  It is a union.

Marriage is a form of contract codified by the state.  Age of consent for marriage.  Common law marriage.  Dissolution of marriage.  On and on. It no longer has your philosophical view of the term, if ever that existed.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Yes and yes.  It doesn't take very long to become a true/real parent, once a person's body is mature enough sexually, but that doesn't necessarily make that parent a good parent.

Parents can do some of the most wicked things a person can do, so becoming a parent is not an indication of a person becoming a good person.

And people who are not true/real parents can do some of the most wonderful things people can do, even though they are not true/real parents.

Then you are using "true" and "family" in a very different sense than most in this context if a rapist and their victims can be considered a "true family" by your standard...which is simply biological connections.  A rape, a one night stand, an incestual relationship produces "true families" for you as long as there is a child, even if that child is then abandoned at birth, abused, etc.  I doubt anyone would agree with your label, especially when there are plenty of other ways to describe those biological relationships without the connotations/nuances of "true" and "family" adding confusion over what you mean.

Edited September 25, 2020 by Calm

[california boy]

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

We all belong to a true/real family with a Mother and a Father, and actually many true/real families.  Every child has a birth Mother and a birth Father, of their mortal body, and a real Father and Mother in heaven as well, of their spirit body.  And we each have a LOT of true/real families in between our Father and Mother in heaven and our mortal true/real parents who gave birth to us, true/real parents we usually refer to as grand parents or great grand parents however great and grand they may be.  Those are the true/real parents.  The ones who were sexually involved in the process of actually creating or procreating those children.

And then in addition to those true/real parents some of us also have what we usually refer to as adoptive parents, people who were not involved in the actual creation or procreation of children but who agreed to take on some of the responsibilities that true/real parents are accountable to God for, even though they were not required by God to do that.  God may have suggested that the adoptive parents adopt some children of true/real parents, and even suggested that those children become sealed to those adoptive parents at which point they could be treated as though they were the children's true/real parents, but they were not required to take on that responsibility and it was something that is not the natural order of things.  But it does happen and it isn't necessarily a bad thing for people to become adoptive parents, or in a legal sense treated as if they are the true/natural parents.  Sometimes the true/real parents of children are abusive and unwilling to love and respect their own children and people other than the true/real parents feel compelled to try to take on those responsibilities.

So that's the kind of thing I would tell that little girl when I felt she was ready to understand her true/real family relationships.  She does have true/real parents.  Many of them. And she can love and respect her adoptive parents too.

So your definition of a "true/real family" is a sperm donor or an egg donor whoever that might be, even if he/she was never seen again in that child's life.  Unbelievable.    

I wouldn't let you within a country mile of our 10 year old neighbor spewing this kind of nonsense.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Wouldn't that depend on the percentage and how one defines "unable"?  

I don't think so.  Not as a categorical, aggregate statement.  Heterosexual marriage facilitates procreation.  There are some on the margins who are unable to procreate, but that's the exception, not the rule.  There are also some who are unwilling to procreate.  Again, that's the exception.

Quote

If less than half of families have children (going off the stats given by cal boy), that is not an "exception".  

I'd need to look at the stats and how "no child in the home" marital households are counted.  Is that just a snapshot in time?  Did they have kids before, but are now emptynesters?

Per Wikipedia: "Among women aged 35–44, the chance of being childless was far greater for never-married (82.5%) than for married women (12.9%)."

And here: "A 2006 study by Abma and Martinez found that American women aged 35 to 44 who were voluntarily childless constituted 5% of all U.S. women in 1982, 8% in 1988, 9% in 1995 and 7% in 2002. These women had the highest income, prior work experience and the lowest religiosity compared to other women. The National Center of Health Statistics confirms that the percentage of American women of childbearing age who define themselves as childfree (or voluntarily childless) rose sharply in the 1990s—from 2.4 percent in 1982 to 4.3 percent in 1990 to 6.6 percent in 1995."

Are are all sorts of "thumbs on the scales" that affect the decision to have children.  See the above Wikipedia article.

Moreover, trends over the last several decades are, historically speaking, quite atypical (though the Baby Boom was also a significant anomaly).

Marriage rates are falling.  Fertility rates are falling.  The percentage of children growing up in a household with a married mother and father is falling.

The Proclamation is indeed looking prophetic.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 25, 2020 by smac97

[Ahab]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

Then you are using "true" and "family" in a very different sense than most in this context if a rapist and their victims can be considered a "true family" by your standard...which is simply biological connections.  A rape, a one night stand, an incestual relationship produces "true families" for you as long as there is a child, even if that child is then abandoned at birth, abused, etc.  I doubt anyone would agree with your label, especially when there are plenty of other ways to describe those biological relationships without the connotations/nuances of "true" and "family" adding confusion over what you mean.

True simply refers to the way something is, or how it works.  So when answering a question of how a family is formed, only a basic explanation is necessary.  First, one person simply forms a union with another person, an actual union where the 2 people become united as one, together, and that is accomplished by both of those persons forming an actually physical, sexual union together.  And over time if they continue to do that the natural result is usually that they will reproduce themselves which will result in having children.

What "most" people think about things is not very important to me and is not a factor when I want to find out what is true or real.  People are wrong about so many things that appealing to people in general for answers is a complete waste of my time when I am interested in finding out what is actually true or real.  Someone says one thing while someone else says something else and both of those people could be wrong, and even the majority of people could be wrong, and I have found often are wrong.  So don't talk to me again about what other people think, or what most people think.  It is utterly meaningless to me except to inform me that people generally believe all kinds of things.  I know how to find out what is true and it isn't by asking around in the general public to find out what those people think.

Edited September 25, 2020 by Ahab

[Ahab]

23 minutes ago, california boy said:

So your definition of a "true/real family" is a sperm donor or an egg donor whoever that might be, even if he/she was never seen again in that child's life.  Unbelievable.    

I wouldn't let you within a country mile of our 10 year old neighbor spewing this kind of nonsense.

You talk as if you don't know what true/real parents are.  You have the mortal parents you have because those are the mortals who actually created or procreated you.  That's how they became your true/real mortal Mother and Father.

It's not because those people loved you or were nice to you when you were growing up.  They may have been, or they may not have been, and either way it has nothing to do with why those people are your true/real mortal parents.

Edited September 25, 2020 by Ahab

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

There are some on the margins who are unable to procreate, but that's the exception, not the rule.  There are also some who are unwilling to procreate.  Again, that's the exception

Not if it amounts to half the couples.  Even if 10% or 5% of couples, this does not qualify as the exception. 
 

I am finding it difficult to find stats on childlessness and married, sousing for now childless women.

In Europe in 2010, almost 25% of women age 40-45 were childless. Chances are a good many of them had been in partnerships or marriages over the years and would be in the future.  Even if only 1/5 were married, that would be 5%ish.

http://www.familiesandsocieties.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/WP33MiettinenEtAl2015.pdf

29% of households in US are childless...(need to see how many are empty nesters vs never children, but I find it likely at least 5% are never children)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSBRE97Q0TJ20130827

Infertility is not an exception any more, but relatively common.

https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/infertility/index.htm

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/infertility.htm

Edited September 26, 2020 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

On 9/23/2020 at 5:35 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

It has been 25 years since “The Family: a Proclamation to the World.” The Church has released insightful content marking this occasion. 
 

I think it impressive that the Church has not backed down from any of the precepts in the proclamation, notwithstanding some rather dramatic changes in the political and societal landscape over the past 25 years. 
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2020/09/seeing-yourself-in-the-family-proclamation?lang=eng&fbclid=IwAR3Dx2L968S0dePH_2JLTWf29xw5Z_ADcnACSEmkXYOJGdxyMZn9gsEmeR0

And how prophetic it was that it needed to be revealed at that moment in time!

And how prophetic that the "Come Follow Me" program bring "church" back to "home" more than it ever had been before?!

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

You talk as if you don't know what true/real parents are.  You have the mortal parents you have because those are the mortals who actually created or procreated you.  That's how they became your true/real mortal Mother and Father.

It's not because those people loved you or were nice to you when you were growing up.  They may have been, or they may not have been, and either way it has nothing to do with why those people are your true/real mortal parents.

WAIT.  You just moved the goal post.  You have been talking about true/real FAMILIES not who the parents are.  It is your comments concerning what a "true/real family" is that is so disrespectful to other families.  If you are changing your position, you should be clear about this.

I also distinguish between who the sperm/egg donor is and who the actually parents are.  A rapist is not a parent.  He only provided the sperm.  He may be the father but he is not the parent.  I takes a LOT more than that to be a parent.  

You are really reckless on how you use language.  Words have meaning.  How you use them has meaning.  If you miss spoke or did not mean what you first posted, I would respect you a LOT more if you would clarify what you meant and not wait until the 6th post to change your language.  Instead, I am quite offended by your remarks, as should everybody that believes a family can be defined way more than just who conceived a child.  When you say stuff like a "true/real family" is only who conceived a child, that is quite incinerate and offensive to millions of families both within the Church and especially outside of the Church.  

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Not yet.... That clock is still counting down.   But it will, though it will likely only happen after a few rotations of the members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve.  In the end, there isn't really a way for either of us to prove our respective positions on this point, other than waiting it out.  

I can cite repeated assurances by those in authority that it will not change, this because such a change would be inherently incompatible with the doctrine, which doctrine the family proclamation was intended to verify. 

[Scott Lloyd]

18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

The extended family is certainly compatible with the nuclear family. The concept in no way nullifies Church precepts about the nuclear family. On the contrary, it enhances and affirms them. 
 

If we start to dismiss or minimize authoritative teachings about the nuclear family, we are at risk of getting caught up in worldly philosophies that are at odds with gospel teachings. 

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, california boy said:

 A rapist is not a parent.  He only provided the sperm.  He may be the father but he is not the parent.

Insult to the label “father”.  While technically accurate for some, I hope that any inclination to use it shifts to bio donor or something purely referring to genetic material. 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The extended family is certainly compatible with the nuclear family. The concept in no way nullifies Church precepts about the nuclear family. On the contrary, it enhances and affirms them. 
 

If we start to dismiss or minimize authoritative teachings about the nuclear family, we are at risk of getting caught up in worldly philosophies that are at odds with gospel teachings. 

Just the opposite is true.  To the degree that we overlook the higher value of the extended family, we are at risk of devaluing families in general.  As I said before, making a fetish of the nuclear family runs the risk of putting too great a burden on it -- a burden which it cannot adequately bear.  It is precisely worldly values which lead us down that devolving road.  Human leaders trying to make the best of a bad situation are certainly well-intentioned, but that will not pull our society out of the tailspin it has gotten itself into.

When King Benjamin preached the Gospel to his people, they were all arrayed around the temple in extended family tents -- with tent door flaps open to the temple tower from which Benjamin spoke.  The priesthood ministered to each extended family.  Finally, at the close, each extended family prostrated to the earth as all vocally took the sacred oath together.  It's all there in Mosiah 2 - 5.  We ignore that at our peril.

[california boy]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Insult to the label “father”.  While technically accurate for some, I hope that any inclination to use it shifts to bio donor or something purely referring to genetic material. 

I personally like sperm donor.  Rapists don't deserve any title of fatherhood.

Edited September 26, 2020 by california boy

[theplains]

On 9/23/2020 at 8:35 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

It has been 25 years since “The Family: a Proclamation to the World.” The Church has released insightful content marking this occasion. 
 

I think it impressive that the Church has not backed down from any of the precepts in the proclamation, notwithstanding some rather dramatic changes in the political and societal landscape over the past 25 years. 
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2020/09/seeing-yourself-in-the-family-proclamation?lang=eng&fbclid=IwAR3Dx2L968S0dePH_2JLTWf29xw5Z_ADcnACSEmkXYOJGdxyMZn9gsEmeR0

The article mentioned this passage of scripture:

“And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ” (Romans 8:16–17).

Only the children of God are joint-heirs with Christ.

[mfbukowski]

On 9/24/2020 at 8:50 AM, stemelbow said:

uh...THis is all silly sounding "Mormon are still distrusted and held in contempt" all because Mitt Romney couldn't win?  That's a silly overgeneralization.  He couldn't win because he was up against a political giant in comparison, not because of his religion.  He was never as articulate nor likable as Barak Obama.  He was never as smart or politicalyl savvy as Barak Obama.  That hardly means he wasn't elected because of his religion.  There are millions of considerations in presidential support.  

You cannot understand the derision with which Mormons are held here unless you live here.  Yes we have one or two baptisms a year, but then they talk to their friends and they are out by the anniversary of their baptism.  Even the "Christians", few as they are scorn us as a "cult".   This ain't Utah!

No presidential candidate of Romney's party could ever carry the state for similar reasons- and to be a member of his party AND a Mormon?  Fergitaboutit.

That's the double whammy!

Edited September 26, 2020 by mfbukowski