Fence at the top, ambulance at the bottom

[Avatar4321]

https://www.thechurchnews.com/living-faith/2021-05-22/tad-callister-fence-cliff-ambulance-strong-families-213923
 

Elder Callister is getting some flack for his article from last week. Church news made some statements backtracking but i don’t see anything wrong with it. 
 

People are angry because he is arguing for the Family. Most of the outraged seems finding offense at things he didn’t say

[Calm]

My only issue is whether he was speaking of all government programs or only some of them when he quotes Barr:

Quote

 The call comes for more and more social programs to deal with the wreckage. While we think we are solving problems, we are underwriting them

Some social programs may contribute to the problem they are meant to solve, others imo are supportive of families.   And some that have been the worst imo contribute to the negative because they give too little, not because the program is in place...such as programs that don’t gradually adjust for earnings rising as people try to better themselves, but pull funding as soon as someone reaches a minimal level of income...even if that level of income is too low to meet their needs (I am thinking specifically of a Canadian example whose mom I used to visit teach and helped foster the kids for a bit, btw, not American...I am out of touch of American welfare system these days, I would have to do research for specifics).

Edited June 5, 2021 by Calm

[CV75]

On 6/4/2021 at 9:00 PM, Avatar4321 said:

https://www.thechurchnews.com/living-faith/2021-05-22/tad-callister-fence-cliff-ambulance-strong-families-213923
 

Elder Callister is getting some flack for his article from last week. Church news made some statements backtracking but i don’t see anything wrong with it. 
 

People are angry because he is arguing for the Family. Most of the outraged seems finding offense at things he didn’t say

Evidently the problem is he used government and worldly solutions (and ties them to sin and the modus operandi of Satan) as examples of the ambulance at the bottom, rather than simply explain how some ambulances are better than others. This leaves him open to criticism that he is not acknowledging that it is good to have an ambulance at the bottom along with a fence at the top, and that he is going after government as the enemy (when the people of this republic have set up their government). Even the Church has ambulances at the bottom for family dissolution (e.g., Bishops, Self-Reliance and Recovery Programs), along with the Proclamation as the fence at the top, not to mention the doctrines, covenants and ordinances of salvation and exaltation.

He could have equally said, “No Church self-reliance or recovery program or policy can compensate for lack of strong families and moral values,” and still have a basis to call us to be “archdefenders of the nuclear family and God’s moral values.”

At any rate, as a quasi-political opinion piece, I see no real harm in it other than it doesn’t draw the opponent into his circle. A time and a place for everything, I guess!

[The Nehor]

The only problematic thing I found was quoting Barr at all.

[JamesBYoung]

The people of God live in a mortal world.

We the People have set up our government in certain ways, and as Christ has told us that we should give to Caesar's that which is his. Because it is not of God does not automatically make in wrong or unworthy.

[bsjkki]

It’s a good talk. It’s basically the same principle AOC was addressing with her ‘build less prisons’ statements. She would prefer the money go to preventing the need for prisons by investing in communities. Instead of treating root causes of dysfunction, we are treating the symptoms while enabling the very actions that create the dysfunction. 

[bluebell]

On 6/4/2021 at 7:00 PM, Avatar4321 said:

https://www.thechurchnews.com/living-faith/2021-05-22/tad-callister-fence-cliff-ambulance-strong-families-213923
 

Elder Callister is getting some flack for his article from last week. Church news made some statements backtracking but i don’t see anything wrong with it. 
 

People are angry because he is arguing for the Family. Most of the outraged seems finding offense at things he didn’t say

My one vocal trans/openly gay friend on facebook, who grew up a member (I was their YW leader a decade ago) was livid about this talk, and so was everyone who commented on her post about it.  

Edited June 8, 2021 by bluebell

[Chum]

12 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Instead of treating root causes of dysfunction, we are treating the symptoms while enabling the very actions that create the dysfunction. 

Folks who profit from treating the symptoms also fund elections.

[Chum]

For a discussion about bad social behaviors, it seems super unaware of society's highly successful war on redemption.

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

My one vocal trans/opening gay friend on facebook, who grew up a member (I was their YW leader a decade ago) was livid about this talk, and so was everyone who commented on her post about it.  

Is that surprising? Do they usually support talks by Church leaders?
 

As a parent, I cheer on every good decision of my kids. But, I also struggle with what actions enable and which actions help. It’s not an easy line to identify sometimes. I think, as a nation, and even in the church, we struggle with  this. 

This same debate surrounds expanded unemployment benefits. What initially was needed is now creating its own set of consequences  Unemployment benefits as a safety net is a good thing. Paying people more than what they make at a job with a plentiful job market is not.
 

 

 

Edited June 8, 2021 by bsjkki

[bluebell]

31 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Is that surprising? Do they usually support talks by Church leaders?
 

The vitriol was a bit surprising.  She lives in Utah, graduated from BYU, and has parents that are supportive but still extremely active in the church.  She usually does a good job on Facebook of being open about her beliefs/identity without too much animosity aimed at the church.  Mostly it's funny memes that get in a dig with a laugh.

[pogi]

On 6/8/2021 at 10:36 AM, bluebell said:

My one vocal trans/openly gay friend on facebook, who grew up a member (I was their YW leader a decade ago) was livid about this talk, and so was everyone who commented on her post about it.  

I can see why, from her perspective:

Quote

“The Family: A Proclamation to the World” confirms the essentiality of the family unit to the well-being of society: “The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan.” The proclamation then warns “that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.” It then concludes: “We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.”

Quote

His plan is in direct opposition to the family proclamation. It is an insidious attempt to destroy the nuclear family and God’s moral values. He disguises his plan of attack with alluring labels such as “pro-choice” for abortion, “love and compassion” for endorsement of same-sex marriage, and “environmental emergency” for promotion of a zero-growth population agenda. Each of these proposals, however, constitutes a frontal attack on the family unit and its survival. These “solutions” are nothing less than time bombs wrapped with glitter and a glamorous bow. Ultimately, the day of reckoning will come and the explosion will occur. One cannot circumvent God’s commands and expect to escape the divine consequences, regardless of how decorated the package may be or how cosmetically appealing the language may sound.

 

 

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, pogi said:

I can see why, from her perspective:

 

 

I can too.  I just thought the reaction was interesting given that the article did not present any new information or teachings.   He was basically just towing the party line, one she and her friends were already very familiar with.

I'm sure there was real hurt behind the anger and I'm guessing it wasn't caused by what the speaker said, but by what his words represented--a dashed (distant) hope that the church is on the verge of changing it's doctrine on SSM (and I don't blame anyone for having that hope).   These kinds of talks just reiterate that, at least in the foreseeable future, that isn't going to happen. 

The article probably felt like the twisting of a knife in an open wound.  

[MiserereNobis]

From the article:

Quote

His plan is in direct opposition to the family proclamation. It is an insidious attempt to destroy the nuclear family and God’s moral values.

From the LDS point-of-view (doctrinally and/or culturally), is the nuclear family God's ideal view of a family?

I ask because I live in an area that definitely focuses on the extended family. Many families have multi-generational homes, and some include aunts/uncles/cousins, too. This was much more prevalent 50 years ago, but is still quite obvious.

(I live in Mesilla, in southern NM. My town was originally on the Mexican side of the US-Mexico border after the Mexican American war and took in all the people around who didn't want to be Americans. It became part of America after the Gadsden purchase. I like to point this fact out when people complain about Mexican flags being flown in places in America. There's always Mexican flags around here and Cinco de Mayo is a HUGE festival. But hey, we were in Mexico before the US tried to take us in a war of aggression and then bought us out, ha.)

I'm sure there are other cultures around the world that place higher value on extended families than nuclear families.

[bluebell]

56 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

From the article:

From the LDS point-of-view (doctrinally and/or culturally), is the nuclear family God's ideal view of a family?

I ask because I live in an area that definitely focuses on the extended family. Many families have multi-generational homes, and some include aunts/uncles/cousins, too. This was much more prevalent 50 years ago, but is still quite obvious.

(I live in Mesilla, in southern NM. My town was originally on the Mexican side of the US-Mexico border after the Mexican American war and took in all the people around who didn't want to be Americans. It became part of America after the Gadsden purchase. I like to point this fact out when people complain about Mexican flags being flown in places in America. There's always Mexican flags around here and Cinco de Mayo is a HUGE festival. But hey, we were in Mexico before the US tried to take us in a war of aggression and then bought us out, ha.)

I'm sure there are other cultures around the world that place higher value on extended families than nuclear families.

The whole point of the temple is to seal families together, multigeneralionaly.  

[Calm]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm sure there are other cultures around the world that place higher value on extended families than nuclear families.

I don’t get the use of nuclear family by church leaders unless it means for them a family that has at its core a mother and father, because there is a big deal about involving extended family in one’s life and helping each other.  I am thinking they are thinking if Mom and Dad are missing, the extended family can’t fill up the missing spot as well as having Mom and dad both present even if the extended family with Mom and Dad is better than just Mom and Dad on their own. 
 

But also I don’t get any sense of immorality (not in the chasity sense, but choosing sinfully) in a family that is not extended where choosing not to have a father or mother present (through divorce or pregnancy outside of marriage or even adoption as a single parent) often has at least a tinge of it...as in there is nothing wrong in living a life isolated from relatives but wrongness in having a single parent (though the single parent isn’t always held responsible as it may not have been a choice).

Edited June 10, 2021 by Calm

[Stargazer]

On 6/5/2021 at 3:01 AM, Calm said:

My only issue is whether he was speaking of all government programs or only some of them when he quotes Barr:

Quote

The call comes for more and more social programs to deal with the wreckage. While we think we are solving problems, we are underwriting them

Some social programs may contribute to the problem they are meant to solve, others imo are supportive of families.   And some that have been the worst imo contribute to the negative because they give too little, not because the program is in place...such as programs that don’t gradually adjust for earnings rising as people try to better themselves, but pull funding as soon as someone reaches a minimal level of income...even if that level of income is too low to meet their needs (I am thinking specifically of a Canadian example whose mom I used to visit teach and helped foster the kids for a bit, btw, not American...I am out of touch of American welfare system these days, I would have to do research for specifics).

Taking the statement too broadly is part of the problem, too. I'm sure he recognizes that some programs help those who need help. But I'm sure he is also aware that where there is a program there will be people who will find a way to exploit it unethically.

You are of the opinion that some social programs are supportive of families. Others are of the opinion that the ones that contribute to the problems are no less necessary than the ones you support. Every program has its supporters. Some are vociferous about it.

It remains an iron rule that behavior that is subsidized will be maintained, and will likely increase. I've seen this kind of thing personally. 

[Stargazer]

On 6/10/2021 at 2:29 AM, MiserereNobis said:

From the LDS point-of-view (doctrinally and/or culturally), is the nuclear family God's ideal view of a family?

I ask because I live in an area that definitely focuses on the extended family. Many families have multi-generational homes, and some include aunts/uncles/cousins, too. This was much more prevalent 50 years ago, but is still quite obvious.

Yes, but not to the exclusion of the extended. When it comes to "social programs" the LDS church prefers for its members that those in need start with the immediate family, then if those resources are not enough, to go to the extended family. If those resources cannot supply, then going the Church is the next level. The Church would prefer that those in need not go to the government at all. But this is a guideline, not a rule.

The primary reason (I believe) for avoiding the government if possible is to avoid exactly what is happening on a large scale: dependence upon government programs. We put a large store in self-reliance.

I've personally seen a number of people who structure their lives on keeping their eligibility for government handouts. It is not good.

[ksfisher]

On 6/12/2021 at 7:14 AM, Stargazer said:

The Church would prefer that those in need not go to the government at all. But this is a guideline, not a rule.

From the handbook

22.4
Principles for Providing Church Assistance

With the help of the Lord, members seek to provide for themselves and their families. When members need financial assistance, they should turn to the following sources in this order:

    1. Their extended family

    2. Government and community financial resources

    3. Church assistance through fast offerings

[The Nehor]

The Church has culturally focused on the nuclear family mostly because they could. In Utah and the colonies there was enough room to spread out when children were grown and then in the post-war US the nuclear family separating was the norm. Suburbia contributed to some degree in creating a kind of surrogate extended family. On one hand maybe having extended family around is a boon but I have known enough immigrants from cultures that have multi-generational households to see how desperately those who leave it now covet their own space. On the other hand it lessens loneliness and there is a strong advantage in interacting with people of both genders who you are not directly in a parent-child or sibling relationship with. This is particularly useful in understanding people in general and (I suspect) mitigates xenophobic hatreds based on gender and age. I suspect this has a little to do with things like the incel movement but that is supposition.

The Church does emphasize extended family more than US culture at large. I can name all 38 of my cousins and have a vague idea of where they are in life and see most of them two or three times a decade. I also know some of my second cousins. Most non-members I know don’t know their extended family as well but there is a lot of variation. Most studies show that whether extended families stick together mostly depends on whether they have a strong and respected figure that kind of oversees everyone to a degree. Usually but not always a matriarch.

One of the downsides of US careerism is it tends to separate families by distance as everyone seeks opportunities but upsides are mixed in there. I have also known families that one should flee as quickly as possible. Toxic, messed up families where those inside rarely realize how predatory and outrageous their demands on each other are.

 

In short, I have no idea. The multi-generational family is important to members through sealings and we seem to be urged to form all kinds of familial relationships. We are already children of the Father. We are encouraged to become the children of Christ. We seal ourselves to others in family units. I only have a few vague suspicions as to why this is so important.

Edited June 17, 2021 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

On 6/12/2021 at 8:14 AM, Stargazer said:

Yes, but not to the exclusion of the extended. When it comes to "social programs" the LDS church prefers for its members that those in need start with the immediate family, then if those resources are not enough, to go to the extended family. If those resources cannot supply, then going the Church is the next level. The Church would prefer that those in need not go to the government at all. But this is a guideline, not a rule.

The primary reason (I believe) for avoiding the government if possible is to avoid exactly what is happening on a large scale: dependence upon government programs. We put a large store in self-reliance.

I've personally seen a number of people who structure their lives on keeping their eligibility for government handouts. It is not good.

That guideline not to seek government assistance is no longer in the handbook or taught. As ksfisher pointed out government assistance should be sought before Fast Offering help. One of the roles of those helping those on church welfare is helping them find programs and help from government and community resources for food, funds, and job training.

[Stargazer]

On 6/17/2021 at 4:50 AM, The Nehor said:

That guideline not to seek government assistance is no longer in the handbook or taught. As ksfisher pointed out government assistance should be sought before Fast Offering help. One of the roles of those helping those on church welfare is helping them find programs and help from government and community resources for food, funds, and job training.

Wow, that's different.

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Wow, that's different.

Been that way since the 80s where I lived. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Wow, that's different.

Yeah, there has definitely been a shift.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, there has definitely been a shift.

It makes sense. Members are taxpayers who contribute to the national welfare systems.