April 2020 General Conference - Global Pandemic Edition

[Bo Diddley]

All of those may be possible, but it assumes that the people putting together the report did not control for those variables. Maybe it's not that type of report. Which still leaves me with the group at Princeton (and I've seen other reports of the same) that across multiple categories children of biological parents do better. They suggest that this is the consensus view (most scholars).

Right, I'm sure people have controlled, etc. But I never truly trust the numbers until I've done my own deep dive, and they've answered my concerns

[swampfrog]

I suspect these numbers are simply the tip of the iceberg. If that's the case, what would cause cases to be unreported? Are they the same for each of the groups compared? Or are there different dynamics at play that make it easier to report in one group than another, or dynamics that make it more difficult to report?

All of those may be possible, but it assumes that the people putting together the report did not control for those variables. Maybe it's not that type of report. Which still leaves me with the group at Princeton (and I've seen other reports of the same) that across multiple categories children of biological parents do better. They suggest that this is the consensus view (most scholars).

[CardiacCoug]

I think my intent is being misread, so I'll cite data. Tell me if they have it wrong and where data shows that. This is the US Depart of Health and Human Services report to Congress in 2010. There are diagrams showing the relative levels included in the link but not quoted here.

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/defaul...df_jan2010.pdf

Section 5.3.1 Differences in the Incidence of Harm Standard Maltreatmen tRelated to Family Structure and Living Arrangement

















Did the author's of the report get it wrong?

Oh brother.

Sure there are averages and statistics.

But you realize there are biological parents who literally throw their kids in the garbage right?

And then adoptive parents (straight and gay) who raise those non-biological kids in a fantastic way.

No church should be expressing any preference for “biological” parent-child relationships. That is some un-Christian bullshit.

[Bo Diddley]

I think my intent is being misread, so I'll cite data. Tell me if they have it wrong and where data shows that. This is the US Depart of Health and Human Services report to Congress in 2010. There are diagrams showing the relative levels included in the link but not quoted here.

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/defaul...df_jan2010.pdf

Section 5.3.1 Differences in the Incidence of Harm Standard Maltreatmen tRelated to Family Structure and Living Arrangement

















Did the author's of the report get it wrong?

I suspect these numbers are simply the tip of the iceberg. If that's the case, what would cause cases to be unreported? Are they the same for each of the groups compared? Or are there different dynamics at play that make it easier to report in one group than another, or dynamics that make it more difficult to report?

[jay santos]

This kind of stuff is pretty offensive to parents of adopted kids and just wrong.

Every parent of both biological and adopted kids will tell you there isn’t any difference at all in how well you parent them or how you feel about them.

Who on earth would think that two gay men who adopt kids wouldn’t be fantastic Dads and probably way better than most hetero dads at attending school functions and making sure the kids have their hair combed/styled and cool clothes etc? This idea that anybody is a better parent to “biological” kids is total bullshit!

I'm pro-LGBT and pro-Proclamation. I think it's great that as a religion we stress the importance of the nuclear family and the necessity of the roles of mother and father and talk about the meaning in life that marriage and family bring and the model of the Proclamation family as an ideal. I also think we could better incorporate the people that don't fit into that model (gay, divorced, never married, unable to have children, etc) without making them feel bad.

[swampfrog]

Additional information here:

Are these scholars also wrong?

https://futureofchildren.princeton.e...ll_journal.pdf

Whereas most scholars now agree that children raised by two biological parents in a stable marriage do better than children in other family forms across a wide range of outcomes, there is less consensus about why.

[swampfrog]

This kind of stuff is pretty offensive to parents of adopted kids and just wrong.

Every parent of both biological and adopted kids will tell you there isn’t any difference at all in how well you parent them or how you feel about them.

Who on earth would think that two gay men who adopt kids wouldn’t be fantastic Dads and probably way better than most hetero dads at attending school functions and making sure the kids have their hair combed/styled and cool clothes etc? This idea that anybody is a better parent to “biological” kids is total bullshit!

I think my intent is being misread, so I'll cite data. Tell me if they have it wrong and where data shows that. This is the US Depart of Health and Human Services report to Congress in 2010. There are diagrams showing the relative levels included in the link but not quoted here.

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/defaul...df_jan2010.pdf

Section 5.3.1 Differences in the Incidence of Harm Standard Maltreatmen tRelated to Family Structure and Living Arrangement

All maltreatment. Children living with two married biological parents had the lowest rate of overall Harm Standard maltreatment, at 6.8 per 1,000 children. This rate differs significantly from the rates for all other family structure and living arrangement circumstances. Children living with one parent who had an unmarried partner in the household had the highest incidence of Harm Standard maltreatment (57.2per 1,000). Their rate is more than 8 times greater than the rate for children living with two married biological parents.The incidence of Harm Standard maltreatment also is significantly higher for children living with one parent and that parent’s unmarried partner than for children in three other conditions: children living with other married parents (24.4 children per1,000), those living with two unmarried parents (23.5 children per 1,000), and those living with a single parent with no partner in the household (28.4 children per 1,000).The risk of Harm Standard maltreatment for children whose single parent has an unmarried partner is more than 2 times greater than the risk for children living in these other living arrangements.

Neglect. The pattern of group differences is somewhat different for the incidence of Harm Standard neglect. Children living with just one parent, under any living arrangement, had significantly higher rates of Harm Standard neglect (27.0 and 19.6 per 1,000 children) than those living with two married biological parents (4.2 per1,000 children). The estimated rates in the single-parent conditions are more than 4 times the rate among children living with their married biological parents. Also, children whose single parent had no partner had a significantly higher Harm Standard neglect rate than children living with other married parents (19.6 versus 9.3 children per 1,000).In addition, children living with their two married biological parents experienced Harm Standard neglect at a lower rate than children with other married legal parents, children with unmarried parents, and children living with neither parent (4.2 versus 9.3, 12.6, and 20.4 children per 1,000, respectively), although these differences are statistically marginal.

Emotional abuse. 71 Only three significant differences emerged in emotional abuse rates. Children living with other married parents and those living with a single parent, whether with or without a partner, were emotionally abused at significantly higher rates than those living with two married biological parents (2.9 or more children per 1,000 versus 0.8 children per 1,000, respectively). The rates differ by a factor of more than 3; the highest rate, for children whose single parent lived with a partner, is more than 10 times greater than the lowest rate, for children living with two married biological parents.

Emotional neglect. 73 Children living with other married parents and those living with one parent (with or without a cohabiting partner) had significantly higher rates of emotional neglect than children living with two married biological parents.

Serious harm. The incidence of children who suffered serious harm due to Harm Standard maltreatment was significantly lower for children living with two married biological parents (2.6 per 1,000 children) compared to children living with parents under all other circumstances (9.1 or more children per 1,000).

Moderate harm. Children living with their married biological parents had a significantly lower rate of moderate harm from Harm Standard maltreatment compared to children in any other condition.

Inferred harm.75 Although the rates of this outcome appear small, the relative differences across the subgroups are considerable and statistically reliable.Children living in any circumstance other than with their two married biological parents had significantly higher risks of inferred harm from Harm Standard maltreatment compared to children living with their two married biological parents.

All Maltreatment. Figure 5–9 shows the incidence rates of Endangerment Standard maltreatment for the different family structure and living arrangement subgroups. The rate of overall Endangerment Standard maltreatment for children living with two married biological parents (15.8 children per 1,000) is significantly lower than the rates for children in all other circumstances (51.5 or more children per 1,000).

Did the author's of the report get it wrong?

[UVACoug]

Yeah, I think you make a fair point with the use of the word perversion. It is a harsher term. Although it can certainly apply more broadly to disapproved heterosexual behavior, it is usually associated with homosexual behavior.

I'm still curious what other members think about this topic more generally, especially if you think Oak's comments are anti-gay. At this point, what changes are you looking for from the church? Is teaching the law of chastity now divisive and anti-gay? Do you think the law of chastity should be changed? Should the church allow for gay marriages and as long as the couple is married then homosexual sex is okay? How far do people think we should be going as a church?

To be transparent, my view is that the church should be as understanding, sensitive, welcoming and loving as possible while maintaining the principle of eternal families and the law of chastity as is. Not trying to play gotcha with anyone or argue, just curious about other members' views here.

I don't think it is offensive that he used the word "perversion," even if he was talking about homosexual sex specifically (which it is not clear that he was). From his perspective, and the perspective of the Church, that is exactly what it is. A perversion of God's plan and the Law of Chastity. I respect him for not softening his language to make it seem like the Church doesn't stand for what it stands for.

Some in the LGBT community thinks it's hateful to call homosexual sex a sin. I respect their right to have that opinion, but strongly disagree with it. If someone honestly believes it is a sin, how is it hateful for them to say that in meeting devoted to preaching Church doctrine and to persuade people to take a path that they believe will lead back to God? If a person believes they are called of God to preach the truth, wouldn't that person be doing a disservice to himself and his mission by beating around the bush and avoiding saying things that may be difficult to hear to avoid hurting the feelings of those that have chosen to take another path? And wouldn't they also be doing a disservice to those that disagree by making it seem like the Church teaches something that it doesn't?

I think being completely honest about what you believe, especially if you are someone that speaks on behalf of a Church, is just about the least hateful think someone can do.

[UVACoug]

Guys, I am sympathetic to and agree with many of these wishes for change. But to be upset that the church would put so much focus on the first vision/restoration on the 200-year anniversary of arguably the seminal event in the history of the church is just not rational or realistic.

I was honestly surprised that it wasn't more focused on Joseph Smith. I didn't watch the whole thing, but from what I did see it seemed like most of the speakers that spoke about the First Vision tried to do it from a Christ-centered perspective rather than one that tried to lionize Joseph Smith. I thought the balance was appropriate.

[tooblue]

i also picture a woman who's had miscarriages and other fertility issues (and not the kind sheri dew has, where any living creature that gets within 24" of her man eating venus fly trap is instantly vaporized by the protective virginity force field) sitting at home hearing how the power to create mortal life is the most exalted gift given by god. truly unnecessary, and what's the upside of saying that if not to be hurtful and derisive?

Hurtful and derisive? That is some impressive post-modernist mental gymnastics you are doing. By the way, did you get the meme I posted ... of course you didn't, because you are out of touch.

[old_gregg]

This kind of stuff is pretty offensive to parents of adopted kids and just wrong.

Every parent of both biological and adopted kids will tell you there isn’t any difference at all in how well you parent them or how you feel about them.

Who on earth would think that two gay men who adopt kids wouldn’t be fantastic Dads and probably way better than most hetero dads at attending school functions and making sure the kids have their hair combed/styled and cool clothes etc? This idea that anybody is a better parent to “biological” kids is total bullshit!

i also picture a woman who's had miscarriages and other fertility issues (and not the kind sheri dew has, where any living creature that gets within 24" of her man eating venus fly trap is instantly vaporized by the protective virginity force field) sitting at home hearing how the power to create mortal life is the most exalted gift given by god. truly unnecessary, and what's the upside of saying that if not to be hurtful and derisive?

[CardiacCoug]

I'll play. This will be just thinking out loud, with some things I have thought through and some that need some critique to fully clarify--either to provide a better definition or is simply wrong in the face of concerns omitted or given insufficient respect.

I'd like temple sealings between a man and a woman to become the standard LDS rite. Emphasize that sealing is about generational linkage and preparatory (but not necessary) for participating in the full process of receiving God's children. It does so by raising the level of commitment within the pair bond so that it has additional spiritual and communal support. Parenting can be very difficult and and strains pair-bonded relationships. An extra level of formality through a religious rite lets the community know that the couple is committed and willing to sacrifice in order to bring God's children into the world. It takes a village. Get out of the legal (state) marriage business. I'd like to see gay marriages that are legally binding accepted with full participatory privileges excepting temple sealing. I'd like to see the church accept that humans (including their psychology) evolved and that being gay is a natural consequence of that evolution and not a perversion of nature. It is nature. It obviously occurs significantly less often, but is a natural emergent property of humanity.

Emphasize that evolutionary forces (kin selection) have caused that biological parents who have a strong pair-bond supported by a community of similarly pair-bonded adults provides the best chance for children to have a well adjusted psyche. The biological parents (on average) will sacrifice more for natural offspring. This is predicted by evolutionary theory and statistically shown to be the case. Make the case that the preferred relationship for children is to be raised in a home with their pair-bonded biological parents. Condition this preference without absolutist language. While it is preferred that children be raised within the framework of married biological parents when possible, exceptions will always occur, etc. etc.

That's a start anyway. I haven't been able to fully envision exactly what it may look like.

This kind of stuff is pretty offensive to parents of adopted kids and just wrong.

Every parent of both biological and adopted kids will tell you there isn’t any difference at all in how well you parent them or how you feel about them.

Who on earth would think that two gay men who adopt kids wouldn’t be fantastic Dads and probably way better than most hetero dads at attending school functions and making sure the kids have their hair combed/styled and cool clothes etc? This idea that anybody is a better parent to “biological” kids is total bullshit!

[Crockett]

I'll play. ...

Thanks for sharing.

I suspect that we will eventually end up with the church no longer receiving civil authority to marry in the US and that we will only perform sealings after the civil union is done (as is done in some countries already).

[swampfrog]

Yeah, I think you make a fair point with the use of the word perversion. It is a harsher term. Although it can certainly apply more broadly to disapproved heterosexual behavior, it is usually associated with homosexual behavior.

I'm still curious what other members think about this topic more generally, especially if you think Oak's comments are anti-gay. At this point, what changes are you looking for from the church? Is teaching the law of chastity now divisive and anti-gay? Do you think the law of chastity should be changed? Should the church allow for gay marriages and as long as the couple is married then homosexual sex is okay? How far do people think we should be going as a church?

To be transparent, my view is that the church should be as understanding, sensitive, welcoming and loving as possible while maintaining the principle of eternal families and the law of chastity as is. Not trying to play gotcha with anyone or argue, just curious about other members' views here.

I'll play. This will be just thinking out loud, with some things I have thought through and some that need some critique to fully clarify--either to provide a better definition or is simply wrong in the face of concerns omitted or given insufficient respect.

I'd like temple sealings between a man and a woman to become the standard LDS rite. Emphasize that sealing is about generational linkage and preparatory (but not necessary) for participating in the full process of receiving God's children. It does so by raising the level of commitment within the pair bond so that it has additional spiritual and communal support. Parenting can be very difficult and and strains pair-bonded relationships. An extra level of formality through a religious rite lets the community know that the couple is committed and willing to sacrifice in order to bring God's children into the world. It takes a village. Get out of the legal (state) marriage business. I'd like to see gay marriages that are legally binding accepted with full participatory privileges excepting temple sealing. I'd like to see the church accept that humans (including their psychology) evolved and that being gay is a natural consequence of that evolution and not a perversion of nature. It is nature. It obviously occurs significantly less often, but is a natural emergent property of humanity.

Emphasize that evolutionary forces (kin selection) have caused that biological parents who have a strong pair-bond supported by a community of similarly pair-bonded adults provides the best chance for children to have a well adjusted psyche. The biological parents (on average) will sacrifice more for natural offspring. This is predicted by evolutionary theory and statistically shown to be the case. Make the case that the preferred relationship for children is to be raised in a home with their pair-bonded biological parents. Condition this preference without absolutist language. While it is preferred that children be raised within the framework of married biological parents when possible, exceptions will always occur, etc. etc.

That's a start anyway. I haven't been able to fully envision exactly what it may look like.

[Crockett]

Oaks is careful about his use of language. I'd argue that the use of the word perversion, which has frequently been used to describe homosexuality, is part of what makes that statement anti-Gay. It also treats homosexual sex differently than heterosexual sex. Heterosexuals can have God sanctioned sex, homosexuals cannot. Every act of homosexual sex, whether married or not, is "a sinful degrading and perversion of the most divine attribute of men and women."

He calls homosexual marriage "worldly forces in law and custom."

Yeah, I think you make a fair point with the use of the word perversion. It is a harsher term. Although it can certainly apply more broadly to disapproved heterosexual behavior, it is usually associated with homosexual behavior.

I'm still curious what other members think about this topic more generally, especially if you think Oak's comments are anti-gay. At this point, what changes are you looking for from the church? Is teaching the law of chastity now divisive and anti-gay? Do you think the law of chastity should be changed? Should the church allow for gay marriages and as long as the couple is married then homosexual sex is okay? How far do people think we should be going as a church?

To be transparent, my view is that the church should be as understanding, sensitive, welcoming and loving as possible while maintaining the principle of eternal families and the law of chastity as is. Not trying to play gotcha with anyone or argue, just curious about other members' views here.