April 2020 General Conference - Global Pandemic Edition

[BigFatMeanie]

In the first month of my mission, my zone leader companion decided to rededicate the area for the work. He trapsed the entire zone to the spot where Spencer W. Kimball had originally dedicated the mission and offered his own dedicatory prayer. Apparently President Kimball's prayer didn't take.

You could've at least had the decency to withdraw, like Martin Harris did, so that the spirit would not be restrained.

[Non Sequitur]

I hope we don’t have to do a special fast for the pandemic again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In the first month of my mission, my zone leader companion decided to rededicate the area for the work. He trapsed the entire zone to the spot where Spencer W. Kimball had originally dedicated the mission and offered his own dedicatory prayer. Apparently President Kimball's prayer didn't take.

[MartyFunkhouser]

Lol. Remember the handwringing by ex-mos that the Mormons were going to think their fast worked because the fast happened right as things were calming down in some places.

Some of us didn't give a shit if you claimed credit for it.

[All-American]

Lol. Remember the handwringing by ex-mos that the Mormons were going to think their fast worked because the fast happened right as things were calming down in some places.

Or the concern that we were appropriating Catholicism.

[Donuthole]

I hope we don’t have to do a special fast for the pandemic again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lol. Remember the handwringing by ex-mos that the Mormons were going to think their fast worked because the fast happened right as things were calming down in some places.

[LVAllen]

I hope we don’t have to do a special fast for the pandemic again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did that end yet? Kinda getting hungry.

[Moliere]

I hope we don’t have to do a special fast for the pandemic again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sullyute]

Bump.

[swampfrog]

It seems funny to me to play the averages when discussing family settings. And I think you have to be careful about it so as to not exclude people and have them determine that since, say, they're divorced and won't ever be a family with both biological parents then they are less than another family and can't hope to achieve what a married couple with all bio kids can achieve. Or if there's a single parent that is single due to having an abusive spouse, for example, that their kids are now screwed because they'll never have that nuclear family with both bio parents at home.

With that in mind - the proclamation does OK to essentially say that kids benefit most from having both bio parents in a home free from abuses and neglect. But I think there's got to be some built in exceptions that revolve more around what are the expectations as far as rearing those kids. Regardless of being a nuclear family with both bio parents, a blended family from divorced parents, a single parent who got that way a variety of ways, an adoptive parent, or even a gay parent/couple. How we treat each other, how we treat children, how we act in the role of a parent really isn't respective of what our family looks like.

And the more accepting we can be of the various kinds of families while espousing an ideal of how we treat each other and treat children will, I think, make the greatest difference. Single parents need to know that they can be "acceptable" before God and church leaders. As do blended families due to remarriage. If you're telling them the ideal is both bio families in the home - and they already know they'll never have that - then you've got some of them believing or feeling like they'll never belong from the beginning. So I think you have to be careful with that.

I'll probably come back to this in the future, but this is still navigation in the same territory. I need to do some more reading and thinking. But this is the essential problem. Raising any kind of ideal--"...kids benefit most from having both bio parents in a home free from abuses and neglect" immediately creates a standard that other family structures cannot meet. That is not the same thing as saying they don't have value. It does however create a value hierarchy that at least insinuates less good--on average.

Human nature results in dysfunctional family environments. A stable family is better than an a dysfunctional one regardless of structure. That makes alternative structures required, needed, and valued. Yet, they still aren't the ideal. It's one of the problems with striving for perfection, it often comes in conflict with great--"the best is the enemy of the good" (attributed to Voltaire).

My problem with efforts to minimize the biological framing is that I accept the evolutionary model as valid and true. If it's valid, all creatures in the animal kingdom universally (as far as I understand) prefer their own offspring to those of others. That preference is not a conscious one, it's instinctual, built by selection pressures over millions of years. One (if the The) theme of Dawkin's book, "The Selfish Gene" is essentially that a gene benefits over generations from favoring individuals who are likely to bear its copies. That can be leveraged in a family structure, and it's going to occur whether we like it or not and it cannot be suppressed. Do we structure societies/communities/cultures around that or not? That's the question I'm essentially trying it answer. How much emphasis should a culture impose on, or even acknowledge that truth? To co-opt the common phrase from business management, how much do we lean into that?

I have no idea how they want to word that. I just think if you cut people out by espousing an ideal that so many can't reach (look around your ward - how many are single parents? How many have divorced? How many have remarried?), then you're setting them up to feel less than.

Let's take this out of the context of relationships. Athletics. Intelligence. Personality traits. School class size. Humans are confronted with ideals that are not achievable by some set of the population in a variety of different contexts for a variety of reasons. This leaves individuals or groups feeling left out or less than the ideal. That's a problem. Is the solution to the throw out the ideal? Or is family settings so different than all of those that the same reasoning doesn't apply? Where are they similar? Where are they different?

I still don't know what to do with this data, incidence rate per 1,000. Note this is the estimated incidence rate. Table c-10 from the previously linked congressional report.

FAMILY STRUCTURE/LIVING ARRANGEMENT = MARRIED PARENTS, BOTH BIOLOGICAL

ALL MALTREATED 15.760
ALL ABUSED 4.322
PHYSICALLY ABUSED 2.488
SEXUALLY ABUSED 0.685
EMOTIONALLY ABUSED 1.800
ALL NEGLECTED 12.844
PHYSICALLY NEGLECTED 6.472
EMOTIONALLY NEGLECTED 6.736
EDUCATIONALLY NEGLECTED 1.927
SEVERITY, FATAL 0.021
SEVERITY, SERIOUS 2.760
SEVERITY, MODERATE 5.961
SEVERITY, INFERRED 0.879
SEVERITY, ENDANGERED 6.140

FAMILY STRUCTURE/LIVING ARRANGEMENT = OTHER MARRIED PARENTS

ALL MALTREATED 51.459
ALL ABUSED 25.299
PHYSICALLY ABUSED 15.374
SEXUALLY ABUSED 5.547
EMOTIONALLY ABUSED 8.605
ALL NEGLECTED 33.964
PHYSICALLY NEGLECTED 15.068
EMOTIONALLY NEGLECTED 21.559
EDUCATIONALLY NEGLECTED 3.567
SEVERITY, FATAL 0.056
SEVERITY, SERIOUS 9.477
SEVERITY, MODERATE 17.042
SEVERITY, INFERRED 5.282
SEVERITY, ENDANGERED 19.602

There isn't a single category of abuse where married biological parents have higher rates than other married parents. So while biological parents do indeed mistreat their children, sometimes horribly, the rate of occurrence for every other family structure is worse, including fatalities. The most powerful policy making organization in the country asks for and receives this data. They want to know about all the maltreatment of children in the country, divided up multiple ways, family structure being one of them.

Just taking one data point, that's roughly 5 times more likely to be abused (physical, sexual, emotional). Honest question, what does one do with that?

[Bo Diddley]

It seems funny to me to play the averages when discussing family settings. And I think you have to be careful about it so as to not exclude people and have them determine that since, say, they're divorced and won't ever be a family with both biological parents then they are less than another family and can't hope to achieve what a married couple with all bio kids can achieve. Or if there's a single parent that is single due to having an abusive spouse, for example, that their kids are now screwed because they'll never have that nuclear family with both bio parents at home.

With that in mind - the proclamation does OK to essentially say that kids benefit most from having both bio parents in a home free from abuses and neglect. But I think there's got to be some built in exceptions that revolve more around what are the expectations as far as rearing those kids. Regardless of being a nuclear family with both bio parents, a blended family from divorced parents, a single parent who got that way a variety of ways, an adoptive parent, or even a gay parent/couple. How we treat each other, how we treat children, how we act in the role of a parent really isn't respective of what our family looks like.

And the more accepting we can be of the various kinds of families while espousing an ideal of how we treat each other and treat children will, I think, make the greatest difference. Single parents need to know that they can be "acceptable" before God and church leaders. As do blended families due to remarriage. If you're telling them the ideal is both bio families in the home - and they already know they'll never have that - then you've got some of them believing or feeling like they'll never belong from the beginning. So I think you have to be careful with that.

I have no idea how they want to word that. I just think if you cut people out by espousing an ideal that so many can't reach (look around your ward - how many are single parents? How many have divorced? How many have remarried?), then you're setting them up to feel less than.

Love it. We need to do more in this respect.

[Eddie]

It seems funny to me to play the averages when discussing family settings. And I think you have to be careful about it so as to not exclude people and have them determine that since, say, they're divorced and won't ever be a family with both biological parents then they are less than another family and can't hope to achieve what a married couple with all bio kids can achieve. Or if there's a single parent that is single due to having an abusive spouse, for example, that their kids are now screwed because they'll never have that nuclear family with both bio parents at home.

With that in mind - the proclamation does OK to essentially say that kids benefit most from having both bio parents in a home free from abuses and neglect. But I think there's got to be some built in exceptions that revolve more around what are the expectations as far as rearing those kids. Regardless of being a nuclear family with both bio parents, a blended family from divorced parents, a single parent who got that way a variety of ways, an adoptive parent, or even a gay parent/couple. How we treat each other, how we treat children, how we act in the role of a parent really isn't respective of what our family looks like.

And the more accepting we can be of the various kinds of families while espousing an ideal of how we treat each other and treat children will, I think, make the greatest difference. Single parents need to know that they can be "acceptable" before God and church leaders. As do blended families due to remarriage. If you're telling them the ideal is both bio families in the home - and they already know they'll never have that - then you've got some of them believing or feeling like they'll never belong from the beginning. So I think you have to be careful with that.

I have no idea how they want to word that. I just think if you cut people out by espousing an ideal that so many can't reach (look around your ward - how many are single parents? How many have divorced? How many have remarried?), then you're setting them up to feel less than.

[MartyFunkhouser]

remember, as jesus said, "if a decision is not more likely than not to lead to a median outcome, it is not my plan"

That is my second favorite Jesus quote of all time.

[swampfrog]

The goal would obviously be to move as many children as possible from higher risk to lower risk family environments (from bad to good). Assuming that is managed, what attempt is made to progress good, better, best? From what I can tell, the evolutionary theory that selection molds all reproductive species to activities that preserve their particular genetic spelling is pretty solid at this point (as shown by studies of child outcomes). In what ways (if any) should communities leverage such tendencies? Is there harm in acknowledging this nature?

I appreciate the feedback as I try to work through some of these thoughts. I have been seeing these types of studies for a while and trying to understand what impact they have in historical communities. Further wondering how this information should or could be incorporated into societal institutions such as religions.

Holding up any model as an ideal for human behavior immediately has unavoidable judgmental repercussions. Doesn't matter what the domain is that the ideal is placed. That can be tricky to navigate. Removal of all ideals doesn't seem tenable either because humans need goals.

[old_gregg]

remember, as jesus said, "if a decision is not more likely than not to lead to a median outcome, it is not my plan"

[swampfrog]

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.

Are there adoptive/step parents who do the same or similar? At what rates do they occur? (I expect a lot less since at least in the US perspective adoptive parents are heavily screened).

I don't have a lot of (or any) skin in this game. I follow quite a few evolutionary academics and this has come up multiple times. I've tried to follow their sources.

Sourced from here citing research.

First, research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. – Kristin Anderson Moore, Susan M. Jekielek and Carol Emig, “Marriage from a Child’s Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We Do about It?”, Child Trends Research Brief, June 2002

The fact that both adults have a biological connection to the child would increase the likelihood that the parents would identify with the child and be willing to sacrifice for that child and it would reduce the likelihood that either parent would abuse the child. – Sara McLanahan, Growing up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps

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.” –Brookings Institute

How should a society, community, church etc. express this? Ignore it? If this data is true, that the best possible outcome for the maximum number of children is to be raised in a stable marriage by two biological parents, shouldn't society be organized in a way such that these relationships maximize? How is that done? Is preference the wrong word, how about recognizing and ideal instead?

Can that simultaneously be done while also recognizing that those children in obviously distressing circumstances be moved to adopted families that are a vast improvement?