Prompted by a book I received to review (I’ll get to that when I finish reading it), I’ve been thinking a lot about the family recently. What is the family? What is its significance? Why is the traditional view of family being challenged and disrupted?
Why do people tell total strangers that they can’t wait for school to start because their kids are driving them crazy? When did our culture come to support neglect and question the welfare of children in homes where the parents wanted to be with them? Why does “socialization” involve removing a child from the bonds of his closest relationships?
Why is the state viewed as a liberator while the family is viewed as the despot?
As the pro-family movement attempts to counter these forces, why has it become so reactive? Why is it so narrowly focused on effecting policy regarding disparate issues at the state and national level?
What should we be fighting for?
The Family Manifesto attempts to lay out a unifying vision to support the family and is available for download. It is close enough to the heart of the issues that I think it is well worth the time to read and to discuss. Are any of you up for a little assignment and “manifesto discussion?” It is only 28 pages long (in the book), and I’d love to read some of your thoughts on it. While it isn’t perfect, it leaves me with another question.
Why is something written to uphold something as universal as the family so controversial?
Related Tags: natural family, family
Principled Discovery is a place to stop and discuss news and information related to faith, family and particularly education. Pour yourself a cup of tea and join the conversation! 
The reason the family is under attack is because the battle between good and evil is begin waged. Here is a message from my church leaders:
The Family: A Proclamation to the World
The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.
All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.
In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshiped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize his or her divine destiny as an heir of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.
The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.
Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.
The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.
We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.
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.
This proclamation was read by President Gordon B. Hinckley as part of his message at the General Relief Society Meeting held September 23, 1995, in Salt Lake City, Utah.
You have lots of questions that have not been answered. This was an interesting post.
I wanted to add that family is important and not just to people of the Latter-day Saints faith.
Thanks, T.F.–I don’t know that I accept the pre- and post- mortal stuff, but then if I agreed with you on all that, I’d be Mormon, too. : )
It raises another question…to what degree can and should the varying religions and denominations work together for a common good. That is one proposal lined out in the manifesto, and the way they put it, it sounded like interfaith.
I’m not saying I can’t work with people of different faiths…just reflecting.
Thanks, Angela. I have some quotes I want to share, too. They are more interesting than my questions.
I’ll read this throughout the day but after reading through the first few pages I have to say my initial answer to your question of why this is controversial is that it goes against the one thing that our society holds most dear: Freedom to do whatever we want whenever we want with, or against, whomever we want without any sort of consequences.
Dana,
I downloaded this document as a Word document so I could highlight and add my thoughts. The margins were set to 0.5 inches, the font was 8… After some reformatting I now have a 17 page document. I am on page 4. I will read the rest, but truthfully, I already know that I do not find this document realistic or fitting my worldview.
First, the author starts with a fantasy about romantic love that I do not see as biblical. And, in fact, embracing this view of love may lead to family problems. The purpose of marriage in the Bible is procreation and being a physical picture of the spiritual relationship that exist between Christ and his church. Biblical love is an act of the will and not something controlled by a feeling of being “incomplete” without the other.
The author also equates adoption with procreation in a way that is insulting to both first families and adopted children. Unless you believe that a child does not learn until after it is born (a very dangerous step towards declaring a fetus a non-human), even a child adopted at birth has been educated by their first mother. And… unless you believe that infant adoption is in some way superior to older child adoption the statements about the adoptive parent being the first teacher and educator represents further fantasy ~ Guess what? Putting a child in a “good” home is not going to “fix” all of the problems that accompany losing their first family and their culture. Some children adapt better than others, but the idea that adoption is not a loss for the child and that an adopted child’s upbringing is identical to a child that entered the family by birth denies a large part of who that child is.
The authors equate the crisis in the family to industrialization and family-denying ideas. While I agree that humanism does not value human life, the main cause of this crisis is sin.
I personally cringed when the author put prevent child abuse in quotation marks. When I was doing foster care in hopes of adopting, I was presented files for kids whose lives were made unbelievably intolerable by the adults in their life. While I know that child abuse laws have been abuse, child abuse is very real. The history of the church in recognizing and preventing child abuse is horrible and amounts to turning a blind eye.
I don’t know if you ever read Paul Proctor. I only agree with a little over half of what he says, but I like his writing style… a little snide, a little sarcastic ~ works for me. Anyway, in response to Christians who are bent on using the political system/courts to force compliance to “Christian” values:
“But friends, this is not Christian evangelism. This is religious environmentalism - an earthly and erroneous idea borrowed from secular society and the liberal left that says man can save himself and the world he lives in if we all just get onboard the Vain Train To A Better America and apply ourselves.”
I was going to tell you about an awesome young lady I know who has recently become a single mother at 17… (I am Mima Julie), the life events that led her there and how just telling her to make a better choice is less than helpful, but… I wanted T.F.’s comment to be longer than mine! :o)
End of rant…
This is directed to Dancing Boys Mom,
“it goes against the one thing that our society holds most dear: Freedom to do whatever we want whenever we want with, or against, whomever we want without any sort of consequences.”
Wow, that is so far off the mark as to what our society holds dear as to make it difficult to set straight. We are founded on the principle that each individual in our society is aware of the need for self discipline in order to permit our society the highest amount of freedom. This is exactly the opposite of living without any sort of consequences. We are supposed to be accountable for our actions, contrary to the left leaning socialists who would have us all forced into submission.
I have heard it said that we can do anything we want, whenever we want; but that kind of advice does not come from a well disciplined individual; no, that comes from a spoiled and dangerous child who has little chance of surviving to maturity.
Julie, there are a number of things I think they are off on, mainly because they begin with the wrong foundation.
A lot of that I see as an attempt to make something that is cross-cultural. That is why I commented about wondering how much something like this is possible or even desirable. I can start something similar from the bible and work toward a goal from there, but then it only appeals to Christians.
I think the ideas raised are worthy of discussion, however. And there are a few places where I agree with them whole-heartedly.
Thanks for your rant…it is always welcome!
And I liked chapter one a lot better than the manifesto. It was too generic and vague, with a lot of statements I didn’t know how to take, including the one that appears to support the UN.
And he goes on about FDR for awhile, but I’m not sure how much he is advocating what FDR did, or just making a point about how powerful certain things can be.
Actually, I’ll just post it as a post.
never been in a conversation with someone at someone else’s blog before so i hope i’m supposed to reply here…
tf stern, i am aware of what we were founded on but that is not what i said, i was referring to what our society now sees as important. one only needs to read the paper or talk with one’s neighbors & co-workers to find this sentiment.
Hey, I like conversations in my comments box, as rarely as they occur, so feel welcome!
I can’t speak for t.f. stern, but he has been around long enough I don’t think he was disagreeing with you, but more noting how far we’ve strayed from our founding.
“Why do people tell total strangers that they can’t wait for school to start because their kids are driving them crazy?“
I was once at the library with my three kids near the end of last summer and they were kind of getting restless while the woman was checking our huge stack of books out. She remarked something like, “Hang in there. School starts next week.”
I just kind of looked at her and said, “Not for us. We homeschool. I’m stuck with them all of the time!”
Whoops! Don’t assume everyone hates being with their kids.
That’s funny. It honestly wouldn’t bother me so much if it weren’t a conversation with strangers. For someone to sit with a friend and say they are looking forward to school, or even for a homeschooler to tell someone they kind of wish they had that break is one thing. Everyone feels a need for a break sometimes, particularly if you are used to it.
But I wonder what kind of message we are sending out children when this is an accepted comment for strangers to make to parents in front of children.
“You’re in the way.”