Brigham Young shows us that having a father in the home really is not very important.

50+ wives, at least 5 divorces and a number of separations, more than 50 kids. How much time did he spend "in the home" with any of the so-called wives and kids?

He was a sperm donor and housing provider. A lot like the welfare agency or landlord. Not really much of a father, was he?

Whenever you hear the lessons about how important it is to have the father "in the home" bring up Brigham Young.

My three kids wouldn't agree with that assessment...:)

Clearly, the wide variety of situations in which "successful" children are raised indicates that there are lots of ways to raise "successful" children. Lots of single parents do it. Cultures with 'group' parenting do it. Lots of stable, married couples (where the couples are male-female, male-male, female-female) all do it.

Some of Brigham's kids turned out to be "successful." Despite Brigham being an egomanical, arrogant, mostly-absent prick. I think that says more about those kids' mothers than it does about Brigham...though, as you point out, it does put the lie to his (and the church's) one-size-fits-all-but-is-ignored-anyway "must have father in the home" bullshit.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My three kids wouldn't agree with that
> assessment...:) Nor my four.

> Lots of single parents do it. Cultures
> with 'group' parenting do it. Lots of stable,
> married couples (where the couples are
> male-female, male-male, female-female) all do it.

This is true on a single-case basis. There may be a few highly functional polygamous homes with high-achievement children, but on a larger, sociological perspective, children due best in an intact two-parent home. The wholesale removal of fathers from African-American homes has been devastating to the Black family.
>
> ...the lie to his (and the church's)
> one-size-fits-all-but-is-ignored-anyway "must have
> father in the home" bullshit.

As a never-Mo, my take is that TSCC has got the (two-parent) concept botched because of 1) a heavy-handed patriarchal paradigm and 2) Inflexibility in adjusting to when and where that fails and 3) the submissive mindset that is inculcated in LDS women from an early age (see #1).

Overall, children from divorced/single parent/polygamous homes are at greater risk for dysfunctional adulthoods.

PS: Hie:: Consider going easier on separating words with quotation marks. Often you are actually using them in the commonly accepted sense, and do not need to be designated as unconventional use.

PPS: Getting the thread back on topic, with 50+ kids at least a few of BY's kids would turn out to be psychologically and financially successful. By the same (il)logic, people can find exceptional children who were raised by single Moms. Neither establishes single-parenthood or polygamy as a successful parental model.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/09/2018 12:34PM by caffiend.

I'd suggest re-thinking some of your assumptions.

Few of the claims above hold up under scrutiny.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/living-single/200901/children-single-mothers-how-do-they-really-fare

In short..."traditional" doesn't mean "best." And I used the quotes there and around "successful" above because their in-context meaning is debatable. :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/09/2018 12:15PM by ificouldhietokolob.

Study after study has shown that single-parent homes produce children at greater risk for delinquency, sub-par educational performance, premature sexual activity, unstable employment, and use of alcohol, drugs, and tobacco. As a city cop who patrolled working and lower-class neighborhoods, most kids I booked did not have a father living at home. Single and/or unstable parental arrangements have been devastating to the black urban and rural white underclasses, which don't show up so much in resource-rich liberal upper middle class (un)Intelligentsia that authors these policies.

The article is soft science. For example, "(A) study of hundreds of 10- to 14-year olds and their parents showed that in their day-to-day lives, single parents were friendlier to their children than were married parents."

Understandably so, a single parent is friendlier--she has to make up for the lack of a spouse. This can easily lead to discipline problems.

In conclusion, I hold that the liberal view that any relationship or family arrangement is just as good as any other makes for a very destructive sociology.

caffiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Study after study has shown...

I notice you didn't point to a single one...


> The article is soft science.

It's a summary, not a study. Still, it's more than you linked to :)

> In conclusion, I hold that the liberal view that
> any relationship or family arrangement is just as
> good as any other makes for a very destructive
> sociology.

a) straw-man. That is not the "liberal view." Nor is it mine (see my first post above, where I noted that my children considered their father important).

b) it's a demonstrable fact that there are a wide array of influences on how kids turn out -- yes, parental makeup is one of them. So is family economics. So are family dynamics (numerous studies, for example, show that kids in "normal, two-parent households" where one parent is abusive fare much less well than kids in a single-parent, supportive household). So are lots of others. To simply declare two-parent heterosexual parental makeup as the "best" (yeah, there I go using quotes again) is political ideology, not scientific reality.

Here is a summary of some of the wretched statistics incurred by fatherless home. Many of them reference specific studies:

https://thefatherlessgeneration.wordpress.com/statistics/

Coming from the Conservative viewpoint, I do not think my disparaging remark about the liberal approach is a strawman argument. Although it may not be scientifically quantified, I think people who identify as "liberals" or "progressives" tend to be more than tolerant, but supportive of, "alternative/non-traditional family arrangements." Conservatives don't. There are exceptions, but I stand by it as a valid generalization.

Of course, Hie, there are numerous and overlapping factors in child rear, and valid studies have to account for other factors. But several of the articles referenced in the linked list (above) go to lengths to rule out, or account for, matters such as income and ethnicity. But yes, a highly functional single parent will succeed, whereas an intact traditional home with a major dysfunctionality (e.g. alcoholism, paternal absence due to work, abusive religion like LDS) will not.

I state it as a fact that removing fathers on a large scale from families is detrimental to our larger society and puts such children, individually and collectively, at greater risk.

caffiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Coming from the Conservative viewpoint, I do not
> think my disparaging remark about the liberal
> approach is a strawman argument. Although it may
> not be scientifically quantified, I think people
> who identify as "liberals" or "progressives" tend
> to be more than tolerant, but supportive of,
> "alternative/non-traditional family arrangements."
> Conservatives don't. There are exceptions, but I
> stand by it as a valid generalization.

I don't think it's a generalization at all -- I find that to be an absolutely supportable statement.

Note, however, that your previous statement -- that liberals think all kinds of parenting are equally good -- is not what you just wrote above. :) Supporting all kinds of parenting is not the same as claiming they're all equally good. That was the straw-man.

> I state it as a fact that removing fathers on a
> large scale from families is detrimental to our
> larger society and puts such children,
> individually and collectively, at greater risk.

A statement with which I would agree.
However, I think that given the fact of single-parent families, simply decrying single-parent families isn't any kind of solution. I think supporting all parents' efforts to make their kids' lives better is a more reasonable solution. I think making it so families with one parent *aren't* going to have kids with a higher risk of failure is a worthwhile goal.
And I'm pretty sure you'd agree with that...?

Pointing out, clearly and emphatically, that the decline of the two-parent family may be "decrying" it. I simply hold that Progressives strong tilt towards tolerance of alternative family structures leads them to sidestep the harm fatherless homes have created.

Social workers and government benefits are no substitute for a father.

caffiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pointing out, clearly and emphatically, that the
> decline of the two-parent family may be "decrying"
> it. I simply hold that Progressives strong tilt
> towards tolerance of alternative family structures
> leads them to sidestep the harm fatherless homes
> have created.

IMHO, that last statement is where you go off the rails :)
Supporting people in other-than-traditional families doesn't mean ignoring or sidestepping anything. It simply means supporting people who don't fit the traditional mold.

> Social workers and government benefits are no
> substitute for a father.

It's not a "liberal" claim that that's the case.

Hie, he is saying you use tittles too much! Lolol. I just had to do that one.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/09/2018 01:44PM by Aquarius123.

Hie’s kids will be “successful!”

I'm going to put this here because it is a response to both Hie and Caffiend.

I am generally sympathetic to Caffiend's argument but would add some details. One of the issues I have with sociological posts on RfM is that they aren't always informed by an understanding of how things work in other countries. In Scandinavia, for instance, children in single-parent homes do much better than they do in the States. Iceland is a salient example. There roughly 2/3 of kids are born outside of wedlock and do very well. Why? Very strong social support, including extensive maternity and paternity leave, excellent free childcare, and laws that keep the primary parent's income high. In effect, Iceland (and Sweden and other Scandinavian countries) have recreated the traditional "village" concept that one used to (and occasionally still does) find in parts of Africa and elsewhere. That system works.

Another point I would make to Caffiend is that you implicitly assume the primary caregiver is a woman and the secondary is the father. That was historically the case but, thankfully, no longer is in much of Europe and the United States. In the literature, the terminology is now generally "primary caregiver" rather than "mother" unless the latter is defined as shorthand for the former. The lexicography doesn't matter, but it is important to note that many men make great "mothers" and many women make great providers.

Regarding Mormonism in particular, one destructive point that Caffiend doesn't overtly state is the extreme temporal and financial demands that the church imposes on its members. It is not uncommon to see large "patriarchal" families in which the father is very much an "absentee" parent who comes home tired and frustrated and impatient. In my family we saw our father, who was a very involved church man, only a few hours a week--and they were not generally good hours.

That said, I think that in any society and any social system having both parents involved is helpful. Even in a highly functional welfare state like Sweden, the more parental involvement, the better the outcome for the children in terms of role modeling, more love, etc. It's just that the costs of NOT having such a family are much lower and it is easier for even psychologically limited people to play positive roles in the lives of their children.

The US is not very supportive of families when measured by law, social support, etc. In such a place it is much more important to have both parents involved. Much of the harm caused by single-parenting, after all, stems from the lower income levels of such families--a problem that is more acute in the United States than in much of Europe. But again, all other things being equal, having both a competent primary caregiver and a strong and loving and involved secondary parent is a good thing.

The girls learn about healthy expectations assuming the father treats her well and teaches her that she is a valuable part of the family. Without a father, girls can be too quick to seek male attention and approval from flawed males who might use and abuse them.

Fathers show boys how to be men. Hopefully, their interactions and examples are healthy and realistic.

It takes two parents to show children how to have a one on one relationship with another person.

Sadly, not all parents measure up and kids have to eke out this wisdom on their own.

No. I was fortunate to have been raised on a farm so we saw dad a lot and the same goes for my kids. I was always around and home for lunch every day. The mere fact the cult keeps BY's name front and center tells you all you need to know.

BUT like Lethbridge said, we didn't see him all day, but we spent our summers and many other times with our dad on the farm. I remember riding in his pickup with him to the farm and other places. He was very present in our lives. I think the family farm is the best place to raise children personally.

I am a single mother. My daughter has thrived. My son had not. It has to do with personalities. My son also went through a divorce at a young age, and he is not someone who can handle a divorce. I was also not one who could handle a divorce. (But I made it.) Their father had very little to do with them for a very long time. My daughter doesn't seek out male attention and actually runs from marriage more in line with she never wants to go through a divorce. I definitely see the problems with a single parent raising kids. I know many do well. I think my son will eventually recover, but I think they will always carry some issues from being in a single parent home.

ALTHOUGH if he had stayed, who knows how bad it could have been. He isn't very patient with anyone. His way or the highway.

My children's single parent household is light-years better than my two parent household.

I hate anecdotal arguments because there is no way to argue against them. I have experienced this so there.

I'm happy saying that children need adults who care in their life. Might be a parent, two parents, a sibling, a teacher, or so on. But what matters most is that they care.

That said a parent who doesn't care can cause more damage than anyone else, except for two parents that don't care.

As my kids turn into teenagers, I've noticed that the father in the home is infinitely more important to them when he has his wallet with him.

Mothers and fathers who are capable and caring are the most valuable element in a well rounded child's development.

Does that mean every family without this benefit is broken and the children are doomed? of course not. But I'd like to see every child in a home with a loving mother and father. Would that solve every problem for every child? Of course not, but it would certainly help many children develop better esteem and a good outlook for their life.

In the meantime, kiddies will adapt to their situations and develop to the best of their abilities.

Families are different and alike. If there's love and resources to thrive kiddies will do their best.

Still, I'm sad that the society seems to have devalued fathers and two parent households.

When I began teaching, most families had two parents. When I retired, I would go two or three years before I'd fine one first grader with a mother and a father in the home. I think this had to contribute to the poorer esteem and lack of self control I saw at school.

Teachers can't make up for poor parenting or a total lack of support for children in their homes although teachers do try their best.

Ummm I going to take the unpopular view on this one, Here it is: BY was a good father.
First he wrote thousands of letters to his adult children all filled with practical wisdom and very well thought out. He knew exactly what everyone was doing and where they were all the time (no exaggeration).
Second Men dont' need to spend great deals of time bonding with babies, this is the woman's place. Men should be working, and children will admire a hard working father.
Third in polygamy children have many role models and babysitters. It's actually a much more healthy way to raise socially adjusted children than this One child thing we have going on now where the parents helicopter and are overprotective too much. Children are unable to navigate as well their way through childhood and learn good decision making with this present situation.

anono this week Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Second Men dont' need to spend great deals of time
> bonding with babies, this is the woman's place.
> Men should be working, and children will admire a
> hard working father.

In case you hadn't already noticed, *there* is where you went off the rails, crashed and burned, and left nothing but a smoldering wreck.

+100

I like to believe all the time I spend with my sons (at home after work) has a real benefit. I don't remember ever going to my hands-off TBM dad with personal issues or problems... he seemed to have plenty from his own decisions. My teenage son and I have meaningful conversations because I spent time with him when he was young.
He sees his cousins and thanks me that he is not forced to attend church each week.

I don't have an opinion on this issue, basically because it is dealing with generalities. Most of us, when considering an issue, naturally reflect on the things we've experienced. So a lot depends on where we get our information.

Studies, and summaries of studies, generally reach conclusions, but most of us, with enough 'time served' on earth, know of exceptions to the conclusions. Mostly we're left with a 'finding', like "87.35% of left-handed custom chopstick makers don't like Spanish rice", meaning that of course when you finally meet a left-handed custom chopstick maker, the first thing out of his mouth is, "Boy, do I love Spanish rice!"

Many of us may agree with the generality cited but are quite at ease when we meet exceptions to the generality.

In this instance, whether or not a father is present is a no-brainer...He should be! ...unless you're Don Bagley, eh?

Man, I could go on and on driveling!

Surely it must be a sign!!! Maybe I'll just go ahead and change my screen name to ElderOldGhawd...

Uncouth is a word, derived from "couth."
So are inglorious, disgruntled, ineffable. You can be in a state of disarray (or array), and disordered (or ordered)
However, there is no such word as "ept" as a root for "inept." You can be disheveled, but never "heveled."

This advisory courtesy of your friendly neighborhood Grammar Cop, who should have gone to bed two hours ago. :+/

Then you'd need to take the selfie with Duterte.

I agree with you, Hie, but I think you've over-generalized. What "Anon" says is true, but is only a single part of a father's role in child-rearing. Many men are hard-working breadwinners, so much that they absent themselves from their children's lives. Hence, problems. Further, BY's letter-writing, as described above, strikes me as a substitution for his active involvement in his children.

The better argument is that happy and effective children are the exception in polygamous family groups, not the norm. And certainly not a valid model!

Allow me, at this time, to address a point you made earlier, that we need to be supportive of non-traditional families. I agree, but there are a few problems. 1) In being supportive, we end up validating them. Progressives are very willing to do that, and so the single-parent (and other) families increase. Conservatives have a challenge in being supportive of such families on an individual basis without enabling and increasing such family units. 2) Far too much, "support" turns out to be, primarily, welfare benefits. This leads to 3) abuse of the system and straining the public purse, and 4) an actual encouragement for single women to eschew matrimony. I myself have dealt with plenty of women in detoxes, shelters, and housing projects who prioritize their benefits package over their family welfare.

To sum, the Progressives' instinct to be "supportive" is negated by the Law of Unintended Consequences. The Conservatives, in trying to put a brake on ever-expanding single-parent homes dependent upon welfare, come across as mean-spirited curmudgeons.

To quote our erudite IfICouldHieToKolob: "Sigh..." :(

Of the hundreds of polygamists I've known in my personal life, all of them would have done better in a non-polygamous family. Polygamy is not a healthy setting for rearing children. Sorry, but that's how I see it, and I've seen it up close and peraonal.

I'm a huge Big Love fan. Something that struck me in the series is there's all this joy to crank out another one but by season 4 the little wudges in diapers become little articulate people with needs and desires that soon will be saying "what about me?"

By that stage of things they can't be sent back for a refund.

I grew up in a two-parent home, until I was 15, when my father died. That was catastrophic. He was the nurturer, the peacemaker, a wonderful Dad.

My mother was always difficult. It is family legend that my first word was not "ma-ma" or "da-da." It was "NO!" My mother had been an officer in the Army during WWII, and never stopped behaving like one. She barked out orders and expected to be obeyed. I was a rebellious only child, and I had a very tempestuous relationship with my mother. We fought constantly. If I brought home a paper that was graded "A," she demanded to know why it wasn't an A-plus. I must have been slacking. Or I could bring home a report card with straight A grades except for math (always my worst subject) and she ceased paying attention to anything but math. I can remember spending weeks laboring over a paper about Brazil. When I came home, glowing with pride and announcing, "I got an A on my paper about Brazil!" her only remark was, "What about your math?" That hurt.

After my father died, she began drinking, and she was even more horrible when she was drunk. She was surprised when I only applied to "away" universities, but nobody else among friends or family was. Getting away from her and going to a great university was one of the happiest times of my young life.

When I became a mother myself, one of my guiding principles was "remember what Mother did, and do the opposite."

I've often thought that if Dad had lived, Mother would not have gone off the rails so badly. He was her stability.

I think that you over generalized the situation. Yah, in most of those home situations, Brigham was just coasting/ was hardly around.

However, for his most favored sons, Brigham was doing all that he could to extend his personal legacy through them and to them.

Brigham had one son who lived back east, New York or Washington. That son was back there just to curry favor with government officials and other influential people. That meant bribes, taking people to the theater or other fancy /pricey entertainment and furnishing all the whiskey and cigars that they cared to consume. If prostitutes were needed, they were used. That son was receiving a 10,000 $ a month budget to facilitate the ongoing party that was collected from MORmONS in Utah that were barely getting by. (a sickening arrangement, all for the glory of MORmON Jesus and building the MORmON kingDUMB.

Brigham had about 3 or 4 sons that he concentrated on grooming to maintain the Young family MORmON legacy, that included ordaining them to be apostles at very young (implausible) ages like 9 or 12. Other sons were not as important, although being a (any) son of Brigham Young, even a lesser one, had to have its HUGE advantages in MORmON zion utah.