This week, our Come Follow Me curriculum brings us to the Family: A Proclamation to the World. We discuss how it applies to all of us, and the eternal nature of gender and families. Study with me!
Anchor.fm:
Soundcloud:
Youtube:
Showing posts with label #children. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #children. Show all posts
Sunday, December 12, 2021
Sunday, September 27, 2020
Ward Preacher Podcast ep 92 - Unspeakable
This week, our Come Follow Me curriculum brings us to 3 Nephi 17-19. We discuss miracles Jesus did, the sacrament, and that which is unspeakable. Study with me!
Anchor.fm:
Soundcloud:
https://soundcloud.com/user-961318159/ward-preacher-ep-092
Youtube:
Thursday, August 29, 2019
Satire: Let's talk about Children in the LDS Church
<Satire>
By Dr. Julie Hanks
Previously, I posted about women in the LDS church on Facebook. I opened by reminding everyone that my views are often misrepresented as men vs. women. I then thoroughly refuted that by contrasting how we look at men vs. how we look at women. Fortunately, most of my followers were able to ignore the thick envy that guided my post... so I decided to make a followup post about children in the LDS church along the same lines.
First off, (in case you were wondering) I'm still going to avoid referring to the church by its official name, while reminding you to be sensitive to the language you use... because, President Nelson was only a heart surgeon; I'm the therapist!
Second, I notice that there are few children represented in General Conference talks. In fact, it is incredibly rare to see anyone younger than 30 speak. Is it because of our subconscious hatred of children? You might not think so, but yes, it definitely is.
I also have noticed how few children are in decision making councils in the church. Sure, leaders say they love children, but unless you let some one make all policy decisions for you, do you actually love them?
Along the same lines, I want to encourage church leaders to do more of what I want... because that's the sign of a church led by God.
As a church, we can do more! We can do better! Because while members of the church try to follow Christ and his Apostles today, together, we can inspire them to follow social media influencers instead. (Remember to like and share this post!)
</Satire>
By Dr. Julie Hanks
Previously, I posted about women in the LDS church on Facebook. I opened by reminding everyone that my views are often misrepresented as men vs. women. I then thoroughly refuted that by contrasting how we look at men vs. how we look at women. Fortunately, most of my followers were able to ignore the thick envy that guided my post... so I decided to make a followup post about children in the LDS church along the same lines.
First off, (in case you were wondering) I'm still going to avoid referring to the church by its official name, while reminding you to be sensitive to the language you use... because, President Nelson was only a heart surgeon; I'm the therapist!
Second, I notice that there are few children represented in General Conference talks. In fact, it is incredibly rare to see anyone younger than 30 speak. Is it because of our subconscious hatred of children? You might not think so, but yes, it definitely is.
I also have noticed how few children are in decision making councils in the church. Sure, leaders say they love children, but unless you let some one make all policy decisions for you, do you actually love them?
Along the same lines, I want to encourage church leaders to do more of what I want... because that's the sign of a church led by God.
As a church, we can do more! We can do better! Because while members of the church try to follow Christ and his Apostles today, together, we can inspire them to follow social media influencers instead. (Remember to like and share this post!)
</Satire>
Thursday, April 25, 2019
Satire: A discussion about the religious standards of modesty and how they affect society
<Satire>
Weekly Standard: Today's Skype discussion includes guests John, a father of five children, Debbie the drunk, a... drunk..., and Grande Miguel, an expert on eating sticks of butter and making fun of deeply held religious beliefs.
Our topic today will be on religious standards of modesty, and how they affect society.
Let's start with John... John, you've been a vocal advocate of modesty standards, what can you tell us about how this has affected your family?
John: Certainly... Even young children can learn the importance of respecting their bodies by dressing appropriately. In my family, we avoid problematic shifts in modesty expectations by being consistent the whole time.
Weekly Standard: So that includes covering the entire body?
John: I mean, we don't wear masks and bonnets... but we don't have trouble finding nice clothes that have reasonable necklines and sleeves for our girls, or neat, clean, appropriately-styled shirts and pants for our boys.
Debbie the drunk: You just want to sexualize your daughters (hiccup)... you like looking at her shorn poulders... I mean porn shoulders... (hiccup)
Weekly Standard: Debbie, it's 9 AM... are you already... intoxicated?
Debbie the drunk: I... I just... I just threw up a little bit in my mouth... (hiccup) And then I swallowed it... so it's OK...
Weekly Standard: OK Grande Miguel... do you have some insight on how modesty standards affect society?
Grande Miguel: Of course, I'm a little weirded out by John insisting that his daughter need to cover her shoulders at a very young age. Obviously a girl that age hasn't developed yet, and should not be forced into fashion standards that are based on the sexual impulses of people around her. I also think it's odd that John is so worried about shoulders in general. They don't need to be covered.
Weekly Standard: John, what would you say in response?
John: Like I said, consistency is a good thing. My wife and I live by the same standards, and we teach our children to be respectful of themselves and others, and part of that is dressing appropriately. I guess I'm also a little creeped out by Grande Miguel being so interested in seeing my daughter's shoulders.
Debbie the drunk: Ha! I knew it! You just (hiccup).
Weekly Standard: Just what Debbie the drunk?
Debbie the drunk: Who are you? Hey... I've gotta get another... (hiccup)
Weekly Standard: It appears that Debbie the drunk has wandered away from her camera.
Grande Miguel: I'm not the one trying to cover her shoulders! John is! John is the one who has to make everyone cover their shoulders!
John: Grande Miguel... am I the one who made you cover your shoulders? You're wearing a very very large shirt...
Weekly Standard: While that's a compelling point John we don't want to...
Grande Miguel: You can't cover my shoulders John! I don't have a problem with... just let me get this...
Weekly Standard: No Grande Miguel! Please keep your shirt on!
John: That does not look healthy...
Weekly Standard: We at the Weekly Standard would like to apologize to all those who saw that before we ended the Skype call... I'm being told that the CDC was notified, and is en route to Grande Miguel's location. In spite of the circumstances at the end of the show, we do want to thank our guests for bringing their perspectives to this issue.
</Satire>
Weekly Standard: Today's Skype discussion includes guests John, a father of five children, Debbie the drunk, a... drunk..., and Grande Miguel, an expert on eating sticks of butter and making fun of deeply held religious beliefs.
Our topic today will be on religious standards of modesty, and how they affect society.
Let's start with John... John, you've been a vocal advocate of modesty standards, what can you tell us about how this has affected your family?
John: Certainly... Even young children can learn the importance of respecting their bodies by dressing appropriately. In my family, we avoid problematic shifts in modesty expectations by being consistent the whole time.
Weekly Standard: So that includes covering the entire body?
John: I mean, we don't wear masks and bonnets... but we don't have trouble finding nice clothes that have reasonable necklines and sleeves for our girls, or neat, clean, appropriately-styled shirts and pants for our boys.
Debbie the drunk: You just want to sexualize your daughters (hiccup)... you like looking at her shorn poulders... I mean porn shoulders... (hiccup)
Weekly Standard: Debbie, it's 9 AM... are you already... intoxicated?
Debbie the drunk: I... I just... I just threw up a little bit in my mouth... (hiccup) And then I swallowed it... so it's OK...
Weekly Standard: OK Grande Miguel... do you have some insight on how modesty standards affect society?
Grande Miguel: Of course, I'm a little weirded out by John insisting that his daughter need to cover her shoulders at a very young age. Obviously a girl that age hasn't developed yet, and should not be forced into fashion standards that are based on the sexual impulses of people around her. I also think it's odd that John is so worried about shoulders in general. They don't need to be covered.
Weekly Standard: John, what would you say in response?
John: Like I said, consistency is a good thing. My wife and I live by the same standards, and we teach our children to be respectful of themselves and others, and part of that is dressing appropriately. I guess I'm also a little creeped out by Grande Miguel being so interested in seeing my daughter's shoulders.
Debbie the drunk: Ha! I knew it! You just (hiccup).
Weekly Standard: Just what Debbie the drunk?
Debbie the drunk: Who are you? Hey... I've gotta get another... (hiccup)
Weekly Standard: It appears that Debbie the drunk has wandered away from her camera.
Grande Miguel: I'm not the one trying to cover her shoulders! John is! John is the one who has to make everyone cover their shoulders!
John: Grande Miguel... am I the one who made you cover your shoulders? You're wearing a very very large shirt...
Weekly Standard: While that's a compelling point John we don't want to...
Grande Miguel: You can't cover my shoulders John! I don't have a problem with... just let me get this...
Weekly Standard: No Grande Miguel! Please keep your shirt on!
John: That does not look healthy...
Weekly Standard: We at the Weekly Standard would like to apologize to all those who saw that before we ended the Skype call... I'm being told that the CDC was notified, and is en route to Grande Miguel's location. In spite of the circumstances at the end of the show, we do want to thank our guests for bringing their perspectives to this issue.
</Satire>
Monday, January 13, 2014
Agency and the freedom to choose
An important concept in Mormon theology is that we lived with God before we were born. The implications of this idea include:
1. We are literal children of God
2. Men and women are brothers and sisters to one another
Loving God and our neighbors as ourselves as Christ taught (Matthew 22:37-39) is the natural extension of this idea, as is the importance of family.
It is also understood that during our pre-earth life, there was a great war between the followers of our Heavenly Father, and the followers of Lucifer. (Revelation 12:7-9) The source of this conflict involved the destiny of humanity. Scripture from the Pearl of Great Price presents additional detail:
" And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor. But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever. Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down; And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice." (Moses 4:1-4)
The concept of agency is something frequently taught in LDS lessons and talks. The idea that people are "agents unto themselves" and that they are free to "act and not be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day" is fundamental to understanding the purpose of life on earth. (Moses 6:56, 2 Nephi 2:26)
As important as the concept of free will is as identified in these passages, it is not the same as agency, even though they are frequently used synonymously.
I have at times heard people talk about using their agency to make choices about what kind of food they want to eat or what destination they prefer for vacation. Certainly it is possible that some of these choices involve agency, but these choices do not really portray agency in the most important sense.
Before discussing the truth behind this concept, it is important to highlight the three great powers that influence the world:
* Humanity. It is not difficult to see the amazing accomplishments of mankind in the age of information. Powerful computer processors are available in devices as small as phones and watches that harness numerous technologies for tasks as simple as "liking" a cheeseburger. Humanity has harnessed power from various sources and constructed great buildings, composed beautiful music, written moving books, and launched probes beyond our atmosphere to study the universe. Mankind has demonstrated great power...but in spite of our power, humanity is the weakest of the three.
* Satan. Having accumulated experience from mankind's beginnings, the power of evil is adept at manipulating men. Great societies have crumbled due to the persistent and patient efforts of those that love to see humanity fail. In the shadows, he persuades people to secretly steal and murder sometimes without even knowing they are being persuaded. Occasionally, he does risk using his full power. Joseph Smith saw it when he prayed to God. He noted "I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being" (Joseph Smith History 1:16) Only the power of God himself could free him from the powers of evil. Humanity, by itself, is powerless against Satan.
* God. The great achievements of humanity and the subtle machinations of evil are nothing compared to the power of the Most High. He that forged the earth and became mortal only to conquer death represents the ultimate strength in existence. He is omniscient, omnipotent, and his power is omnipresent.
By understanding these forces, it becomes clear that being an agent of oneself is extremely limited. The real power of agency comes not from making trivial choices... but from becoming an agent of a higher power.
Becoming an agent of evil is actually quite easy. People can do this without even realizing it. The person that encourages dishonesty, turns a blind eye to cruelty, and practices selfishness can gain power. Marriages and families can be destroyed when seemingly innocent indulgences and poor decisions win over selflessness and integrity. Greed, lust, wrath, pride, envy, gluttony, and sloth do not encompass every ill... Jesus taught "wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat" (Matthew 7:13) Constant effort may be necessary to avoid becoming a destructive influence.
Becoming an agent of God is simple, but not nearly as easy. In the Book of Mormon, prophets counseled men to "come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness" and " if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and continue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, remember, and perish not." (Moroni 10:32, Mosiah 4:30) Many prophets have indicated that it is a strait and narrow path that leads to God. Christ was clear in declaring that the only way to our Heavenly Father was through him. (John 14:6)
Although the path is substantially more difficult, and the rewards are not always immediately visible, the true power that God intended for his sons and daughters comes from becoming the kind of person that Christ was. If we are the children of God, then it is as the Apostle Paul noted: "if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." (Romans 8:17)
Agency in the sense of becoming an agent of God himself, is the very purpose for which humanity is on the earth. Agency is the slow process by which bad men can become good men, and good men can become better men. Agency is the purpose of the conflict between good and evil. Agency is the promise that Christ gives to the faithful... for "he came unto his own, but his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name" (John 1:12)
Monday, June 3, 2013
Divorce: Portly English monarchs may be bad role models
Jesus was never afraid to say something bold or abrasive if it was important. No doubt, this contributed to the astonishment people experienced when he taught the sermon on the mount. (Matthew 7:28-29)
Even today, many of the concepts he presented can seem difficult to accept. Complete honesty (Matthew 5:33-37), morality in every thought (Matthew 5:28), abstinence from anger (Matthew 5:22), and total forgiveness (Matthew 5:38-45) are among the doctrines that Christ preached. These ideals can take a lifetime of effort to achieve, and for some might even seem impossible.
Of course, not everything in these councils is completely literal. Jesus is not actually suggesting removing one's hand or eye if it is offensive (Matthew 5:29-30). When he declared "judge not that ye be not judged" (Matthew 7:1), he was not suggesting that we make no decisions, or that we not participate in political elections to help elect the leadership we judge to be best. He was not advocating that everyone would be better if they quit their employment and waited for God to feed, clothe, and house us as he does the lilies of the field or the fowls of the air. (Matthew 6:25-34)
Understanding which teachings are literal, rhetorical, or symbolic is a challenge in almost every book of scripture. The changing societal views on issues influence interpretations and emphasis points in Christ's teachings. This is particularly evident with Christ's teachings about divorce.
In the sermon on the mount, Jesus taught:
"It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
Even today, many of the concepts he presented can seem difficult to accept. Complete honesty (Matthew 5:33-37), morality in every thought (Matthew 5:28), abstinence from anger (Matthew 5:22), and total forgiveness (Matthew 5:38-45) are among the doctrines that Christ preached. These ideals can take a lifetime of effort to achieve, and for some might even seem impossible.
Of course, not everything in these councils is completely literal. Jesus is not actually suggesting removing one's hand or eye if it is offensive (Matthew 5:29-30). When he declared "judge not that ye be not judged" (Matthew 7:1), he was not suggesting that we make no decisions, or that we not participate in political elections to help elect the leadership we judge to be best. He was not advocating that everyone would be better if they quit their employment and waited for God to feed, clothe, and house us as he does the lilies of the field or the fowls of the air. (Matthew 6:25-34)
Understanding which teachings are literal, rhetorical, or symbolic is a challenge in almost every book of scripture. The changing societal views on issues influence interpretations and emphasis points in Christ's teachings. This is particularly evident with Christ's teachings about divorce.
In the sermon on the mount, Jesus taught:
"It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." (Matthew 5:31-32)
Certainly, I have never met anyone that would argue that divorce is a positive experience, except perhaps attorneys that profit from them. The sentiment of Jesus's teachings though are not just that divorce is bad, but that it is invalid. Christ clearly blames the man that puts away his wife as forcing her into an adulterous situation. He also accuses a man that marries a divorced woman of committing adultery.
This is not a singular teaching either. Christ taught again:
"The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." (Matthew 19:3-9)
These teachings are undoubtedly tied to the premise held by many Christians that marriage is sacred. The concept that divorce might be acceptable under Christianity may have been derived from Henry VIII of England's "need" to get a divorce. The "Defender of the Faith" was quick to cast his faith aside when it suited him. Since this time, the practice has become more and more widespread, even to the point that many believe marriage is just a legal status rather than an institution of sanctity... a more formal form of "boyfriend and girlfriend" that can be terminated by either party at any time on a whim.
While the condemnation of divorce is clear, it is important to highlight that Christ did include an exception in his statement about divorce: "saving for the cause of fornication." This obviously implies that there are instances where divorce may be not only be acceptable, but perhaps the right course of action.
It should not be surprising that infidelity is condemned... particularly when Jesus taught that marriage represents something that "God hath joined together", a violation of the marriage commitment definitely constitutes man putting it asunder. I would suggest that situations where abuse of spouse or offspring have occurred are also breaches in the marriage covenant, and for the safety of the victims, divorce may be necessary.
In such cases when an individual has betrayed their marriage vows, and divorce has been the result... do Christ's teachings indicate that such individuals should not re-marry? I do not believe that this is the intent of the phrase "whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." I believe that such teachings are directed at those who legally remove themselves from their marriage commitments over trivial circumstances or "irreconcilable differences."
A disagreement, lack of excitement, different life goals, or similar excuses are not likely to be acceptable to God as reasons to cast marriage aside. This is particularly true of Christians who have committed to be humble, merciful, forgiving, and selfless as a part of their commitment to Christ himself.
Certainly any one of us are guilty of being foolish at times. Every one of us have likely at some point acted petty, cruel, selfish, jealous, spiteful, or in some way done something to deserve being put away... but Christ personally suffered unspeakable torture and pain for each of us anyway. In fact, regardless of our problems or mistakes (the very cause of his torture), he continually and selflessly offers forgiveness to us.
A person that cannot bend to offer love and respect to the person they swore they would in the covenant of marriage cannot expect love and respect from God... and a person that sets at naught their most sacred relationships for trivialities should not expect God to invest in forming relationships with them.
Frequently and tragically, the effects of divorce extend beyond the separating couple... particularly when there are children involved. Remember the teaching of Jesus regarding children:
"And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matthew 18:3-6)
From the teachings of modern prophets:
"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... 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." (http://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng)
Of course there are circumstances such as death or disability that may require special attention. These circumstances ought to be the exception and not the rule however. As much as possible, we have a responsibility to ensure that children receive care under a father and mother who honor their vows completely. Casting aside a spouse for anything but the most serious offenses constitutes a violation of the rights of children. Even in the best circumstances divorce can cause harm to come to the little ones... in other words, children are hurt by the very parents on whom they should be able to depend for protection.
Ultimately, marriage was never intended to be trivial. The sanctity of this institution is not lessened by the indulgence of society's "tolerance" for selfish practices. Particularly among Christians who believe in the sanctity of marriage, it is vital that we practice what we preach. While we have a responsibility to be kind and loving to all of God's children, there is no relationship more important in which to prove our Christianity than that between husband and wife.
This is not a singular teaching either. Christ taught again:
"The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." (Matthew 19:3-9)
These teachings are undoubtedly tied to the premise held by many Christians that marriage is sacred. The concept that divorce might be acceptable under Christianity may have been derived from Henry VIII of England's "need" to get a divorce. The "Defender of the Faith" was quick to cast his faith aside when it suited him. Since this time, the practice has become more and more widespread, even to the point that many believe marriage is just a legal status rather than an institution of sanctity... a more formal form of "boyfriend and girlfriend" that can be terminated by either party at any time on a whim.
While the condemnation of divorce is clear, it is important to highlight that Christ did include an exception in his statement about divorce: "saving for the cause of fornication." This obviously implies that there are instances where divorce may be not only be acceptable, but perhaps the right course of action.
It should not be surprising that infidelity is condemned... particularly when Jesus taught that marriage represents something that "God hath joined together", a violation of the marriage commitment definitely constitutes man putting it asunder. I would suggest that situations where abuse of spouse or offspring have occurred are also breaches in the marriage covenant, and for the safety of the victims, divorce may be necessary.
In such cases when an individual has betrayed their marriage vows, and divorce has been the result... do Christ's teachings indicate that such individuals should not re-marry? I do not believe that this is the intent of the phrase "whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." I believe that such teachings are directed at those who legally remove themselves from their marriage commitments over trivial circumstances or "irreconcilable differences."
A disagreement, lack of excitement, different life goals, or similar excuses are not likely to be acceptable to God as reasons to cast marriage aside. This is particularly true of Christians who have committed to be humble, merciful, forgiving, and selfless as a part of their commitment to Christ himself.
Certainly any one of us are guilty of being foolish at times. Every one of us have likely at some point acted petty, cruel, selfish, jealous, spiteful, or in some way done something to deserve being put away... but Christ personally suffered unspeakable torture and pain for each of us anyway. In fact, regardless of our problems or mistakes (the very cause of his torture), he continually and selflessly offers forgiveness to us.
A person that cannot bend to offer love and respect to the person they swore they would in the covenant of marriage cannot expect love and respect from God... and a person that sets at naught their most sacred relationships for trivialities should not expect God to invest in forming relationships with them.
Frequently and tragically, the effects of divorce extend beyond the separating couple... particularly when there are children involved. Remember the teaching of Jesus regarding children:
"And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matthew 18:3-6)
From the teachings of modern prophets:
"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... 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." (http://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng)
Of course there are circumstances such as death or disability that may require special attention. These circumstances ought to be the exception and not the rule however. As much as possible, we have a responsibility to ensure that children receive care under a father and mother who honor their vows completely. Casting aside a spouse for anything but the most serious offenses constitutes a violation of the rights of children. Even in the best circumstances divorce can cause harm to come to the little ones... in other words, children are hurt by the very parents on whom they should be able to depend for protection.
Ultimately, marriage was never intended to be trivial. The sanctity of this institution is not lessened by the indulgence of society's "tolerance" for selfish practices. Particularly among Christians who believe in the sanctity of marriage, it is vital that we practice what we preach. While we have a responsibility to be kind and loving to all of God's children, there is no relationship more important in which to prove our Christianity than that between husband and wife.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)