MarginOfError

I've always fancied myself more of a purple-commie

Speaking of Banned Members...I'm back!  Probably only briefly though.  I'm mostly only here because I'm in desperate need of escapism at the moment.
I could probably say more on this than anyone cares to, but I'll go brief.  I'll also be lazy and not bother putting together sources or references.  (See previous comment about escapism)
 
Simply put, under my advisement--after having read a news article and spoken to all our nursing mothers-- I convinced my previous bishop to establish a practice of the young women passing the sacrament in our ward.  It was limited in scope to exactly one of them sitting in the foyer, taking the tray from whoever came out, and then walking it into the mother's lounge (we had 7 children born in the span of about four months, the mother's lounge was constantly occupied). 
The only complaint I ever encountered was that "women can't administer the sacrament." So I pulled out D&C 20: something and showed them where it said that neither Deacons nor Teachers were authorized to administer the sacrament. Therefore, preparing and passing the sacrament must not be "administering the sacrament." The section of the handbook which Colirio cites mentions priesthood holders passing, but that isn't a doctrinal limitation and could be changed relatively easily. That was really the only obstacle, which we dismissed with the fact that the women being served had a clear preference for a young women coming into the room over a young man. 
 
As described by someone else, the issue with the missionaries holding Sacrament on a Wednesday really isn't that the sisters helped to pass, it's that the missionaries authorized themselves to do it.  They just don't have the authority to do that.

I have to admit that I am confused by some of the logic presented here.
Today's youth have fewer of the characteristics that I value in the previous generation's youth, therefore they must not be among the more valiant souls....(paraphrased, I didn't take the effort to make a full and concise statement)
What isn't considered, however, is the possibility that the trait's of today's youth are the very manifestation of their valiance. It's sloppy of me to do this, but I'm going to make claims without evidence, so consider it anecdotal.  By and large, the youth today seem to be more empathetic, comfortable with nuance and complexity, and more prone to value social improvement over personal wealth.  What if their willingness and determination to tear down long standing social norms is their valiance in action? What if their unwillingness to accept racial animus (for example) in scripture as divinely-directed is a sign of their valiance?
In other words, we're often quick to judge others (including other generations) for their unrighteousness for no other reason than they have different values or priorities than we do. I would submit that doing so is a dangerous business if you don't fully understand what makes those people tick, and are unwilling to question whether your own perspectives might need some adjustment.
 
Another perspective you can put on this all is to consider that the people that were the target of that "most valiant souls" comment are the very people that raised today's youth. So if today's youth really are so much worse, then it seems that it would be the fault of those most valiant souls for raising a bunch of screw ups. So before we go railing on how not-valiant today's youth are, maybe we should question whether those valiant ones were really as valiant as we thought, seeing as they obviously screwed up their most noble calling so badly......

The policy description under Birth Control was updated just a few weeks ago.  The current policy is in the General Handbook, section 38.6.4
This does not represent a major change from the previous policy; with the only noticeable difference being that the previous policy explicitly encouraged members considering surgical sterilization to seek counsel from their priesthood leaders. The new policy implicitly removes priesthood leaders from the decision making process.

Some of these are fair criticisms.  Adjusting the federal numbers up to 3700 per month and reducing the taxes to 5% (about 11% to federal and 4% to state/local) changes the monthly unused income to $489 per month. That $30,000 downpayment becomes accessible in just over five years.  But with the caveat that transportation still isn't included in that value. And the caveat that the home price is still the typical value in the area I live in, which a fairly low cost of living area. The urban area 30 minutes north of me shows 2BR/1Bath houses starting around the $125k point.  By comparison, this (admittedly cherry picked) 2BR 1.5 Bath in the Salt Lake area going into foreclosure and marked as for sale is listed at $280k.  
Sidenote, regarding some other criticisms of using a 3BR house in my targets, I figured a young couple starting out and planning for their future might be interested in a 3BR house if they wanted to have four kids, which doesn't seem unreasonable for a mormon family. I apologize that this assumption wasn't expressly stated in my work.
As another form of comparison, this Census report shows the 1970 median household income was $8,730 per year. This inflation calculator places that value at 59,506.2 in today's dollars. I'm struggling to find an individual income median for a direct comparison, but if we operate on the belief that single income families were more common in the upper income levels then than they are now, my gut check guess is that a single income family probably has the equivalent of $600 less monthly income now than it did in 1970. 
Which all goes back to the original point, that regardless of which numbers you use, a single income has less purchasing power today than it did 50 years ago. By extension, making ends meet and accomplishing financial goals is harder on a single income today than it was 50 years ago.  It seems reasonable to think that families might be making different decisions with regard to who works and who doesn't that reflect some of that lost purchasing power.
 
 
Things not relevant to the main point:
- A 20% down payment may not be normal, but I'd argue that is another symptom of the problem.  Best practice by financial experts, as far as I understand, still encourage the 20% down payment because it saves money due to PMI. More importantly, it demonstrates the ability to save money for the unexpected expenses that comes with the maintenance on a house. Statistically speaking, the lower percentage the downpayment, the higher the risk of failing to keep up with payments. (another really complicated discussion, I know)
- Not saving for retirement while saving to purchase a house is, in my estimation, a catastrophic strategic error. If your employer offers a match, you should contribute at least enough to max out that benefit.  Early savings are king in retirement, and starting five to six years earlier makes an enormous difference after 30 years of saving.  So whether or not it is common, it's the practice that should be encouraged.

Some of these are fair criticisms.  Adjusting the federal numbers up to 3700 per month and reducing the taxes to 5% (about 11% to federal and 4% to state/local) changes the monthly unused income to $489 per month. That $30,000 downpayment becomes accessible in just over five years.  But with the caveat that transportation still isn't included in that value. And the caveat that the home price is still the typical value in the area I live in, which a fairly low cost of living area. The urban area 30 minutes north of me shows 2BR/1Bath houses starting around the $125k point.  By comparison, this (admittedly cherry picked) 2BR 1.5 Bath in the Salt Lake area going into foreclosure and marked as for sale is listed at $280k.  
Sidenote, regarding some other criticisms of using a 3BR house in my targets, I figured a young couple starting out and planning for their future might be interested in a 3BR house if they wanted to have four kids, which doesn't seem unreasonable for a mormon family. I apologize that this assumption wasn't expressly stated in my work.
As another form of comparison, this Census report shows the 1970 median household income was $8,730 per year. This inflation calculator places that value at 59,506.2 in today's dollars. I'm struggling to find an individual income median for a direct comparison, but if we operate on the belief that single income families were more common in the upper income levels then than they are now, my gut check guess is that a single income family probably has the equivalent of $600 less monthly income now than it did in 1970. 
Which all goes back to the original point, that regardless of which numbers you use, a single income has less purchasing power today than it did 50 years ago. By extension, making ends meet and accomplishing financial goals is harder on a single income today than it was 50 years ago.  It seems reasonable to think that families might be making different decisions with regard to who works and who doesn't that reflect some of that lost purchasing power.
 
 
Things not relevant to the main point:
- A 20% down payment may not be normal, but I'd argue that is another symptom of the problem.  Best practice by financial experts, as far as I understand, still encourage the 20% down payment because it saves money due to PMI. More importantly, it demonstrates the ability to save money for the unexpected expenses that comes with the maintenance on a house. Statistically speaking, the lower percentage the downpayment, the higher the risk of failing to keep up with payments. (another really complicated discussion, I know)
- Not saving for retirement while saving to purchase a house is, in my estimation, a catastrophic strategic error. If your employer offers a match, you should contribute at least enough to max out that benefit.  Early savings are king in retirement, and starting five to six years earlier makes an enormous difference after 30 years of saving.  So whether or not it is common, it's the practice that should be encouraged.

Some of these are fair criticisms.  Adjusting the federal numbers up to 3700 per month and reducing the taxes to 5% (about 11% to federal and 4% to state/local) changes the monthly unused income to $489 per month. That $30,000 downpayment becomes accessible in just over five years.  But with the caveat that transportation still isn't included in that value. And the caveat that the home price is still the typical value in the area I live in, which a fairly low cost of living area. The urban area 30 minutes north of me shows 2BR/1Bath houses starting around the $125k point.  By comparison, this (admittedly cherry picked) 2BR 1.5 Bath in the Salt Lake area going into foreclosure and marked as for sale is listed at $280k.  
Sidenote, regarding some other criticisms of using a 3BR house in my targets, I figured a young couple starting out and planning for their future might be interested in a 3BR house if they wanted to have four kids, which doesn't seem unreasonable for a mormon family. I apologize that this assumption wasn't expressly stated in my work.
As another form of comparison, this Census report shows the 1970 median household income was $8,730 per year. This inflation calculator places that value at 59,506.2 in today's dollars. I'm struggling to find an individual income median for a direct comparison, but if we operate on the belief that single income families were more common in the upper income levels then than they are now, my gut check guess is that a single income family probably has the equivalent of $600 less monthly income now than it did in 1970. 
Which all goes back to the original point, that regardless of which numbers you use, a single income has less purchasing power today than it did 50 years ago. By extension, making ends meet and accomplishing financial goals is harder on a single income today than it was 50 years ago.  It seems reasonable to think that families might be making different decisions with regard to who works and who doesn't that reflect some of that lost purchasing power.
 
 
Things not relevant to the main point:
- A 20% down payment may not be normal, but I'd argue that is another symptom of the problem.  Best practice by financial experts, as far as I understand, still encourage the 20% down payment because it saves money due to PMI. More importantly, it demonstrates the ability to save money for the unexpected expenses that comes with the maintenance on a house. Statistically speaking, the lower percentage the downpayment, the higher the risk of failing to keep up with payments. (another really complicated discussion, I know)
- Not saving for retirement while saving to purchase a house is, in my estimation, a catastrophic strategic error. If your employer offers a match, you should contribute at least enough to max out that benefit.  Early savings are king in retirement, and starting five to six years earlier makes an enormous difference after 30 years of saving.  So whether or not it is common, it's the practice that should be encouraged.

Some of these are fair criticisms.  Adjusting the federal numbers up to 3700 per month and reducing the taxes to 5% (about 11% to federal and 4% to state/local) changes the monthly unused income to $489 per month. That $30,000 downpayment becomes accessible in just over five years.  But with the caveat that transportation still isn't included in that value. And the caveat that the home price is still the typical value in the area I live in, which a fairly low cost of living area. The urban area 30 minutes north of me shows 2BR/1Bath houses starting around the $125k point.  By comparison, this (admittedly cherry picked) 2BR 1.5 Bath in the Salt Lake area going into foreclosure and marked as for sale is listed at $280k.  
Sidenote, regarding some other criticisms of using a 3BR house in my targets, I figured a young couple starting out and planning for their future might be interested in a 3BR house if they wanted to have four kids, which doesn't seem unreasonable for a mormon family. I apologize that this assumption wasn't expressly stated in my work.
As another form of comparison, this Census report shows the 1970 median household income was $8,730 per year. This inflation calculator places that value at 59,506.2 in today's dollars. I'm struggling to find an individual income median for a direct comparison, but if we operate on the belief that single income families were more common in the upper income levels then than they are now, my gut check guess is that a single income family probably has the equivalent of $600 less monthly income now than it did in 1970. 
Which all goes back to the original point, that regardless of which numbers you use, a single income has less purchasing power today than it did 50 years ago. By extension, making ends meet and accomplishing financial goals is harder on a single income today than it was 50 years ago.  It seems reasonable to think that families might be making different decisions with regard to who works and who doesn't that reflect some of that lost purchasing power.
 
 
Things not relevant to the main point:
- A 20% down payment may not be normal, but I'd argue that is another symptom of the problem.  Best practice by financial experts, as far as I understand, still encourage the 20% down payment because it saves money due to PMI. More importantly, it demonstrates the ability to save money for the unexpected expenses that comes with the maintenance on a house. Statistically speaking, the lower percentage the downpayment, the higher the risk of failing to keep up with payments. (another really complicated discussion, I know)
- Not saving for retirement while saving to purchase a house is, in my estimation, a catastrophic strategic error. If your employer offers a match, you should contribute at least enough to max out that benefit.  Early savings are king in retirement, and starting five to six years earlier makes an enormous difference after 30 years of saving.  So whether or not it is common, it's the practice that should be encouraged.

Like it or hate it, the statement "In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners." still exists.
Like it or hate it, the Family Proclamation is quite ambiguous and doesn't answer nearly as many questions as it creates, and is open to a wide array of interpretations.  I tend to agree with @JaneDoe, and let families and individuals strive to make decisions that best suit their own and their families' needs. 

You're more or less demonstrating my point.  It's pretty hard to make an argument against the interpretation of equal partners not being the same as equal responsibilities.  It's also hard to make an argument against equal partners and equal responsibilities.  It really depends on how you feel about the transitive property, on which the Family Proclamation is pretty silent.
And I find your comment about "problem causer vs problem solver" to be rather amusing.  I mean, the entirety of our standard works create more problems then they answer.  It's one of the strongest similarities the Family Proclamation has to scripture.
And just as there are people that will fixate one one phrase to justify a woman working out of the home, there are others that will hyper focus on the mother's primary responsibility to the detriment of their family.  I am personally familiar with a family where the husband, unable to hold a job and at times physically unable to work refused to let his wife get a job because "if we follow the counsel of the prophets, we will be blessed." Without going into the details, you'll just have to take my word for it that it was tantamount to spiritual abuse.  The abuses of these things go in all sorts of directions.

You're more or less demonstrating my point.  It's pretty hard to make an argument against the interpretation of equal partners not being the same as equal responsibilities.  It's also hard to make an argument against equal partners and equal responsibilities.  It really depends on how you feel about the transitive property, on which the Family Proclamation is pretty silent.
And I find your comment about "problem causer vs problem solver" to be rather amusing.  I mean, the entirety of our standard works create more problems then they answer.  It's one of the strongest similarities the Family Proclamation has to scripture.
And just as there are people that will fixate one one phrase to justify a woman working out of the home, there are others that will hyper focus on the mother's primary responsibility to the detriment of their family.  I am personally familiar with a family where the husband, unable to hold a job and at times physically unable to work refused to let his wife get a job because "if we follow the counsel of the prophets, we will be blessed." Without going into the details, you'll just have to take my word for it that it was tantamount to spiritual abuse.  The abuses of these things go in all sorts of directions.

There's some hyperbole going on here, but I'll focus on your core point.
The first thing I'll say is that I was actually a bit shocked in the 2017 Face-to-Face event with Elders Oaks and Ballard when Elder Oaks answered a question about a woman's priority for education vs. marriage.  He spoke of his own mother, and how she needed to provide for her family after his father died. He made the point that she was blessed to be able to do so comfortably because she had completed her education. He then went on to state that while he did not support putting off getting married to complete an education, he did think there was a certain wisdom to waiting until her degree was completed before having children.
Is it at all possible that the statements leaders make on this subject are colored by their own experiences? And might that be why so many of the statement stressing the importance of having mom in the home are so blasted old?
Regardless, in more cases than you might think, the choice of whether a woman works or not is practical. Let's look at the state of affairs at present:
Let's look at what it takes to buy a three bedroom home.  In my area, which is fairly low cost of living, the BR houses are running at about $150,000.  Let's make the goal to save enough for a 20% down payment. The following numbers breakdown what the financial situation is for a single income family with three mouths to feed.  At the median income, it would take 15 years to build up that down payment.  And that doesn't include costs of gasoline, car payments, or even fast offering. 
The hard reality is that, given current wages and market forces, if a couple wants to build financial stability and self reliance, there aren't a lot of options.  And they really boil down to
1. Get a job that pays well above the median (not always within your control)
2. Move to a lower cost of living area (where gainful employment is often harder to come by--I live in such an area and unemployment here is high)
3. A combination of 2 and 3
4. Become a two income family (provided the second income can offset the cost of child care)
Keep in mind that these values represent the median.  By definition, half of wage earners are unable to meet even these metrics. So it would seem to me that unless we are going to increase single earner wages dramatically, the ideal of women not pursuing careers seems to be a ship that has sailed, crashed into an iceberg, and sunk.  Perhaps we should give these families a break.
Are there people out there that are putting off family for the sake of building wealth?  Absolutely.  I'm not going to deny that one bit.  But that is often a completely separate issue from whether the woman is working or not.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States#:~:text=The Bureau of Labor Statistics,sex%2C ethnicity and educational characteristics
[2] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/KY/INC110218
[3] https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/average-rent-by-state
[4] https://www.valuepenguin.com/average-household-budget
[5] Estimated on the same proportion as monthly income between U.S. and my state.
[6] https://www.nationwide.com/lc/resources/personal-finance/articles/average-cost-of-utilities
[7] https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/09/07/wscs-10-least-expensive-states/15075077/#:~:text=Kentucky&text=Numbeo estimates the average cost,restaurant at only around %248.
[8] http://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/taxing-wages-united-states.pdf
[9] Assuming 6% as it would be the minimum to max out most common employer matches
[10] Assuming a home of $150,000, which is common for a 3BR home in my low cost of living area.

There's some hyperbole going on here, but I'll focus on your core point.
The first thing I'll say is that I was actually a bit shocked in the 2017 Face-to-Face event with Elders Oaks and Ballard when Elder Oaks answered a question about a woman's priority for education vs. marriage.  He spoke of his own mother, and how she needed to provide for her family after his father died. He made the point that she was blessed to be able to do so comfortably because she had completed her education. He then went on to state that while he did not support putting off getting married to complete an education, he did think there was a certain wisdom to waiting until her degree was completed before having children.
Is it at all possible that the statements leaders make on this subject are colored by their own experiences? And might that be why so many of the statement stressing the importance of having mom in the home are so blasted old?
Regardless, in more cases than you might think, the choice of whether a woman works or not is practical. Let's look at the state of affairs at present:
Let's look at what it takes to buy a three bedroom home.  In my area, which is fairly low cost of living, the BR houses are running at about $150,000.  Let's make the goal to save enough for a 20% down payment. The following numbers breakdown what the financial situation is for a single income family with three mouths to feed.  At the median income, it would take 15 years to build up that down payment.  And that doesn't include costs of gasoline, car payments, or even fast offering. 
The hard reality is that, given current wages and market forces, if a couple wants to build financial stability and self reliance, there aren't a lot of options.  And they really boil down to
1. Get a job that pays well above the median (not always within your control)
2. Move to a lower cost of living area (where gainful employment is often harder to come by--I live in such an area and unemployment here is high)
3. A combination of 2 and 3
4. Become a two income family (provided the second income can offset the cost of child care)
Keep in mind that these values represent the median.  By definition, half of wage earners are unable to meet even these metrics. So it would seem to me that unless we are going to increase single earner wages dramatically, the ideal of women not pursuing careers seems to be a ship that has sailed, crashed into an iceberg, and sunk.  Perhaps we should give these families a break.
Are there people out there that are putting off family for the sake of building wealth?  Absolutely.  I'm not going to deny that one bit.  But that is often a completely separate issue from whether the woman is working or not.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States#:~:text=The Bureau of Labor Statistics,sex%2C ethnicity and educational characteristics
[2] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/KY/INC110218
[3] https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/average-rent-by-state
[4] https://www.valuepenguin.com/average-household-budget
[5] Estimated on the same proportion as monthly income between U.S. and my state.
[6] https://www.nationwide.com/lc/resources/personal-finance/articles/average-cost-of-utilities
[7] https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/09/07/wscs-10-least-expensive-states/15075077/#:~:text=Kentucky&text=Numbeo estimates the average cost,restaurant at only around %248.
[8] http://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/taxing-wages-united-states.pdf
[9] Assuming 6% as it would be the minimum to max out most common employer matches
[10] Assuming a home of $150,000, which is common for a 3BR home in my low cost of living area.

There's some hyperbole going on here, but I'll focus on your core point.
The first thing I'll say is that I was actually a bit shocked in the 2017 Face-to-Face event with Elders Oaks and Ballard when Elder Oaks answered a question about a woman's priority for education vs. marriage.  He spoke of his own mother, and how she needed to provide for her family after his father died. He made the point that she was blessed to be able to do so comfortably because she had completed her education. He then went on to state that while he did not support putting off getting married to complete an education, he did think there was a certain wisdom to waiting until her degree was completed before having children.
Is it at all possible that the statements leaders make on this subject are colored by their own experiences? And might that be why so many of the statement stressing the importance of having mom in the home are so blasted old?
Regardless, in more cases than you might think, the choice of whether a woman works or not is practical. Let's look at the state of affairs at present:
Let's look at what it takes to buy a three bedroom home.  In my area, which is fairly low cost of living, the BR houses are running at about $150,000.  Let's make the goal to save enough for a 20% down payment. The following numbers breakdown what the financial situation is for a single income family with three mouths to feed.  At the median income, it would take 15 years to build up that down payment.  And that doesn't include costs of gasoline, car payments, or even fast offering. 
The hard reality is that, given current wages and market forces, if a couple wants to build financial stability and self reliance, there aren't a lot of options.  And they really boil down to
1. Get a job that pays well above the median (not always within your control)
2. Move to a lower cost of living area (where gainful employment is often harder to come by--I live in such an area and unemployment here is high)
3. A combination of 2 and 3
4. Become a two income family (provided the second income can offset the cost of child care)
Keep in mind that these values represent the median.  By definition, half of wage earners are unable to meet even these metrics. So it would seem to me that unless we are going to increase single earner wages dramatically, the ideal of women not pursuing careers seems to be a ship that has sailed, crashed into an iceberg, and sunk.  Perhaps we should give these families a break.
Are there people out there that are putting off family for the sake of building wealth?  Absolutely.  I'm not going to deny that one bit.  But that is often a completely separate issue from whether the woman is working or not.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States#:~:text=The Bureau of Labor Statistics,sex%2C ethnicity and educational characteristics
[2] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/KY/INC110218
[3] https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/average-rent-by-state
[4] https://www.valuepenguin.com/average-household-budget
[5] Estimated on the same proportion as monthly income between U.S. and my state.
[6] https://www.nationwide.com/lc/resources/personal-finance/articles/average-cost-of-utilities
[7] https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/09/07/wscs-10-least-expensive-states/15075077/#:~:text=Kentucky&text=Numbeo estimates the average cost,restaurant at only around %248.
[8] http://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/taxing-wages-united-states.pdf
[9] Assuming 6% as it would be the minimum to max out most common employer matches
[10] Assuming a home of $150,000, which is common for a 3BR home in my low cost of living area.

You're more or less demonstrating my point.  It's pretty hard to make an argument against the interpretation of equal partners not being the same as equal responsibilities.  It's also hard to make an argument against equal partners and equal responsibilities.  It really depends on how you feel about the transitive property, on which the Family Proclamation is pretty silent.
And I find your comment about "problem causer vs problem solver" to be rather amusing.  I mean, the entirety of our standard works create more problems then they answer.  It's one of the strongest similarities the Family Proclamation has to scripture.
And just as there are people that will fixate one one phrase to justify a woman working out of the home, there are others that will hyper focus on the mother's primary responsibility to the detriment of their family.  I am personally familiar with a family where the husband, unable to hold a job and at times physically unable to work refused to let his wife get a job because "if we follow the counsel of the prophets, we will be blessed." Without going into the details, you'll just have to take my word for it that it was tantamount to spiritual abuse.  The abuses of these things go in all sorts of directions.

Like it or hate it, the statement "In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners." still exists.
Like it or hate it, the Family Proclamation is quite ambiguous and doesn't answer nearly as many questions as it creates, and is open to a wide array of interpretations.  I tend to agree with @JaneDoe, and let families and individuals strive to make decisions that best suit their own and their families' needs. 

Point of order, the Electoral College cast their votes yesterday.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcconnell-senate-republicans-biden-president-elect-electoral-college
Doesn't seem inappropriate to acknowledge Mr. Biden as the President-elect.  Even Senator McConnell has done so at this point.

Meh, it happens.  In fairness, there are some in the conservative circles that are claiming it isn't _really_ done, because the House _could_ choose not to certify that electoral college.  The House won't vote on that until 6 Jan, I believe. 
Rejecting the electoral vote, if I understand correctly, would require a sponsor in the House and in the Senate, as well as majority votes in both chambers. So doesn't seem likely, but the most DedicatedToTheCause (TM) are saying that's the only vote that matters.  Of course, most of them were saying the Electoral College vote was the only one that mattered when they thought they would see swing states with Republican legislatures send their own electors.  Seems like the "what really matters" goal posts keep moving....

Like it or hate it, the statement "In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners." still exists.
Like it or hate it, the Family Proclamation is quite ambiguous and doesn't answer nearly as many questions as it creates, and is open to a wide array of interpretations.  I tend to agree with @JaneDoe, and let families and individuals strive to make decisions that best suit their own and their families' needs. 

Point of order, the Electoral College cast their votes yesterday.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcconnell-senate-republicans-biden-president-elect-electoral-college
Doesn't seem inappropriate to acknowledge Mr. Biden as the President-elect.  Even Senator McConnell has done so at this point.

Like it or hate it, the statement "In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners." still exists.
Like it or hate it, the Family Proclamation is quite ambiguous and doesn't answer nearly as many questions as it creates, and is open to a wide array of interpretations.  I tend to agree with @JaneDoe, and let families and individuals strive to make decisions that best suit their own and their families' needs. 

You'd agree with me more often if you wanted to be right about things.
This happens to be an area in which I have a lot of experience, being over 15 years into my own faith crisis.

You'd agree with me more often if you wanted to be right about things.
This happens to be an area in which I have a lot of experience, being over 15 years into my own faith crisis.

First and foremost, don't fall into the mistake of thinking this is something that can be fixed. There is nothing broken with your son. 
I consider what has happened with your son to be a breach of trust. I believe we all experience these breaches at some point, and it can be extremely unsettling (whether it is intended or not).
The primary advice I would give your son is to lay out every concern he has about the church and his leaders to you. Give him room to speak and be heard without judgment. When he is done, say nothing more than, 'can I have some time to think about this?'
Let your discussions about flawed leaders (and flawed disciples) and the possibilities of mixing up revelation with what-we-really-want for another day. 
Ultimately, I would guess that there are other concerns that have quietly existed for some time. The first step to helping is listening, understanding, and showing that you still love.

You'd agree with me more often if you wanted to be right about things.
This happens to be an area in which I have a lot of experience, being over 15 years into my own faith crisis.