"Adaptations" in the Family Proclamation - a shift in responsibility/accountability, or execution?

[Shoot_The_Moon]

The Family, a Proclamation to the World

“By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.”

I've done a lot of searching on more understanding about the adaptations mentioned. I kept this in the back of my mind for a while, and the pieces I have been able to come up that I think relate are as follows:

Elder M. Russell Ballard

"Even though men and women are equal before God in their eternal opportunities, they have different, but equally significant, duties in His eternal plan. We must understand that God views all of His children with infinite wisdom and perfect fairness. Consequently, He can acknowledge and even encourage our differences while providing equal opportunity for growth and development."

"Our Heavenly Father assigned different responsibilities in mortality to men and women when we lived with Him as His spirit sons and daughters. To His sons He would give the priesthood and the responsibilities of fatherhood, and to His daughters He gave the responsibilities of motherhood, each with its attendant functions." ("Equality Through Diversity", Ensign, Nov. 1993).

Elder M. Russell Ballard

"Father and mother are callings from which we will never be released." ("Let Our Voices Be Heard", Ensign, Nov. 2003)

Gospel Principles Manual

"It is also the father’s duty to provide for the physical needs of his family, making sure they have the necessary food, housing, clothing, and education. Even if he is unable to provide all the support himself, he does not give up the responsibility of the care of his family." (Chapter 37: “Family Responsibilities”)

Sis. Julie B. Beck (Relief Society General President)

“Latter-day Saint women should understand that no matter how many other people they enlist to help them with their home and children, they cannot delegate their role as the primary nurturer and teacher of their families. Righteous motherhood will always stretch every reserve they have to meet the needs of their families. As a daughter of God who has made covenants with Him, each of you carries the vital and indispensable female half of the responsibility for fulfilling the Lord’s plan.” (“Unlocking the Door to the Blessings of Abraham”, BYU CES Fireside, Mar. 2008)

Elder Bruce R. McConkie

“God is no respecter of persons. Anything he has or will say to one person, he will say to another who is similarly situated.” (“THE BIBLE, A SEALED BOOK”, BYU - A Symposium on the New Testament; Supplement, 1984, 1–7)

From the words of the Gospel Principles manual, it seems to read that even if the father cannot provide for his family and needs assistance / adaptations he "does not give up the responsibility of the care of his family", Sis Beck says if the mother gets assistance to "help them with their home and children, they cannot delegate their role of primary nurturer" (which Sis. Beck links to being a primary homemaker in a different address), and from Elder McConkie's words it would seem the stipulations apply to both genders.

So, if there are adaptations needed, does it mean that the "primary responsibility" is shifted away from one of the parents, or is it saying that the adaptations recognize that there will need to be additional assistance with the execution of the duties, but the responsibility and ultimate accountability cannot be shifted by any means?

Does this go in-line with the words of the Lord that promise that he may not remove our trials (like our primary duties in our callings as father / mother), but he promises to help us to lift up our burdens that they may seem light. (And in reality, aren't we all receiving "adaptations" from the Lord just so we can take each breath of air and live for one more day?)

And doesn't the Welfare System of the Church work the same way - doesn't remove the responsibility of the father / mother to care for their family, and provides just enough "adaptations" in the execution of providing for the physical needs of the family to make up the difference?

But in the end, won't a parent still be ultimately accountable to the Lord if any of their "attendant functions" are not met, even if they require adaptations in the execution?

Any thoughts or additional counsel from the Lord or his servants?

Edited January 25, 2012 by Shoot_The_Moon

[Blackmarch]

I've done a lot of searching on more understanding about the adaptations mentioned. I kept this in the back of my mind for a while, and the pieces I have been able to come up that I think relate are as follows:

From the words of the Gospel Principles manual, it seems to read that even if the father cannot provide for his family and needs assistance / adaptations he "does not give up the responsibility of the care of his family", Sis Beck says if the mother gets assistance to "help them with their home and children, they cannot delegate their role of primary nurturer" (which Sis. Beck links to being a primary homemaker in a different address), and from Elder McConkie's words it would seem the stipulations apply to both genders.

So, if there are adaptations needed, does it mean that the "primary responsibility" is shifted away from one of the parents, or is it saying that the adaptations recognize that there will need to be additional assistance with the execution of the duties, but the responsibility and ultimate accountability cannot be shifted by any means?

Does this go in-line with the words of the Lord that promise that he may not remove our trials (like our primary duties in our callings as father / mother), but he promises to help us to lift up our burdens that they may seem light. (And in reality, aren't we all receiving "adaptations" from the Lord just so we can take each breath of air and live for one more day?)

And doesn't the Welfare System of the Church work the same way - doesn't remove the responsibility of the father / mother to care for their family, and provides just enough "adaptations" in the execution of providing for the physical needs of the family to make up the difference?

But in the end, won't a parent still be ultimately accountable to the Lord if any of their "attendant functions" are not met, even if they require adaptations in the execution?

Any thoughts or additional counsel from the Lord or his servants?

Adaptations means in laymans terms is that its not so set in stone that it must be absolutely followed in that exact manner at the cost of everything else... because there are situations where that scenario does not work, and sometimes how the relationship is set up has to be altered abit to account for that situation (ie such as a single parent).

IN general, situations where an individual just cannot do as is commanded because of external circumstance God makes allowance for alternatives, or provides another way.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Blackmarch

[Jennarator]

The way I look at "adaptions" would be that tho the responsibility stays, the roles might change. I don't know if that makes sense.

I can give an example or two.

If a father isn't making enough money (or none) a mother can work. (I did this for years! However I felt it was still my responsibility to make sure my children were still getting all the attn they needed. I still met with teachers and such. I still made sure they had the love they needed. Tho I was not there the whole time I asked tons of questions. I felt it was up to me to make sure all needs were met, not my husbands.

On the other hand (And I won't get into how he didn't do this) But my husband, at the time, should have been looking for a job. It was his responsiblitiy to provide. Tho he didn't work, he need to make sure he was doing all he can to provide. If we needed a food order from the church he should have went to the bishop, then the bishop to thr RS pres. The father should be looking for ways to provide, weather it be looking for a cheaper place to live, if need be, or collecting cans to rwcycle. Tho I was earnign the money, he should have been finding a way to help. Going to school would be good, or whatever to try to get back to tradtional roles.

[rameumptom]

There are other issues that cause "adaptation." Single parent home requires adaptation. A parent that physically/mentally is incapable of handling his/her responsibility (I have a friend who had a severe stroke. Wife handles most issues).

[Guest]

“I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.”

- Joseph Smith

[Shoot_The_Moon]

“I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.”

- Joseph Smith

Elder Neal A. Maxwell

"The gospel of Jesus Christ is a collection of principles woven together in the fabric of immutable law; this is the romance and the high adventure of orthodoxy: these principles, bound together, not only give us salvation, but they also give us balance, depth, and happiness in our lives.

"The doctrines of Jesus Christ are so powerful that any one of these doctrines, having been broken away from the rest, goes wild and mad, as G. K. Chesterton observed. The principle of love without the principles of justice and discipline goes wild. Any doctrine, unless it is woven into the fabric of orthodoxy, goes wild. The doctrines of the kingdom need each other just as the people of the kingdom need each other." ("Spiritual Ecology", Ensign Feb. 1975)

I'm just trying to understand all the principles that relate to "adaptations", so that this single one doesn't "go rogue".

For instance, I have noticed that those who are "destitute" in one manner of their life or another cite the need for "adaptations", but seem to think that adaptations are a "release" from their responsibilities and duties in their most sacred calling. The doctrine of "relief by release" doesn't seem to gel with other doctrines.

Take this one, or instance:

Elder Lynn G. Robbins

"Because the natural man tends to hoard or consume everything, the Lord wisely commanded ancient Israel to sacrifice not the last and poorest of the flock, but the firstlings—not the leftovers of the field, but the firstfruits (see Deuteronomy 26:2; Mosiah 2:3; Moses 5:5). Genuine sacrifice has been a hallmark of the faithful from the beginning.

"Among those who do not sacrifice there are two extremes: one is the rich, gluttonous man who won't and the other is the poor, destitute man who believes he can't. But how can you ask someone who is starving to eat less? Is there a level of poverty so low that sacrifice should not be expected or a family so destitute that paying tithing should cease to be required?

"The Lord often teaches using extreme circumstances to illustrate a principle. The story of the widow of Zarephath is an example of extreme poverty used to teach the doctrine that mercy cannot rob sacrifice any more than it can rob justice. In fact, the truer measure of sacrifice isn't so much what one gives to sacrifice as what one sacrifices to give (see Mark 12:43). Faith isn't tested so much when the cupboard is full as when it is bare. In these defining moments, the crisis doesn't create one's character—it reveals it. The crisis is the test. ("Tithing - A Commandment Even for the Destitute", Ensign, May 2005)

I'm looking for the straight doctrine, not what Bro. X or Sis. Y did to cope, or why the Z family is exempt from this or that.

It is very common for people to be afraid of "disability or death", and somehow try to excuse themselves up front by introducing "softer" doctrine (a.k.a. incomplete or "rogue") in the hopes that if they offer up the "relief by release" doctrine to those who are in these situations, it means that they would be offered the same courtesy if they were in a similar situation. But it doesn't work that way.

Mother and Father are callings to which we will never be released, and what is a calling if not a set of duties and responsibilities. No responsibilities - no calling. If you are called to a calling, but someone else does all the duties associated with that calling, then you really aren't fulfilling that calling, are you? Elder Oaks even says so himself:

We are not blessed for magnifying our calling with someone else’s time or resources. ("Our Strengths Can Become Our Downfall", Ensign, May 1995)

So it just seems off to me that the "adaptations" would offer a "relief by release" way out for the one calling that we can never be released from.

Look at Moses. There was an adaptation. Moses needed a speaker, so he used Aaron. Does that mean that the responsibility was on Aaron to deliver the message to Pharaoh, or did it still rest solely on Moses? If the message wasn't delivered, or Aaron chickened out, who would the accountability fall to? Delegation doesn't shift responsibility, it just introduces more points of failure, but ultimate responsibility and accountability doesn't go anywhere.

Can a father or a mother offload their duties to the other spouse when things get rough? Or can they offload it to the EQ / RS / Bishopric? When the Family Proc. says "primarily responsible", I hear those famous words by Harry Truman - "The buck stops here".

President Hinckley gave us the following "pecking order" for out priorities in the 2003 Worldwide Leadership Training (which applies equally to men and women):

“Each of us has a fourfold responsibility. First, we have a responsibility to our families. Second, we have a responsibility to our employers. Third, we have a responsibility to the Lord’s work. Fourth, we have a responsibility to ourselves.

Every other person has their own family to whom they are primarily responsible for, or their own primary duties within the family that they must be accountable to God before they can "cover" for anyone else. The Bishop has to take care of his family first, the EQ Pres and RS Pres has to take care of their family first, and every other member of the Ward has to take care of their family first. So, there is no one else who is going to take up the slack. Even with adaptations, it falls on us to use every resource available to us to fulfill our calling and make sure our duties and responsibilities are met.

I guess it boils down to why adaptations are being requested. I think we can shed some light on this with something that Elder Oaks gave us:

“Some years ago Elder Neal A. Maxwell taught how we can be guided by this standard of ‘wisdom and order’ and be comforted by the assurance that we are not required to run faster than we have strength (see ‘Wisdom and Order,’ Ensign, June 1994, p. 41). In describing how we can ‘manage ourselves wisely’ he quoted Anne Morrow Lindbergh, who said, ‘My life cannot implement in action the demands of all the people to whom my heart responds.’ Elder Maxwell taught that ‘some choices are matters of preference, not principle,’ adding that ‘wisdom and order [will] help us to separate preferences from principles’ (p. 43).”

“We are wise to conclude that we can’t do it all and that we are not required to. When we feel overwhelmed with all that presses upon us, we should pray for inspiration to guide us in identifying what is required by eternal principles. These things command priority. We do them first. Then, in the time that remains, we pray for wisdom to exercise our preferences among those things that are merely good but not essential. Finally, when inspired wisdom has guided our choices, we proceed, as President Hinckley has taught us, to just ‘do the very best [we] can.’” (“Be Wise”, Brigham Young University–Idaho Devotional, Nov. 2006)

To me, it seems the big question is - are the adaptations being requested asking to help bridge the gap between what one is capable of and the principle to be fulfilled, or is it to help preserve one's preferences? Are we asking someone else to lend them some meal and oil to help feed Elijah because we somehow think that if we save a little more we will have enough to throw a tea party for the friends we are really trying to impress? Or are we giving our pint of creme from someone else's pantry? If we have the means, we must do it ourselves, no matter what the cost. And if we don't have the means, it will actually probably take more time, effort, petitioning of the Lord, coordinating, delegating, and organizing than we have ever done or would have done on our own if we were not in such a predicament, (but really, isn't that the reason we go through adversity anyway?)

Elder Bruce Carlson said this in the April 2010 Gen conference:

At times we may rationalize that the Lord will understand our disobedience because our special circumstances make adherence to His laws difficult, embarrassing, or even painful. However, faithful obedience, regardless of the apparent size of the task, will bring the Lord’s guidance, assistance, and peace.

The Prophet Joseph Smith petitioned the Lord on two occasions, asking if a prominent friend, Martin Harris, could take the first 116 handwritten pages of translated material from the book of Lehi from Harmony, Pennsylvania, back to Palmyra. Each time, the Lord counseled Joseph to avoid entrusting the manuscript to Mr. Harris.

Martin was seeking to use the translated material as evidence to stop his associates from spreading rumors about his friendship with Joseph Smith. On the third request the Lord granted Joseph’s appeal.

Martin lost the manuscript, and as a result the plates were taken from the Prophet Joseph Smith for an extended period. This was a painful lesson for the Prophet Joseph, who said, “I made this my rule: When the Lord commands, do it.” This should and can be our rule as well.

So, where does this really leave the doctrine of adaptations? "Relief by release", or require extra work on our part to make sure our duties are done even if we can't do them ourselves? Edited January 26, 2012 by Shoot_The_Moon

[MarginOfError]

Let's put some emphasis on a different part of the same paragraph

The Family, a Proclamation to the World

“By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.”

So men are primarily responsible in an equal partnership to provide for and protect their families. Women are primarily responsible in an equal partnership to nurture their children.

I think it's important to recognize that men and women should be equal partners in all aspects of their children's care and raise them in a way that utilizes both of their individual strengths in a manner that gives their children the greatest opportunity for a happy and righteous life.

[Shoot_The_Moon]

Let's put some emphasis on a different part of the same paragraph

So men are primarily responsible in an equal partnership to provide for and protect their families. Women are primarily responsible in an equal partnership to nurture their children.

I think it's important to recognize that men and women should be equal partners in all aspects of their children's care and raise them in a way that utilizes both of their individual strengths in a manner that gives their children the greatest opportunity for a happy and righteous life.

A little more from Elder Ballard...

Elder M. Russell Ballard

"Both men and women are to serve their families and others, but the specific ways in which they do so are sometimes different. For example, God has revealed through his prophets that men are to receive the priesthood, become fathers, and with gentleness and pure, unfeigned love they are to lead and nurture their families in righteousness as the Savior leads the Church (see Eph. 5:23). They have been given the primary responsibility for the temporal and physical needs of the family (see D&C 83:2). Women have the power to bring children into the world and have been given the primary duty and opportunity as mothers to lead, nurture, and teach them in a loving, spiritual environment. In this divine partnership, husbands and wives support one another in their God-given capacities. By appointing different accountabilities to men and women, Heavenly Father provides the greatest opportunity for growth, service, and progress. He did not give different tasks to men and women simply to perpetuate the idea of a family; rather, He did so to ensure that the family can continue forever, the ultimate goal of our Heavenly Father’s eternal plan." ("Equality Through Diversity", Ensign, Nov. 1993).

Take a look at "Zion in the Midst of Babylon" by Elder David R. Stone. I think in our day, age, and the culture we are surrounded by, we should probably be more suspect of our idea of "equal partners" than of the words of the Lord in this matter.

[MarginOfError]

A little more from Elder Ballard...

Take a look at "Zion in the Midst of Babylon" by Elder David R. Stone. I think in our day, age, and the culture we are surrounded by, we should probably be more suspect of our idea of "equal partners" than of the words of the Lord in this matter.

I'm not sure what differences you think there are between "the world's view of an equal partnership" and "the Lord's view of an equal partnership."

[JudoMinja]

I was going to just pass this over, but I came back to this thread as I feel this needs to be said:

It appears that you are trying to drive an "agenda" here- that your question is not asked in order to find answers but to make a point. From the way you've presented yourself, and your method in giving responses, you seem to have already made up your mind what the "correct" answer is to your question, and you are just trying to drive it home in everyone else's minds.

This is a terrible way to go about discussions, as it turns people off from responding, and you are also closing yourself off from receiving any new insights you may not have considered. I don't see any reason why the word "adaptations" here seems to make you think that people feel it exempts them from their responsibilities. Just look up the definition from the dictionary:

adaptation-

1.adapting: the process or state of changing to fit a new environment or different conditions, or the resulting change

2.something adapted to fit need: something that has been modified to suit different conditions or a different purpose

3.change to suit environment: the development of physical and behavioral characteristics that allow organisms to survive and reproduce in their habitats

There is nothing there that says anything about a exemption from responsibilities. The whole point of "adapting" is to be able to still meet our responsibilities while coping with an environment that isn't suitable for such, or in other words "surviving". We adapt to survive. We make alterations in order to get by. We strive to meet our responsibilities in every way possible, and when we struggle to do so, we adapt.

Adapt does not = exempt.

[Dravin]

My take: Referencing adaptions in TF:PTW is simply an acknowledgement that as Elder Oaks once put, that general authorities give general counsel. Any attempt to hammer adaption into a neat little box runs into the issue that the hammer invariably available is general advice given by general authorities.

As a General Authority, I have the responsibility to preach general principles. When I do, I don’t try to define all the exceptions. There are exceptions to some rules. For example, we believe the commandment is not violated by killing pursuant to a lawful order in an armed conflict. But don’t ask me to give an opinion on your exception. I only teach the general rules. Whether an exception applies to you is your responsibility. You must work that out individually between you and the Lord.

And if I may reiterate with a slight readjustment:

Whether and how adaption applies to you is your responsibility. You must work that out individually between you and the Lord.

Edited January 26, 2012 by Dravin

[Shoot_The_Moon]

Any attempt to hammer adaption into a neat little box runs into the issue that the hammer invariably available is general advice given by general authorities.

...

And if I may reiterate with a slight readjustment:

Whether and how adaption applies to you is your responsibility. You must work that out individually between you and the Lord.

"The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." - 2 Cor. 3:6.

The "box" you are referring to is like the "letter of the law", correct? I agree that there is no "box" or "letter of the law" that allies to all adaptations.

But, there is a "Spirit of the law" that they all must adhere to, correct? All adaptations, no matter what they are, or why they are, must adhere to the Spirit of the law, which relates to the commandments of God as well as the patterns and relationships between the situation, capabilities, and other factors. So, all appropriate adaptations will be based on the situation, but even then isn't there a line where no adaptations must cross?

And that really is what I'm hoping to discuss here. The Spirit of the Law of adaptations, and hoping to flush out relationships and patterns that are and are not appropriate.

Let's get to the real doctrine, not the stuff that hides behind fear and self-deception.

The Spirit of every Law is scalable in some aspects, and fixed in others.

Let's talk of the relationships, proportions, thresholds, fixed limits, absolutes, and other criteria that define this law.

Jesus Christ is “the same yesterday, to-day, and forever.” [1 Nephi 10:18.] He follows the same pattern (or Spirit) in the same situation, again and again, (it is us that makes things different).

Let's take what we know of His laws, Him limits, His mercy, His divine assistance, and His hard but attainable expectations, and let's dive into this one as a starting point and see what we can find. And, in so doing, get to know our Savior a little better.

Who wants to start? What relationships apply to not only this principle of "adaptations", but also the Welfare System, and our whole mortal existence, and what are the neighboring principles that keep adaptations "in check"?

(And if we don't think we need to worry about adaptations, then either we have figured out how to make the air we breath and the light that gives us life, or we need to think again...)

Edited January 26, 2012 by Shoot_The_Moon

[Finrock]

Good afternoon all! :)

I think if we are at all capable in anyway of fulfilling our duties (whatever they may be) and if we abdicate those duties (in whatever way) we will be held accountable.

It would seem to be impossible to identify all of the diverse ways that "adaptations" can be applied so getting a definitive answer to your questions may not be reasonable.

Perhaps be satisfied knowing that God is fair, reasonable, loving, just, and merciful and so he will judge us absolutely correctly. Elder Condie (1st Seventy) once taught on my mission that God, through the Church, provides us principles to live by. Condie compared principles to triangles. He said our goal is to conform our lives as closely to a triangle as possible, however, depending on our condition we might only muster a feeble scrawl but this feeble scrawl is sufficient if we are striving in our hearts to become that triangle.

I believe all of us can know whether we are justified or not in our adaptions if such adaptions are necessary.

Regards,

Finrock

Edited January 26, 2012 by Finrock
Added italics to emphasis condition

[MarginOfError]

But, there is a "Spirit of the law" that they all must adhere to, correct? All adaptations, no matter what they are, or why they are, must adhere to the Spirit of the law, which relates to the commandments of God as well as the patterns and relationships between the situation, capabilities, and other factors. So, all appropriate adaptations will be based on the situation, but even then isn't there a line where no adaptations must cross?

No.

The wording in the Proclamation is both vaguely specific and specifically vague. It teaches principle, not practice. And that is exactly what it was intended to do.

But since it is your contention that there is some line no adaptations may cross, I think the burden is yours to identify it.

[Finrock]

Hi Shoot_The_Moon! :)

"The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." - 2 Cor. 3:6.

The "box" you are referring to is like the "letter of the law", correct? I agree that there is no "box" or "letter of the law" that allies to all adaptations.

But, there is a "Spirit of the law" that they all must adhere to, correct? All adaptations, no matter what they are, or why they are, must adhere to the Spirit of the law, which relates to the commandments of God as well as the patterns and relationships between the situation, capabilities, and other factors. So, all appropriate adaptations will be based on the situation, but even then isn't there a line where no adaptations must cross?

I don't want to get bogged down in semantics and logic, but it seems to me that the statement quoted is taking the meaning of the phrase "letter of the law" and is simply renaming it "spirit of the law". It seems to me that the spirit of the law speaks more to who someone is and less to some specific boundry. When you start speaking of specific boundries, you are speaking about the letter of the law.

To fulfill my purpose here on earth the only thing I must do is be good. I guess my point is that what I do is less important than what I am and I believe this applies in this situation as well. Adaptations speak to actions but if we focus on the specific action I believe we are missing the point. I can wave my hand with a heart full of hate or I can wave my hand with a heart full of love. The action is irrelevant from an ethical perspective because its ethical value is determined by the condition of my heart. Our adaptations in life are either good or they are bad and in almost all cases whether they are good or bad depends upon who we are rather than what we are doing. As a point of clarification, I also believe that there are a few things that you can do that are always absolutely evil.

Regards,

Finrock

[Dravin]

No.

The wording in the Proclamation is both vaguely specific and specifically vague. It teaches principle, not practice. And that is exactly what it was intended to do.

In my opinion it is much like how tithing is clarified to be 10% of income but income not being clarified as post-tax or pre-tax is not an oversight. In this situation adaption is clarified as being necessarily in some individual circumstances but what circumstances and what adaption not being clarified is not an oversight.

Just as I feel two members (one who calculates income pre-tax and one who calculates income post-tax) can have the Lord equally pleased with their method of calculating tithing I think you can have two members who have taken different approaches to adaption and circumstance and the Lord find them both equally acceptable.

Sometimes I think we as members shy away from revelation. You almost always hear a chorus of, "But what happens when people receive answers different then how I interpret council from General Authorities!" as if it's unique to revelation about how a commandment applies to your situation. Every single argument again trusting revelation to know what level of adaption is acceptable to the Lord applies to trusting revelation to know the Church is true. It's strange that we'll trust revelation to know the Book of Mormon is true, or that Joseph Smith was a prophet but we can at times almost be scared to trust it in 'lesser' matters such if how we are paying tithing is acceptable, or if how our family had adapted to circumstances is acceptable.

Edited January 26, 2012 by Dravin

[Shoot_The_Moon]

No.

The wording in the Proclamation is both vaguely specific and specifically vague. It teaches principle, not practice. And that is exactly what it was intended to do.

But since it is your contention that there is some line no adaptations may cross, I think the burden is yours to identify it.

So one doesn't have to pass the line of baptism?

One doesn't have to pass the line of consecration?

Does one's situation have any bearing if they cross the line into outer darkness?

President George A. Smith

“There is a line of demarcation well defined. On one side of the line is the Lord’s territory, and on the other side of the line is the devil’s territory. If you will stay on the Lord’s side of the line the devil cannot come over there to tempt you or to annoy or distress you. If you go onto the devil’s side of the line just one inch you are in his territory, you are in his power, and he will seek to draw you just as far from that line of demarcation, that division line, as he can, knowing that if he can keep you in his territory he has you in his power” (in George Albert Smith, in Conference Report, Oct. 1932, 27).

Where is _that_ line in terms of adaptations? It may be a relative line, but there is a line. Even if we can't define it's exact position, let's define it's relative position.

Edited January 26, 2012 by Shoot_The_Moon

[Dravin]

So one doesn't have to pass the line of baptism?

One doesn't have to pass the line of consecration?

Does one's situation have any bearing if they cross the line into outer darkness?

There is _that_ line?

You probably need to read his comment again. He didn't say there were no lines in the gospel, he said if you want to insist there is a line in the sand concerning adaption to circumstances you need to demarcate it. If you're essentially trying to argue that killing and eating people to adapt to circumstances is a line one shouldn't cross therefore, "Aha! There is a line!" you're essentially scoring meaningless rhetorical 'victories'. I think we can all agree that N + absurdity is too much but it doesn't really define N. If you intent is to: N + (absurdity-1), check, N + (absurdity-2), check, and so on through a limiting process you're best off starting more conservatively than outer darkness.

The thing is N isn't necessarily a number/line. What adaption may be acceptable to you may not be acceptable for me because we all have different thought processes, abilities, and circumstances even if they are similar. The problem is you don't seem like you'd be content with a, "Adaption is good inasmuch as the Lord approves." as a line, though maybe I've misread you.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Dravin

[MarginOfError]

So one doesn't have to pass the line of baptism?

One doesn't have to pass the line of consecration?

Does one's situation have any bearing if they cross the line into outer darkness?

Where is _that_ line in terms of adaptations? It may be a relative line, but there is a line. Even if we can't define it's exact position, let's define it's relative position.

As Dravin has pointed you, you rather abruptly change the realm of the conversation here. My comments are very valid in the context of "Adaptations in the Family Proclamation."

But for the sake of clarity, I'll add to my previous challenge:

But since it is your contention that there is some line no adaptations in the family may cross, I think the burden is yours to identify it.

[Shoot_The_Moon]

But since it is your contention that there is some line no adaptations in the family may cross, I think the burden is yours to identify it.

That's where I need some help, (and the reason I'm on this forum in the first place). :)

Let's start small with a little process of elimination...

Do appropriate adaptations in the family ever include premeditated murder (or murder outside of self-defense)?

Do appropriate adaptations in the family ever include adultery?

Do appropriate adaptations in the family ever include lying / cheating / stealing?

Do appropriate adaptations in the family ever include not paying tithing?

Do appropriate adaptations in the family ever include wasting time?

Do appropriate adaptations in the family ever include having incorrect priorities?

Do appropriate adaptations in the family ever include choosing to watch unhealthy media?

Do appropriate adaptations in the family ever include pornography?

Do appropriate adaptations in the family ever include illegal drugs?

Do appropriate adaptations in the family ever include abusing spouse or children?

Do appropriate adaptations in the family ever include telling white lies?

Do appropriate adaptations in the family ever include living in filth?

Do appropriate adaptations in the family ever include any self-medicating behavior?

Do appropriate adaptations in the family ever include lack of disobedience / diligence / consecration?

Do appropriate adaptations in the family ever include any other sin or vice?

Edited January 26, 2012 by Shoot_The_Moon

[slamjet]

Wow! and I thought I over-analyzed things! Two pages for one word. Kind of reminds me of "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

I'm still trying to figure out why so much weight and importance on this one word and why it matters in the whole scheme of things. Do what's right, take care of your business and responsibilities and you won't have to worry about it. Simplistic, but true.

Edited January 26, 2012 by slamjet

[Shoot_The_Moon]

Do what's right, take care of your business and responsibilities and you won't have to worry about it.

That's the question - do the "adaptations" redefine what your divinely appointed "business and responsibilities" are, or not? Or does it redefine one but not the other? Edited January 26, 2012 by Shoot_The_Moon

[Jenamarie]

How about just taking the advice of the hymn "Let the Holy Spirit Guide"? If we're in tune with the Spirit, we'll know if and when our "adaptations" "cross the line". Trying to spell out a principle in letters just leads to confusion and perhaps even the thwarting of the Spirit's guidance if our add-on "letters" forbid us from doing something He's trying to prompt us to do.

[slamjet]

That's the question - do the "adaptations" redefine what your divinely appointed "business and responsibilities" are, or not? Or does it redefine one but not the other?

I'm not going to add much to the discussion since I believe it's been answered already. Only that it just seems to me that such heavy weight on one word is only meant to try to get out of or disprove something. Most everything with understanding the Gospel is a matter of context. Drilling down to one word seems counter-productive and fraught with never-ending possibilities with no conclusion.

[RescueMom]

A thought comes to mind...The Pharisees condemned Christ due to his adaptations of not living the letter of the construed laws they had.

What are the adaptions of the Family Proclamation? I would think that every situation in every family is different, and if the family is doing the best they can to live and teach righteousness then it's between them and God. There will always be sins committed by the family members, and omissions to the duties we are asked to do...but there will always be the Atonement to make up for the lacking parts. And unless there is Adultry or Abuse then most other issues can be worked around in regards to family issues. That does not excuse us from working and trying to do our best, but every situation is different and we must not be too hard to judge what we see and do not see.