As a member of a stake presidency, I can say you describe beautifully exactly what we try to do with all. Thanks for noticing!

If that is the case how many people are unhappy with the latest effort. How many are happy, is it a large majority? Tipping point? Itis not discussed in our ward.

Honestly though I don’t think the brethren care about the growth rate so much as they do seeing family as a key theological lynchpin in our conception of God.

I do think you have a point that it’s not clear to me that focusing in on something else would be helpful. (Depending I guess upon what we mean by helpful) Saying focus in on Jesus is a bit vague. We already focus *a lot* on Jesus. (I’m constantly flummoxed when people say we don’t – he’s mentioned as key issue every few minutes! – far more than families are) It’s just that the very way we see Jesus is through a lens of family.

Imagine how all of this must appear to reasonably well educated person who is investigating the church.

I do think one of the greatest challenge the Church faces is dealing with the massive demographic changes in the US. There are so many singles and I don’t think the Church has figured out how to make them feel more included. I was relatively older when I got married and I remember that period from 29 to 35 where I didn’t feel a part of things at all. Many of the people I knew in similar situations fell away simply because the social struggle of acceptance was hard, bringing a cycle where it was harder to keep the spirit (both due to peers one was with but also participating at church).

My sense is that they are emphasizing the family to try and stave off the church adopting the same demographic shifts that apply to the nation at large. (Ones 20s becoming an extended adolescence, becoming more set in ones expectations making move to marriage more difficult, expectations of marrying later, fewer kids, etc.) Don’t get me wrong. Looking back I think there were some huge benefits to getting married later. A lot of the stresses I think couples face were reduced because I was more mature. Likewise looking back at myself in my 20’s I was socially still very immature and probably not ready for marriage. I think everyone matures at different rates and we don’t really adjust for that well. (I say as I see some of my kids of seem to mature different parts of their personality at very different rates than some of their peers)

I can understand people not wanting so much focus on the family, but I don’t see many good suggestions on how the church should adjust to change the changing social focus by society at large within our subculture. There often is (without pointing at anyone in this thread) more an assumption we should just embrace the social changes of American culture and remove those aspects of church culture that conflict. That just seems inherently problematic to me.

On the one hand, I dislike the thought of focusing too intensely on any one area of the gospel to the exclusion or marginalization of other parts. That can lead to problems. On the other hand, the apostles are to teach the general rules to the world at large, even if a particular individual is doing fine in that area or is even an exception to a given rule, and perhaps this increased emphasis is needed for the majority of people to awaken and defend the family. I do believe that is needed and I believe that the family is under attack, from a variety of directions. I also like to give the apostles the benefit of the doubt, else why even have leaders at all?

On yet another hand (how many hands do I have??), I have to wonder what exactly is being taught in the home for the family to be so misunderstood or lightly valued that we feel the need to have classes previously devoted to scripture instead being devoted to family. There’s really not much overlap there at all. Aren’t the parents teaching in the home about the importance of family, both by example and explicit instruction? Perhaps not and perhaps that is one reason for the increased emphasis on the subject.

I suppose at the end of the day, I am seeing an undercurrent of two things, both in response to this post and among people I know and interact with outside of the internet. One of which I can empathize with and one of which I do not. The first is the idea that this increased family emphasis is hurtful and exclusionary to some people. While I don’t see things this way, I do feel for those who are in pain and I would like to help them. I am not sure how to go about that (and, in fact, am fairly horrible at it, despite my best efforts.) This bothers me. No one should feel excluded or uncared for. Everyone, despite their family circumstances, is worth saving. And can be saved. And should be saved. Emphasis on the importance of the family does not change this, but I can see how it might send an unintended message of exclusion to those who aren’t in certain circumstances. I’m not sure what the answer is to this, but I think it will probably come down to individuals dealing compassionately with others. I don’t know if it can be successfully addressed at the “macro” level. But I could be wrong.

The second is the idea that people are “tired” of hearing about the family so much. I care much less about this. It’s common for us to receive instruction about many of the same basic topics over and over and over again. I used to hate always having to hear about the Book of Mormon all the time. I was so sick of it. I felt like I had gotten the message just and clear already and that other things were being neglected in favor of the same message on blast all the time.

However, I eventually realized that I was the actual problem. I was exactly the audience for the message, because I only “understood” and agreed with it on a superficial level. I had not given anywhere near the effort that I should have to reading, pondering, and discussing scripture at all. I realized that I needed to focus much more, and expend much more effort, on truly developing a strong testimony rather than simply believing and being content with that. Now, my experience is mine and doesn’t necessarily apply to all people. But it did make me much less quick to believe that I had some part of the gospel sufficiently “down pat” to the extent that I could pick and choose what I should listen to, or how often a topic should be preached. Because that really isn’t up to me. And it’s fortunate that it isn’t. Despite my misgivings, I strongly suspect that the same might apply here, at least to me.

Can you explain what you mean by this?

” Today, we better understand how central family is doctrinally. That greater understanding is something to celebrate. It does not take away the importance of the atonement of Jesus Christ, which in fact has been emphasized more than ever, but properly places it in the context of familial love.”

The Atonement stands by itself, it’s not something that needs qualified by context. And the Atonement is valid even in the absence of familial love.

Let me just add one viewpoint. I recently had a General Authority interview as part of my candidacy for a job at BYU. It was my second time interviewing with a member of the Seventy. My first interview, almost 4 years ago, went something like this: Share with me your testimony. This time around, however, we went through what amounted to a much expanded temple recommend interview, which my interviewer had to read word-for word. Given the context of my comment, you will not be surprised to learn that many of the new or expanded interview questions focused on how I now and how I would, in the course of my employment, uphold the church’s doctrine of The Family, not only in my own personal life but in my teaching. At the time, however, even I was surprised at the degree of the focus on The Family.