The Vital Role of Fathers to Preside, Partner, Be Present, Provide, and Protect

Sean E. Brotherson

From Sinai long ago, a sacred invitation from the God of Israel rang: “Honor thy father and thy mother” (Exodus 20:12, The Holy Bible, King James Version, 1611). There is much to consider in this invitation and divine command. A perspective of fathering that embraces the divine injunction to “honor thy father” suggests a set of high ideals for men in family life. Indeed, if men wish to receive honor in their efforts as fathers, then it is essential that they be worthy of honor. In his address on being a righteous husband and father, President Howard W. Hunter (1994)  set forth clear standards of moral behavior and caring involvement that defined a father’s primary responsibilities in family life. “The teach­ing and governance of the family,” he observed, “must not be left to [a man’s] wife alone, to society, to school, or even the Church” (p. 50). Fathering a child is more than a biological act or fulfillment of a social role. To father a child is to accept a divine calling, a moral stewardship, and a lasting commitment across generations. President Ezra Taft Benson taught that a father’s calling “is an eternal calling from which [he is] never released” (Benson, 1987, p. 48).

The debate over the roles of men in family life or aca­demic efforts to document father involvement should not cloud our attention to two fundamental realities:

• Parenting is a work of vital, even eternal, impor­tance to children, families, and communities.
  

• Fathers make a fundamental difference in parent­ing across generations.

Some think and write about fathers from a per­spective of skepticism, wondering whether fathers are even essential to children’s healthy development or productive family life (Silverstein & Auerbach, 1999). However, President Howard W. Hunter taught that a father’s “leadership of the family is [his] most important and sacred responsibility” and the “family is the most important unit in time and in eternity and, as such, transcends every other interest in life” (1994, p. 50). Thus, it is of vital importance to define the doctrines that underlie the sacred work of fathering and outline the dimensions of father involvement that make a dif­ference for children, families, and communities.

Key Principles and Practices in Fathering

What are the essential principles and key practices that characterize healthy fathering and contribute to posi­tive outcomes for children, women, and men in family life? In searching for truth and meaning in both sacred and secular approaches to knowledge, we can discover and define key principles that carry lasting value for humanity. Both sacred and secular approaches are useful and often complementary in defining such lasting principles.

A vital definition of the term principle was given by President Boyd K. Packer (Packer, 1996, p.17), who taught that “a principle is an enduring truth, a law, a rule that you can adopt to guide you in making decisions.” Elder Richard G. Scott (1993, p. 86) further taught, “Principles are concentrated truth, packaged for application to a wide variety of circumstances.”
The search for key principles through a spiritual or religious approach tends to focus on ideas based on revealed truths—doctrines or key concepts that have been revealed to humanity by God through spiritual means. The search for key principles through a secular or scientific approach tends to focus on concepts that are discovered or accumulated, concepts that have been deemed lasting and significant based on repeated inves­tigation through scientific means. In this section I have purposefully sought to integrate sacred doctrines that pertain to fathering with overlapping scholarly findings on father-child relationships, thus identifying key principles and practices essential in fathering.

Organizing Principles of Fathering

Fatherhood can be conceptualized as a parental stewardship that links generations and is defined by those caring activities that nurture family relationships, foster growth, and enable the transmission of values between genera­tions. While family scholars have used varying theo­retical perspectives to frame the relationship between fathers and children, the definition stated above most closely links to the conceptual model of fathering as generative work (Dollahite & Hawkins, 1998). Generative work is generational work and embraces the understand­ing that the father-child relationship asks for a morally committed, actively involved effort over a lifetime from a father. Fathering as generative work, in essence, rec­ognizes that fathering is spiritual work. As President Harold B. Lee (1972, p. 52) so eloquently summarized, “The most important of the Lord’s work you and I will ever do will be within the walls of our own homes.”

Both sacred and secular perspectives on fathering sug­gest that “the challenge facing most fathers today, as in the past, is to develop the skills and insights necessary to nurture the rising generation” (Brotherson & White, 2007b, p. 17). Even more importantly, the decisions and behaviors of fathers in their family relationships have long­ lasting and fundamental consequences. John Snarey, who investigated the contributions of fathers to children across generations in a multi-decade research project, summarized this tremendous body of research by saying: “Good fathering, it seems, really does matter. It matters over a long time, over a lifetime, and even over generations” Snarey, 1993, p. 356). Thus, fathers matter, their choices matter, and the work they do in raising the next generation matters immensely.

The scholarly formulation of generative fathering fits well with sacred perspectives on fathering. The generative fathering framework outlines several primary domains of generative work that fathers engage in as they raise children. Although this framework is not meant to be exhaustive, it is a useful conceptual tool for organizing principles about fathering. It also fits well with other scholarly findings and spiritual truths that pertain to fathers and their families. Based on this approach, I will focus on five fundamental prin­ciples of fathering: to preside, partner, be present, provide, and protect.

To Preside

The Family: A Proclamation to the World (¶ 7) states, “By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness.” A brief examination of this statement makes clear three fundamental realities regarding fatherhood. First, fathers are directed to take upon themselves the responsibility of spiritual leadership in family life as part of a loving Eternal Father’s plan for family functioning. Second, a father’s responsibility to preside occupies the first and foremost duty among the varied obligations that rest upon men in family life. Third, the manner in which a father is to exercise spiritual guidance among family members is explicitly articulated: “in love and righteousness.” These words emphasize that perhaps it is only through the gentle application of love and the consistent example of personal spiritual attentiveness that spiritual persuasion can be appropriately exercised (see D&C 121:41–42).

President Ezra Taft Benson reinforced this key principle of fathering in a conference address: “God established that fathers are to preside in the home. Fathers are to provide love, teach, and direct” (Benson, 1984, p. 6). Abraham Heschel, a leading Jewish philosopher, identified the father as a powerful spiritual figure in the family circle with a moral responsibility to teach and care for his children (Heschel, 1975). He suggested that fathers are meant to be teachers and holy figures in the lives of their children. Before the patriarch Jacob died, he called his children to him and said, “Gather yourselves together, and hear, ye sons of Jacob; and hearken unto Israel your father” (Genesis 49:2). He bestowed counsel and blessings upon each of his children. In him was the power to bless generations. He exercised a holy influence upon his children as he blessed them and uplifted them; this is part of what it truly means to preside.

The concept of blessing future generations does not belong only to scriptural imperatives or cultural traditions. Indeed, a concept known as generativity has become a bedrock principle of lifespan developmental theory and research (Erikson, 1950). Generativity is defined, simply, as the “challenge to adults . . . to create, care for, and promote the development of others, from nurturing the growth of another person to shepherding the development . . . of a broader community” (Snarey, 1993). Erikson further summarized the place of parenting relative to generativity, stating (Erikson, 1964), “Parenthood is, for most, the first, and for many, the prime generative encounter.” 

For fathers, then, the fundamental task of parenthood is to be generative, to bless generations, and to preside. Involved fathers bless children from the time of birth onward. For example, preschool children whose fathers are involved and interact positively with them display greater cognitive ability, more individual control, and more empathy than other children (Pleck, 1997). As children grow older, positive involvement by fathers is strongly associated with fewer behaviors involving externalizing (negative actions) and internalizing (negative emotions). Both boys and girls who have positively involved fathers show higher social competence and experience fewer problems in school (Mosley & Thomson, 1995). Snarey’s landmark study of fathers and generativity showed that fathers’ generative engagement with children accounted for a significant portion of their educational and occupational attainment in young adulthood (Snarey, 1993). Generativity can also involve compensating for the mistakes of past generations, as some fathers indicate they often attempt to make up for a difficult, fatherless past by acting on generativity in their fathering efforts (Roy & Lucas, 2006).

The aspects of generative fathering most closely aligned with the principle of presiding in family life are the domains of spiritual work and ethical work. Dollahite, in studying the spiritual commit­ments of fathers to special needs children, has argued that “generative spirituality meaningfully binds a father to his child and inspires him to meet his child’s needs through responsible and responsive involvement.” Generativity assumes a moral commitment to nurture and guide the next generation and transmit lasting values (Dollahite, 2003).

Thus, it is linked with presiding in family life and blessing family members through love, warmth, and guid­ance (Marks & Dollahite, 2007; Snarey, 1993). For many men, a spiritual or moral focus provides an anchor that motivates their parental commitment and encourages generative care of their children (Latshaw, 1998; Marks & Dollahite, 2007). Fathering practices that flow from spiritual and ethical commitments vary widely, ranging from a long-term personal commitment to be present in a child’s life to modeling good behavior and engag­ing in positive spiritual practices with children  (Marks & Dollahite, 2007). Most importantly, however, fathers who embrace the principle that fathering means “to preside...in love and righteousness” have an anchoring principle and a spiritual focus for their fathering efforts designed to bless the children and families they love.

To Partner

Parenthood is a partnership. In other words, when any individual becomes a parent, he or she also enters into a community of relationships. Raising a child is an individual journey, but it is also a community journey, a relational partnership across generations as fathers and mothers, grandparents, aunts and uncles, teachers, coaches, pastors, and parents’ friends all work together in rearing a child to responsible adulthood. For fathers, being aware of and attentive to these relationships is critical to raising a child. As parents, mothers and fathers decide how to partner and whether they include or exclude other individuals in a child’s life and upbringing. Thus, another fundamental principle in fathering is to partner with others in raising a child, including the child, the child’s mother, extended family members, and the larger community.

It is instructive to note that God the Father’s first commandment given to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden pertained to their relationship as partners in parenthood. In The Family: A Proclamation to the World, latter-day prophets teach that the “first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife” (¶ 4). In other words, parenthood was framed as a joint partnership within the context of a committed relationship between husband and wife, as father and mother. What is the divine principle upon which men and women are to enter this parental union? The proclamation further states, “In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners” (¶ 7). Thus, to partner in fathering is to accept the responsibility of rearing a child in cooperation with others, particularly the child’s mother, and to assist and give support in doing the work of nurturance, love, and guidance in a child’s upbringing.

The domain of generative fathering most closely linked with the principle of partnering in family life is relationship work. Relationship work is fundamental in father-child relationships because individuals experi­ence meaning and the formation of identity primarily through their involvement in human relationships (Dollahite et al., 1997). Brotherson, Dollahite, and Hawkins have suggested that “relationship work involves both the sense of feeling emotionally and psychically connected with a son or daughter and the father’s efforts to create and maintain healthy bonds between the child, himself, and others in the child’s environment” (Brotherson et al., 2005). In our home, evening routines with Dad include brushing teeth, reading stories, saying prayers together, and giving bedtime hugs. While I am involved directly in these tasks, my wife also guides and encourages these interactions. These daily interactions foster lasting feelings of connection that occur in a family setting where we partner together in creating healthy family relationships.

To Be Present

Parenting requires presence. While a parent does not need to be constantly present to care for children, a parent's presence is a fundamental requirement if he is to meet children’s needs and build a lasting parent-child bond. The longing of any individual for home, especially the longing of a child, is partly the longing for the presence of family members who furnish security and love. The longing for home, a universal aspect of human history and psychology, is a longing for presence, for parental connection, and for companionship in family living (Seiden, 2009). A fundamental principle of fathering that meets this need is to be present in a child’s life and consciousness, to be available and aware of a child’s needs such that he or she develops in an atmosphere of security and love.

The power of presence is affirmed in the proclamation, which states that our eternal goal is “to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally” (¶ 3). President Howard W. Hunter has explained that a father’s leadership in family life “requires both quantity and quality time” and that fathers give their “time and presence in their social, educational, and spiritual activities and responsibilities” (Hunter, 1994). In our understanding, to be present in fathering is to act on the obligation to be there for one’s children with your physical presence and availability, mental awareness and engagement, and practical involvement in their lives and activities.

In generative fathering, the elements that correspond with the principle of being present in family life are ethical work and relationship work. Ethical work embraces the recognition that a long-term father-child relationship is fostered through a lasting altruistic commitment, a sense of “obligation and duty to ensure that necessary nurturance and care of family members continues even when such activities are neither pleasant to do nor personally rewarding in the short run” (Bahr, 1992). In essence, it involves a continuing moral commitment to be present for the work of meeting needs and providing care in a lifelong relationship with a child. Such efforts cannot occur in the vacuum of a father’s absence. For my 3-year-old daughter, being present means reading books together and giving her a piggyback ride at bedtime. Being present with my teenage son is more likely to involve listening to his descriptions of scien­tific projects and providing positive affirmation when he has personal doubts. In either case, being present is a continuing commitment.

A primary reason that being present is crucial to responsible fathering is that, simply, children need the presence and support of caring adults from the time of birth onward. A child’s dependence, both physically and psychologically, on their parents forms a relationship in which fathers must willingly accept the moral obligation to provide their children with a secure atmosphere and be responsive to daily needs and desires (Pruett, 1998). What is a child’s greatest need? Though there are many things a child needs, the greatest need of any child is security. A sense of security is perhaps the most fundamental of all human needs in a variety of ways, but it is primary and intensive for children (Webster-Stratton, 1999). The central answer to this primary need in children is parental presence. Food, warmth, shelter, affection, and attention, all of which a child needs, cannot be provided without such presence. Writing on responsible fatherhood, Doherty and colleagues assert that “the bedrock of fathering is presence in the child’s life” (Doherty et al., 1998).

A careful review of the research literature on father absence indicates that, in general, children and youth who do not experience the benefits of a father’s presence and engagement are likely to score lower on measures of academic achievement and more likely to drop out of school and to display behavioral problems. In addition, such children are more likely to use illegal substances, become sexually active at a younger age, experience psychological health difficulties in adulthood, and struggle with satisfaction and permanence in their own adult relationships (Blankenhorn, 1995; Sigle-Rushton & McLanahan, 2002). It is important to note that children and youth raised in diverse family situations may do well and thrive, and that a father’s presence does not guarantee positive outcomes; however, it would be inaccurate to suggest that a father’s presence is not a significant influence that can dramatically impact the well­being of children and youth while growing up and beyond (Doherty et al., 1998).

What precisely does it mean for fathers to “be present” in the lives of their children and families? Simply, presence can be organized into three related dimensions: to be there (physical), to be aware (psychological), and to give care (practical). Physical presence (or being there) involves what has been called “accessibility” in the fathering literature, or physical availability to a child (Pleck, 1997). A father who is physically present or otherwise available to a child (for example, via cell phone) can be responsive to needs or concerns. This might be called the first level of father presence, a dimension that is necessary but not sufficient.

Psychological presence (or being aware) involves cognitive and emotional availability to a child, a mental sensitivity to children and their needs, as well as appropriate responsiveness (Pruett, 1998). As an example, such presence means putting down a newspaper or turning off a television show when a child wishes to ask an involved question, and listening carefully. Fathers who are physically absent for long periods of time (like a soldier deployed abroad) or even fathers who have passed away can have a powerful psychological presence, and mothers are key figures in supporting fathers’ psychological presence (Krampe & Fairweather, 1993). Critiques that too often fathers are physically present but functionally absent are complaints about fathers not being psychologically present for their children (Hawkins & Dollahite, 1997). 

Practical presence (or giving care) involves a father’s larger presence in a child’s life through giving direct care, teaching, and otherwise guiding a child.

To Provide

One of the fundamental aspects of life in mortality is that we as human beings have material needs (food, clothing, shelter) and that we must manage limited resources, time, and energy. Fathering in contemporary society occurs within the context of extreme demands and expectations upon men and families, both in the marketplace and the domestic arena of the home (Hill et al., 2007). To be a good father is often equated with being a good provider (Christiansen & Palkovitz, 2001). This context of material demands and management of resources in raising a family furnishes another fundamental principle of fathering, which is to meet a child’s temporal needs and make opportunities for him or her to grow and develop.

The archetypal pattern for family life that God set forth in His instructions to Adam and Eve emphasizes work to provide for one’s family, as God told Adam that “in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread,” and sent him “to till the ground from whence he was taken” (Genesis 3:19, 23, The Holy Bible, King James Version, 1611). The latter-day prophets emphasize in the proclamation that in rearing children, parents are to “provide for their physical and spiritual needs” (¶ 6), and fathers, in particular, are “responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families” (¶ 7). Additional scriptural emphasis is given to this paternal responsibility in the Doctrine and Covenants, as the Lord instructs, “Verily I say unto you, that every man who is obliged to provide for his own family, let him provide, and he shall in no wise lose his crown” (D&C 75:28, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1835). In essence, then, to provide in fathering is to assume the stewardship of meeting children’s needs and offering opportunities for their development, as well as dedicating one’s time, energy, and resources for the benefit of the next generation.

The generative fathering domain that overlaps most clearly with the principle of providing in family life is stewardship work. Stewardship work acknowledges the task of providing in family life for men and also that children’s needs must be met by producing resources and managing them with wisdom (Christiansen & Palkovitz, 2001). Dollahite, Hawkins, and Broth­erson wrote, “Stewardship work involves creative, dedicated effort to provide resources for children and family and provide opportunities for children to develop and learn to care for their own and others’ physical and psychosocial needs” (Dollahite et al., 1997).

The task of men’s providing for family members is strongly supported across social and cultural contexts and also carries significant weight in how men define themselves as fathers. Doherty and colleagues affirm, “One aspect of responsible fathering, that of economic support, is nearly universally expected of fathers by their cultures” (Doherty et al., 1998). For example, Latino fathers identify the challenge of providing for their families as a key concern in their fathering efforts (Behnke & Allen, 2007). Scholars accurately suggest that the “energy, sacrifice, and labor extended in order to provide” should be understood as complementary to other aspects of father involvement rather than necessarily competitive with other dimensions (Christiansen & Palkovitz, 2001, p. 86). The generative fathering paradigm suggests that one way in which fathers demonstrate their love in family life is by working for the benefit of others, and despite changing gender ideologies, women still expect fathers to be good providers (Wilcox & Nock, 2006).

Historical research on fatherhood shows that once­-positive images of providing by fathers in family life transformed somewhat to suggest “the father as a provider” model was cold, distant, or removed from family life (LaRossa, 1997). However, recent work has aided in reclaiming fathers’ efforts at provision as “active, responsible, emotionally invested, demanding, expressive, and measured real devotion” (Christiansen & Palkovitz, 2001). A useful conceptualization of providing includes three key aspects: financial and resource capital, human capital, and social capital. In this formulation, financial and resource capital involves fathers’ efforts to generate money and material resources to be invested in supporting the healthy development of children. The human capital aspect involves fathers’ efforts to contribute their skills and knowledge to children and invest their time and energy in assisting children to develop knowledge and skills to support themselves and others. Finally, the social capital dimension of providing involves giving time and energy to relationships and opportunities that will benefit and guide a child (Christiansen & Palkovitz, 2001). The principle of providing for one’s family as a father recognizes that each man is “a steward over his own property,” is “accountable unto [God]” for that stewardship, and should administer those resources in a manner that “is sufficient for himself and [his] family” (D&C 42:32).

To Protect

Each person born into the world begins a journey that is often attended by confusion, challenges, and personal risks. The external world of stresses and threats to well­-being sometimes intrudes upon the immediate world of family life. For fathers, a primary task involves welcoming children to the realm of family life and preparing them over time for the external world that they will have to navigate as they grow. One commentator has framed this aspect of fathering as “the job of preparing children to possess competencies to independently take on adult challenges in the world outside . . . the family” (Hall, 2007a). The context of preparing a child for the outside world and instilling a child with needed skills and knowledge sets up yet another fundamental principle of fathering: to protect a child from harm and also equip him or her to both avoid and manage life challenges.

Perhaps the most important aspect of protecting children occurs as fathers model appropriate and righteous behavior in their own actions and choices. A variety of protective benefits become available to children as fathers behave well and model positive choices. First, as modeling is perhaps the most powerful method of teaching young people, children are able to learn and acquire habits of behavior that will protect them as they follow a father’s positive example. For example, children who adopt a father’s example in avoiding the usage of cigarettes or tobacco will be protected from the harmful health effects of tobacco use. Second, fathers can model moral living and kindness to others so that children accept sacred covenants and qualify for the protective umbrella of divine favor under such covenants. President How­ard W. Hunter counseled that fathers should lead in family life so that their children “will know the gospel and be under the protection of the covenants and ordinances” (Hunter, 1994). Third, fathers who choose moral living protect their children and families from the negative consequences of their own sins or poor behavioral choices. Children suffer when fathers fail to model righteous choices and inflict the difficulties associated with infidelity, abuse, or addiction upon their families. The proclamation states “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” (¶ 8). A primary avenue of protection for children thus comes from fathers’ living and modeling positive and righteous behaviors.

Another important aspect of protecting children takes place as fathers mentor them to develop skills and knowledge needed for making their own wise choices in life. Children are not born to permanently remain dependent. Instead, they must develop their own skills and patterns of independent living. Fathers are central to this process. Fathering research generally agrees that “many fathers play the role that encourages the child to push, explore, and take more risks in order to grow” (Hall, 2007a; Pruett, 2001). Exploration invites risks and consequences. So fathers face the twin tasks of protecting children from harmful outcomes while equipping them with skills and knowledge to handle diverse challenges and consequences. For example, teaching a child to swim invites the risks of fear of water, failure for the child, and even drowning, yet it also offers the possibility of mastery (learning to swim) and confidence (new ability). Mentoring efforts involve teaching skills and knowledge in a tutoring relationship that leads to personal development (Pleban & Diez, 2007).

Yet another important aspect of protecting children flows from fathers’ efforts to monitor the environments and behaviors of their children. Parental efforts in monitoring behavior have been recognized as a key pattern of influence that is protective of children and their well­ being (Barber et al., 1994). Fathers’ efforts to monitor children and their environments exert a protective influence in a variety of ways. Most fundamentally, a father’s presence and protective attention can warn away outside threats. For example, fathers in the home environment tend to limit the intrusion of other negative influences that can affect children, such as gang culture or criminal invitations (Letiecq & Koblinsky, 2003). Also, fathers who monitor their children can limit the risky behaviors that children might attempt or choose to pursue. Hawkins and others explain that fathers can “actively protect their children by helping them to make wise choices about the literature they read, the movies they see, the television programs they watch, the Internet sites they visit, and the friendships they establish” (Hawkins et al., 2000, p. 69).

Conclusion

Fathers have the ability, for good or ill, to exercise great power and influence in the lives of their children and families. Power alone, however, is not what a father truly needs, nor does he need only the ability to influence and direct a child’s life, thoughts, and feelings. A father needs the power to bless, which might be called “power in righteousness.” Men do not bless by the mere exercise of power. They bless only by the exercise of power in righteousness. This is especially true of the exercise of priesthood power. To be a holy figure in the life of a child, in the life of a family, requires an association with powers that exist beyond our own mortal abilities. Power in righteousness comes only as we associate ourselves through prayer and sacred living with the powers of heaven.

The Problems With Fatherlessness

1. A large study of 7,056 adolescent girls in the UK found more depression and an earlier onset of menarche (a first period when a girl comes of age) when the biological father was absent in their early childhood. Is this showing that an absence of father figures is causing early puberty in girls? (Culpin et al., 2015). 

2. Father absence has been correlated in numerous studies with a greater risk for early sexual activity and pregnancy in adolescent girls (Ellis et al., 2003).

3. Authors Krein and Beller (1988) found that the more years that a child is fatherless, the less educational attainment he or she will have. This was especially seen in men and boys. Overall, both men and women lost more schooling years in this study for every year they spent in a fatherless home (Krein & Beller, 1988b).

4. It is supposed that lower educational attainment in youth is also correlated with a lower income and fewer financial resources later on (Krein & Beller, 1988a).

Fathers are clearly needed in the home. When they are not accessible or available, children and youth suffer in every way, and that has far-reaching effects on society.

Let’s start paying more attention to this global issue and how we can reverse it. Can educating others about the various related problems of fatherlessness help to prevent this growing threat? We need to find ways to support fathers so that they are able and willing to stay in their homes with their children. The nuclear family with both a mother and father present in the home, is not the most common form of a family anymore. The United States carries the highest amount of children living in single-parent households and this rate has been rising for several decades now (Kramer & Pew Research Center, 2019).

Let’s look at statistics regarding fatherlessness:

1. Two-fifths of children in South Africa are now living in fatherless homes (Gumede, 2023). 

2. US Census data states that children are more likely to live in poverty if they are in fatherless homes (U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration Bureau of the Census, 1991).

3. There are more suicides, youth in state prisons, high school dropouts, children in substance abuse centers, rapists, and homeless or runaway children if they came from father-absent homes (Karlson, 2019, p. 2). 

4. Authors Harper and McLanahan found that youth had an elevated risk of crime and incarceration when a father was absent from the home. This shows that fatherlessness in a child’s life is influencing not just the children themselves, but society as a whole. (Harper & McLanahan, 2004). 

5. Theft and violent crime were shown to be more prevalent in Canadian single-mother homes versus single-father homes (Wong, 2017). 

6. One could then wonder if a father’s absence may be related to the rise in school shootings we have seen over the past 2 decades. Since the shooters are mainly teenage boys, a researcher in Canada postulated that these boys are looking for male dominance and masculinity that they are not getting at home from a father (Evans, 2016; Luckett & Cangemi, 2020; Wong, 2017).

7. Father absence even from divorce has been shown to have a negative effect on young adults’ mental and emotional health, as well as their romantic relationships with others (Reuven‐Krispin et al., 2021). 

8. Single mothers comprise 80% of single-parent households in the United States for children under the age of 18 (United States Census Bureau, 2022). This means that many children in the United States are growing up entirely fatherless or not having fathers living in their home. This translates to less accessibility and less time spent with a father.

9. Research has shown that children are affected in a variety of ways when their fathers are not present in the home. For instance, both girls and boys in India were shown to have higher anxiety even when their fathers were gone for an extended work deployment (Surabhi et al., 2023). The longer the father was absent, the more related mental health problems were seen in children and adolescents. 

The Vital Role of Mothers

Jenet J. Erickson

Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.

I woke early this morning and could not go back to sleep. It must be that my 60 years is finally leading me to those days when you can’t sleep in. But most of all I was awakened by a profound sense of overwhelming joy. Those feelings seem to come upon me more and more—and they are always accompanied by images and pictures of our children. As I picture them—their lives, their spouses, their children—I marvel at what has come of the union of Jim and me. What a remarkable journey! What a remarkable gift! There have been seasons of sorrow and seasons of struggle—those too I remember. But the joy in what God has enabled through us seems to eclipse those struggles that seemed and sometimes even now seem so difficult. As I see it all in a picture before me, I can’t help but simply feel gratitude—gratitude for the precious privilege of being a nurturer, a mother (LaDawn Jacob, personal interview).

In 1978, President Spencer W. Kimball spoke prophetically of women in the latter days. His words entered a world of loud and clamoring voices raising questions about the purpose of womanhood and the meaning of motherhood. In response to this challenging confusion, he declared:

To be a righteous woman is a glorious thing in any age. To be a righteous woman during the winding up scenes on this earth, before the second coming of our Savior, is an especially noble calling. The righteous woman’s strength and influence today can be tenfold what it might be in more tranquil times (p. 103).

Teachings from the living prophets clarify and bring truth to the confusion and distortions that surround womanhood and motherhood. President Kimball’s prophetic declaration suggested that by adhering to these truths, righteous women of the latter days would have the potential to be a remarkable influence. The purpose of this section is to respond to some of the questions and dilemmas women are likely to experience in fulfilling their divine role as nurturers. Responses to these questions draw on scientific theories and research, clarified by revealed truths in the restored gospel.

Questions about the Importance of Motherhood

One mother recalled:

Yesterday my husband called a little bit before lunchtime to check on how we were doing at home. The conversation was more brief than usual because he had a lunch appointment held at a nice restaurant near his office. But it was also interrupted because the toddler sitting at the table in his booster seat knocked a cup of apple juice over, sending juice flying all over himself, the floor—and all over me. When I hung up the phone I began the task of cleaning him off, wiping the sticky juice off the table and floor, and finally changing out of the now sticky sweat pants I had not been able to change out of since early that morning. While kneeling on the floor with my rag in my hand I couldn’t help but reflect on the differences between the work my husband was doing and the work I so often did as a mother. I knew in my mind that caring for children mattered, but honestly, it was hard to see what could possibly be so important about changing diapers, wiping noses, cleaning muddy feet, and all the other hundreds of mundane chores that seemed to make up my daily life. I reflected on the bachelor’s and master’s degrees I had received and couldn’t help but wonder how after all that preparation I ended up on the floor with a rag in my hand wiping up juice spilled by a toddler. Hadn’t I been prepared to do something more significant? Something that would really make a lasting difference? (Personal communication with the author.)

Although scientific evidence has continued to demonstrate the importance of a mother’s care, motherhood has been questioned and devalued in the broader culture. A survey of a nationally representative sample of mothers in the United States in 2005 found that fewer than half of mothers (48 percent) felt appreciated most of the time, and almost 20 percent said they felt less valued by society when they became a mother (Erickson & Aird, 2005). Many mothers feel that society does not value the kind of self-sacrificing work motherhood requires. As a result, they may feel pressured to invest their talents and energies in work that they perceive to be more valued by the larger culture.

While a member of the Seventy, Elder Bruce C. Hafen explained, “For most of our history, the word motherhood meant honor, endearment, and sacrifice. . . .Yet this spirit of self-sacrifice has become a contentious issue in recent years, making contentious the very idea of motherhood” (Hafen, 2005, p. 181).

In 1968, Betty Friedan released The Feminine Mystique, her report from the trenches of marriage and motherhood. Friedan’s book was in many ways an expansion of efforts to bring awareness to the often invisible experiences of women in dealing with challenges of unequal power and opportunity, where men had greater privilege. In the developed world, these unequal privileges were expressed in political, educational, and employment opportunities; economic benefits; and occurrences of domestic violence and rape. Similarly, in less-developed countries, where 80 percent of the women of the world live, these inequities have expressed themselves in significant restrictions politically, economically, and educationally. But there are also dramatically higher rates of female infanticide, controlling customs that prevent women from choosing their spouses, a normalization of battery and assault of wives by husbands, and forced prostitution of women (Sorensen & Hudson, 2004).

Friedan’s work reacted to the problems of these inequities in the modern world by advocating the expansion of women’s opportunities in educational and professional work. But it also seriously questioned the meaning and contribution of a woman’s life when she is mainly engaged in child-rearing. According to the feminist reaction advocated by Friedan, the caring labor of motherhood was harmful because it made women “dangerously vulnerable to exploitation” (Whisnant, 2004, p. 201). The demands of caring for children full-time meant that women would be dependent on men economically, and hence have less access to the economic, political, and societal power that Friedan perceived mattered most.

Speaking to the many women who primarily cared for their children at home, Friedan asked, “Why should women accept this picture of a half-life, instead of sharing in the whole of human destiny?” For Friedan, meaningful achievements depended on doing “work that is of real value to society—work for which, usually, our society pays.” From this point of view, the family—including motherhood and marriage—was a “risky proposition” for women because it “ranked lowest in terms of prestige” and obligated women “to subordinate their personal objectives, . . . putting the needs of others first, devoting themselves to the day-to-day well-being of other family members,” which may be deemed “virtuous,” but is not a path to power and success (Polatnick, 1984, 35).

The effect of Friedan’s book among middle-class women was a “divide through the country,” separating women from one another (Roiphe, 1996, p.13). Mothers heard radical feminist slogans such as “Renounce your martyrdom. Become a liberated mother—a woman, not a mom.” These expressions engendered conflict between the feelings of love and responsibility in caring for children and the fear that such care may be a source of enslavement. On the one hand, there was motherhood, which by definition requires the sacrifice of some wishes to care for a helpless human being. In contrast was the assertion that women should demand more attention to the self—the full humanity, wishes, desires, and capacities of the self (Roiphe, 1996). A series of dilemmas emerged for women: “Must creativity clash with motherhood? Are passion and love and beauty irreconcilable with domestic life? Is maternity keeping us from our destiny as creative people? Is the home a shelter or a prison?” (p. 38).

Historical Causes for Questions about the Importance of Motherhood

In some ways, these dilemmas were a predictable response to the dramatic changes of industrialization and urbanization in the 19th century. Prior to industrialization, mothers and fathers worked side by side to build their household economy, represented in the family farm or small artisan shop. With industrialization, the work of production moved outside the home,  creating a split between work and home (Griswold, 1993). Mothers alone became the primary socializers, educators, and caregivers of their children. Fathers were moved to the periphery of family life as they went out into “the world” to establish themselves as earners (Blankenhorn, 1995). Among middle and upper-class white people, an entire code of conduct for women emerged, reinforcing the division between men and women. Household labor became more burdensome and isolating as tasks that had once been shared by family members were now assigned to women, reinforcing a strong divide between the work lives and worlds of fathers and mothers.

This meant that women’s role in the home would be inflexibly defined. Because their property and earnings belonged to their husbands, married women could not pursue personal economic interests. As one author concluded, women “lacked the means and motive for self-seeking” (Cott, 1997, p. 70-71). Further, cultural ideals around womanhood prescribed women’s appropriate attitude to be selflessness—so that they could absorb and even redeem the home from the strains that resulted from the “evils” of the business world. Women were “to live for others” by giving up all self-interest— and in that way save the home (Cott, 1997).

In the words of Elder Bruce C. Hafen, those who have criticized these ideas have an important point. This model of motherhood viewed women as “excessively dependent on their husbands.’” Some mothers were exploited in their “willingness to accept relentless demands.” And many women experienced “undue pressure to conform to rigid roles that deny a woman’s sense of self” (Hafen, 2005a). But, as Elder Hafen continues, “The critics have swung the pendulum too far.” Quoting an article from Newsweek, Elder Hafen said that they “sometimes crossed the line into outright contempt for motherhood” (p. 182).

The family came to be viewed as inherently repressive, the institution to be blamed most for women’s oppression. According to Elshtain, “early feminist rhetoric [had] a dramatic insistence that the family was ‘the enemy’” (Elshtain, 1982). Feminist writers argued that the social assignment of women to mothering had to be challenged because women’s oppression and male domination were connected to mothering.

At the same time, the modern era valued an orientation toward individualism and consumerism that also devalued women’s role of nurturing children. Rearing children inherently demanded a surrendering of self-interest and independence. As a result, children came to be viewed as a liability—expensive, inconvenient, and an encroachment on personal fulfillment. These attitudes further devalued motherhood, the work of nurturing children, and the virtues of femininity and selflessness that had been identified with motherhood. Feminist ideas that had intended to elevate women then became self-defeating, because they required that women embrace a view of the meaning of life that “had rejected or devalued the world of the traditionally ‘feminine’” (Elshtain, 1982). Rather than challenging the attitudes that had devalued women, the new woman advocated by feminism looked more like “the old man” feminists had criticized (p. 447).

Prophetic Teachings about the Importance of Motherhood 

Teachings of the restored gospel provide clarity in resolving the complexity of these issues and establishing the significance of motherhood. A First Presidency statement in 1942 declared: “Motherhood is near to divinity. It is the highest, holiest service to be assumed by mankind. It places her who honors its holy calling and service next to the angels” (Clark, 1935). The calling of motherhood has been identified as the most ennobling endowment God could give His daughters, “as divinely called, as eternally important in its place as the priesthood itself ” (Clark, 1946). This endowment enables women to have a unique influence in the lives of those around them, particularly their children.

In the words of President Spencer W. Kimball, “Mothers have a sacred role. They are partners with God, as well as with their own husbands, first in giving birth to the Lord’s spirit children, and then in rearing those children so they will serve the Lord and keep his commandments” (Kimball, 1976).

President Thomas S. Monson eloquently added, “May each of us treasure this truth: . . . One cannot remember mother and forget God. Why? Because these two sacred persons, God and mother, partners in creation, in love, in sacrifice, in service, are as one” (Monson, 1998). These statements give motherhood an unparalleled position of significance in Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness.

Prophets of the restored gospel have also been clear in declaring that demeaning women or their divine roles as wives and mothers is a diabolical tactic that takes from women and men the true sources of happiness. Elder Richard G. Scott explained, 

Satan has unleashed a seductive campaign to undermine the sanctity of womanhood, to deceive the daughters of God and divert them from their divine destiny. He well knows women are the compassionate, self sacrificing, loving power that binds together the human family. . . . He has convinced many of the lie that they are third-class citizens in the kingdom of God. That falsehood has led some to trade their divinely given femininity for male coarseness (2000, p.36).

The countless acts of selfless service mothers perform are recognized as expressions of the highest love and noblest of womanly feelings (Faust, 1986). Wendell Berry asserted that such tasks as feeding, tending, bathing, clothing, wiping, and cleaning become holy works; “only in such ways can love become flesh” (Berry, 1987).

Through such sacrificing love, a mother creates a foundation from which self-confidence and integrity are woven into the fabric of her children’s character (Scott, 1996). As Elder Bruce C. Hafen and Sister Marie K. Hafen explain, 

Just as a mother’s body may be permanently marked with the signs of pregnancy and childbirth, [the Savior] said, “I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands” (1 Nephi 21:15–16). For both a mother and the Savior, those marks memorialize a wrenching sacrifice—the sacrifice of begetting life—for her physical birth; for him, spiritual rebirth (Hafen & Hafen, 1994).

In response to questions about motherhood keeping women from personal growth, Elder Robert D. Hales further clarified, 

The world would state that a woman is in a form of servitude that does not allow her to develop her gifts and talents. Nothing, absolutely nothing, could be further from the truth. Do not let the world define, denigrate, or limit your feelings of lifelong learning and the values of motherhood in the home (Hales, personal communication, August 19, 2008).

He added,

Motherhood is the ideal opportunity for lifelong learning. A mother’s learning grows as she nurtures the child in his or her development years. They are both learning and maturing together at a remarkable pace. It’s exponential, not linear. . . . In the process of rearing her children, a mother studies such topics as child development; nutrition; health care; physiology; psychology; nursing with medical research and care; and educational tutoring in many diverse fields such as math, science, geography, literature, English, and foreign languages. She develops gifts such as music, athletics, dance, and public speaking. The learning examples could continue endlessly (n.p).

An Exploration of Effective Mothering

Research studies exploring influences on children’s development support statements of the prophets regarding the significant influence of women as mothers. Findings from these studies confirm what President David O. McKay declared:

Motherhood is the greatest potential influence either for good or ill in human life. The mother’s image is the first that stamps itself on the unwritten page of the young child’s mind. It is her caress that first awakens a sense of security; her kiss, the first realization of affection; her sympathy and tenderness, the first assurance that there is love in the world (McKay, 1953).

Love: The Foundation of Effective Mothering 

The significance of a mother’s influence is first grounded in the relationship she forms with her child. Because motherhood is part of a woman’s divine identity, her role as a mother is defined by a relationship more than a set of tasks. Dorothy Lee, an anthropologist, clarified this when she explained,

I like the way a Wintu [tribe] in reference to his mother will say, ‘she-whom-I-made-into -mother,’ even though he is the fourth child. I like it because it gives recognition to the fact that this is not a repetition of the same event. A new mother has been born, mother-to-this-child, and a new relationship of motherness has come into being. When this is recognized, the mother is helped to sense the particularity of her child, and the peculiar flavor, the peculiar quality of the relationship that she can have with each child (D. Lee, 1966).

A mother’s attentive love in this new relationship becomes the foundation by which all of the other tasks of mothering become effective.

John Bowlby’s attachment theory (1944, 1982) provides a scientific understanding of the influence of the relationship between mother and child from infancy (Belsky, 2001). Bowlby’s exploration of the importance of this bond started after he observed a consistent pattern of disrupted mother-child relationships and later adult psychopathology. Children who had been deprived of maternal care during extended periods in their early lives seemed to develop into individuals who “lacked feeling, had superficial relationships, and exhibited hostile or antisocial tendencies” (Kobak, 1999). This led Bowlby to conclude that the attachment between mother and child is critical for a child’s healthy social-emotional development.

Mary Ainsworth expanded on Bowlby’s ideas by exploring how the quality of the attachment between mother and child influenced the child’s development. She found that children seemed to thrive when they had an emotionally secure attachment with their mothers. The security of the attachment was related to how mothers interacted with their children, which Ainsworth labeled maternal sensitivity. According to Ainsworth, maternal sensitivity is a measure of how a mother detects, interprets, and responds appropriately to her child’s needs; how positive and kind she is in her interactions; and how much she respects her child’s autonomy in exploring and growing (Ainsworth et al., 1979).

When a mother is consistently available and supportive, the child receives the physical and psychological security necessary to foster playing, exploring, and appropriate social behaviors (Bretherton & Munholland, 1999). If this security is threatened, fear activates the attachment system to help restore access to the attachment figure. Fear that is not appropriately addressed seems to lead to feelings of depression, anxiety, aggression, and defensive distortions of vulnerable feelings (Kobak, 1999). In contrast, a secure attachment enables a child to develop feelings that he or she deserves love, feelings that help him or her learn to appreciate, understand, and empathize with the feelings of others and appropriately regulate relationship closeness and conflict resolution (Bretherton & Munholland, 1999). These findings did not suggest that every child with an insecure attachment necessarily experienced problems. But the insecure attachment seemed to initiate pathways associated with later pathology (Sroufe et al., 1993). 

These findings led researchers to conclude that the way a mother interacts with her child, her maternal sensitivity, is the strongest, most consistent predictor of her child’s cognitive, social, and emotional development (NICHD, 2003). Neuropsychological studies of infant brain development provided additional evidence supporting the importance of mothers’ interactions. Mothers seem to have a special ability to sensitively modify the stimulation they give to their infants. Through finely tuned perceptions, they match their infants’ intellectual and emotional state and provide the optimal “chunked bits” of positive interaction needed for the child’s developing brain (Schore, 1994). In speaking of this finely tuned process, three scholars from the University of California at Berkeley concluded,

Whether they realize it or not, mothers use universal signs of emotion to teach their babies about the world. . . . Emotionality [love] gives the two of them a common language years before the infant will acquire speech. . . . It isn’t just his mother’s beaming countenance but her synchrony that he requires—their mutually responsive interaction (Lewis et al., 2000).

Such attentive, loving interactions are not only important during infancy. Numerous studies have demonstrated that the quality of a mother’s relationship with her child is associated with her child’s social interactions and behaviors across development (Buehler, 2006; Guilamo‐Ramos et al., 2006). Children seem to do best when mothers show love by communicating about and being aware of their activities and behaviors. Expressing love through listening, communicating, and monitoring enables a mother to be warm and supportive while setting and enforcing appropriate limits. Studies consistently indicate that adolescents who report telling their mothers where they are going and what they will be doing after school and on weekends also report lower rates of alcohol misuse, drug use, sexual activity, and delinquency (Barnes et al., 2006). Children’s academic success and healthy behaviors have also been tied to their mothers’ involvement in talking with them, listening to them, and answering their questions (Luster et al., 2004).

The Goals of Effective Mothering

The relationship formed through a mother’s attentive love provides the foundation for all of the other major tasks of motherhood. Mothering scholar Sara Ruddick identified a number of central tasks for which attentive love provides the foundation, including: (a) preserving children’s lives and well-being, and (b) fostering children’s growth and development (Ruddick, 1984).

Preserving life. From the moment of her child’s birth, a mother faces the realization that a fragile life depends on her (Stern & Bruschweiler-Stern, 1998). The physical connection inherent in the biological relationship between mother and child seems to make mothers particularly sensitive to responsibility for the child’s protection and well-being (Doucet, 2006). Her fear for the baby’s survival and growth may also make her vigilant and attentive to finding the best food, care, and medical help, and avoiding possible dangers. These natural attunements, especially when shared with the father, serve important constructive and protective functions for a child (Stern & Bruschweiler-Stern, 1998). Studies consistently indicate that mothers have a significant role in influencing their children’s health and well-being throughout their development.

Nurturing growth and development. The desire to sustain the life of the child is part of the second central task of mothering, that of nurturing growth and development. Research findings suggest that the ways mothers nurture their children’s individual growth is a critical influence on their development. Although men can and do take on this work of nurturing, there appear to be important and useful differences between men and women. Further, much of the day-to-day work and responsibility for this nurturing care continues to “rest with women.” As a result, mothers are more often identified in research studies as central to these nurturing processes  (Doucet, 2006, p. 111). One of the primary ways mothers nurture growth and development is by helping create an environment of safety, peace, and learning. A central part of creating that environment is through organizing the home and family so that routines and rituals are carried out effectively. A range of studies indicate that having ordered and predictable routines (waking up, getting dressed, taking vitamins or medications, brushing teeth, going to school, doing homework, eating dinner, and going to bed) is central to children’s healthy development (Fiese, 2006).  Further, mothers have the primary role in carrying out family rituals and traditions (such as Christmas, Easter, family celebrations including birthdays, and distinctive family traditions such as Sunday night sing-alongs or periodic service projects).

For preschool and school-age children, routines and rituals are especially important in helping with self-regulation, skill development, problem-solving, and the development of good academic habits. For adolescent children, routines and rituals have been associated with a sense of identity and family belonging, warmth in relationships with parents, fewer risk behaviors, and better psychological health (Fiese, 2006). Mothers significantly influence the environment in which their children grow and develop through the routines and rituals they ensure are carried out (Ring, 2006).

A second critical way that mothers influence development is through the emotional work they perform to maintain and strengthen individual well-being and family relations. Mothers do this emotional work by facilitating conversations about feelings, listening carefully to family members’ feelings, recognizing the importance of feelings and offering encouragement, expressing appreciation, and asking questions to elicit family members’ sharing of feelings. For many mothers, providing this kind of emotional work is integral to their efforts to nurture the growth and development of children (Erickson, 2005). Where a father may be oriented toward fixing the problem that arises, mothers seem particularly adept at helping children express feelings and feel better (Doucet, 2006).

Mothers’ emotional work may be especially effective if mothers are available when children are most willing to share their thoughts and feelings. Research findings suggest that the hours after school may be particularly important for mothers in sharing experiences and monitoring children (Aizer, 2004). During these moments at the crossroads, children may be more inclined to share their thoughts and feelings (Monson, 1992). Children also seem to be more inclined to open up and share when working alongside parents in household responsibilities. Washing dishes, preparing food, folding laundry, and other household tasks provide opportunities for thoughts and feelings to be shared while hands are busy working.

A third critical way in which mothers influence development is through teaching. Mothers are the most important influence on intellectual development and children’s learning because they often spend the most time with the child. During a child’s infancy, the cognitive stimulation and emotional support mothers provide lay the foundation for intellectual and linguistic functioning throughout development. As mothers talk to their infants, direct their attention to objects in the environment, and label the objects they see, they provide cognitive stimulation that enhances their infant’s language skills and intellectual abilities (Tamis-LeMonda & Bornstein, 1989). 

As children grow, mothers provide essential stimulation when they ask questions or give suggestions that invite the child’s thinking, or when they provide conceptual links among objects, activities, locations, persons, or emotions (Hubbs‐Tait et al., 2002). Mothers continue to provide cognitive stimulation for preschool and school-age children when they read to their children and teach them concepts; encourage them in hobbies; take them to libraries, museums, and theaters; and expose them to books and other sources of learning in the home (Votruba‐Drzal, 2003). Dinnertime conversations, car rides, and shared work also provide important opportunities for engaging children in important developmental processes. The significant influence of this cognitive stimulation is enhanced through the emotional support she provides by being positive, particularly when a child is trying to learn a task or solve a problem. Her expression of positive emotions, without inappropriately intruding or restraining, fosters a secure environment for children to learn and grow (Hubbs‐Tait et al., 2002).

Even more significant than the cognitive stimulation a mother provides is her teaching of wisdom and truth to guide her children’s development. Research findings consistently indicate that children whose mothers openly discuss the risks of behaviors such as illicit sexual activity, alcohol and substance abuse, and smoking are less likely to engage in dangerous behaviors (Guilamo‐Ramos et al., 2006). Further, children whose mothers transmit their religious beliefs and facilitate their children’s involvement with religion report the lowest levels of delinquency among adolescents (Pearce & Haynie, 2004). These findings indicate that her teachings become a key ingredient in preparing her children to live fulfilling and contributing lives.

In summary, research findings have supported the truth that a mother’s loving, attentive relationship with each child becomes the foundation by which all other mothering tasks become effective. From the foundation of love, mothers significantly influence children’s development by creating an environment in which children can flourish. Mothers significantly influence development by establishing consistent routines and strengthening emotional well-being and relationships among family members. Finally, research indicates that mothers are a critical influence on children’s development through the cognitive stimulation and teaching they provide. In striving to reach these goals, fathers do not get a free pass. Rather, they are to “help one another as equal partners” (The Family Proclamation).

Gaining Strength for the Challenges of Motherhood

One mother stated:

The other day I ran into another mother who asked me how I was doing. Within a few minutes I was crying—how could I possibly explain the complexity of my feelings?! Hadn’t I always wanted to be a mother? And yet, why do I sometimes feel like all I want to do is escape? How is it possible that I can love my children so much and yet at the same time feel like I am too tired to be able to take the responsibility anymore? I have to admit that sometimes I feel like my wings have been clipped—I wake up in the morning and there the dirty dishes are again, and the messy diapers, and the dirty high chair, and noses that have to be wiped, and I don’t know if I have the energy to face it again. And yet I feel guilty even expressing those thoughts. Is motherhood really supposed to be this way? (Personal communication with the author.)

Research on motherhood has consistently revealed that motherhood is full of dialectical tensions. Mothers will feel profound joy and meaning in loving and caring for children and at the same time an immense burden of responsibility. Mothers naturally filled with great love for their children face the relentless tasks of identifying and responding to each child’s needs while fostering each child’s development. The amount of energy exerted in the process can tax the physical stamina of any mother, leading her to struggle emotionally as well as physically. Mothers may come to feel that the reality of their experience as mothers is dramatically different than their idealization of what motherhood would be like.

Mothers who are feeling exhausted and stressed are less likely to feel they are able to mother the way they think would be best. Dr. Wally Goddard captures this reality when he explains, 

We have all seen the effect that stress and exhaustion can have on our parenting. We overreact. We are harsh. We fail to use good sense. We lose sight of the child’s motives and needs. When we’re not happy and balanced, our parenting suffers (Goddard, 2011).

In response, mothers may feel guilt, which may lead them further into a cycle of exhaustion and perceived failure in parenting. The experiences of burnout and depression are more likely for mothers when they have shoulds that are unattainable, hold themselves responsible for things they cannot control, have a hard time setting limits and saying no, or feel that they would be continually satisfied if they were a better person and mother. Many mothers learn that mothering requires aligning expectations with reality rather than putting unneeded shoulds on the list of essentials, setting priorities so they can do well the things they most care about, and structuring their lives to include activities that replenish (Tannenhauser, 1995).

It is critical that mothers care for themselves and nurture their own minds, hearts, and bodies as they consecrate their minds, hearts, and bodies to mothering.

They must be nurtured in order to be able to nurture those to whom they are consecrated. Elder M. Russell Ballard counseled mothers to 

find some time for yourself to cultivate your gifts and interests. Pick one or two things that you would like to learn or do that will enrich your life, and make time for them. Water cannot be drawn from an empty well, and if you are not setting aside a little time for what replenishes you, you will have less and less to give to others, even to your children (Ballard, 2008, p.110).

When they see motherhood as a relationship rather than a set of tasks, mothers will also recognize the dangers in comparing their mothering with others. A mother will understand that her mothering will be individual because she is giving her best, unique self to her children. The one thing that she has to offer is her individual person. Her interests, talents, mind, and all that she has developed become her offering to the relationship she has with each of her children. As Elder Ballard taught,

There is no one perfect way to be a good mother. Each situation is unique. Each mother has different challenges, different skills and abilities, and certainly different children. The choice is different and unique for each mother and each family. . . . What matters is that a mother loves her children deeply and, in keeping with the devotion she has for God and her husband, prioritizes them above all else (Ballard, 2008, p.108).

In addition, husbands and fathers play a crucial role in enabling mothers to be nurtured and strengthened.

As one author wrote, the greatest work of any man is “the endowment of motherhood” (Carver, 1913). As a husband “endows” his wife with motherhood, he does all that he can to enable her work as a mother to flourish, because she is the central nurturer of their greatest treasure.
Perhaps most importantly, mothers and fathers who are honest with themselves will recognize that in every relationship they will fail their children in some important way. That is part of being mortal in a fallen world. No mother or father is good enough to care perfectly for God’s children. The only true solution is to be changed—to have our natures changed so that we can draw inspiration from heaven and become fit parents. The promise of the Savior’s Atonement is that we can receive His image by humbly bringing our tattered, weak selves to Him for healing. In that place of dependence, we will feel His transforming mercy bless us to become more like Him in our parenting.

A recent study of a large sample of Latter-day Saint parents found that a mother’s private religious behaviors—including fasting, personal prayer, scripture study, study of other religious materials, and thinking about religion—were a more significant influence on the quality of her parenting than the family’s religious behaviors. Mothers who spent more time in these activities were more likely to feel close to their children and to be effective in providing warmth, love, and support while setting clear and appropriate boundaries and expectations. They were also less likely to resort to physical coercion, verbal hostility, unreasonable punishment, indulgence, or psychological control—all unhealthy patterns of discipline in parenting. The findings suggest that humbly seeking the Savior’s influence and help enables us to become the kinds of mothers we desire to become (Behling, 2010).

Individual Circumstances that Necessitate Adaptation 

Another mother stated:

It’s been five years since my former husband chose to leave our marriage and the covenants that had kept us close in the early years of our marriage. Though I have been blessed with peace during this period of being single, I have also faced the recurring thought that I am a failure in the thing that matters most on earth and eternity. It is painful for me to hear the ideals of motherhood that I treasure talked about in church because those ideals are not possible for me. The stay-at-home mom who can be available whenever her children are home, the ability to ensure my children are in the best environment for their growth when they are staying with their dad, the opportunity to provide an example of a loving husband and wife who work together to rear their children in love and righteousness, etc., are all ideals of motherhood I cannot fully give. Where do I fit in this gospel of ideals around motherhood and family? (Personal communication with the author.)

Teachings from the living prophets about the most crucial priorities for mothers are particularly important as many mothers find themselves in family circumstances that are not ideal. Whatever the specific circumstances, many situations necessitate individual adaptation, as specified by the proclamation. The guidance provided by the restored gospel will help mothers prioritize and focus on the most important things they can do to bless their families.

Research findings support the priorities emphasized by living prophets. Studies have consistently indicated, for example, that children do better under the challenging circumstances of divorce, poverty, and a parent’s mental or emotional disability when rituals and routines such as family dinner, family prayer, assigned chores and responsibilities, and consistent wholesome recreation are in place (Fiese, 2006). Further, the emotional support and connectedness mothers facilitate may become more directly influential when circumstances are not ideal. Her efforts to ensure that she builds a strong relationship with her children through spending focused time, being available, listening to them, and being aware of their experiences and feelings help children thrive even when there are difficult challenges. Finally, her love and teachings, expressed through example and verbal communication, become the critical threads by which confidence and peace are woven into children’s hearts, regardless of the challenge.

A large body of research addresses the effects on children when mothers have to spend many hours away from them in employment. These studies provide evidence for the importance of mothers spending time with their children, but they also indicate that it is the way a mother interacts with her children when she is with them that is most important. Extensive hours of non-mother childcare (30 hours per week) during the early years of a child’s life have been associated, on average, with less social competence and cooperation, more problem behaviors, negative mood, aggression, and conflict in children. Negative effects have been identified in caregiver reports of children’s behavior at age four and through the first, third, and sixth grades, particularly for children who spent long hours in childcare centers (Jacob, 2009). 

But the way a mother interacted with her children—her maternal sensitivity—was the strongest, most consistent predictor of children’s social-emotional development and behavior, even when she was away from them for long periods of time (Jacob, 2009). Further, childcare that was more like a nurturing home than a childcare center, with a higher adult-to-child ratio that allowed children to receive consistent, responsive nurturing, was not associated with negative effects over the long term. Negative effects that might ensue because of a mother’s absence seem to be mitigated when a mother is able to provide consistent, sensitive nurturing, and to coordinate a form of childcare that is more like a child would experience if the mother were present.

Some circumstances may require that the father becomes the primary caretaker and nurturer of children for a season. A recent study of stay-at-home fathers concluded that many men learn to nurture in ways that are similar to mothers when they are given primary responsibility for their children. But even then, men differed from women in their style of nurturing, with most fathers emphasizing fun, playfulness, physical activities, the outdoors, practicality in the emotional response, and the promotion of independence and risk-taking with older children (Doucet, 2001). Men are very nurturing in caring for their children, but the complementarity of men and women in nurturing their children’s development is important.

Finally, some women may not experience motherhood in this life or may experience a long period of waiting before the opportunity comes. In this circumstance, understanding the true definition of motherhood will allow women to recognize their call to nurture life. As Sister Sheri Dew, who has not had the opportunity to marry or bear children, explained:

Of all the words they could have chosen to define her role and her essence, both God the Father and Adam called Eve “the mother of all living”—and they did so before she ever bore a child. . . . Motherhood is more than bearing children. . . . It is the essence of who we are as women. It defines our very identity, our divine stature and nature, and the unique traits our Father gave us (Dew, 2001).

In their divine identity as mothers, all women have been called to partner with God in doing all they can to help guide children home to Him. Recognizing that, Sister Dew explained:

Every one of us can show by word and by deed that the work of women in the Lord’s kingdom is magnificent and holy. I repeat: We are all mothers in Israel, and our calling is to love and help lead the rising generation through the dangerous streets of mortality (Dew, 2001, p. 97). 

As women engage in the work of motherhood, whatever their circumstances, they will find that their greatest source of strength will come from knowing and following the doctrines of Christ and relying on Him for help. In speaking of this great effort, Sister Barbara B. Thompson of the Relief Society general presidency said:

Remember the great love of our Savior. He said in Isaiah 41:10, “Fear thou not; for I am with thee: be not dismayed; for I am thy God: I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee.” Then in verse 13 He says again, “I will help thee.” And once more in verse 14 He says, “I will help thee.” Believe the Savior. He will help us. He loves us (Thompson, 2007, p. 117).

There is no work in which the Lord takes greater interest than in the nurturing and rearing of our children. Because of that, we can be assured that He will strengthen mothers in their holy calling. Truly, motherhood places her who honors its holy work next to the angels, for nothing could be of greater significance to God than the nurturing of His little ones—His precious children.

Parenting With Love, Limits, and Latitude

Parenting with Love, Limits, and Latitude: Proclamation Principles and Supportive Scholarship

Craig H. Hart, Lloyd D. Newell, and Julie H. Haupt

Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness.

Parents bringing children into this world and then rearing them in love and righteousness is essential to the great plan of happiness (Alma 42:8). In the course of teaching and nurturing children in a family setting, parents can learn and grow by practicing godly virtues that lead to sanctification. In the earth’s first family, Adam and Eve discovered the importance of agency as they dealt with family members with different personalities and proclivities who chose to use their agency for good and for ill. Our wise first parents applied gospel principles in teaching their children about the commandments of God. They learned firsthand about the spiritual guidance that God grants to parents as they fulfill their sacred responsibilities, encouraging their growth and happiness (Moses 5:10–12).

To assist parents in meeting their family responsibilities, the Lord has given commandments, guiding principles, and helpful examples in the scriptures, along with the counsel of modern-day prophets and apostles. Joseph Smith said, “I teach the people correct principles, and they govern themselves” (Young, 1956). In parenting, mothers and fathers have the challenge and opportunity to apply general principles derived from inspired sources and adapt them to their individual and family circumstances as they diligently strive to meet their children’s physical, emotional, and spiritual needs (see D&C 68:25–28; 75:28; 83:4–5; Mosiah 4:14; 1 Timothy 5:4).

Despite many similarities among modern-day families, each family has unique circumstances that affect the way parents raise their children. Family members’ individual talents and personality traits, coupled with intergenerational influences, family structure, living arrangements, and cultural norms and expectations make it impossible to prepare a handbook for parenting that addresses every situation. President Ezra Taft Benson said, “Usually the Lord gives us the overall objectives to be accomplished and some guidelines to follow, but he expects us to work out most of the details and methods” (Benson, 1974, p. 381). The methods and procedures are usually developed through study and prayer and by living so that we can obtain and follow the promptings of the Spirit.

Thus, this section emphasizes inspired, eternal parenting principles that are based on the proclamation and supported by empirical and conceptual scholarship.

These principles can guide parents in developing individualized child-rearing practices.

Spiritual Personality and Genetic Traits

Latter-day Saint theology includes a remarkable wealth of information about the influence of a premortal life. For example, the First Presidency stated, “All people who come to this earth and are born in mortality, had a pre-existent, spiritual personality, as the sons and daughters of the Eternal Father” (First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1912). President Joseph F. Smith noted, “Notwithstanding this fact that our recollection of former things was taken away, the character of our lives in the spirit world has much to do with our disposition, desires and mentality here in mortal life” (Smith, 1916, p. 426). Accordingly, President Brigham Young said, “There is the same variety in the spirit world that you behold here, yet they are of the same parentage, of one Father, one God” (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1997, p. 295).

Regarding the cultivation of spiritual gifts, Elder Bruce R. McConkie stated, “Being subject to law, and having their agency, all the spirits of men, while yet in the Eternal Presence, developed aptitudes, talents, capacities, and abilities of every sort, kind, and degree. During the long expanse of life which then was, an infinite variety of talents and abilities came into being” (McConkie, 1979, p. 23).

Certainly, the way individual children respond to their earthly environments is greatly influenced by their spiritual identity and the spiritual gifts cultivated in the premortal realm (D&C 46; Alma 13:3–5; Abraham 3:22–23; Moroni 10; Moses 5:24; 1 Corinthians 12–14).

Indeed, each individual displays different interests, personalities, and behavior, which come from biological blueprints provided by parents as well as each child’s own spiritual predispositions, talents, and desires. These spiritual traits interact with genetic individuality in ways that have not yet been revealed, but are often observed in daily interactions in the home (Hart, 2005). An individual’s characteristics are further refined by environmental factors in and out of the home (for example, parents, peers, siblings, school, and culture) and by the ways that each child responds to them (Hart et al., 2003). Even among children in the same family, some children may be more difficult or easy to rear due, in part, to inherent personality characteristics that stem from spiritual personality and predispositions.

Beyond spiritual personality influences, a growing body of evidence suggests that biological characteristics play a role in children’s dispositions and temperaments in ways that interact with environmental influences. (See Bornstein & Lamb, 2011; Hart et al., 2003; Damon et al., 2006; Kuczynski, 2003; P. K. Smith & Hart, 2011, for scientific support for the principles that follow.) These characteristics include tendencies toward inhibition or shyness, sociability, impulsiveness and thrill-seeking, activity level (degree of lively energetic behavior and perpetual motion), aggression, cognition and language acuity, behavior problems stemming from psychiatric disorders, emotionality (for example, intensity of arousal related to fear, anger, or elation), and religiosity. Evidence also indicates that different genetically based characteristics can turn on or off at different points in development in ways that may be partially influenced by environmental factors. Thus, it may be that some children cycle in and out of easier and more difficult developmental periods as they grow.

Research exploring genetic contributions to children’s development suggests that children may select, modify, and even create their own environments according to their biological predispositions. For example, a more sociable child may, by nature, seek out opportunities to interact with peers, but may be less academically motivated. Alternatively, a more socially passive child in the same family may actively avoid social gatherings and prefer to spend time in solitary activities (such as reading) and be more academically inclined.

In the same way, some children with more spirited dispositions (that show aggressive, highly emotional, or thrill-seeking tendencies) may raise concerns and evoke more formal intervention by parents in terms of rules, redirection, punishment, and monitoring than children who are “easier” to rear. This can be particularly true when child behavior falls outside cultural norms and family expectations. Thus, even though there are shared parenting influences, children by their natures can foster different parenting behaviors for different siblings in the same family. Or they may respond to similar parenting practices in different ways, depending on how experiences are filtered through their perceptions. Even children recognize that parents adjust their styles to different needs and personality characteristics of their siblings.

As President James E. Faust observed, “Child-rearing is so individualistic. Every child is different and unique. What works with one may not work with another” (Faust, 1990, p. 34). Whatever the nature and disposition of a given child, wise parents work to adjust, relate to, and rear each child in a manner that is somewhat tempered to individual needs as parents and children learn from each other. How this bidirectional parent-child interaction process plays out across development for each child varies according to his or her individual nature. Although children are differentially susceptible to child-rearing influences, scientific studies suggest that parents can help children reach their potential.

This comes as parents do their best to emphasize positive child characteristics while providing opportunities for growth in areas where behaviors arising from the expression of particular spiritual and genetic attributes may be less desirable (Hart et al., 2003). As we know from the scriptures, weaknesses can foster humility and can eventually become strengths (Ether 12:27). Parents can play a supportive role by helping children overcome weaknesses and building upon natural strengths in ways that enhance “individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose” (¶ 2).

Love

The first of the three characteristics of authoritative parenting is love or connection. President Gordon B. Hinckley stated:

Every child is entitled to grow up in a home where there is warm and secure companionship, where there is love in the family relationship, where appreciation one for another is taught and exemplified, and where God is acknowledged and His peace and blessings invoked before the family altar (Hinckley, 1997, p. 416).

Brigham Young counseled, “Kind looks, kind actions, kind words, and a lovely, holy deportment toward them will bind our children to us with bands that cannot easily be broken; while abuse and unkindness will drive them from us” (Young, 1864, pp. 1864-12–21). Prophetic statements such as these, supported by research, suggest that warm and responsive parenting tends to promote lasting bonds between parents and children, and “felt security” within children (Hart et al., 2003). This, in turn, has been linked to better behavior now and in the future. Warm and responsive child rearing also helps to mitigate hostility, resentment, and anger in children, all of which have been reproved in holy writ through the ages: “Provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4).

Specifically, research has documented that children are less aggressive and more sociable and empathetic if they have parents (particularly fathers) who are more loving, patient, playful, responsive, and sympathetic to children’s feelings and needs. President Gordon B. Hinckley stated, “Fathers, be kind to your children. Be companionable with them” (Hinckley, 1997b, p. 52). Similarly, mothers who take the time to engage in mutually enjoyable activities with their children more effectively convey values and rules to them (Kochanska, 1997). President Ezra Taft Benson counseled parents:

Take time to be a real friend to your children. Listen to your children, really listen. Talk with them, laugh and joke with them, sing with them, play with them, cry with them, hug them, honestly praise them. Yes, regularly spend unrushed one-on-one time with each child. Be a real friend to your children (Benson, 1990, p.32).

Children are less likely to push limits and seek attention through misbehavior when they feel that they are a high priority in their parents’ lives. Sister Marjorie Hinckley was an excellent example. Speaking of her mother-in-law, Kathleen H. Hinckley writes,

When I called her for advice, she verbalized something I would say over and over to myself for many years to come, “Just save the relationship.” I believe those words are the most simple and powerful parenting principle I have ever learned (Hinckley & Pearce, 1999).

All this takes significant time and energy. Elder M. Russell Ballard, speaking to mothers, advised:

Mothers must not fall into the trap of believing that quality time can replace quantity time. Quality is a direct function of quantity—and mothers, to nurture their children properly, must provide both. To do so requires constant vigilance and a constant juggling of competing demands. It is hard work, no doubt about it (Ballard, personal communication, August 19, 2003, p. 6).

Limits

The second element of authoritative parenting is limits, known in the scholarly literature as regulation. Finding ways to effectively help children learn how to regulate their own behavior in non coercive ways is one of the most challenging parts of authoritative parenting. Determining how and when to tighten or loosen the reins requires considerable creativity, effort, and inspiration. In all cases, discipline or correction should be motivated by a sincere interest in teaching children correct principles rather than merely exerting control, exercising dominion, or venting anger. As they apply limits to a child’s behavior, authoritative parents must again make a conscious effort and use good judgment by taking into consideration the developmental level of the child and the child’s individual temperament.

In authoritative homes, parents are clear and firm about rules and expectations. Unlike coercive parents who administer harsh, domineering, arbitrary punishments, authoritative parents are confrontive by proactively explaining reasons for setting rules and by administering corrective measures promptly when children do not abide by the rules (Baumrind et al., 2010). In an effort to make the home a place of security, parents build a safety net of appropriate limits for their children, generously communicate their approval of desirable behavior, and help children understand how to regulate themselves. These lessons are taught within friendly parent-child interactions where tutoring and discipline occur when necessary. Research has shown that when firm habits of good behavior are established early in life through parental regulatory practices that include limit-setting, a judicious use of punishment, positive reinforcement, and reasoning, parents are better able to relax control as their children grow older (Baumrind, 1996).

Setting limits and following through with pre-established consequences when rules are violated is one way that parents can help children learn to be self-regulating. Just as the rod is used to gently nudge sheep away from dangerous places, setting limits around potentially harmful influences (for example, inappropriate media and early dating) helps children feel safer and more secure. The careful monitoring of adolescents’ whereabouts and behavior as well as encouragement to adhere to parental expectations is a form of limit-setting that can go far in reducing delinquent activity (Laird et al., 2003).

Authoritative parents take responsibility for setting the appropriate number of rules that can be realistically remembered and enforced. Some children may require more and varying types of rules and punishments than others, depending on their individual natures. Some rules may be implicit and just part of the family routine (for example, family prayer is daily at 7:00 a.m.). Others may be more explicit with consequences attached (for example, rollerblading in the house will result in the rollerblades being put away for several days). When rules and their accompanying consequences have been explained in advance and a sufficient number of warnings adapted to the child’s ability for self-regulation have been given, authoritative parents are firm and consistent in following through in a calm and clear-headed manner when violations occur. Authoritative strategies might include reproving, withdrawing privileges, setting up opportunities to make restitution, or following through on predetermined consequences for breaking rules. Consistency in administering corrective discipline provides opportunities for children to experience the negative consequences of poor choices. Consistency allows subsequent opportunities for children to “rehearse” better behavior by arming them with new tools and information about how to handle the situation more appropriately in the future. President Spencer W. Kimball noted, “Setting limits to what a child can do means to that child that you love him and respect him” (Kimball, 1982).

Regulation strategies can also include more subtle approaches that maintain a positive tone and do not require imposing penalties. For example, young children sometimes respond better to simply being redirected to more acceptable behaviors (for example, being shown how to gently pet a cat rather than inadvertently mishandling it). Planning ahead can also eliminate problems before they occur, like putting safety latches on cupboards for curious toddlers, providing a watch with a beeper alarm so children won’t forget to come home in the midst of play with friends, and teaching and reminding children about behavior in social settings before arriving—such as helping them whisper in a library or being sensitive to an elderly grandparent’s physical limitations.

While there are times when chastisement and other forms of punishment are necessary (see D&C 121:43; Hebrews 12:5–11), it is crucial that these be carried out in a spirit of love and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (see D&C 121:41–46). Indeed, punishment is an eternal principle (see, for example, Alma 42:16, 18–21; 2 Nephi 2:13). To be most effective, punishments should be logically tied to the misbehavior, accompanied by reasoning, and administered in a prompt, rational manner (Baumrind et al., 2010). Seeking guidance from the Spirit will assist parents in finding ways to discipline in a context of love, respect, consistency, justice, and sensitivity to the child’s developmental level and individual personality.

When consequences need to be enforced, the scriptures teach the principle of “showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved” (D&C 121:43). When the child has been corrected in a calm, controlled manner, that same Spirit that prompted such correction can create a sense of compassion, charity, and forgiveness toward the child. These are moments when children have a particularly intense and immediate need to feel the strength of parental love. Authoritative parents will take action to assure the child of their love and genuine concern in a way that is suited to the age and individual needs of the child. For example, physical affection may assist a young child with a quivering lip to restore a sense of inner security: “Maybe you can sit here on my lap for a while until you feel like playing with your sister again.” Affirming verbal statements are important at all ages to keep relationships strong during times of reproof: “Although I am disappointed that you did not obey, I love you very much.” At times, humor can be used to break the tension: “Okay, enough of this serious stuff. Time for a group hug!” A change in activity may help, particularly when it gives children a chance to positively interact with the parent: “Will you be my helper in the kitchen? I need a junior chef to help me whip up some cornbread.” Finally, expressing confidence in the child can help alleviate his or her concerns: “I know it’s been a hard day. We all make mistakes. I know you’ll do better next time.”

Although consequences are important to the learning process, punishment is not always the answer to misbehavior. Seeking to understand the underlying causes of the misbehavior can help parents treat the core problem and not just react to symptoms. For example, challenging behavior can be tied to an unfulfilled need (like being tired, hungry, or lacking necessary parental attention), a stage of growth (such as teething or natural striving for autonomy during the wonderful twos and threes and again during the teenage years), something going awry in the present environment (like friends being mean or fear of the dark), or a child simply not knowing better (for example, animals get hurt when mistreated; friends are not happy when one refuses to share). Ignoring misbehavior that is not harmful to self or others may be an appropriate strategy at times when followed up by love and acceptance (for example, calmly ignoring whining and then responding positively to the child’s normal speech). It should be noted that chronic conditions associated with a biologically based mood, thought, behavioral, or learning disorder may require professional assistance to resolve.

While confrontations and conflicts are inevitable in family life, parents can work diligently to nurture relationships and keep a positive tone in the home. Rewarding good behavior and framing expectations in a positive manner can go far in inviting children to regulate their behavior in desirable ways. Periodically surprising a child with extra privileges or providing ways to earn benefits associated with desirable behavior can also encourage good performance: “You have worked so hard on your piano practicing over the last month that I’d like to go on a daddy-daughter date with you to the concert this weekend.” (See the entry “Reward,” in the Topical Guide of the Latter-day Saint scriptures, to gain a sense of the eternal principle of rewards.)

The use of induction or reasoning also helps keep parenting methods positive. As noted earlier, prophets have emphasized that reason and persuasion are important when working with children. President Joseph F. Smith counseled,

Use no lash and no violence, but . . . approach them with reason, with persuasion and love unfeigned. . . . The man that will be angry at his boy, and try to correct him while he is in anger, is in the greatest fault; . . . You can only correct your children by love, in kindness, by love unfeigned, by persuasion, and reason (J. F. Smith, 1986, pp. 316-317).

For example, when guiding behavior, a parent may help a child who has trouble being bossy with friends by talking through some strategies before a friend comes over: “If you do only what you want to do when playing with Johnny, he probably won’t want to play with you anymore. What things do you think he would like to do when you two get together?” Induction is also important in pointing out more socially acceptable ways of handling situations: “I can understand why you are angry, but it’s not okay to hit Jenny. Remember next time to use your words to ask her for your tricycle back.”

Induction is effective because it does more than simply correct behavior; it can also potentially teach the child reasons for socially acceptable behavior, communicate clear limits, acknowledge the emotions being felt, emphasize consequences to others for hurtful behavior, and present more acceptable strategies for dealing with conflict. Following up with role plays, perhaps in a family home evening, can go far in helping children rehearse acceptable behavior. Research shows that consistent efforts to provide simple rationales that are often repeated eventually sink in and can win voluntary obedience even in 2 to 3-year-old children. Numerous studies have documented positive ways that reasoning with children (especially in advance of a problem) can help them willingly regulate their own behavior, resulting in more confident, empathetic, helpful, and happy children (Hart et al., 2003).

For adolescents and older children, if not carefully worded, induction can come across as preachments and may provoke more opposition and testiness. Also, wise parents remember that the tone of voice, a loving touch, and the sincere feeling behind the parents’ words often communicate much more than the words themselves. Playing a consultant role often works better (Cline & Fay, 1990; Cline & Fay, 1992). This involves (a) reflective listening (for example, saying something like, “So it sounds like you’re feeling angry because your teacher doesn’t explain math very well and you are suffering for it”), (b) using less directive “I” rather than more intrusive “you” statements (“I am confused about why you want to drop algebra. You’ve seemed really excited about a career in electrical engineering,” rather than, “You will never be an electrical engineer without algebra”), (c) musing and wondering aloud about potential consequences and alternatives (for example, saying, “I am just wondering how you are going to graduate from high school if you drop algebra,” rather than saying, “You need to take algebra in order to graduate”), and (d) leaving more ownership for problem-solving to the child (for example, “What do you want to have happen here?” or “What are you planning to do about it and is there a way I can be helpful?”).

In summary, as parents reason with their children and guide them to more appropriate behavior, it is important to remember that, ultimately, they are teaching children to live by the simple truths of the gospel embodied in the proclamation, such as love, respect, repentance, forgiveness, and compassion. President Boyd K. Packer has said, “True doctrine, understood, changes attitudes and behavior. The study of the doctrines of the gospel will improve behavior quicker than a study of behavior will improve behavior” (Packer, 1986, p. 17). As parents focus on emulating, teaching, and helping children internalize the eternal truths of the great plan of happiness (Alma 42:16), children will be more likely to embrace the correct principles of their parents. Through parents’ loving reassurance and gentle persuasion as well as children’s participation in personal and public religious experiences, children will more likely “lay hold upon the word of God” (Helaman 3:29) and remain faithful (Top & Chadwick, 1998).

Latitude

The third component of authoritative parenting is latitude, or autonomy. Children benefit from being given choices and appropriate levels of latitude to make their own decisions in a variety of domains. Children learn and grow by learning how to make choices within limits that are acceptable to parents (for example, allowing a child the option of taking the trash out in the evening or in the morning before school; asking whether the child would prefer hot or cold cereal). Whenever possible, supporting children’s autonomy in this manner helps children view adults as providers of information and guidance rather than as deliverers of messages of control. When children have been taught principles of truth, internalize correct principles, and have many opportunities to make choices within an environment of love and concern, they are more likely to learn to choose wisely. Elder M. Russell Ballard taught:

Helping children learn how to make decisions requires that parents give them a measure of autonomy, depending on the age and maturity of the child and the situation at hand. Parents need to give children choices and should be prepared to appropriately adjust some rules, thus preparing children for real-world situations (Ballard, personal communication, August 19, 2003).

Authoritative parents teach with warmth and responsiveness, which allows a give-and-take relationship with their children. Differences are respected and valued. Parental communication is open and nonjudgmental, with more emphasis on listening to understand rather than on talking. Respect for authority and independent thinking and feeling are valued, rather than being seen as conflicting principles. Research has shown that children are more likely to be respectful to parents and others when there is reciprocity and a degree of power sharing in their relationships with parents. These positive interactions are conducive to building strong relationships. For example, research demonstrates that parents who maintain at least a 5 or 6-to-1 ratio of positive to negative interactions with their children and teens have more stable and adaptive relationships with them (Cavell & Strand, 2003).

Developmental stages and needs are also considered in reciprocal relationships. As children grow older and more mature, they are granted more autonomy and a greater share in family decision-making. Provided that a pattern of giving choices, setting limits, following through, and reasoning is established early in children’s lives, parent-child relationships and positive child development will more likely be enhanced. Reciprocity comes into play in areas where firm rules and restrictions are deemed unnecessary or unreasonable and parents model and encourage negotiation and compromise (for example, allowing the child’s input into clothing choice, while restraining choice in less negotiable areas, such as modesty). Research shows that the developmental forces that tug at older children and teens will require some compromise to create patterns of interaction that both parent and child can live with (Kuczynski, 2003).

Finding ways to say “yes” more often than “no” to a child’s request lends more credence when a parent has to say no. Sister Marjorie Hinckley said,

My mother taught me some basic philosophies of rearing children. One is that you have to trust children. I tried hard never to say “no” if I could possibly say “yes.” I think that worked well because it gave my children the feeling that I trusted them and they were responsible to do the best they could (Hinckley & Pearce, 1999, p. 55).

A daughter of President Heber J. Grant shared the following insights:

In matters of small importance, father seldom said “No” to us. Consequently, when he did say “No,” we knew he meant it. His training allowed us to make our own decisions whenever possible. He always explained very patiently just why he thought a certain procedure was unwise and then he would say, “That’s the way I feel about it; but of course, you must decide for yourself.” As a result, our decision was usually the same as his. He was able somehow to motivate us to want to do the right thing rather than to be forced to do it (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2002).

By contrast, minimizing opportunities for autonomy can have serious consequences for children. For example, recent studies show that temperamentally shy and inhibited children are more likely to withdraw from peer-group interaction when their parents are overprotective (Nelson et al., 2006). Parents often have a natural tendency to “protect” their children from failure in social relationships when they perceive their child is having difficulty engaging in ongoing peer-group activities. However, this usually has the opposite effect in that it does not allow children opportunities to develop critical social skills that can only be developed through interactions with peers.

When children and teens are given latitude for decision-making in areas that matter less, they are more likely to feel trusted and empowered to choose rightly and conform to parental expectations that matter more. Elder Robert D. Hales counseled, 

Act with faith; don’t react with fear. When our teenagers begin testing family values, parents need to go to the Lord for guidance on the specific needs of each family member. This is the time for added love and support and to reinforce your teachings on how to make choices. It is frightening to allow our children to learn from the mistakes they may make, but their willingness to choose the Lord’s way and family values is greater when the choice comes from within than when we attempt to force those values upon them. The Lord’s way of love and acceptance is better than Satan’s way of force and coercion, especially in rearing teenagers (Hales, 1999, p. 34).

Unfortunately, some children, despite gospel-centered teaching in the home, will use their agency to make decisions that take them far from parental values. In these cases, good judgment is needed to strike the right balance between love and law. Elder Dallin H. Oaks said:

If parents have a wayward child—such as a teenager indulging in alcohol or drugs—they face a serious question. Does parental love require that these substances or their consumption be allowed in the home, or do the requirements of civil law or the seriousness of the conduct or the interests of other children in the home require that this be forbidden? To pose an even more serious question, if an adult child is living in cohabitation, does the seriousness of sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage require that this child feel the full weight of family disapproval by being excluded from any family contacts, or does parental love require that the fact of cohabitation be ignored? I have seen both of these extremes, and I believe that both are inappropriate. Where do parents draw the line? That is a matter for parental wisdom, guided by the inspiration of the Lord. There is no area of parental action that is more needful of heavenly guidance or more likely to receive it than the decisions of parents in raising their children and governing their families (Oaks, 2009, p. 28).

Because authoritative parenting implies flexibility, this style is more effective than the others in dealing with children, since each child has unique characteristics and varying temperamental dispositions. In other words, each child is guided in a balanced style of connection, regulation, and autonomy that best matches his or her set of strengths and weaknesses. For example, some teenagers are self-motivated to engage in appropriate activities, do not require curfews, and are home at reasonable hours. Other teens lose control of their lives and wander into dangerous paths without restrictions. Some rebel when locked into tightly controlled curfews and expectations and do better when parents take the time to talk through the constraints of each new situation that arises (such as the use of a new cell phone).

Providing latitude may include parents developing a middle-of-the-road approach that balances granting autonomy with regulation. This especially works well for more spirited teenagers. These teens often become surprisingly responsible when the general expectation is that they learn to inform parents about their whereabouts and plans and have confidence that their parents will consider compromises when there is a difference of opinion (Chapman, 2000). Surely, creativity and inspiration are required to know how to work best with each child and teen. Parents will find frequently that they need direction and insight into approaching their child authoritatively in any given situation and should humbly seek the guidance of the Spirit.

Even the most wonderful, responsive parents will, from time to time and under difficult circumstances, lose patience with demanding children (Holden, 1995). Parents who admit mistakes and say they are sorry model sincere efforts to change and overcome human weaknesses. At one moment parents may be more permissive because of various external and internal factors, and at another moment more coercive. However, most parents tend to be more one way than another. It is the pattern of interaction, or the climate the parenting style creates in the home, that makes the difference. When parents try to be unified and consistent in employing an authoritative style with balancing characteristics of love, limits, and latitude, children have more chances at optimal growth and joy, and there will be more peace in spousal and parental relationships. When children are reared in a home where parents are striving to lead and guide with love, patience, and humility, children will more likely respond in positive ways.

As the proclamation declared, parents should maintain a high priority on teaching children the principles of righteousness (¶ 7). Sound scholarship confirms that this is best done in authoritative rather than coercive or permissive ways. By studying their children’s individual temperaments, which stem from each child’s genetic and spiritual natures, parents can create the best environment for optimal growth and development. Where better than in a righteous home that is imbued with the Spirit for children to learn to discern between good and evil (see Moroni 7:13–19; D&C 84:44–46) and to develop in optimal ways? Living in harmony with proclamation principles maximizes the possibilities that children will make choices that help them “return to the presence of God '' (¶ 3).

Maintaining a Strong and Positive Influence on Children 

Parents often wonder how they might maintain a strong and righteous influence on their children in a world where there are many other influences seeking for their time, attention, and loyalty. In the context of authoritative parenting, research suggests that it is within the moral and spiritual domains where parents can have the most influence (e.g. Leman, 2005), even though schools, culture, the media, and peer interaction can play major roles as well (e.g. Comunian & Gielen, 2006; Gibbs et al., 2007; Speicher, 1994).

For example, studies have shown that while peers have influence, they seem to matter more in superficial aspects of behavior like hair and clothing styles, the use of slang, and transient day-to-day behaviors, all of which can shift frequently with changes in friendships. Parents are more likely to have influence on core values that are reflected in religiosity, political persuasion, and educational plans, to name a few (Collins et al., 2000; Sebald, 1986). For example, it is the quality of the parent-child relationship that more often determines the type of peers that teenagers choose and whether they accept and adhere to parental values (Furman et al., 2002; Laird et al., 2003; Zhou et al., 2002). When parents neglect the active teaching of strong core values by precept and example in the context of a coercive or permissive parent-child relationship, children will be more likely to gravitate to peers and adopt their value systems, for good or ill.

One of the most powerful tools that parents have in teaching positive values to their children is their religious faith (Smith & Denton, 2009). Research indicates that adolescents who embrace a religious community are more likely to exhibit behavior that is consistent with positive moral values. Compared to nonaffiliated youth, they are more involved in activities that help the less fortunate and in community service that reflects a concern for others (Kerestes et al., 2004). Religious involvement also fosters better academic performance and prosocial behavior, as well as discourages misconduct (Dowling et al., 2004). Religiosity is also associated with less delinquent behavior, including lower levels of sexual activity and drug and alcohol use (Bahr & Hoffmann, 2010; Smith & Denton, 2009; Regenerus et al., 2003).

In short, religious practices and traditions create conditions that engender greater moral maturity. Youth activities and religious education provide opportunities for moral discussion and civic engagement in ways that help youth think beyond themselves and consider the needs of others (King & Furrow, 2004). They also provide young people with expanded networks of exemplary, religiously oriented adults and peers—conditions that also provide opportunities for internalizing important values that help children and teens override temptations that stem from biological urges or negative peer group pressure (Bridges & Moore, 2002; Jang & Johnson, 2001). Encouragement of and support for religious involvement begins with parents in the home and is maintained as parents teach religious precepts in the home to their children and youth.

Rearing children in love and righteousness, as the proclamation admonishes, requires the best effort parents have to offer. Nevertheless, the rewards of such well-placed time and attention are eternal. President Gordon B. Hinckley said, “Of all the joys of life, none other equals that of happy parenthood. Of all the responsibilities with which we struggle, none other is so serious. To rear children in an atmosphere of love, security, and faith is the most rewarding of all challenges. The good result from such efforts becomes life’s most satisfying compensation” (Hinckley, 1997a, p. 421).

Parenting in Gospel Context: Practices Do Make a Difference

David A. Nelson

Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God, and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live.

The prior section by Hart and colleagues gives an excellent overview of parenting research and how it relates to gospel teaching, including the proclamation. In particular, the previous section shows how conceptions of authoritative parenting are consistent with gospel-based advice for parents. The purpose of this chapter is to provide greater depth by visiting some of the most recent and significant debates and theoretical innovations in parenting research. First, I describe recent debates over the influence of parents, and the studies that suggest parenting influence interacts with genetic predisposition and peer influences in complex ways. Second, I discuss the important distinction between parenting styles and practices and apply that information to recent debates over parenting in different cultures. Some flexibility exists in the definition of the various styles—similar parents can vary somewhat in their practices and still fall under the umbrella of a particular style (with similar effects on child development). Third, I contrast the concept of psychological control with behavioral control, giving examples of the former in order to better elucidate what the Lord may mean when He cautions us against unrighteous dominion. I conclude with some parting thoughts about keeping parenting in proper perspective.

Parenting, Genes, and Peers

The family proclamation makes clear that Heavenly Father expects parents to have significant influence in the lives of their children. God’s plan for His children may be ideally characterized as the placement of children into homes where parents are committed to their development and proclamation principles are practiced. No other arrangement is as effective, as demonstrated by the First Presidency’s call to parents to devote their best efforts to the teaching and rearing of their children in gospel principles, which will keep them close to the Church. The home is the basis of a righteous life, and no other instrumentality can take its place or fulfill its essential functions in carrying forward this God-given responsibility (First Presidency & Council of the Twelve Apostles, 1995, p. 3).

As further evidence of the inspired and timely nature of the family proclamation, at the time of its pronouncement, a new controversy regarding parental influence was emerging. Specifically, social scientists debated the relative influence of parents, with some defending substantial parental influence while others argued that parents in fact have little influence on child outcomes (Harris, 1998; Scarr, 1992). Advocates of the latter position believe the primary determinants of child outcomes are in the child’s DNA or peer group influence.

The genetic emphasis may be expected as such research has accelerated in recent decades. Like in any new realm of research, however, there is a tendency to overstate and oversimplify the issues; in this case, genetic influence on behavior (Collins et al., 2000). Many are also strongly tempted to attribute even complex behaviors to inborn traits, saying, “He was just born that way.” In overemphasizing genetic influence, parents may feel less pressure to intervene when their children veer off into less desirable habits. Parents may also be encouraged to affirm an emerging behavior, although evidence of genetic predisposition does not provide an argument for or against the desirability of any given behavior (biology is inherently amoral). Parenting researcher Diana Baumrind has summarized the potential danger of such an approach to childrearing (Baumrind, 1993):

Causal attributions that assign primary responsibility for child outcomes to genetic factors, the effect of which parents believe they cannot change, undermine parents’ beliefs in their own effectiveness, whereas parents’ attribution of responsibility for their children’s outcomes to parents’ own actions is associated with more effective caregiving, which in turn is associated with more positive child outcomes.

Nonetheless, due to belief in the predominant genetic influence on human development, some have argued that parents only need to be “good enough” in child-rearing. In other words, as long as parents are not abusive and otherwise provide the essentials of life, there may be little difference in parenting influence, as genes fundamentally shape behavior. For example, Scarr (1992) has stated,

Ordinary differences between families have little effect on children’s development unless the family is outside of a normal, developmental range. Good enough, ordinary parents probably have the same effects on their children’s development as culturally defined super-parents. . . Children’s outcomes do not depend on whether parents take children to the ball game or to a museum so much as they depend on genetic transmission, on plentiful opportunities, and on having a good enough environment that supports children’s development to become themselves (Scarr, 1992).

In contrast, Baumrind argues that different parenting practices bring about varied child outcomes, and parents should thus be conscientious (Baumrind, 1993, p. 1299). In particular, the “exact details and specifications of the socialization patterns'' are crucial to an understanding of normal development. All nonabusive environments above the poverty line are not equally facilitative of healthy development, so the person a child will become in one kind of normal rearing environment is not the same person that child would become in another kind of rearing environment.

Baumrind’s perspective mirrors that of the proclamation, which gives a substantial list of principles and practices parents should follow in seeking to establish a happy family and successfully rear their children. Each word in proclamation counsel denotes a world of possibilities; the details do matter. Moreover, the proclamation also suggests that significant teaching is required to bring about positive outcomes (for example, teaching children to love and serve one another). Such counsel implies that children may otherwise struggle to develop positive tendencies and, by extension, to abandon less desirable tendencies. Parents may turn to gospel teachings to classify child behaviors that are desirable and should be fostered as compared to undesirable behaviors that should be counteracted. As noted earlier, biology by itself cannot tell us what to reinforce or counter in child development.

Several fascinating adoption studies demonstrate the power of parenting to moderate genetic predispositions. For example, Tienari and colleagues demonstrated that a genetic predisposition for mental illness may be manifest or not, depending on whether family conditions act as a trigger or not (Tienari et al., 2004). Consistent with the idea of genetic risk, they generally found that adopted children who had a schizophrenic biological parent were more likely over time to develop a range of psychiatric disorders (including schizophrenia) than children whose biological parents did not exhibit schizophrenia. However, this association was only evident if at-risk children were adopted into dysfunctional families. Children adopted into functional families largely demonstrated healthy development. Similarly, adopted children who are genetically at risk for criminality are far less likely to develop adult criminality if they are adopted into well-functioning rather than low-functioning homes (12 percent versus 40 percent risk; Bohman, 2007). Accordingly, the processes that lead from genotype to phenotype are not fixed; parenting can buffer children from genetic risk. In regard to many genetic vulnerabilities, therefore, parents may essentially conduct “gene therapy” on their children by the way they parent. Genes matter, but they do not function in a vacuum; gene-by-environment interaction is the norm (Reiss et al., 2000).

Additional insights regarding the importance of parenting are evident in the domain of parenting intervention, where studies consistently show that positive changes in parenting lead to more appropriate child behaviors beyond the family environment. Research by Patterson et al. (2010), who has sought to reduce antisocial behavior in boys, suggests that these positive changes endure in unexpected ways. In particular, “strengthening parenting sets in motion an avalanche of enduring effects that generalize throughout and beyond the family” (p. 949). Better parenting by mothers leads to reductions in deviant behavior in sons, which correspondingly gives a lift to mothers as they see positive change. As relationships improve in the home, both mother and son find new opportunities for positive interaction beyond the home since they are both learning better ways to interact socially. Thus, the impact of the parenting intervention actually becomes stronger and more expansive over time.

Peers also undoubtedly influence child development, as children are anxious to develop friendships and be generally accepted. Nonetheless, some researchers and cultural commentators exaggerate peer influence. Harris famously argued that youth shed parental influence as soon as they step outside the front door of their house, “as easily as the dorky sweater their mother made them wear” (Harris, 1998, p. 12). Peers are presumed to immediately take over the out-of-home socialization process. In contrast, significant evidence suggests that parents provide standards whereby children select appropriate friends, and parental monitoring is a key deterrent to negative behavior, even when such behavior is common to peers. For example, studies show that when parents teach their children to avoid illicit drug use, they are indeed less likely to use drugs. Studies by BYU sociologists further confirm that a combination of parental warmth and effective monitoring tends to limit drug use among teens, even among those who have best friends who abuse drugs (Dorius et al., 2004). Accordingly, parental influence substantially moderates peer pressure to use illicit drugs. Teenagers who have a good relationship with their parents and recognize their parents’ willingness to monitor are usually sensitive to keeping their parents happy. This desire to please loving parents begins early in life (Kochanska, 2002).

Thus, in the midst of confusion generated by differing theoretical perspectives, extant empirical evidence readily asserts that parental influence can significantly interact with genetic predispositions and other environmental influences to help shape behavior. Hence, parents should follow Brigham Young’s counsel to “study their children’s dispositions and temperament, and deal with them accordingly” (Young, 1998). Parents must realize that they have the opportunity to proactively help their children develop positive traits or overcome undesirable tendencies. Children will be most open to instruction when they feel loved and accepted by their parents. They will act to maintain positive interactions. In addition to love and warmth, parents must also provide significant instruction in the morals and values that a child must learn in order to effectively self-regulate.

This learning often occurs in the context of parental reactions to child behavior and misbehavior as parents seek to either praise or correct.

Elder David A. Bednar further explains that parents should also create opportunities “to be watchful and discerning concerning their children” (Bednar, 2010, p. 41). Meaningful interaction with children provides context for “a spiritual early warning system,” where parents may sense emerging problems and realize the need for prayerful and deliberate intervention. With appropriate teaching, guidance, and monitoring, parents can promote better friendships and effectively respond to destructive peer trends and messages. In this sense, parents directly influence children’s developing peer relationships.

Parenting Styles Versus Practices

Earlier in this chapter an overview of Diana Baumrind’s long-accepted and empirically supported parenting model, in which she defined authoritarian (coercive), permissive, and authoritative forms of parenting (Baumrind, 1971). In addition to these typologies, a fourth, the uninvolved/disengaged parent (who is neither loving nor demanding), has also been added. Of these four forms of parenting, empirical research has generally found that authoritative parenting is ideal in supporting positive child and adolescent outcomes (Steinberg et al., 1994). In addition, this finding generally seems to hold for all racial and ethnic groups studied in the United States (Collins & Steinberg, 2007; Glasgow et al., 1997) as well as in a variety of cultures outside the United States (e.g., Hart et al., 1998; Vazsonyi et al., 2003).

Parenting styles have been defined as “constellations of behaviors that describe parent-child interactions over a wide range of situations and that are presumed to create a pervasive interactional climate” (Mize & Pettit, 1997, p. 312). Authoritative parents are presumed to create a positive interactional climate based on an optimal balance of high warmth and high expectations, which environment in turn leads children and adolescents to be most receptive to parental influence. Elder Robert D. Hales has taught, “The key to strengthening our families is having the Spirit of the Lord come into our homes” (Hales, 1999). In essence, authoritative parenting creates an interactional climate that not only promotes positive parent-child relationships but also invites the Spirit of the Lord.

Despite research clearly favoring authoritative parenting, significant debate continues about the appropriateness of promoting certain parenting practices. Disagreement also exists on how various practices fit into parenting style categories. For example, does the Western description of authoritative parenting adequately capture good parenting in all cultures and families? Alternatively, does authoritarian parenting always lead to negative child adjustment, or only in cultures where such practices are not the norm? Is it possible for parents to be mostly authoritative in child rearing, yet engage in a few authoritarian practices? Some argue, for example, that occasional spanking is a hallmark of a good parent. A related issue is that parents may be discouraged by what appears to be an overly high standard embodied in the ideals of authoritative parenting (also referred to as positive discipline). Being the perfect balance of both warm and demanding is not an easy standard to emulate. Is it enough to be authoritative-like, coming close to the standard?

Answers to these questions are partially informed by differentiating between parenting styles and practices. Parenting practices are “strategies undertaken by parents to achieve specific academic, athletic, or social competence goals in specific contexts and situations” (Hart et al., 1998). Strategies and goals are therefore linked together, and both may vary across families or cultures or both. Darling and Steinberg suggest the possibility that “authoritative parenting as a style is equally effective in socializing children across all cultural contexts, but that the goals toward which children are socialized, and thus parents’ practices, vary across these very same ecologies” (Darling & Steinberg, 1993, p. 494). Even similar goals may yield different practices across families and cultures.

In other words, certain practices tend to come together in defining a parenting style, but there is room for some flexibility in the practices that determine the overall feel (or style) of parenting. For example, parents express warmth to children in myriad ways. One family may emphasize appropriate humor to promote parent-child communication, while another may do so with gentle, hushed conversations at bedtime. The net effect of either, in terms of child competence, may be quite similar, particularly when such practices accompany more common authoritative practices.

Parents may also tailor their parenting to children of different temperaments or challenges and still be congruent in style with all their children. For example, relative to their siblings, some children may require more frequent conversations with their parents about how to solve behavior problems. Furthermore, in these conversations, parents can allow children to give input regarding how to resolve an issue. Different children may suggest varying consequences or solutions which, if considered appropriate by the parent, may allow for some diversity in discipline strategies.

This discussion ties in with recent debates over culture and parental style (particularly in regard to variations in parental control). For example, cross-cultural studies find that Asian parents are generally more strict and controlling (that is, authoritarian) than Caucasian parents in the United States. Yet Asian children tend to do well academically. Chao has argued that what appear to be authoritarian practices might arguably be more suitable for proper child development in Asian rather than Western cultures (Chao, 1994). This has led some to question whether authoritative parenting is really ideal across all cultures. If practices that are typically considered to be authoritarian (that is, strict) are perceived by children in another culture to be reflective of parental involvement and concern, perhaps no damage is done. In other words, can aversive parenting yield negative outcomes in one culture and positive or neutral outcomes in another?

Ronald Rohner has proposed a theory emphasizing that parenting practices are likely to be similarly perceived by children across cultures, ethnicities, races, genders, and socioeconomic backgrounds, and therefore yield similar outcomes. Rohner’s parental acceptance-rejection theory (PARTheory; Khaleque & Rohner, 2002) posits that children’s psychological adjustment depends on the degree to which they perceive parental acceptance or rejection. Thus, a child’s perceptions of acceptance or rejection by the parent may define healthy parenting practices, even if those specific practices vary across cultures. PARTheory has been particularly put to the test in studies that assess the effects of spanking across cultures. Results of these studies generally support PARTheory but also provide evidence for culture-specific associations.

For instance, corporal punishment is associated with children’s perceptions of parental rejection and negative psychological adjustment even in cultures where most parents and children endorse its regular use and describe it as evidence of good parenting (Rohner et al., 1991). Nonetheless, the correlation between spanking and negative child outcomes is less pronounced (though not neutral) in cultures where spanking is more normative (Lansford et al., 2005).

Therefore, whereas relatively mild authoritarian practices (like strictness) may blur the distinction between authoritarian and authoritative practices, harsh, rejecting practices (like consistent use of corporal punishment) appear more commonly to produce negative child outcomes across cultures (Nelson et al., 2006).

Another issue mentioned earlier is whether authoritative parents may feel permission at times to be more direct in the supervision of their children, including the occasional use of corporal punishment. Is it possible to be authoritative if you spank on occasion? Some research suggests that nonabusive spanking (not overly harsh or frequent in use), in the context of an otherwise warm relationship, may indeed yield few negative effects. McLoyd and Smith analyzed the longitudinal connections between maternal spanking and problem behavior over a six-year period (McLoyd & Smith, 2002). Results showed that spanking predicted increases in problem behavior over time, but only when maternal emotional support was low. In the context of high emotional support, spanking was not connected to problem behavior. This pattern held for European American, African American, and Hispanic children. Baumrind, Larzelere, and Owens have also studied different variants of parental control in preschool and their long-term (adolescent) correlates (Baumrind et al., 2010). They found, consistent with previous research, that authoritarian and permissive parenting predicted significant challenges in adolescence. 

However, normative physical punishment (spanking that is not overly harsh or frequent) appeared to be neutral in its long-term effects and was not practiced exclusively by authoritarian parents (consistent with surveys showing that most American parents spank their children, at least infrequently). This idea of normative physical punishment clashes with the views of other researchers who consider a blanket injunction against the use of spanking to be the best policy. Gershoff and Bitensky argue, for example, that the primary goal of any socialization should be to promote children’s internalization of the reasons for behaving appropriately rather than to behave solely to avoid punishment (Gershoff & Bitensky, 2007). . . . The research to date indicates that physical punishment does not promote long-term, internalized compliance (p. 234). 

Latter-day Saint prophets have counseled against the use of physical punishment with children. For example, President Gordon B. Hinckley taught,

I have never accepted the principle of ‘spare the rod and spoil the child.’ . . . Children don’t need beating. They need love and encouragement.” Parents should understand, therefore, that infrequent, nonabusive spanking, in the context of an otherwise warm and responsive relationship, may not cause lasting harm, but it is not likely to be a teaching (and internalization) moment. Similarly, permissive or uninvolved/disengaged parents who do not actively teach their children or confront them when they act inappropriately may find that their children will not learn important principles or learn to exercise proper self-governance (Hinckley, 1994).

Parents should therefore seek to abandon coercive or permissive parenting in favor of what Baumrind and colleagues call confrontive discipline, which involves “firm, direct, forceful, and consistent” responses to child misbehavior (Baumrind et al., 2010, p. 158). Authoritarian parents, although capable of confrontive discipline, tend to consistently resort to coercive discipline, which Baumrind and colleagues define as “peremptory, domineering, arbitrary, and concerned with retaining hierarchical family relationships” (p. 158). Power assertion, psychological control, severe physical punishment, and hostile criticism all signify coercion. The escalation to coercive discipline often stems from frustration and anger in parenting moments, and this escalation is often swift if parents do not feel significant warmth toward their children. In contrast, authoritative parents effectively balance giving high demands (being confrontive in response to child misbehavior) with being highly responsive (warm) while actively promoting appropriate child autonomy (rather than maintaining hierarchies and child subservience). In layman’s terms, authoritative parents optimally balance love, limits, and latitude in the parent-child relationship.

Is such a balance achievable or an overly high standard? According to Baumrind and colleagues (2010), parents can take comfort in being authoritative-like in that they may not optimally balance warmth, demands, and autonomy, but nonetheless come close. These parents are generally composed of two groups. The first group, directive parents, are those who are more demanding than they are warm (tilting a bit toward the more direct nature of authoritarian parents), but they generally avoid the coercive practices of the authoritarian style. Given their emphasis on demands, these parents may be a bit less likely to grant sufficient child autonomy. Democratic parents, in contrast, are more warm and supportive of child autonomy than they are demanding (tilting a bit toward the lenient nature of permissive parents). Yet they do not allow child autonomy to outweigh the need for adequate discipline. In Baumrind’s longitudinal research, the children of directive or democratic parents fare long-term just as well as children of the more optimally balanced authoritative parents.

Hence, parents need not despair if they do not feel that they are the perfect balance of being both responsive and demanding in their parenting approach. A parent who is not “bubbly” in his or her expression of warmth, yet is appropriately demanding, can do well in child rearing, so long as that parent provides sufficient amounts of warmth so that the child feels adequately accepted and not rejected (consistent with PARTheory). Similarly, favoring warmth and autonomy over being demanding need not provoke significant problems as long as the child experiences sufficient restraint when it is deemed necessary. The problems emerge when parents become too imbalanced in their behavior along these dimensions. For instance, the overemphasis on giving demands leads authoritarian parents into tragically rejecting forms of parenting (coercion), which quickly dissipate any semblance of warmth in the parent-child relationship.

Psychological Control versus Behavioral Control

An important distinction has also been emphasized in parenting research in recent years: behavioral versus psychological control. Behavioral control is generally what is meant by the term demandingness, in which parents monitor child behavior and hold children accountable when they misbehave. Appropriate behavioral control is necessary for positive child outcomes. Authoritarian parents engage in excessive behavioral control via coercive strategies, whereas permissive parents fail to provide adequate behavioral control. The tone and level of behavioral control are important to positive child development. In contrast, psychological control is generally considered to be harmful, regardless of its tone or level. Barber has defined psychological control as a rather insidious type of control that potentially inhibits or intrudes upon psychological development through manipulation and exploitation of the parent-child bond (e.g., love-withdrawal and guilt induction), negative affect-laden expressions and criticisms (e.g., disappointment and shame), and excessive personal control (e.g., possessiveness, protectiveness; Barber, 1996, p. 3297).

Generally speaking, psychologically controlling practices are consistent with the rejecting nature of the authoritarian style. But not all dimensions of psychological control may communicate rejection. Debate exists over whether practices such as guilt induction or love withdrawal might actually be productive in helping children learn social responsibility and appropriate feelings of guilt. Among clinicians, disappointment is clearly differentiated from shaming in its potential influence. Showing disappointment may be an appropriate way to get in a child’s head and trigger self-reflection and greater self-control without communicating rejection.

Evidence exists that parental psychological control is enacted from early childhood all the way through adulthood, as parents may struggle to keep even adult children subordinate to their wishes (Nelson et al., 2006). The following examples concern young adults, but the same behaviors can easily be imagined with earlier age groups.

Love withdrawal, guilt induction, and shaming are some of the essential elements of this type of control, in which the child’s psychological world and personal identity are manipulated as parents seek to force compliance with parental wishes. Love withdrawal is evidenced in the behavior of parents who cease talking with a child or become less affectionate when the child has displeased the parent (such as giving the cold shoulder, usually over extended periods). For example, a college-age woman visits home at Thanksgiving time and somehow offends her mother. Her mother starts to give her the silent treatment. The daughter, not certain what she did to offend, asks her mother for an explanation. Her mother, speaking through her father (as moderator), tells him to explain that the daughter knows what she did to offend and that the mother will not speak to her until she has apologized. No reconciliation occurs as the daughter does not know what to apologize for. This unreasonable situation continues all the way through Christmas break and well into the next year.

Guilt induction, in its worst manifestations, is about guilt trips that are gradually ratcheted up until compliance is met. For example, a daughter in her mid-twenties tells her mother that she plans to visit friends in another state for Thanksgiving. The mother values the entire family being together at Thanksgiving and immediately feels distressed. Rather than talking productively about her feelings, she chooses to exercise psychological control and seeks to manipulate her daughter into changing plans. The mother responds to the daughter by saying, “So, you love your friends more than your family?” The daughter is taken aback and deeply hurt by the accusation and the guilt it naturally induces. If the daughter decides to follow through with her plans, she may not be able to shake the feeling of guilt during her time away. According to her mother, she has betrayed the family. Notably, in this situation, guilt induction focuses on a direct personal attack on the goodness of the child. If such tactics fail to induce compliance, parents in such situations may grow more disaffected and prepare to level greater attacks in the future. The relationship will continue to sour, gradually replacing the good relationship experiences of the past.

As these examples should demonstrate, control is often the driving force behind such practices. Shaming, in particular, aims to keep the child psychologically subservient, even if that comes at the price of the child’s self-esteem and the parent-child relationship. Through these manipulative tactics, parents demean and belittle children, adolescents, and young adults, communicating distrust in the child’s ability to make proper choices.

Consistent with PARTheory, these behaviors communicate parental rejection. Anxiety and low self-esteem plague some children of such parents, whereas others respond to rejection with anger, rebellion, and estrangement. As hinted above, one of the most striking aspects of psychological control is that it is often employed in the service of otherwise worthy goals, such as a desire for family unity.

For example, two young adults meet, begin to date, and decide to marry. They approach their parents with the great news. They have already decided on a date, the temple of choice, and how to arrange the wedding dinner. Both sets of parents are taken aback by the sudden news, but only the young man’s parents react with psychological control. They tell the engaged couple that they do not like the date, the temple they selected, or the wedding dinner plans. They insist on a different date, a different temple, and a wedding luncheon rather than a dinner, which leaves the young woman feeling bewildered and confused. They restrict their son, who is still living at home, from seeing his fiancée more than once a week, telling him that he will have to move out if he does not comply. The young woman learns that the pattern in the family is for all the children to work for their father, who can then wield continued economic power over them (in case it is needed for compliance). Thus, the young couple is expected to live close to home and the business, and any plan to pursue other educational or work opportunities is automatically out of the question. These parents know best, even concerning the most minute details of their children’s lives, and even if the wedding plans should normally recognize the reasonable wishes of those who are being married. Seeking to compromise, the young woman changes some of her plans but refuses to change the choice of temple. This is sufficient cause for the young man to be pressured by his parents to cancel the engagement. Unfortunately, he complies. Fortunately, the young woman does not step further into this web of inappropriate control.

I hope it goes without saying that such techniques are inappropriate. Not all psychological control tactics are as harsh as those shared in these examples. All such tactics, however, will cause damage to the parent-child relationship and the child’s sense of self. There is evidence that shaming tactics, sometimes described as wounding words that demean or belittle, are actually more predictive of child maladjustment than physical punishment (Baumrind et al., 2010). Therefore, the campaign to reduce corporal punishment should be matched with a greater focus on ways to replace psychological control with healthier practices. As noted earlier, harsh parenting is often driven by intense anger and frustration on the part of parents. Parents would do well, then, to seek to better regulate themselves emotionally so their child does not feel rejected by them. In this vein, Brigham Young observed, “I have seen more parents who were unable to control themselves than I ever saw who were unable to control their children” (Young, 1870). In contrast, the more positive we are, the better our relationships will tend to be. President Hinckley taught this precept:

As children grow through the years, their lives, in large measure, become an extension and a reflection of family teaching. If there is harshness, abuse, uncontrolled anger, disloyalty, the fruits will be certain and discernable, and in all likelihood they will be repeated in the generation that follows. If, on the other hand, there is forbearance, forgiveness, respect, consideration, kindness, mercy, and compassion, the fruits again will be discernible, and they will be eternally rewarding. They will be positive and sweet and wonderful. . . . I speak to fathers and mothers everywhere with a plea to put harshness behind us, to bridle our anger, to lower our voices, and to deal with mercy and love and respect one toward another in our homes (Hinckley, 1990).

Some Parting Words

Baumrind appropriately captured the complexity of parenting when she described parents as having “the complex task of adjusting their demands and disciplinary methods flexibly to the developing capacities of the child so as to encourage social responsibility without discouraging independence and individuality” (Baumrind, 1978, p. 249). Striking the right balance between love, limits, and latitude in parenting is not a simple enterprise for most parents, particularly those who were not raised themselves in authoritative households. In addition, although authoritative parenting enhances the chances of parenting success, it does not guarantee that children will be compliant. Even the best parents sometimes have difficult children to raise due to no fault of their own. Parents who struggle with parenting at whatever level should be encouraged to constantly add potential tools to their “parenting toolbox” by turning to positive discipline books, examples of family and friends, and gospel teachings. With time, parents can improve as they implement sound principles. Parents should also remember that their own development did not end with adolescence; individuals continue to develop through their parenting experiences. A portion of adults’ collective wisdom is gained through the experience of parenthood.

The Latter-day Saint approach to teaching children, particularly through avenues such as family home evening and scripture study, is most essential to promoting understanding and internalization of important values that will guide behavior. Similarly, prayer encourages children’s sense of accountability to their Heavenly Father for their lives and actions. Elder David A. Bednar has given numerous insights into the value of gospel teaching, both for promoting positive child outcomes as well as for helping parents sense impending problems. In addition to standard venues such as family home evenings, Elder Bednar also encourages the numerous opportunities parents have to informally share gospel insights and testimony with their children (for example, at the dinner table in informal conversation; Bednar, 2010). In short, the family that embraces multiple opportunities to teach will generally find that they need to discipline their children less often as their children internalize principles and gradually evidence greater ability for self-control. Speaking of the exemplary society the Prophet Joseph Smith helped form in Nauvoo, he explained, “I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves” (Young, 1956; quoted in Young, 1965, Journal of Discourses, 10:57–58). This principle can be applied to parenting, with the recognition that the teaching must be adjusted to the developmental readiness of the child, and that teaching sometimes takes much time, even years, to fully sink in with the young (as well as the old). Parents should not be discouraged by the need to repeat themselves; the same principle is regularly practiced in our church meetings, as well as in our own parent-child relationship with Heavenly Father.

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Walters, E., & Wall, S. (1979). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation (digital print). Psychology Press.

Aizer, A. (2004). Home alone: Supervision after school and child behavior. Journal of Public Economics, 88(9–10), 1835–1848. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727(03)00022-7

Bahr, K. S. (1992). Family love as a paradigmatic alternative in family studies. Family Perspective, 26(3), 281–303.

Bahr, S. J., & Hoffmann, J. P. (2010). Parenting Style, Religiosity, Peers, and Adolescent Heavy Drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 71(4), 539–543. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2010.71.539

Ballard, M. R. (2003, August 19). The Sacred Responsibilities of Parenthood [Personal communication].

Ballard, M. R. (2008, May). Daughters of God. Ensign, 38, 108–110.

Barber, B. K. (1996). Child Development, 67(6), 3296. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131780

Barber, B. K., Olsen, J. E., & Shagle, S. C. (1994). Associations between Parental Psychological and Behavioral Control and Youth Internalized and Externalized Behaviors. Child Development, 65(4), 1120. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131309

Barnes, G. M., Hoffman, J. H., Welte, J. W., Farrell, M. P., & Dintcheff, B. A. (2006). Effects of Parental Monitoring and Peer Deviance on Substance Use and Delinquency. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(4), 1084–1104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00315.x

Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology, 4(1, Pt.2), 1–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030372

Baumrind, D. (1978). Parental Disciplinary Patterns and Social Competence in Children. Youth & Society, 9(3), 239–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X7800900302

Baumrind, D. (1993). The Average Expectable Environment Is Not Good Enough: A Response to Scarr. Child Development, 64(5), 1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131536

Baumrind, D. (1996). The Discipline Controversy Revisited. Family Relations, 45(4), 405. https://doi.org/10.2307/585170

Baumrind, D., Larzelere, R. E., & Owens, E. B. (2010). Effects of Preschool Parents’ Power Assertive Patterns and Practices on Adolescent Development. Parenting, 10(3), 157–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295190903290790

Bednar, D. A. (2010, May). Watching With All Preservance. Ensign, 40–43.

Behling, S. (2010). The impact of religiosity on parenting behaviors in Latter-day Saint families. [College of Liberal Arts and Sciences]. https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=etd

Behnke, A. O., & Allen, W. D. (2007). Beating the Odds: How Ethnically Diverse Fathers Matter. In S. E. Brotherson & J. M. White (Eds.), Why fathers count: The importance of fathers and their involvement with children. Men’s Studies Press.

Belsky, J. (2001). Emanuel Miller Lecture Developmental Risks (Still) Associated with Early Child Care. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42(7), 845–859. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-7610.00782

Benson, E. T. (1974). God, Family, Country: Our Three Great Loyalties. Deseret Book.

Benson, E. T. (1984, May). Counsel to the Saints. Ensign, 14, 6–8.

Benson, E. T. (1987, November). To the Fathers in Israel. Ensign, 14, 48–50.

Benson, E. T. (1990). To The Mothers In Zion. In Come, listen to a prophet’s voice. Deseret Book Co.

Berry, W. (1987, July). Men and women in search of common ground: Personal growth requires strong roots. Sunstone, 11, 8–12.

Blankenhorn, D. (1995). Fatherless America: Confronting our most urgent social problem. Basic Books.

Bohman, M. (2007). Predisposition to Criminality: Swedish Adoption Studies in Retrospect. In G. R. Bock & J. A. Goode (Eds.), Novartis Foundation Symposia (1st ed., pp. 99–114). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470514825.ch6

Bornstein, M. H., & Lamb, M. E. (Eds.). (2011). Developmental science: An advanced textbook (6. ed). Psychology Press.

Bretherton, I., & Munholland, K. A. (1999). Internal Working Models in Attachment Relationships: A Construct Revisited. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications (pp. 89–111). Guilford Press.

Bridges, L. J., & Moore, K. A. (2002). Religious Involvement and Children’s Well-Being: What Research Tells Us (And What It Doesn’t). Child Trends Research Brief, 11.

Brotherson, S., Dollahite, D., & Hawkins, A. (2005). Generative Fathering and the Dynamics of Connection between Fathers and Their Children. Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice about Men as Fathers, 3(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.3149/fth.0301.1

Brotherson, S. E., & White, J. M. (Eds.). (2007). Why fathers count: The importance of fathers and their involvement with children. Men’s Studies Press.

Buehler, C. (2006). Parents and Peers in Relation to Early Adolescent Problem Behavior. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(1), 109–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00237.x

Carver, T. N. (1913). Home Economics from Man’s Point of View. Journal of Home Economics, 5(4), 291–300.

Cavell, T. A., & Strand, P. S. (2003). Parent-based Interventions for Aggressive Children. In L. Kuczynski (Ed.), Handbook of Dynamics in Parent-Child Relations (pp. 395–415). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452229645

Chao, R. K. (1994). Beyond Parental Control and Authoritarian Parenting Style: Understanding Chinese Parenting Through the Cultural Notion of Training. Child Development, 65(4), 1111. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131308

Chapman, D. (2000, February). The Three Questions. New Era, 30, 26–27.

Christiansen, S. L., & Palkovitz, R. (2001). Why the “Good Provider” Role Still Matters: Providing as a Form of Paternal Involvement. Journal of Family Issues, 22(1), 84–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251301022001004

Clark, J. R. (1935). Messages of the First Presidency of The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Vol. 6). Bookcraft.

Clark, J. R. (1946, December). Our Wives and Mothers in the Eternal Plan. Relief Society Magazine, 33, 795–804.

Cline, F., & Fay, J. (1990). Parenting teens with love and logic: Preparing adolescents for responsible adulthood. Pi~non Press.

Collins, W. A., Maccoby, E. E., Steinberg, L., Hetherington, E. M., & Bornstein, M. H. (2000). Contemporary research on parenting: The case for nature and nurture. American Psychologist, 55(2), 218–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.2.218

Collins, W. A., & Steinberg, L. (2007). Adolescent Development in Interpersonal Context. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology (1st ed.). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0316

Comunian, A. L., & Gielen, U. P. (2006). Promotion of moral judgement maturity through stimulation of social role‐taking and social reflection: An Italian intervention study. Journal of Moral Education, 35(1), 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240500495302

Cott, N. F. (1997). The bonds of womanhood (2nd ed. with a new preface). Yale University Press.

Culpin, I., Heron, J., Araya, R., & Joinson, C. (2015). Early Childhood Father Absence and Depressive Symptoms in Adolescent Girls from a UK Cohort: The Mediating Role of Early Menarche. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 43(5), 921–931. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-014-9960-z

Damon, W., Lerner, R. M., & Einsberg, N. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of Child Psychology: Social, Emotional, and Personality Development (6th ed, Vol. 3). John Wiley & Sons.

Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 487–496. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.487

Dew, S. L. (2001, November). Are We Not All Mothers? Ensign, 31, 96–98.

Doherty, W. J., Kouneski, E. F., & Erickson, M. F. (1998). Responsible Fathering: An Overview and Conceptual Framework. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60(2), 277. https://doi.org/10.2307/353848

Dollahite, D. C. (2003). Fathering for Eternity: Generative Spirituality in Latter-Day Saint Fathers of Children with Special Needs. Review of Religious Research, 44(3), 237. https://doi.org/10.2307/3512385

Dollahite, D. C., Hawkins, A., & Brotherson, S. E. (1997). Fatherwork: A conceptual ethic of fathering as generative work. In A. J. Hawkins & D. C. Dollahite (Eds.), Generative Fathering: Beyond deficit perspectives (pp. 17–35). Sage Publications, Inc.

Dollahite, D., & Hawkins, A. (1998). A Conceptual Ethic of Generative Fathering. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 7(1), 190–132. https://doi.org/10.3149/jms.0701.190

Dorius, C. J., Bahr, S. J., Hoffmann, J. P., & Harmon, E. L. (2004). Parenting Practices as Moderators of the Relationship Between Peers and Adolescent Marijuana Use. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(1), 163–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00011.x-i1

Doucet, A. (2001). “You See the Need Perhaps More Clearly Than I Have”: Exploring Gendered Processes of Domestic Responsibility. Journal of Family Issues, 22(3), 328–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251301022003004

Doucet, A. (2006). Do men mother? Fathering, care, and domestic responsibility. University of Toronto Press.

Dowling, E. M., Gestsdottir, S., Anderson, P. M., Von Eye, A., Almerigi, J., & Lerner, R. M. (2004). Structural Relations Among Spirituality, Religiosity, and Thriving in Adolescence. Applied Developmental Science, 8(1), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532480XADS0801_2

Ellis, B. J., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., Fergusson, D. M., John Horwood, L., Pettit, G. S., & Woodward, L. (2003). Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual Activity and Teenage Pregnancy? Child Development, 74(3), 801–821. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00569

Elshtain, J. B. (1982). Feminism, Family, and Community. Dissent, 29, 442–449.

Erickson, M. F., & Aird, E. G. (2005). The Motherhood Study: Fresh Insights on Mothers’ Attitudes and Concerns (p. 10). Institute for American Values.

Erickson, R. J. (2005). Why emotion work matters: Sex, gender, and the division of household labor. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(2), 337–351. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2005.00120.x

Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). Norton.

Erikson, E. H. (1964). Insight and Responsibility: Lectures on the Ethical Implications of Psychoanalytic Insight. Norton.

Faust, J. E. (1986, September). A message to my granddaughters: Becoming “great women.” Ensign, 16, 16–21.

Faust, J. E. (1990, November). The greatest challenge in the world—Good Parenting. Ensign, 20, 32–35.

Fiese, B. H. (2006). Family routines and rituals. Yale University Press.

First Presidency & Council of the Twelve Apostles. (1995). The Family: A Proclamation to the World. Ensign. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual/the-family-a-proclamation?lang=eng

First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (1912). Statement Concerning Premortal Life. Improvement Era, 15, 417.

Furman, W., Simon, V. A., Shaffer, L., & Bouchey, H. A. (2002). Adolescents’ Working Models and Styles for Relationships with Parents, Friends, and Romantic Partners. Child Development, 73(1), 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00403

Gershoff, E. T., & Bitensky, S. H. (2007). The case against corporal punishment of children: Converging evidence from social science research and international human rights law and implications for U.S. public policy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 13(4), 231–272. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.13.4.231

Gibbs, J. C., Basinger, K. S., Grime, R. L., & Snarey, J. R. (2007). Moral judgment development across cultures: Revisiting Kohlberg’s universality claims. Developmental Review, 27(4), 443–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2007.04.001

Glasgow, K. L., Dornbusch, S. M., Troyer, L., Steinberg, L., & Ritter, P. L. (1997). Parenting Styles, Adolescents’ Attributions, and Educational Outcomes in Nine Heterogeneous High Schools. Child Development, 68(3), 507. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131675

Goddard, H. W. (2011, March 29). Godly Parenting: Compassion for Humanness. Latter-Day Saints Shaping Their World. https://latterdaysaintmag.com/article-1-7722/

Griswold, R. L. (1993). Fatherhood in America: A history (2nd ed.). Basic Books.

Guilamo‐Ramos, V., Jaccard, J., Dittus, P., & Bouris, A. M. (2006). Parental Expertise, Trustworthiness, and Accessibility: Parent‐Adolescent Communication and Adolescent Risk Behavior. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(5), 1229–1246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00325.x

Hafen, B. C. (2005a). Covenant Hearts: Marriage and the Joy of Human Love. Deseret Book Co.

Hafen, B. C. . (2005b). Covenant Hearts :Marriage and The Joy of Human Love. Deseret Book.

Hafen, B. C. ., & Hafen, M. K. (1994). “Eve heard all these things and was glad”: Grace and learning by experience. In D. H. Anderson & S. F. Green (Eds.), Women in the covenant of grace: Talks selected from the 1993 Women’s Conference (pp. 16–33). Deseret Book.

Hales, R. D. (1999, May). Strenghtening Families: Our Sacred Duty. Ensign, 32–34.

Hales, R. D. (2008, August 19). The Journey of Lifelong Learning [Personal communication].

Hall, J. M. (2007a). Strong Fathers as Strong Teachers: Supporting and Strenghtening a Child’s Education. In S. E. Brotherson & J. M. White (Eds.), Why fathers count: The importance of fathers and their involvement with children (pp. 319–333). Men’s Studies Press.

Hall, J. M. (2007b). Strong Fathers as Strong Teachers: Supporting and Strenghtening a Child’s Education. In S. E. Brotherson & J. M. White (Eds.), Why fathers count: The importance of fathers and their involvement with children (pp. 319–333). Men’s Studies Press.

Harris, J. R. (1998). The nurture assumption: Why children  turn out the way they do; Parents matter less than you think and peers matter more. Free Press.

Hart, C. H. (2005, August 5). Our Divine Nature And Life Decisions. https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/craig-h-hart/divine-nature-life-decisions/

Hart, C. H., Nelson, D. A., Robinson, C. C., Olsen, S. F., & McNeilly-Choque, M. K. (1998). Overt and relational aggression in Russian nursery-school-age children: Parenting style and marital linkages. Developmental Psychology, 34(4), 687–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.34.4.687

Hart, C. H., Newell, L. D., & Olsen, S. F. (2003). Parenting Skills and Social-Communicative Competence in Childhood. In J. O. Greene & B. R. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of Communication and Social Interaction (pp. 753–800). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hawkins, A. J., & Dollahite, D. C. (1997). Beyond the Role-inadequacy Perspective of Fathering. In Generative Fathering: Beyond Deficit Perspectives (pp. 3–16). Sage Publications, Inc.

Hawkins, A. J., Spangler, D. L., Hudson, V., Dollahite, D. C., Klein, S. R., Rugh, S. S., & Hill, E. J. (2000). Equal Partnership and the Sacred Responsibilities of Mothers and Fathers. In D. C. Dollahite (Ed.), Strengthening our families: An in-depth look at the proclamation on the family (pp. 63–82). School of Family Life, Brigham Young University.

Heschel, A. J. (1975). The wisdom of Heschel. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Hill, E. J., Martinengo, G., & Jacob, J. (2007). Working Fathers: Providing and Nurturing in Harmony. In S. E. Brotherson & J. M. White (Eds.), Why fathers count: The importance of fathers and their involvement with children (pp. 279–292). Men’s Studies Press.

Hinckley, G. B. (1990, May). Blessed are the Merciful. Ensign, 20, 68–70.

Hinckley, G. B. (1994, November). Save the Children. Ensign, 24, 52–54.

Hinckley, G. B. (1997a). Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley. Deseret Book Co.

Hinckley, G. B. (1997b, November). Some Thoughts On Temples, Retention, of Converts, and Missionary Service. Ensign, 27, 49–52.

Hinckley, M. P., & Pearce, V. H. (Eds.). (1999). Glimpses into the life and heart of Marjorie Pay Hinckley. Deseret Book Co.

Holden, G. W. (1995). Parental Attitudes Toward Childrearing. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting. 3: Status and social conditions of parenting (pp. 359–392). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hubbs‐Tait, L., Culp, A. M., Culp, R. E., & Miller, C. E. (2002). Relation of Maternal Cognitive Stimulation, Emotional Support, and Intrusive Behavior during Head Start to Children’s Kindergarten Cognitive Abilities. Child Development, 73(1), 110–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00395

Hunter, H. W. (1994, November). Being a Righteous Husband and Father. Ensign, 24, 49–51.

Jacob, J. I. (2009). The socio‐emotional effects of non‐maternal childcare on children in the USA: A critical review of recent studies. Early Child Development and Care, 179(5), 559–570. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430701292988

Jang, S. J., & Johnson, B. R. (2001). Neighborhood disorder, individual religiosity, and adolescent use of ilicit drugs: A test of multilevel hypotheses. Criminology, 39(1), 109–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2001.tb00918.x

Kerestes, M., Youniss, J., & Metz, E. (2004). Longitudinal Patterns of Religious Perspective and Civic Integration. Applied Developmental Science, 8(1), 39–46. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532480XADS0801_5

Khaleque, A., & Rohner, R. P. (2002). Perceived Parental Acceptance‐Rejection and Psychological Adjustment: A Meta‐Analysis of Cross‐Cultural and Intracultural Studies. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(1), 54–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00054.x

Kimball, S. W. (1976, March). The Blessings and Responsibilities of Womanhood. Ensign, 6, 70–73.

Kimball, S. W. (1982). The Teachings Of Spencer W. Kimball, Twelfth President Of The Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints. Bookcraft.

King, P. E., & Furrow, J. L. (2004). Religion as a Resource for Positive Youth Development: Religion, Social Capital, and Moral Outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 40(5), 703–713. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.40.5.703

Kobak, R. (1999). The Emotional Dynamics of Disruptions in Attachment Relationships: Implications for Theory, Research, and Clinical Intervention. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of Attachment (pp. 21–43). Guilford Press.

Kochanska, G. (1997). Mutually Responsive Orientation between Mothers and Their Young Children: Implications for Early Socialization. Child Development, 68(1), 94. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131928

Kochanska, G. (2002). Committed compliance, moral self, and internalization: A mediational model. Developmental Psychology, 38(3), 339–351. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.38.3.339

Krampe, E. M., & Fairweather, P. D. (1993). Father Presence and Family Formation: A Theoretical Reformulation. Journal of Family Issues, 14(4), 572–591. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251393014004006

Krein, S. F., & Beller, A. H. (1988a). Children Who Grow up in Fatherless Households Complete Fewer Years of Schooling Than Others. Family Planning Perspectives, 20(3), 148. https://doi.org/10.2307/2135709

Krein, S. F., & Beller, A. H. (1988b). Educational attainment of children from single-parent families: Differences by exposure, gender, and race. Demography, 25(2), 221–234. https://doi.org/10.2307/2061290

Kuczynski, L. (Ed.). (2003). Handbook of Dynamics in Parent-child Relations. Sage Publications.

Laird, R. D., Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (2003). Parents’ Monitoring‐Relevant Knowledge and Adolescents’ Delinquent Behavior: Evidence of Correlated Developmental Changes and Reciprocal Influences. Child Development, 74(3), 752–768. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00566

Lansford, J. E., Chang, L., Dodge, K. A., Malone, P. S., Oburu, P., Palmérus, K., Bacchini, D., Pastorelli, C., Bombi, A. S., Zelli, A., Tapanya, S., Chaudhary, N., Deater‐Deckard, K., Manke, B., & Quinn, N. (2005). Physical Discipline and Children’s Adjustment: Cultural Normativeness as a Moderator. Child Development, 76(6), 1234–1246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00847.x

LaRossa, R. (1997). The modernization of fatherhood: A social and political history. University of Chicago Press.

Latshaw, J. (1998). The Centrality of Faith in Fathers’ Role Construction: The Faithful Father and the Axis Mundi Paradigm. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 7(1), 53–70. https://doi.org/10.3149/jms.0701.53

Lee, D. (1966). To be or not to be: Notes on the meaning of maternity. In K. Bahr, A. Hawkins, & S. Klein (Eds.), Readings in Family Science 371 (pp. 133–138). Kendall/Hunt Publishing.

Lee, H. B. (1972, February). Ensign, 2, 48–56.

Leman, P. (2005). Authority and moral reasons: Parenting style and children’s perceptions of adult rule justifications. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29(4), 265–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250544000044

Letiecq, B., & Koblinsky, S. (2003). African-American Fathering of Young Children in Violent Neighborhoods: Paternal Protective Strategies and Their Predictors. Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice about Men as Fathers, 1(3), 215–237. https://doi.org/10.3149/fth.0103.215

Lewis, T., Amini, F., & Lannon, R. (2000). A General Theory of Love. Random House.

Luster, T., Bates, L., Vandenbelt, M., & Angela Nievar, M. (2004). Family Advocates’ Perspectives on the Early Academic Success of Children Born to Low‐Income Adolescent Mothers*. Family Relations, 53(1), 68–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2004.00010.x

Marks, L. D., & Dollahite, D. C. (2007). Turning the Hearts of Fathers to Their Children: Why Religious Involvement Can Make a Difference. In S. E. Brotherson & J. M. White (Eds.), Why fathers count (pp. 335–351). Men’s Studies Press. http://hdl.lib.byu.edu/1877/7766

McConkie, B. R. (1979). The mortal Messiah: From Bethlehem to Calvary (Vol. 1). Deseret Book Co.

McKay, D. O. (1953). Gospel ideals: Selections from the discourses of David O McKay. Deseret News Press.

McLoyd, V. C., & Smith, J. (2002). Physical Discipline and Behavior Problems in African American, European American, and Hispanic Children: Emotional Support as a Moderator. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(1), 40–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00040.x

Mize, J., & Pettit, G. S. (1997). Mothers’ Social Coaching, Mother-Child Relationship Style, and Children’s Peer Competence: Is the Medium the Message? Child Development, 68(2), 312. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131852

Monson, T. S. (1992). Memories of Yesterday. Ensign, 22, 4–5.

Monson, T. S. (1998, April). Behold Thy Mother. Ensig, 28, 2–6.

Mosley, J., & Thomson, E. (1995). Fathering Behavior and Child Outcomes: The Role of Race and Poverty. In W. Marsiglio, Fatherhood: Contemporary Theory, Research, and Social Policy (pp. 148–165). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483327242.n8

Nelson, D. A., Hart, C. H., Yang, C., Olsen, J. A., & Jin, S. (2006). Aversive Parenting in China: Associations With Child Physical and Relational Aggression. Child Development, 77(3), 554–572. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00890.x

NICHD. (2003). Does Amount of Time Spent in Child Care Predict Socioemotional Adjustment During the Transition to Kindergarten? Child Development, 74(4), 976–1005. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00582

Oaks, D. H. (2009, November). Love and Law. Ensign, 39, 26–29.

Packer, B. K. (1986, November). Little Children. Ensign, 16, 16–18.

Packer, B. K. (1996, May). The Word of Wisdom: The Principle and the Promises. Ensign, 26, 17–19.

Patterson, G. R., Forgatch, M. S., & DeGarmo, D. S. (2010). Cascading effects following intervention. Development and Psychopathology, 22(4), 949–970. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579410000568

Pearce, L. D., & Haynie, D. L. (2004). Intergenerational Religious Dynamics and Adolescent Delinquency. Social Forces, 82(4), 1553–1572. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2004.0089

Pleban, F. T., & Diez, K. S. (2007). Fathers as Mentors: Bridging the Gap Between Generations. In S. E. Brotherson & J. M. White (Eds.), Why fathers count: The importance of fathers and their involvement with children (pp. 307–318). Men’s Studies Press.

Pleck, J. H. (1997). Paternal Involvement: Levels, sources, and consequences. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (3rd ed., pp. 66–103). John Wiley & Sons.

Polatnick, M. R. (1984). Why Men Don’t Rear Children: A Power Analysis. In J. Trebilcot (Ed.), Mothering: Essays in feminist theory (pp. 21–40). Rowman & Allanheld.

Pruett, K. D. (1998). Role of the Father. Pediatrics, 102(Supplement_E1), 1253–1261. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.102.SE1.1253

Pruett, K. D. (2001). Fatherneed: Why father care is as essential as mother care for your child (Reprint). Broadway Books.

Regenerus, M., Smith, C., & Fritsch, M. (2003). Religion in the Lives of American Adolescents: A Review of the Literature (3; pp. 1–56). National Study of Youth and Religion. https://youthandreligion.nd.edu/assets/102506/religion_in_the_lives_of_american_adolescents_a_review_of_the_literature.pdf

Reiss, D., Neiderhiser, J. M., Hetherington, E. M., & Plomin, R. (2000). The relationship code: Deciphering genetic and social influences on adolescent development. Harvard University Press.

Ring, K. (2006). What mothers do: Everyday routines and rituals and their impact upon young children’s use of drawing for meaning making. International Journal of Early Years Education, 14(1), 63–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760500446416

Rohner, R. P., Kean, K. J., & Cournoyer, D. E. (1991). Effects of Corporal Punishment, Perceived Caretaker Warmth, and Cultural Beliefs on the Psychological Adjustment of Children in St. Kitts, West Indies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53(3), 681. https://doi.org/10.2307/352743

Roiphe, A. R. (1996). Fruitful: A real mother in the modern world. Houghton Mifflin.

Roy, K., & Lucas, K. (2006). Generativity as Second Chance: Low-Income Fathers and Transformation of the Difficult Past. Research in Human Development, 3(2), 139–159. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15427617rhd0302&3_5

Ruddick, S. (1984). Maternal Thinking. In J. Trebilcot (Ed.), Mothering: Essays in feminist theory (pp. 213–231). Rowman & Allanheld.

Scarr, S. (1992). Developmental Theories for the 1990s: Development and Individual Differences. Child Development, 63(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130897

Schore, A. N. (1994). Affect regulation and the origin of the self: The neurobiology of emotional development. L. Erlbaum Associates.

Scott, R. G. (1993, November). Acquiring Spiritual Knowledge. Ensign, 23, 86–88.

Scott, R. G. (1996, November). The joy of living the great plan of happiness. Ensign, 26, 73–75.

Sebald, H. (1986). Adolescents’ Shifting Orientation toward Parents and Peers: A Curvilinear Trend over Recent Decades. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.2307/352223

Seiden, H. M. (2009). On the longing for home. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 26(2), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015539

Sigle-Rushton, W., & McLanahan, S. (2002). Father Absence and Child Well-being: A Critical Review (p. 55). Center for Research on Child Well-Being.

Silverstein, L. B., & Auerbach, C. F. (1999). Deconstructing the Essential Father. American Psychologist, 54(6), 397–407. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.6.397

Smith, C., & Denton, M. L. (2009). Soul searching: The religious and spiritual lives of American teenagers (1. issued as an Oxford University Press paperback). Oxford Univ. Press.

Smith, J. (1916, March). Is man immortal? Improvement Era, 19, 425–431.

Smith, J. F. (1986). Gospel doctrine: Selections from the sermons and writings of Joseph F. Smith. Deseret Book.

Smith, P. K., & Hart, C. H. (Eds.). (2011). The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of childhood social development (2nd ed). Wiley-Blackwell.

Snarey, J. (1993). How Fathers Care for the Next Generation: A Four-Decade Study. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674365995

Sorensen, A. D., & Hudson, V. M. (2004). Women in eternity, women of Zion. Published by Bonneville Books, an imprint of Cedar Fort, Inc.

Speicher, B. (1994). Family patterns of moral judgment during adolescence and early adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 30(5), 624–632. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.30.5.624

Sroufe, L. A., Carlson, E., & Shulman, S. (1993). Individuals in relationships: Development from infancy through adolescence. In D. C. Funder, R. D. Parke, C. Tomlinson-Keasey, & K. Widaman (Eds.), Studying lives through time: Personality and development. (pp. 315–342). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10127-030

Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Darling, N., Mounts, N. S., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1994). Over-Time Changes in Adjustment and Competence among Adolescents from Authoritative, Authoritarian, Indulgent, and Neglectful Families. Child Development, 65(3), 754. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131416

Stern, D. N., & Bruschweiler-Stern, N. (1998). The birth of a mother: How the motherhood experience changes you forever. BasicBooks.

Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., & Bornstein, M. H. (1989). Habituation and Maternal Encouragement of Attention in Infancy as Predictors of Toddler Language, Play, and Representational Competence. Child Development, 60(3), 738. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130739

Tannenhauser, L. (1995). Motherhood Stress. In K. S. Bahr, A. J. Hawkins, & S. R. Klein (Eds.), Readings in family science 371 (pp. 116–120). Kendall/Hunt.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (1835). Book of doctrine and covenants: Carefully selected from the revelations of God, and given in the order of their dates. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (1997). Teachings Of Presidents Of The Church: Brigham Young. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (2002). Teachings of President of the Church: Heber J. Grant. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The Holy Bible, King James Version. (1611). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt?lang=eng

Thompson, B. (2007, November). I Will Strenghten Thee; I Will Help Thee. Ensign, 37, 115–117.

Tienari, P., Wynne, L. C., Sorri, A., Lahti, I., Läksy, K., Moring, J., Naarala, M., Nieminen, P., & Wahlberg, K.-E. (2004). Genotype–environment interaction in schizophrenia-spectrum disorder: Long-term follow-up study of Finnish adoptees. British Journal of Psychiatry, 184(3), 216–222. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.184.3.216

Top, B. L., & Chadwick, B. A. (1998). Raising Righteous Children in a Wicked World. BYU Magazine. https://magazine.byu.edu/article/raising-righteous-children-in-a-wicked-world/

Vazsonyi, A. T., Hibbert, J. R., & Blake Snider, J. (2003). Exotic Enterprise No More? Adolescent Reports of Family and Parenting Processes From Youth in Four Countries. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13(2), 129–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/1532-7795.1302001

Votruba‐Drzal, E. (2003). Income Changes and Cognitive Stimulation in Young Children’s Home Learning Environments. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65(2), 341–355. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00341.x

Webster-Stratton, C. (1999). How to Promote Children’s Social and Emotional Competence (1st ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.

Whisnant, R. (2004). Woman Centered: A Feminist Ethic of Responsibility. In P. DesAutels & M. U. Walker (Eds.), Moral Psychology: Feminist Ethics and Social Theory (pp. 201–217). Rowman & Littlefield.

Wilcox, W. B., & Nock, S. L. (2006). What’s Love Got To Do With It? Equality, Equity, Commitment and Women’s Marital Quality. Social Forces, 84(3), 1321–1345. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2006.0076

Young, B. (1864, December 21). Deseret News Weekly 1864-12-21. Brigham Young University, 2.

Young, B. (1870, July 12). Deseret News Semi-Weekly. Deseret News Semi-Weekly, 2.

Young, B. (1956). Journal of Discourses (Vol. 9). Brigham Young University.

Young, B. (1998). Discources of Brigham Young (J. A. Widtsoe, Ed.). Deseret Books.

Zhou, Q., Eisenberg, N., Losoya, S. H., Fabes, R. A., Reiser, M., Guthrie, I. K., Murphy, B. C., Cumberland, A. J., & Shepard, S. A. (2002). The Relations of Parental Warmth and Positive Expressiveness to Children’s Empathy‐Related Responding and Social Functioning: A Longitudinal Study. Child Development, 73(3), 893–915. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00446