"Mother At Home..."

[changed]

I have read some stuff like this:

Full-time daycare for infants and toddlers is stressful. This negative state is induced by perception of maternal rejection and abandonment, lack of an ongoing empathic dyadic relationship with the mother, and having to interact with multiple caregivers. The lack of empathic care the children are experiencing creates a growth-inhibiting environment that produces immature, physiologically undifferentiated orbital affect regulatory systems and parcellation of corticolimbic circuitries. Daycare stress is activating each child's hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis on a daily basis causing a persistent overproduction of corticotropin-release factor (CRF) and an ongoing release of abnormally high levels of stress hormones such as cortisol and the catecholamines, hormones that may disrupt the neurobiological maturation of the developing brain and destroy brain cells. These stress-induced impairments are implicated in an enduring vulnerability to various later-forming psychiatric disorders such as depression, chronic anxiety, attachment disorders, dissociative disorders, learning disorders, and attention deficit-hyperactivity (ADHD). The empathic dyadic attachment and secure attachment needed for the experience-dependent maturation of the regulatory system in the orbital prefrontal cortex may not be possible in a full-tune daycare setting. The infants and toddlers in daycare often develop insecure-avoidant attachment or non-attachment disorders...

https://birthpsychol...-daycare-center

There's stuff like this too: link

"Divorce rates are far higher among “modern” couples who share the housework than in those where the woman does the lion’s share of the chores, a Norwegian study has found."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As a mom of 3 little ones, I've personally been back and forth. On one hand I have a PhD and have worked at some fun places, but then I gave it up for the kids because I was in a situation where I could. Now I'm slowly getting sucked into working again, (not through necessity, but because of some fun hobbies that are turning into more than hobbies) but I can work from home, so I still see myself as a stay-at-home mom. The work I am doing now is actually more fun than what I was doing, and I am happy to have had the mommy sabbatical, as it has opened up new opportunities for me.

Edited February 27, 2013 by changed

[thesometimesaint]

Official Church doctrine is anything taught by the officials of the Church.

I know some people will balk at that, but that's what it actually is.

So, yeah, when it was taught, it was official doctrine, and to the extent that it's still taught by the officials, it still is.

... and I, for one, am very thankful to have a wonderful wife who is able to stay home and make our home feel like my home.

Home is the best place to be, and whenever I leave I always want to come back.

That isn't what the Church says.

See http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

[thesometimesaint]

I believe the key is in the PotF itself.

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

[canard78]

Although I may be considered, by some, a 'liberal' voice on here, I would still hold with the view that ideally a parent is full time at home and, ideally, it's the mother.

I was very grateful to meet and marry someone who's first aspiration was as mother/homemaker. I have always told her that if she chooses to work I will support it but that I'm happy if she doesn't.

Having said that, I would hope a woman is never taught that being a "mother at home" is an indication of righteousness.

[canard78]

Official Church doctrine is anything taught by the officials of the Church.

I know some people will balk at that, but that's what it actually is.

So, yeah, when it was taught, it was official doctrine, and to the extent that it's still taught by the officials, it still is.

... and I, for one, am very thankful to have a wonderful wife who is able to stay home and make our home feel like my home.

Home is the best place to be, and whenever I leave I always want to come back.

Your definition of doctrine is false doctrine...

But I appreciate your praise of your wife

[amo]

Although I may be considered, by some, a 'liberal' voice on here, I would still hold with the view that ideally a parent is full time at home and, ideally, it's the mother.

I was very grateful to meet and marry someone who's first aspiration was as mother/homemaker. I have always told her that if she chooses to work I will support it but that I'm happy if she doesn't.

Having said that, I would hope a woman is never taught that being a "mother at home" is an indication of righteousness. [bold, color, etc. mine]

If you only knew the number of times I've heard sisters cry as they tell me how unworthy they feel for having to work, since their husbands'salaries can't make ends meet by the end of the month. This feeling gets even worse after hearing a "well intentioned" comment or speech by of one of our so called "brothers" or "sisters", who sometimes even go further and say that "we shouldn't be ashamed of teaching the truth"...

AMO

Edited February 27, 2013 by amo

[Yep]

That isn't what the Church says.

See http://www.mormonnew...mormon-doctrine

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

I believe this. However, I also have difficulty with the attitude that many have concerning statements made by past Prophets and Apostles, primarily based in this concept imo. Just because it isn't "doctrine" does not disqualify a statement as being true. There are too often members who disparage much of Brigham Young's, as well as other past authorities', statements because they have been told that the statements are not "doctrine", are supposition and/or speculation or merely Brigham Young'd personal opinion. Regardless of whether a Prophet's words are "doctrine" or not, their position lends credence to their words. I would rely on Brigham Young's supposition and speculation to an extent that for me nearly constitutes "doctrine" for me. Brigham young's position was much better informed and his interaction with God and Christ were on a level that I believe that his theories hold more validity than not. I do however believe that given continuing revelation, and thus a belief in a correct current doctrinal state, all statements by past authorities must be in line with our doctrine and not conflict, thus an interpretation thereof must be performed using the Doctrine of the Church as being completely in line with the statement. This then invalidates interpretations that support concepts like Adam-God theory and others. This does not invalidate the statements, it simply cautions that interpretations that are not in line with our current Doctrine are not correct interpretations. As LDS, I believe that we should accept the words of our Prophets and Apostles, past and present, to be true regardless of whether the statements are "doctrine" or not.

This does have one caveat as well though. There are concepts and teachings that are time specific. Statements concerning the necessity of this or that may have been true at the time they were given for the Lord's people at that time, but given a change in doctrine, such statements are not binding upon those not living under such a imperitive. For Example: animal sacrifice is no longer performed, but the statements concerning its necessity are true, simply no longer applicable.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

It surprises me how many men don't feel like their wives are contributing to their families because they don't bring in money. Any wife with a husband like this should go on cooking/laundry/cleaning strike so he understands how much she does.

Any husband who believes his wife is not contributing...just because she is not bringing in money, is not worthy to have her. Sadly many women in our world think "stay at home Mothers" are failures. A very large % of these women preach "a woman's right to choose". Apparently only one choice, to abort their children.

[volgadon]

Any husband who believes his wife is not contributing...just because she is not bringing in money, is not worthy to have her.

AMEN!

[MorningStar]

On the opposite end I know men whose wives harass them endlessly to work harder for a bigger paycheck. I think the baby boomer generation (or myth of that generation) screwed with ideas of what you need to live. The church is not going to all be wealthy upper-middle class.

That's awful too. It seems like previous generations of women were more practical, but a lot of women my age think they need regular pedicures, monthly hair appointments, large houses they need housekeepers to clean, multiple vacations per year, gym memberships, iPhones, etc. I'd rather have more time with my husband and get my hair cut once a year.

[Ahab]

Your definition of doctrine is false doctrine...

All you have to do to figure out what is official Church doctrine is to find out the definition of "official" and the definition of "Church" and the definition of "doctrine", and them put them all together.

I think the problem for most people is when they see or hear an official in the Church teach something another official either doesn't teach or seems to contradict, but at that point all you have to know is which offiical is the higher ranking official, knowing his teaching carries more weight than the teaching of the lower ranking official in the Church.

And it also helps to realize that it is God who we are to worship, rather than to worship the Church, lest you get discouraged by seeing or hearing people in the Church teaching conflicting doctrine. The Church (meaning the assembly of people) just isn't as perfect as God is, yet, but with God to help us we will be, eventually, someday.

But I appreciate your praise of your wife.

I try to do that as much as I can. She deserves so much more than I can give her right now, though, and I don't know if I'll ever be able to thank her enough for all she does for me, and us.

[thesometimesaint]

I believe this. However, I also have difficulty with the attitude that many have concerning statements made by past Prophets and Apostles, primarily based in this concept imo. Just because it isn't "doctrine" does not disqualify a statement as being true. There are too often members who disparage much of Brigham Young's, as well as other past authorities', statements because they have been told that the statements are not "doctrine", are supposition and/or speculation or merely Brigham Young'd personal opinion. Regardless of whether a Prophet's words are "doctrine" or not, their position lends credence to their words. I would rely on Brigham Young's supposition and speculation to an extent that for me nearly constitutes "doctrine" for me. Brigham young's position was much better informed and his interaction with God and Christ were on a level that I believe that his theories hold more validity than not. I do however believe that given continuing revelation, and thus a belief in a correct current doctrinal state, all statements by past authorities must be in line with our doctrine and not conflict, thus an interpretation thereof must be performed using the Doctrine of the Church as being completely in line with the statement. This then invalidates interpretations that support concepts like Adam-God theory and others. This does not invalidate the statements, it simply cautions that interpretations that are not in line with our current Doctrine are not correct interpretations. As LDS, I believe that we should accept the words of our Prophets and Apostles, past and present, to be true regardless of whether the statements are "doctrine" or not.

This does have one caveat as well though. There are concepts and teachings that are time specific. Statements concerning the necessity of this or that may have been true at the time they were given for the Lord's people at that time, but given a change in doctrine, such statements are not binding upon those not living under such a imperitive. For Example: animal sacrifice is no longer performed, but the statements concerning its necessity are true, simply no longer applicable.

I'm under no obligation to accept anything that is not true.

I think we have to consider context as well as absolute truth to determine the merits of what anyone including Prophets have to say. IOW A prophet is only a prophet when acting as such. No one mortal man, or woman, in the Church is infallible in everything they say. Further I don't believe that God makes sock puppets.

I accept as Prophets of God all the prophets from JS to THM. Even if I don't agree with everything they say. Brigham Young was a great man, and a great leader of the Church after the death of Joseph Smith and it is my feeling that without his leadership the Church would not have survived. But he was an authoritarian leader and as such would not be well suited for the realities of today's Church. JFS famously said that man would never be on the moon, but he was wrong. He said so after being presented with a US flag that had been on the moon. He was still a good man and a good prophet. We are better off for his wise compassionate leadership.

We have a set, and long accepted method for determining what is Church Doctrine and the suppositions, speculations, and ruminations of a single individual or small group of individuals no matter how well intentioned or not, in any leadership position high or low they are, do not Doctrine make.

As per our Articles of Faith I expect changes in Doctrine, I don't expect big changes in it. More fine tuning as it were.

Edited February 27, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Maidservant]

Not always. I have friends and relatives whose husbands throw fits if they aren't bringing in money even though they do the majority of the cooking, cleaning, and laundry. When my friend was going out of town, she got the house spotless and prepared a bunch of freezer meals so her husband would have an easy week, but she had been frustrated about how he wouldn't "let" her quit her job and has asked her, "Don't you want to contribute to our family?" That was a huge slap in the face. I said, "Why are you doing everything for him? You should let him cook and clean while you're gone so he understands how hard your job is!" She is burnt out from working and taking care of their home. They have plenty of money, so there's no reason for her to work. The kids even recognized she was much happier during their last break and she doesn't understand why it's not worth it to him to have a less stressed wife. He'll tell her she can quit when they have x amount of money, but when that happens, he tells her again that making more money would be even better.

When I was watching kids in our home, it wasn't worth it to my husband because I was so stressed. He begged me to quit. No, I don't feel it's a huge number, but it surprises me how many LDS men I know who seem to have missed how wives should be able to stay home when possible and that they are responsible for supporting the family financially.

If what you report is correct, she has bigger problems than the money, if he is telling her what to do at all. Two adults in a healthy relationship should not be making decisions for the other.

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

Which, tellingly, says nothing about the mother being in the home as a necessary application of those principles. It doesn't say where either gender needs to be, at all. I don't think that's an accident. They would have said it, if it was integral.

~ ~ ~ ~

I am going to say a bunch of things that may not be in any particular order.

First of all, there is no female gene for housework.

Being an at-home mother is one thing; being an at-home housekeeper is something completely different. As a woman, I absolutely want the biggest part of my life to be direct engagement with my children. I would expect my husband to feel the same and do what he could to act the same. But it doesn't follow that the rest of my time needs to be doing housework or even be AT home ALL the time. Housework is for maids and/or for anyone who happens to live in that house. We hire plumbers, car mechanics, computer techs, why don't we hire out the housecleaning? Because we can't get our heads wrapped around disassociating house work with gender or from mothering or from identity at all. Housecleaning is for people who own a house, NOT gender related in any sense. And perhaps best left to the professionals, lol.

Second of all, the format of public/private is a paradigm created by capitalism and other modern expediencies. For better or worse (and different folks may have different opinions on it), it is nevertheless a human invention, this public/private divide. When you say, it is best for me to stay home as a mother, I ask you, where is my home? You are telling me that my HOME is a box with four walls and siding? Why? Why does staying inside this box constitute me being a better mother? The whole WORLD is my home. There are some people who like to stay still in one place. There are some people who need to roam. So does a system that does not acknowledge these differences automatically cast me as an insufficient mother? What if I don't want to be at home at all? What if I want to take a three year road trip? Well, as a mother, I would take my kids WITH me. What if I want to work as a lawyer? It might be hard to have small children there, but what about creating work environments where family can be there? Have teenagers help with filing? We've created this system where we GO to work, and STAY at home, and we've decided that men GO, and women STAY. It really doesn't make a lot of sense ultimately speaking! And there are lots of movements for creating more family friendly work environments and/or even having men work from home, so we can continue to create changes to our system. But what ought to remain is putting our children first, no matter what the specific application of that is to be.

Third of all, heavenly Father's job is to care for his children 24/7, so our model is NOT that it is women's work, but that is it men's work. What is up with that? ha ha

Fourth of all, I was one of those who had a disabled husband and now I'm single. I did start out thinking I would be traditional, but I've come a long way baby both in terms of practical and in the way I understand things. I HAVE hated being forced by the system to be away from my children more than I want, AND I have made decisions to have less money but jobs that permit more time at home (single mom). But my point is that some people want to comfort me and I used to even say to myself, Hey, it's ok, there are exceptions. But here's the thing. I don't want to think of myself as an exception, an anomaly, a broken thing, something insufficient, something not exactly right even if its the best I can do. I just want to be ME. I want to be a human being who has children and who has to deal with capitalism and who has no adult partner with which to make decisions for our family. I don't want to be the exception or to have to cast myself that way.

Fifth of all, if we are quoting Ezra Taft Benson as our source for this "doctrine" we are already behind. I encourage you to listen to every current General Conference and see what they say about it; and my prediction is that as a specific application, you won't hear it at all. This is anecdotal, but at one point in my life, and a TURNING point, I was feeling bad for myself, guilty, and the circumstances of job and such, and I went to a general R.S. meeting specifically wanting to HEAR directly about how I needed to stay at home, so that I could then "follow the prophet". But I wanted to make sure I heard it, and I wanted to make sure I heard exactly how they said it. So I could make myself feel guilty more, I'm sure. But I sat through, waiting for it, waiting for it, and they did not say it. They did not say women should stay at home. All they said was that people and partners should make decisions that are best for their family. And I haven't heard the stay at home meme since then. Maybe others have, but I personally think that that particular application is gone.

Sixth of all, having said all this, sure wouldn't I like some knight in shining armor who came along and said, I will take care of you and the kids, and I just want you to be able to be at home (if you want) and care for the children (which I do want) and hire a housekeeper (thanks!) and do your church work and your art and hobbies (wow!). So yea, dream come true, although again, I'm not sure if I had a man taking care of me financially would I actually STAY IN THE ENVIRONS OF THE HOUSE. Can't stand that. I can also see where it's important when a man considers marrying a wife and they both consider bringing children into the world, they need to understand their financial capabilities and responsibilities and work together on how they will handle that in balance with their parental and spiritual responsibilities. But what if a man is not financially ambitious but his wife is? What if Dad wants to play playdough and Mom wants Wall Street? Are the children going to be damaged? I simply don't think so. We say that mothers are most important for their children, but I really can't think this is true. Both parents are absolutely critical to a child's wellbeing. And a system OTHER than the one we have now (GO to work GO to school etc) may be completely better, but we don't have that yet. And to BE a mother, I first have to be myself, otherwise I may have less to pass on to my children. If I love art, I should do that, and let my children see a mother who does art, for example. If I love plumbing, I should be a plumber and let my children see that. That is part of raising them.

On the flip side, I don't cede to another human being (i.e. possible husband) the decision about how much money I and my offspring will live on. That is a decision that *I* make, and/or make it together. If I were to have a husband who said, 'This is all the money I will make and you and your children will have to live on it,' if that wasn't acceptable to me, then I wouldn't beg him to change, I would just realize that it is in my court to do something about it. My children have claim on ME for their livelihood. I brought them into the world. Ideally, married partners/parents can make this determination together, but in a less-then-ideal situation, I wouldn't just 'take it' because I thought I had to in order to be a 'good mother'. I would decide what the best choice to go forward was for me, especially if I was in a marriage where good communication was not happening. I wouldn't just live on a certain amount of money just for the sake of submission. And I would take into account if it was better to be home with my children but have less money (I do that now, even with just myself and no husband), but the point is I wouldn't just take my husband's word for it, simply because he was male or the husband. Also I don't think most men expect this any more, sometimes women still expect this of themselves, and I just don't think it makes a lot of sense. Adult human beings who are otherwise physically and mentally healthy, of either gender, are capable of deciding how much money they want in their lives and for their family/children, and to then make a plan and put it into action.

Cute story, but I did go to school and work and my (disabled) husband did a lot of stuff with the kids, including going to J's preschool to volunteer, because I did not have to time to do that. So Daddy went with J to his school once or twice a week. At one point I got a day off from work and the thing I wanted to do was also go and volunteer at the preschool. When I told this to J (he was three or four years old), he got a little nervous about my plan, and said, "I think only Daddy's can do that." ha ha ha

(Another cute story only tangential to this, my very young nephew had grown up during a time when our state had had a succession of female governors and then a new race came and there was talk on a male candidate, can't remember if he won or not, but the nephew when he saw that on tv once, he said to his mother, "I thought only women were governors." ha ha ha)

Seventh of all, I personally think both mothers and fathers should be at home should they be financially blessed to do so or can make creative plans to do so, or set a goal to do so. Or vice versa, take kids with you. (My husband's generation grew up on a ranch and the older kids weren't even AT home--they were out with their dad, doing ranch work. Mom only had the little ones. As soon as they hit about age 4, they were put on a horse; and my son did the same with his dad until the ranching life changed.) On what basis do we justify the absence of the father from the child's life? Now I think this rarely happens any more. Dads are active and proactive, even if they have full time jobs, they come home and load the dishwasher and give the little ones their baths, and hold a game night. So I think this is wonderful. I watched when my brother came home from work and he did just that, loaded the dishwasher, presided over teeth brushing and whatnot, told them to kiss their mother good night. Now, I'm sure their mother had done a lot all day with them. But in the evening, she sat there, and he didn't hesitate or need immediate direction from her (perhaps they had discussed balance of duties at another time, I'll never know). But I was amazed. No one is saying that children don't need their moms or their dads. No one would ever say that. It's just that--how do we best handle that for our family? And can we even say there is one size fits all any more in terms of application? I think we know there isn't, anymore, if there ever should have been.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Maidservant

[Ahab]

JFS famously said that man would never be on the moon, but he was wrong. He said so after being presented with a US flag that had been on the moon. He was still a good man and a good prophet. We are better off for his wise compassionate leadership.

It's also good to understand what somebody means or meant when they say or said something. I don't think JFS was disputing the fact that a man had been on the moon or that a man had put that flag there. I think he meant it wouldn't be colonized, with us living up there as we live here on Earth. And so far he has not been wrong. He did say something about us living on other planets/spheres later after we are resurrected, though, so don't think he was disputing that when that happens.

We have a set, and long accepted method for determining what is Church Doctrine and the suppositions, speculations, and ruminations of a single individual or small group of individuals no matter how well intentioned or not, in any leadership position high or low they are, do not Doctrine make.

With those qualifiers, I agree. Doctrines are teachings, which are different than those things you mentioned.

As per our Articles of Faith I expect changes in Doctrine, I don't expect big changes in it. More fine tuning as it were.

Me too.

[thesometimesaint]

Ahab:

While I expect that context needs to be used in what we hear other says I can only go by what people actually say. I'd be fine if he'd said colonize. But he didn't.

Here is what he said: May 14, 1961 - Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith announces to stake conference in Honolulu "We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it. The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen."

[Ahab]

Ahab:

While I expect that context needs to be used in what we hear other says I can only go by what people actually say.

Yes, but if you want to make sure you understand it's can be good to ask for more clarification, so people can help you to understand what they meant but maybe didn't say so well.

I'd be fine if he'd said colonize. But he didn't.

And if he had then you'd be fine with what he meant. Oh well. Now I suppose you'll just settle for your misunderstanding.

Here is what he said: May 14, 1961 - Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith announces to stake conference in Honolulu "We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it. The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen."

If that's what he actually said, meaning if his words were reported correctly, then I would still know what he really meant.

And didn't you just say he said that after he was given a flag that had come from up there? Think more about what he meant by saying "we will never get a man into space". I still know what he meant by what he actually said, if that's what he actually said.

[thesometimesaint]

The funny part is that after Apollo 15's journey to the moon, the astronaut team brought JFS a Utah State Flag that they had taken with them to the moon. They gave him the flag in 1971.

[Buckeye]

I am going to say a bunch of things that may not be in any particular order.

Maidservant,

I don't have time (or likely energy) to respond to everything you said so I'll just say is this: Thank you. Very thorough and well spoken. Would that more women in the church had the same drive as you.

- Buckeye

[Maidservant]

Maidservant,

I don't have time (or likely energy) to respond to everything you said so I'll just say is this: Thank you. Very thorough and well spoken. Would that more women in the church had the same drive as you.

- Buckeye

[Cobalt-70]

I think the "woman's place is in the home" doctrine is on its way out. It still appears in some church manuals, but I don't remember hearing anything on this in General Conference for a long time. The church is becoming increasingly global, and such 1950s-era suburban white American values don't translate well to the rest of the world.

[Ahab]

I think the "woman's place is in the home" doctrine is on its way out. It still appears in some church manuals, but I don't remember hearing anything on this in General Conference for a long time. The church is becoming increasingly global, and such 1950s-era suburban white American values don't translate well to the rest of the world.

It would be more correct to say a woman's role is as a homemaker, rather than just saying she should be in the home.

My wife is a homemaker, by her choice and my wholehearted approval, and she doesn't always stay in the home. She does spend a lot of her time at home, both inside and outside in the yard, but she also goes out to shop for all kinds of things including craft supplies, she likes painting pictures and sewing and quilting, and she meets with friends or gets involved with service projects. It's a life she loves, better than any "career position" involving working at some "job", and she'd continue to do it even if there weren't people in the Church to suggest that is the best way she could live her life.

Heck, I'm looking forward to the same kind of life when I can eventually retire from my "job". It's idiotic to work for money when there are better things to be doing so it should only be done as necessary to pay for those things we need money for in this world.

I think some people are just so sucked into the corporate world mentality that they can't see how much better things can be.

[Yep]

I'm under no obligation to accept anything that is not true.

I think we have to consider context as well as absolute truth to determine the merits of what anyone including Prophets have to say. IOW A prophet is only a prophet when acting as such. No one mortal man, or woman, in the Church is infallible in everything they say. Further I don't believe that God makes sock puppets.

I accept as Prophets of God all the prophets from JS to THM. Even if I don't agree with everything they say. Brigham Young was a great man, and a great leader of the Church after the death of Joseph Smith and it is my feeling that without his leadership the Church would not have survived. But he was an authoritarian leader and as such would not be well suited for the realities of today's Church. JFS famously said that man would never be on the moon, but he was wrong. He said so after being presented with a US flag that had been on the moon. He was still a good man and a good prophet. We are better off for his wise compassionate leadership.

We have a set, and long accepted method for determining what is Church Doctrine and the suppositions, speculations, and ruminations of a single individual or small group of individuals no matter how well intentioned or not, in any leadership position high or low they are, do not Doctrine make.

As per our Articles of Faith I expect changes in Doctrine, I don't expect big changes in it. More fine tuning as it were.

Here we will just have to disagree. However, that is our right and the Church will probably never step in to say otherwise. I believe that this attitude towards past Prophets and Apostles undermines current Prophets' and Apostles' credibility. But again, my own opinion and like I stated we will have to simply agree to disagree on this subject.

[Yep]

I think the "woman's place is in the home" doctrine is on its way out. It still appears in some church manuals, but I don't remember hearing anything on this in General Conference for a long time. The church is becoming increasingly global, and such 1950s-era suburban white American values don't translate well to the rest of the world.

I think this was the purpose of President Monson's remarks in the priesthood session of conference. I believe that the Prophet and the Apostles are trying to head off this occurring by trying to explain to men that we need to behave as men and not as buffoons. The doctrine becoming defunct will be our, mens' and womens', fault. It will not go out due to its being incorrect or because it should go out, it will go out because we will make ourselves such that this advice and guidance will be near, if not, impossible to maintain in our lives. If we as a people will not heed the counsel, God won't push it, and it will be to our detriment. God does things like that, look at Israel and the wonderful mess they made by demanding a king. We will demand that it be accepted without any Church admonition against a mother leaving the home if she chooses, and eventually God will relent to our obstinance and stop warning us, and we as a people will suffer because of it.

[Calm]

And didn't you just say he said that after he was given a flag that had come from up there? Think more about what he meant by saying "we will never get a man into space". I still know what he meant by what he actually said, if that's what he actually said.

And when he stated he was wrong, are we supposed to think about what he actually meant or think about it in some way that allows us to believe he wasn't really wrong after all.

A prophet doesn't have to be infallible. Thank goodness he allowed himself not only to be wrong, but to laugh at himself over it when he was.

[Ahab]

I think this was the purpose of President Monson's remarks in the priesthood session of conference. I believe that the Prophet and the Apostles are trying to head off this occurring by trying to explain to men that we need to behave as men and not as buffoons. The doctrine becoming defunct will be our, mens' and womens', fault. It will not go out due to its being incorrect or because it should go out, it will go out because we will make ourselves such that this advice and guidance will be near, if not, impossible to maintain in our lives.

Yes, and one of the things that makes it near if not impossible is getting ourselves into debt so much that one income can't pay for everything needed, or just getting accustomed to having more than one salary to pay for the things the family spends money on.

If we as a people will not heed the counsel, God won't push it, and it will be to our detriment. God does things like that, look at Israel and the wonderful mess they made by demanding a king. We will demand that it be accepted without any Church admonition against a mother leaving the home if she chooses, and eventually God will relent to our obstinance and stop warning us, and we as a people will suffer because of it.

Yes, and it was working to "get gain" that caused trouble for the people mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Spend spend spend. Debt debt debt. So much better to be debt free and have a decent amount of money in a savings account. Dave Ramsey wasn't the first person to understand those principles, don't cha know.