"Mother At Home..."

[Yep]

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.

I agree. However, I think that often the dismissal of Prophets' and Apostles' statements comes across as near complete.

[Ahab]

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.

Did he say he was wrong? Dang it! I thought I understood what he meant.

[Calm]

I agree. However, I think that often the dismissal of Prophets' and Apostles' statements comes across as near complete.

I would never casually dismiss a spiritual leader's words unless s/he did it first.

[Calm]

Did he say he was wrong? Dang it! I thought I understood what he meant.

Yes, tss (I think it was him) referred to it.

At a press conference following his assumption of Church leadership, he was asked by a reporter about this statement. President Smith replied: Well, I was wrong, wasn't I?[2]

http://en.fairmormon...alk_on_the_Moon

I thought I understood what he meant.

If you read the link, especially at the end where his grandson is talking about the discussions they had about the subject, you will see how much you understood of his meaning. Edited February 28, 2013 by calmoriah

[Ahab]

A prophet doesn't have to be infallible.

Slight correction. Yes he does. A prophet, by definition, is someone who is speaking for God. That's why we say that a prophet is a prophet only wehn acting as such, or in other words, only when he is one. To state it more correctly, a person is a prophet only when he is speaking for God, but that person can also speak as a man (or woman although you might call her a prophetess rathere than a prophet).

[changed]

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"...

I've been on both sides of the fence (worked with kids, and stayed home with kids) and for me personally, I felt more unworthy and looked down upon as a stay-at-home mom than as a working mom. Some may not agree with me, but I really do think stay-at-home moms have the harder lot, as they are sooo looked down upon by society as a whole. It's easy to justify why you should work, and much harder to have enough faith your husband/circumstances (that nothing bad will happen and he really will be able to provide) to give up all the personal rewards of a career, and instead be there for the kids. People treat stay-at-home moms like they're just lucky/spoiled, or that they are little dependent naive children who can't cut it in the workforce, or that they are not being responsible (in case an emergency comes up and they have to work). In short, it's the stay-at-home moms that I see as being treated like dirt - their sacrifices are scoffed at, the importance of their role belittled.

Stay-at-home moms need to be praised for what they do without having to worry about offending someone's feelings. It is a HUGE sacrifice to give up your career for your kids. Someone who has never done it might not understand what a big deal that is, but it is huge, painful, and humiliating. For those who have made this incredible sacrifice, it is a big slap in the face to stay at home moms when other women justify and flaunt their careers - which justification always seems to involve further humiliating those who have sacrificed to be at home.

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

I've never went on a mission due to my circumstances (I'm a convert, I wasn't in the church at that age) - does that mean I should be offended and feel left out every time someone talks about how we should serve missions?

I'm not sealed to most of my family (again because I'm a convert) - should I feel offended every time there is a lesson about the blessings of being sealed in the temple, because I can't have that?

Too often we tear down what is good to try and save the hurt feelings of those who are not able to live up to that (or I should say, those who are not willing to live up to that, as often the case is). We should celebrate, and try to be like those who follow all of the councils of the prophets - not tear them down by belittling their sacrifices and their work.

In our ward, VT has better stats than HT, why? because of the women who have chosen service over career. The vast majority of the services in our ward are done by the women who have devoted their lives to something other than a paycheck. They feed the sick, clean homes for free, babysit (are horribly taken advantage of often by those who have a career), drive people around, volunteer in the community. It's a lie to say you can do it all, and it is the truth to say it's best for the children if their moms give up their careers.

Edited February 28, 2013 by changed

[BlueDreams]

Changed,

Are you talking about in the church or society in general?....cuz I think amo is talking more specifically within a church setting. In society overall I would probably agree. But in a church setting I wouldn't. I sometime feel that the emphasis on staying at home can get to a point of being reactive and over-emphasizing the negative effects in the family with working mothers.

For example, slightly outside of church, when I was in a sociology class at BYU the professor asked for people's opinions about daycare. What followed was one negative comment after another about what happens to children in daycare until one kid raised his hand and said something along the lines of "I was put in daycare and I turned out ok." In inference from them was that daycare would leave a child somehow dysfunctional...that there was no good thing that could come out of daycare. It's a kickback from probably social trends and the difficult decisions women have to make to stay home, but it would also lead to women in the faith worrying whether what their choices mean that they are harming their families and is inevitably falling short.

With luv,

BD

[changed]

Changed,

Are you talking about in the church or society in general?

both. I'm not a Utah Mormon, and my experience has been the opposite - that even within the church, there is more support and praise for working moms than for stay-at-home moms. Any small particle of praise that is given to a stay at home mom is generally sandwiched between lengthy apologies and praise for those who "cannot" stay at home. Praise for working moms within the church is especially hard on the s.a.h.'s because they often don't find support and comfort in the one place that they had hoped did not look down on them.

I think often the people who are doing all the right things do get the least amount of praise and appreciation shown to them. The greasy wheel gets the oil and all that I guess. My husband (half)jokes that the guys are always being put down for not helping out enough in the home instead of being commended for all that they do - and I guess the same thing goes for s.a.h. moms, that many feel like they are always being put down for not helping to provide.

it would also lead to women in the faith worrying whether what their choices mean that they are harming their families and is inevitably falling short.

It doesn't matter what you do, we all fall short, and we can all do a better job in everything.

This thread just seemed to be a little one sided - praising and vindicating working mothers, so I thought I would pop in and try and even out the score card a little . I really do think that stay-at-home moms make the larger sacrifice, and feel the larger amount of shame and humility though - and that because of that, they need the greatest amount of support and praise at church (not that they will get it, they are considered "strong" and no one worries about them... but in an ideal world, their sacrifices would be acknowledged and celebrated for what they really are.)

Edited February 28, 2013 by changed

[Yep]

I think that the line sometimes becomes very clear when the working woman views the role of mother in the home as less than the role of career woman and esteems the career as of more worth than the raising of children. I see a number of young women who look upon the idea of being a mother with derision. This is due to the overzealous praise and adulation given to a successful career woman and the lack thereof for the woman who has raised a group of men and women who are great contributors to society. When motherhood is devalued and/or viewed as a hindrance or as an impeding burden to the life of the woman in any way, then the person holding such an opinion is in the wrong. Women can learn and have careers, women can do anything, but if it interferes in any way with their ability to fill the prime role of Woman, it must be weighed and balanced to verify if it is truly of any real value.

The same goes for men, our primary role is that of father, there are men that work excessively to earn the extra money to support unnecessary "toys" and luxuries. There are men who devalue their fatherly contributions to the family and view their providing role as of too much value, something that I believe leads to a perception of devaluing of the mother's role by placing undue value on the providing.

All the same, I would love to try to be a "stay-at-home dad", but I wouldn't fill the "mother" role adequately, I simply am not built to be such. I don't have the same level of compassion that is inherently built into women. No matter how hard I try, I cannot provide the same for long periods of time. I am incabable of being a "mother". I cannot replace my wife with myself and she cannot replace me with herself. I was married previously and for a time we needed to do this. We fell short, not because of any failing on our parts, we simply could not adequately fill all aspects necessary in either of the roles we needed to assume. The roles that exist for men and women are not constraints, they are intended to enhance our inherent strengths. Women and men have the same abilities, but our strengths are not the same.

[Calm]

I don't have the same level of compassion that is inherently built into women.

The least compassionate people I know are women. Not saying there aren't a lot of compassionate women AND men out there, just that compassion isn't inherently built into anyone. Everyone can be turned into a self centered narcissitic brat given the right circumstances.

If compassion is "inherently built" into women than there is no need to praise and nurture that quality in them since it will manifest no matter what just as a behaviour built into a robot will. Women are not robots, they are not inherently more spiritual or inherently more compassionate. They have certain biological processes with neurochemicals and thinking patterns that can, if shaped and nurtured, lead to compassionate and loving behaviours, but men have the same potential as well even if it may be possible that in our culture such is more difficult to achieve due to the lack of support of some aspects.

Edited February 28, 2013 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.today.com/id/15039140/site/todayshow/ns/today-relationships/t/do-men-really-want-wives-june-cleaver/#.US-TYsp9YVA

[Yep]

The least compassionate people I know are women. Not saying there aren't a lot of compassionate women AND men out there, just that compassion isn't inherently built into anyone. Everyone can be turned into a self centered narcissitic brat given the right circumstances.

I believe that the capacity for compassion is higher and this allows for it's opposite. The best person has the opposing potential; the best person could be the worst person. An example of the opposite doesn't prove anything. There will be outliers.

If compassion is "inherently built" into women than there is no need to praise and nurture that quality in them since it will manifest no matter what just as a behaviour built into a robot will. Women are not robots, they are not inherently more spiritual or inherently more compassionate. They have certain biological processes with neurochemicals and thinking patterns that can, if shaped and nurtured, lead to compassionate and loving behaviours, but men have the same potential as well even if it may be possible that in our culture such is more difficult to achieve due to the lack of support of some aspects.

The capacity is built in, the potential is there, the tendency is inherent. I do not believe in an absolute genetic determination of behavior in humans past the initial beginning, and I am not sure to what approximation of such I believe such exists at any point in a human's life. However, there are genetic constraints. A duck will never be able to grasp anything very well, it's physically constrained. I believe there are constraints to the degree that men can do things versus the degree women can, men have a higher capability in some areas and women others. I do not believe that we have the same potential.

[Ahab]

Yes, tss (I think it was him) referred to it.

http://en.fairmormon...alk_on_the_Moon

If you read the link, especially at the end where his grandson is talking about the discussions they had about the subject, you will see how much you understood of his meaning.

So I did understand what he meant! I get the thing about using drama or a wee bit of exageration to make a point. My wife does that a lot, just to try to emphasize a point. And I've learned after long experience to just see the main point she is trying to express rather than to focus on her exagerations. It's kinds like saying: We ALL make mistakes! When, actually, there are some people who don't.. whatever you choose to call those kinds of people.

[changed]

It's kinds like saying: We ALL make mistakes! When, actually, there are some people who don't..

I only know of one person who didn't make any mistakes... just sayin

that said...

Mark Twain: “A historian who would convey the truth must lie. Often he must enlarge the truth by diameters, otherwise his reader would not be able to see it.”

Edited February 28, 2013 by changed

[thesometimesaint]

I only know of one person who didn't make any mistakes... just sayin

I wouldn't say no mistakes. But he definitely didn't sin.

[Ahab]

I wouldn't say no mistakes. But he definitely didn't sin.

The operative word is "make" in the phrase "We ALL make mistakes"

I figure all of us have, but not all of us do, and after an eternity of doing pretty much the same thing with only the actors changing it's reasonable to conclude that some people (who are the same kind of being we are) no longer make any mistakes.

[thesometimesaint]

HUH?

[Ahab]

HUH?

HUH what?

[changed]

I think Ahab's saying that you can gain some degree of perfection in this life?

"The pursuit of excellence should be major work of our lives. Many people, however, give little attention to it. Perhaps they feel that it is not possible for anyone to reach perfection in this life, and so they let the immediate pressures dominate their actions. While it is true that we cannot attain perfection in a total sense in this life, it is also true that we can attain perfection in many specific areas of activity." link

Edited February 28, 2013 by changed

[thesometimesaint]

HUH what?

Your statement makes no sense. It is literally impossible to not make mistakes. Sin is something entirely different.

[Ahab]

Your statement makes no sense. It is literally impossible to not make mistakes. Sin is something entirely different.

It may seem impossible to you now, but when you go on through eternity and do the same thing over and over and over again don't you think you'll get to the point where you know how to do it right and will do it right every time? I mean, how much practice do you need? A million years? A billion? How about a billion billion? How long do you think it will take before you know how to do what you want to do, and do it? You'll always have time to improve until you can get it right every time.

[Ahab]

I think Ahab's saying that you can gain some degree of perfection in this life?

"The pursuit of excellence should be major work of our lives. Many people, however, give little attention to it. Perhaps they feel that it is not possible for anyone to reach perfection in this life, and so they let the immediate pressures dominate their actions. While it is true that we cannot attain perfection in a total sense in this life, it is also true that we can attain perfection in many specific areas of activity." link

We only have one life, and that's ours. If you're talking about lifetimes, yeah, in a sense you will have more than just one of those, but you can lump all those together and consider them all to be the only life you'll ever be living. You will never cease to exist and you will always be you.

[BlueDreams]

both. I'm not a Utah Mormon, and my experience has been the opposite - that even within the church, there is more support and praise for working moms than for stay-at-home moms. Any small particle of praise that is given to a stay at home mom is generally sandwiched between lengthy apologies and praise for those who "cannot" stay at home. Praise for working moms within the church is especially hard on the s.a.h.'s because they often don't find support and comfort in the one place that they had hoped did not look down on them.

Ok That makes sense. The whole discussion around it still doesn't effect me personally I would say. I don't have children and won't for a while. It's not in my list of immediate concerns (not because I don't want them, just that I hear marriage is a better starting point to work towards before kids ). The only experience I have where I'm more aware of their concerns about working or not are in Texas and Utah. Texas is generally more conservative anyways and it's been a while sense I lived there. So it's more heavily based on watching my immediate friends and their choices as they begin to have kids and marry. None of them have had an easy choice to make. Most of them have made it out of necessity or balancing the options. All of them battle with their own lists of guilt, concerns, worries, etc (as you mentioned later). I would say the worse is probably my cousin...but it could be that I just know her story in someways the best...which entail more the decision to delay for 2 yrs or so to get past her first year of law school conflicting with how she was raised and such.

I don't know if I could say one way or the other about praise and whatnot...nor am I sure about shame and humility. From the little I have seen it seems like a pretty big sacrifice on any end and there's always some sort of level of shame, guilt, uncertainty, assertion, etc that comes out. My friend who works had had to sacrifice her time, feeling kinda split, crazy up and down juggling etc. The other who doesn't struggles with feeling stir crazy and split to wanting to do something else as well. And the other is mentioned above. No matter what it is no easy choice. I'm not sure if I could comfortably say which would be the bigger sacrifice.

This thread just seemed to be a little one sided - praising and vindicating working mothers, so I thought I would pop in and try and even out the score card a little .

I can appreciate that

With luv,

BD

[changed]

... If you're talking about lifetimes, yeah, in a sense you will have more than just one of those...

This is derailing the thread, but do you believe we all live more than once? There's this scripture:

And as it is appointed unto men once to die - Hebrews 9:27

but I have to admit, the idea of reincarnation is intriguing to me. Sometimes when I try to imagine myself in another's shoes, I say to myself "that's me in another life", and when I think that, I no longer feel animosity towards them.

[Ahab]

Any small particle of praise that is given to a stay at home mom is generally sandwiched between lengthy apologies and praise for those who "cannot" stay at home.

Ironically, I think the intent of most people who talk that way is to soften the blow to the others who work for money at a "job" outside of the home. If they could say what I think they're really thinking I think they'd say something like:

Staying at home is great and the way it should be for all Moms with children. I mean, why work for money when you can instead be at home and take care of your family... but if you have to work outside of the home because your husband's income is not enough to pay for all that your family spends money on, and you can't make immediate cutbacks without having to go work at a job, well, at least you're out there working to pay for those things you spend money on.

Edited February 28, 2013 by Ahab