New Church Policy: Families To Decide What Working Arrangement Best Meets Their Needs

[Buckeye]

Mormon mothers with children in the home as well as members who have been previously divorced can now be hired to teach in one of the LDS Church’s high school seminaries or college-age institutes.

 

"This change makes it possible for families to decide what best meets their needs as it relates to mothers working while raising children," The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced Friday in a memo regarding hiring policies. "This policy is consistent with other church departments."

 

In the past, both groups were barred from employment in the global Church Educational System, which provides religious education to millions of Mormons worldwide.

 

http://www.sltrib.com/home/1824832-155/church-divorced-members-mormon-mothers-teach

 

 

EDIT TO ADD: This strikes me as similar to the church's previous change regarding contraception. While the church still teaches that couples are to multiply and replenish the earth, the church leaves to the sole discretion of couples the decision as to whether/when to use contraception. The same thing seems to be happening with working moms. The church will still very much teach the importance of motherhood. But it is now a couple can choose whether mom works solely at their discretion.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Buckeye

[katherine the great]

Well that's good news.  I wonder what the catalyst for this change was.  

[Buckeye]

_{And the DN confirms: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865615543/LDS-women-with-children-now-eligible-for-full-time-seminary-institute-jobs.html}

[Buckeye]

Well that's good news.  I wonder what the catalyst for this change was.  

 

The DN article provides more details. It seems the catalyst was a desire from women within church administration. The heads of the Primary, YW, and RS were unified in their support for the change.

[Daniel2]

Does this policy change contradict gender role responsibilities as described in Proclamation on the Family...?

Edited November 14, 2014 by Daniel2

[Buckeye]

Does this policy change contradict gender role responsibilities as described in Proclamation on the Family...?

 

I don't think so. But it does mean that the church views a working mother as a fully acceptable form of motherhood - something which was not the case in some previous GC talks and in many Sunday School comments. 

 

FWIW, in the long-term, I foresee the day when a strong majority of paid seminary and institute teachers are women. Most couples still choose for the father to be the primary breadwinner. Because church teaching positions pay less and are more time-flexible, it only makes sense that mothers will gravitate to them. I have only lived in wards with early-morning seminary and the vast majority of our (non-paid) teachers have been women. The same thing eventually will happen with paid positions.

[Garden Girl]

Well that's good news.  I wonder what the catalyst for this change was.  

 

Hello KtG...

Don't you think it has a lot to do with the reality of today's economic climate?  I was shopping yesterday and at the meat counter I was surprised to see the cost of ground beef (what we used to call hamburger) has gone up to $6.49 per pound.  That's for the 93% lean... if I wanted lots of fat, I could save a few cents per lb.  So many things have increased... Just last June I was paying $4.05 at the pump... then it came down to $3.89, then $3.79... and today because of whatever has been happening in Middle East was $3.29...

But often I wonder how a family can make it... the  main breadwinner has to have a really good salary and benefits in order for one parent to stay home, particularly the mother... So the reality is that mothers really need the option of working without feeling guilty...  

I worked for 30 years straight (no children), then retired at age 50 with good benefits, particularly health... 24 years later I'm sooo thankful for my pension/benefits... and my healthcare program.  The cost of health benefits for a family (anything over two) is anywhere from $1200 a month up... what kind of job does a person need to afford that! 

I think "reality" is the catalyst of the Church's decision...

 

GG

[Buckeye]

Hello KtG...

Don't you think it has a lot to do with the reality of today's economic climate?  I was shopping yesterday and at the meat counter I was surprised to see the cost of ground beef (what we used to call hamburger) has gone up to $6.49 per pound.  That's for the 93% lean... if I wanted lots of fat, I could save a few cents per lb.  So many things have increased... Just last June I was paying $4.05 at the pump... then it came down to $3.89, then $3.79... and today because of whatever has been happening in Middle East was $3.29...

But often I wonder how a family can make it... the  main breadwinner has to have a really good salary and benefits in order for one parent to stay home, particularly the mother... So the reality is that mothers really need the option of working without feeling guilty...  

I worked for 30 years straight (no children), then retired at age 50 with good benefits, particularly health... 24 years later I'm sooo thankful for my pension/benefits... and my healthcare program.  The cost of health benefits for a family (anything over two) is anywhere from $1200 a month up... what kind of job does a person need to afford that! 

I think "reality" is the catalyst of the Church's decision...

 

GG

 

Very good points. I don't think the church is changing the policy because it intends to hire large numbers of women. The policy change is just a reflection of the reality that families are finding it necessary for both parents to work. This makes sense. If most other families are living off of two incomes, then it becomes harder and harder to keep up with them on just one - and not just keep up in terms of material goods, but homes in good school districts and other "legitimate" values. Add to the picture that active LDS families pay much more than the average family on charity (tithing), have more children, and have other unique expenses (missions) and you quickly see how the ideal is only attainable by families where the father has a salary in top-10% bracket. Hence, why there are so many lawyers, dentists, etc.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Buckeye

[thesometimesaint]

Does this policy change contradict gender role responsibilities as described in Proclamation on the Family...?

 

No. The PotF specifically recognizes other solutions to the problems families face.

SEE "In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed".

[Walden]

Well that's good news.  I wonder what the catalyst for this change was.  

 

Must have been revelation....there is absolutely, positively no possible way that it could be societal influence.

[pogi]

Well that's good news.  I wonder what the catalyst for this change was.  

 

I am sure they are prophylactically reviewing all of their policies in relation to women and correcting any outdated or unnecessary policies before it becomes a stumbling block.

[CV75]

EDIT TO ADD: This strikes me as similar to the church's previous change regarding contraception. While the church still teaches that couples are to multiply and replenish the earth, the church leaves to the sole discretion of couples the decision as to whether/when to use contraception. The same thing seems to be happening with working moms. The church will still very much teach the importance of motherhood. But it is now a couple can choose whether mom works solely at their discretion.

I think it is also consistent with the emphasis on what we choose do individually to help the poor and how we store food for emergency preparedness.

[sethpayne]

Nevermind.  Poor reading comprehension skills were responsible for this post.

 

Edited November 14, 2014 by sethpayne

[theplains]

But it does mean that the church views a working mother as a fully acceptable form of motherhood - something which was not the case in some previous GC talks and in many Sunday School comments. 

 

I wonder if the current LDS Church leadership received some new revelation to correct the

path the previous Mormons took.

 

Regards,

Jim

[The Nehor]

Why is a specific policy about a specific job being generalized here?

[Avatar4321]

Sounds fine to me.

[Pahoran]

Does this policy change contradict gender role responsibilities as described in Proclamation on the Family...?

No.

But thank you for asking.

And the Proclamation is still authoritative doctrine.

Which is not going to change any time soon.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

Why is a specific policy about a specific job being generalized here?

Um, perhaps because it pertains to a specific job in which The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the employer and provides the paychecks?

[Rain]

FWIW, in the long-term, I foresee the day when a strong majority of paid seminary and institute teachers are women.

I really hope not. While I think it is good to have women seminary teachers I think it would be a loss if that meant the men were a small percentage of the teachers. High school is a time when young men need a good, strong, spiritual men in their lives. To have a strong majority of women would be an over-correction in my view.

[The Nehor]

Um, perhaps because it pertains to a specific job in which The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the employer and provides the paychecks?

But that is a silly reason.

[katherine the great]

Hello KtG...

Don't you think it has a lot to do with the reality of today's economic climate?  I was shopping yesterday and at the meat counter I was surprised to see the cost of ground beef (what we used to call hamburger) has gone up to $6.49 per pound.  That's for the 93% lean... if I wanted lots of fat, I could save a few cents per lb.  So many things have increased... Just last June I was paying $4.05 at the pump... then it came down to $3.89, then $3.79... and today because of whatever has been happening in Middle East was $3.29...

But often I wonder how a family can make it... the  main breadwinner has to have a really good salary and benefits in order for one parent to stay home, particularly the mother... So the reality is that mothers really need the option of working without feeling guilty...  

I worked for 30 years straight (no children), then retired at age 50 with good benefits, particularly health... 24 years later I'm sooo thankful for my pension/benefits... and my healthcare program.  The cost of health benefits for a family (anything over two) is anywhere from $1200 a month up... what kind of job does a person need to afford that! 

I think "reality" is the catalyst of the Church's decision...

 

GG

Hi GG.  Yes, economically it makes sense.  It was actually the divorce angle that piqued my interest though.  One of my best friends is married to a seminary principal and she felt that she needed to have some form of income after her children were all in school so she got a part time job.  She said this was frowned upon and strongly discouraged, but not expressly forbidden.  However, if she were to divorce her husband--even if he was not at fault in any way, he would be fired.  I thought that was extremely harsh and unfair so I found this announcement very good news indeed.    (Just to clarify, they are very happily married.)

[Garden Girl]

... she felt that she needed to have some form of income after her children were all in school so she got a part time job.  She said this was frowned upon and strongly discouraged, but not expressly forbidden.  

 

 

KtG... this is something that I was adamant about... my income... I also had a separate checking account.  I just could not see going to my husband for every dime I wanted to have for a new dress, getting my hair done... lunch out with friends, etc etc.  Not to mention buying gifts for Christmas... what do non-working women do who want to give hubby a gift... ask him for money?

I can't imagine not having a source of personal income... if only to cover a few things that I wanted personally... women who do not work and have to run to hubby for every dollar they want... I can't imagine what that would feel like.  The other side is that I contributed toward the household expenses while hubby took care of the big ticket items like mortgage and car payment, and his expenses.  I felt independent... it was still joint income, not mine or his... it's just that I had more say in the total expenses...

 

GG

[Silhouette]

Um, perhaps because it pertains to a specific job in which The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the employer and provides the paychecks?

Well, color me dumb again. I thought Seminary and Institute instruction were callings, and didn't receive any pay.

[sdc999]

New Church Policy: Families To Decide What Working Arrangement Best Meets Their Needs

 

So would this in the past read:  Old Church Policy: The LDS church to decide what working arrangement best meets families' needs?  

 

 

 

 

.... a part time job.  She said this was frowned upon and strongly discouraged, but not expressly forbidden.  

In other words, they thought less of her for her decision.  And with the church thinking less of her, it probably encouraged others around her to think less as well.  It sounds as if your friend was not concerned about the stigmatism that the church imposed.  Good for her.  And it sounds as if, good for you for being a friend to someone who did not conform to the norm. 

[katherine the great]

New Church Policy: Families To Decide What Working Arrangement Best Meets Their Needs

So would this in the past read: Old Church Policy: The LDS church to decide what working arrangement best meets families' needs?

In other words, they thought less of her for her decision. And with the church thinking less of her, it probably encouraged others around her to think less as well. It sounds as if your friend was not concerned about the stigmatism that the church imposed. Good for her. And it sounds as if, good for you for being a friend to someone who did not conform to the norm.

I don't think that was the case. The "policy" was simply ignored in this case. No one to my knowledge even thought either way. This particular lady is very well respected and beloved. But yes, she did think out on this issue and was comfortable with her decision.