sdc999 Posted November 16, 2014 Posted November 16, 2014 (edited) She said this was frowned upon and strongly discouraged, but not expressly forbidden. No one to my knowledge even thought either way. Which one? Frowned upon and strongly discouraged or no one paid it any mind? Oh, and I am glad she was comfortable with her decision. I know many who would duck their heads back into their sweater like a turtle if a priesthood holder said 'BOO!' Edited November 16, 2014 by sdc999
Calm Posted November 16, 2014 Posted November 16, 2014 Well, color me dumb again. I thought Seminary and Institute instruction were callings, and didn't receive any pay.Probably for most who teach it yes, especially if they teach early morning seminary. But there are many places that have released time seminary during the day and with multiple classes to teach that means having to have full time instructors…which mean they need to be able to make a living.
Pahoran Posted November 16, 2014 Posted November 16, 2014 Which one? Frowned upon and strongly discouraged or no one paid it any mind? Oh, and I am glad she was comfortable with her decision. I know many who would duck their heads back into their sweater like a turtle if a priesthood holder said 'BOO!' Do you? I don't. Regards,Pahoran
Pahoran Posted November 16, 2014 Posted November 16, 2014 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? That's right. Previously, every family in the Church was micro-managed from the COB. Honestly, where do you get this stuff? In other words, they thought less of her for her decision. Did they? Evidence, please? 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. Stigmatism? Regards, Pahoran
bluebell Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 ... 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...GGHey GG, just to answer your question...As a stay at home mom who doesn't contribute any money to our household, I don't have to go to my husband for money. We have a joint bank account so I have equal access to our funds. This includes having a debit/credit card in my own name. 3
Buckeye Posted November 17, 2014 Author Posted November 17, 2014 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. I very much agree. I think we greatly underserve our young men (and young women) by having relatively few males teachers in both school and church circles. As for school, the lack of male teachers is a function of relatively lower pay plus a societal expectation that men be the primary breadwinners. It will take a change on both those fronts to substantially lift the number of male teachers. As for church, the lack of male teachers in primary is a function of having so many priesthood-mandatory callings outside of primary and limiting priesthood to men. It will take changes on those fronts as well to get more men engaged as primary teachers.
sdc999 Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 That's right. Previously, every family in the Church was micro-managed from the COB.Honestly, where do you get this stuff? Regards,PahoranWell first, I get up in the morning thinking just how I can irritate you. Oh wait. I must have forgot that the church was perfect and anything said must apply to 100% of all situations. The church strongly encourages members as to what the family makeup looks like. We were fortunate and poor enough during the experience for my wife to stay home with the kids until they went to school. I was reminded many times that we were 'doing the right way'. This came from members, bishops, stake leaders, etc. So, does that mean that others that didn't take the same path were doing it the 'wrong way' according to these same people? Did they? Evidence, please?Regards,Pahoran I used inference there. If you would like to learn about inference, I can make arrangements for you to attend where my wife teaches 5th grade. Her students could help you out with it. Stigmatism?Regards,PahoranSorry , Stigma. 1
Buckeye Posted November 17, 2014 Author Posted November 17, 2014 Well that's good news. I wonder what the catalyst for this change was. Another catalyst may have been public awareness of the policy brought about by feminist church groups: http://www.the-exponent.com/church-ends-discriminatory-employment-practice-for-seminary-institute-teachers/
Buckeye Posted November 17, 2014 Author Posted November 17, 2014 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? I think that's fairly accurate. In the past, the church was more comfortable saying that all families should have a mother stay at home. Now, as with contraceptive and other teachings that have changed, the church is leaving the decision to individual families and teaching only the core doctrine (in this case, that motherhood is the highest role for women).
ERayR Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 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. No what it recognizes is the necessities of our current economic conditions.
Buckeye Posted November 17, 2014 Author Posted November 17, 2014 Hey GG, just to answer your question...As a stay at home mom who doesn't contribute any money to our household, I don't have to go to my husband for money. We have a joint bank account so I have equal access to our funds. This includes having a debit/credit card in my own name. That's pretty similar to my marriage. The vast majority of income comes through my efforts. My wife provides in other ways which are equal to my efforts. We share all finances and cooperate on all significant financial decisions.
ERayR Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 Well, color me dumb again. I thought Seminary and Institute instruction were callings, and didn't receive any pay. Nope it is part of CES and is a paid position.
ERayR Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 Hey GG, just to answer your question...As a stay at home mom who doesn't contribute any money to our household, I don't have to go to my husband for money. We have a joint bank account so I have equal access to our funds. This includes having a debit/credit card in my own name. My wife was never comfortable handling the finances. She preferred that give her a food and clothing budget and and I handled the rest. It worked fine for us for years. I sometimes had to be told that cost of living was squeezing her budget too much.
Pahoran Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 Well first, I get up in the morning thinking just how I can irritate you. Oh wait. I must have forgot that the church was perfect and anything said must apply to 100% of all situations. The church strongly encourages members as to what the family makeup looks like. We were fortunate and poor enough during the experience for my wife to stay home with the kids until they went to school. I was reminded many times that we were 'doing the right way'. This came from members, bishops, stake leaders, etc. So, does that mean that others that didn't take the same path were doing it the 'wrong way' according to these same people? You are shifting the goal posts. Where did you get the idea that there was an "Old Church Policy" to the effect of, "The LDS church to decide what working arrangement best meets families' needs?" Let me help you out. Nineteen (19) years ago, the Church published a document called, "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." I draw your attention to the following passage: 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. Extended families should lend support when needed. What does the highlighted passage mean to you? I used inference there. If you would like to learn about inference, I can make arrangements for you to attend where my wife teaches 5th grade. Her students could help you out with it. So there is no evidence that "they" (whoever "they" might be) actually "thought less of her." You merely assumed that "they" did. Got it. Sorry , Stigma. What "stigma?" There have been working women, including mothers, in every ward I've ever lived in. I've never seen any evidence of any "stigma." But tell us, sdc999: since you praised that lady for not "conform[ing] to the norm," should we "use inference" and infer that you "think less of" those who do? Regards, Pahoran
sdc999 Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 You are shifting the goal posts. Where did you get the idea that there was an "Old Church Policy" to the effect of, "The LDS church to decide what working arrangement best meets families' needs?"Let me help you out. Nineteen (19) years ago, the Church published a document called, "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." I draw your attention to the following passage:What does the highlighted passage mean to you?So there is no evidence that "they" (whoever "they" might be) actually "thought less of her." You merely assumed that "they" did.But tell us, sdc999: since you praised that lady for not "conform[ing] to the norm," should we "use inference" and infer that you "think less of" those who do?Regards,Pahoran
sdc999 Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 Yes, you are correct. I think less of those who follow the norm ..... If they are doing it just to be like sheep. You are partially correct in your inference. If a conscious decision is made for what they think is best for them, then "following the norm" or not following the norm is the right decision. 1
Tacenda Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 That's pretty similar to my marriage. The vast majority of income comes through my efforts. My wife provides in other ways which are equal to my efforts. We share all finances and cooperate on all significant financial decisions.I have the same situation as Bluebell. And contribute very little income wise. My husband deposits his check into our joint account, and I've been the bill payer all our married life. It's good for me to stay on the ball and remember to pay them on time. And I think it's a good arrangement so the wife is aware of what things cost and will watch her spending a little better when aware of what's in the account and what is needed to live. Hope that doesn't sound sexist.
katherine the great Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 Yes, you are correct. I think less of those who follow the norm ..... If they are doing it just to be like sheep. You are partially correct in your inference. If a conscious decision is made for what they think is best for them, then "following the norm" or not following the norm is the right decision.I think it's best for me if I leave my family and go do what I enjoy instead of being saddled with all the responsibilities of marriage and parenthood. Who cares how my choice effects my loved ones... The reality is, we should choose the "norms" we want to abide by before we sign the contract whether it be employment, marriage, religion or attending BYU. I suspect that many people you consider unthinking sheep have made a strategic choice to abide by certain norms, even when they don't feel like it because the benefit outweighs the cost. Maybe people aren't as dumb as you think. 2
sunstoned Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 Another catalyst may have been public awareness of the policy brought about by feminist church groups: http://www.the-exponent.com/church-ends-discriminatory-employment-practice-for-seminary-institute-teachers/This is a informative article that presents a timeline that shows a progression of thought that seems to lead up to this announcement.
sdc999 Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 Let me help you out. Nineteen (19) years ago, the Church published a document called, "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." I draw your attention to the following passage:What does the highlighted passage mean to you? What "stigma?" There have been working women, including mothers, in every ward I've ever lived in. I've never seen any evidence of any "stigma."Regards,PahoranWhat it means to me is just that: If the situation necessitates. But if the situation does not necessitate, example: couple getting by nicely (financially) with just dad working. Mom decides to put 3 yr old in daycare and take a job. They don't need the money, she just wishes to work outside the home. This goes against the family proclamation. For the record again. I loved my spouse staying home with our kids and would do it again. It was right for us and I believe it is better for children if one of the parents stay home. We didn't make the decision because it was expected of us. In fact, our plans were quite different until the first was born. You've never seen any evidence? What did the gold plates look like when you saw them? Oh, you haven't seen them either? Must not exist. Just because you haven't seen them, doesn't mean they don't exist or that stigmas have existed for some.
sdc999 Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 I think it's best for me if I leave my family and go do what I enjoy instead of being saddled with all the responsibilities of marriage and parenthood. Who cares how my choice effects my loved ones... The reality is, we should choose the "norms" we want to abide by before we sign the contract whether it be employment, marriage, religion or attending BYU. I suspect that many people you consider unthinking sheep have made a strategic choice to abide by certain norms, even when they don't feel like it because the benefit outweighs the cost. Maybe people aren't as dumb as you think.You misunderstand me. Responsibilities/expectations and norm are NOT necessarily hand in hand. I am all for being responsible and sometimes that may lead outside the norm. Each person's norm may dictate a different path. A societal norm is public school. I respect most who home school. Not all, but most. The divorce rate is creeping over the 50 percentile. Does that make divorce the new norm? I prefer to go against that norm. I am all for responsible choices. I think there are a lot of smart people but there are a lot of sheep as well.
Nofear Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 The 50% divorce rate is a fiction that successfully permeated culture (even marriage gurus and such were citing it). While the number is still too large it is closer to 1/4 or 1/3rd. http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/divorce.htm 1
The Nehor Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 Nope it is part of CES and is a paid position.In heavy LDS areas. Everywhere else it is volunteer.
thesometimesaint Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/marriage-divorce.htm 1
Calm Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 (edited) Oops gave you a point by mistake, did you read the link provided by no fear?It points out that only comparing new marriages and divorce numbers is a mistake as it doesn't take into account existing marriages. Plus not all states report their divorce numbers including the largest, CA, which is over 10% of the population and thus could dramatically affect numbers on its own...but with 13 more states also not reporting...it could really be off.If Hispanic dense states don't report and black heavy states do, that would shift CDC reports towards higher reported rates of divorce than really exist. Edited November 17, 2014 by calmoriah
Recommended Posts