Working mothers

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

Now you are stepping outside of the example. I’m saying families A,B, and C have exact same scenarios except for whether the father makes enough money for the mother to stay home. You are adding additional factors to family C that changes the example so you can drive your point.

The mother can do it just fine without working. As I said before. It is the fathers ROLE to make money for the family.

 

I believe the family proclamation dictates exactly what it dictates

”Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. 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.”

You are creating a straw man of my view. I have said countless times that this is not a ridged view, that a family is not disobeying God if they don’t match this exactly. 
 

The ideal situation is where the father makes enough money to provide for the family and the mother can spend time raising this kids. If this is not possible or, as you said, is not the best case for them, then they can change. There would be no ill judgement from me or God.

Similar to serving a mission. It is ideal that all young men seek to be worthy and serve a mission. But not doing so does not make you a lesser or unworthy son of God.

Because I believe the Prophets are the mouth piece of God, and I believe the Family Proclamation is the word of God

 

I think what your children do is great! Optional enrollment into daycare on occasion for speciality is a good idea should the parents decide that is best. However, Daycare is not the only place to socialize. We take my kids out on play dates all the time, as well as a weekly preschool and nursery, my son and daughter have many many little friends.
 

The argument that a mother should work full time and put her kid in daycare is smart because it provides social opportunities is a weak arguement and only works when speaking of a mother and father who aren’t a magnifying their responsibility as parents. Again, not saying that mothers who HAVE to work to provide are failing as parents. They are doing their very best. I have a very soft spot in my heart for single mothers and those whose financial situation takes them from their family.

Thanks for expanding on your opinion.  I guess I just look at things in a more broad picture.  That often means evaluating each partner's God given talents and being wise servants by magnifying those talents for the best possible use of the family and the community.  Pushing someone into gender roles simply because they were born male or female seems to go against the whole idea of stewardship, talents and gifts given to us by God.  Far to many women have made amazing contributions to the world outside of homemaker while still being exceptional and nurturing mothers. 

I think that in the most successful homes, both parents are valued equally in the raising of the children.  Not because one is assigned to work  and one stay home, but because of all the little lessons that are learned every day from both parents as they both interact with their children and the community. 

 

[Meadowchik]

17 minutes ago, Rain said:

Despite the fact that I thought that is what it said and raised my family that way. Despite the fact that women were left out of the creating of it when they should have been a key part of it (good information makes for good inspiration). Despite that I have read, prayed and thought over it for decades and assumed it says otherwise at one time - it just never says the ideal situation is a working dad and stay home mom. 

It says "fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners" so with specifics missing couples should be praying over their own situations to find out what is right for them. 

You can tell me I am "wrong" about this.  Are you going to tell people who were righteous and faithfully praying about it and ready to be obedient to the Lord that their revelation from the Lord was wrong on the ideal way for their family if the revelation gave them a different way?

I wish I had let myself ponder alternative-to-tradition options seriously--as you describe here--in my youth, before I made my decisions.

As a young believing LDS woman I perceived the path I should take as this: educate myself, and unless I get married and have children, pursue a career. If I did get married, I would continue to work. If we had children, I would stay at home. This is what I perceived I should do. There was no consideration of the possibility that I might want something else. Yet, ten years later, I had four children aged four and under, with more to come. And ten years after that, still a believing member, it had become abundantly clear to me that staying home exclusively just was not compatible with me.

I am convinced that I would have benefitted from being a working mother--given some maternity leave--and so would have my children. I also think my husband would have benefitted from me working, too. He has always born immense stress being the sole provider just as I have born immense stress being the primary caregiver. I noticed a big change in myself when I started to work, in both of us. It just makes more sense for our family. 

Edited June 28, 2021 by Meadowchik

[Fether]

31 minutes ago, california boy said:

Thanks for expanding on your opinion.  I guess I just look at things in a more broad picture.  That often means evaluating each partner's God given talents and being wise servants by magnifying those talents for the best possible use of the family and the community.  

I think that in the most successful homes, both parents are valued equally in the raising of the children.  Not because one is assigned to work  and one stay home, but because of all the little lessons that are learned every day from both parents as they both interact with their children and the community. 

 

Glad we agree on all this 👍

[Rain]

29 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I wish I had let myself ponder alternative-to-tradition options seriously--as you describe here--in my youth, before I made my decisions.

As a young believing LDS woman I perceived the path I should take as this: educate myself, and unless I get married and have children, pursue a career. If I did get married, I would continue to work. If we had children, I would stay at home. This is what I perceived I should do. There was no consideration of the possibility that I might want something else. Yet, ten years later, I had four children aged four and under, with more to come. And ten years after that, still a believing member, it had become abundantly clear to me that staying home exclusively just was not compatible with me.

I am convinced that I would have benefitted from being a working mother--given some maternity leave--and so would have my children. I also think my husband would have benefitted from me working, too. He has always born immense stress being the sole provider just as I have born immense stress being the primary caregiver. I noticed a big change in myself when I started to work, in both of us. It just makes more sense for our family. 

And I want to say that I have no regrets staying home.  We have in later years looked at me working especially when my husband was working for half pay or no pay at all and we felt right for me to continue to be home.  My youngest is 20 and we still feel right about me not working.  

So it's not like I feel I need to defend my own choices.  (NOT saying you are, just talking to what others might be thinking.)

It's that we are a praying church.  We are huge for seeking after revelation for ourselves and our families.  So for me to tell someone in your family situation that only my family situation is ideal ignores personal revelation that each of us can and should receive. It also ignores the patriarchal blessings that many receive.  

Edited June 28, 2021 by Rain

[pogi]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Do you know the meaning of the term Kremlin-watching? It is synonymous with Kremlinology, which Wikipedia defines as follows:

Kremlinology is the study and analysis of the politics and policies of [Soviet] Russia. …  In popular culture, the term is sometimes used to mean any attempt to understand a secretive organization or process, such as plans for upcoming products or events, by interpreting indirect clues.

I’m applying the latter usage here. I’m saying that it has been a while since we have heard anything from the Brethren specifically on the subject of mother’s working outside the home. From this, you (and perhaps others here) have drawn the inference that the Church leaders have ditched the teaching by President Benson — and given somewhat muted and conditional validation by President Hinckley — that ideally a mother should be at home to rear and nurture children. I’m saying that since there has been no direct evidence for this conclusion, it can be no more than a subjective (and debatable) inference. 
 

Thus you appear to be engaging (in an analogous sense) in Kremlin-watching of the Church leadership. 

Are my comments/questions speculative?  Yes.  "Kremlin-watching" however, sounds more like an outsider or antagonistic/whistle-blowing role.  That's not me. 

If your position is that nothing is changing culturally, or in the messaging of our leaders, and if the counsel of the prophets has been that a mother should not work if at all avoidable, would you say that it is sinful for a woman to work by choice, simply because she finds personal fulfillment at work?  Would that make the mother spiritually-less-than because they are not heeding the prophet's counsel?

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

And I want to say that I have no regrets staying home.  We have in later years looked at me working especially when my husband was working for half pay or no pay at all and we felt right for me to continue to be home.  My youngest is 20 and we still feel right about me not working.  

So it's not like I feel I need to defend my own choices.  (NOT saying you are, just talking to what others might be thinking.)

It's that we are a praying church.  We are huge for seeking after revelation for ourselves and our families.  So for me to tell someone in your family situation that only my family situation is ideal ignores personal revelation that each of us can and should receive. It also ignores the patriarchal blessings that many receive.  

Totally agree with the sentiment, specifically the importance of allowing ourselves to consider what is best in our own situations, according to conscience and other factors. Though I don't pray, I still seek a quietude to turn my heart and thoughts to seek answers. 

I am very happy for you, that the path you took seems to have been the best for you, in retrospect!

[MrShorty]

5 hours ago, Fether said:

As I said before. It is the fathers ROLE to make money for the family.

A couple of weeks ago, Uplift had a Zoom "interview" with Sister Wendy Ulrich. During this interview, Sister Ulrich brought up (in very glowing terms) the anecdote of a stay at home dad speaking on mother's day who allegedly said something to the effect that he provides and protects by staying home and taking care of the children while his wife nurtures by working full time. I've said before in this thread that I wonder what the Proclamation really means when it talks about these roles, and I don't think we have a clear answer.

The adoption scenario (and ensuing discussion) is interesting. I don't know how I would decide the hypothetical scenario, and the ensuing discussion suggests that we wouldn't all agree with any decision anyway. The only thing that seems clear to me is that the body of Christ (and I would include broader Christianity in this, too) is divided over issues of gender roles and opportunities. I am interested to see how we end up resolving these kinds of questions.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

Are my comments/questions speculative?  Yes.  "Kremlin-watching" however, sounds more like an outsider or antagonistic/whistle-blowing role.  That's not me. 

You are choosing to draw an inference not intended by me. Your remarks being subjective and speculative (which you acknowledge here) and not based on direct or compelling evidence is all I meant to convey by the term “Kremlin watching” (which, by the way, is a very apt term where you are inviting us to opine on whether a given action “signif[ies] a change in leadership thinking”). 

Edited June 28, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

If your position is that nothing is changing culturally, or in the messaging of our leaders, and if the counsel of the prophets has been that a mother should not work if at all avoidable, would you say that it is sinful for a woman to work by choice, simply because she finds personal fulfillment at work?  Would that make the mother spiritually-less-than because they are not heeding the prophet's counsel?

My position has been expressed clearly enough. Teachings by past presidents of the Church on this subject (to my knowledge) have never been repudiated or discarded and thus should not be dismissed outright just because they haven’t been emphasized in a while. It is thus up to each Church member to make of that fact what he or she will and to apply it to his or her own circumstances. It’s not my province (nor yours) to comment on the spirituality of any individual who does that.
 

Nor is it my province to make a blanket statement such as you appear to be trying to goad me into, just as it would not be your province to make a blanket statement about any woman who made the necessary sacrifices to heed past prophetic teachings on this subject. 

[Fair Dinkum]

On 6/9/2021 at 10:57 AM, pogi said:

The new Primary President, Camille N. Johnson, is the first career woman ever called to that position.  She worked as an attorney for 30 years.  Is a career woman presiding over the Primary organization in our church representative of a larger change in culture and feelings towards working mother's in the church? 

The following quotes are what seem to me to be good examples of the historical message of the church:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1986/03/working-double-time-the-working-mothers-dilemma?lang=eng

Even thought this article was intended to soften judgment towards working mothers, in many ways, it seems to reinforce it for mothers who don't need to work to help provide the basic necessities.  From these quotes you can see that it was insinuated that working as a mother should only be done when it is an absolute necessity, when it is impossible to provide the basic fundamentals, or when you are widowed or divorced - when the circumstances are "beyond their control."  

What are your thoughts, are things changing?  Does the Proclamation on the Family jive with a mother who is working out of pure professional interest, or to provide "extras" rather than out of necessity?  Does this signify a change in leadership thinking?

Ezra Taft Benson is rolling over in his grave

Edited June 28, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[pogi]

43 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You are choosing to draw an inference not intended by me. Your remarks being subjective and speculative (which you acknowledge here) and not based on direct or compelling evidence is all I meant to convey by the term “Kremlin watching.”

Ok, I accept that.  I will just say that what constitutes "compelling evidence" is also subjective.  To me, for the President to call a career woman/mother to preside over the Primary for the first time in the history of the church seems to me to be a nod to working mothers.  The issue does not seem to be as black and white as it once seemed.  The guilt and questions of worthiness that working mothers feel did not evolve in a vacuum.   Not only did her choice to have a career not diminish her worthiness, the new Primary President is making the news (a church owned news station to boot) as a voice for all working mothers.  Here is what she says:

Quote

“I probably provide, perhaps, a different perspective as I step back and I look at the wall,” she said. “I hope that my life’s experiences will be a benefit. I trust that they will, if I rely upon the Lord. It’s His work and we are just privileged to have the opportunity to participate in it. And these women are beautiful examples of that.”

For 30 years, Johnson worked as an attorney, the president of her law firm – Snow, Christensen and Martineau.

“I didn’t try to shy away from my professional life at church, so I didn’t tuck it away and act like I wasn’t practicing law Monday through Friday, and sometimes Saturday,” she laughed.

...She has received messages from other Latter-day Saint career women, who have wondered if their work somehow disqualifies them from Church callings. Her response?

“Oh sisters, whatever your life experience, bring it to bear. We need you. And don’t disqualify yourself. The Lord does not disqualify you because of your professional life, of your need to work or your desire to work. It’s not a disqualifier,” she said. “The Lord needs you. He needs your experience. He needs you to bring that to bear.”

https://ksltv.com/463784/unique-perspectives-experience-guide-new-church-primary-leadership/?

This all seems like a fairly large change to me.  Just like women praying in church, you can't just argue that we never got around to it.  I am convinced that it was a thoughtful change in position and culture to call a career woman as Primary President - a role model for all mothers.  The fact is that it is a first - something that I never would have imagined happening in the 80's or 90's, or really anytime before this President. 

The Lord needs the experience of working mothers?  That is not a new voice, a new culture?

40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Nor is it my province to make a blanket statement such as you appear to be trying to goad me into, just as it would not be your province to make a blanket statement about any woman who made the necessary sacrifices to heed past prophetic teachings on this subject. 

The new Primary President is making blanket statements.  Not only is it NOT disqualifying, but it can give experience that the Lord wants.  The fact that it is the Primary President (the one responsible for our children) only makes it that much more potent of a message and act to call her as President.  As Bob Dylan once said, "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."

[Maidservant]

On 6/26/2021 at 12:22 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m unaware of anything that has been said since then by President Thomas S. Monson or President Russell M. Nelson that would materially alter what either President Benson or President Hinckley said on the subject. This tells me that Latter-day Saints still should earnestly try to follow the teaching of those past Church presidents where circumstances allow for it.

I honestly had a different "This tells me" experience. As a mother making the decision to go to work in the late 90s and early 2000s (even though I originally was fine with stay-at-home), I guilt-strickenly listened to conferences that said this each time so I could know that was either a sinner or the poor woman who "had" to but would somehow be redeemed in the eternities back into stay-at-home status. Until they didn't . . . because I was listening so closely. "I didn't hear anyone say that!" (also during the late 90s, early 2000s). The closest I heard was to make decisions about it for the best of the family. This told me that we were in a new era not beholden by the past.

It's okay for us each to have a different interpretation of the silence. Neither assessment is inherently likely (without asking the leaders directly).

On 6/27/2021 at 2:32 PM, Fether said:

If that comes with meaning the kid is also at daycare every day, I would disagree entirely

I wonder if we could create a society where many jobs were kid-friendly. But where parents go, kids go to learn. I know not all of them would be . . . but again, this society is based on not just God's plan or even God's plan at all, but more accurately the world-economics plan.

Or how about a society where the parents work to provide for the village and the little ones sit around the fire and the elders teach them and play with them? So they aren't parented by their parents at all, but by the elders who have more experience with such things anyway.

I really also don't know the difference between daycare and school. They are both outsourced parenting. When I was in elementary school, it was very Lord of the Flies, especially recess. So daycare/school is either all right, or it's not, or it's okay with parental participation/oversight, or?

There just really isn't one way to do things that has GOD stamped on it once and for all.

[Fether]

18 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

I really also don't know the difference between daycare and school. They are both outsourced parenting. When I was in elementary school, it was very Lord of the Flies, especially recess. So daycare/school is either all right, or it's not, or it's okay with parental participation/oversight, or?

I agree completely. I think as kids get older, there is benefits in going to school beyond education, but I love the idea of homeschooling kids at least through elementary school (and I guess through middle school cause middle school is just the worst)... But this is all a completely different situation.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Maidservant said:

It's okay for us each to have a different interpretation of the silence. Neither assessment is inherently likely (without asking the leaders directly).

I agree. Not sure Pogi does, though. He’s the Kremlin watcher here; I’m just going by the written record. 
 

Let me pose a question (you needn’t answer if it makes you feel uncomfortable; I’ll put it out generally to the board).

 

What would you say to a woman who earnestly tried to follow prophetic counsel in the ‘80s and ‘90s and remained at home during her child rearing years? She and her husband made it work, though not without some sacrifices. They could not afford as nice a home or cars as some of their peers, skipped exotic vacations, very seldom ate out, paid their tithes and offerings, weathered the occasional cash-flow crisis despite diligently trying to follow a budget. 
 

Would you say she was too naive, if not a bit foolish, for taking the prophets at their word back then?

By the way, after a few years of silence on the matter, at least one leader WAS asked directly. It was President Hinckley. His response: “Do the best you can.”

 

 

Edited June 29, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Rain]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree. Not sure Pogi does, though. He’s the Kremlin watcher here; I’m just going by the written record. 
 

Let me pose a question (you needn’t answer if it makes you feel uncomfortable; I’ll put it out generally to the board).

 

What would you say to a woman who earnestly tried to follow prophetic counsel in the ‘80s and ‘90s and remained at home during her child rearing years. She and her husband made it work, though not without some sacrifices. They could not afford as nice a home or cars as some of their peers, skipped exotic vacations, very seldom ate out, paid their tithes and offerings weathered the occasional cash-flow crisis despite diligently trying to follow a budget. 
 

Would you say she was too naive, if not a bit foolish, for taking the prophets at their word back then?

By the way, after a few years of silence on the matter, at least one leader WAS asked directly. It was President Hinckley. His response: “Do the best you can.”

 

 

What I would say: "do you feel you did what was right for your family?"  

If yes, then: "great! It's good to have that peace from doing what you feel is right". 

If no, "Did you do the best you could with the knowledge you had then? Good. So glad the Lord knows our situations personally and gave us the Savior to help us change.  His hand is stretched out still.  What is your plan moving forward?"

Edited June 29, 2021 by Rain

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, Rain said:

What I would say: "do you feel you did what was right for your family?"  

If yes, then: "great! It's good to have that peace from doing what you feel is right". 

I’m glad you would be so tolerant. I fear not everyone would. 

Do you think it possible such a woman, notwithstanding feeling confident and peaceful about her chosen course, might feel looked down upon when encountering a thread such as this one suggesting that Church leaders were wrong back then and that recent administrative action and public comment suggest “a change in leadership thinking”?

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Do you think it possible such a woman, notwithstanding feeling confident and peaceful about her chosen course, might feel looked down upon when encountering a thread such as this one suggesting that Church leaders were wrong back then and that recent administrative action and public comment suggest “a change in leadership thinking”?

If after past decades of hearing at church the ideal is a SAHM if possible, she runs into this thread and now feels looked down upon by total strangers enough to be bothered by, there are more issues going on then this thread.  Hopefully if she is at peace with her decision, others’ opinions whatever they are don’t burden her. 
 

PS:  I was/am (since still have a 30 year old kid at home likely never to leave) a SAHM.  I don’t feel the least bit looked down upon here. We made the right decision for our family and that is all I need to know. 

Edited June 29, 2021 by Calm

[Rain]

50 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m glad you would be so tolerant. I fear not everyone would. 

 

I think that every person on this thread and elsewhere who thinks it is up to the married couple and the Lord would be tolerant about it. I mean it is the very thing we are advocating for.  

50 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Do you think it possible such a woman,

Let's me be clear here.  Until recent years you described me in that situation.  A stay at home mom trying to follow the proplet's counsel. Struggling on my husband's salary where I had to cut corners. In fact I still don't work despite my youngest being 20, but we are now blessed with a better income.  I know this woman because I was her.

50 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

notwithstanding feeling confident and peaceful about her chosen course, might feel looked down upon when encountering a thread such as this one suggesting that Church leaders were wrong back then and that recent administrative action and public comment suggest “a change in leadership thinking”?

 

It is ironic to me that I am trying to share so strongly the idea that it is ok to work if that is what is right for your family because I was very much looked down on by women who felt I was selfish for staying at home.

The real irony is the only people who I have felt looked down on in this thread were those who feel what I actually did was the ideal.  I have felt looked down on because it feels implied that what I am saying is not in agreement with the prophets - but I disagree.

If you want someone to look down on me for staying home you are going to have to look elsewhere - where people think the only acceptable way is to work. No one fits the bill on this thread.

[Meadowchik]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree. Not sure Pogi does, though. He’s the Kremlin watcher here; I’m just going by the written record. 
 

Let me pose a question (you needn’t answer if it makes you feel uncomfortable; I’ll put it out generally to the board).

 

What would you say to a woman who earnestly tried to follow prophetic counsel in the ‘80s and ‘90s and remained at home during her child rearing years? She and her husband made it work, though not without some sacrifices. They could not afford as nice a home or cars as some of their peers, skipped exotic vacations, very seldom ate out, paid their tithes and offerings, weathered the occasional cash-flow crisis despite diligently trying to follow a budget. 
 

Would you say she was too naive, if not a bit foolish, for taking the prophets at their word back then?

By the way, after a few years of silence on the matter, at least one leader WAS asked directly. It was President Hinckley. His response: “Do the best you can.”

 

 

I know what such a woman would say. My mother says, "We did the best we could with what we knew." 

Listen, it's tough being a child with parents who made well-intentioned mistakes and it is tough being such a parent too. I've been both. We need to give our parents, selves, and children the space and love to process our/their experiences, even when they happened because of their/our choices. It's painful, but grace--for ourselves and others-- in the process engenders greater love and learning.

Grace makes the truth bearable, and helps us move past any pain or regret.

[pogi]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m glad you would be so tolerant. I fear not everyone would. 

Do you think it possible such a woman, notwithstanding feeling confident and peaceful about her chosen course, might feel looked down upon when encountering a thread such as this one suggesting that Church leaders were wrong back then and that recent administrative action and public comment suggest “a change in leadership thinking”?

 

What in this thread would cause her to feel judged or looked down upon exactly?  I see no judgment anywhere. 

[MustardSeed]

It my opinion that we don't need to be directed in all things.  Women staying home was not a commandment, nor was it a qualifier for temple attendance even in the 70s and 80s.  It was, and still is, a hot topic because socially, women are critical of each others choices.  The choice to stay home or work is fodder for plenty of criticism about the effectiveness and failures of each option.  Women carry lots of shame for either decision.  So, the church emphasizes being a SAHM and then its a super hot topic.  

By now, women working in general is so normal.  It's not a sin, so women in the church also work.  What is the actual problem here?  That kids will go "astray"?  That families will be destroyed?  

I suppose if a woman works outside the home, she's more likely to have an affair than if she doesn't work outside the home.  If that's the stat we are concerned with, better lock wifey in the house and take away her keys. 

If kids have to go to day care, and that's a travesty, we'd better declare from the pulpit that homeschooling k-12 is necessary for salvation. 

Seriously, the gospel is about saving souls.  Telling women they shouldn't have jobs feels like major overreach to me. 

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, Rain said:

I think that every person on this thread and elsewhere who thinks it is up to the married couple and the Lord would be tolerant about it. I mean it is the very thing we are advocating for.  

Let's me be clear here.  Until recent years you described me in that situation.  A stay at home mom trying to follow the proplet's counsel. Struggling on my husband's salary where I had to cut corners. In fact I still don't work despite my youngest being 20, but we are now blessed with a better income.  I know this woman because I was her.

It is ironic to me that I am trying to share so strongly the idea that it is ok to work if that is what is right for your family because I was very much looked down on by women who felt I was selfish for staying at home.

The real irony is the only people who I have felt looked down on in this thread were those who feel what I actually did was the ideal.  I have felt looked down on because it feels implied that what I am saying is not in agreement with the prophets - but I disagree.

If you want someone to look down on me for staying home you are going to have to look elsewhere - where people think the only acceptable way is to work. No one fits the bill on this thread.

I was you as well! But the feelings that I should be out there working nagged at me, along with the care of my children only being by me, not a daycare. But that was me, and maybe my kids could have been taken care of just fine with someone else. I'm much too controlling as far as if I don't know what's going on with my children and who's watching them and a bit imaginative and not in the positive way. 

I immediately found a job when my last one entered 1st grade. I felt very inadequate with my college cut short because of having children so that I snapped up the first job I could and started with a cleaning company where I could be home when the kids came home from school. And then I moved on to being a teacher's aid in a preschool and now a sub teacher. But I often wonder why I didn't complete my education, darn it. 

But I see wonderful sides to being a SAHM and a working outside the home mom. I guess it's always going to be a choice and with the choice we need to be diligent in trying to find the safest and smartest route that puts the child as the priority, because we brought them into this world and have that responsibility. 

 

Edited June 29, 2021 by Tacenda

[pogi]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree. Not sure Pogi does, though. He’s the Kremlin watcher here; I’m just going by the written record. 

On the contrary, you seem to be much more black and white on this issue than I am.  I noted that my comments are subjective and speculative - thus, allowing plenty of room for alternate views and interpretations. 

I will note, however, that we have more than silence to interpret.  We have unprecedented actions from the prophet himself in calling a career woman to the primary presidency.  We also have direct quotes from the primary president in a church owned news paper advocating for mothers who choose to work, not out of necessity, but simply out of the desire to work - stating that the Lord needs their career experience in church service.  That constitutes real change, not mere silence.  

What does all this change mean?  You are free to speculate, but I have a hunch.  

Edited June 29, 2021 by pogi

[Rain]

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I was you as well! But the feelings that I should be out there working nagged at me, along with the care of my children only being by me, not a daycare. But that was me, and maybe my kids could have been taken care of just fine with someone else. I'm much too controlling as far as if I don't know what's going on with my children and who's watching them and a bit imaginative and not in the positive way. 

I immediately found a job when my last one entered 1st grade. I felt very inadequate with my college cut short because of having children so that I snapped up the first job I could and started with a cleaning company where I could be home when the kids came home from school. And then I moved on to being a teacher's aid in a preschool and now a sub teacher. But I often wonder why I didn't complete my education, darn it. 

But I see wonderful sides to being a SAHM and a working outside the home mom. I guess it's always going to be a choice and with the choice we need to be diligent in trying to find the safest and smartest route that puts the child as the priority, because we brought them into this world and have that responsibility. 

 

There is still time! Do it! 😀

Edited June 30, 2021 by Rain

[MrShorty]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Telling women they shouldn't have jobs feels like major overreach to me. 

At the risk of introducing a tangent to the thread, how many of the Church's difficult issues involve some measure of "overreach"? The Priesthood and temple ban seems partially rooted in "overreach", when we justified it by claiming to know something about the ancestry of Africans or claiming to know something about their valiance in the pre-exsistance or whatever.

Was it Mason or Givens that developed the "truth cart" metaphor? As I recall, something was said to the effect that a part of our problems with people in faith crisis is that we (collectively) have often put too many things into our truth cart -- overreached when saying what should be in our truth cart, if you will?