Should anyone care about historical hate speech by senior Church leadership?

[smac97]

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

As I've said elsewhere in this discussion, it often seems that these discussions go in one of two directions -- one of which is to focus on protecting the character of past prophets and apostles. This seems to me to be your emphasis.

Well, not exactly.  The proscription against speaking of the Lord's anointed is not, in my view, directly linked to "the character of past prophets and apostles." 

By way of comparison, consider Exodus 20:12, in which the Lord states: "Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee."  Two things come to mind as I read this:

First there is no express caveat here, nothing that states "Honour thy father and they mother unless they have made mistakes, in which case thou utterly disregard the whole 'honour thy father than mother' think, and thou shalt instead publicly announced their errors and disparage them."  I am reasonably confident that the mothers and fathers in Moses' day were as prone to error and mistake as today's parents are, and yet the Lord commanded that fathers and mothers be honoured anyway.

Second, the purpose of this commandment appears to facilitate the accrual of a benefit to the child, not to the parents.  "Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee."  

Similar thoughts come to mind when I think of the proscription against evil-speaking.  Consider the relatively recent remarks from Bro. Corbitt, First Counselor in the Young Men General Presidency:

Quote

Activism toward the Church, which Brother Corbitt abbreviated as “ATC,” weakens faith and trust in God. Its pattern is to undermine faith in Church leaders, Brother Corbitt said.

“This distrust is the very opposite of the faith the Lord requires of His covenant people in Himself, His prophets and apostles, and those they direct,” he said.

ATC tends to focus on leaders’ imperfections and opposes their testimonies by undermining their credibility in the eyes of followers.

“Masquerading as a higher and nobler cause, ATC instigates distrust of these leaders,” he said. “By seemingly customizing this deceptive approach to the valiant, he (the adversary) cleverly diminishes their real power (faith) and robs them of their true mission (the gathering). He effectively turns the gatherers into scatterers.”

Brother Corbitt said ATC focuses on leaders’ human weakness rather than their strengths and mantles. “In doing so, it subtly gives permission and justification for murmuring, backbiting and evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed, all deceptively cloaked as principled,” he said.

ATC can also deceive new converts who may be more used to religious traditions where leaders are hired or fired by their local congregations. Some will be more accustomed to religious leaders who avoid controversial topics.

Brother Corbitt also counseled to beware of catchphrases that somehow preserve a sense of religious sincerity to influence others, such as “I don’t follow the Brethren, I follow Jesus Christ,” or “I am holding the Brethren accountable to do what’s right.”

“These dangerous claims are as counter to Jesus’ own teachings as they are confused,” Brother Corbitt said. “By contrast, discipleship of Jesus Christ builds and expresses ‘confidence, faith and prayer’ on behalf of Church leaders.”

“Please do not misunderstand. I am not at all saying ATC’s causes are not important or good or often pursued in good faith,” he said. “A light bulb must be changed to avoid darkness and restore light. My simple point is a hammer is not the right tool for that job. All needed and appropriate changes in the kingdom of God are God’s work to bring to pass.”

See also these remarks from then-Elder Oaks in 1987 (emphases added) :

Quote

Faultfinding, evil speaking, and backbiting are obviously unchristian. The Bible commands us to avoid “evil speakings.” (See 1 Pet. 2:1.) It tells us to “Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you.” (Eph. 4:31.) Modern revelations direct us to avoid “backbiting,” “evil speaking,” and “find[ing] fault one with another.” (See D&C 20:53–54; D&C 42:27; D&C 88:124; and D&C 136:23.)

We are given these commandments for a reason. The Apostle Paul advised the Saints to “grieve not the holy Spirit of God” (Eph. 4:30) by evil speaking. Of faultfinders, President Brigham Young said, “The Spirit of God has no place in [such] persons.” (Journal of Discourses, 8:13.) The primary reason we are commanded to avoid criticism is to preserve our own spiritual well-being, not to protect the person whom we would criticize.

Elder George Albert Smith said this about criticism: “Aren’t we rather prone to see the limitations and the weaknesses of our neighbors? Yet that is contrary to the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. There is a class of people who find fault and criticize always in a destructive way. There is a difference in criticism. If we can criticize constructively under the influence of the Spirit of the Lord, we may change beneficially and properly some of the things that are being done. But if we have the spirit of faultfinding, of pointing out the weaknesses and failings of others in a destructive manner, that never comes as the result of the companionship of the Spirit of our Heavenly Father and is always harmful.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1934, p. 50.)
...

In a message titled “Truth—and More,” Elder Russell M. Nelson contrasted the single-minded surgeon who coldly announces the truth about a terminal illness with the compassionate surgeon who mingles that message with assurances of love and support that help the patient and his family handle the truth. Truth is powerful and absolute in its existence, but its communication should usually be guided by companion principles. “Otherwise,” Elder Nelson observed, “the sword of truth, cutting and sharp as a surgeon’s scalpel, might not be governed by righteousness or by mercy, but might be misused carelessly to embarrass, debase, or deceive others. … Indeed, in some instances, the merciful companion to truth is silence. Some truths are best left unsaid.” (Ensign, Jan. 1986, pp. 70–71.)

One who focuses on faults, though they be true, tears down a brother or a sister. The virtues of patience, brotherly kindness, mutual respect, loyalty, and good manners all rest to some degree on the principle that even though something is true, we are not necessarily justified in communicating it to any and all persons at any and all times.

The use of truth should also be constrained by the principle of unity. One who focuses on faults, though they be true, fosters dissensions and divisions among fellow Church members in the body of Christ. The Savior taught: “The spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, [who] stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.” (3 Ne. 11:29.) Paul taught the Romans: “Mark them which cause divisions … and avoid them.” (Rom. 16:17.) In this dispensation, the Lord commanded that “Every man [should] esteem his brother as himself,” and declared that “If ye are not one ye are not mine.” (D&C 38:25, 27.)
...

Does the commandment to avoid faultfinding and evil speaking apply to Church members’ destructive personal criticism of Church leaders? Of course it does. It applies to criticism of all Church leaders—local or general, male or female. In our relations with all of our Church leaders, we should follow the Apostle Paul’s direction: “Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father.” (1 Tim. 5:1.)

Church leaders need this consideration, since the responsibilities of Church leadership include the correction of others. That function is not popular. As the Lamanite prophet Samuel taught, when a prophet comes among us and speaks of our iniquities, we are made angry. We call him a false prophet and “cast him out and seek all manner of ways to destroy him.” (See Hel. 13:26.) But if a man comes among us and speaks flattering words about our behavior and tells us that it is all right to “walk after the pride of [our] own hearts … and do whatsoever [our] heart desire[s],” “we will not find fault with him.” (See Hel. 13:27, 28.) We will call him a prophet and reward him.

I have given the following counsel to Church members—those who have committed themselves by upraised hands to sustain their church leaders:

“Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local. Jude condemns those who ‘speak evil of dignities.’ (Jude 1:8.) Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true. As Elder George F. Richards, President of the Council of the Twelve, said in a conference address in April 1947,

“‘When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.’ (In Conference Report, Apr. 1947, p. 24.)” (Address to Church Educational System teachers, Aug. 16, 1985.)

I avoid publicly speaking evil of the Lord's anointed for a variety of reasons, including because A) we are commanded to abstain from such things, B) we are called up on to sustain and pray for the leaders of the Church, C) evil-speaking is far more likely to harm (myself, others, etc.) than help, D) I lack both the stewardship and authority to correct the Brethren, and E) there are alternative means of expressing concerns about perceived error or misconduct by a General Authority.

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

That is fine, I think this emphasis sometimes makes it difficult to talk about truth and right, because we end up tiptoeing so carefully around anything that might be remotely condemnatory towards past prophets and apostles.

A few thoughts:

First, I think "tiptoeing so carefully around anything that might be remotely condemnatory" is an exaggeration.  Nobody here is justifying or rationalizing racist/racialized statements made by past leaders of the Church.  We aren't "tiptoeing," either.  

Second, we have received a number of exhortations to avoid condemning others (including, I think, prophets and apostles, both past and present).  

• The Title Page to the Book of Mormon: "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ."
• Mormon 9:31 states: "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been."
• Joseph Smith said: "I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives."
• From then-Pres. Uchtdorf: "And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.  I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes.  In the title page of the Book of Mormon we read, 'And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.'  This is the way it has always been and will be until the perfect day when Christ Himself reigns personally upon the earth."

Prophets and apostles have explicitly acknowledged that they can and do make mistakes.  That is not really the issue.  Instead, the issue is our response to those mistakes.

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

Quote

The second option leaves me wondering why God would tolerate such an egregious violation of eternal truth for so long among His people.

That's a fair question.  He let the Israelites in the Old World and the Nephites and Lamanites in the New descend into all sorts of wrongdoing.  He let devout Catholics kill devout Protestants, and vice versa.  He let the Saints in Cedar City commit an atrocity at Mountain Meadows.

I had never before made a connection between the problem of evil and the problem of prophetic fallibility/scriptural errancy. I've had to think and will probably be continuing to think carefully about the connection, but it is intriguing. Initially upon reading your comparison, I wanted to reject it as "apples to oranges." That the problem of evil and the problem of prophetic fallibility are two different problems. After thinking about it, I'm becoming convinced that they share more in common than my first impression allowed for. At this point, I will simply say that I frequently find that our "answers" to the problem of evil are less than satisfying, just like I find most of our answers to the problem of prophetic fallibility less than satisfying. Somehow, there is a problem in the interplay between God's omnipotence and omniscience, the presence of evil (including evils promoted by prophets and apostles) in a world that God created, and God's inability and/or unwillingness to prevent or correct such evils.

I don't think the issue is about "God's inability" or His "unwillingness."  To me, the former ("inability") negates His omnipotence, and the latter ("unwillingness") suggests that He is arbitrary and capricious.  I do not think this is an accurate characterization.

Instead, I think the "problem of evil" is principally addressed by focusing on the Church's doctrines pertaining to A) agency, and B) God being subject to eternal laws and principles, and also perceiving far more than we do.  As to the former, it is not that God is "unable" or "unwilling" to prevent us from committing evil acts; instead, the Plan of Salvation requires us to have the ability to choose, and the exercise of that ability sometimes results in evil.  As to the latter, I think we often cannot speak intelligently as to why God operates as He does.  A few scriptures come to mind:

• "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord." - Isaiah 55:8
• "Wherefore, brethren, seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand." - Jacob 4:10
• "But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things." - 2 Nephi 2:24
• "{God} comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever." - D&C 88:41
• "And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all." - Abr. 3:19
• "But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things." - 2 Nephi 2:24 
• "For now we see through a glass, darkly..." - 1 Cor.13:12

I think we should seek to understand things of the Spirit, but also accept the reality that the Lord seldom fully explains Himself.  Consider this quote from Joseph Smith:

Quote

God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said, "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.

"Although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire..."

Consider Jonah.  He hated the Assyrians, and yet the Lord worked with and through him to minister to those people.  

Or Judas.  Jesus chose him to be an apostle.  And Jesus retained him as an apostle even knowing that Judas would betray Him. 

I think we need to trust that the Lord has things in hand, even if He does not respond in ways we think He should.

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Unfortunately, I am a bit skeptical that I can hope to find The One True Answer to the problem of evil, considering that the best of Christian thinkers have been trying to resolve it for a couple thousand years.

I can appreciate that.  The One True Answer may not be made known to us until - as Joseph put it - "long after the events transpire."  Meanwhile, I suppose we proceed in faith.  Faith presupposes ignorance or lack of knowledge and understanding, and we seem to have plenty of such things.   

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Most husbands were already working out of the home before the divorce rate skyrocketed. So there’s clearly more going on here. 

It would also be interesting to see a study on the effects of the wife working and the husband staying home compared to the traditional husband working and wife staying home model. 

Part of what is likely going on is that when women work they are not financially at the mercy of their husbands. This means they can more easily leave marriages now than they used to be able to.

 

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

The scriptures give us a lot of insight to this. But it doesn’t sound like you really care what the scriptures have to say, since you question their authenticity. So I don’t feel inclined to invest the time breaking the scriptures down for you right now. 

If you are going to respond to my posts quit cutting out the point of my post.  If you can’t do that then please Don’t respond.  Once again, THIS is what I actually posted. It does have a point

 The other problem you point out is that every scripture, even when you assume it came from God does not give concrete answers on what to do.  In your example of husbands is to be the head of the wife, in a similar manner that Christ is the head of the church.  What does it mean to be head of the house and exactly how does Christ govern His Church?  
 

You are pretending scriptures that YOU claimed are concrete clear principles clearly are not   All that clear on what it actually means   People read the scriptures literally thousands of ways including your so called concrete principles  

Nothing is concrete clear in the scriptures 

 

[smac97]

On 1/28/2023 at 11:41 AM, The Great Pretender said:

Does "presentism" apply to prophets?

Do you mean are prophets and apostles susceptible to it?  Sure.

On 1/28/2023 at 11:41 AM, The Great Pretender said:

Our own material states that prophets (and I believe we have 15 of them) prophesy of the future: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/friend/2001/11/prophets-prophesy-of-the-future?lang=eng.

Yes.

On 1/28/2023 at 11:41 AM, The Great Pretender said:

By all means defend Elder Petersen's material on race.

I have not done this.  At all. 

• I have said: "Also, how do you reconcile your perspective on Elder Petersen with the counsel given in Mormon 9:31?"  And this: "What application, if any, do you think Mormon 9:31 has to the problematic remarks by Elder Petersen under discussion?"  Mormon 9:31 speaks of "imperfections," which I applied to Elder Petersen's remarks about race.
• I have said: "Surely you are not suggesting that we do anything like this as regarding Elder Petersen and his unfortunate views on race."  Labeling Elder Petersen's views as "unfortunate" is not a defense of them.
• I have said: "Elder Stapley is, along with Elder Petersen, viewed as a 'holdout,' as having racialized proclivities that made them less likely to agree to a unanimous vote lifting the Priesthood Ban."  I have acknowledged, but never "defended," his views on race.
• I have said: "Elder Petersen harbored some pretty ugly sentiments about black folks, much of it likely coming from the Church's teachings."  And this: "I do not here want to minimize or rationalize or excuse moral failings, including substantial ones.  Rather, I am proposing that we not define historical figures (or, for that matter, contemporary ones) solely by their their worst attributes.  Elder Petersen seems to have been much, much more than just a receptable and purveyor of unfortunate and prejudiced views of our black brothers and sisters."  And this: "'Navel-gazing' is 'self-indulgent or excessive contemplation of oneself or a single issue, at the expense of a wider view.'  This is what is happening with in this thread as regarding Elder Petersen's unfortunate views/remarks." Kinda hard to square these with you accusing me of "defend{ing} Elder Petersen's material on race."
• I have said: "And if the Lord could worth with and through Jonah despite his flaws, could He not also have worked in and through . . . Mark E. Petersen (and Delbert Stapley, and Brigham Young, and many more)?"  I have spoken of Elder Petersen's views on race as "flaws."  I have not "defend{ed}" them.

On 1/28/2023 at 11:41 AM, The Great Pretender said:

Personally, I find it revolting and twisted.

So do I.  Your accusation against me to the contrary here is a rank falsehood.  You have borne false witness, and I find that rather disappointing.

On 1/28/2023 at 11:41 AM, The Great Pretender said:

He had served as a prophet (though not the prophet with all keys) for 10 years when he made a statement that should have been accepted as prophecy,

Not all of the words from a prophet or apostle are prophetic.  Whether they are speaking/acting in their prophetic capacity matters.  Whether they are speaking when moved upon by the Holy Spirit matters.  Whether the Spirit ratifies their words matters.

On 1/28/2023 at 11:41 AM, The Great Pretender said:

and he continued to serve for another 30 years after the event — without retracting it.

Meh.  I have no interest in condemning a man dead for decades because of his supposed sins of omission.

Again, I will here observe that I think you err in judging and condemning Elder Petersen by focusing exclusively on his flaws and errors.  As I said previously:

Quote

Jonah despised the Assyrian people of Nineveh, viewing them as a "hated enemy."  And yet . . . the Lord still worked with him.    Jonah abdicated his prophetic responsibilities by running away, and yet . . . the Lord still worked with him.  Jonah eventually went and did his job, then became angry when the people of Nineveh listed to him and repented, and yet . . . the Lord still worked with him.

Elder Petersen harbored some pretty ugly sentiments about black folks, much of it likely coming from the Church's teachings.  However, he also served a mission.  He worked at Deseret News (rising to become president and chairman of the board),and was "known for the tenderness and care with which he treated his employees, whom he considered important members of his stewardship."  He spent more than half of his life - 44 years - as a member of the Q12, during which "he directed the Church’s public information programs, served on the Military Relations Committee, and acted as an adviser to the Relief Society, the Indian Affairs Committee, and the Music Committee."  He also served as the president of the West European Mission for over six years.  He was an active leader in the Boy Scouts of America organization and received the Silver Antelope Award. He also served on numerous civic boards, committees, university boards, and social groups.  He was married and had two daughters.

I do not here want to minimize or rationalize or excuse moral failings, including substantial ones.  Rather, I am proposing that we not define historical figures (or, for that matter, contemporary ones) solely by their their worst attributes.  Elder Petersen seems to have been much, much more than just a receptable and purveyor of unfortunate and prejudiced views of our black brothers and sisters.  And he's been dead for decades anyway.  So some grace and understanding, and application of Mormon 9:31, seems to be in order.

It seems you are presently unwilling or unable to forgive Elder Petersen.  I hope you have a change of heart about that.

On 1/28/2023 at 11:41 AM, The Great Pretender said:

You need a reminder? He referred to what will happen in the Celestial Kingdom, implying he had knowledge of the hereafter since the Celestial Kingdom remains a long way ahead, even now.

He was doing what we believe Moroni did in prophesying about the future: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-and-doctrine-of-the-book-of-mormon-teacher-manual/lesson-6-the-book-of-mormon-was-written-for-our-day?lang=eng

Surely modern-day prophets should be far more visionary than those who lived a primitive (even savage) version of the gospel? Should we really cut a prophet some slack when he oversteps the mark? I am now tempted to be negative about certain prophecies, but I'll step back from the precipice and prepare for the Sabbath instead.

I hope you do step back.  Truly.  Let's not turn holding on to resentments against Elder Petersen into a mess of pottage.  Let us leave judgment of him to God.  Let us instead apply Mormon 9:31, so that we neither condemn Elder Petersen for his flaws nor ignore his flaws, but that we instead learn from them.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Grug the Neanderthal]

33 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

now that the church doesn't put out talks about women staying at home to raise a family, I believe the men might rely heavily on their wives working. At least from what I've seen, they want their wives to pitch in and help. Or maybe bring some relief to them if they are under a lot of pressure to bring in enough for the family's needs. But sadly, some men want the woman to work so they can live a nice lifestyle and live it up in a way too. 

I completely agree. And I think that this is the case far too often. 

33 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

My dad held three jobs at one time to provide for his family of six children.

My dad did the same for our family of 7 kids so my mom could stay home with us. I have so much respect and gratitude for what he did. 

I don’t buy the argument that most people can’t survive on a single income. Most just think they can’t and don’t want go without certain luxuries. 

We lived in a little 3 bedroom starter home that my dad eventually added on to. We drove beat up cars and didn’t have a lot of nice things, but we had everything we needed and lot of what we wanted, too. And we were happy. 

Edited January 29, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Part of what is likely going on is that when women work they are not financially at the mercy of their husbands. This means they can more easily leave marriages now than they used to be able to.

 

Yes of course. But how often are women are now bailing on their marriages and breaking up families, when it would be better to stay and work things out?

In my opinion this situation happens far too often. 

Edited January 30, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[Tacenda]

55 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I completely agree. And I think that this is the case far too often. 

My dad did the same for our family of 7 kids so my mom could stay home with us. I have so much respect and gratitude for what he did. 

I don’t buy the argument that most people can’t survive on a single income. Most just think they can’t and don’t want go without certain luxuries. 

We lived in a little 3 bedroom starter home that my dad eventually added on to. We drove beat up cars and didn’t have a lot of nice things, but we had everything we needed and lot of what we wanted, too. And we were happy. 

My dad wanted to have "toys" for our family...but we had an old old fishing/ski boat, and a homemade motorhome, lol, before it was the cool thing to do, he built it out of a large utility van or some such thing. And our cars were pretty old, and I'd lay low when getting dropped off at school. And my snow ski's were ancient, and maybe why I never got past stem-christie-ing.  

I am here to admit that I like the "Leave it to Beaver" type family, but I think that's because I may not have the skills, smarts, talents etc. that a lot of women out there do have...and we shouldn't deny them a career and a family and hopefully the men in their lives will help make it happen too. 

 

Edited January 30, 2023 by Tacenda

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

The other problem you point out is that every scripture, even when you assume it came from God does not give concrete answers on what to do.  In your example of husbands is to be the head of the wife, in a similar manner that Christ is the head of the church.  What does it mean to be head of the house and exactly how does Christ govern His Church?  

This is the very point I responded to, so I’m not sure what you’re complaining about. It doesn’t matter what concrete scriptures I produce to answer this question, since you doubt the authenticity of the scriptures to begin with. So it’s not worth my time. 

[bluebell]

47 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Yes of course. But how often are women are now bailing on their marriages and breaking up families, when it would be better to stay and work things out?

In my opinion this situation happens far too often. 

I would guess no more often than men are. How often that happens is probably impossible to tell. I’m sure it happens far far more often than Heavenly Father would want.

But women not being at the financial mercy to their husbands and forced to stay married because of it is not something to lament. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

My dad wanted to have "toys" for our family...but we had an old old fishing/ski boat, and a homemade motorhome, lol, before it was the cool thing to do, he built it out of a large utility van or some such thing. And our cars were pretty old, and I'd lay low when getting dropped off at school. And my snow ski's were ancient, and maybe why I never got past stem-christie-ing.  

I am here to admit that I like the "Leave it to Beaver" type family, but I think that's because I may not have the skills, smarts, talents etc. that a lot of women out there do have...and we shouldn't deny them a career and a family and hopefully the men in their lives will help make it happen too. 

 

I'm quoting myself, because in my post I feel like it looks like I'm downing stay at home mothers. Most take on so many careers all wrapped up in one person! Teacher, Nurse/Doctor, cook, taxi, house cleaner, counselor, accountant, and so much more. 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I don’t buy the argument that most people can’t survive on a single income. Most just think they can’t and don’t want go without certain luxuries. 

We lived in a little 3 bedroom starter home that my dad eventually added on to. We drove beat up cars and didn’t have a lot of nice things, but we had everything we needed and lot of what we wanted, too. And we were happy. 

You don’t buy the argument that people of this generation have less discretionary income due to rising fixed costs of living? You attempt to refute that the current generation doesn’t have it that bad by talking about your childhood. The argument literally is that people today often CAN’T do what your dad did.

That is your argument? And you find that convincing? This is why we are all doomed.

Edited January 30, 2023 by The Nehor

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

This is the very point I responded to, so I’m not sure what you’re complaining about. It doesn’t matter what concrete scriptures I produce to answer this question, since you doubt the authenticity of the scriptures to begin with. So it’s not worth my time. 

Well one thing you have clearly convinced me of is that your chosen user name is very appropriate.  It seems like your reading comprehension is absolutely non-existent.  For the now FOURTH time, this is actually what I posted.  Please now try and focus on the bold underlined and italic part.

The other problem you point out is that every scripture, even when you assume it came from God it does not give concrete answers on what to do.  In your example of husbands is to be the head of the wife, in a similar manner that Christ is the head of the church.  What does it mean to be head of the house and exactly how does Christ govern His Church?  

I see this same lack of comprehension in your interaction with other posters, so I don't think I am something special.  I get that you are fairly new here, but if you plan to continue to post on this board, you will find that you can say just about anything you want here, but people will hold you accountable for your statements and the expectation is you will respond to them in a truthful  manner and not simply ignore what you can not refute.  

[Grug the Neanderthal]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

I’m sure it happens far far more often than Heavenly Father would want.

Yes, without a question unnecessary divorce happens far far too often, regardless of who is to blame. 

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

But women not being at the financial mercy to their husbands and forced to stay married because of it is not something to lament. 

No one here is lamenting this. Certainly not me. Leaders of the church have long encouraged women to get an education and be prepared to support themselves or their families if the need arises. 

The issue isn’t one of women being at the financial mercy of their husbands and being forced to stay married because society does not allow them to support themselves or their families. 

Women have always found the means to support themselves and their children if their husband dies, becomes unable to support them, or the marriage ends. And again, the leaders of the church have always encouraged women to prepare for these situations. 

The issue is wives and mothers choosing to leave the home to work, when it isn’t necessary and it would be better for them to stay home and nurture their children. And it really doesn’t matter whether wives and mothers working full-time outside the home is due to the wife wanting this, the husband wanting this, or both partners wanting this.

There is a definite correlation between the sharp spike in wives and mothers leaving the home to work and the skyrocketing divorce rate and the overall breakdown of the family. It’s not the only factor, but in my opinion it’s a big one. 

Edited January 30, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[Grug the Neanderthal]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

The other problem you point out is that every scripture, even when you assume it came from God it does not give concrete answers on what to do.  In your example of husbands is to be the head of the wife, in a similar manner that Christ is the head of the church.  What does it mean to be head of the house and exactly how does Christ govern His Church?  

Again, I already addressed this. I believe that the scriptures do give concrete answers on what to do or not do. Many things are so plain that a child can understand them. 

You disagree and that’s fine. But I still hold my view that the scriptures are full of clear and concrete teachings that we can and should use as a measuring stick for truth and a guide for how we should live our lives. I don’t know what else you would like me to address. 

In regards to your question about what it means for the husband to be the head of the wife in a similar way that Christ is the head of the church, much of this is plainly spelled out in the scriptures. I can provide concrete teachings in the scriptures about this, but since I know that you won’t accept them, why should I invest the time to do that? That doesn’t seem like a productive use of my time. 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Women have always found the means to support themselves and their children if their husband dies, becomes unable to support them, or the marriage ends. And again, the leaders of the church have always encouraged women to prepare for these situations. 

LOL!

[Meadowchik]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

I would guess no more often than men are. How often that happens is probably impossible to tell. I’m sure it happens far far more often than Heavenly Father would want.

But women not being at the financial mercy to their husbands and forced to stay married because of it is not something to lament. 

Yep. I don't think a loving God would want daughters (or sons) of infinite worth to stay in marriages or watch their parents stay in marriages where they're being abused.

 

[Buckwheat]

20 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Then why not prefer men stay home ?

If you enjoy the opulent lifestyle you currently lead, which includes paved roads, operating cars, HVAC, indoor plumbing, electricity, sturdy well-built buildings, planes that stay in the sky, boats that move across the water, goods that are loaded on ships sent across the ocean so you can buy them, and other amenities, then men simply cannot stay at home. Men perform all of the dirty task that women avoid and men perform these dirty task 40 to 80 hours a week so men and women can live in comfort. 

 Which firefighter would you prefer to have search for you and attempt to carry you out of your burning home-a 6'4" 220 pound male firefighter or a 5'6" 130 pound female firefighter weighing 130 pounds? 

 

[Buckwheat]

Why can't I edit post?

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Buckwheat said:

Why can't I edit post?

Once you hit 25 posts you gain the ability to edit them. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Buckwheat said:

If you enjoy the opulent lifestyle you currently lead, which includes paved roads, operating cars, HVAC, indoor plumbing, electricity, sturdy well-built buildings, planes that stay in the sky, boats that move across the water, goods that are loaded on ships sent across the ocean so you can buy them, and other amenities, then men simply cannot stay at home. Men perform all of the dirty task that women avoid and men perform these dirty task 40 to 80 hours a week so men and women can live in comfort. 

 Which firefighter would you prefer to have search for you and attempt to carry you out of your burning home-a 6'4" 220 pound male firefighter or a 5'6" 130 pound female firefighter weighing 130 pounds? 

 

I’m thankful for both men and women that do difficult jobs, and yes historically men do them more and often (though of course women work in all of those industries you listed as well).

There are a lot of reasons that there are fewer women in some industries or jobs, and inability to do them or desire not to is not always the case. Many industries with the fewest women also make it the most difficult for women to be hired, advance, or be safe and harassment free in the workplace.

Thankfully that is improving. 

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Yes, without a question unnecessary divorce happens far far too often, regardless of who is to blame. 

No one here is lamenting this. Certainly not me. Leaders of the church have long encouraged women to get an education and be prepared to support themselves or their families if the need arises. 

The issue isn’t one of women being at the financial mercy of their husbands and being forced to stay married because society does not allow them to support themselves or their families. 

Women have always found the means to support themselves and their children if their husband dies, becomes unable to support them, or the marriage ends. And again, the leaders of the church have always encouraged women to prepare for these situations. 

The issue is wives and mothers choosing to leave the home to work, when it isn’t necessary and it would be better for them to stay home and nurture their children. And it really doesn’t matter whether wives and mothers working full-time outside the home is due to the wife wanting this, the husband wanting this, or both partners wanting this.

There is a definite correlation between the sharp spike in wives and mothers leaving the home to work and the skyrocketing divorce rate and the overall breakdown of the family. It’s not the only factor, but in my opinion it’s a big one. 

Ignoring the dumb statement that women have always found a way to support themselves if they divorced, probably a bigger factor in the increase of divorces is social media. 

[Tacenda]

9 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Yes, without a question unnecessary divorce happens far far too often, regardless of who is to blame. 

No one here is lamenting this. Certainly not me. Leaders of the church have long encouraged women to get an education and be prepared to support themselves or their families if the need arises. 

The issue isn’t one of women being at the financial mercy of their husbands and being forced to stay married because society does not allow them to support themselves or their families. 

Women have always found the means to support themselves and their children if their husband dies, becomes unable to support them, or the marriage ends. And again, the leaders of the church have always encouraged women to prepare for these situations. 

The issue is wives and mothers choosing to leave the home to work, when it isn’t necessary and it would be better for them to stay home and nurture their children. And it really doesn’t matter whether wives and mothers working full-time outside the home is due to the wife wanting this, the husband wanting this, or both partners wanting this.

There is a definite correlation between the sharp spike in wives and mothers leaving the home to work and the skyrocketing divorce rate and the overall breakdown of the family. It’s not the only factor, but in my opinion it’s a big one. 

My daughter had every intention of staying home with her children when she had them. She had a home business too and works for the church's realtor arm, but when she had my granddaughter she decided it wasn't what she could do. To me this was very hard, because in my mind's eye I felt her daughter would be in better hands with her mom home. But sometimes if a mother wants a career and motherhood, shouldn't we work with that too, as men have that be a given to them?

But I am very much with you too, so I'm torn. I know that some women, go into deep depression and may not be able to do it, but still be a good mother. She's just not going to be it full time. And hopefully the children will be in a good environment and be totally happy with the arrangement and no worse. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Ignoring the dumb statement that women have always found a way to support themselves if they divorced,

Why is that a dumb statement?

And why did you ignore my main point, which I repeated twice? For decades the leaders of the church encouraged women to get an education and be prepared to support themselves and their families, while simultaneously telling women to stay home and nurture their children and not work outside the home unless it is absolutely necessary. 

I believe that this was sound council, that is now largely being ignored. And the negative consequences we are seeing are exactly what the leaders of the church warned would happen.

30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

probably a bigger factor in the increase of divorces is social media. 

I agree that social media is a factor in divorce and the decay of the family today, but definitely not a bigger factor. 

The divorce rate skyrocketed to the around the level that we see today long before social media was even a thing. Social media has definitely made things worse, but the root cause was already there. 

Edited January 30, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[Grug the Neanderthal]

15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

if a mother wants a career and motherhood, shouldn't we work with that too

I think we do work with that in the church and always have. But the question remains what negative consequences have come as a result of women leaving the home in droves to pursue careers, when it isn’t absolutely necessary, instead of staying home and devoting most of their time and energy in nurturing their children and running the household?

The divorce rate is off the charts and broken families are everywhere. I work with teens, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that the decay of the family has been absolutely catastrophic for many of them. 

How much of this can be attributed to women leaving the home unnecessarily and how much of it is due to other factors is hard to say. But it’s definitely a factor, a major one in my opinion.

[MustardSeed]

The divorce rate has been slowly falling in the last few years.   CFR that women working directly destroys families- 

I don’t work for money.  Never have- I work for personal growth and fulfillment and I believe it has in some ways impacted my family negatively and in some ways positively.  My husband working has impacted my family In some ways positively and in some ways negatively.  
 

That’s life. 
 

I find statements like “women should stay in the home” to be sexist and closed minded. I think the church held on to this opinion too long and it made me feel really unnecessarily conflicted.  Women and men should decide what is best for themselves and their families and do it.  IMO. Sometimes we have to give up things so our families can thrive.  I did.  My husband did.  Sometimes we should also embrace opportunities that are outside our box.  Letting other people determine what our lives should look like seems wrong imo. 

 

 

Edited January 30, 2023 by MustardSeed