LDS Family Services counselor told me line about "Most important work you can do is in the home" isn't true

[Just_A_Guy]

As TFP stated, it really could be that the wife is a total slob. I know in this new modern age of "enlightenment" the roles of men and women are messed up. But unless they are making a lot of money (enough to hire a maid) someone has to do the cleaning of the house.

If both spouses are working then both should have the responsibility to clean up-however if the husband works a full-time job and the wife stays at home then she should probably have the primary responsibility for the upkeep of the house.

I would dare say that it is highly likely that the wife doesn't really understand her role completely and I would add the husband doesn't understand his role either; just like a lot of mothers out there (and even some LDS mothers) have absolutely 0 clue as to what it means to actually be a mother. It was very, very eye-opening to me when I went to an awesome parenting class, the man presenting didn't actually spend too much time addressing fathers, 95% of the time he spent focusing on the responsibilities of wives and mothers. I'm a husband first father second, like my wife is my wife first and mother second. The greatest thing I can do for my children is to love my wife.

Unfortunately, not taking on and embracing the God-given God-mandated roles in husband and wife has caused more destruction to the family than anything else.

But again, this feeds into my concern that the OP might just be looking for someone who will use (his interpretation of) LDS doctrine to bludgeon the wife into doing what the husband thinks she should do.

That's not what good family counselors (even LDS ones) do.

Edited January 26, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

Let's just assume for a second that the husband is under the impression that his wife is a slob and he wants her to change because he feels the gospel preaches that she should keep the house clean...

 

How is that unrighteous dominion?

 

It may be naive, but as long as his efforts to persuade her are done with love, gentleness, kindness, etc., then it doesn't exactly make it unrighteous dominion.

[Guest]

First let's see where the gospel says the wife has to keep the house clean. And what "orderly" means exactly. 

[The Folk Prophet]

First let's see where the gospel says the wife has to keep the house clean. And what "orderly" means exactly. 

 

A. You're assuming he believes it's the wife's duty alone. Perhaps he works consistently to keep it clean and is only expecting her to help out, and not only does she not help, but she keeps messing it up. We don't know. You're guessing.

 

B. I repeat, regardless of his naivety about any given gospel principle, being mistaken about something of this nature does not make one guilty of unrighteous dominion.

[Backroads]

First let's see where the gospel says the wife has to keep the house clean. And what "orderly" means exactly. 

 

I wanted to strangle someone over Facebook the other day. The woman has a newborn baby and was driving herself into the ground trying to keep her kitchen perfect.  To be fair, I have over the past few years worked very hard on becoming a neater person and I would say that having a clean and orderly house is now a high priority to me... and yet my house is still not at Better Homes and Gardens level. I just can't understand why someone would place scrubbing the kitchen above caring for a newborn and resting.

 

Anywho...

 

To the OP...

 

Yes, I think the majority of those lines, phrased as phrased, are a little odd.

[Guest]

 

 

because he feels the gospel preaches that she should keep the house clean...

 

 

A. You're assuming he believes it's the wife's duty alone. Perhaps he works consistently to keep it clean and is only expecting her to help out, and not only does she not help, but she keeps messing it up. We don't know. You're guessing.

 

 

 

You're the one that set up the scenario, so I don't understand your objection.

Edited January 26, 2016 by Eowyn

[The Folk Prophet]

You're the one that set up the scenario, so I don't understand your objection.

 

[clipped to follow Eowyn's good example]

Edited January 26, 2016 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest]

Ah, yep...you caught me in my less than perfect phraseology. Good job. You win the internet. I guess I'm now forced to admit that he must, indeed, be guilty of unrighteous dominion.

 

 

[clipped so Eowyn can practice what she preaches]

Edited January 26, 2016 by Eowyn

[The Folk Prophet]

[also clipped...and...repentance, hopefully...complete...]

Edited January 26, 2016 by The Folk Prophet

[Vort]

Metaquestion:

 

Why is this poster (a man) being treated so differently from many other posters (mostly women) who voice objections here to experiences they claim to have had? The statements of the other posters (mostly women) are generally taken at face value, and people here commiserate with them -- to the point of making truly nasty statements about their selfish, good-for-nothing husbands. In contrast, this poster's statements are treated with skepticism and his motives questioned from the get-go.

 

Is it as simple as the fact that he's a man, and therefore not as trustworthy as the anonymous women who post here?

[Guest]

I just lost patience with being attacked and picked apart all the time by you and a couple others on the board. I take a post at face value, and you accuse me of the same. I was honestly trying to follow the line of logic you started. I was truly and honestly baffled at you taking offense to my question. 

[kapikui]

Metaquestion:

 

Why is this poster (a man) being treated so differently from many other posters (mostly women) who voice objections here to experiences they claim to have had? The statements of the other posters (mostly women) are generally taken at face value, and people here commiserate with them -- to the point of making truly nasty statements about their selfish, good-for-nothing husbands. In contrast, this poster's statements are treated with skepticism and his motives questioned from the get-go.

 

Is it as simple as the fact that he's a man, and therefore not as trustworthy as the anonymous women who post here?

I've noticed the same thing here often.  That said, the way this particular poster said things didn't sit right.  Some things as reported I can't imagine any qualified councilor saying under any circumstances, let alone an LDS councilor, leading me to kind of want to call BS on the OP's post. 

[The Folk Prophet]

Eowyn, I apologize for the sarcasm I injected into the discussion. It was inappropriate.

[Guest]

Thanks FP. I'm sure my reactions could use some tempering, too. I'm sorry for my part in any contention. 

[NeedleinA]

Eowyn, I apologize for the sarcasm I injected into the discussion. It was inappropriate.

 

Thanks FP. I'm sure my reactions could use some tempering, too. I'm sorry for my part in any contention. 

 

Good stuff 

[Palerider]

My wife and I have been seeing someone from LDS Family Services for marital issues.

 

During our discussions, the counselor has expressed the following:

 

•  President David O. McKay’s teaching that “No success can compensate for failure in the home...” is not scripture given by a modern day prophet.
• Covenants made in the temple do not dictate responsibilities of the parents in the home.
• A parent’s “season” of their life is not determined first and foremost by the needs of the family and household.
• Self-medicating with things that are not drugs / alcohol / pornography is an acceptable coping mechanism because everyone does it.
• Cleanliness and order in the home is a matter of personal preference, not a duty or obligation
• The various scriptures in the D&C that speak of the Lord’s house being a house of order have to deal with “priesthood order”, and not actually logistical or organizational order / cleanliness, and that when President Kimball said “Whatever your circumstance, let your premises reflect orderliness, beauty, and happiness”, he was talking about a particular period of time and not outlining a timeless principle. (Which is really confusing, because it’s pretty well spelled out here, here, and here).

 

It was my understanding that LDS Family Services counselors are themselves members, and are expected to counsel in a manner that adheres to the mainstream doctrines of the church, not based first on secular ideology or their own opinions that go counter to the doctrines.

 

This person is the only one available in our area, and we would have to travel for hours to see someone else.

 

According to this page, apostasy is " is repeatedly acting in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its faithful leaders, or persisting, after receiving counsel, in teaching false doctrine."

 

So ... are they correct?  Should we still be seeing them, or does this qualify as apostasy and something I need to bring up to their supervisor / Priesthood Leader?

If what you shared with us is true ....my advice to you is ....go directly to your Bishop and share with him the things you mentioned here. Your Bishop and that Councilor will or should at some point get a report about your sessions.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

So ... are they correct?  Should we still be seeing them, or does this qualify as apostasy and something I need to bring up to their supervisor / Priesthood Leader?

Counselors with LDSFS are human beings, with their own understanding of the gospel.  They are not called and set apart to my knowledge, so while there is an expectation that their counsel will be in harmony with church doctrine, they are not authorities on what is and is not church doctrine.  They will make mistakes, and give advise based on their training and experience influenced by their imperfect knowledge of the gospel.

There is a big difference between apostacy and being honestly mistaken about something and I don't see anything so major in what you described to think apostacy is a good description.  If he was telling you guys to watch porn together or try swinging, then you could start calling it apostacy.

If this person is being helpful to your marriage you might want to continue with them.  You have to decide, but understand that it is up to you to test the truth and value of anything they say and rely on the Spirit to guide you.  You are not obligated to accept their views and agree with them on every point.  They are not church authorities, they are marriage counselors who happen to be LDS, that's all.  It will be the same with anybody else too, they will just have different points where their understanding of doctrine is different from yours.

On the specifics of what they said:

Scripture is what you find in the four standard works, and you won't find what David O MaKay said in there so in that sense they were right.  However, the standard works do not contain all the inspired word of God so it is common for members to take what GA's say in General Conference or other settings as being scripture.  Members should take counsel from the prophet very seriously, but members are not obligated to take it as scripture like they are with the standard works.  We are told to seek confirmation about the truth of what they way, and what it means in our life. If we get that confirmation it becomes scripture to us, but that is not the same as it being canonized scripture for the whole church.

What does this person mean by 'dictate responsibilities'?  I think it's a pretty safe bet that the GA's know the meaning of the temple covenants well enough that the proclamation on the family is not in conflict with temple covenants.  It says in there that husbands have a divinely appointed role to preside over the family in love and righteousness, and both spouses are to work together to fulfill their responsibilities to provide, protect and nurture the children.  The temple covenants say nothing about who should be providing, who should be doing the dishes and laundry etc. The Proclamation says each spouse has areas that they are primarily responsible for, but there is flexibility and spouses should work together to help each other as needed.

Not sure what they mean by 'season' so I can't comment, but I would say that the list of priorities in life should be God first, then spouse, then kids, then extended family, then country, then self.  Putting the kids ahead of the spouse weakens a marriage.

Abuse of over the counter medicines, or some addiction or obsession used to avoid a problem is not good.  If it gets in the way of getting to a solution, it is not a 'coping mechanism', it is part of the problem.

A clean and orderly home is desirable, but the time you devote to it has be balanced by whatever other priorities there are. It is no sin to have dirty dishes in the sink, carpets that need vacuuming etc. if the reason those things are not done is because more important matters had to be attended to, or obstacles got in the way of getting it done.

[BeccaKirstyn]

I'm much more of an observer of the majority of these forum topics than a commenter, but I always find myself scrolling through posts like this for a response from the OP....and then I get to the final page of the thread to see they haven't responded! But yet there are 3 pages of responses! It kind of makes me laugh. 

 

I am very interested to see what response from the OP will be given....

[yjacket]

First let's see where the gospel says the wife has to keep the house clean. And what "orderly" means exactly. 

Well you see once upon a time-prior to the current modern age society-the roles were more well defined, taught, and understood. There wouldn't be any question about this; it was simply understood.  For my backup, just read what the Church was teaching young women with the Beehive program 100 years ago.

 

https://www.lds.org/callings/young-women/leader-resources/history/history-of-young-women-recognition?lang=eng

https://daymonsmith.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/handbookforbeehi1915.pdf

 

It wasn't about relegating women to a lesser role (nothing of the sort); my goodness teaching children, taking care of a house are full-time jobs and extremely important. It was about functionality,survival and making a family hum.

 

There is a concept in economics called division of labor; it means that each individual specializes in some field so they become an expert at it. If they become an expert, then they become very, very efficient. When many people become experts in some area it makes productivity skyrocket and more can get done with less amount of time.

 

Now this doesn't mean an expert in one area can't help out in another-in fact helping out in another area it will increase productivity; but when 2 people try to do the same work-unless that each bit of work is well defined conflict arises and productivity drops.  It is simple economic laws.

 

I don't know why or where in the world people are blinded into thinking that raising children to be adults and taking care of the home is lesser, demeaning or not worthy. Nothing could be further from the truth.  Once upon a time, women took joy in being called a housewife. Now no one wants to use that term-at best they use stay-at-home-mom.

Edited January 26, 2016 by yjacket

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I think the Beehive Program from 100 years ago is going too far back.  Better that we study the Proclamation on the Family, the direction given us currently through general conference and the Especially for Youth pamphlet.  

 

Why?  Pres. Benson explained it this way:

 

"The living prophet has the power of TNT. By that I mean “Today’s News Today.” God’s revelations to Adam did not instruct Noah how to build the ark. Noah needed his own revelation. Therefore, the most important prophet, so far as you and I are concerned, is the one living in our day and age to whom the Lord is currently revealing His will for us."

 

Our circumstances today are very different than 100 yrs ago.  That's why we have a living prophet. 

[yjacket]

I think the Beehive Program from 100 years ago is going too far back.  Better that we study the Proclamation on the Family, the direction given us currently through general conference and the Especially for Youth pamphlet.  

Obviously you haven't read the Proclamation have you?

"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."

 

What to you think "provide for the necessities" means? What do you think "nurture" means?

[yjacket]

Our circumstances today are very different than 100 yrs ago.  That's why we have a living prophet. 

They are but the principles are the same . . . considering the massive destruction of the family with divorce rates, unhappy wives, husbands, mental problems, etc. Just maybe, people in previous generations knew how to live better lives then we do in harsher conditions.

 

Think about it-we have all this modern technology that spares us from so much work-yet the family unit is falling about; just maybe the ancients were a little wise.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Obviously you haven't read the Proclamation have you?

"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."

 

What to you think "provide for the necessities" means? What do you think "nurture" means?

 

Wow, that was quite a leap you made there.  

All I'm saying is that we don't need to look at some document some of us didn't even know existed from 100 years ago, when we have The Proclamation on the Family readily accessible.  Why did you leap to the conclusion that I hadn't read the proclamation or disgreed with it?  That makes no sense to me.  

Edited January 26, 2016 by LiterateParakeet

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

They are but the principles are the same . . . considering the massive destruction of the family with divorce rates, unhappy wives, husbands, mental problems, etc. Just maybe, people in previous generations knew how to live better lives then we do in harsher conditions.

 

Think about it-we have all this modern technology that spares us from so much work-yet the family unit is falling about; just maybe the ancients were a little wise.

 

Why do you assume we disagree on this?  I'm not clear on what your personal position is (and don't care...no offense).  You can't know what my position is since I haven't stated it.  I simply stated that we have MODERN revelation to guide us in these matters.  Do you disagree with that?

Edited January 26, 2016 by LiterateParakeet

[The Folk Prophet]

[clipped so Eowyn can practice what she preaches]

 

Haha...Now I have to clip mine too so I don't look like a... ...okay...fine!

 

Edit: If you clip out my quote too then we can really hide our sins...er...I mean repent...

Edited January 26, 2016 by The Folk Prophet