Backroads

What advice would you give someone considering divorce over income?

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Backroads said:

But how much time ought one give a husband to earn a significant amount? And what amount are we looking for? My neighbor is married to a cop who will probably never make more than 45 grand. Currently my husband brings in about 40 grand in his job that has no relation to his career. My brother also brings in 40,000 in his degreed job... all these men having only been out of school a couple of years. Let's not even mention those married to teachers. 

It just seems to me many fields just don't have stellar starting salaries.

Should a divorce be acceptable later down the road if the husband has failed to bring in x amount?

(I read this post as sounding quite accusing... I promise I'm just satisfying my what-if curiosity mind as I delve for new views)

Divorcing a husband because he can't make your temporal dreams come true... what a complete rejection of God's commandment to LOVE especially in a marriage covenant.  There is nothing - nothing in the scriptures that says unless you make X you can't enter the kingdom of heaven.

Now, word of the wise - What you make doesn't matter.  What you spend it on, does.  So anybody who says - I will not be happy with this guy until he makes X will NEVER be happy even if he makes a million dollars.  That is because - she has not learned the value of money.

Now, the good wife is the wife that says - My husband only makes X.  I can plant a garden, raise chickens, move to a 2-bedroom apartment, etcetera etcetera so we can live comfortably on an X income and I can still stay home to nurture children.  This is the wife who can be entrusted with a million dollars.

 

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Backroads said:

But how much time ought one give a husband to earn a significant amount? And what amount are we looking for? My neighbor is married to a cop who will probably never make more than 45 grand. Currently my husband brings in about 40 grand in his job that has no relation to his career. My brother also brings in 40,000 in his degreed job... all these men having only been out of school a couple of years. Let's not even mention those married to teachers. 

It just seems to me many fields just don't have stellar starting salaries.

Should a divorce be acceptable later down the road if the husband has failed to bring in x amount?

(I read this post as sounding quite accusing... I promise I'm just satisfying my what-if curiosity mind as I delve for new views)

I heartily agree with @DoctorLemon, and would just add that the dollar amount is less important than whether the family's financial goals (including the wife's ability to be a SAHM, if she so chooses) are being met.  So it doesn't make a lot of sense to hector a woman about how in Timbuktu, you can live like royalty on $30K (or $20K, or whatever the magic number is). 

Should a divorce be acceptable as a response to a perennially low-earning husband?  In the vast majority of cases I'd say "no", especially if there are already children.  But, a woman who finds out, a few weeks after the wedding, that her new husband is actually a complete deadbeat?  I don't think it's as clear-cut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:


But, a woman who finds out, a few weeks after the wedding, that her new husband is actually a complete deadbeat?  I don't think it's as clear-cut.

It's clear-cut to me.  I promised God I'll love the guy.  That promise didn't say - I will love the guy unless I find out he's a deadbeat then I won't.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

It's clear-cut to me.  I promised God I'll love the guy.  That promise didn't say - I will love the guy unless I find out he's a deadbeat then I won't.

I wasn't at your wedding ceremony; but speaking for myself--the ceremony expressly stated that my union with Just_A_Girl was conditional on our faithfulness.

A wedding certificate is not a contract of indentured servitude.  Nor is it a blank check allowing the other party to break his own marital vows with impunity.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Divorcing a husband because he can't make your temporal dreams come true... what a complete rejection of God's commandment to LOVE especially in a marriage covenant.  There is nothing - nothing in the scriptures that says unless you make X you can't enter the kingdom of heaven.

More to the point, your - and your spouse's - income is only even marginally relevant for at most 80-90 years.  What percentage of eternity is that?  Is it really worth the potential issues for your eternal soul to focus so heavily on your comfort in those few years?  Shouldn't you be far more focused on how your spouse treats you in ways that will last forever than something they won't need to worry about for the remainder of that?  I sure wouldn't mind having a sugar mama who's bringing in seven figures and won't let me do anything but work out and party, but if she's not kind, caring and faithful, I'd rather spend the rest of this life scratching out a living with a good woman who has the financial sense of a drunken sailor.

Quote

Now, word of the wise - What you make doesn't matter.  What you spend it on, does.  So anybody who says - I will not be happy with X until he makes Y will NEVER be happy even if he makes a million dollars.  That is because - she has not learned the value of money.

Right; case in point, my previous HT companion is making decent-but-not-huge money, but because he and his wife both drive ancient-but-well-maintained beaters, among other "slumming" (in the eyes of his inlaws) things, they're saving up for a very early retirement, while still being able to enjoy some less expensive but more meaningful luxuries.

Quote

Now, the good wife is the wife that says - My husband only makes X.  I can plant a garden, raise chickens, move to a 2-bedroom apartment, etcetera etcetera so we can live comfortably on an X income and I can still stay home to nurture children.  This is the wife who can be entrusted with a million dollars.

Another case in point; my grandparents.  Grandma just wasn't happy without a 1.5+ acre "garden" that was more of its own small farm and a 12x16' room full of home-canned veggies, because that's how they made sure the family stayed fed for the first several years of their marriage.  She sewed a lot of their clothes, and even when I was growing up she was the go-to for the extended family as clothing was getting passed around because she could alter nearly anything to deal with the tall, wiry cousins on one branch, the ones that look like a whole family of linebackers on another, etc.  Though granddad was fairly successful, she insisted on being a work-at-home-mom for most of the time she was raising kids, and going back to work full time as soon as their kids were out of the house so that she could contribute to their retirement.  Unfortunately, since she passed away very unexpectedly at 66, and granddad was mostly paralyzed 4 years later (and died two years after that) from a car wreck, they didn't get to do a lot of the things they'd planned for retirement.  One thing I do remember him commenting on after her death that he wished they'd set their financial goals a bit lower, so they could have retired a couple years sooner and had more time to just sit around the house growing old together.

Overall, though, I've never heard a child or spouse at a funeral say they wish the deceased had spent more time at work instead of home with them.  Never heard anyone faced with their own death wishing they's spent more time at the office, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, NightSG said:

More to the point, your - and your spouse's - income is only even marginally relevant for at most 80-90 years.  What percentage of eternity is that?  Is it really worth the potential issues for your eternal soul to focus so heavily on your comfort in those few years?

An awful lot of things of eternal import, come down to the way we handle temporal responsibilities that might seem to be of a very ephemeral nature.  Why should I be condemned for beating my kids--we all know I won't do that once they're grown!  What's the problem with a few violations of the law of chastity?  It's just sex, after all--people do it every day!  What are a few bank heists, or some doctored tax returns, in the grand, eternal scheme of things--after all, no one got really hurt!!!!

And I think we need to be very careful indeed about threatening people--especially women--with eternal burnings just because they won't stay with a churl of a husband.

Quote

Overall, though, I've never heard a child or spouse at a funeral say they wish the deceased had spent more time at work instead of home with them.  Never heard anyone faced with their own death wishing they's spent more time at the office, either.

I agree that money isn't a huge deal except as it translates into lifestyle.  Even in that regard there are certainly a lot of things that don't matter--but there are also a few things that most certainly do.  For example--and most germane to this particular discussion--I've seen plenty of women pontificates with some frequency over how things might have been different if they had been able to be a stay-at-home mom rather than working outside of the home during their children's formative years.

Jesse Crosby remembered Joseph Smith telling him that

Quote

. . . if a man cannot learn in this life to appreciate a wife and do his duty by her, in properly taking care of her, he need not expect to be given one in the hereafter.

 

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

An awful lot of things of eternal import, come down to the way we handle temporal responsibilities that might seem to be of a very ephemeral nature.  Why should I be condemned for beating my kids--we all know I won't do that once they're grown!  What's the problem with a few violations of the law of chastity?  It's just sex, after all--people do it every day!  What are a few bank heists, or some doctored tax returns, in the grand, eternal scheme of things--after all, no one got really hurt!!!!

So now not being sufficiently wealthy is equivalent to being a child abuser, philanderer and thief?  What color is the sky in your world?

Quote

I agree that money isn't a huge deal except as it translates into lifestyle.  Even in that regard there are certainly a lot of things that don't matter--but there are also a few things that most certainly do.  For example--and most germane to this particular discussion--I've seen plenty of women pontificates with some frequency over how things might have been different if they had been able to be a stay-at-home mom rather than working outside of the home during their children's formative years.

I've seen plenty of women pontificate over how things might have been different if they'd gotten a boob job or married the guy who left his abused widow a fortune when he drank himself to death in his 30s when they had the chance.  Doesn't mean it's the right decision, nor does it mean they actually weren't able to stay home; maybe they couldn't stay home in the fairly new house and have a new SUV every 3 years, but they could have stayed home if they'd properly identified the difference between wants and needs, and set a budget based on the actual needs.

I have a friend who's supporting his wife and two kids at a job that tops out at $17/hr, with limited OT opportunities.  They're not in a nice house, and their only vehicle is a mid 1980s pickup that has looked ready to fall apart since the late 1990s when he bought it.  They don't have cable, just recently upgraded from dialup internet, eat out once a month if they have the cash left over, and their total family entertainment budget is less than I spend on martial arts classes.  They don't need anything more than they have, and because they recognize that, and don't feel entitled to more, they're happy to have each other, a few luxuries, and friends who don't judge them for not caring how it looks to anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, NightSG said:

So now not being sufficiently wealthy is equivalent to being a child abuser, philanderer and thief?  What color is the sky in your world?

I've seen plenty of women pontificate over how things might have been different if they'd gotten a boob job or married the guy who left his abused widow a fortune when he drank himself to death in his 30s when they had the chance.  Doesn't mean it's the right decision, nor does it mean they actually weren't able to stay home; maybe they couldn't stay home in the fairly new house and have a new SUV every 3 years, but they could have stayed home if they'd properly identified the difference between wants and needs, and set a budget based on the actual needs.

As long as we're making unfair characterizations of each other's posts:

Oh-ho, so you consider being a stay-at-home mom as a luxury on par with getting a boob job?

Look, you can blame uppity women all you want; but the simple fact is that a family can't cut costs indefinitely.  Housing, transport, hearing, water, clothing, and so on are going to cost a minimum amount of money; and statistically speaking a sole breadwinner supporting a wife and four children is, at $30K per year, keeping his family in poverty.  You might say that an American LDS woman who expects to be a stay-at-home mother while living above the federal poverty standard is being unrealistic, and putting her eternal soul in jeopardy.  I disagree. 

Quote

I have a friend who's supporting his wife and two kids at a job that tops out at $17/hr, with limited OT opportunities.  They're not in a nice house, and their only vehicle is a mid 1980s pickup that has looked ready to fall apart since the late 1990s when he bought it.  They don't have cable, just recently upgraded from dialup internet, eat out once a month if they have the cash left over, and their total family entertainment budget is less than I spend on martial arts classes.  They don't need anything more than they have, and because they recognize that, and don't feel entitled to more, they're happy to have each other, a few luxuries, and friends who don't judge them for not caring how it looks to anyone else.

The trouble with accusing me of "judging" men whose lack of ambition or ability compels their wives to unwillingly enter the workforce on a permanent basis, is that the entire premise of your argument is essentially a judgment against the women who refuse to marry or stay with such men.

Don't judge me for sinning differently than (or similarly to) you!  :)

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I wasn't at your wedding ceremony; but speaking for myself--the ceremony expressly stated that my union with Just_A_Girl was conditional on our faithfulness.

A wedding certificate is not a contract of indentured servitude.  Nor is it a blank check allowing the other party to break his own marital vows with impunity.

If loving a guy means indentured servitude to you, then I guess we have two completely different definitions of what love means.  He can break his vows if he wants.  Divorce me if he wants.  This doesn't change the fact that I made a covenant and I'm keeping it.  And that covenant is - that I'm going to do all in my power to bring him with me closer to Christ.  If I wake up the 3 years into the marriage to find out I married a serial killer it doesn't change my covenant - I'm going to send him to jail because that's how I can get him closer to Christ.  I'm going to continue to figure out what I can do to get him more help to come closer to Christ... even if the most I can do is nothing more than pray for his salvation and make endless pleas to the Holy Ghost to keep banging on his messed up soul.  Divorce is nothing but a legal and mortal piece of paper.  My marriage is a lot more than that mortal declaration of solvency.

What's my other option?  Leave him so I can have a do-over with someone else?  If I can't love my husband unconditionally, there's no point in me trying to love another one and hope this time there won't be anything that triggers another divorce-worthy condition.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

For example--and most germane to this particular discussion--I've seen plenty of women pontificates with some frequency over how things might have been different if they had been able to be a stay-at-home mom rather than working outside of the home during their children's formative years.

And that's where I think this girl should focus her righteous desires. Being a stay-at-home-mom is not the same thing as having lots of fancy things.

Husband and I are actually going over this right now. As many of you know, I am a full-time working mom and I do enjoy my job quite a bit. However, because of my husband's new position that puts him, gasp, at normal daylight hours, our kids are now in full-time daycare. It wasn't like they weren't going before, but a mostly-preschool program a few mornings a week while Dad gets some shut-eye is another matter entirely. It's a different feeling turning over your kids to another person rather than having a bit of childcare assistance. I live in a working mom ward (also full of teachers, I swear) but this is where we're considering be quitting/going part-time/going crazy designing curriculum/taking care of my upcoming nephew, if we must. So in that regard I'm sympathetic to my associate.

I love my working mom fellow wardians and I would never criticize them because, hey, I'm one of them, but the desire to be a stay-at-home-mom isn't one to be dismissed.

Also, a Dear Abby letter for your eye-rolling or even actual responses somewhat relateted to the matter...

 

On income in general, I also think there is a huge difference between I-just-graduated salary vs a fixed wage for the next 30 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The trouble with accusing me of "judging" men whose lack of ambition or ability compels their wives to unwillingly enter the workforce on a permanent basis, is that the entire premise of your argument is essentially a judgment against the women who refuse to marry or stay with such men.

And I have no problem judging a woman who judges a man based on what material possessions he will give her.

Matthew 6:31-33 You'll never find the kingdom of God by way of a balance sheet, and there are plenty of righteous men living in what modern America considers poverty.  

Fathers "are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families."  Notice how many luxuries are included there; zero.  Absolutely none.  A roof over their heads, a couple thousand calories a day, and basic defense from predators.  That's it, and that doesn't take much more than full time minimum wage until somebody starts declaring that they "need" more than that.

"Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children."  Primarily.  Not exclusively, nor solely and directly.  A mother need no more stay at home to fulfill that than a father must build the house from scratch and harvest the food with his own hands to fulfill his responsibility, nor does that statement exclude her from any other responsibility.  Nothing in the Proclamation entitles her to a pretty house in a nice neighborhood, a new car or a standing appointment at the salon from her husband or anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

It's clear-cut to me.  I promised God I'll love the guy.  That promise didn't say - I will love the guy unless I find out he's a deadbeat then I won't.

In some places decieving a spouse about some things before the marriage can be grounds for annulment, but I'm pretty sure that income is not one of those things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

In some places decieving a spouse about some things before the marriage can be grounds for annulment, but I'm pretty sure that income is not one of those things.

Seems a shame, though; one last chance to ditch a gold digger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Say she does give up this man she loves.... because he is currently in a job that only makes 30K a year.

And she remarries a year from now, a guy who is making 50K at only 25/26 yrs old and has a great job so she and her parents just 'know' he's going to be continually making more.  She doesn't love him like she did her first husband (he'll always have a special place in her heart), but she knows she can stay at home with future children if she is married to this guy. He's a better catch so-to-speak.

And she starts her family with him.  And they have oh, let's just say 3 kids in the next 5 years.

He isn't as loving and faithful as her first husband was... he's fine, but work and church seem more important than spending time with her.  But she tells herself that's ok because this one makes more money so it was worth giving up a loving marriage for the security and being home with kids.

And boom.  The job market falls for his particular skill. 

He is laid off.

He struggles to find a job in his field.

They start to struggle to pay bills.

He still can't find a job in his field so after a year, in desperation, he takes a job that pays 30K.

In the meantime... that first husband (whom she loved and he loved her) has slowly but surely moved up in the ranks and is now happily remarried with two children and makes a comfortable 80K and has a job that is pretty secure.

Those tables sure flipped.

You just never know what the future holds for you.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

In some places decieving a spouse about some things before the marriage can be grounds for annulment, but I'm pretty sure that income is not one of those things.

Sure.  If I want it annulled.  But, I would hope that my children would go into marriage with the acceptance that this is unconditional love.  Unconditional.  If in their due diligence of finding a spouse they did not realize <insert condition here>... then it becomes their challenge to figure out how to bring that person to Christ with the said condition. 

When Christ gave us the commandment to love, he did not say - love your neighbors unless <insert condition here>.  When he died on the cross, he did not say - I'll atone for your sins unless <insert condition here>.  This is the model of love that I am teaching my children to aspire to.  This is the model of love that Filipino culture teach in their "divorce is illegal" society.  But yes, in the Philippines, there are certain things that is grounds for annulment - shotgun marriage is one of them.

 

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

If loving a guy means indentured servitude to you, then I guess we have two completely different definitions of what love means. 

I think we can have this discussion without making such patently obvious misrepresentations about the other person's position.  My statements haven't been about the definition or importance of "love"; they've been about the health of a marriage, which involves a number of factors above and beyond the bonds of love.

Quote

This doesn't change the fact that I made a covenant and I'm keeping it. . . .

If I can't love my husband unconditionally, there's no point in me trying to love another one and hope this time there won't be anything that triggers another divorce-worthy condition.

That's certainly admirable for you; but we're talking about the standard by which you presume to judge other people here.

I think it's hard to argue that marriage was ever intended to endure indefinitely between two people where one person was openly and impenitently flouting his or her own marital obligations.  Moses was permitted to introduce divorce to the Israelites, specifically because many of them were failing to abide by those obligations.  So the question isn't really whether marriage is supposed to be an unconditional arrangement; the question is what conditions (or breaches thereof) justify its dissolution.  On that, I agree with Elder Faust:

Quote

I confess I do not claim the wisdom or authority to definitively state what is ‘just cause.’ Only the parties to the marriage can determine this. They must bear the responsibility for the train of consequences which inevitably follows if these covenants are not honored. In my opinion, ‘just cause’ should be nothing less serious than a prolonged and apparently irredeemable relationship which is destructive of a person’s dignity as a human being.

At the same time, I have strong feelings about what is not provocation for breaking the sacred covenants of marriage. Surely it is not simply ‘mental distress’ or ‘personality differences’ or having ‘grown apart’ or having ‘fallen out of love.’ This is especially so where there are children.

(Cited in Eternal Marriage Student Manual:  Divorce)

 

Quote

My marriage is a lot more than that mortal declaration of solvency.

Sure; it's about whether your husband is going to allow your interests to completely subsume his own (and vice-versa); or whether he's going to set you about cleaning toilets indefinitely and let his children grow up in poverty rather than take a higher-paying job that he finds unfulfilling.

44 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Matthew 6:31-33 You'll never find the kingdom of God by way of a balance sheet, and there are plenty of righteous men living in what modern America considers poverty. 

"Righteous" is kind of a loaded term in this context.  Suffice it to say that "righteousness" is not the sole litmus test for a suitable mate.  (When was the last time you asked out a woman who twenty years older than yourself?  Or who had a significant mental illness?  Or who had personal hygiene issues you could smell fifty feet off, or who was just plain ugly?  Let's face it, NightSG--as men, we disqualify plenty of "righteous" women for not meeting some other standard of "marriageability" that we have established for ourselves.  What, other than narcissism or blatant misogyny, would lead us to expect the women we meet to choose a mate any differently?)

Quote

Fathers "are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families."  Notice how many luxuries are included there; zero.  Absolutely none.  A roof over their heads, a couple thousand calories a day, and basic defense from predators.  That's it . . .

Well, crimony, NightSG.  They can get all that in jail.

Quote

A mother need no more stay at home to fulfill that than a father must build the house from scratch and harvest the food with his own hands to fulfill his responsibility, nor does that statement exclude her from any other responsibility.

I beg to differ.  Apparently, so does the Church. 

From a breadwinner's standpoint--sure, money is money.  But from a nurturing standpoint, there is no substitute for parental care. 

 

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This is the model of love that Filipino culture teach in their "divorce is illegal" society.  But yes, in the Philippines, there are certain things that is grounds for annulment - shotgun marriage is one of them.

Then again, if my Google-fu is accurate, a psychological incapacity to fulfill one's marital obligations as of the date of the ceremony does seem to be grounds for an annulment under Filipino law, even if that incapacity is not observed or demonstrated until well after the wedding itself.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Then again, if my Google-fu is accurate, a psychological inability to meet one's marital obligations--whether manifested before the marriage, or not identified until sometime afterwards--does seem to be grounds for an annulment under Filipino law.

Yep.  That's law.  Separation of Church and State makes that law irrelevant to your marital covenant made under God... well, different Churches have different views of said annulment.

P.S.  What counts for mental incapacity in the US is not the same as in the Philippines.. my IED for example, is not considered a mental illness in the Philippines even as it is recognized as such in the US.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Yep.  That's law.  Separation of Church and State makes that law irrelevant to your marital covenant made under God.

Frankly, @anatess2, at this point I don't know where you're getting the basis for your absolutist anti-marital-dissolution argument.

You now say that it doesn't arise under Filipino law.  Okay, then.

It also quite obviously doesn't arise under American law, which is far more lax than Filipino law.

The approach you're advocating is more far stringent than LDS ecclesiastical law (as outlined in the CHI-1) as well as LDS discourse on the subject (as included in my citation of Elder Faust above and my link to the Church's Eternal Marriage institute manual).

Quite bluntly, you seem to be advancing a Catholic view of marriage on an LDS discussion board.  If that's the perspective you still hold to, that's certainly your choice; but IMHO you should be careful about trying to pass it off as LDS teaching.  Because--quite frankly--it just isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NightSG said:

And I have no problem judging a woman who judges a man based on what material possessions he will give her.

Yet as men we judge our mate by appearance, height, weight, hygene, etc , etc.  If a woman's desire is to be a SAHM what does she have to go on?

1 hour ago, NightSG said:

Matthew 6:31-33 You'll never find the kingdom of God by way of a balance sheet, and there are plenty of righteous men living in what modern America considers poverty.  .

I agree, but are you magnifying you priesthood and your role as a father by living in poverty? how many more people can you bless if you are more affluent? How much easier will life be for your children if you are able to provide them with things that you never got or experiences that you never had? Are the days past when fathers wanted their kids to do better than they did? Is the new standard mediocrity? Or does God want us to magnify our talents?

1 hour ago, NightSG said:

Fathers "are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families."  Notice how many luxuries are included there; zero.  Absolutely none.  A roof over their heads, a couple thousand calories a day, and basic defense from predators.  That's it, and that doesn't take much more than full time minimum wage until somebody starts declaring that they "need" more than that.

Terrible analogy, may as well send your wife to prison. you get 3 hots and a cot there. Heck you even get cable tv, some gym time and medical care. Do you hate women? or just the women who want basic standards of living?

1 hour ago, NightSG said:

"Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children."  Primarily.  Not exclusively, nor solely and directly.  

Yes and husband are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Not exclusively, nor solely, and directly right? Give me a break. A stay at home mom is a full time job 24/7. When a mother is in the work force someone else if fulfilling her role in nurturing her children for at least part of the day. Don't get me wrong circumstances sometime to a mother having to work, and that's fine.

 

1 hour ago, NightSG said:

 A mother need no more stay at home to fulfill that than a father must build the house from scratch and harvest the food with his own hands to fulfill his responsibility

I disagree, if possible it is better for a mother to stay at home and raise her kids.  How can she fulfill her responsibility if she is abdicating it to a stranger for 8+ hours a day? 

 

1 hour ago, NightSG said:

 Nothing in the Proclamation entitles her to a pretty house in a nice neighborhood, a new car or a standing appointment at the salon from her husband or anyone else.

Your right about this, not entitlements outlined in the proclamation. No one should feel entitled but don't you want to be the best provider you can be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Suffice it to say that "righteousness" is not the sole litmus test for a suitable mate.  (When was the last time you asked out a woman who twenty years older than yourself? 

Last November.  (Consensus is that she still looks younger than me.  Some really good genes there; shame she's no longer able to pass them on.)  Still a standing invitation next time she's in the area.

Quote

Or who had a significant mental illness?

Too many other issues involved here, like can she (legally and morally) consent to anything, much less legitimately enter into a covenant of marriage.  Then there's personal safety; I have had to disarm a date who pulled a knife on me.  That same woman later went to jail after she tried to bash a friend over the head with a bat because he stunk up her bathroom when they'd been dating for a few months.

Quote

  Or who had personal hygiene issues you could smell fifty feet off,

Last May.  It was an outdoor concert, so I stayed upwind.  Fairly certain by about halfway through that part of the issue was meth use, so that one didn't get asked again.  Besides, it's fairly rare that issues like that aren't behavioral in origin; yes, some people just smell bad no matter what they do, but most can get it to the point where it's not a significant issue with nothing more than normal hygiene practices.

Quote

or who was just plain ugly?

Fairly often.  I don't believe in ruling out potential mates based on the hand life dealt them, but rather how they're playing their cards now.

Quote

Well, crimony, NightSG.  They can get all that in jail.

And more; I see nothing in the Proclamation or anywhere else requiring a phone call...and frankly while sitting out a traffic ticket, I had cellmates more supportive and encouraging than my ex wife.  Fortunately I wasn't in long enough to find out how the sex compared.

Quote

From a breadwinner's standpoint--sure, money is money.  But from a nurturing standpoint, there is no substitute for parental care. 

To put it bluntly, some people just plain suck at parenting.  They'd do better by their kids to hire out a significant percentage of the nurturing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, NightSG said:

I had cellmates more supportive and encouraging than my ex wife.

And it shows in every comment you write in every thread related to something some women can be faulted for.  I am truly sorry that a woman has hurt you deeply.  But the animosity you show toward (a subset of) the gender harms no one but yourself.  You should try hard to let go of that animosity, even if you have to use brute force to keep yourself from expressing it (because expressing it extends its life).  (Sorry if this too hurts, but I'm not certain whether you're aware of how obvious and aggressive your animosity appears from out here, or whether it's subconscious, or whether you think it's limited and well controlled - from out here it sure doesn't seem well controlled.)

Offered with sincere intentions to help you let go of something which can only hurt you (while leaving the women in question, no matter how badly behaved or even sinful they may be, unscathed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

I agree, but are you magnifying you priesthood and your role as a father by living in poverty? how many more people can you bless if you are more affluent?

Do you only recognize financial blessings?  Do people not benefit far more from a truck driver's decision to forego a higher paying career than from an accountant's cash largesse?  At least two of the long haul drivers I've talked to lately have degrees in much higher paying fields, but get more personal fulfillment from doing something that directly helps everyone.  Somebody's got to clean the toilets, haul the produce, butcher the cattle and fix the roads, and there aren't enough kids working their way through college to get it all done so that no one over 25 will be needed in these jobs.

Quote

How much easier will life be for your children if you are able to provide them with things that you never got or experiences that you never had?

Where does it say any part of my responsibility is to make their lives easier?  I want them to see hardship, even now, so that someday when they don't have me around to help, they're not completely lost.  I pray that neither of them will become the 22 year old pregnant widow I recently met, but I know it's a possibility, and if they've been sheltered from every hardship up to that point, I have no doubt that it will destroy them.  

They've certainly got things I never had, and I'm glad of that, but I also frequently remind myself to limit what I give them, and have them earn some things for themselves rather than just giving them whatever I really wanted at that age.  (Besides, they don't like Voltron.)

Does our Heavenly Father really make our lives easy most of the time, or does He let us fail, suffer and grieve so that we can grow in our ability to handle these things, to appreciate their absence more, and to understand and help others when they have to handle them?

Quote

Are the days past when fathers wanted their kids to do better than they did? Is the new standard mediocrity? Or does God want us to magnify our talents?

I want them to learn to magnify their talents, not to expect everything to be done for them, all problems to be taken care of, and every minor effort to be praised as if they just won a Nobel prize.  They know I appreciate their attempts, even - sometimes especially - when they fail miserably, but they also know that sticking with it until they succeed (or finding a different, achievable goal) is how they get a far better result.  That's how they will do better than I did.

Quote

Your right about this, not entitlements outlined in the proclamation. No one should feel entitled but don't you want to be the best provider you can be?

No.  I want to be the best partner and father I can be.  Both of those require a whole lot more than throwing money at every problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Do you only recognize financial blessings?  Do people not benefit far more from a truck driver's decision to forego a higher paying career than from an accountant's cash largesse?  At least two of the long haul drivers I've talked to lately have degrees in much higher paying fields, but get more personal fulfillment from doing something that directly helps everyone.  Somebody's got to clean the toilets, haul the produce, butcher the cattle and fix the roads, and there aren't enough kids working their way through college to get it all done so that no one over 25 will be needed in these jobs.

No there is much more to life than financial blessings, I know wealthy people and they have their own set of problems.  Someone needs to drive the trucks, someone needs to work fast food and if an individual decides that, that is what fulfills them personally great! I think that it is a wonderful thing to find work that fulfills you.  

25 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Where does it say any part of my responsibility is to make their lives easier?  I want them to see hardship, even now, so that someday when they don't have me around to help, they're not completely lost.  I pray that neither of them will become the 22 year old pregnant widow I recently met, but I know it's a possibility, and if they've been sheltered from every hardship up to that point, I have no doubt that it will destroy them.  

I don't want my kids to see hardship. Why would you want someone you love to experience hardship? The realities of life are that they will experience hardships and my job as a parent is to give them a tool kit so that they are prepared to deal with that hardship when it arises because it will.

25 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Does our Heavenly Father really make our lives easy most of the time, or does He let us fail, suffer and grieve so that we can grow in our ability to handle these things, to appreciate their absence more, and to understand and help others when they have to handle them?

Does God let us fail? I don't think so I think that we as fallible human beings fail. Does he let us suffer? No I don't think that is part of his plan. I don't want to believe in a God whose plan is for his children to suffer. God does not let us do anything. We choose, and sometimes the results of those choices are hardship and suffering and sometimes life just happens, but God does not want that for us. He wants us to not suffer, to not fail, to not endure hardship. His desire is for our happiness, wellbeing, progression, and being the best people we can be.

 

Edited by omegaseamaster75

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now