Liberal Ideas Creeping In


Fether
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have taken some issue, while trying not to judge, where the father is functionally absent from working multiple jobs so the wife can stay home. While it technically falls under the notions of the Proclamation, I wonder just how it benefits the family. How does the family emotionally connect? I compare such scenarios to where both parents work, but both also have plenty of time for each other and the children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fether said:

 

51 minutes ago, Fether said:

It’s not a matter of letting people decide. Yes we should absolutely leave individual decisions to the individual. However what is happening among many Saints (particularly millennials and younger) is they are teaching the exceptions as being the rule. Whether it is gender roles, child bearing, word of wisdom, serving a mission, accepting callings, or obeying counsel from leaders, there is a mindset among many my age that the exceptions for each of these are actually the standard.

If an individual young man says “I’m not going to serve a mission because I have a major heart condition” then great. What’s happening is now is virtually any reason to not serve a mission is becoming acceptable. It’s being taught at the lower levels of the church that it isn’t that important for young men to serve missions.

Its being taught at the lower levels of the church that there are no gender roles. That our leaders are only inspired when we agree with them. That wit is appropriate in Gods eyes to wait for education to finish, a good paying job, a yearly visit to Europe to become stale and a Bugatti or two before having kids. 

There's some hyperbole going on here, but I'll focus on your core point.

The first thing I'll say is that I was actually a bit shocked in the 2017 Face-to-Face event with Elders Oaks and Ballard when Elder Oaks answered a question about a woman's priority for education vs. marriage.  He spoke of his own mother, and how she needed to provide for her family after his father died. He made the point that she was blessed to be able to do so comfortably because she had completed her education. He then went on to state that while he did not support putting off getting married to complete an education, he did think there was a certain wisdom to waiting until her degree was completed before having children.

Is it at all possible that the statements leaders make on this subject are colored by their own experiences? And might that be why so many of the statement stressing the importance of having mom in the home are so blasted old?

Regardless, in more cases than you might think, the choice of whether a woman works or not is practical. Let's look at the state of affairs at present:

Let's look at what it takes to buy a three bedroom home.  In my area, which is fairly low cost of living, the BR houses are running at about $150,000.  Let's make the goal to save enough for a 20% down payment. The following numbers breakdown what the financial situation is for a single income family with three mouths to feed.  At the median income, it would take 15 years to build up that down payment.  And that doesn't include costs of gasoline, car payments, or even fast offering. 

The hard reality is that, given current wages and market forces, if a couple wants to build financial stability and self reliance, there aren't a lot of options.  And they really boil down to

1. Get a job that pays well above the median (not always within your control)
2. Move to a lower cost of living area (where gainful employment is often harder to come by--I live in such an area and unemployment here is high)
3. A combination of 2 and 3
4. Become a two income family (provided the second income can offset the cost of child care)

Keep in mind that these values represent the median.  By definition, half of wage earners are unable to meet even these metrics. So it would seem to me that unless we are going to increase single earner wages dramatically, the ideal of women not pursuing careers seems to be a ship that has sailed, crashed into an iceberg, and sunk.  Perhaps we should give these families a break.

Are there people out there that are putting off family for the sake of building wealth?  Absolutely.  I'm not going to deny that one bit.  But that is often a completely separate issue from whether the woman is working or not.

Income.png.d263656547c177c21437495ddb09eb5d.png

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States#:~:text=The Bureau of Labor Statistics,sex%2C ethnicity and educational characteristics
[2] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/KY/INC110218
[3] https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/average-rent-by-state
[4] https://www.valuepenguin.com/average-household-budget
[5] Estimated on the same proportion as monthly income between U.S. and my state.
[6] https://www.nationwide.com/lc/resources/personal-finance/articles/average-cost-of-utilities
[7] https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/09/07/wscs-10-least-expensive-states/15075077/#:~:text=Kentucky&text=Numbeo estimates the average cost,restaurant at only around %248.
[8] http://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/taxing-wages-united-states.pdf
[9] Assuming 6% as it would be the minimum to max out most common employer matches
[10] Assuming a home of $150,000, which is common for a 3BR home in my low cost of living area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fether said:

It’s not a matter of letting people decide. Yes we should absolutely leave individual decisions to the individual. However what is happening among many Saints (particularly millennials and younger) is they are teaching the exceptions as being the rule. Whether it is gender roles, child bearing, word of wisdom, serving a mission, accepting callings, or obeying counsel from leaders, there is a mindset among many my age that the exceptions for each of these are actually the standard.

If an individual young man says “I’m not going to serve a mission because I have a major heart condition” then great. What’s happening is now is virtually any reason to not serve a mission is becoming acceptable. It’s being taught at the lower levels of the church that it isn’t that important for young men to serve missions.

Its being taught at the lower levels of the church that there are no gender roles. That our leaders are only inspired when we agree with them. That wit is appropriate in Gods eyes to wait for education to finish, a good paying job, a yearly visit to Europe to become stale and a Bugatti or two before having kids. 

Going off topic to a related side topic...

Some of it in regards to Missions.  I have been saddened by how many of my grandsons have not served missions.  I have learned though that there were at least two of them that wanted to, but due to some sort of quiz or evaluations they have now, they were not allowed to.  These sons have traveled the world on their own, but supposedly they are mentally or emotionally not able to because of certain mental difficulties or disabilities that they have.  In this, it's not their fault, but I think the church should allow more of those who WANT to serve proselyting missions to be allowed to make the attempt as long as that individual is righteous and worthy (and if it is still a thing, not have committed any major sins previously).

I have been blessed to have two grandsons serve missions as well, but one of those had to do a "trial" just to prove that they were able to be a missionary.  They passed the trial...but considering the circumstance...I don't think it should have been necessary. 

I see people who have broken the law of chastity repeatedly going on missions, those who are cruel and inhumane getting to go, but the restrictions on those who have done none of these things but may have disabilities being restricted.  Ironically, many of those who have a 'major heart condition' may want to go but are not allowed to being told they might be able to serve a local service mission instead.  For these young men, especially in the face of some of those that we've seen go (at least locally in the area) it can be frustrating.

On the otherhand, I also have other grandsons that simply chose not to serve.  I suppose I may not have been the best influence as I tried to heavily influence them to go.  I suppose one may even say I tried to bribe them a little with things such as offers to pay education, vehicles or otherwise which may not quite be in line with what I should have done.  Perhaps my trying to convince them that they should go pushed them further away...I don't know.  I know I have encouraged them as much as I could, but ultimately, they decided not to go.  I don't know why they chose not to, but perhaps it has to do that something happened at their own wards in the way that you mentioned that told them they did not need to go.

That this would go on concerns me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Backroads said:

I have taken some issue, while trying not to judge, where the father is functionally absent from working multiple jobs so the wife can stay home. While it technically falls under the notions of the Proclamation, I wonder just how it benefits the family. How does the family emotionally connect? I compare such scenarios to where both parents work, but both also have plenty of time for each other and the children.

This is not a failing of the proclamation, but a failing of the Father’s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Fether said:

This is not a failing of the proclamation, but a failing of the Father’s.

Certainly. But a failing if the father and family choose to be so close to the letter of the law. I simply cannot imagine a scenario where a virtually absentee father is the best choice for anything but a temporary situation. Is the father not making enough money at one job to reasonably support the family and needs to find a better situation for both money and time? Is the family aiming to live within means they don't yet have? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MarginOfError said:

The first thing I'll say is that I was actually a bit shocked in the 2017 Face-to-Face event with Elders Oaks and Ballard when Elder Oaks answered a question about a woman's priority for education vs. marriage.  He spoke of his own mother, and how she needed to provide for her family after his father died. He made the point that she was blessed to be able to do so comfortably because she had completed her education. He then went on to state that while he did not support putting off getting married to complete an education, he did think there was a certain wisdom to waiting until her degree was completed before having children.

Here is what you are referencing

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/broadcasts/face-to-face/oaks-ballard?lang=eng

Again, this was a specific case where it was wise. They were too poor to even get married and the. He “went off to school” while she stayed to finish hers. It isn’t being taught that this should be the standard, but rather this is a response to a question about trying to balance getting an education and starting a family.
 

HOWEVER... The most important part here is that she got her degree before having a family. It is said nowhere that women should not be educated. What is taught is that it’s the mothers duty to nurture the family and it is the fathers duty to provide. A mother who has the option to either raise her kids or work for financial comfort and let a day care raise their kids (by standard) should choose to raise her kids full time.

1 hour ago, MarginOfError said:

Let's look at what it takes to buy a three bedroom home

The standard of living is sky rocketing. A three bedroom house you say?? Most of us grew up sharing their room with their siblings. At one point it was me and 2 siblings being raised in a 2 bedroom house. What you are suggesting is waiting to be comfortable before raising kids. Its been done for generations and it can be done today.
 

I’m doing it right now actually and my wife and I are doing it on purpose. We are in a great financial situation. We have a 3 bed home and About to have 3 kids. We are choosing to put 3 kids in one room and save the 3rd room as a play room. Having 3 kids on one room is not a sacrifice. My sister in law has 4 in 1 room despite there being a whole different room available in the home.

I don’t even have to go back to pioneer times to prove people can raise a family with little money. Go back one generation and you will see countless examples of families having 1 car and raising 3-5 kids on a two bedroom home.

 

 

And to drive this home one last time. This is the STANDARD. Not the law. There are plenty of cases where this is not wise and individuals can make the standard decision. 
 

My complaint is that it is being taught and believed that everyone should be waiting for an education and a job before starting a family.

Edited by Fether
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Fether said:

The standard of living is sky rocketing. A three bedroom house you say?? Most of us grew up sharing their room with their siblings. At one point it was me and 2 siblings being raised in a 2 bedroom house. What you are suggesting is waiting to be comfortable before raising kids. Its been done for generations and it can be done today. I’m doing it right now. About to have 3 kids and we will only be utilizing one room for all 3. 

I don’t even have to go back to pioneer times to prove people can raise a family with little money. Go back one generation and you will see countless examples of families having 1 car and raising 3 kids on a two bedroom home.

Yup. Both my Father and Mother grew up in households with 8 and 9 people in the house. Each home had only 3 bedrooms. Everyone slept with their siblings. Each home had only 1 bathroom. In my last ward our Bishop had 5 kids...and they lived in a 3 bedroom home with only a minivan for transport. He took the bus or walked 2.5 miles to work every day. 

I am 34 years old with a stay at home wife and 4 kids at home, and my family is surviving on my modest income alone. Our 4 kids share rooms, our home is small, our vehicles are used, and our vacations consist of going camping. We do not spend our money frivolously. We make a budget and stick to it. There is no "standard of living" outside of what we choose the standard to be. We do not have to move our measuring stick to fit the world's ideals. Numbers and charts can be doctored to fit any narrative. The fact remains that people need to stop expecting to live beyond their means; that certain goods are required in today's society...because they aren't. Cuts should be made before a wife has to leave the home to work...she should only do so if truly necessary, as rearing her children always takes priority. Counsel from a man who became a prophet of God is below...yet there will always be those who continue to kick against the pricks..."what he said certainty doesn't apply to me...I am the exception". I would certainly work overtime if need be before I had my wife go to work and leave the children with someone else.

 

"It is a human tendency to want the things which will give us prominence and prestige. We live in a time when borrowing is easy. We can purchase almost anything we could ever want just by using a credit card or obtaining a loan. …The day of reckoning will come if we have continually lived beyond our means.

My brothers and sisters, avoid the philosophy that yesterday’s luxuries have become today’s necessities. They aren’t necessities unless we make them so…I urge you to live within your means. One cannot spend more than one earns and remain solvent. I promise you that you will then be happier than you would be if you were constantly worrying about how to make the next payment on nonessential debt."

Thomas S. Monson, Apr 2006 General Conference

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Backroads said:

Certainly. But a failing if the father and family choose to be so close to the letter of the law. I simply cannot imagine a scenario where a virtually absentee father is the best choice for anything but a temporary situation. Is the father not making enough money at one job to reasonably support the family and needs to find a better situation for both money and time? Is the family aiming to live within means they don't yet have? 

And that is where I choose to stop judging. However, keep this in mind.

Maybe this thought experiment can put this into perspective and reveal the reality of such situations.

A man living in a cave and he is given a jug of water every day. He has to use that water for himself, the garden he is growing so he doesn’t starve, and to put in a mini hydronic dam that powers the lights in his home. 
 

At the end of the day, there is not enough to do everything and he cries out “but I didn’t have enough water to keep myself hydrate, that’s why I’m dying!”. That won’t change the fact that he is dying. Perhaps he could have used less water to grow his food and sacrificed some food to stay hydrated longer, perhaps he was over using the lights? We don’t know cause we don’t know how much water was there so we can’t really make a good judgment.
 

the same can be said about a family with limited time and resources. Do you provide for your family financially? Spiritually? Relationally? Whatever you neglect is going to suffer. In these cases, it is up to the parents to decide what the best decision is.

In an ideal world, we all have enough time to provide for everything adequately, but that is not always the case. 
 

(On a somewhat side note, my opinion on church welfare has changed drastically. If a father cannot be home to be with his family because he has to work, it is time to let go of pride and reach out to the church for aide.)

When it comes to mothers having a career and having children, they are always deciding that the time they spend at work is more important than the well being of the relationship they have with their kids. Whether this is true and it is the only source of wealth or if it is based in a desire to have nice stuff, that isn’t up to us to decide. 

Again, the issue is not the individual examples, it’s what the new standard is becoming

Edited by Fether
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, scottyg said:

My brothers and sisters, avoid the philosophy that yesterday’s luxuries have become today’s necessities. They aren’t necessities unless we make them so

Holy goodness that is a great quote

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

 

There's some hyperbole going on here, but I'll focus on your core point.

The first thing I'll say is that I was actually a bit shocked in the 2017 Face-to-Face event with Elders Oaks and Ballard when Elder Oaks answered a question about a woman's priority for education vs. marriage.  He spoke of his own mother, and how she needed to provide for her family after his father died. He made the point that she was blessed to be able to do so comfortably because she had completed her education. He then went on to state that while he did not support putting off getting married to complete an education, he did think there was a certain wisdom to waiting until her degree was completed before having children.

Is it at all possible that the statements leaders make on this subject are colored by their own experiences? And might that be why so many of the statement stressing the importance of having mom in the home are so blasted old?

Regardless, in more cases than you might think, the choice of whether a woman works or not is practical. Let's look at the state of affairs at present:

Let's look at what it takes to buy a three bedroom home.  In my area, which is fairly low cost of living, the BR houses are running at about $150,000.  Let's make the goal to save enough for a 20% down payment. The following numbers breakdown what the financial situation is for a single income family with three mouths to feed.  At the median income, it would take 15 years to build up that down payment.  And that doesn't include costs of gasoline, car payments, or even fast offering. 

The hard reality is that, given current wages and market forces, if a couple wants to build financial stability and self reliance, there aren't a lot of options.  And they really boil down to

1. Get a job that pays well above the median (not always within your control)
2. Move to a lower cost of living area (where gainful employment is often harder to come by--I live in such an area and unemployment here is high)
3. A combination of 2 and 3
4. Become a two income family (provided the second income can offset the cost of child care)

Keep in mind that these values represent the median.  By definition, half of wage earners are unable to meet even these metrics. So it would seem to me that unless we are going to increase single earner wages dramatically, the ideal of women not pursuing careers seems to be a ship that has sailed, crashed into an iceberg, and sunk.  Perhaps we should give these families a break.

Are there people out there that are putting off family for the sake of building wealth?  Absolutely.  I'm not going to deny that one bit.  But that is often a completely separate issue from whether the woman is working or not.

Income.png.d263656547c177c21437495ddb09eb5d.png

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States#:~:text=The Bureau of Labor Statistics,sex%2C ethnicity and educational characteristics
[2] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/KY/INC110218
[3] https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/average-rent-by-state
[4] https://www.valuepenguin.com/average-household-budget
[5] Estimated on the same proportion as monthly income between U.S. and my state.
[6] https://www.nationwide.com/lc/resources/personal-finance/articles/average-cost-of-utilities
[7] https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/09/07/wscs-10-least-expensive-states/15075077/#:~:text=Kentucky&text=Numbeo estimates the average cost,restaurant at only around %248.
[8] http://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/taxing-wages-united-states.pdf
[9] Assuming 6% as it would be the minimum to max out most common employer matches
[10] Assuming a home of $150,000, which is common for a 3BR home in my low cost of living area.

MoE, with all respect and brotherly love, this is why people talk about lies and darned lies and statistics.

—The median income figure you cite is for all workers, whether part or full time.  Can we at least acknowledge that three-bedroom houses are inherently expensive, and that it is entirely proper that a couple who wants to live in one should at least be working forty hours between the two of them?  And can we therefore also agree that when we are taking about median incomes in the context of home-buying, the median income we should be talking about is the median income for *full* time workers ($865/week, or $44,980/year, or a little over $3700/month) rather than the slimmer figures you cite that are apparently diluted by all the part-time workers?

—Can we acknowledge that a single-income family of three with household income of $44,980 are nominally in the 22% federal bracket, but will also be getting deductions and child and earned income tax credits such that their effective federal tax income rate will be near zero?  And can we then further acknowledge that their state taxes and social security, while not insubstantial, won’t be anywhere near 24%?

—Can we acknowledge that most people don’t save for retirement and a first-home down payment simultaneously?

—Can we acknowledge that a 20% down payment on a house is not at all normal; and that 5-10% is more typical these last few years?

—Can we recognize that I ordinarily feed a family of 8 on under $1K/month in groceries ($788/month, as per the budgeting program on my phone), and that $300-$500/month in groceries for a family of three is probably pretty darned generous?

I mean, I want to be compassionate and understanding when people say “we just can’t do it on one income”; but when I see people justifying themselves with proposed figures like the above—I am sometimes tempted to wonder if we are even living in the same universe.  People keep telling me “JAG, it’s just not possible”—and then there’s me and my family, over in our little corner, just quietly doing it.

The one thing I suspect gets missed in these conversations a lot—and I don’t mean this as a moral condemnation, just as an observation—but, I don’t think our society likes children as much as it used to.  Sure, we fetishize them, we throw taxpayer funds at them, we make an academic discipline of their development, and in the political arena we bludgeon each other with ideas about the kind of world we want to build for them.  But we don’t actually like them.  When push comes to shove, we consider child-rearing to be full drudgery that should be someone else’s priority.  We don’t make children, we don’t sacrifice our personal interests and resources to raise them, and on Friday nights we don’t say “hey, forget the bar/the movies/the night club/touch football/Call of Duty; tonight the cool thing to do is go play peek-a-boo and watch Thomas the Tank Engine reruns!”

Again, I don’t mean this as a moral indictment; just an observation.  There are people who temperamentally just aren’t suited to being around kids (or being around a lot of kids).  Heck, in many ways I’m one of them; and ultimately that should be between each of us and God as we work out our own salvation.  The stickiness comes from the fact that our theology links salvation/exaltation with child rearing so integrally, that it’s hard to openly eschew the latter without seeming to voluntarily renounce the former.  So I suspect a lot of us in the Church do feel some social pressure to overplay the financial cost of child-rearing; because it’s much easier to tell ourselves and others that “I want to but I can’t” than to admit that “I just don’t want to” and be cross examined/judged about the fact that we just don’t want (very many) kids.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

And just as there are people that will fixate one one phrase to justify a woman working out of the home, there are others that will hyper focus on the mother's primary responsibility to the detriment of their family.  I am personally familiar with a family where the husband, unable to hold a job and at times physically unable to work refused to let his wife get a job because "if we follow the counsel of the prophets, we will be blessed." Without going into the details, you'll just have to take my word for it that it was tantamount to spiritual abuse.  The abuses of these things go in all sorts of directions.

And as I said if we focus/fixate on just one we slip into error. 

Another is the problematic conflation is idea that Primary = Sole (as the example you shared)  This is simply false and not supported.   For example my wife is the Primary Nurturer of my children... If she was the Sole Nurturer I would be getting reamed out up, down, left, right and by anyone and everyone, and deservedly so.  But just because I can and do... do the role does not mean I am the Primary provider, as my kids amply demonstrate when they will pass right by me like I am not there to go to their mother when they need something.

Yet for some people only the man can provide financially and he must do it Solo... which is not supported.

The only warning when being a equal partner helping your spouse is that you do not neglect/reduce your primary role (Unless you have need for the death/disability/Other adaptation)

The big problem I see isn't people figuring out was works best for them.. the problem I see is culturally we think we need more then we really realistically do.  We do not have to look back that far into our history to see examples of people doing just fine with much much less.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Hi, you must be new here.  I’m Just_A_Guy.

Just because I know that people are frequently judgmental and unnecessary making calls about things they know little about, doesn't mean I have to like it or say something about it.  I've seen this come up WAY to many time.  Just one example off the top of my head: I've a good friend who's a devout LDS Christian and great mom.  Her husband doesn't make much money, but they've alway felt it was important to have a parent home full time, so they made it work, literally counting every penny.  Once all 4 kids were in school full time, my friend elected to take a  teaching job at her kid's elementary school so that they could have a little extra money to save for mission funds/college/retirement, etc.  This was an extremely prayerful and thought out decision for the entire family.  After completing all of her teaching certifications & got hired, my friend excitedly told her ministering sister about the updates.  To which her ministering sister instantly condemned her with "Women being out of the home is an invitation for Satan to come in".  *WHAM*  Now, do you think that my friend EVER shared anything with that sister again or trusted her in any way? No, the bridge was permanently burnt because this sister didn't care about the person/family and just judged where she had no dominion.  

These stories are not "those faceless crazy liberals" or anything like that.  They are individuals and families, making calls on details only they know.  Let us not judge them where we have no dominion.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

The Family A Proclamation to the World:

I see more and more, members 'choosing' a career over children or being a stay-at-home parent. I see them choosing a career to support life styles they desire. I'm referring to 'choosing' it versus it being a 'necessity'. These are two different things.
 

My wife had an established career before we converted.   I don't see that changing, nor do I believe she is a less involved mother.  I believe she just kills herself trying to do both.   If we'd grown up in the Church, or met before she had a career, we likely would have done things differently. 

Edited by Grunt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

MoE, with all respect and brotherly love, this is why people talk about lies and darned lies and statistics.

—The median income figure you cite is for all workers, whether part or full time.  Can we at least acknowledge that three-bedroom houses are inherently expensive, and that it is entirely proper that a couple who wants to live in one should at least be working forty hours between the two of them?  And can we therefore also agree that when we are taking about median incomes in the context of home-buying, the median income we should be talking about is the median income for *full* time workers ($865/week, or $44,980/year, or a little over $3700/month) rather than the slimmer figures you cite that are apparently diluted by all the part-time workers?

—Can we acknowledge that a single-income family of three with household income of $44,980 are nominally in the 22% federal bracket, but will also be getting deductions and child and earned income tax credits such that their effective federal tax income rate will be near zero?  And can we then further acknowledge that their state taxes and social security, while not insubstantial, won’t be anywhere near 24%?

—Can we acknowledge that most people don’t save for retirement and a first-home down payment simultaneously?

—Can we acknowledge that a 20% down payment on a house is not at all normal; and that 5-10% is more typical these last few years?

—Can we recognize that I ordinarily feed a family of 8 on under $1K/month in groceries ($788/month, as per the budgeting program on my phone), and that $300-$500/month in groceries for a family of three is probably pretty darned generous?

Some of these are fair criticisms.  Adjusting the federal numbers up to 3700 per month and reducing the taxes to 5% (about 11% to federal and 4% to state/local) changes the monthly unused income to $489 per month. That $30,000 downpayment becomes accessible in just over five years.  But with the caveat that transportation still isn't included in that value. And the caveat that the home price is still the typical value in the area I live in, which a fairly low cost of living area. The urban area 30 minutes north of me shows 2BR/1Bath houses starting around the $125k point.  By comparison, this (admittedly cherry picked) 2BR 1.5 Bath in the Salt Lake area going into foreclosure and marked as for sale is listed at $280k.  

Sidenote, regarding some other criticisms of using a 3BR house in my targets, I figured a young couple starting out and planning for their future might be interested in a 3BR house if they wanted to have four kids, which doesn't seem unreasonable for a mormon family. I apologize that this assumption wasn't expressly stated in my work.

As another form of comparison, this Census report shows the 1970 median household income was $8,730 per year. This inflation calculator places that value at 59,506.2 in today's dollars. I'm struggling to find an individual income median for a direct comparison, but if we operate on the belief that single income families were more common in the upper income levels then than they are now, my gut check guess is that a single income family probably has the equivalent of $600 less monthly income now than it did in 1970. 

Which all goes back to the original point, that regardless of which numbers you use, a single income has less purchasing power today than it did 50 years ago. By extension, making ends meet and accomplishing financial goals is harder on a single income today than it was 50 years ago.  It seems reasonable to think that families might be making different decisions with regard to who works and who doesn't that reflect some of that lost purchasing power.

 

 

Things not relevant to the main point:

- A 20% down payment may not be normal, but I'd argue that is another symptom of the problem.  Best practice by financial experts, as far as I understand, still encourage the 20% down payment because it saves money due to PMI. More importantly, it demonstrates the ability to save money for the unexpected expenses that comes with the maintenance on a house. Statistically speaking, the lower percentage the downpayment, the higher the risk of failing to keep up with payments. (another really complicated discussion, I know)

- Not saving for retirement while saving to purchase a house is, in my estimation, a catastrophic strategic error. If your employer offers a match, you should contribute at least enough to max out that benefit.  Early savings are king in retirement, and starting five to six years earlier makes an enormous difference after 30 years of saving.  So whether or not it is common, it's the practice that should be encouraged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Can we recognize that I ordinarily feed a family of 8 on under $1K/month in groceries ($788/month, as per the budgeting program on my phone),

Wow, you are either great at budgeting (kudos to you and your wife) or your kiddies are very young and therefore don't eat much? (j/k, no seriously).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

These stories are not "those faceless crazy liberals" or anything like that.  They are individuals and families, making calls on details only they know.  Let us not judge them where we have no dominion. 

I think that was kind of @Just_A_Guy point...  You were saying do not judge period.  That is true most of the time.  But there are times when we have to judge as a result of some kind of stewardship.  Just_A_Guy job gives him such a stewardship on the cases he oversees, and he must make judgements that you were saying should be left to God (Without the clairifier you have added now)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is a liberal ideal and what is a conservative ideal?

In our society - I believe that the conservative ideal is to teach correct principles and let people govern themselves.  I think of myself as conservative and I believe that the parents of a family can make their own decisions based on their circumstances.  I believe women are better at nurturing in the home - but that principle of nurturing in the home should not be left to women alone.  Likewise I believe that men are better at providing for the family - but that principle of providing does not mean such should be left to the man alone.

In our society - I believe that the liberal ideal is to force everyone to comply to a single understanding of ideals and demand that all be so governed - without consideration of individual circumstances. 

Should women work outside the home?  Or should men be nurturing in the home?  I think yes to both especially if the man and women can decide together the best solutions to their circumstances.   I stand by any and all decisions made in a marriage that bring a man and woman together in their quest to raise their children as they determine by their choices having access to and knowing correct principles.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/15/2020 at 3:13 PM, MarginOfError said:

Income.png.d263656547c177c21437495ddb09eb5d.png

Corrections:

  • You've listed an AVERAGE rental rate.  But if you're poor, you don't get an average apartment.  You get a poor apartment.   That's how things work.  If you don't do this, you're valuing comfort over wise financial planning. And, NO, this does NOT = crime ridden apartment.  I've lived in dirt cheap apartments that were not in crime ridden areas. 
  • I currently have a high income, so I live very comfortably ... on about $1200/month on groceries for a family of 9.  This includes things like cleaning supplies, toiletries, etc.  The regular thing you'd get from a grocery store.  But the "average" family buys pre-prepared foods all the time which have serving sizes that are too small and cost an arm and a leg.  They drink soda all the time.  This is why the "average" family budget is so high.  There's no secret here.  You just need to realize that when you're poor, you have to sacrifice some things.  and if you get soda, it will be a special occasion.  We also bargain shop.  So, we're nowhere NEAR the average for our family size.  But this is exactly what a poor family SHOULD be doing.
  • Utilities: OK.  But some utilities are paid by the apartment complex.  So, some deduction there.
  • Retirement:  Sounds good.
  • After deductions and tax credits, federal taxes would be a negative number (i.e. you'd get cash back).  I saw your correction.  And that is also wrong.  You'd get a total cash back for the lower income.  And if you include FICA, you'd get about about a 1% total tax bill for the higher income, but still a net credit for the lower income.  State taxes vary.  But where I've lived (CA,UT, CO, AZ, LA) the tax bill would have been less than $200/yr.  Texas has no state income tax.  After all is said and done, I'd either get a credit or I paid virtually zero taxes.

I've gone to the grocery store and found apartments in the area, etc.  I've done some shopping.

  • Income is based on the starting salary of an Amazon delivery driver.  This is also the starting salary of a regular store employee at Walmar or ALDI (a nationwide grocery chain).
  • Rent for a small, but decent 2 bd apt in this non-crime ridden area.
  • Groceries were a proportion of my current grocery expenditure (which is pretty nice, actually).
  • Based on what utilities are included in an apartment's rental agreement vs ones you'd have to pay yourself.
  • Retirement is std 6%.
  • Misc expenses were a proportion of what I spend on my "necessary" items throughout the year.  Car, insurance, repairs on the house, etc.  While many of these may not be an expense for someone who is poor, it was only fair to add "something" into this list to catch miscellaneous items.
  • Taxes were actually calculated.  After all deductions and child tax credits (assuming married filing jointly + 1 child). 8% FICA.

Capture.JPG.6530859b87a2af7ad18112f0ac3943cb.JPG

These are not theoretical or statistical.  These are REAL numbers based on how I budgeted when I made very little income.  That's how I lived.

Again, you've basically proven the point that the primary reason people cry "financial need" is because they want comfort and luxury rather than inability to make it work.

Are there people with REAL financial issues?  Sure.  No argument there.  But here is my real world experience:

I've often been asked to work with the poor households in many of the ward's I've been in (there is a reason for that).  It is amazing what I find. REAL EXAMPLES...

A family that is broke, "no income", living in a trailer, a shed, and a small home (three structures, extended family) on some tiny piece of land in a poor area (but not a high crime area):  This is a family in my current ward.

  • They get more than $50,000/yr on total government and charitable assistance.  They also get allowances for the children to spend on jewelry, candy, toys...  One son bought enough parts to build himself a motorized bicycle.
  • They get all their medical need "paid for", but they do have many restrictions on what services they get.  The government system is so screwed up that what they do pay for and what they don't pay for is just whacked out.
  • They get constant food orders for the Bishop's Storehouse.
  • They get WIC and go to food banks.
  • They get government paid cell phones (I couldn't find out if they were issued by govt or not) for every member of the family.
  • They have three dogs that they really don't take care of or play with.  But they have to feed them.

A family that is broke, "no income", living in a small home (3 bd, 2 ba, 1200 sq ft) a poor area (but not a high crime area):  This was a family back a few wards.

  • They got more than $35,000/yr on total government and charitable assistance.  This was back in 2000.  So, that was  LOT OF money for a poor person back then. I remember remarking that this was more than I made as an engineer.
  • They got government paid cell phones.
  • They had no problems medically.
  • Neighbors would just walk into their home and pick up food from their fridge and cupboards like they'd always done that.  And they had.  Food that magically appears, magically disappears just as easily and with just as much emotion.
  • They had several cats.  Impossible to count when they kept going in and out of the house.
  • They asked for church assistance and the bishop asked me to meet with them to assess their needs.
  • When they found out that they weren't going to get any cash from us (only storehouse orders) they up and moved to the neighboring stake where my in-laws lived.  And they gave the same sob story to them.  My in-laws were amazed at how quickly they made "friends" who would, again, come to their house and take their food without any threats, or any permissions.  It didn't belong to anyone, so why not?

That said, I have come across families who really DO have financial needs.  And we help them.  I've generally found three kinds:

  • Those who simply need some help with budgeting and training: These tend to get out of poverty fairly quickly.
  • Those who simply can't get out of the victim mindset and will not accept training for a better job.  Won't fill out job applications that they're fully qualified for.  Won't go to job interviews.  Won't learn to budget.  Won't sacrifice that smoothie each morning (about $1000 to $2000 each year).  Won't sacrifice.  They never get out.
  • Generational welfare cases. I've only been able to help one person get out of this cycle.  That was a daughter who was simply differen than all the others I've worked with.  I sometimes wondered if she was a milkman baby. She simply didn't buy into the mindset of the rest of the family.  When she became an adult, she got a job, saved up for college and had a great life for as long as I knew her.

How often have you actually gotten in the trenches and worked with poor people to help them get out of poverty?  Can you share some experiences?

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Carborendum

Question on some of your numbers...

That looks like you list $710 for an apartment?  Is that right?  You live in Texas...what part?

With the rental areas I'm familiar with, I'm either overcharging (doubtful considering how fast they rent out) or something is odd with your number.  710 is how much it might have cost 20 YEARS ago...but not today.  Not if you live anywhere near San Antonio, Austin, or Dallas, or anywhere in between.  710 would be for a one bedroom apartment in a decent area 20 years ago.  You could have gotten something down to 500 in a more crime ridden area.  Today, if you pay less than 900-1000, you are probably living in a very crime ridden area where no one else wants to live.   You can get something in the range of maybe 850 that could be acceptable if it's small (studio or one room), but at two rooms you are looking at a minimum of probably 900 and more likely 1000 unless you want to have a chance to be mugged each day.

I DO SUPPOSE on the otherhand that if you just live in West Texas in the boonies.  YOU CAN get apartments dirt cheap there, but there aren't really any jobs out there either.

You also state that Walmart workers make $15/hour.  I admit, I do not know how much Walmart workers make, so I looked it up.  According to this site...

Payscale.com walmart hourly rate

Quote

Walmart.com pays its employees an average of $13.05 an hour. Hourly pay at Walmart.com ranges from an average of $10.77 to $21.05 an hour. Walmart.com employees with the job title Staff Pharmacist make the most with an average hourly rate of $56.97, while employees with the title Cashier make the least with an average hourly rate of $11.47

Which doesn't quite seem to equal $15 and hour.  You also account in that Walmart worker would be working 40 hours a week (full time, that is if they are actually going to get to 31K a year) which seems HIGHLY unlikely these days.  Walmart, unless you are a supervisor or Store Manager normally tries to limit hours under 40 hours a week to avoid paying many of the workers benefits. 

Are you mixing numbers?  20 year ago numbers with numbers from today? 

I couldn't find Amazon Delivery Drivers pay scale on the payscale site, so looked it up otherwise.  On Glass door it lists 16/hour as the average which appears to be around 33,260 a year.  I couldn't find the exact listing for a driver for 0 experience, but it did say this in google with reference to Glassdoor

Quote

The typical Amazon Delivery Driver makes $16 per hour. Delivery Driver hourly pay at Amazon can range from $13 - $27. This estimate is based upon 198 Amazon Delivery Driver salary report(s) provided by employees or estimated based upon statistical methods.

At $13 an hour it would be around 27,040 annually and at $27 an hour it would equal 56,160 a year.

You said you based the budget off of when you didn't make much money...You spent $1,596 on groceries a MONTH!!!   Call me floored.  If I account for inflation, back then I would have been probably spending between $450-$900 a month for a family of 9 (20 years ago, but that's inflated, most of my kids were gone by then).  That's not even being overly cautious about budgeting on my part.  Today...I suppose it might cost that much...but today is a far cry from 20 years ago (which is where you rent looks like it is from if you are in Texas unless you are living in slums or out in the boonies).

You did make me wonder if my numbers were way off, so I did a quick google which turned up this

https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market-trends/us/tx/bexar-county/san-antonio/

Which shows that yes, there ARE apartments under $700, but if you are in the area of San Antonio, you KNOW that's NOT where you want to live.

Average is $1051 which includes that cost of everything from a one bedroom in the bad areas of town to the 3 bedroom in the best parts and most expensive parts of town.

It's better than Austin $1,385 average, or Dallas $1,250 average...and even Houston $1,106.

The cheapest I could find for the area would be near the Military Base (Randolph of all places) which has an average of $900, but knowing that area, the cheapest of the safe areas (and that's only because it's gated, the complex next door is hit regularly with crime) is around $800 for a one bedroom apartment.

22 hours ago, Carborendum said:

That said, I have come across families who really DO have financial needs.  And we help them.  I've generally found three kinds:

  • Those who simply need some help with budgeting and training: These tend to get out of poverty fairly quickly.
  • Those who simply can't get out of the victim mindset and will not accept training for a better job.  Won't fill out job applications that they're fully qualified for.  Won't go to job interviews.  Won't learn to budget.  Won't sacrifice that smoothie each morning (about $1000 to $2000 each year).  Won't sacrifice.  They never get out.
  • Generational welfare cases. I've only been able to help one person get out of this cycle.  That was a daughter who was simply differen than all the others I've worked with.  I sometimes wondered if she was a milkman baby. She simply didn't buy into the mindset of the rest of the family.  When she became an adult, she got a job, saved up for college and had a great life for as long as I knew her.

How often have you actually gotten in the trenches and worked with poor people to help them get out of poverty?  Can you share some experiences?

We all have different experiences...and I must admit, mine is very different from yours.  I've seen families which have financial needs for all sorts of a variety of reasons..  A few examples that could be other than what you listed...and I'm not sure why anyone would be so cold as to ignore ones like these...

   -An older widow whose husband died.  She actually lived in one of the trailers that my friend was renting out at the time.  We had people go help her with yard work, but she basically had no income that I could tell apart from a very small SS income.  She couldn't afford rent.  My friend was a Saint...basically let her live there.  She lived alone, and was rather feeble in old age as well.

   - A disabled individual who had a wife and son living with him.  He had been hit in a car accident (other vehicle's fault) and if I recall, the other driver didn't have insurance.  He was paralyzed from the neck down.  The Car insurance ONLY covers so much, as does medical insurance.  He was crippled for life.

   -A family that WAS working for almost the exact amount that you list...$15 dollars an hour.  In order to afford a place for their size of a family they actually DID move out of town.  The amount taken out for insurance as well as utilities and house payments (they did buy a house, they figured house payments were actually cheaper to pay then rent...which is true in many cases) was basically almost the entire paycheck.  For 5 kids they had $150 to pay for food, gas, and anything extra a MONTH.  That's it.  Remarkably, they did NOT ask for welfare, nor did the kids even get free lunch...and they didn't ask the church either.  the church actually had to send people out to THEM and offer to at least have a Bishop's Warehouse food order.  They didn't do it themselves because the Husband was working full time.

   --Another family, dad also making $15 an hour who had 6 kids and counting (I don't know how many they have now, they definitely believed in the principle that the Lord would give children and then would provide). 

Even at $15 an hour, I don't see them really able to provide for their families with all the necessities.  Both examples above actually didn't ask the Church for help, but had to be approached instead.  However, it was obvious to many that there was a need to help there. 

I don't know many people making $50K a year on Government assistance.  The closest I know are some Wounded and Disabled Veterans (and who in their RIGHT MIND holds Veteran benefits against Veterans who bled and were wounded for our freedoms!!!???   Sorry, I have to shush about this or I'd go off, but I'm not going to assume that's what you are referring to simply because that's the only ones I know who make more than others on their benefits) who still don't get that much in their Benefits.  You'd have to be at least a Wounded 0-3 or O-4 at 100% medical retirement to come close and that's MILITARY RETIREMENT (medically) rather than government assistance.

Most of those I knew with Government assistance made less than $20K a year, some as low as ~$5000 a year, many around ~16-18K, and a very few between 20-30K a year...with these being numbers more recent.

How in the WORLD did anyone get over 50K in Government assistance (and I'm speaking of assistance, NOT Benefits such as Veteran Benefits, which if you are referring to would probable not make me happy and I should quit the thread, as someone who begrudges veterans normally makes me in a very unchristian attitude...which is a failing of mine and a sin). 

It's hard to find how much Texas actually pays in Welfare or TANF/SNAP, but I did find this site

Snap food benefits

And this

TANF cash Help

That shows the maximum family amount for 1 person under SNAP is $204 a month, and for a family of 3 it is $535, for a family of 4 it is $680, and a family of 6 it is $969 to a maximum of a family of 8 at $1,224 per month with another $153 per extra mouth.

TANF shows that with 1 parent in a family of 1 (how that works with children...who knows) is $78.  If you have 2 parents at home with two it goes up to $125 a month.  The maximum it appears for a family of 5 is $268 a month with $43 per extra person. 

So, using those two, even with a $1377 per month for a family of 9 with another $397 cash per month for a family of 9.  Combined that's ,1744 a month which is 21, 288 a month...which is still a far cry from 50K (and this is current numbers listed on these sites).  How big are these families getting 50K in charity and government assistance?  That's still a far cry from 50K that I have to go to get there.

HOWEVER...I then thought, maybe they get their utilities paid for as well???  Which then showed that Texas

Texas Utilities Benefits

is quite generous with help with it's utilities.  It will pay up to 6 to 8 of the highest utility bills each year.  I suppose if you had a family of 9 who used a TON of AC in the summer...and had a large house (which doesn't make sense considering rent costs...but okay...we'll go with it...they have a big house)...they could have a $1000 electricity and water bill each month.  So that's another 12K we can add onto that 21,288 bringing us up to 33, 288.  Still lower than that 35K you talked about (twenty years ago which the benefits would have been less from Texas at that point).

Utilities seem a little high for someone who is saving money on a budget (and in Texas...but then...AC costs can drive electrical up pretty high at times).   You could cut electrical costs a LOT..which leaves water costs for the most part...which normally isn't that high.

I'm not really involved in the discussion of whether woman working or not should be something we commend at this point, but your numbers in your budget didn't make a ton of sense to me (some seemed a little high, some seemed a little low whether it was 20 years ago, or for today...at least in Texas...it could be you are speaking of someplace else like Iowa or Nebraska or even some parts of Georgia, Louisiana, Alabama...or elsewhere).  So...I made some commentary (really lengthy commentary) of my thoughts outloud while I looked up things online to see if I really was out of it, or if something didn't quite seem right with what you posted numbers wise.

Also, in the process of that, I found that my experiences of those that need assistance and help don't necessarily fall into the narrow categories you give, but acknowledge we all have different experiences in this.

 

PS: Though not really in the conversation, in reference to the actual topic...my preference is that a wife and a mother would wish to raise her children in the ways of the Lord.  We have been advised that this is the exemplar way that we should strive to do things...BUT...I also understand that in many instances this is not possible in today's world with expenses.  I also understand that there are many different situations for various families and there are just as many different reasons and causes for women to work outside of the home, even when there are little children there.  In today's environment, it can be hard to thread the needle between necessity and otherwise, and the Brethren have done the best they can under the current circumstances to try to address in a very general and broad sense, to women in different situations that the Lord loves them and treasures them as his daughters. 

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

@Carborendum

Question on some of your numbers...

That looks like you list $710 for an apartment?  Is that right?  You live in Texas...what part?

How in the WORLD did anyone get over 50K in Government assistance (and I'm speaking of assistance, NOT Benefits such as Veteran Benefits, which if you are referring to would probable not make me happy and I should quit the thread, as someone who begrudges veterans normally makes me in a very unchristian attitude...which is a failing of mine and a sin). 

The $710/month is the current, real, verified rental rate for a 2 bd apartment in my city (outside of Houston, just on the outer rim of developed land) where the missionaries are staying.  They have a one bedroom apartment and pay less.

$15/hr is the current, real, verified rate that the following stores offer IN THIS AREA:  Walmart, Home Depot, ALDI, Various convenience stores, & Amazon.  I know this because I have teenage kids who have put in a LOT of applications.  And these various stores have signs posted for $15/hr for starting wages.  BUT, you have to be over 18 and be able to lift 50 lbs.  That's about it.  If you're disabled, then, yes, you get a different job that may not pay as much.  But we weren't talking about disabled people.  We were talking about average working people.

I'd say these people that you're talking about need to move to an area with both cheaper rent and higher wages.  But for some reason they choose not to.  That is their choice, not a "condition" that needs to be considered as an excuse to disobey counsel.

The grocery budget I listed was annual, not monthly.  As I said, I did some shopping.  I remembered what we ate when I was poor.  And I got current prices.  If I'm pinching pennies, I can get by on about $130/month on groceries for three people.  But you HAVE TO pinch pennies.  If you don't, you're making a choice to live in luxury now vs saving for a better tomorrow.  I'm currently living very comfortably on a budget of around $400/month for groceries (for 3 people).  And we have good quality meats.  We drink over a gallon of milk per person.  AND we shop around.  But most people aren't willing to shop around.  They just go to the nearest grocery store for everything.  Or worse, they go to the convenience store for their food.  That is why the "average" is so high.  People simply don't take a moment to shop prices.  

People need to sacrifice standard of living for a better tomorrow.  When I was poor, this is exactly what I did.  I had hamburger stew and ate a lot of beans and rice.  We limited our milk.  We had no sodas or chips or other "treats".  Yes, it was hard.  But we did it because that was known as budgeting.  You're old enough to remember that.

NO, I was not begrudging him his military benefits.  I don't know why you got that from what I wrote.  Yes, the family that is getting over $50k/yr included the grandfather who got a military retirement.  The point was that the total income was this high, and yet they still lived like this.  As I recall, his benefits were less than $30k/yr.  I'll have to ask again for the exact figure.  It was over a year ago when I did the assessment.  If his benefits were even higher than that, then they lied to me.  They had even more than that coming in.

You know, I don't think I even asked about what aid they were getting to help with their utilities.  If they received anything for that, it would raise the figure above that $50k/yr that I calculated.  

Utilities include Electric, cable, internet, water, sewer.  Water and sewer are usually covered in the monthly rent for an apartment.  Cable is not needed.  We don't have it now even when we could afford it.  We just don't want it. So, that leaves electricity and internet.  Electricity for a small apartment is usually very low.  For our rather large house is usually around $200/month with peaks around $270.  And this is with all the lights and computers going almost all the time.  The internet bills in this area tend to be around $30 to $50/month.  We spend about $55 (incl taxes and fees).  So, my $140/month seems perfectly reasonable.

These were not assumptions.  They were not statistics.  These were real, hard numbers which I personally gathered in my area.  If Austin, or Dallas, or wherever, don't have these rates, then people should move in order to make ends meet.  Of the 11 homes I've lived in, 5 of the moves were because of better wages and living conditions.  I don't see why that doesn't occur to other people.  And, yes, I had to pay for the moves, myself, when I had little money.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/16/2020 at 7:37 AM, estradling75 said:

I think that was kind of @Just_A_Guy point...  You were saying do not judge period.  That is true most of the time.  But there are times when we have to judge as a result of some kind of stewardship.  Just_A_Guy job gives him such a stewardship on the cases he oversees, and he must make judgements that you were saying should be left to God (Without the clairifier you have added now)

I have pondered what it means to judge and have come to the conclusion that this principle is one of the most misquoted and misused principles in scripture.  I believe it would be better termed as condemn not rather than judge not.  In a sense even "not judging" is a form of judgment.  Likewise - so is ministering, helping and having compassion, a type of judgment.  It is impossible to trust, honor, make a friend, being a support or to be aware of someone without some level of judgment.  Just caring is a level of judgment.

There are other problems with the attitude of not judging that has to do with "Agency" and choice or if you will freedom and liberty.  Agency is not just a choice between possibilities.  Someone is not exercising agency unless they are selecting outcome as well - and that requires judgment.  The human brain is wired to project a desired outcome as part of a choice.  The layman term for this is expectation or dream.  Sometime (quite often) our human expectations (dreams) are unrealistic and based in falsehoods. 

In our society a new term has started to be used - it is called "shaming".  What any particular person sees as shaming can be very revealing.   Often it is an effort to shame someone else that recognizes poor judgments in their personal lives. 

I believe that judgment or condemnation that we are commanded not to conduct is in essence the "Final Judgment" to which one is confined to whatever glory in the resurrection.  This is why  using "damning"  references or terms is considered swearing or a lying tongue and a sin unbecoming a Saint of G-d - even we we are "damning" things we are unhappy with.

And now I wish to make a most important point in the conclusion of this post.  The single most common denominator in the recognized genus of our society it not the abilities of a particular genus - the most common element is that geniuses are mentored.   Genus is created and  made better by someone breaking down and teaching them what to do and accomplish (achieve) and what not to do and not accomplish.  Those that cannot abide criticism will never achieve greatness but will muddle instead in mediocrity and failure.   Jesus Christ is the example of how to mentor.  

I have had many mentors in my life.  The best mentors are examples.  They know and understand the better choices because they have made better choices and repented of the poorer choices.  But sadly most are inclined to look for mentors that will tell them what they want to hear rather than what the should or could hear to improve.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I believe that judgment or condemnation that we are commanded not to conduct is in essence the "Final Judgment" to which one is confined to whatever glory in the resurrection.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks in a talked entitled, Judge Not and Judging said:

Quote

In contrast to forbidding mortals to make final judgments, the scriptures require mortals to make what I will call “intermediate judgments.” These judgments are essential to the exercise of personal moral agency...

...Thus, our Savior’s teachings contain many commandments we cannot keep without making intermediate judgments of people: “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine” (Matthew 7:6); “Beware of false prophets. . . . Ye shall know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:15–16); and “Go ye out from among the wicked” (D&C 38:42).

We all make judgments in choosing our friends, in choosing how we will spend our time and our money, and, of course, in choosing an eternal companion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still haven't worked out the difference between making a judgement and forming an opinion. I believe that making judgements is a daily necessity that we all need to do a great many times every day. I don't understand those who condemn the making of judgements. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share