Fether

Liberal Ideas Creeping In

Recommended Posts

 

I see more and more of these videos, articles, and blog posts creeping into the church membership. They all have one thing in common. No scriptural or prophetic words backing them up. It just a soapbox of their own. 

Read Mothers Working Outside the Home and anyone can see that the church is against what she is advocating.

They took it one step further in this video. They quoted Spencer W Kimball and said he was wrong... the only mention of scripture in the whole video related to her topic. The same thing is found in their modesty video and whenever they talk about young men not needing to serve missions. This episode belongs on the Mormon Stories Podcast

A good 85% of Saints Unscripted is wholesome and Christlike. But these occasional opinion videos show just how accepting of  Satan’s ideals “Saints” my age are.

I want a good Latter-day Saint YouTube channel that focuses on nothing but the doctrine when it comes to these controversial topics. No opinion, just what has been said... however, I don’t suppose that would be popular enough to gather any notable following.

Edited by Fether

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We no longer subscribe to LDS living magazine because of this same type of thing. Many far left ideals have become very commonplace in that publication, and I would rather me and my children just read the church news or official church magazines for uplifting stories without having to wade through garbage. The same is true for so many latter-day saint bloggers and facebookers...too many people are putting their faith in people rather than the Lord and His servants. I prefer scripture than the philosophies of men mingled with scripture.

Edited by scottyg
spelling

Share this post


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

I see more and more of these videos, articles, and blog posts creeping into the church membership. They all have one thing in common. No scriptural or prophetic words backing them up. It just a soapbox of their own. 

Read Mothers Working Outside the Home and anyone can see that the church is against what she is advocating.

They took it one step further in this video. They quoted Spencer W Kimball and said he was wrong... the only mention of scripture in the whole video related to her topic. The same thing is found in their modesty video and whenever they talk about young men not needing to serve missions. This episode belongs on the Mormon Stories Podcast

A good 85% of Saints Unscripted is wholesome and Christlike. But these occasional opinion videos show just how accepting of  Satan’s ideals “Saints” my age are.

I want a good Latter-day Saint YouTube channel that focuses on nothing but the doctrine when it comes to these controversial topics. No opinion, just what has been said... however, I don’t suppose that would be popular enough to gather any notable following.

You've noticed...eh?

It's been going on for a while, and while some of it is not that disturbing and could be encouraging (liberal in and of itself is not a BAD thing, our religion is not Conservative OR Liberal, it does NOT worship our political beliefs and we should not mistake political opinions or parties as our religion.  Too many worship at the altar of the false idol of politics, putting forth their politics as their religion rather than having the Lord as first and foremost) there are other items which have been disturbing me for a while which are in direct conflict with what was taught and given by the Prophets and Church leaders through the centuries up until now.

Some liberal ideas are reflected in the Bible and so are not terrible in and of themselves.  We are to render unto Caesar what is Caesar and unto the Lord what is the Lord's for example, to be in the world but not conformed of it (Romans 12).  This can be where we allow people the freedom to be who they want to be without persecution.  The idea of loving your neighbor, or loving the person but not the sin I can see reflected in encouraging those who are in sin to come to our church (And hopefully repent, but that is their free agency) but still not approving of the sin. 

On the otherhand, there have been a great number of ideas that have been brought into the Church in the past decade.  Some of it is the confusion brought on by those who have created church manuals themselves.  You talk about their criticism of Spencer W. Kimball, but there is a trend to do so now that was encouraged by the Church essays and such.  In it they cast down a few items taught as doctrine in the past (and even declared as such) and instead imply that the leaders of the time were speaking their opinions and that we do not know why they taught such opinions or actions that they took.  This cast doubt on the prophets and their prophetic mission as obviously those at that time did not think these General Authorities were speaking only as men on these topics.  This opens up the gambit where we have no idea when a Prophet is a prophet and when he is a man (Brigham Young on the other hand clarified it somewhat, but today there are items that he said as a prophet that we say he said as a man, and the same for Joseph Smith).  It is very easy now for Saints to take these ideas and apply it to whatever they want in regards to prophets...including statements by Spencer W. Kimball (and ironically, to some of the ideas in the Bible itself, at least if you accept Paul as a prophet).

However, these changes that go contrary to how the gospel was taught extend to many other facets of the church, and many are directly contrasting to that taught previously.  Sometimes it is just in direct contradiction to things taught in our modern era but other times, they are in direct contradiction to EVERYTHING written and taught in the Church from the Beginning of the Bible, reinforced in the Book of Mormon and by our Modern prophets, and more.  Some of the more disturbing in my thoughts again, is that I see it extended even into the temple and how things are done there (without going into it any more than that).  I see it as driving a wedge into the Church in many ways, and this approach has shown a reduction of Baptisms, retention and many other things reflected in the Church itself...at least to my view.

So...what is a member to do?  What do I do?  I remember that I received a testimony of the Gospel and the Book of Mormon.  I remember that I have gotten a testimony of the divine calling of the Prophets and the Apostles.  This testimony is MORE than just some emotional feeling that I had, or some emotion that is can be felt otherwise.  It is a distinct and explicit testimony where I have heard the Holy Ghost testifying that the gospel is true.  Because of this I KNOW that the Book of Mormon is the word of God and that the Gospel is true.  No matter what else, I KNOW the truths given to me. 

It does not matter what the changes are to the Church for now.  As Elder Uchtdorf has said in summary..."Where will you go?"  There IS no other place to go.  You stay in the boat because it is the ONLY vessel which was designated as the vessel of the Lord, at least until the Lord comes back.  We do the best we can, even with what is happening around us.  As you are probably not (you may be, but most of the members are not) the Prophet or the First Presidency, there is very little you can do or any of us.  Instead, we follow the Prophet and if there are things that are done that lead people away or are not in accordance with what the Lord desires, it will not be held upon our heads (unless in direct contradiction to the commandments and we are directly told by the Lord not to, which has not occurred to me as of yet) but those who have caused the sins to occur due to their responsibility and power.  As such, we stay in the boat (in the church) and cling as hard as we can to what we know is true.  The gospel is true, and we know that in it we can find a safe haven for when the Lord comes (and he will be coming and is coming).

I see a LOT of changes (or what you may call Liberal Ideas) that have crept into the Church in recent years.  In fact, if you had me look at the Church today from when I joined decades ago and many of the things that it is teaching or promoting in regards to Church doctrines and to a lesser degree it's history, I may have thought it was an offshoot of the Church rather than the main Church.  However, there is ONLY one church that still brings and delivers the gospel as found in the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.  We can either hold to it and stay in, or give up.  I don't plan on giving up any time soon.  If nothing else, when I have problems or difficulties, I lean back on the testimony I have received so long ago which I cannot deny, and grab onto it in realization that despite any doubts I may have, I still have a testimony that I cannot deny and that holds me to the Church.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

You've noticed...eh?

It's been going on for a while, and while some of it is not that disturbing and could be encouraging (liberal in and of itself is not a BAD thing, our religion is not Conservative OR Liberal, it does NOT worship our political beliefs and we should not mistake political opinions or parties as our religion.  Too many worship at the altar of the false idol of politics, putting forth their politics as their religion rather than having the Lord as first and foremost) there are other items which have been disturbing me for a while which are in direct conflict with what was taught and given by the Prophets and Church leaders through the centuries up until now.

Some liberal ideas are reflected in the Bible and so are not terrible in and of themselves.  We are to render unto Caesar what is Caesar and unto the Lord what is the Lord's for example, to be in the world but not conformed of it (Romans 12).  This can be where we allow people the freedom to be who they want to be without persecution.  The idea of loving your neighbor, or loving the person but not the sin I can see reflected in encouraging those who are in sin to come to our church (And hopefully repent, but that is their free agency) but still not approving of the sin. 

On the otherhand, there have been a great number of ideas that have been brought into the Church in the past decade.  Some of it is the confusion brought on by those who have created church manuals themselves.  You talk about their criticism of Spencer W. Kimball, but there is a trend to do so now that was encouraged by the Church essays and such.  In it they cast down a few items taught as doctrine in the past (and even declared as such) and instead imply that the leaders of the time were speaking their opinions and that we do not know why they taught such opinions or actions that they took.  This cast doubt on the prophets and their prophetic mission as obviously those at that time did not think these General Authorities were speaking only as men on these topics.  This opens up the gambit where we have no idea when a Prophet is a prophet and when he is a man (Brigham Young on the other hand clarified it somewhat, but today there are items that he said as a prophet that we say he said as a man, and the same for Joseph Smith).  It is very easy now for Saints to take these ideas and apply it to whatever they want in regards to prophets...including statements by Spencer W. Kimball (and ironically, to some of the ideas in the Bible itself, at least if you accept Paul as a prophet).

However, these changes that go contrary to how the gospel was taught extend to many other facets of the church, and many are directly contrasting to that taught previously.  Sometimes it is just in direct contradiction to things taught in our modern era but other times, they are in direct contradiction to EVERYTHING written and taught in the Church from the Beginning of the Bible, reinforced in the Book of Mormon and by our Modern prophets, and more.  Some of the more disturbing in my thoughts again, is that I see it extended even into the temple and how things are done there (without going into it any more than that).  I see it as driving a wedge into the Church in many ways, and this approach has shown a reduction of Baptisms, retention and many other things reflected in the Church itself...at least to my view.

So...what is a member to do?  What do I do?  I remember that I received a testimony of the Gospel and the Book of Mormon.  I remember that I have gotten a testimony of the divine calling of the Prophets and the Apostles.  This testimony is MORE than just some emotional feeling that I had, or some emotion that is can be felt otherwise.  It is a distinct and explicit testimony where I have heard the Holy Ghost testifying that the gospel is true.  Because of this I KNOW that the Book of Mormon is the word of God and that the Gospel is true.  No matter what else, I KNOW the truths given to me. 

It does not matter what the changes are to the Church for now.  As Elder Uchtdorf has said in summary..."Where will you go?"  There IS no other place to go.  You stay in the boat because it is the ONLY vessel which was designated as the vessel of the Lord, at least until the Lord comes back.  We do the best we can, even with what is happening around us.  As you are probably not (you may be, but most of the members are not) the Prophet or the First Presidency, there is very little you can do or any of us.  Instead, we follow the Prophet and if there are things that are done that lead people away or are not in accordance with what the Lord desires, it will not be held upon our heads (unless in direct contradiction to the commandments and we are directly told by the Lord not to, which has not occurred to me as of yet) but those who have caused the sins to occur due to their responsibility and power.  As such, we stay in the boat (in the church) and cling as hard as we can to what we know is true.  The gospel is true, and we know that in it we can find a safe haven for when the Lord comes (and he will be coming and is coming).

I see a LOT of changes (or what you may call Liberal Ideas) that have crept into the Church in recent years.  In fact, if you had me look at the Church today from when I joined decades ago and many of the things that it is teaching or promoting in regards to Church doctrines and to a lesser degree it's history, I may have thought it was an offshoot of the Church rather than the main Church.  However, there is ONLY one church that still brings and delivers the gospel as found in the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.  We can either hold to it and stay in, or give up.  I don't plan on giving up any time soon.  If nothing else, when I have problems or difficulties, I lean back on the testimony I have received so long ago which I cannot deny, and grab onto it in realization that despite any doubts I may have, I still have a testimony that I cannot deny and that holds me to the Church.

 

I have noticed it for a long time. Something just triggered in me this time around.

I am completely ok with the changes. But cultural changes without the church's stamp of approval is my only complaint. If the church came out tomorrow and said "mothers do not need to be home with their children, go to work and leave the children to daycare" Then I would be less frustrated with videos like these. But when they are spitting out opinions that have no scriptural backing, I can't help but imagine Satan laughing at us for falling for his tricks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following is a quote from a talk given by Elder David R. Stone of the Seventy in the April 2006 General Conference. That conference was held while I was serving as a missionary, and it is still, years later, my favorite one.

"Because my wife and I have had the opportunity to live in 10 different countries, we have seen the effect of the ethos on behavior. Customs which are perfectly acceptable in one culture are viewed as unacceptable in another; language which is polite in some places is viewed as abhorrent in others. People in every culture move within a cocoon of self-satisfied self-deception, fully convinced that the way they see things is the way things really are.

Our culture tends to determine what foods we like, how we dress, what constitutes polite behavior, what sports we should follow, what our taste in music should be, the importance of education, and our attitudes toward honesty. It also influences men as to the importance of recreation or religion, influences women about the priority of career or childbearing, and has a powerful effect on how we approach procreation and moral issues. All too often, we are like puppets on a string, as our culture determines what is “cool.”

There is, of course, a zeitgeist to which we should pay attention, and that is the ethos of the Lord, the culture of the people of God. As Peter states it, “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light” (1 Pet. 2:9).

It is the ethos of those who keep the Lord’s commandments, walk in His ways, and “live by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God” (D&C 84:44). If that makes us peculiar, so be it."

Living by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God is what we should be doing as latter-day saints...not listening to  and trusting falsities spouted from children. If we believe D&C 1:38, then this includes counsel from the Lord's Prophets. I would trust Spencer W. Kimball, or any other Prophet, before I took to heart the opinion of a woke teenager who feels they are wise because of a social media platform. I get that she is just a kid, but her position on this issue, and blatant disregard for Prophetic counsel, is like storing dynamite in your home's foundation. She, and those who share her view, are on dangerous ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they have lost or perhaps never had the proper prospective on what matters most. She estoles the virtues of being a stay-at-home mom and then turns around and says having a career is of equivalent value with the only virtue of that course of action being "because that's what you want to do." The false doctrine of "self fulfillment" has taken hold and I hope they root it out before their families pay the price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it is quite the coincidence that Grunt put up this thread...

And I'm seeing this thread next to his thread and considering that my family just saw Fiddler on the Roof together.

We had a nice discussion about the differences and similarities between tradition and traditional religion.  There are points we have to bend on and points we simply cannot bend on, lest we break. For many questions, we need to listen to the Prophet and pray about his counsel.  For other questions, we rely on the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost to guide us.

There is always the question of where to draw the line, and when to firmly hold the line.  One primary reason that Pres Nelson is pushing the "Hear Him" message is that we're constantly innundated with information.  It is all too easy to rely on most of that information as true without even screening it or considering how our faith is affected by it.  But through it all, we need to Hear Him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Gomezaddams51 I've never heard the Church promote laziness over finding a job before. I have heard them teach about starting a family over finding a job.

Elder Joseph Anderson

Quote

The Lord has told us that “men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness; “For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.” (D&C 58:27–28.)

 

Edited by NeedleinA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched most of the video and I don't see anything wrong with it. It is obviously a channel that is sharing commentary and/or opinion. 

I have a career which I enjoy immensely and have worked very hard to achieve. It is a blessing in my life because it allows me to help people. Having said that, I have been a stay-at-home mom in the past as well. I loved it very much and I have nothing but great respect and admiration for stay-at-home moms.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Family A Proclamation to the World:

Quote

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation.

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.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, my opinions tend to be unpopular but FWIW. First, I would like to say that we are living in different times. This is not the 1950's, some people are literally struggling to make ends meet and to stay out of debt. I don't see many women choosing a career to support lifestyles but rather help their husbands with the bills as equal partners sharing the responsibilities. However, whether women choose to work out of necessity or not, they shouldn't be judged or labeled as "bad mothers".

There are women who studied hard and choose to work outside the home, I'm one of them. I love my job, it makes me feel accomplished, it inspires me and helps me to become a better partner, wife, mother, and daughter of God. And there is something really beautiful about that.

I respect ALL women, whether they choose to stay at home or go to work, because I know they are trying their very best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since fathers are being encouraged to help mothers out more with their divinenly given roles of caring for the family at home, it doesnt seem unreasonable to expects mothers to help out fathers more with their divinely given role of providing for their families

Edited by askandanswer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in the position where I am working full-time from home. It's pretty cool. 

I, like @Suzie, enjoy using my education and training. 

However, I do have some issue with what I'm seeing as almost some sort of prosperity gospel. I recently chatted with a woman who would love to be a stay-at-home mom. She has a professional job that makes quite a lot of money, and her husband makes well into six figures. However, they have so much lifestyle debt they honestly can't afford for her to quit. 

On another note, I've often wondered what the desire to be a stay-at-home mom has cost some families. Don't get me wrong, I really will argue the stay-at-home mom thing as a worthy ideal for many, but I've seen many women (probably men as well) who want to "have it all". They want to be the pious and maternal stay-at-home mom, but they also want the fancy lifestyle. This leads to what I view as gold-digging.

I'm not saying a woman must marry a jobless lazy bones who still lives in his parents' basement and can't hold down a pizza delivery gig or basic adulting, but I a seeing women panicking a bit too much over their husband's income. Living comfortably but fairly modestly is no longer acceptable. I'm actually seeing women discussing hefty price tags of income attached to potential husbands. It's not just "find a husband who will support your desire to be a stay-at-home mom while providing for the needs of the family". It's "find a husband who will support your desire to be a stay-at-home mom while making sure you live in the best neighborhood and have multiple annual vacations and this and that".

I actually have heard of women crying that their home doesn't "look like they're being blessed". There's some prosperity gospel right there for you.

I know I am now going off on a tangent, but it may be part of a bigger problem. I love a good comment section, but I see people in the church boasting about how hard they work and how well they provide for their families. Now, keep in mind I do not condemn hard work and even money and lots of it and if your dream career pays extremely well all the better for you and yours, but I do wonder about the growing attitude that "good members of the church make lots of money".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And another note: This was common in a Facebook group I was in that I left due to the toxicity, but the general attitude was that women of the church can only choose between two extremes: be a stay-at-home-mom, or be intense and the best in your field. If you're not staying home, you best have a fancy high-paying career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until "The Family A Proclamation to the World" Version 2.0 comes out, I suppose individuals will continue to justify to themselves why they 'chose' to ignore the counsel given by the Prophets. It clearing differentiates between necessity and choice.

We don't simply negate the counsel of the Lord because it was given long ago, or in the 1950s or 1995. Unless it has been officially replaced, then it is the current standard and ideal expectation given to us. 
 

Quote

Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.

Like or hate it, the above ^^^ statement still exists.

Share this post


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

Until "The Family A Proclamation to the World" Version 2.0 comes out, I suppose individuals will continue to justify to themselves why they 'chose' to ignore the counsel given by the Prophets. It clearing differentiates between necessity and choice.

We don't simply negate the counsel of the Lord because it was given long ago, or in the 1950s or 1995. Unless it has been officially replaced, then it is the current standard and ideal expectation given to us. 
 

Like or hate it, the above ^^^ statement still exists.

Indeed. As it is written, I feel there is still plenty of wiggle room for the needs of individual families. But it's another thing entirely to insist, however backhandedly, women must be in the workforce.

Share this post


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

Until "The Family A Proclamation to the World" Version 2.0 comes out, I suppose individuals will continue to justify to themselves why they 'chose' to ignore the counsel given by the Prophets. It clearing differentiates between necessity and choice.

We don't simply negate the counsel of the Lord because it was given long ago, or in the 1950s or 1995. Unless it has been officially replaced, then it is the current standard and ideal expectation given to us. 
 

Quote

Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.

Like or hate it, the above ^^^ statement still exists.

Like it or hate it, the statement "In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners." still exists.

Like it or hate it, the Family Proclamation is quite ambiguous and doesn't answer nearly as many questions as it creates, and is open to a wide array of interpretations.  I tend to agree with @JaneDoe, and let families and individuals strive to make decisions that best suit their own and their families' needs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some here would probably consider it a progressive cesspool, but BCC hosted a discussion the "individual adaptation phrase" a year or two ago that still seems to me to be very interesting. Opinions and interpretations all over the map. Some of it probably could be categorized as "rationalizing sin", but it is not clear to me exactly how to judge individual cases. In the face of such variability and ambiguity, I agree with @Jane_Doe and @MarginofError -- let people be responsible for their own choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

to help one another as equal partners. 

Equal partner is not the same as Equal Responsibilities.
There is no ambiguity in the responsibilities of the mother and father (in the ideal scenario) it is clearly defined.

Quote

1. By divine design, fathers are to...provide the necessities of life and protection for their families.
2. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.

Again, like it or hate it... tip toe around it... twist it to fit your personal desires, the counsel still exists.
Many have attempted to discredit the Proclamation as a problem causer vs. a problem solver.
If someone finds fault with it's teachings, here you go:

Office of the First Presidency
47 East South Temple Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84150

Edited by NeedleinA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

Like it or hate it, the statement "In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners." still exists.

Like it or hate it, the Family Proclamation is quite ambiguous and doesn't answer nearly as many questions as it creates, and is open to a wide array of interpretations.  I tend to agree with @JaneDoe, and let families and individuals strive to make decisions that best suit their own and their families' needs. 

The “standard” seems pretty clear. If it isn’t clear enough for you, here are other resources.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual/womens-divine-roles-and-responsibilities

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/the-eternal-family-teacher-manual/lesson-10-the-divine-roles-and-responsibilities-of-women

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/marriage-and-family-relations-instructors-manual/part-b-parents-responsibilities-to-strengthen-families/lesson-10-the-sacred-roles-of-fathers-and-mothers-part-1-fathers-roles

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1974/01/the-role-of-fathers

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1977/10/father-your-role-your-responsibility

There are exceptions to the rule of course, nobody is arguing that. But the standard is set and that is what we should be teaching. We should not be teaching the exceptions as being the standard.

Edited by Fether

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The full quote is

 

Quote

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation.

The bolded are were people are fixating.

Yes the Fathers have divinely appointed roles

Yes the Mothers have divinely appointed roles

Yes they are to help each other as equal partners

And Yes they can adapt as needed for their circumstances

None of the statements being true negate the other statements as also being true.  Fixating on just one or two leads a person into error.

Someone adapting to their circumstances does not negate the divine roles, it means they have adapted.

The big issue is are their people adapting without the necessary conditions?  This is probably happening... But chances are if we were to make such a judgement about someone it would fall in to Unrighteous Judgement category because we generally hold no stewardship that is necessary  to be making that judgment righteously.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

In the face of such variability and ambiguity, I agree with @Jane_Doe and @MarginofError -- let people be responsible for their own choices.

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. 

Share this post


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

Equal partner is not the same as Equal Responsibilities.
There is no ambiguity in the responsibilities of the mother and father (in the ideal scenario) it is clearly defined.

Again, like it or hate it... tip toe around it... twist it to fit your personal desires, the counsel still exists.
Many have attempted to discredit the Proclamation as a problem causer vs. a problem solver.
If someone finds fault with it's teachings, here you go:

Office of the First Presidency
47 East South Temple Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84150

You're more or less demonstrating my point.  It's pretty hard to make an argument against the interpretation of equal partners not being the same as equal responsibilities.  It's also hard to make an argument against equal partners and equal responsibilities.  It really depends on how you feel about the transitive property, on which the Family Proclamation is pretty silent.

And I find your comment about "problem causer vs problem solver" to be rather amusing.  I mean, the entirety of our standard works create more problems then they answer.  It's one of the strongest similarities the Family Proclamation has to scripture.

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

The full quote is

 

The bolded are were people are fixating.

Yes the Fathers have divinely appointed roles

Yes the Mothers have divinely appointed roles

Yes they are to help each other as equal partners

And Yes they can adapt as needed for their circumstances

None of the statements being true negate the other statements as also being true.  Fixating on just one or two leads a person into error.

Someone adapting to their circumstances does not negate the divine roles, it means they have adapted.

The big issue is are their people adapting without the necessary conditions?  This is probably happening... But chances are if we were to make such a judgement about someone it would fall in to Unrighteous Judgement category because we generally hold no stewardship that is necessary  to be making that judgment righteously.

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.

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