Have we decided to live the lesser law?

[LDSGator]

4 minutes ago, mikbone said:

But you cant eat it until pictures are taken of it with a ring light. And your dinner is constantly interrupted by her monitoring the likes on her website.

Lol. 

Behind every girl taking photos of her food for instagram….is her boyfriend who just wants to eat his steak in peace! 

[Vort]

2 hours ago, LDSGator said:

I think it needs to be said that 90% of moms, working or not, are doing their best. Just like 90% of dads too.

I don't believe it. To be brutally candid, I don't believe I did my best at parenting, even though it was probably the most fulfilling activity of my life and one of the two things I really wanted to succeed at. I think I operated well below what I was capable of, of what I should have done, of what my Father in heaven expected of me. And while I don't inflict my own weaknesses upon everyone else, I also am not naive enough to believe that I'm somehow specially wicked and lazy. Yes, I'm wicked and lazy, but my observation is that just about everyone else is in the same boat, more or less.

People betray their children all the time, a truism that came as an honest shock to my young adult self when, in a horrifying moment, I realized it. In the depths of your soul, do you truly believe that those mothers who encourage their daughters to be boys or their sons to be girls are just doing their honest best? A few pathetic and lost souls, perhaps, but not in the main. That's not doing one's best. That's caving to societal pressure and hoping you can be seen as the heroic defender of the sexually downtrodden, sort of a twisted version of Munchausen syndrome by proxy.

I spare my wholesale condemnation of such people. If the mortal Christ did not see fit to condemn a woman taken in the very act of adultery, I can't believe it's my place to condemn someone else even for something as horrific as encouraging his child to mutilate his own mind and body. But I sure as heck don't believe it's a good-hearted and honest attempt at upright parenting. Not in 99% of cases.

Edited May 9, 2024 by Vort

[LDSGator]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

I don't believe it. To be brutally candid, I don't believe I did my best at parenting,

I’m 100% confident that you were a spectacular parent bro. I think parents are way too hard on themselves. 

[Vort]

Just now, LDSGator said:

I’m 100% confident that you were a spectacular parent bro. I think parents are way too hard on themselves. 

Thank you. I appreciate your kindness. But I know better. I truly loved (and love) my wife and our children, and for that matter the rest of my family, but I am a selfish man. That selfishness has permeated my life and has too often intruded on my relationships. I'm 61 years old, and I dearly hope that by the time I meet my Maker face to face (which surely cannot be too very long in the future), I can give a better report of my spiritual state than I could give right now.

[LDSGator]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

I am a selfish man. That selfishness has permeated my life and has too often intruded on my relationships

Don’t you think that if you really were selfish you wouldn’t admit it? In fact, a truly selfish person would think they are a saint, or they’d just give lip service to being “selfish” and go back to ripping people off in their Ponzi scheme.  
 

I’ve always thought LDS are too hard on themselves. Thought in 2014, think so now.  More so than any other group. 

Edited May 9, 2024 by LDSGator

[mikbone]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

Thank you. I appreciate your kindness. But I know better. I truly loved (and love) my wife and our children, and for that matter the rest of my family, but I am a selfish man. That selfishness has permeated my life and has too often intruded on my relationships. I'm 61 years old, and I dearly hope that by the time I meet my Maker face to face (which surely cannot be too very long in the future), I can give a better report of my spiritual state than I could give right now.

There was only one perfect man.

We all make mistakes and the good ones learn from our mistakes.  Looking back on my life I made lots of boneheaded mistakes that I wish I could take back.  

I’m lucky that my wife and kids put up with a bunch of my garbage.  But they did and they still give me World Greatest Dad mugs and shirts.  Even though we both know I don’t deserve them…  I still accept the gift with a thankful heart.

[Carborendum]

14 hours ago, mikbone said:

...invest in the structural supports moms need to work and have kids.”

 

A publication about mothers is upset by the fact that mothers actually want to be mothers?

 

14 hours ago, mikbone said:

It looks like Gen Z isnt as that into being a juggling superwoman / mom / high powered executive.  They are looking for a better balance of life and generally would be thrilled to have a real man take care of them so they can be SAHMs...

We can hope.  I don't know if those small changes in numbers necessarily represent a pattern yet.  But we hope.

I've been hearing a LOT about the MGTOW movement.  And, apparently, single women are beginning to get it.  They realize that the trad way has some merit to it.  They are beginning to realize women need men as much as men need women in a civilized society.

But again, we can only hope this is a trend, not just a blip.

[NeuroTypical]

12 hours ago, Vort said:

12 hours ago, LDSGator said:

I’m 100% confident that you were a spectacular parent bro. I think parents are way too hard on themselves. 

Thank you. I appreciate your kindness. But I know better.

A pearl of sarcastic wisdom dropped out of the internet into my lap many years ago.  A character was complaining about her need for therapy to deal with her neuroses and obsessive need to succeed for parental approval.  The response: 

"Everybody traumatizes their children.  The secret is to do it in a way that motivates them."

[LDSGator]

12 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Everybody traumatizes their children.  The secret is to do it in a way that motivates them."

I get the joke, but I think “trauma” is a harsh word. You weren’t traumatized because Daddy didn’t buy you a Porsche on your 16th birthday @NeuroTypical. 😜 

[Just_A_Guy]

With regard to Pres. Johnson’s Facebook post:  I think the subtext is a recognition that, as @Anddenex suggests, a lot of women have sort of been pulled kicking and screaming into the workforce out of necessity (because their families are grappling with inflation caused by, among many other things, a rising number of two-income families with more disposable income) (and whether President Johnson’s life choices thirty decades ago were part of the problem, is another discussion).  But the crux of her post, as I read it, was “even if you’re working, don’t wait to have kids. You were created to be a parent first and foremost, and you can make it work.”  Which, I think, is a timely message.

I’ll certainly advise my sons and sons in law to pursue careers that will give them the financial latitude to permit their wives stay home full time.  But I’m not sure it’s desirable—or possible—to have a church where every (or most) adult male clears six figures per year.  If a critical mass of LDS women are going to be establishing careers, then the inevitable next question is “do they have kids sooner, or later?”  And that’s a no-brainer as far as our theology is concerned; and President Johnson is (as President Oaks affirmed) endorsing a proper example in that regard.

In other words:  The fight over whether mothers should stay home with their children was well-fought and no doubt improved many lives and even saved many souls.  But the battlefield has changed.  The fight now isn’t whether mothers work outside of the home; it’s whether women become mothers at all.  

Edited May 12, 2024 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

21 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

thirty decades ago

She's very young-looking.

[LDSGator]

On 5/11/2024 at 10:59 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

The fight over whether mothers should stay home with their children was well-fought and no doubt improved many lives and even saved many souls.  But the battlefield has changed.  The fight now isn’t whether mothers work outside of the home; it’s whether women become mothers at all.  

The battlefield hasn’t changed, the right just lost the war. Now, they are pivoting to what you said-which is odd. Generally speaking the right chooses hills to die on and that’s that.  

The same thing sort of happened to gay marriage in the political arena. The right lost that battle too and are now focusing on transgender/drag issues instead. 

Edited May 13, 2024 by LDSGator

[Just_A_Guy]

8 hours ago, LDSGator said:

The battlefield hasn’t changed, the right just lost the war. Now, they are pivoting to what you said-which is odd. Generally speaking the right chooses hills to die on and that’s that.  

Losses inexorably change the nature of the battlefield.  Thanks to inflation fed in part by a labor glut, what was once attainable for the vast majority of families who put their minds to it (specifically, subsisting and even thriving on a single income), no longer is.

I’m not sure what you mean by pivoting or suggesting that it’s a rare thing.  Every time the left “wins” on a particular issue, they tend to open up a new front; and the right feels it has to fight it.  Got sex ed in schools?  Great, now hide the curriculum from parents.  Got legalized abortion?  Great, now offer it at taxpayer expense and make it legal up to 39 weeks.  Got gay marriage?  Great, now get dudes in drag to do strip shows in schools.  Got legal equality for racial minorities?  Great, now let’s institutionalize reverse-discrimination.  I don’t think the right “pivoting” is odd or surprising at all;  it’s just conservatives trying to conserve.

[estradling75]

14 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Losses inexorably change the nature of the battlefield.  Thanks to inflation fed in part by a labor glut, what was once attainable for the vast majority of families who put their minds to it (specifically, subsisting and even thriving on a single income), no longer is.

Indeed...  Here is a data point to consider.   Housing is a big part of being able to support a Family.  Housing is considered "Affordable" at three times the annual income.

So look at the cost of Housing in your local area... Divide it by three.  That is what a Family needs Annually to be able to "Afford" to live in your area.  What does that cost look like?  What kind of job can pull that kind of money?  Do you really think it is wise for the church to demand "You must make X dollars per year or you are not a good member?"

Now there are ways to deal and work around things like this, (Like move to a place where housing is cheaper) but they all have "other cost" that need to be considered.

 

 

[LDSGator]

15 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I’m not sure what you mean

What I mean is-the right lost the “women stay home” idealogical battle. For many political junkies (and I’m one of them) they can’t admit when their side lost, and they choose to die on hills that they have no realistic chance of ever winning.  
 

Instead of dying on the “women are only housewives” hill, it seems the right is adjusting and fighting against drag queens, transgender sports issues, etc. 

Edited May 14, 2024 by LDSGator

[LDSGator]

It’s a compliment to the right.  It means they are getting wiser. No one outside of a very small percentage wants to hear about “women staying home.”
 

However, mainstream, suburban moderates DO want to keep their kids safe in public bathrooms and don’t want their daughters competing against mediocre male athletes who decide to become women because they can’t succeed in their male dominated sport.
 

So the right pivoting onto this issue was a wise choice. Let’s see where it goes. 

Edited May 14, 2024 by LDSGator

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

Indeed...  Here is a data point to consider.   Housing is a big part of being able to support a Family.  Housing is considered "Affordable" at three times the annual income.

My first home that I owned was $190k.  I made a salary of $40k.  You can make it work.  But you have to sacrifice.

It is much more affordable if you can live in a cheap apartment for several years, saving up for a larger than normal downpayment.  Then a house is much more affordable.

It may be tough when we also encourage large families.  But it is done a lot more often than you think.

And with people getting married a lot later in life, the excuses become less credible.  It tends to be more about lifestyle than life.

Edited May 14, 2024 by Carborendum

[Carborendum]

On 5/8/2024 at 10:17 PM, Vort said:

I don't believe it. To be brutally candid...

After all the stuff I've read online from the "Ordain Women" types, I don't believe it either. 

Most of them are complaining that they didn't "get to have a career" or their "careers suffered" because they "had to be the primary care-giver." 

And the overall tone was not "I was trying my best to balance all my obligations."  It was usually of the tone: "If I hadn't had to take care of my kids, I would have had a much more successful career."

I'd like to think that behind that all, the statement basically means that they sacrificed their career for their children.  And hooray for them.  It seems like they did.  But they longed so much for their career that their children often went inactive because of spiritual neglect.

Was the gospel the center of their homes?  It sure doesn't sound like it.  If it was, the sentiment was usually of the mindset "I don't need to change.  The Church needs to change."  With that mindset going on, what hope do the children have of developing a strong testimony of a belief system that is so flawed that the supposedly faithful members are demanding that it change?

Edited May 14, 2024 by Carborendum

[ZealoulyStriving]

57 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

It’s a compliment to the right.  It means they are getting wiser. No one outside of a very small percentage wants to hear about “women staying home.”
 

However, mainstream, suburban moderates DO want to keep their kids safe in public bathrooms and don’t want their daughters competing against mediocre male athletes who decide to become women because they can’t succeed in their male dominated sport.
 

So the right pivoting onto this issue was a wise choice. Let’s see where it goes. 

The camel is 3/4 of the way in the tent.

[LDSGator]

18 minutes ago, ZealoulyStriving said:

The camel is 3/4 of the way in the tent.

I used to think that way pre-conversion. Being LDS filled me with optimism. 

[mikbone]

Yeah the economy blows out there.  I have 11 children so I know that the struggle is real.  One of my sons is planning on moving in with us for a 6 month span so he can put together a down payment for a home of his own (with his SAHM and 3 children).

The current RS General President is 5 years older than me. The prophets of our youth were President Kimball and Benson.  Their commentary on women working outside the home (WHEN THEY DIDNT HAVE TO) was clear.

I and my wife took that council and were blessed by our decisions.  And we made lots of sacrifices (I won’t bore you with our story).  Sacrifice is giving up one thing for something better.

When I hear someone commenting on their defiance of council at the pulpit and on facebook.  It rises my ire.

Now, I don’t know the relief society president and she may have married a total looser of a guy who could not provide for the family, but I doubt it.  (If I’m incorrect then dismiss this entire thread).

I fear that population collapse is a real thing.  

We have a duty to multiply and replenish the Earth, that commandment is still in effect.

The government has done a terrible job of raising children.  

Absolutely get an education without going into overwhelming debt if you can.  Obviously, if a married couple does not have children, the wife can and should help with getting a head start for future family finances.

But when children come into the home, they are better off with a mother than the government, day care, or a nanny. And it will likely take some sacrifice. 

Edited May 14, 2024 by mikbone

[NeuroTypical]

32 minutes ago, mikbone said:

I fear that population collapse is a real thing.

Me too. The fear comes not from having there be fewer humans replacing the old ones, but from the consequences of such things. Slowing or negative economic growth, societies that end up not being able to continue to exist, the negative radical change that can come.

[mordorbund]

4 hours ago, LDSGator said:

What I mean is-the right lost the “women stay home” idealogical battle.

As a practice -- perhaps. But as an ideology I think it still has hold in the culture so long as the term "working mother" is still tossed around (especially when "working father" isn't).

[LDSGator]

1 hour ago, mordorbund said:

As a practice -- perhaps. But as an ideology I think it still has hold in the culture so long as the term "working mother" is still tossed around (especially when "working father" isn't).

Totally fair. 

[Anddenex]

On 5/11/2024 at 8:59 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

With regard to Pres. Johnson’s Facebook post:  I think the subtext is a recognition that,...

Thanks for your additional positive thought JAG. This hits a little harder for me due to choices my wife and I made while we were newly weds to obey. As a result, while going through school I was working a full-time swing and a part-time graveyard to keep my wife home as a primary nurturer and caregiver. This all while taking 12 -17 credits at BYU.

This resulted in me also for a year working a full-time graveyard and full-time morning job due to difficulties that came upon us. This was all to obey and not to sacrifice.

If I would have known this was simply "a choice" my life and mental state, anxiety, stress, etc... could have been so much better. This to me is more a kick in the jewels and then a knee to the face. Why did I make these decisions if it really doesn't matter? But it has to matter doesn't it.

In saying that, I agree with your last paragraph. A hard decision will be when to have kids for our young members.

Edited May 19, 2024 by Anddenex