charity wrote:Actually, I have had it all. I got my bachelor's degree 2 months after my first child was born. Stayed home, raised kids. Went back for the master's degree and then taught for 15 years before I retired.
There are women who have to leave their children to work, but any woman who does so without financial necessity is shortchaging her children and herself. Nothing that I did as a college teacher was better than what I did at home. Sure, there were frustrating times. But then being threatened by a mentally deranged student wasn't exaclty fun, either.
What about women who don't want children or are not suited to be mothers? Are they justified in not becoming stay-at-home moms?
Short answer - according to the current church standard, no. You have children anyway, and stay home with them, no matter how ill-suited you may be to the task.
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
charity wrote:Actually, I have had it all. I got my bachelor's degree 2 months after my first child was born. Stayed home, raised kids. Went back for the master's degree and then taught for 15 years before I retired.
There are women who have to leave their children to work, but any woman who does so without financial necessity is shortchaging her children and herself. Nothing that I did as a college teacher was better than what I did at home. Sure, there were frustrating times. But then being threatened by a mentally deranged student wasn't exaclty fun, either.
What about women who don't want children or are not suited to be mothers? Are they justified in not becoming stay-at-home moms?
A woman who doesn't want children shouldn't have them. A woman who is not suited to be a mother shouldn't have children.
skippy the dead wrote: Short answer - according to the current church standard, no. You have children anyway, and stay home with them, no matter how ill-suited you may be to the task.
Wrong. Having children is a decision a couple makes in consultation with the Lord. The "church standard" has nothing to do with it.
charity wrote:A woman who doesn't want children shouldn't have them. A woman who is not suited to be a mother shouldn't have children.
I sometimes think you and I don't belong to the same church. Here's what Elder Scott said recently:
Obedience to the plan [of salvation] is a requisite for full happiness in this life and a continuation of eternal joy beyond the veil. Essential to His plan of happiness is agency—the right of personal choice. Also fundamental is the holy privilege of procreation to be exercised within the commitment of legal marriage. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. The family is ordained of God. As husband and wife, you have the responsibility to bear children and to nurture and train them spiritually, emotionally, and physically.
Yes, you have the choice, but marriage and procreation are "essential" and we have a "responsibility to bear children." Sure you can choose not to do so, but that of course is a violation of the plan of salvation. Maybe you'd like to clarify your remarks, as you seem to disagree with Elder Scott.
Runtu wrote: I sometimes think you and I don't belong to the same church. Here's what Elder Scott said recently:
"Obedience to the plan [of salvation] is a requisite for full happiness in this life and a continuation of eternal joy beyond the veil. Essential to His plan of happiness is agency—the right of personal choice. Also fundamental is the holy privilege of procreation to be exercised within the commitment of legal marriage. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. The family is ordained of God. As husband and wife, you have the responsibility to bear children and to nurture and train them spiritually, emotionally, and physically.
Yes, you have the choice, but marriage and procreation are "essential" and we have a "responsibility to bear children." Sure you can choose not to do so, but that of course is a violation of the plan of salvation. Maybe you'd like to clarify your remarks, as you seem to disagree with Elder Scott.[/quote]
Having children (supposing that it is possible to do so) is essential to exaltation. But if a woman doesn't like being around kids, she shouldn't have to be where that is what she would be doing for eternity. I don't think that would be heaven for her.
charity wrote:Having children (supposing that it is possible to do so) is essential to exaltation. But if a woman doesn't like being around kids, she shouldn't have to be where that is what she would be doing for eternity. I don't think that would be heaven for her.
So, really, there is no place in the celestial kingdom for those who for whatever reason are not cut out for parenthood.
charity wrote:A woman who doesn't want children shouldn't have them. A woman who is not suited to be a mother shouldn't have children.
I sometimes think you and I don't belong to the same church. Here's what Elder Scott said recently:
Obedience to the plan [of salvation] is a requisite for full happiness in this life and a continuation of eternal joy beyond the veil. Essential to His plan of happiness is agency—the right of personal choice. Also fundamental is the holy privilege of procreation to be exercised within the commitment of legal marriage. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. The family is ordained of God. As husband and wife, you have the responsibility to bear children and to nurture and train them spiritually, emotionally, and physically.
Yes, you have the choice, but marriage and procreation are "essential" and we have a "responsibility to bear children." Sure you can choose not to do so, but that of course is a violation of the plan of salvation. Maybe you'd like to clarify your remarks, as you seem to disagree with Elder Scott.
Runtu, I am wondering if instead of being on a separate religious page than Charity, it is just that she and other LDS women know when to disregard the pontification of the menfolk and do what is best for them instead. Even then they have to walk the fine line of giving lip service to the office of the Priesthood and the position of the women's pedestal, but when it comes down to brass tacks, my guess is that they will not short change themselves.
charity wrote:Having children (supposing that it is possible to do so) is essential to exaltation. But if a woman doesn't like being around kids, she shouldn't have to be where that is what she would be doing for eternity. I don't think that would be heaven for her.
Exaltation is where those there are parents. There are the other two levels. We haven't been told what those conditions are there.
I think all women are basically suited to be mothers. But who knows what kinds of environmental things happened in early childhood. The Lord is going to know everything about that person. It may be that any woman who is really opposed to having children was in some way damaged and is not going to be accountable for that.
moksha wrote: Runtu, I am wondering if instead of being on a separate religious page than Charity, it is just that she and other LDS women know when to disregard the pontification of the menfolk and do what is best for them instead. Even then they have to walk the fine line of giving lip service to the office of the Priesthood and the position of the women's pedestal, but when it comes down to brass tacks, my guess is that they will not short change themselves.
I thought I made it clear that I think that women who don't fully participate in motherhood, by being stay at home moms if at all possible, are the ones who are short changing themselves. I said I was a stay at home mom. To six kids. That is hardly disagreeing with the Brethren. And I know several older women who made the decision not to have children and now deeply regret it when it is too late.
charity wrote:Exaltation is where those there are parents. There are the other two levels. We haven't been told what those conditions are there.
I think all women are basically suited to be mothers. But who knows what kinds of environmental things happened in early childhood. The Lord is going to know everything about that person. It may be that any woman who is really opposed to having children was in some way damaged and is not going to be accountable for that.
I don't believe that all women are suited to be mothers, just as not all men are suited to be fathers. I have a very good friend who is in her 50s and has made a conscious decision not to have children. She does not regret it, and she does not strike me as selfish or damaged. Her reasons for not having children seem right and even admirable to me. But in your theology, her choice is wrong.
moksha wrote: I thought I made it clear that I think that women who don't fully participate in motherhood, by being stay at home moms if at all possible, are the ones who are short changing themselves. I said I was a stay at home mom. To six kids. That is hardly disagreeing with the Brethren. And I know several older women who made the decision not to have children and now deeply regret it when it is too late.
My extremely active LDS wife has been a stay-at-home mother to our six children, and neither of us has ever regretted that. But she and I agree that our lifestyle choice is not feasible or desirable for some people. As I said, maybe some people regret not having children. But not all do, and not all of them are making a bad choice by not having children.
charity wrote:I think all women are basically suited to be mothers. But who knows what kinds of environmental things happened in early childhood. The Lord is going to know everything about that person. It may be that any woman who is really opposed to having children was in some way damaged and is not going to be accountable for that.
Are all men basically suited to be fathers? Are ones who don't desire this likely to have been "damaged in childhood?" Or can one understand that all people can make rational decisions about how and when they might participate in raising children--even women.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."