Strange counsel
I was surfing the LDS website and I found an address on marriage by Spencer W. Kimball in 1976. This paragraph in particular stood out to me:
". . . Young wives are often demanding that all the luxuries formerly enjoyed in the prosperous homes of their successful fathers be continued in their own homes. Some of them are quite willing to help earn that lavish living by continuing employment after marriage. They consequently leave the home, where their duty lies, to pursue professional or business pursuits, thus establishing an economy that becomes stabilized so that it becomes very difficult to yield toward the normal family life. Through both spouses’ working, competition rather than cooperation enters the family. Two weary workers return home with taut nerves, individual pride, increased independence, and then misunderstandings arise. Little frictions pyramid into monumental ones."
I was pretty shocked. What do they mean? That women are not supposed to work? I can understand this concept when a child has been born, but before? Are we to be confined to the home, baking and cleaning? Is a female working really the cause of such contention in marriage? Someone please explain this to me!
". . . Young wives are often demanding that all the luxuries formerly enjoyed in the prosperous homes of their successful fathers be continued in their own homes. Some of them are quite willing to help earn that lavish living by continuing employment after marriage. They consequently leave the home, where their duty lies, to pursue professional or business pursuits, thus establishing an economy that becomes stabilized so that it becomes very difficult to yield toward the normal family life. Through both spouses’ working, competition rather than cooperation enters the family. Two weary workers return home with taut nerves, individual pride, increased independence, and then misunderstandings arise. Little frictions pyramid into monumental ones."
I was pretty shocked. What do they mean? That women are not supposed to work? I can understand this concept when a child has been born, but before? Are we to be confined to the home, baking and cleaning? Is a female working really the cause of such contention in marriage? Someone please explain this to me!
posted by Anonymous at 7/31/2006 10:42:00 AM
5 Comments:
I cant say I understand that. I know I would have more contention if I was working and my wife was at home doing nothing.
I don't know about the context of President Kimball's statement, but I can agree with it in the following context:
When talking about the inherent duties placed upon man and woman in this world since the beginning, you have to remember that man and woman are very different in ability and therefore have different duties or responsibilities. Whereas they share all of the responsibilities in the family such as being good examples, teaching the gospel to their children, and spending quality time with their children, due to their inherent skills and abilities which come from their gender both parents have MORE "duty" than the other in different areas. It's not a control issue, just a responsibility discussion.
While there are not any hard and fast rules about what percentage of responsibility each parent has in different areas of family life, there needs to be understanding that responsibility is not shared equally in all areas. My wife knows little about being a man, so she can't very well have half the responsibility to teach this to our boys, can she? I have MOST of that responsibility.
What I think Pres. Kimball was saying is: Women really have NO duty whatsoever place upon them by the Lord on how much money she brings home to her family. She could be the best mother ever, AND bring home six figures. He only sees 'best mother ever.' She is not judged on it, because she has no duty there. If she has no duty outside the home, than most, if not all, of her duty must lie within the walls of the home. There is where she will be judged a success or a failure.
On a different note, the duties we have are tied to our covenants. That takes on a much greater significance when you think about the different covenants men and women make in the temple.
Well, in the gospel there's always exceptions. There's the (for lack of better words) 'gospel ideal', and then there's real life. If one's circumstances make it easier to arrange family life in a manner different from the 'gospel ideal', that's fine. It happens all the time. The Lord wants everyone to have a happy home, and what works for one family may not for another.
Regardless of what an individual family does, the responsibilities set forth from the Lord remain the same. The Lord does not expect me to carry a child to term and give birth. Besides being impossible, that is not my role. Although that example is physiological, it is no different when speaking in social terms. The Lord set forth the roles of man and wife in ancient and modern scripture, and the duties of each are theirs.
"A prophet has said of womanhood, 'A beautiful, modest, gracious woman is creation’s masterpiece.' (David O. McKay, Gospel Ideals, Improvement Era Publication, 1953, p. 449.) To safeguard this masterpiece, the Lord gave to man the duty and responsibility to be the provider and protector. Husbands, if the Lord’s plan is to work, you must learn how to perform in the leadership role He has designed for you." (L. Tom Perry, 1977 Conference)
Well said Lizzen, and Windy. I agree with what you've said, totally. Choice, respect, and the spirit are vital to working through this, and any, aspect of marriage. Thanks guys.
I agree with Sammy. Everything he said. I think if we were made to have the same roles, we would just be the same gender. We fit together. We compliment each other. Jake is everything I am not and I could never give Piper what he can. But I also think that if a woman wants to work, she should. If you do something grudgingly you won't do it well. So there is no point in staying at home if you are miserable.
Post a Comment
<< Home