NOM

Here is the backstory. So I am in the process of moving to Phoenix to work for the Arizona Game and Fish. State agencies are notorious for not being super generous with salaries. I trying to find a housing situation that is within our 1 income means. When we got married, Mrs. Mower and I decided to be good Mormons and I would be the breadwinner and she would stay with the kids. This is what we had been taught all our lives that this was the only acceptable and righteous way to structure your life. Consequently she has few marketable skills. So, we did that and it has worked out fine. So far we have made it work and been happy. As time goes on it is increasingly difficult to make life work on only one average income. Finding a safe and comfortable place to live is difficult as cost of living increases. Plenty of people are worse off than me though so I am not complaining about my first world problems. I also still agree that having a parent home with young kids is invaluable. I don't argue with that. It is just a little more than frustrating that the people who have told me how to structure my life have done it from a place of complete and utter financial security. The Bretheren are secure, their children and grandchildren are taken care of through free education and various nepotistic deals, and they seem completely insulated from how the world operates. And we let them make very important, life altering decisions for us. I let them so far into my life that they dictated the entire trajectory of our life! And it breaks my heart because as we have been married I have seen that my wife is so much smarter than I am.

I think the church does a huge disservice to women by pushing that role. I'd have gone crazy if I'd spent that many years tethered to my kids. I love kids, but some of us aren't cut out for a 24/7 dose of them. I also think there's a huge emphasis in many wards of living large. I know several wards in my area where those things are big priorities, and I also know several families who can't afford to maintain it, but they go into debt to stay in certain neighborhoods or school districts.

Emower, I'm excited to see you in PHX!

I had similar thoughts as you about what our careers and family would look like without following the universal plan of conformity.

I've always worked. I used to feel such guilt. I felt like every talk or testimony was about the blessing of being or having a SAHM. It took some years but I recognize now we've had a good life. I've tried hard to be a good mom. And being a SAHM wouldn't have necessarily meant I would have been a better mom. I wish the church focused more on supporting families on making the right decisions for themselves and not in comparison to an "ideal" that isn't right for everyone.

Silver Girl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2017 5:31 pm I think the church does a huge disservice to women by pushing that role. I'd have gone crazy if I'd spent that many years tethered to my kids. I love kids, but some of us aren't cut out for a 24/7 dose of them. I also think there's a huge emphasis in many wards of living large. I know several wards in my area where those things are big priorities, and I also know several families who can't afford to maintain it, but they go into debt to stay in certain neighborhoods or school districts.

Why do you think there is that emphasis on living large? It seems so common that we have a disconnect between not seeking the things of the world, but really Mormons seek the things of the world as a group more than most perhaps.

Wanting or needing to aquire things and improving our standing in the world is a pretty strong drive. That would definitely get in the way of Joseph's aspirations for a wealthy church though? On the other hand, more members making more money=more tithing.
It would be fascinating to read a statistical description of Mormon money/debt habits vs. other religious and non religious groups.

Emower wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2017 12:15 am Why do you think there is that emphasis on living large? It seems so common that we have a disconnect between not seeking the things of the world, but really Mormons seek the things of the world as a group more than most perhaps.

The primal fears of Joseph Smith still haunt the LDS church today, encapsulated in the conflicting messages of the Book of Mormon. Listed below are two of the many verses that produce the dichotomy of LDS priorities. First we have the frequent message of the modern prosperity gospel:

2 Nephi 9:20 wrote:And he hath said that: Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land; but inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from my presence.

Next we have the alleged connection order of seeking righteousness and wealth:

Jacob 2:18 wrote:But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God.

The message that is accidentally reinforced by these scriptures is the assumption that if a Mormon is rich he must be righteous. Clearly he must have found the kingdom of God and made a fortune after that. The vast majority of LDS leadership are living comfortable high-middle and upper class lives. I will grant that the lay leadership of the church does need men who have the resources to dedicate towards their ecclesiastic office.

But this idea infects the most diligent young married couples who simply assume that God will bless them materially when they simply live the 1950s ideal of a nuclear family headed by a hard working father and supported by the stay at home mother. I'm not saying that this is a necessarily bad idea. Strong families are produced, but they are often poorer families even through the community at large is enriched by this backbone of basic family units. The families that do come to wealth are passively put into leadership and the cycle continues.

This got me thinking, where does the idea that women shouldn't work outside the home actually come from?

The only scriptural thing I can think of is Genesis where Adam is cursed to labor to produce bread by the sweat of his brow and Eve is cursed that she shall have pain and sorrow in birth, but this doesn't say that eve should not help out in producing bread if that is what is needed to feed the children.

If it isn't scriptural, where does the idea actually come from? Some Victorian ideal of male superiority in being the bread winner? Women protecting themselves from risk of having to go to work in dangerous jobs before modern workplace safety?

Thoughts?

This topic strikes a strong cord with me. DW does not work, and I am very happy she doesn't. I don't know how I would be able to handle the kids and their school/activities otherwise. That said, it has been very difficult. I have a great job, but any above-average income is largely offset by crushing student debt. It would have helped if DW worked when I was in grad school, but with small children and Mormon culture it wasn't really practical, so I worked part time and went to school nights. It was very tough, and during that time DW would constantly complain about how much more difficult her life as a SAHM was than mine. I know her life was tough then, but mine was no picnic either. I typically got up around 6:00 am, left for work and worked all morning. I would then go straight to school and study from after lunch until around dinner. Then I would be in class until 9:30 pm and finally get home around 10:00 pm. Some days were even busier with work, some less, but it was a very difficult grind. Now we are so in debt we will probably never own a home until our children are grown, if at all. No idea what we will do about paying for their college. As our children are now older, my wife actually did try to get a job a year or two ago. With no college degree and no work experience within the last 14 years, she didn't even get a seasonal retail position.

Just to be clear, I can't place all of the blame on the Church for this situation. I made these choices. However, when you in a culture that encourages this type of lifestyle from a spiritual perspective (the Lord will bless you...blah blah blah), it's much easier to get yourself in this kind of mess. Let's just put it this way: if I was never Mormon, there is no way in hell my adult life would have played out this way. Just typing this makes me sick...I hate Mormon culture.

Truth or Dare wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2017 10:59 amJust to be clear, I can't place all of the blame on the Church for this situation. I made these choices. However, when you in a culture that encourages this type of lifestyle from a spiritual perspective (the Lord will bless you...blah blah blah), it's much easier to get yourself in this kind of mess. Let's just put it this way: if I was never Mormon, there is no way in hell my adult life would have played out this way. Just typing this makes me sick...I hate Mormon culture.

There's a high chance your life would have still turned out in a similar way. The real problem lies within the consumer driven economy that is designed to thrive when people overspend. Many non Mormon two income families find themselves in similar situations. People expect to have the same or better lifestyle than their parents right now not realizing it's taken them 30 to 40 years to build. It's the "we can have it all now and pay for it later" mentality that gets people in trouble. Education has even worse consequences when people finance a worthless degree that leaves them in debt with no prospects of a job that pays remotely enough to cover the debt payments. History degrees, international studies, etc.

I'm not saying your at fault in particular here T or D, I'm just pointing out that the system is broken and people don't realize how bad it is. Perhaps as a society, we need to be educated in financial matters early in life so that kids understand basic principles of credit card and debt before they sign for loans and lifestyles they can't afford.

This is a sensitive topic but I really believe that personal accountability and responsibility go along way regardless of how many jobs or income level a family has.

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2017 11:49 am There's a high chance your life would have still turned out in a similar way. The real problem lies within the consumer driven economy that is designed to thrive when people overspend. Many non Mormon two income families find themselves in similar situations. People expect to have the same or better lifestyle than their parents right now not realizing it's taken them 30 to 40 years to build. It's the "we can have it all now and pay for it later" mentality that gets people in trouble. Education has even worse consequences when people finance a worthless degree that leaves them in debt with no prospects of a job that pays remotely enough to cover the debt payments. History degrees, international studies, etc.

I'm not saying your at fault in particular here T or D, I'm just pointing out that the system is broken and people don't realize how bad it is. Perhaps as a society, we need to be educated in financial matters early in life so that kids understand basic principles of credit card and debt before they sign for loans and lifestyles they can't afford.

This is a sensitive topic but I really believe that personal accountability and responsibility go along way regardless of how many jobs or income level a family has.

I agree that our society is out of control when it comes to spending, but I respectfully disagree that my bottom line would be the same now without the Church. When you are on one income that is almost cut in half by student loans, there is only so much you can cut. If we were on two incomes we could pass on the vacation or BMW to catch up. Right now we don't own a home. We don't even have a car payment. I agree that there is a bit here and there to cut but nothing of consequence. That said, we do have everything we need, and I consider our life comfortable. It would just be nice to have our own home or a college fund. A second income would make that possible...you know, like it does for everyone else. There is next to no one in our area outside of the Church living on a single income. The math just doesn't work. In the words of Dave Ramsey, sometimes you just need more money.

Just This Guy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:31 am This got me thinking, where does the idea that women shouldn't work outside the home actually come from?

The only scriptural thing I can think of is Genesis where Adam is cursed to labor to produce bread by the sweat of his brow and Eve is cursed that she shall have pain and sorrow in birth, but this doesn't say that eve should not help out in producing bread if that is what is needed to feed the children.

If it isn't scriptural, where does the idea actually come from? Some Victorian ideal of male superiority in being the bread winner? Women protecting themselves from risk of having to go to work in dangerous jobs before modern workplace safety?

Thoughts?

Since the church is attempting to keep us in the 1950s, look there for the clue

During WWII, the men were off at war and women were working in the factories. After WWII ended the government promised its vets that they would have jobs. This left them with the problem of kicking the women out of those jobs. So, the US government invented this ideal family. The 1950s idea family with a (veteran) father and a stay at home mother who was popping out babies to replace the men killed in war and in preparation for the next war. My mother told me about the propaganda to in courage women to quit their jobs, they even said it was the patriotic thing to do to quit work so a man could have the job. For the first time in history, the assumption that the woman would work to bring in money was done away with and they invented the ideal family with a mother who stayed home and did housework all day and baked cookies and made life perfect to reward the men for surviving the war. TV shows and everything supported this idea, thus we have June Cleaver.

alas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2017 7:05 pm Since the church is attempting to keep us in the 1950s, look there for the clue

During WWII, the men were off at war and women were working in the factories. After WWII ended the government promised its vets that they would have jobs. This left them with the problem of kicking the women out of those jobs. So, the US government invented this ideal family. The 1950s idea family with a (veteran) father and a stay at home mother who was popping out babies to replace the men killed in war and in preparation for the next war. My mother told me about the propaganda to in courage women to quit their jobs, they even said it was the patriotic thing to do to quit work so a man could have the job. For the first time in history, the assumption that the woman would work to bring in money was done away with and they invented the ideal family with a mother who stayed home and did housework all day and baked cookies and made life perfect to reward the men for surviving the war. TV shows and everything supported this idea, thus we have June Cleaver.

Funny you should say this, because when JTG asked the question, David O. McKay popped into my head. He was promoted to CEO in 1951, so I'm going to blame the "Stay-at-home-mother nuclear family" idea on him!

He's also the one who "invented" the "Uniform of the Priesthood".

According to my completely made-up, non faith-promoting history, it seems David O. came up with a few things that make the "LDS" experience suck today...

Truth or Dare wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2017 6:29 pmI agree that our society is out of control when it comes to spending, but I respectfully disagree that my bottom line would be the same now without the Church. When you are on one income that is almost cut in half by student loans, there is only so much you can cut. If we were on two incomes we could pass on the vacation or BMW to catch up. Right now we don't own a home. We don't even have a car payment. I agree that there is a bit here and there to cut but nothing of consequence. That said, we do have everything we need, and I consider our life comfortable. It would just be nice to have our own home or a college fund. A second income would make that possible...you know, like it does for everyone else. There is next to no one in our area outside of the Church living on a single income. The math just doesn't work. In the words of Dave Ramsey, sometimes you just need more money.

Point taken. The mormon cultural expectation to be a SAHM is alive and well. In my ward alone we have a few newly weds where the wife isn't finishing school or working. Why? They are planning to have kids right away.

Emower wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2017 12:15 amWhy do you think there is that emphasis on living large? It seems so common that we have a disconnect between not seeking the things of the world, but really Mormons seek the things of the world as a group more than most perhaps.

Wanting or needing to aquire things and improving our standing in the world is a pretty strong drive. That would definitely get in the way of Joseph's aspirations for a wealthy church though? On the other hand, more members making more money=more tithing.
It would be fascinating to read a statistical description of Mormon money/debt habits vs. other religious and non religious groups.

I think this applies to people in general. There's a strong tendency to judge people by how much money they make/have. Still, I also see that disconnect in the church, of not seeking worldly things and living large.

Utah has some of the most bankruptcies - 1st in 2004 and 5th more recently - of all 50 states.

Generally, I don't really care about money as much as quality of life, though I have felt hurt at times, because I've felt judged by others, all Mormons interestingly. They've asked or subtly shamed me for not pushing my husband to earn more. I realize I can always improve in financial psychology and management - but frankly it really isn't top on my priority. We have our needs met and many wants and help others at times. I don't have my dream home or car, but we've had rich traveling experiences and we have more than enough. I want the best for my kids but I also want to feel like I'm progressing and have some financial independence, so I've worked on the side, but prioritize my kids - basically I try to be home when they get home from school. I used to listen to Dr. Laura before she got kicked off talk radio. She helped me realize the need to take care of the kids we brought into this world, even when the world is tempting or shaming moms into shifting kids off to day-care, or day-orphanages as she called it.

Corsair wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:10 am

Emower wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2017 12:15 am Why do you think there is that emphasis on living large? It seems so common that we have a disconnect between not seeking the things of the world, but really Mormons seek the things of the world as a group more than most perhaps.

The primal fears of Joseph Smith still haunt the LDS church today, encapsulated in the conflicting messages of the Book of Mormon. Listed below are two of the many verses that produce the dichotomy of LDS priorities. First we have the frequent message of the modern prosperity gospel:

2 Nephi 9:20 wrote:And he hath said that: Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land; but inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from my presence.

Next we have the alleged connection order of seeking righteousness and wealth:

Jacob 2:18 wrote:But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God.

The message that is accidentally reinforced by these scriptures is the assumption that if a Mormon is rich he must be righteous. Clearly he must have found the kingdom of God and made a fortune after that. The vast majority of LDS leadership are living comfortable high-middle and upper class lives. I will grant that the lay leadership of the church does need men who have the resources to dedicate towards their ecclesiastic office.

But this idea infects the most diligent young married couples who simply assume that God will bless them materially when they simply live the 1950s ideal of a nuclear family headed by a hard working father and supported by the stay at home mother. I'm not saying that this is a necessarily bad idea. Strong families are produced, but they are often poorer families even through the community at large is enriched by this backbone of basic family units. The families that do come to wealth are passively put into leadership and the cycle continues.

I went to church in a very poor area of New Mexico. Most of the stake leadership was from Albuquerque and typically had jobs with the Sandia Laboratory, or other higher paying careers. I also saw that the apostles, seventies, and mission presidents all seemed wealthy. Add that to the scriptures you cite above and how could you not grow up with such an assumption? I don't know that the church consciously perpetuates this, it is just a necessary evil of the machine called the "kingdom of God."

Emower wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2017 5:00 pm Here is the backstory. So I am in the process of moving to Phoenix to work for the Arizona Game and Fish. State agencies are notorious for not being super generous with salaries. I trying to find a housing situation that is within our 1 income means. When we got married, Mrs. Mower and I decided to be good Mormons and I would be the breadwinner and she would stay with the kids. This is what we had been taught all our lives that this was the only acceptable and righteous way to structure your life. Consequently she has few marketable skills. So, we did that and it has worked out fine. So far we have made it work and been happy. As time goes on it is increasingly difficult to make life work on only one average income. Finding a safe and comfortable place to live is difficult as cost of living increases. Plenty of people are worse off than me though so I am not complaining about my first world problems. I also still agree that having a parent home with young kids is invaluable. I don't argue with that. It is just a little more than frustrating that the people who have told me how to structure my life have done it from a place of complete and utter financial security. The Bretheren are secure, their children and grandchildren are taken care of through free education and various nepotistic deals, and they seem completely insulated from how the world operates. And we let them make very important, life altering decisions for us. I let them so far into my life that they dictated the entire trajectory of our life! And it breaks my heart because as we have been married I have seen that my wife is so much smarter than I am.

I can totally identify with what you are saying. I have been there and finally got fed up with the brethren giving one talk telling me to pay my tithing and the next one telling me to get out of debt. That kind of double bind can really wear on a person. I sure did on me.

I bolded a couple things I wanted to comment about. I was rather shocked to discover how much more expensive older kids are than younger ones. Things like auto insurance when they drive, and of course there is education. You can expect the financial pressures to get worse over time.

Which brings me to the second bolded point. If your wife is smart you would do well to consider investing in her education with a plan to get her in the workforce when that becomes necessary. If you plan on it and prepare for it you will be better off than if you find yourself in difficult times without your wife having the skills to be employed in a better-paying job.

Feel free to consider this advice as worth exactly what you paid for it.

alas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2017 7:05 pm

Just This Guy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:31 am This got me thinking, where does the idea that women shouldn't work outside the home actually come from?

The only scriptural thing I can think of is Genesis where Adam is cursed to labor to produce bread by the sweat of his brow and Eve is cursed that she shall have pain and sorrow in birth, but this doesn't say that eve should not help out in producing bread if that is what is needed to feed the children.

If it isn't scriptural, where does the idea actually come from? Some Victorian ideal of male superiority in being the bread winner? Women protecting themselves from risk of having to go to work in dangerous jobs before modern workplace safety?

Thoughts?

Since the church is attempting to keep us in the 1950s, look there for the clue

During WWII, the men were off at war and women were working in the factories. After WWII ended the government promised its vets that they would have jobs. This left them with the problem of kicking the women out of those jobs. So, the US government invented this ideal family. The 1950s idea family with a (veteran) father and a stay at home mother who was popping out babies to replace the men killed in war and in preparation for the next war. My mother told me about the propaganda to in courage women to quit their jobs, they even said it was the patriotic thing to do to quit work so a man could have the job. For the first time in history, the assumption that the woman would work to bring in money was done away with and they invented the ideal family with a mother who stayed home and did housework all day and baked cookies and made life perfect to reward the men for surviving the war. TV shows and everything supported this idea, thus we have June Cleaver.

Yep. Today's GA's came of age in the 1950's and 60's.