M.y.o.b. (?)

[Solon]

While I'm saving my thoughts on LDS women for the Religious Studies thread, one of my ongoing gripes with the LDS church is what I consider to be intrusion on my personal life. While I understand religion is a personal experience, IMO organizational prerogatives stop at the foyer.

Is it really the church's business if a woman goes to work or stays home? From where do the leaders assume the prerogative to rule on this (or any similar) issue? From what I understand, whether or not a mother works has little or nothing to do with essential doctrines of faith, repentance, baptism, etc. Since there is no "sin" involved, shouldn't the church (and its members) shut up and leave it alone? The church is overstepping its bounds, IMO.

Do other churches act this way? While I understand there may be official positions on politically charged issues (homosexuality, abortion, etc.), do other churches come out with ambiguous directives about such personal choices as whether or not Ma should quit her job at Denny's or whether Billy should get a haircut and wear a white shirt? I honestly don't know, but I doubt it. My guess is that other churches rightfully recognize that they have bigger fish to fry. Shouldn't the LDS church be looking for those bigger fish as well?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Solon

While I'm saving my thoughts on LDS women for the Religious Studies thread, one of my ongoing gripes with the LDS church is what I consider to be intrusion on my personal life. While I understand religion is a personal experience, IMO organizational prerogatives stop at the foyer.

Is it really the church's business if a woman goes to work or stays home? From where do the leaders assume the prerogative to rule on this (or any similar) issue? From what I understand, whether or not a mother works has little or nothing to do with essential doctrines of faith, repentance, baptism, etc. Since there is no "sin" involved, shouldn't the church (and its members) shut up and leave it alone? The church is overstepping its bounds, IMO.

Do other churches act this way? While I understand there may be official positions on politically charged issues (homosexuality, abortion, etc.), do other churches come out with ambiguous directives about such personal choices as whether or not Ma should quit her job at Denny's or whether Billy should get a haircut and wear a white shirt? I honestly don't know, but I doubt it. My guess is that other churches rightfully recognize that they have bigger fish to fry. Shouldn't the LDS church be looking for those bigger fish as well?

The best answer to your query is, it depends.

Some small churches meddle in everything from how your hair looks, to whether you dance, to which condom is right (okay maybe not that one), and others only express generalizations statement in order to keep the cash flowing in.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Good question.

I recently met someone who used to belong to an evangelical church in East Texas. The women were strongly counseled to not cut their hair short and to never wear pants.

[Black Diamond Bay]

Like it or not the individual members of the church can impact outside perceptions of the church as a whole. That being the case I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that Mormon families take certain steps to strengthen their families, and to dress and groom themselves in such a fashion that we aren't all portrayed to be freak shows to the people you may come in contact with. Because you personally disagree with some of that instruction is IMO just a sign of your obstinate unwillingness to be obedient.

Besides, who told you you're wife can't work?

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Black Diamond Bay

Like it or not the individual members of the church can impact outside perceptions of the church as a whole. That being the case I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that Mormon families take certain steps to strengthen their families, and to dress and groom themselves in such a fashion that we aren't all portrayed to be freak shows to the people you may come in contact with. Because you personally disagree with some of that instruction is IMO just a sign of your obstinate unwillingness to be obedient.

Besides, who told you you're wife can't work?

Nobody told me my wife can't work (she does - and makes 2x what I do). Lots of people have been debating this issue recently on this board, and I wanted to step back and wonder if it's even really a debatable issue.

You make it sound like the members "work" for the church - some huge organization that we must make sure to never embarrass (or I guess we'll be fired or re-assigned to HR). I know there's a corporate culture in the LDS church (the American version, at least), but that doesn't mean it's obligatory.

I prefer to think that the members are the church, no matter how they look - whether they are "freak shows" or not. God is no respecter of persons, yet the LDS seem to be. You bet your ass I'm obstinately unwilling to have someone tell me that how we organize and run our family, or how I look somehow impacts my standing with God. That's just not anyone's business but our/my own, regardless of ecclesiastic authority.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Black Diamond Bay

Like it or not the individual members of the church can impact outside perceptions of the church as a whole.

Also, why is the church so concerned with outside perceptions? And don't tell me "missionary efforts." Missionary efforts would, IMO, be boosted if the church stopped trying to make all its members look the same and actually put forth a semblance of inclusive universality.

This approach seems to be to be just more evidence of the LDS church's inferiority complex vis-a-vis other (mainstream) US churches.

[DrumNFeather]

Originally Posted by Solon

Also, why is the church so concerned with outside perceptions? And don't tell me "missionary efforts." Missionary efforts would, IMO, be boosted if the church stopped trying to make all its members look the same and actually put forth a semblance of inclusive universality.

This approach seems to be to be just more evidence of the LDS church's inferiority complex vis-a-vis other (mainstream) US churches.

I think there is an obvious solution here: Just ignore it.

I mean (and I'm not being sarcastic here) but haven't church members been instructed on various things from the pulpet for years...and haven't they also been offended by similar talks?

Take Elder Oaks talk on Divorce from last conference...I'm sure it offended many, including some here on the board (if you check the threads you'll see that) and at the end of the day...regardless of whether or not we think it is truly inspired, we ignore the council we don't like, and follow the council we do.

Seems like a win/win.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Solon

Nobody told me my wife can't work (she does - and makes 2x what I do). Lots of people have been debating this issue recently on this board, and I wanted to step back and wonder if it's even really a debatable issue.

You make it sound like the members "work" for the church - some huge organization that we must make sure to never embarrass (or I guess we'll be fired or re-assigned to HR). I know there's a corporate culture in the LDS church (the American version, at least), but that doesn't mean it's obligatory.

I prefer to think that the members are the church, no matter how they look - whether they are "freak shows" or not. God is no respecter of persons, yet the LDS seem to be. You bet your ass I'm obstinately unwilling to have someone tell me that how we organize and run our family, or how I look somehow impacts my standing with God. That's just not anyone's business but our/my own, regardless of ecclesiastic authority.

Because God is concerned with our happiness in this life and so he imparts to his children through his divinely-called leaders principles that will assist us as much as possible.

It's not a requirement, it's not a question for a temple recommend, it's an ideal that people should shoot for if they are able.

Why the hell would we want a church that is so laissez-faire that they don't care enough to at least opine on what might help make our families closer, our children happier and healthier?

If you're upset because individual members use this guidance against others that aren't currently following it, that's a fair complaint, but IMO, the church would be institutionally irresponsible not to give counsel on how to have a better family.

FHE
Family prayer/scripture study
Spend time with wife and kids, not so much with internet/golfing/overworking/etc.
Having the mother stay at home to care for kids

What's wrong with that?

[Solon]

Originally Posted by DrumNFeather

I think there is an obvious solution here: Just ignore it.

I mean (and I'm not being sarcastic here) but haven't church members been instructed on various things from the pulpet for years...and haven't they also been offended by similar talks?

Take Elder Oaks talk on Divorce from last conference...I'm sure it offended many, including some here on the board (if you check the threads you'll see that) and at the end of the day...regardless of whether or not we think it is truly inspired, we ignore the council we don't like, and follow the council we do.

Seems like a win/win.

I agree completely - and I do take whatever advice I think is good and jet the rest. My question - not stemming from any personal relation to any talk in particular from GC, but rather from the multiple threads I read on this board - just refers to whether or not churches overstep their bounds when they pass down counsel/commandment/suggestion that has little to do with their doctrines of salvation. Weirdo fascist cults aside, do other major churches/religions do this?

[DrumNFeather]

Originally Posted by Solon

I agree completely - and I do take whatever advice I think is good and jet the rest. My question - not stemming from any personal relation to any talk in particular from GC, but rather from the multiple threads I read on this board - just refers to whether or not churches overstep their bounds when they pass down counsel/commandment/suggestion that has little to do with their doctrines of salvation. Weirdo fascist cults aside, do other major churches/religions do this?

To that question...I just think it goes with the territory. Any organization that one belongs to or pledges allegiance to, has "social" or even "unwritten" rules that it in one way or another pushes upon its members. It sounds to me that much of what has been complained about would fall under this category.

For example, In Elder Oaks talk, he mentioned a few statistics, one of them being that kids that come from families that have dinner together every night at the dinner table, perform better on tests, in college etc...than those that don't.

Now, a typical response to this might be, "Is the church really telling me that the only way that my kid will get into a good school or perform well on a test is if we have dinner as a family at the table every night?" - I don't think that is the case. I think the church is encouraging behavior that it feels will strengthen its membership.

I think the working women vs. stay at home women thing is similar. All the church, and in this case Beck, is doing is saying, "Here's what we think/have found to work best, and we encourage you to do it." Obviously, people can have a successful life out of a myriad of circumstances, but perhaps there are certain ones that provide better opportunities for success. I don't really know...but I don't think it is overstepping bounds because 1. I don't personally believe they are telling us what to do and, 2. Because, as we've noted, people are going to do whatever they want to do anyway..."so the suggestion is out there...we'd like you to follow it...your move."