The Proclamation to the World: Spousal Responsibilities

[DarkJedi]

Roy wrote:

What would it mean if the Family Proc. said something to the effect of fathers are to primarily provide, mothers are to primarily nurture, both are responsible for the physical and spiritual protection of their families? Would that be seen as a radical change?

I think changing the wording in that way would rankle the Old Guard. And, I don’t think they’re inclined to change any of the wording in that “inspired” document (which I think will someday go the way of polygamy and Brigham Young’s racism). In that same vein, it’s interesting they are inclined to change wording in the greatest of the inspired documents – the Book of Mormon.

[AmyJ]

Roy wrote:

What would it mean if the Family Proc. said something to the effect of fathers are to primarily provide, mothers are to primarily nurture, both are responsible for the physical and spiritual protection of their families? Would that be seen as a radical change?

I don’t know… in our family, I primarily provide (employment, executive functioning to order/pick up the items we need), my husband does more nurturing (my ASD makes it hard for me to nurture sometimes, but I can care give the basics as much as I need to), and we both protect each other and our children in different ways and different capacities.

I know there is an expectation that we are not fulfilling and that we do a lot of explaining that we are doing what works for us. We get a lot of verbal acceptance of it and our handling of the situation. Well I did in R.S. My husband reported a fair amount of mixed looks.

It actually might be one of the things that pushed me away from the church actually – I don’t/can’t/am not interested in nurturing my family and additional needs members in the traditional way – because we can’t sustain it meaningfully – and having the church culture expecting it and continually putting us on the defensive made it harder to stay.

[Roy]

AmyJ wrote:

Roy wrote:

What would it mean if the Family Proc. said something to the effect of fathers are to primarily provide, mothers are to primarily nurture, both are responsible for the physical and spiritual protection of their families? Would that be seen as a radical change?

I don’t know… in our family, I primarily provide (employment, executive functioning to order/pick up the items we need), my husband does more nurturing (my ASD makes it hard for me to nurture sometimes, but I can care give the basics as much as I need to), and we both protect each other and our children in different ways and different capacities.

I know there is an expectation that we are not fulfilling and that we do a lot of explaining that we are doing what works for us. We get a lot of verbal acceptance of it and our handling of the situation. Well I did in R.S. My husband reported a fair amount of mixed looks.

It actually might be one of the things that pushed me away from the church actually – I don’t/can’t/am not interested in nurturing my family and additional needs members in the traditional way – because we can’t sustain it meaningfully – and having the church culture expecting it and continually putting us on the defensive made it harder to stay.

Yes, I know a convert family with a stay at home dad and a breadwinner wife. It sounds like almost all of the conflict about this is directed to the husband. Mostly from members that are older in age. Some seem to be well meaning though still off-putting. The husband even reported to me receiving a generous job offer (unsolicited) that he did not feel fully qualified for.

I think that our culture tends to give women some grace in this particular area. The idea being that women would gladly prefer to stay home with their children if their husbands would only step up to the plate as providers. The women are seen as a form of victim.

I also have tried to highlight the “circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation” clause in a Sunday School meeting and that was not well received. The feeling of the class was that individual adaptation was only appropriate when the ideal was impossible (such as with the two explicitly mentioned examples of death or disability of the breadwinning spouse). There was great concern that people might justify or excuse themselves in not fulfilling their responsibilities.

[Old-Timer]

I find it fascinating that the large majority of members assume this passage says what they have heard in the past – and, therefore, they misapply the former standard into it.

We do this with the Book of Mormon, as well – but that is a discussion for a different post.

[Author]

Posts