The Choice

Which would you choose?

Of course in a "perfect world" (stereotypical perfect world in my opinion) a woman would stay home, be a great mom, and wife, take care of the children, and the father would work, and provide for the family. Well that's not a reality for most families today. It's not. Apparently around 75% of families in the United States are dual-income families, or both parents work. that's very eye opening... Especially since I feel like most of the women reading my blog are stay at home moms.

Now I'm going to stir the pot a little, I'm beginning to go back to my old liberal thoughts a little when it comes to some "expectations" for family child-rearing practices (especially when it comes to LDS families).

This is a quote I often here when relating to "The Timing" of having children:

President Kimball said, “It is an act of extreme selfishness for a married couple to refuse to have children when they are able to do so” (Ensign, May 1979, p. 6). When married couples postpone childbearing until after they have satisfied their material goals, the mere passage of time assures that they seriously reduce their potential to participate in furthering our Heavenly Father’s plan for all of his spirit children. Faithful Latter-day Saints cannot afford to look upon children as an interference with what the world calls “self-fulfillment.” Our covenants with God and the ultimate purpose of life are tied up in those little ones who reach for our time, our love, and our sacrifices.

It's hard to admit this out loud, but reading stuff like this often pushes me in the opposite direction of the way they're trying to lead. It's not that I'm rebellious, it's that I can't help but feel that it's either 1. Out of context or 2. Not meant for everyone.

When I read “It is an act of extreme selfishness for a married couple to refuse to have children when they are able to do so” the key words to me are "able to do so"... Able to me means ready... In many ways.

Some would see this and think it means "Get to it! What are you waiting for?" But that can't possibly be the case in every scenario. That can't possibly mean, "if you don't have any money have faith and we'll give you welfare of all else fails." I don't know... Maybe it does, and maybe I'm an evil person for saying this but that just seems irresponsible to me.

This may sound like a previous post I had, but if you bear with me, I'm trying to be more specific.

When you compare this with other doctrine it seems even more challenging. In other scripture like The Family Proclamation it says things like "...Fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children." I'm sure leaders of the LDS church know there's not a cookie cutter situation for every family (at least I hope so) and that these are GREAT guidelines, but I can't believe that this is really what it expected of everyone. Especially not if you put both quotes together. Sometimes (like in my case) one wouldn't be possible if the other is necessary.

I can't help but feel a little envious of women who are at home with their children while their husbands make all of the money. Hey... Most of America doesn't had that privilege. But I think it's a little much to expect that of everyone. What if the husband can't make enough to support a family but the wife can? Should you "wait" until he can? But then you're breaking "rule #1". Or should the dad stay at home while the wife works... But you break "rule #2"?

It seems that in some--No, a lot of cases you have to choose one or the other. An even bigger extreme: What if you're both unemployed? Have a kid anyway?

Am I alone here? Am I reading too much into this? I believe in faith and miracles but I also, agree with Cynthia when she says ultimately we live with our choices and I try not to "check my brain at the door."

I really do welcome all of your opinions so please, don't let my crazy rant scare you off, even if you're not with me on this.