Isn't it wonderful how the Gospel answers all our questions? Since getting reacquainted with some old friends of other faiths, I've been researching what other Christian denominations believe on certain doctrinal points and have found two very interesting facts from this research.
First, we are the only one who believes in a premortal existence. The fact that my computer wants me to spell-check "premortal" tells me that it's an unusual belief. Yet it solidifies everything we believe about our purpose on this Earth and who we are and where we came from. Without this doctrine, there would be no purpose to this life. No wonder so many others are confused about things like gender and why they are here. We are so fortunate to have this doctrine.
Secondly, none of our points of doctrine conflict with other points of doctrine. So many questions that others have regarding their faith (specifically Christianity) stem from not understanding why certain doctrinal points conflict with other points. We don't have that problem. Everything fits together nicely, like one giant puzzle.
I'm very glad that I'm fortunate to have the gospel in my life. I have something that so many other people don't have--the truth. I have a guide on how to raise a family (the Gospel). I have the knowledge of where I came from, who I am, what my purpose in this life is (to some degree, anyway), and what will happen to me and my loved ones after this life. These are things that many people question every day, yet I have always known since I was small. I feel very blessed.
Is it just me, or has customer service really gone downhill in the last fifteen years? I loathe calling a customer service number and getting a menu where I have to say a certain topic. Almost always, what I'm calling about doesn't really fit in one of their categories and they end up having to transfer me to a real live human being anyway (which is, of course, what I wanted), but sometimes it takes forever to get to that live person. It's so annoying.
I guess I'm just old-fashioned in that when I call a customer service number, I'd like a real live person to answer the phone in this fashion: "Thanks for calling (blank), this is (blank), how can I help you today?" And then to have them help me out politely and kindly (this is, on the assumption, of course, that I'm being polite and kind to them), whether it be to answer a simple question, or go through a long complex process to resolve an issue.
Okay, so DH's class has got me all riled up this morning. I was reading some of his textbook (I can't help myself, this stuff is interesting to me!), and came across this:
Contemporary models of intimacy stress gender equality in marriage and other types of partnerships. Egalitarianism is the trend among many couples making a serious commitment to each other. But if women continue to make less money for the work they do outside the home and if men continue to avoid child care and household labor, the fabric of intimate relationships is threatened. The fragile bonds of intimacy can easily be damaged when one spouse is subordinate to the other, has more power than the other, or receives less respect and dignity in society." (Marriage and Families: Intimacy, Diversity and Strengths, David H. Olson, John DeFrain, and Linda Skogrand, Chapter 7, p 188, italics added)
This suggests that work outside the home is more worthwhile and meaningful than work inside the home, and that if a husband works but the wife only cares for the children and the home that she somehow has less value than he does and is therefore "subordinate" to him. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't try to be equal partners. That is definitely what the Church teaches about marriage and families.
Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, 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. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. (The Family: A Proclamation to the World, by the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, italics added)
Doesn't that paint a different picture than what the textbook paints? The rest of the chapter that this segment is taken from discusses more about "gender inequalities" between men and women and their determined roles, which is influenced by the Feminist Framework, a family science framework that is based on the notion that women are exploited, devalued, and oppressed and that society should commit to empowering women and changing their oppressed condition.
Now, I'm also not here to argue that the feminist movement did not improve some things about women's lives. But I also know that the Church was opposed to the feminist movement of the 60's because of how it devalued motherhood! We went from devaluing women to devaluing mothers, and, in essence, destroyed the natural inclination most women have to bear and rear children by making it seem wrong.
When you evaluate a couple's marriage based on these principles (the ones mentioned in the textbook), it sounds that a marriage like mine, for example, where my husband is the breadwinner and I stay home to care for the children, is very un-egalitarian and that I'm the lesser of the two people. Just because I choose to stay home and fulfill my obligation as a mother.
I wish that the world could understand that men and women have equal but different roles in a marriage. Our purposes are united and we need to work together to raise our family, but I primarily care for the children while my husband goes off into the workforce to provide the "necessities of life". That doesn't make my contribution to the marriage less meaningful or important! The thing that these secular social scientists fail to notice, I think, is that you can have different roles but still have equality in marriage, if you are committed to helping and supporting each other in those roles! Yes, those gender roles that the world also views with such disregard (gender is, after all, according to this textbook, merely the stereotypes that the world places on men's and women's roles in society, not anything inherent and important to your "premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose," as the Family Proclamation explains).
We can have a whole other discussion on the world's view of gender roles versus the Gospel's understanding of the "eternal identity and purpose" of gender (more than just a stereotype imposed by backwards thinking).
Oh dear. I think I've rambled. These assigned chapters he's had to read this week about gender roles and sexual intimacy and even gay and lesbian lifestyles have me all churning inside. It's very scary what has become the acceptable norm for the world. Very scary indeed.
Last night we were watching a T.V. show where a character gave birth and they handed her the baby afterward. It reminded me of all the feelings that I've felt after having a baby and holding that newborn for the first time.
That is my favorite part of having a baby. The part when you've just finished delivering the baby and they wrap him or her in a blanket and give them to you to hold. Their eyes are closed, their faces are scrunched, often they are crying from being so abruptly torn from their warm, cozy home for the past nine months, and they are yours. Such an amazing feeling! There's nothing better than it, I think. I can't think of any other time I ever felt so much joy and peace and excitement all at once.
If my mind and body would allow, I would have dozens of babies just to experience that over and over again! But, those sweet babies are so needy and grow up to be kids who are needy and caring for that many kids would drive me out of my mind (four is already a LOT to handle!), plus having baby after baby definitely takes its toll on one's physical body. But that is my most favorite experience of all--the time just after birth when you get to hold that sweet baby for the first time! What a wonderful time!
I've just finished reading this book called "Piggyback Rides and Slippery Slides" by Lynnae W. Allred. She says, "A child who has some free time to play and engage in child-driven leisure pursuits with a parent (or other beloved adult) grows up healthier, happier, and more intelligent than a child whose time is rigidly scheduled into structured academic and physical activities."
I really agree with the whole theory of this book, that children need to be able to express themselves in child-driven play and that playing with an adult, specifically a parent, helps them learn and grow in ways that structured academic and physical activities cannot. I think too many parents out there are too eager to get their kids involved in academics early. One reason is because many children live in homes where both parents work, and having a child go to preschool is a better alternative than daycare for most families. But the push for academics and early reading and math is still too great in those preschools. I don't necessarily agree with the philosophy of both parents working, but I can see that it is a necessity in some instances. The problem is that these preschools are getting attention because they are so focused on academics, and in this highly competitive world, it makes parents think they are getting the edge by putting their child in such schools. But children need to be in a play-driven environment more than a highly structured academic one.
As the author of this book points out, children who engage in imaginative play learn coping skills and can get a better handle on their emotions than children who do not. She cites studies of highly pressured teens who turn to drugs, alcohol, and even suicide as ways out of the challenges they face, and those are often the ones who were pushed into these competitive worlds (academics and sports) earlier than their peers who do not fall into those traps.
I think that we would fare better as a nation if we relinquished the urge to spend gobs of money on the "best" preschools and kept our young preschoolers at home with us, teaching them through working together and playing together.
I love using my digital camera. I love being able to take a quick picture and see it right away. I like using the video feature on my digital camera. Now, I'm a terrible photographer, and the majority of even my digital pictures come out grainy and blurry and not in very good focus, but at least it's quick and easy and I can store them all on my computer's hard drive, back them up on CD's and zip disks and on the web, and make slideshows, post them on my blog, whatever.
What happens when one of my kids needs a picture of themselves as a baby for something? All those pictures are on my computer or the world wide web. I've even slurped my other blog and made a book on Blurb, so those pictures are in book format. But I don't usually order prints online or anywhere of my digital pictures. I guess I'm going to have to have my digital pictures printed.
I used to enjoy scrapbooking. Haven't had much time for it in the last five years, I'm sure you all know why. I got to the first year of marriage and haven't done much with it since. I have kept a baby book on all my kids, although, Travis' baby book isn't put together--there are pictures and everything is there and in order, it's just not together, and Eliza's is, yes, digital, with the intent of putting together a hard copy after the first year is over.
But recently I was looking through old family photo albums of my mom's. I've decided that I'm going to regress into older times, and make photo albums. I'm going to buy regular photo albums and put the pictures in the album according to date, with a simple explanation of the pictures. After I'm done with my first two years of marriage scrapbook, I will only use photo albums for the kids' pictures. That way, if I need one, I'll be able to open the album to the right date and take a picture out. I will still do digital, but I will try and order prints. I will still blog and slurp it to make a book every year, but the pictures will have a hard copy elsewhere.
Even though keeping memories has become easier, it's also become more complicated. In my effort to simplify, I'm going to have to find a better way to keep our memories. A blog book was a great idea, but the pictures are inaccessible for future use, as they are with a scrapbook. So, back to old-fashioned photo albums I go.
One more question: Should I just toss the old film-using cameras or let them collect dust?
"A recent study by BYU economist Joseph Price would surprise parents committed to treating their children equally. It shows that firstborns get far more quality time with parents than their siblings." Click here to view the story on NBC Today Show. (http://www.byu.edu)
I don't, in particular, want to argue with the findings of the study, but it did seem a bit negative. It seemed to me that the firstborn is the luckiest, and everyone else isn't. That's how it came across to me.
Granted, all I've seen is what they showed on the Today Show on NBC. I didn't read the entire study. However, I didn't like what the research seemed to be implying, so I've come up with my own idea of what I think about the birth order of children.
I feel the study failed to take into account a very important factor--the gender of those children. In considering gender, if the first-born is a son, I would hypothesize that he would be pushed more toward independence and leadership than a daughter. If the first-born is a daughter, perhaps she would be coddled more while she is young and expected to help out the mother more with the other children as she gets older. I think that would be interesting to study--the gender of the children in relation to birth order.
What about families who have more of one gender than another? If they have four girls and then a boy, I think it would be possible that the boy would be pushed more toward high success careers than a fifth girl might. Is it possible that because I was the only girl in my family that my parents' expectations of me were different? I feel confident that I spent more quality one-on-one time with my dad than any of my brothers did simply because I was the only girl (you know, "daddy's little girl"). I know my brothers spent time with my dad, but I don't think they spent as much quality one-on-one time as I did, yet I'm not the oldest, just the only girl.
What about spacing? Consider three kids who are all male, where there is five years between the first two and 13 years between the younger two. Don't you think parents are more likely to be able to spend more quality time with each individually than parents who have four kids in 5 years (spacing: 17 months between first two, 23 months between next two, and 14 months between last two)? Those four kids are more likely to spend a lot less time one-on-one with parents because the demands for a parent's divided attention is so great.
Is it even bad if the oldest gets more quality time with the parents than the others? Perhaps Heavenly Father considered this and sent each child down in the order He did for a reason. Perhaps the spirit who is the oldest needed to be the oldest and the others all had their special place too. What about twins who are the oldest? Or elsewhere in the birth order? What does the study say or suggest about those relationships?
It didn't seem to say in the study whether it was positive or negative that parents spend more quality time with the first-born. I'd have to also ask if those 3,000 hours included the time in the child's life when he or she had no younger siblings? Of course there would be greater time spent one-on-one with the parents during that period of time because there are no other children! I mean, say a parent spends 8 hours a day times 365 days during the first year of the oldest child's life solely with that child, that equals 2,920 hours in just that one year. If the oldest is only 1 year older than the next, that is almost 3,000 hours right there!
The point I'm trying to make is that there are so many factors, I think it would be hard to really come up with a conclusive study about birth order. Gender matters, spacing matters, the number of children matter. Did the study just incorporate two-parent homes where the primary caregiver is the mother (I assume this since he is from BYU), or did it also include single parent homes? Not to mention that what one person may consider quality time, others may not consider it to be so. For example, many men feel that watching TV with their kids is quality time--I tend to disagree. All in all, I'd really like to read the entire study to see if any of these other factors were weighed, and if they weren't, I wouldn't call it a very thorough or fair study.
