Should Mothers Stay Home?

0 Flares Twitter 0 Facebook 0 Google+ 0 StumbleUpon 0 Email -- Filament.io 0 Flares ×

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.

Interesting. Nowhere in this proclamation?¢‚Ǩ‚Äùwhether it is scripture or not is for another post?¢‚Ǩ‚Äùdoes it state that mothers are to stay home or that they are not allowed to go out to work.

So why is it that such an idea is taught in the Church?

19 thoughts on “Should Mothers Stay Home?

  1. It’s taught as a logical conclusion of the statement you quote. If the mother is primarily responsible for the nurture of the children of the marriage, then it follows that she should not be devoting as much of her time to providing financially as her husband, whose primary duty that is. Someone who is working fulltime simply cannot be the primary nurturer and caregiver of the children. (Not only in contrast to her husband; a couple who both work necessarily delegates a major portion of nurture and childcare to paid providers.)

    It’s not an issue of “Women shouldn’t work!” or “Women should be at home!” It’s the idea that the parent with the primary responsibility for the children shouldn’t be employed INSTEAD OF caring for those children. And as long as there’s a home to be in, that’s as good a place as any for the mother and children to be. I suppose if they wanted to go to the park or the rec center all day every day…

  2. What of families where the children attend school? Is it necessary for mothers to stay home to nurture if her children aren’t even there?

    Is being home necessary to nurture children?

  3. I can’t see why a mother (or anyone, really) should stay home when no one else is there. I know that it’s often hard to find a job that allows mothers of school-aged children to be home when the kids get out of school, but it’s not insurmountable.

    As I said, I don’t think that “home” is a necessary part of nurturing; I do think that “present” or “together” IS necessary.

  4. Another reason “mothers stay at home” is taught in the church is because the proclamation is not the end all-be all of church teachings. Pres. Benson told mothers, in no uncertain terms, to come home (with the exception of those who were forced into the position of having to provide).

    Now that times have changed, the counsel has changed in such a way so as to be more flexible in it’s application. Nevertheless, Pres. Benson lowered the boom in such a way that we haven’t been able to shake the general teaching of mothers staying home. And I think that’s a good thing.

    Jack

  5. From our perspective, the council given by the Proclamation and by President Benson are guidelines to help parents understand the importance of their responsibilities. It is helpful to prayfully enlist the influence of the Sprit when making these kinds of decisions. “One correct answer” may not fit every situation.

    Roger & Sue

  6. i don’t think it’s fair that women should stay at home& be stay home mothers.who will take care of thier children if the husband divorces her?if she doesn’t work or get education who is going to assist the kids with their homeworks?women should be given a chance to use their God given talents like every one else.

  7. Let me see if I have this straight–if a teaching isn’t included in the Proclamation on the Family, it shouldn’t be taught in church?

    The teaching that mothers should try to stay at home for their children is simply found elsewhere in the teachings of Priesthood leaders (and women leaders). It doesn’t have to be included in the Proclamation.

    I agree with Jack in #5.

  8. If she’s married, a roof over her head if she lives in any of the big centres.

    I don’t know how anyone can live in Vancouver or Calgary without two incomes.

  9. We did it in Vancouver.

    Our rent was cheaper at the place we lived in the suburb of Surrey than it was in the last house we rented in Lethbridge. Granted other expenses were higher, but we still managed on one income.

    We did live on two incomes for a little while, but that was to pay for post secondary education.

    But we had no children, so technically, Mary wasn’t a working mum.

  10. i think there is a confusion over house and home. when we say home, do we always need to refer it to the house? i think that this issue come up because, we consider homemaking does not generate income or benefit and therefore it is overlooked and not appreciated. well even though we classify it “traditional” roles, but we see it’s results as we are today, state if the art technology, and good living, does proves the “traditional” method to be successful. well i think it just comes down to 1 simple question, career or family? by the way, if you see how man handle stuff (generally), you would not leave a baby and anything fragile in their hands

  11. i think homemakers should have a salary too, but nurturing a child to be a successful person in the future, really holds a priceless value. like my mother, a homemaker that spends all her efforts to ensure her 3 children to go through university education really inspiring, will i be able to do the same?

  12. I would love a salary, but where would it come from? As a homemaker, homeschooler, running my business so I can pay for my schooling….well let me tell you that isn’t easy.

  13. “if you see how man handle stuff (generally), you would not leave a baby and anything fragile in their hands”

    Apparently, you’ve been introduced to the lowest class of man.

    “nurturing a child to be a successful person in the future, really holds a priceless value.”

    If this property of ‘successful-ness’ is a metric we can measure, then we can put a value on it. But don’t forget to subtract the value of the time of the parent who removed themselves from the workforce, first.

    “a homemaker that spends all her efforts to ensure her 3 children to go through university”

    And how is she doing this from the home? What resources does she have access to, which would not be better or more efficiently acquired from outside the home?

  14. if you see how man handle stuff (generally), you would not leave a baby and anything fragile in their hands

    That is one of the most sexist things I have read in any comment on this blog. I find such an unfounded generalization to be very offencive.

  15. Oh my, I didn’t even see that. Good grief, I would trust my husband with our babies more than anyone else. OH wait, I DO trust him more than anyone else!

  16. First, it’s nice to see a post of this topic so long lived. Obviously an age old question (well, as long as woman have been allowed to actually speak their mind openly; probably much, much longer when they were only talking amongst themselves. Thank goodness for progress!)

    At the end of the day, isnt’ it all about choice? At this point in my life (43 y.o.) I cannot imagine that if I were to find a woman that would want me ;) that I’d find one who would even consider just staying home with the child rearing responsibilities. At the same time, I know there are people that are still living in that paradigm. And good for them. They should have the “choice”. It’s when we take it away that all heck breaks loose!

Leave a Reply