Week 6 - Children: Blessing or Burdensome?

This week in discussing some of the pitfalls which couples encounter during marriage we tended to focus on the transitional phases of when children enter into the family. It was interesting to note that, on average, marital satisfaction steadily increases from the point of marriage until shortly after the birth of the first child, at which point it begins to decline more and more with the arrival of each additional child. Again, on average, this downward trend in marital satisfaction continues in this fashion until children being to leave the home, at which point marital satisfaction begins to increase once more.
Now, although I understand that there are obvious reasons why children could be the cause of additional stress (lack of sleep, additional responsibilities for both, husband and wife, greater demands on time, increased financial obligations, ect.), which could in turn be perceived as causing a decreased level of marital satisfaction, I don't necessarily think that needs to be the case. For one thing, I don't believe that you can directly associate your level of stress with your level of happiness. I'm sure surgeons are under extreme amounts of stress as a result of their profession but I don't believe all surgeons are unhappy or dissatisfied with their careers as a result, so why should parents become dissatisfied in their marriages when additional challenges arise? In my opinion, our level happiness and satisfaction within our marriages and all other aspects of lives, comes as a result of choice, not circumstances and as gospel principles are applied more fully in our lives, the choice to be happy becomes easier to make.

Week 5 - Dating: Practice Promotes Proficiency

Taking about dating this week spurred some fascinating conversation. I especially enjoyed the conversation about the connection between President Packer's teachings of how a proper dates are planned, paid for, and paired off and how that relates to the principle responsibilities of a husband as outlined by "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." I think that one of the dangers of merely "handing out" rather than dating is that it doesn't allow a man, or woman, the opportunity the practice the skills necessary to successful marriage; namely responsibility, in all its forms. It reminds me of a quote by Sister Elaine S. Dalton during a devotional address given here at BYU-I last year when she said, in regard to a potato peeler, "The structure is perfectly designed to get the results it gets." She then related that back to dating verses hanging out, and how since the structures are different, the results will be as well. Proper dating prepares for the demands of marriage, hanging out does not so if you want to be prepared for marriage, date. If you want to be more proficient in meeting your responsibilities as a husband or wife, date. Proper dating is a blessing to a marriage regardless of your current relationship status so date.

Week 4 - Gender Roles

Sorry team. I realize this should have been done last week but I was at my in-laws home over the weekend to celebrate a baby shower. I actually find that, baby showers, I mean, kind of an interesting display of gender roles themselves as even though my brother in-law is also going to be a parent to the upcoming baby, neither he, nor I, were invited to actually attended the baby shower; in fact, it was only women who were invited to attend. It's kind of a random thought, I just thought it interesting how in so often people say that gender roles are not necessarily good, yet we are continually adhering to them in even the simplest of circumstances.

Also, in connection with gender roles, although much of society considers them to be demeaning in some fashion or another, it is interesting how the church, in "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" not only supports the idea of gender roles but specifics, at least to some degree, as to the roles which men and women are intended to have. It clearly states, "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." However, be that as it may, I appreciate how they do not suggest, however, that although gender roles are not only acceptable, but are intended to be evident within the home, they go on to say that "In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners." I believe this to be an important principle as it clarifies that even though gender roles may be present, it does not mean that any given responsibility should be entirely maintained by one gender or the other. Rather it emphasizes that men and women, husband and wife, are intended to help one another, taking partial responsibility in all things while having primary responsibility of a few.

Great Quote

This is a great quote from a Christian woman whom Elder Neil L. Andersen referenced in his October 2011 General Conference address, "Children." Makes you think, where does the importance children, or family, rank in your personal life? Enjoy.
 “[Growing] up in this culture, it is very hard to get a biblical perspective on motherhood. … Children rank way below college. Below world travel for sure. Below the ability to go out at night at your leisure. Below honing your body at the gym. Below any job you may have or hope to get.” She then adds: “Motherhood is not a hobby, it is a calling. You do not collect children because you find them cuter than stamps. It is not something to do if you can squeeze the time in. It is what God gave you time for.”⁷

Week 3 - Social Class

It was really interesting talking about different social classes and out perception of them. I found it really fascinating how our view of different social classes is so dependent upon which social class we perceive ourselves to be in. It seems to me as though the upper class appears to look down on the lower classes because they view themselves as being "superior" their standing world while the lower classes seem to look down on the upper class because they perceive them as being "snobs," regardless of their worldly standings. I think what's interesting about this is that one view is based upon the ability to influence while the other is based upon a perception of attitude but who is to say that one perception is better than the other? In my opinion, neither is right. I don't think social class matters nearly so much in comparison to what type of person you constantly strive to become. There are good, honest people in every social class, just as there are "bad" people in every class; what's important is not your current standing within the realm of social classes, it's what you do with the standing which you have.