No rest for the busy.

[UtahDan]

http://daughtersofmormonism.blogspot...-for-busy.html

Interesting (and short, only 10 min) podcast wherein Sybil tackles (throttles), in part, the issue of allowing the church to take up so much time that you neglect your kids or you life becomes out of balance. I will say that I am glad my parents never sacrificed anything with my brothers and me as they served the church.

But what do people think? I don't see the man who hides out from family responsibilities through his callings as something that is happening as much in my generation, though I can think of abundant examples of it in older ones.

I have less of a sense of how many women are killing themselves trying to tick off the list she describes. Though I think we all know a few.

[DrumNFeather]

There has been a pretty strong push in recent years in wards I've been in to spend less time in meetings etc...and more time with families. Much of the instruction at GC, particularly in the Priesthood session has also re-emphasized the importance of finding balance in ones life.

I think that church responsibilities as a means of taking someone out of the home is a pretty easy target, but I suspect that work, hobbies, video games, playing on the internet etc...take just as much time away from our families as church responsibilities does. If we were to insert our various hobbies or other activities that take us out of the home in place of the church in a similar context, we'd probably find room for balance in those areas as well.

I tend to agree that the current generation has more of a family lean to it, so I don't think there are as many "hiding" as you suggest, but again, there are plenty of things that people use to "hide from their responsibilities" the church doesn't have the exclusive market on that one.

[jay santos]

I think it happens. Probably less common than my parent's generation though. The kids in my family were neglected by a worthy priesthood leader involved in the work. A friend of mine who is a counselor in the bishopric and one of those rising stars who will find himself a bishop and higher someday, recently lamented/bragged he hadn't see a single one of his son's baseball games because he was so busy with his church calling. This is part of the reason for my war path towards bishop and the whole climbing the church ladder thing, which I seem to be the only one on the board who observes.

note: I'm humble and self aware enough to recognize it's probably my own stuff popping out when I'm apparently the only one noticing something like this.

[UtahDan]

There has been a pretty strong push in recent years in wards I've been in to spend less time in meetings etc...and more time with families. Much of the instruction at GC, particularly in the Priesthood session has also re-emphasized the importance of finding balance in ones life.

I think that church responsibilities as a means of taking someone out of the home is a pretty easy target, but I suspect that work, hobbies, video games, playing on the internet etc...take just as much time away from our families as church responsibilities does. If we were to insert our various hobbies or other activities that take us out of the home in place of the church in a similar context, we'd probably find room for balance in those areas as well.

I tend to agree that the current generation has more of a family lean to it, so I don't think there are as many "hiding" as you suggest, but again, there are plenty of things that people use to "hide from their responsibilities" the church doesn't have the exclusive market on that one.

I think that is a very valid point. And in fact one of the points Sybil alludes to is that this is an American problem as well. What I hear her saying is that we have historically as a society associated being incredibly busy with success, and at some level been more tolerant of absentee parents when the absence creates financial success. Though again, I think that is on the decline. I think her response to the video game, etc comparison would be to say "but none of those things are held up as the ideal." Though as you say, perhaps the ideal she is talking about is starting to be less idealized in the church.

We all need balance. But I DO agree with her point that no success compensates for failure in the home. Full stop.

[DrumNFeather]

I think that is a very valid point. And in fact one of the points Sybil alludes to is that this is an American problem as well. What I hear her saying is that we have historically as a society associated being incredibly busy with success, and at some level been more tolerant of absentee parents when the absence creates financial success. Though again, I think that is on the decline. I think her response to the video game, etc comparison would be to say "but none of those things are held up as the ideal." Though as you say, perhaps the ideal she is talking about is starting to be less idealized in the church.

We all need balance. But I DO agree with her point that no success compensates for failure in the home. Full stop.

Both inside and outside of the church, kids are being taught at a very young age to be busy. Just take the area where we grew up and our high school as an example...it went from a handful of AP classes where you could get 3-9 credits for college, to this whole IB program where you could knock out a year (or two) of college credits while still in high school. Busy, busy busy. Add sports and dance and all other activities that parents throw their kids in and all of the sudden kids don't even have time to be kids.

I think it's the same thing with church callings. We are advised to find balance, advised to put family first and at the end of the day it is up to us to take some personal responsibility and practice what we preach. Nobody in my ward can help me succeed in my home, and likewise, I cannot help them in their home...it is up to us as individuals to be available when needed for our spouses and children...and even though I can appreciate the concept of an ideal, I still don't think that anyone's ideal involves sacrificing family time, but maybe I'm wrong.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

I think the people that put church above their family would find something else to put above their family if they weren't in the church.

[Surfah]

I think the people that put church above their family would find something else to put above their family if they weren't in the church.

[UtahDan]

Both inside and outside of the church, kids are being taught at a very young age to be busy. Just take the area where we grew up and our high school as an example...it went from a handful of AP classes where you could get 3-9 credits for college, to this whole IB program where you could knock out a year (or two) of college credits while still in high school. Busy, busy busy. Add sports and dance and all other activities that parents throw their kids in and all of the sudden kids don't even have time to be kids.

I think it's the same thing with church callings. We are advised to find balance, advised to put family first and at the end of the day it is up to us to take some personal responsibility and practice what we preach. Nobody in my ward can help me succeed in my home, and likewise, I cannot help them in their home...it is up to us as individuals to be available when needed for our spouses and children...and even though I can appreciate the concept of an ideal, I still don't think that anyone's ideal involves sacrificing family time, but maybe I'm wrong.

No I think you are right on the money. I don't think what you are saying is much different than what the author of that podcast is saying.

[UtahDan]

I think the people that put church above their family would find something else to put above their family if they weren't in the church.

Mmm, I don't completely agree with this. There are some who would if it was their object to not have to spend time with their families. But I can immediately think of two guys I know who were already at home very little because of their demanding careers (and one of them already desperately needed to be spending more time at home) who accepted callings as Bishops. Both of them are very, very good, kind, well-intentioned men who it seems very clear took that calling because they believe it will be a net plus to their families. That it will be made up to them in blessings. Maybe it will. But absent that, neither of these guys would be filling that time some other way.

[jay santos]

I think the people that put church above their family would find something else to put above their family if they weren't in the church.

Agree

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

Mmm, I don't completely agree with this. There are some who would if it was their object to not have to spend time with their families. But I can immediately think of two guys I know who were already at home very little because of their demanding careers (and one of them already desperately needed to be spending more time at home) who accepted callings as Bishops. Both of them are very, very good, kind, well-intentioned men who it seems very clear took that calling because they believe it will be a net plus to their families. That it will be made up to them in blessings. Maybe it will. But absent that, neither of these guys would be filling that time some other way.

Except they were already filling their time with demanding careers, one of which already wasn't home enough because of said career.

[Portland Ute]

I think the people that put church above their family would find something else to put above their family if they weren't in the church.

I don't agree.

If you fully buy into the LDS church and what is taught, then there is a religious aspect to giving time to the Church. It's viewed as a sacred responsibility. There is, if you will, some guilt attached to either not accepting a job or in devoting a minimal amount of time to it.

Also, if you fully buy into things, then there is a very prevalent attitude/belief that you do not turn down a calling...that callings are inspired.

I believe that some people within the Church definitely feel torn between time with family vs. "magnifying" a calling which they believe is inspired. A calling which, perhaps, they do not even enjoy or want.

[Surfah]

I don't agree.

If you fully buy into the LDS church and what is taught, then there is a religious aspect to giving time to the Church. It's viewed as a sacred responsibility. There is, if you will, some guilt attached to either not accepting a job or in devoting a minimal amount of time to it.

Also, if you fully buy into things, then there is a very prevalent attitude/belief that you do not turn down a calling...that callings are inspired.

I believe that some people within the Church definitely feel torn between time with family vs. "magnifying" a calling which they believe is inspired. A calling which, perhaps, they do not even enjoy or want.

I don't understand what the guilt trip has to do with HFN's point.

[Coach McGuirk]

I don't understand what the guilt trip has to do with HFN's point.

exactly. There is also guilt associated to turning down opportunities at work. It is ones personality that demands they continue to accept responsibilities that they can not manage.

[creekster]

I find it very interesting that it seems so clear to many of you who should be spending more time at home and why they aren't doing so now. People and their capacities (not to mention their motivations) are so varied and complicated that I think it would be very difficult to make these assessments. We can make it for ourselves, of course, but at least for me it is very difficult to do for others.