Jan 8, 2012


The LDS church is fond of saying that "no success can compensate for failure in the home". 



A home is a house with love. A house is made up of many components, and so is love. 



I propose that no success can compensate for failure in the bedroom. However this belief can often lead to performance anxiety, which all goes to the larger issue of how you define success...



But lets expand the analogy. What other rooms are their in a house? Very hungry Mormons believe that no success can compensate for failure in the kitchen. 

Our toilet plunger can attest that no other success can compensate for failure in the bathroom...


The church has been very successful at keeping many facts in the closet, but less successful at keeping people in the closet.  



Of course what they mean is no success can compensate for failure with your family. But does passing around sayings like this make anyone's life better? Do people really decide to succeed at work, or politics instead of succeeding at home? Or are some people just bad at one aspect of their lives, and good at another? Or are people who succeed in work, more likely to succeed at home? 


All in all, if our income providers didn't succeed outside of the home, we wouldn't have a home, which sort of renders the whole argument pointless. 


As far as individuals are concerned, many Bill Clinton supporters would disagree with the conclusion. That he did a lot to help the world, and that he would like to be judged for his life in general, not just the way his relationship with his wife worked out. Who knows what went wrong their? Was she just not into succeeding in the bedroom with him, or he with her? Do they like each other? Did they succeed? Not in the Mormon sense of the word, in that they were not faithful. But the Mormons are right, as a whole. Many societal problems as a whole can be caused by the family falling apart. But is it a matter of compensation? Do people really choose success outside of the family and therefore they have failure in the family. I don't think so. It wasn't Clinton's desire for success in politics that hurt his family, it was his desire to have success with other women... 



Good church leaders will point out that success at church can not, and should not, compete with success at home. But if the real goal is choosing success at home, by spending more time there, instead of success at work, why are young fathers asked to spend 8 hours at church on Sunday away from their family? 



I know, I know, your trying to do the whole it takes a village thing, sometimes it doesn't work. 


I know its not 100% true, if you define truth as the way I was told it was. But the 3 witnesses never denied it. Did my ancestors see something in Kirkland? 

Is any of it true? Maybe its not "true" but it has a good system of promoting only charity minded people, willing to make sacrifices for the community, and able to succeed in business and in the home. Maybe it is good, even if its not true. No. Things that aren't what they say they are, are not of God. But nothing is what it says it is. But maybe I don't care. All I want is success. I want to have success, personally, and with my family. And I want them to find success. I want what everyone wants. I want what the church wants, even if they make nonsensical weird sayings that I don't want to carry around as truisms anymore to describe the particular success that they want. 

No comments:

Post a Comment