Comments on: A Note of Grief (With a Thought on the Law)

By: GreenEggz

GreenEggz — Tue, 11 Oct 2005 05:09:20 +0000

Avoiding the “lazy” or “lack of ambition” label does not require working late hours.

That is a myth of the young and exploitative employers.

“Lack of planning on your part does not justify an emergency on my part” is a valid philosophy. A 40 hour work-week is a valid philosophy.

Companies who expect regular overtime on the part of employees, especially salaried ones, are often guilty of exploitation.

Frankly, if one expects to fulfill callings in the church, do home teaching, raise a family, have date-night with the spouse, attend their kids’ sports events, maintain a house/yard/garden, do splits with the missionaries, help people move, put in time at the cannery/bishop’s-storehouse, have family home evening, attend general and stake conferences, read the Ensign every month, read the Priesthood/RS lesson every week, read the Sunday School lesson every week, read the scriptures every day, fellowship new converts, visit the sick and afflicted, exercise regularly, take classes to improve our education, and have a even a small hobby……..

I don’t see how ANY overtime can be put in at work. I honestly don’t see how people do it. People who regulary put in over 40 hours/week at work usually let some or most of the above slide.

By: queuno

queuno — Tue, 11 Oct 2005 03:48:10 +0000

Re #37 and others – I agree that many Church members tend to use the “success in the home” gambit as a motivator to opt out of the 100-hour-week management/partner track, and mostly to great personal satisfaction.

But what I have recently, are members eschewing honorable, well-remunerated employment outside the 8-5 hours because of the commitment to be home ALL the time.

[I used to serve as a stake employment specialist.]

Sure, it’s one thing to not want to work 100 hours a week or travel 20 days a month. It’s another thing to refuse to work late on occasion. It’s the latter I see a lot of. It’s like they’re using the “success in home” mantra as a pre-established excuse or laziness or lack of ambition.

By: GreenEggz

GreenEggz — Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:01:30 +0000

Benjamin (#21), you’ll understand it when you’re older. Hopefully before the time your kids are teenagers.

By: Stephen M (ethesis)

Stephen M (ethesis) — Sat, 08 Oct 2005 05:08:22 +0000

But I find that today I am more inclined to weep for two, newly fatherless little girls and note the commonplace that life, love, and family can make even the law seem a tinseled play thing.

Nicely said.

By: Stephen M (ethesis)

Stephen M (ethesis) — Sat, 08 Oct 2005 05:06:34 +0000

Do you ever see members of the Church use the “no success outside the home” idea to justify their lack of professional ambition? This is a phenomenon that I have seen but will never understand.

Well, I was asked to consider interviewing for my boss’s job (before he got it). I did not apply because the job involved significant amounts of travel and time away from home. The same reason I stepped away from a chance to switch to a consultant position and took this job instead.

By: julie (not from austin)

julie (not from austin) — Sat, 08 Oct 2005 02:27:07 +0000

I have been lucky enough to only have attend one funeral, and it was for my childhood piano teacher. It was amazing. I loved the stories of her life, and the gospel messages that were portrayed. I left with such a feeling of hope and a renewed testimony of life after death. The family members and others who spoke told stories of her life that demonstrated the gospel principles. It was beautiful.

By: Ryan Bell

Ryan Bell — Fri, 07 Oct 2005 22:02:04 +0000

Nate, as I said in my original comment, I never met this man, but know many who did. I made my comments as one removed from the instant case, but one also more than willing to grant your and others’ statements of his sterling character. But my comments aren’t intended to make any statement on his character at all, and I’m sorry if they came off as exploitive or insensitive. My point was really meant to buttress your own: You concluded in watching how some treat this man’s passing that his vocational achievements, while laudable, pale in comparison to the kind of person he was. I only suggested that we take your conclusion a step farther, to ask whether our own courses reflect a commitment to the balance of priorities you are endorsing.

Again, I’m sorry if the proximity of my thoughts to your grieving post suggested any condemnation of your friend. His family has my deepest sympathy.

By: GeorgeD

GeorgeD — Fri, 07 Oct 2005 21:52:36 +0000

Russell and Nate, It is disturbing to think that your comments would be misconstrued. I think its a symptom of our age that people are constantly overreading and overinterpreting so they can find a way to express their “concern” in some pithy (read that “stuffed-shirt”) way. Its a symptom of the legalism that infects our society.

You shouldn’t apologize. You are men of goodwill who have demonstrated it over and again. Others who found a nuance or a supposed inference that they deemed offensive should be ashamed of themselves.

“The letter killeth but the spirit giveth life.”

I think it behooves all of us to understand what people mean and ignore some of what we think they said.

By: Russell Arben Fox

Russell Arben Fox — Fri, 07 Oct 2005 21:03:42 +0000

Nate, let me add my voice to Rosalynde’s and Cyril’s; I didn’t mean to suggest in my comment, and I hope I didn’t unintentionally suggest, that the deceased did, in fact, sacrifice “life, love, and family” to his career. (If I did allege that, my apologies.) The discussion which followed from Ryan’s and Rosalynde’s comments is entirely about how easy it is to wrongly remove such things from any assessment of one’s life, and whether certain routes taken in life make that removal either more or less likely. That’s all.

By: Kevin Barney

Kevin Barney — Fri, 07 Oct 2005 20:44:34 +0000

I’m glad to hear it, Ed; thanks.