YSA 1st Stake

[The Happy Medium]

Maybe it's just me, but I got a lot more of "it's ok if you're not married yet" then "you're sinning if you're single" out of the conference. The Stake President mentioned specifically that he knew that many people wanted to get married and that it was a righteous desire, but that we should trust in the Lord's timing. He also mentioned the statistic that 90% of women are married within 4 years of graduating, a statement that I find rather comforting.

I did find the poetry reading to be a little strange but it was also sort of sweet and a good example of a loving marriage. And it's also important to remember that the 1st stake (at least from my observations) is a pretty young stake as far as BYU goes and I think there are a lot of people that haven't heard the marriage talk a million+ times.

[Katya]

I think that it's important to follow our leaders, and that we will be blessed for obeying the counsel of all of them. That includes misguided local leaders. But that doesn't mean that we have to stay in positions where we are being taught dogma for doctrine.

I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that we have to follow local leaders, no matter what, but it's OK to move out of their boundaries if they're preaching things as doctrine that aren't?

Not so much that we have to, but that we will be blessed for it. I still think that we have our agency for a reason, and that in the end what we do is between us and God.

Apologies for the overstatement, but I'm actually more curious about the idea that you can leave a ward or stake if you're "being taught dogma for doctrine." How would you know if leaving was the right thing to do?

[Portia]

[Edited to include links.]

I actually really enjoy my current YSA ward. Despite what one may assume, I am, in fact, "active," in that I attend probably on average 3 out of 4 weeks, and go to an activity every week. I like the leadership, who are genuinely in touch with people without being overbearing, I have a handful of close male friends who are smart and entertaining, and there's just not a lot of wacky, out-there talks or preaching going on (unfortunately for story time).

I don't necessarily believe or agree with everything, but since life is not the Internet and I have in fact developed decent social skills (starting from a rather clueless youth), so I don't speak up.

If anything, it'd be nice if there was more dating going on. The Institute classes tend to be dull, compared to BYU religion courses, which I enjoyed. I don't know if the U's would be better. It's my opinion that the higher up the hierarchy you go, the more out of touch (any person! in any situation!) a person will be, so when we have someone with a title come and speak, it often feels less like that person is responding to the specific needs of the ward. Perhaps that's some of what this question-asker is sensing. When you know and like someone, you can say, "Aww, I liked Danny's mission story or Brother Johnson's dorky puns." When you're already down and have a stranger lecture on his pet topic, it's bound to rub someone the wrong way. I have to admit, it's nice to have my co-parishioners not live right on top and below and next to me, I think it can decrease some of the BYU-esque dating tension (although that's also probably what motivates so many students, myself included at the time!)

I like the communal feeling of regular ward meetings, and Stake Conference messes with that routine. If only Dieter Uchtdorf could just always be the guest speaker . . .

I actually really second the idea that 23-, 24- and 25-year-olds, if they like it, should put a ring on it. But I don't know if I have ever met anyone LDS who could be married but simply hadn't thought of it before. I feel like social conditions are unfavorable for many reasonably smart, attractive, people in this age group to get married, and I honestly have yet to meet anyone who traded their honeymoon for an FF. I'm not offended when leaders state this, so much as I find it sort of funny and unrealistic. I don't know if women widely differ from men in this respect, but trust me, I might part with at least one (but no more than three) major organs to be married right now. I mocked it mercilessly in my youth, but that gathering rosebuds stuff that embittered (but not jealous!) lady hates has merit, because in Mormon culture, it seems to be near-impossible to get married off the "track," as so hilariously elucidated by the board answer about Semester weddings. (It's funny because it's true!) Organizing weddings in "the real world," post-college, seems to be very difficult unless you are fabulously wealthy or have an incredible amount of free time and patience.

In short, kudos to my bishopric and their wives. Mrs. B., especially, is the bomb!

[Craig Jessop]

I like the communal feeling of regular ward meetings, and Stake Conference messes with that routine. If only Dieter Uchtdorf could just always be the guest speaker . . .

I actually really second the idea that 23-, 24- and 25-year-olds, if they like it, should put a ring on it. But I don't know if I have ever met anyone LDS who could be married but simply hadn't thought of it before. I feel like social conditions are unfavorable for many reasonably smart, attractive, people in this age group to get married, and I honestly have yet to meet anyone who traded their honeymoon for an FF. I'm not offended when leaders state this, so much as I find it sort of funny and unrealistic. I don't know if women widely differ from men in this respect, but trust me, I might part with at least one (but no more than three) major organs to be married right now. I mocked it mercilessly in my youth, but that gathering rosebuds stuff that embittered (but not jealous!) lady hates has merit, because in Mormon culture, it seems to be near-impossible to get married off the "track," as so hilariously elucidated by the board answer about Semester weddings. (It's funny because it's true!) Organizing weddings in "the real world," post-college, seems to be very difficult unless you are fabulously wealthy or have an incredible amount of free time and patience.

In short, kudos to my bishopric and their wives. Mrs. B., especially, is the bomb!

...who are you, and what have you done with Portia?

[Phaedrus]

"There were a couple things that bothered me. First of all, they kept talking about how awesome marriage is. The stake president read poetry he'd written his wife for h---'s sake. It was just kind of rubbing salt in the wound. (Here she ranted about what sort of uplift was she supposed to get from the poetry. And what spiritual purpose did it serve.) Like, we KNOW it's great, don't you think we wish we were married. And then the women made it seem like I should feel bad for wanting a career."

During and actual conversation about this with my friends they talked about how bad they felt like they were doing something wrong to not be married and that they'll get past it, but some people won't. Some of the girls they talk to (one is in a relief society presidency in her ward) are convinced they must be sinning or something because they're not married yet.

There was also an add in to the conversation about a comment one of the speakers made about not being married when you're 25, 24, 23 and how you should be.

So, writer comments? Eirene? Phaedrus?

Sometimes people connect better with certain Priesthood leaders. You're bound to have a favorite ward/stake, just like most people tend to "perk up" when their favorite apostle stands at the pulpit during GC. That being said, I agree with Mic0, that some of the opinions expressed about Church leaders are....extreme. Choosing not to attend Church meetings because we can't stand the leaders...sounds like apostasy to me. Nothing shall offend me, anyone??

I've grown up in the church, so I'm kind of used to the older brethren expressing their romantic sentiments in cheesy/un-relatable ways. It is what it is. The poetry, the love confessions, and the teary eyed "sweet heart" comments usually elicits a handful of "awwws" from the girls. Weird, maybe, but offensive? The poetry reading might have been a little too cheesy for me, but the principle of verbally expressing marital love over the pulpit is totally understandable. Having a template of a happy marriage shouldn't be a bad thing.

As far as salt in the wound goes, why does being single have to be considered a wound? In my opinion, he didn't paint that picture. I thought that the stake president's comments were intended to put a marriage time-line into a good perspective (it happens when it happens, look forward to it). And my guess is if you asked him, he would be extremely sad to learn that his comments caused that kind of reaction. He never said that single people were doing anything wrong. It sounds like a dramatic misunderstanding. And, at the risk of stirring the pot further, in my experience, people that leave stake conference feeling like they're doing something wrong, probably are.

[mic0]

Actually, Phaedrus, I meant that what those particular leaders said sounded extreme. Just want to make that clear.

[Drinking Problem]

I'm not the one to comment on this. I don't even believe in God most days. I just was curious what people outside of my particular friend group (who are good, true believing Mormons, though kind of different than a lot of the patterns I see here) thought of the meeting.

[Rifka]

Interesting. I think I've heard (moderately insensitive) talks like that about how we need to work harder to date and get married in just about every ward I've been in--whether it was from someone from the stake presidency, the bishopric, or the congregation.

At first all the pressure is to get married. Then you do get married and all the talks switch to people telling you to have babies.

I just wanted to say that I have been in a married student ward for 18 months now and I have never yet heard a talk telling us that we should be having babies. There hasn't been that kind of pressure at all in our ward. I don't know if that's typical or not, but take hope!

Also, I think it's easy to get annoyed when we've heard something (like "you should be working harder to get married,") over and over, but we need to remember that our leaders' jobs are to preach to the general need, not all the exceptions. (Elder Oaks emphasized this at the beginning of the talk he gave at BYU a few years ago about dating.) Some of us, maybe even many of us, may have already heard plenty about the topic, but there are enough that haven't, or haven't heeded it, that they need to hear it again. I know it can be frustrating to hear the same thing over and over again, but I don't think that Church leaders, for the most part, would do it unless they really felt that they really needed to.

That said, I do think CJ's stake president sounds a little extreme. I think I would probably be creeped out by him, too.

[Rifka]

First of all, it's really, really hard in today's economy to rely on one income to support a family, especially if we're still supposed to multiply and replenish the earth (a commandment still in force, according to the Proclamation). Not all men can make the big bucks and support the SAHM and several children.

I think this is a very weak argument. Following the commandments is often difficult. Was it easy for Abraham to sacrifice Isaac? Was it easy for the Widow of Zarapeth to give her last bit of food to Elijah instead of Elisha? Nephi's brothers murmured that the Lord required hard things of them. Nephi's response: "And now my brethren, if ye were righteous and were willing to hearken to the truth, and give heed unto it, that ye might awalk uprightly before God, then ye would not murmur because of the truth, and say: Thou speakest hard things against us."

If the lord commands us to do something, there is a way. I'd encourage you to read Elder Neil L. Anderson's recent conference talk, where he recounts an experience that Elder Mason, formerly of the Seventy, had many years ago. Elder Mason and his wife had decided that the only way to get him through medical school was for his wife to work to put him through, and for them to put off having children for several years. Elder Mason explained this to Spencer W. Kimball (who was then a member of the Quorum of the Twelve), and Elder Kimball looked at him and said "‘Brother Mason, would the Lord want you to break one of his important commandments in order for you to become a doctor? With the help of the Lord, you can have your family and still become a doctor. Where is your faith?’"

To me the argument that it's too hard to support a family on one income is a totally faithless one. If the Lord wants you to be a stay-at-home mother, then take courage. The Lord giveth no commandment unto his children save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them. (1 Nephi 3:7)

Don't get me wrong, Carrapicho. I'm not saying that being a stay-at-home mother is the right course for you. I don't have stewardship to receive revelation for you. My sentiments above were entirely focused toward the argument I isolated, not toward your specific circumstances. With regards to your circumstances, though, I encourage you to pray sincerely about whether you should be a stay-at-home mother (and study the words of the prophets in the scriptures and on lds.org). If you do feel that the home is where you should be, take courage! With God, nothing is impossible. If he wants you to be a stay-at-home mom, he'll provide a way for that to happen, both financially and for you to deal with it emotionally/in other ways. And being a stay-at-home mom doesn't mean you have to give up your talents or be isolated from the world. The internet can help a lot in both those areas, and you can probably find many options in other ways, too.

I hope that helps. I know I often come across as very strong-minded or even over-zealous on these discussion boards, but I really sincerely want to help you.

[Dragon Lady]

I'm going to agree with Rifka on this one. My sister has 6 kids, went to school part- to full-time with the first three at home (even with months of bed rest with the 3rd) while her husband was also in school, and is still a stay-at-home mom while her husband works for the government growing noxious weeds (yes, you read that right) out in the middle of nowhere. Like, they have a small town with a Rite-Aid and a grocery store and a couple of small restaurants. But the closest "real" city with things like Walmart or CostCo is 2 hours away. Which means groceries are severely overpriced in their town. (Like $4+ for a gallon of milk.) They don't even have a second-hand store like DI or Salvation Army. And did I mention that her husband works for the government? Which means his salary is a pittance. And periodically lately, he gets informed that he gets a day (or week or two) off work! Hooray! Except… he doesn't get paid. Because the government can't figure out their stupid budget. Yeah, that's fun. They technically live under the poverty line.

And yet, they eat quite well. All of their kids are in school, wearing clean clothes. They even get to do extracurricular activities like swimming and band and sports of choice. And this spring all 8 of them are flying out to the east coast to pick up my parents from their mission and are driving back in a motor home and doing a church/US history tour on the way home.

Sure, it's not an ideal situation to be in, but they manage it. How? By sacrifice. To my sister, it's important for her to stay at home with her kids. She feels like it's where she should be. So she sacrifices to make it work. They live with hand-me-downs. (With 6 kids, there's a lot of those. And people who know her and her situation are often giving her their kids' old clothes, so usually they have an over-abundance of clothes and are trying to get rid of them.) They grow a garden and preserve the food to last through the winter. They periodically make Costco trips to the far, far away city. And while they're their, they do everything they need to do in town. Dentist appointments, Home Depot, etc. She and her husband build things they can't afford. (Laundry sorter, cabinets for boots and coats, a frame for their mirror when theirs broke, etc.) They live in a small house. (Like, I'm talking two bedrooms. For 8 people. They've converted a small loft area into a bedroom for the three youngest girls.) They make a lot of their Christmas presents. They don't buy things they don't need. When times are really tough, she'll take on a little extra work herself. Like when she certified to be a lactation consultant and worked at the hospital for a few years to help new moms learn to breastfeed.

Is it hard? Hecks yes. Very, very hard. They're constantly on the lookout for another job that, at the very least, will move them closer to family. (They're at least 6-7 hours from the closest family member.) And hopefully a pay raise. She sometimes gets down about their situation. She gets jealous when other people (like me, her baby sister with only 1.6 children) start off marriage in much better financial circumstances. (We're building a decently large 4-bedroom house right now. It's probably twice the size of their home.) But point is, she still does it. Because she feels like that's where she's supposed to be. And to her, it's worth the sacrifices.

Am I saying that everyone should do that? Oh, heavens no. Not at all. Every situation is unique. But I hate the argument that it's impossible to support a family with one income. I want to turn around and say, "No, it's not impossible. You're just not willing to make the sacrifice needed to do it." Not that I'm saying that everyone should make the sacrifice required. Not at all. Just that it is, in fact, possible. And I want people to realize that. If you're not willing to make those sacrifices, that's totally fine. Just don't present your case that you'd really like to, but unfortunately, you can't. Because if you tell me you can't, I'm going to look at your TV, your computer, your nice car, your new clothes, your disposable diapers, your iPod, your smart phone, your billions of toys for your kids, and whatever other "wants" you have, and yes, I'm going to judge you.

Instead, just say, "I'd really like to stay at home with my kids, but it's impossible to do so and still maintain the standard of living I want to have." Now that I can completely agree with. I guess it's really just a matter of semantics. (Also, I didn't realize that I had so much to vent on this topic. Sorry about that. Hope I didn't offend anyone. Totally not my intent. I guess I just want people to say what they really mean. Also, I think this hit way too close to the the idea of entitlement that I really despise, and that's probably why I vented.)

Edited for typos

[Rifka]

Thanks, DL. It's always nice to be validated!

[Dragon Lady]

Thanks, DL. It's always nice to be validated!

I actually agree with you quite often on here, but I'm also usually reading on my iPod Touch, and that greatly lessens my desire to respond to things. So just know I'm usually agreeing with you in the background.

[Rifka]

Thanks, DL. It's always nice to be validated!

I actually agree with you quite often on here, but I'm also usually reading on my iPod Touch, and that greatly lessens my desire to respond to things. So just know I'm usually agreeing with you in the background.

Yay! Warm fuzzies!

I also usually agree with you, but often am busy and don't take the time to write and say so. So know that I'm usually agreeing with you, too. It's fun to find another kindred spirit out there!

[Commander Keen]

I like the communal feeling of regular ward meetings, and Stake Conference messes with that routine. If only Dieter Uchtdorf could just always be the guest speaker . . .

I actually really second the idea that 23-, 24- and 25-year-olds, if they like it, should put a ring on it. But I don't know if I have ever met anyone LDS who could be married but simply hadn't thought of it before. I feel like social conditions are unfavorable for many reasonably smart, attractive, people in this age group to get married, and I honestly have yet to meet anyone who traded their honeymoon for an FF. I'm not offended when leaders state this, so much as I find it sort of funny and unrealistic. I don't know if women widely differ from men in this respect, but trust me, I might part with at least one (but no more than three) major organs to be married right now. I mocked it mercilessly in my youth, but that gathering rosebuds stuff that embittered (but not jealous!) lady hates has merit, because in Mormon culture, it seems to be near-impossible to get married off the "track," as so hilariously elucidated by the board answer about Semester weddings. (It's funny because it's true!) Organizing weddings in "the real world," post-college, seems to be very difficult unless you are fabulously wealthy or have an incredible amount of free time and patience.

In short, kudos to my bishopric and their wives. Mrs. B., especially, is the bomb!

...who are you, and what have you done with Portia?

I audibly laughed at this.

[Carrapicho]

To me the argument that it's too hard to support a family on one income is a totally faithless one. If the Lord wants you to be a stay-at-home mother, then take courage. The Lord giveth no commandment unto his children save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them. (1 Nephi 3:7)

Don't get me wrong, Carrapicho. I'm not saying that being a stay-at-home mother is the right course for you. I don't have stewardship to receive revelation for you. My sentiments above were entirely focused toward the argument I isolated, not toward your specific circumstances. With regards to your circumstances, though, I encourage you to pray sincerely about whether you should be a stay-at-home mother (and study the words of the prophets in the scriptures and on lds.org). If you do feel that the home is where you should be, take courage! With God, nothing is impossible. If he wants you to be a stay-at-home mom, he'll provide a way for that to happen, both financially and for you to deal with it emotionally/in other ways. And being a stay-at-home mom doesn't mean you have to give up your talents or be isolated from the world. The internet can help a lot in both those areas, and you can probably find many options in other ways, too.

I hope that helps. I know I often come across as very strong-minded or even over-zealous on these discussion boards, but I really sincerely want to help you.

I never said that my entire argument was that it's hard to support a family on one income. We actually survive right now on one income--except I'm the one working, not my husband. He's a full-time student. I'm sorry if I made it sound like that's my whole reason for being a working mother, because it's not. And while I appreciate that story, I don't know that it applies to my situation. Elder Mason said he planned for his wife to work and, as you put it, for them to put off having children for several years, which isn't something I've done or plan to do. I can see that response from Elder Kimball as having relevance for putting off children, but I don't recall the commandment to have children including the phrase that, after having said children, the mother should stay home with them. I've gone ahead and had a child--I just returned to work after I had him, and often my husband has been the primary caregiver. It's worked for us.

I appreciate your request that I pray about if the Lord wants me to be a stay-at-home mom. I have prayed about that, and I honestly feel like my working right now is what is best for my family. Maybe that will change when we have another child, though health concerns have prohibited that for the past several years and I'm not sure when we'll be able to have another one. And I have felt it confirmed to me that my son going to daycare/preschool right now is good for him. I feel like your request comes with the assumption that I WILL get the answer that the Lord will want me to stay home. What if I feel like He tells me to keep working? Should I assume that answer is from the wrong source? Why do I feel like so many people in Mormon culture think you aren't being faithful enough if the mom doesn't stay home with the kids? I have faith that we are doing the best we can. And I have faith that the Lord will make up the difference.

[Carrapicho]

I may need to bow out of this conversation. Not only have I completely derailed it (sorry to the original posters), but it's just a little too hard for me to deal with the feeling that I'm not being faithful enough because I don't have the perfect little family. I am trying. Really.

[Katya]

I may need to bow out of this conversation. Not only have I completely derailed it (sorry to the original posters), but it's just a little too hard for me to deal with the feeling that I'm not being faithful enough because I don't have the perfect little family. I am trying. Really.

*hugs*

I think that often conversations on these topics are hard because we come to them already in a fair amount of pain, which makes it easier to misinterpret what others are saying or to be more wounded by what they say than we would be, otherwise. I hope you find support (here or elsewhere) and peace of mind for faithfully doing your best.

[Whistler]

I think we need to remember that not everyone is the same. I honestly think it is healthy for women to have a break from their kids regularly (yeah, I don't have any yet, but I can have an uninformed opinion), and that for some women, it helps them stay sane to work outside the home.

I think that it's great if you can build your own shelves, sew your own clothes, clean all your diapers, and be an amazing homemaker/housekeeper. I don't even have children and I am terrible and housekeeping (why is this not taught in schools?). I honestly wish sometimes that I wanted to be better at scheduling dentist appointments and things--but I'm not, and that's okay too. I don't know what I'm trying to say, but I don't want anyone to feel bad about not being a SAHM.

[Marduk]

Carrapicho, threads here frequently get derailed. As the official conductor here, I've gotten used to it. It is sort of an unstated caveat that things here will eventually end up off topic. I even think Newton had a law about it.

On (your) topic, I think a lot of the problem comes in that we want a hard and fast rule that we can always apply, instead of general guidelines given for general situations. In absence of that, we often (erroniously and to our detriment) create rules where God has not. And when we seek to usurp divine power in that fashion, in the words of Bartok, it "can only end in tears."

The saving doctrine is that we ought to love and care for our family as best we are able, realizing that different roles are best played by different people. Is it possible to run a household on a single income? Yes. Is that the right answer for every household? No. Along with the story from Dragon Lady and the rebuke from Rifka, we could very well add stories where two incomes were necessary and beneficial to the family, or stories where sacrifice was detrimental to a person or household. Those things don't really further our cause, our cause being understanding the best method for caring for individuals that are in our families.

[Dragon Lady]

I don't even have children and I am terrible and housekeeping (why is this not taught in schools?).

My guess is because they figure that's something that should be taught at home.

Carrapicho, I hope you didn't read into my comment as saying you should stay at home. You didn't say as much, so I'm assuming you didn't, but just in case, I wanted to clarify. I don't believe that all moms should stay at home. I don't believe that working outside the home as a mother makes you unworthy or sinning or anything like that. Heck, I'd be in huge trouble if I did think that. My own mother worked my entire life (until she retired last year to go on a mission). Everything from being a Tupperware dealer to a Seminary Secretary. She did it for the good of our finances, for insurance purposes (my dad was a farmer. That doesn't come with insurance), and yes, probably for her own sanity. My set of siblings were probably an awfully hard group to raise.

And honestly, I don't think that's what Rifka intended to say, either. If I may be so bold as to assume that Rifka thinks along the same lines as I do (which happens often), I'm willing to bet that (s)he (I'm so bad at the gender guessing/remembering game on here) asked you to pray about it, not because (s)he expected you to get the answer to stay at home, but rather because (s)he feels like a lot of mothers who don't stay at home do it because that's what they want to do, and never stop to consider that God might have other plans. Or perhaps they don't want to stay at home, so they purposely never pray about it so that they never have to decide what to do if they feel they should stay at home. This kind of situation happens a lot in our society today (and not just for staying at home, but other things, too, such as getting married in the temple, going on a mission, accepting a calling, etc.) and often from a simple lack of thinking about it. I know there are lots of things in my life that I probably should pray about, but I simply don't think about it, because I know what I want to do. I always pray about things I'm indecisive about, but when I already know what I want, I often just forget.

So I think Rifka was probably offering a simple reminder to make sure you make it a matter of prayer before just making a decision. And offering you hope that if your answer was to stay at home, that a way would be opened up for you. Rifka specifically mentioned that (s)he didn't know your specific circumstances (like that you do have the means to support your family with one income) and also that s(he) doesn't have the stewardship to receive revelation for you. That decision is 100% up to you and the Lord and if you feel like working is where you should be, I highly doubt that Rifka would judge you for it.

In much more general terms (and not at all directed solely at you), I find it hard to believe (and I'm guessing this is where Rifka is coming from, too) that God would give a commandment, then give half of his children direct revelation that they are the exception. However (and I don't presume to guess where Rifka stands on this), I don't believe that the commandment that mothers should be the primary nurturer has to be interpreted as staying at home full-time. I believe that in a lot of cases it does mean that. But I know a lot of excellent nurturers that work. Some only work full-time while Dad is in school. Others work full-time their whole lives. Some work part-time, leaving their kids in daycare for part of the day, but take over the primary nurturing role (time-wise) for the rest of the day. Some stay at home until their kids are in school, then work part- to full-time during the school day and are home when their kids get home. Some work from home. There are so many different kinds of options available to women that there is simply no way that there is one, and only one, "right" course. Heck, I know of some very prominent women that work for the church (though, behind the scenes) that worked full-time while raising their kids. And the prophet knew about it! And they're still temple recommend holders. That says, to me, that working while raising kids is not a sin, nor does it make you less worthy. At all.

So, Carrapicho, I hope you don't leave here thinking we all look down our noses at you from our high and mighty rameumptoms. Because we don't. I promise. At the very least, know that I still love you (I don't even know you!) and think that so long as you're making prayerful decisions about your family, then you're doing exactly the right thing for your family. So long as you know that God approves of your decisions, it doesn't matter what anyone else on here or anywhere else thinks. In good news, no one here or anywhere else around you will be your final judge. Not me, not Rifka, not even Marduk! (Try as he might to pretend that he's a Mesopotamian god.) That rests solely on our Savior. So if you know he approves of your course now, then you have no need to worry about if you aren't faithful enough. Nor do you have any reason to believe that you don't have a perfect little family. If you have God's stamp of approval, then you do have the perfect little family.