Via Formspring:
This may be silly but what do u think about the idea of adding on nurseries to busy temples? I think it would be a great idea so more ppl can work in the temple as well as ppl not having to worry about babysitting for temple trips. Thoughts?
I loved the idea. And so did a lot of people (other people didn’t like it too). It became popular enough that I figured I might as well move the discussion over here because it’s a little less one-sided that way.
I usually tend to stay away from very LDS-centric stuff that others can’t/won’t/don’t really participate in, but this one is too interesting to pass up. If you have questions regarding what you read via me, or other commenters, I’m sure we would be happy to answer them if you ask below!
When I think of offerign childcare at the temple, I’m not suggesting that we ask for volunteers, or hire people to do it. I’m wondering why it can’t be a calling? Exactly like the process TH and I underwent when we served at the Dallas temple. The bishop suggested our names, the temple president approved it, we met for an interview, we were set apart, and we worked a shift every Saturday evening. If we couldn’t make it, we had a list of names and numbers to contact to find a replacement.
When I got pregnant, I was told it was too bad I couldn’t work in the temple until my kids were out of the house (TH could though, this rule only applies to women). This is why temple worker women are usually either in their early 20′s or over 50. But why couldn’t women serve the Lord by helping to care for other children? Maybe women could pre-register for a slot, that way they always had enough people on hand, and a cubby system would be used to house all of the essential items for a child that age. The women serving as childcare workers would change diapers and feed and play, and going to get mom out of the session (barring a need to visit the hospital) would not be an option. Parents could even sign legal waivers if the church is worried about such things.
I know some will comment below and say they go to extraordinary lengths to make temple worship work, and that is certainly commendable, and I”m not saying it’s not possible for us to make it work.
I’m saying, why can’t be try a different, better system? If temple work is really important, as is having children, why can’t the two things be a bit more harmonious?
December 9th, 2011 on 9:41 am
I think the temple system works in the most efficient way possible. I could see too many children being at the temple, not enough room, hands, to handle everyone…I don’t know.
Something like this would be great on a ward level though. I think I commented this on formspring but in our ward the yw and leaders babysat from 8am-8:30pm (at the church & provided meals, crafts etc) so families could go to the temple. We live 4 hours from the temple so a session is an all day event on a Saturday once you do the driving.
Our temple, the OKC temple is a small temple and in the front room they have a small tv, church movies, table, etc for this very thing. They don’t provide people to watch your children but you are welcome to use the room with your children.
Also, the yw in the ward near our temple give their information to the surrounding stakes, coming from hours away, and offer to babysit. So when we travel to the temple, we can use the local yw to watch our children if we want.
I guess I’m used to being far from a temple. We get babysitters/child swaps for date nights all the time. I would think it would be easy to do that for a temple visit? Not sure why it has to be made so easy to go to the temple?
But you do bring up a good point though! I just think taken on a ward level would be more organized and better for the temple?
Reply
AmyLynne Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 9:50 am
I completely agree. I forgot about the room off the lobby that you mentioned. Yes! They do have a room provided for childcare… you just have to provide the childcare! We’ve done that before with friends, when traveling far to go to the temple. Both couples go, and one couple watches the children in the room in the lobby, and then after the session we switch.
Reply
Hayley Marie Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 11:27 am
That is how our temple is set up too! One of the problems they run into though is noise. It can be a bit hard/distracting when you walk into the temple and hear kids praddling on (not screaming or crying, but just being noisy like kids tend to be). Most of the temples I’ve been to have some sort of lobby, but nothing secluded (but still up front) where kids could be and the noise wouldn’t be a problem. I love children but sometimes it just adds a feeling of chaos to the temple.
The other problem I see with making it some sort of calling or expecting the temple to provide the care is that you can’t judge how many people you will need (or space etc.). You might have one night where every couple in the session brings a child (or two, or three, or four) and a night where its all single couples. You just don’t know.
It just seems like this would be better at a ward level (especially since some temple districts are so large!). In our ward growing up we always did a temple night with free babysitting (the YM and YW helped, not just the sisters) and it normally ended up being a fun night for everyone. We also were encouraged to help provide free babysitting to those families in the ward who couldn’t afford the extra expense.
Reply
Shanna Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 11:42 am
Good for your ward that the YM helped as well as the YW. It has always infuriated me that, growing up, the YW always had child related activities and never the YM. Also, they got to play stick ball as activities and do boy scouts while we painted flower pots and learned about temple marriage & childbirth ad nauseum. I was always very jealous. Can you say “tomboy?”
Reply
Hayley Marie Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 11:45 am
I can totally relate! I had all brothers and so I never really enjoyed some of the more “girly” lessons. The thing was, I think the boys had just as much fun as the girls, if not more. We had leaders who put some thought into the night so there were fun games lined up (once we made cars out of cardboard boxes and raced with the little kids). I think the fact that there were activities and such made it more fun for all of us. It was also a good lesson for the YM and YW, not just a benefit for the parents who were able to attend t he temple.
Reply
December 9th, 2011 on 9:48 am
While it’s a GREAT idea, unfortunately, I don’t think it would work. For two reasons. 1)Having worked at the (Provo) temple myself, I know they are DESPERATE for temple workers. It was hard enough for them to get everyone to show up for a shift to get all the ordinance work done, let alone childcare. 2) I’m just going to go ahead and throw out a completely stereotypical and generalized blanket statement about some of us, Mormons—there are those of us who would COMPLETELY take too much advantage of this. Look at our regular Sunday nursery for example… people bring sick kids ALL THE TIME, people are late to come pick up their kids, people drop off their kids at nursery/primary and then LEAVE THE BUILDING for two hours.
As I think someone mentioned on twitter, the temple DOES provide childcare for LIVING ordinances–which I think is completely appropriate. As we return to the temple to do proxy ordinances, I think it’s a time and season thing. Do I wish I could still serve as a temple worker even though I have children? Absolutely. But when I’m honest with myself, I know I really don’t have time (church youth calling, husband’s church calling, two children, etc) and I appreciate the temple making it quite clear what is MOST important–and that’s the family. We, women tend to put a lot of extra guilt on ourselves, and I’m glad they just sort of took that one off the table.
Do I wish that I could go to the temple more frequently because of the hassle of finding childcare? Absolutely. But I also know that the Lord knows that I’m doing my best. And that someday my children will be old enough to perhaps supervise themselves for a few hours–and someday they will leave the house, and I can go to the temple whenever I please.
I think this is just the “temple”‘s way of illustrating that those of us with young children are doing very important work at home, and that THAT should be our number one priority. It is of course a sacrifice to find childcare, but one that we’re blessed for I think. And as our children grow older and leave our homes, we can spend what turns out to be the majority of our lives serving in the temple however and whenever we please!
However, as a sidenote, I’m not sure why the men are still encouraged to be temple workers even after children, except that I know that they have an even HARDER time finding (worthy) men to be ordinance workers, and so maybe they’re just so desperate? Also there are more… mandatory? (sorry, I’m trying to think of a better word since there’s people of other faiths reading this… but I can’t think of one, so I’m sure this will sound sexist… sorry!) temple worker positions needing to be filled by men than women? This would be an interesting question to ask a temple president sometime!
Reply
Katy Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 10:58 am
I had to laugh at your hestitation to say that we all know people that would take total advantage of this! Yes, true. I could go both ways on this – I would totally use it, I’d go during the day once a week – that would be awesome! Some service time for me and the kids get some play with other kids. But I can understand too what a great undertaking this would be to implement. Even though I know the Gospel is true, that doesn’t mean that we as people always implement our ideas the best way ( trial and error would probably be the best teacher in this scenario!)
Reply
AmyLynne Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 11:13 am
HAHAHA! Seriously. I know *I* would follow the rules, and it would be something that I would appreciate and not take advantage of. Somebody else mentioned not knowing how many kids to plan for, and Jenna mentioned people pre-registering… however, anyone who has ever thrown a party involving Mormons knows how notoriously BAD we are at RSVPing.
I like Megan’s comment above about how this is probably better suited for a ward undertaking, not the temple… as a ward would know more about the specifics of time and frequency that are needed.
I agree that we don’t always implement out ideas the best way… but I find it interesting that out of the hundreds of temple presidencies, former and present, that this idea (that i know of) has ever been done. There really must be a deliberate reason, as I’m sure Jenna isn’t the first person in the world to think of this!
I think it’s just a problem of resources.
Reply
AmyLynne Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 11:14 am
*has never been done. oops.
Reply
Rachel Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 10:20 pm
I’d just like to point out that all temples don’t provide childcare for living ordinances. My husband and I will be going through in 3 weeks (!) and were told repeatedly and emphatically there is no childcare provided for our 2 children and we are 100% responsible for having someone watch them during our endowment session and then someone to bring them in for their part of the sealing. They went so far as to say that if we don’t have someone there to watch the children and someone to bring them into the sealing session, we will have to reschedule. So, maybe it has been a problem?
Reply
Jenna Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 10:22 pm
What temple is this? I think sometimes we forget that the Church is really big, which means not everything is exactly the same from place to place. I used to do the childcare in the Dallas temple sometimes and we had a really big room in the basement for it.
Reply
Sharon Reply:
December 10th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
I think when they say they have childcare for living ordinances, they’re talking about children at the temple for the purpose of being sealed to parents. They do have a “nursery” for this purpose, so they can bring in the children at the appropriate time.
Reply
Sharon Reply:
December 10th, 2011 at 1:34 pm
Oops, just realized that is only at the bigger temples.
Reply
Jenna Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 10:22 pm
Oh and congrats! You must be so excited.
Reply
Rachel Reply:
December 10th, 2011 at 1:09 am
It’s the Winter Quarters Temple in Omaha, NE. Our families are from there. It may be because it is one of the newer small temples. I believe you have to make appointments for everything, you usually can’t just drop in.
And, thanks! I’m obviously super excited. My husband joined the church a year ago so we are finally able to be sealed! I’m the one who asked on formspring about the book you recommended. We are reading Boyd K. Packer’s The Holy Temple right now and will be getting the 2nd book you recommended in the mail Monday. I’m really looking forward to that one because of my background in archaeology/anthropology.
Reply
December 9th, 2011 on 10:39 am
An ex-mo’s opinion here. A good idea but personally I would prefer any onsite temple day care to be run by professionals rather than people called to the position. Maybe a separate building in temple grounds rather than a room in the temple would be a solution. But yeah, a good idea and one that should at least be considered by the powers that be.
Reply
December 9th, 2011 on 10:51 am
It’s a great idea in theory but, like the others who have commented, I don’t see how it would work. There’s no way to tell how many people you will need to work in the nursery/child care room at any given time. There may be 3 kids in there, or there may be 50. I like what AmyLynne said about there being a time and a season. When I was little, I don’t remember my parents going to the temple that often (the closest one was 12+ hours away, and then 4 hours away). However, when we were older and my siblings were able to go to do baptisms, my parents went every chance they could, leaving me with other ward members or family members for the day. Now that they are “empty nesters,” they have the freedom and ability to go every month.
The Lord knows the intents of our hearts, and if we are doing the best that we can, that is all he can expect of us. I do think the Church is making it easier by building so many more temples, and with the new temple fund put in place to help those who are financially unable to attend.
Reply
December 9th, 2011 on 11:06 am
Along with what has already been said, I think that it would be awesome if they could, but putting it into action would be an easier said than done sort of deal. They do have that room off of the lobby, but I think it would be more appropriate to honor the reverence of the temple if there would be something available outside of the temple. They could use the church building that is often right next to the temple. Maybe, have the nursery room on reserve for these circumstances.
Reply
December 9th, 2011 on 11:07 am
As I told you on Formspring, our ward DID attempt something like this back when I lived in LA and we went to the Los Angeles Temple. On temple property, just a few hundred yards from the temple, were apartments (I’m not exactly sure who used them and for what exact reasons, but they were there, and used).
Our stake got the idea to use one of the apartments for childcare – just right there next to the temple. I had a calling in YW’s at the time and we were the very first charged to try this out. Announcements were made, we and the girls showed up, and sure enough, we had kids to watch – by and large it worked out great.
There was one funny experience though (true to trial-and-error) learning. People from our ward just came to the apartment, dropped off their kids, and left. Well, I and the other leader there must have been around the corner and didn’t see everyone being dropped off at one moment (trusting that only our ward would be there since they were the only to know about it). Well, we come into the main room to see some kid we don’t even know! His parents somehow heard that there was babysitting – they weren’t from around there, were visting from out of town we later learned – and just dropped off their 8 year old son. With no ‘hello, can you watch my son?…Where are the adults in charge before I leave?…’ nope, just dropped him off and left!
We talked to her later and I really wanted to tell her how not polite that was to just dump her kid – and she didn’t even know us! We could have been crazy people and didn’t bother to meet the adults in charge! ANYWAY, I made sure to tell the leadership that if they do this in the future, make sure there is a sign in – and no advertising to outside groups – we can only take so much.
Of course, in following months it wasn’t so successful. When the Elders Q was in charge of finding babysitters…well it just didn’t happen. It would need to be a calling of some sort since some groups were great about it and others weren’t. Oh well, it was a good idea, I just hope they can improve it and make it useful!
Reply
Katy Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 11:10 am
Where we are now – Ohio – I can see some sort of nursery idea working here at the Colombus Temple a little better than other temples becuse here you have to make an appoitnment to do any temple work. No just showing up. People could make their appointments and let them know how many children would be coming since they have to give advance notice anyway…that is if they ever did something like this anyway.
Reply
AmyLynne Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 11:23 am
Of COURSE when the YW/RS are in charge of something it works… and then the EQ… bless their hearts…. hahahahaha!
I definitely think that’s an awesome idea. Like you said, a few minor details needed some tweaking, but ultimately, a pretty good plan! We did something similar on a smaller scale, with just some friends–not officially a “ward” thing. And it worked out pretty well!
I think it’s an interesting thing to think about when it comes to whose “responsibility” it is to provide childcare. Is it solely the parents’? Is it the ward’s? Is it the temple’s?
We went through this recently with a ward service project. In an attempt to involve more people, the primary presidency was put in charge of babysitting the ENTIRE WARD’s children at the church building while the adults left to go to the service project. Half of the presidency was out of town, and they also couldn’t get any of the primary teachers to commit to coming. Needless to say, there were some definite problems that occurred, much like you were mentioning, Katy.
Some of the other wards (this was our stake Day of Service) did not provide childcare and basically said, “hey, if you’ve got young children, one of you stay home and watch them and the other go, and then you can switch mid-way or something. We don’t have the resources to provide childcare for the ENTIRE WARD.” And I can’t say I really blame them. Again, a time and season thing.
Anyway, just something I’ve been thinking about. I’m not sure I know what the right answer is here. Trial and error, like you said!
Reply
Katy Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 11:29 am
Yes, I can see that the Primary would be thinking “hey, we take care of your children on Sundays and we have our own kids – let’s find a group to help that doesn’t already give so much for the kids”. It would be nice if those in callings not involving kids would also help out so those always with the kids could do something more adult once in awhile.
Young Women’s groups could consider doing it for a nominal fee to raise money for girls camp, etc. I would totally pay (even if it was at the temple!) but I can see where you get into the problem of those with tighter incomes not feeling they can participate.
Reply
AmyLynne Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 11:34 am
Yes, that’s exactly what happened with the Primary people. They ended up getting some YW/YW leaders to help. But I liked what a commenter just said about getting the young MEN to help with childcare, too, sometimes. In our ward it’s the EQ that provides childcare for RS activities… but I think sometimes we forget to give the Young Men that “blessing” every once in awhile, too! (With supervision, obviously. HAHAHAHA)
Reply
Megan Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 11:41 am
The young men need service hours for their scouting and other activities. This would be a great way to get some in!
Reply
Jenna Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
We just had our day of service, and I LOVED it. It just made me so happy and I’ve been talking about it for days. We went to a women’s shelter and every single person in the ward was invited. Some cleaned up the front yard, some scrubbed the showers, some sorted donated clothing (apparently a really gross job that involved finding a dead rat), and I was part of the group that helped organized the living room area. The kids made ornaments and ate snacks and helped decorate the tree, the toddlers like mine wandered around aimlessly, women wore their babies in slings while they worked, and everyone came together and ate cookies at the end.
I wish we could figure out a way to do more activities like that, revolving around service that involve the entire family.
Reply
AmyLynne Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
Jenna, I completely agree. I wish that ours would’ve been like that. But the service that was needed in our area was unfortunately NOT small-kid-friendly–probably just ages 8 and up. :/ It sounds like yours was awesome, well-planned, and just the right thing to start out the Christmas season!! Jealous!! haha!
Reply
Jax Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 9:57 pm
The last day of service we had was really family friendly too! I love it when they are, I think it’s great for kids to get the opportunity to serve with their parents and the ward.
Reply
December 9th, 2011 on 12:08 pm
I have almost no knowledge of the Mormon religion so I can’t really comment but something you wrote caught my attention and I found it interesting….wondering if someone can clarify:
“When I got pregnant, I was told it was too bad I couldn’t work in the temple until my kids were out of the house (TH could though, this rule only applies to women).”
I took this to mean that there’s a prohibition against women working once they have children until the children are grown (18) — does this apply to all work? Just work at the Temple? I’m making the assumption that this is due to the special importance placed on childrearing within the religion…
It’s a really interesting idea to me…I’d love to understand this concept more!
Reply
lindsay Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 12:23 pm
I, too, did not quite understand what you meant by that statement. I don’t understand why women who are mothers can’t work there?
Reply
Jenna Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 12:38 pm
Answered below.
Reply
Jenna Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 12:38 pm
Well, I probably should have used the word “serve” instead of work, because it isn’t paid.
But yes you are right, once a woman has children living at home she isn’t allowed to serve as a temple worker. I actually applaud the rule as the situation stands right now, because the shifts are several hours long, not including transportation to and from, and finding a babysitter for that amount of time (especially once you have multiple kids) would be difficult and expensive.
I was presenting this as an option that would both provide childcare AND give mothers a way to serve in the temple with children at home (because they could just bring their children to the center as they watched other kids).
Reply
Balebusta Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 12:52 pm
I wasn’t being critical….I actually thought it’s a great idea!!! I love this in fact! To me personally, it would be a relief! That I would have a sanction and actual permission to just be a mom would a gift!
So does this apply to just serving at the temple or to all work in general…just curious!
Reply
Jenna Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 12:55 pm
Ah, tonal issues that come from writing instead of speaking. I didn’t think you were being critical
Just the temple. The Church has no official position on whether women should work or not.
Reply
Jackie Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
I thought it did? At least for moms of young children?
Reply
Jenna Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 2:13 pm
Nope. The position is something like “we encourage families to prioritize raising their children, and it is usually best if mom’s stay home with their kids, although each husband and wife will prioritize that differently.” (That is my own words, generalizing the position, btw)
Reply
AmyLynne Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 2:26 pm
“To me personally, it would be a relief! That I would have a sanction and actual permission to just be a mom would a gift!”
Amen!
Reply
MrsW Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 1:12 pm
That’s so strange that the cut off line is all kids out of the house… so many families I know have their kids really close in age, so what about a woman who has a 15, 16, and 17 year old? She still can’t do temple work?
Reply
Jenna Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
I don’t know for sure, but I don’t think so.
To be clear though, this doesn’t mean you can’t go to the temple and partake in the ordinances and services while you have children at home. It just means you can’t be called to serve as a worker, which means a 5-6 hour commitment each week.
Reply
Emily Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 3:24 pm
What if the kids never leave the house? What if they stay at home until they are 30? What exactly does “out of the house” mean anyway?
Reply
Jenna Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
I think it’s generally assumed to mean “able to care for themselves”. And since boys leave on missions at 19, and college is strongly encouraged, most leave at some point (especially since marriage is also strongly encouraged).
Reply
Jax Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 10:00 pm
I think it’s once they graduate high school?
Reply
Sharon Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 4:20 pm
It may have had more to do with the temple where you served than actual policy. I am in Jordan River district (the biggest one) and they do have women with children serve, but not as ordinance workers. It’s called a receptionist position, and these people basically stand in areas and direct where things are, say “thank you for coming” and that kind of thing. shorthanded. I noticed when visiting the Seattle temple that they didn’t really have people doing this, but the bigger temples do need it. Also, the women who do this have older children. I am not familiar with the policies, so I could be wrong, but it always seemed to me to have more to do with where you are most needed at the time. I didn’t have time available to go myself much when the kids were little, but now that they’re all teens and up, I can go regularly.
Reply
Danielle Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 9:53 pm
I think the rule about women serving in the temple as ordinance workers after they have babies is a terrible one. If the concern is truly about encouraging more time with children then the rule should apply to fathers as well. Kids don’t need their dads any less than they need their moms. This is especially true if their fathers work full time outside the home since that all ready eliminates huge swathes of the week when kids can spend time with their dads. The thing is, if it wasn’t a calling you could handle you can turn it down. But there are lots of women, especially women with older children, who would love to be able to serve the pretty minimal numbers of hours called for each week.
And rounding up moms into sitting for more children wouldn’t be nearly the same type of spiritual and service experience. Not to mention the fact that I don’t think childcare is only the responsibility of women.
Reply
Natalie Reply:
December 10th, 2011 at 10:30 am
This also applies to seminary teachers. Something I found out earlier this year and had never heard before.
Reply
Emily Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 1:27 am
My seminary teacher had a daughter in my seminary class and another child a few years younger. Might this be a more recent thing? That was about 10 years ago.
Reply
Natalie Reply:
December 13th, 2011 at 11:49 am
It might be. Did you have early-morning seminary by any chance? I did, and there were teachers I had who had kids (high-school age) at home. I don’t know if that makes any difference or not. I tried to look it up on the CES employment website and couldn’t find the information.
Reply
Jackie Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 2:11 pm
The thing that surprised me about this was that men could still work at the temple. It seems that since men are already working and away from home that the LDS church would want to encourage men to be at home on weekends, especially since they already get mom time but might have less dad time.
Reply
Sophia Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 6:26 pm
This is a good point.
Reply
Life on Mulberry Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 7:40 pm
A very good point, Jackie! This fits in with Jenna’s comments on wishing there were more family service opportunities.
Reply
December 9th, 2011 on 12:43 pm
I don’t know that the Church as a whole would ever go for providing childcare themselves- especially given the potential liability, but our ward has a Tuesday morning temple sitting/attending swap using the temple president’s home next door, arranged by a ward member. I’ve heard of stakes far from temples that convene in the area the whole day and take turns watching kids/playing sports while other stake members worship in the temple. The Church certainly encourages us to serve each other. Women can also volunteer in the temple as office workers and in the baptistry and laundry, even while children are in the home.
Reply
allison Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
We’ve done a similar thing in our ward for ward temple trips. Our ward reserves the Primary room of the stake center that’s just down the street from the temple, and we bring up toys from our nursery. Those who don’t need childcare attend an early morning Saturday session, head to the church afterward, and then watch the kids while their parents attend an early afternoon session. It’s worked out really well.
Reply
December 9th, 2011 on 1:19 pm
Well, I’m not a Mormon, and the most I know about your temples was a tour I took when I was 12 or so (it was a new temple, before it was blessed or whatnot, they were letting non-Mormons come and in and do tours so a bunch of the families from our church made a day of it with their kids).
Disclaimer aside, I’ve always thought it was odd the way in the ward service you had to keep your babies with you till 18 months! Seriously, man.. I would be going insane. I think T went to nursery full time at about a year, and she’ll be in there for a while yet, until she learns to be still and quiet in church.
I don’t see why the workers would have to be professionals if you have this system of callings in the church already — do professionals run your nursery for ward meetings? It just has to be a few mommies or grandmas (or daddies and grandpas though I know that that’s not as common) and some responsible teens. Add some crackers and a changing table and boom, instant nursery. I also think the timing issue could be easily solved by letting those served by the temple know that nursery is available only on say, Tuesday evening, Thursday morning, and all day Saturday. That way the parents know to only come at those times… don’t see why you’d be forced to have it available at all hours that the temple was open.
Reply
Jenna Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
Yes yes yes! I like all of these thoughts. Only available at certain times, and I think making pre-registration of some sort is a must (that way they have the appropriate amount of help and can limit number of kids). If you don’t pre-register, sorry, you absolutely do not get to drop off your kid.
Reply
AmyLynne Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 2:31 pm
What happens though, when you get some couple with 5 children, that travel 5 hours to go to the temple, and they show up, un-registered because they didn’t know the registration process? I don’t think the temple wants to be in the business of turning people away? A good example of this is dress standards. Obviously, we’re supposed to wear “Sunday best” but in almost no circumstance do they turn away somebody who isn’t. Our temple president once told us that it’s important not to judge others in that situation. You never know who is coming straight from the hospital after finding out their mother died or whatever. Having strict pre-registration guidelines seems like it could end up being exclusive, rather than inclusive.
However, I do like the idea of having maybe just certain sessions (specific days/times) with childcare, like you both mentioned. That seems a little more organized!
Reply
December 9th, 2011 on 1:22 pm
Maybe it’s just me but there’s no way I would drop my dog off with someone I didn’t know — let alone my kid! If it was a calling, you wouldn’t know the training of the individual.. what if something happened?
The temple doesn’t let women with kids at home work in the temple, teach seminary as a CES employee, and other things. They don’t want to pull parents away from their kids.
Reply
December 9th, 2011 on 1:34 pm
This post really struck a chord with me… but not in a good way. I understand that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but I really feel the need to comment on this. (and I hope the tone comes out the way I intend, I’m not trying to bash anyone or be mean)
Aside from the obvious logistical issues surrounding this, (like the fact children are very noisy so it would need to be in a separate building, there’s no way to predict how many children will be there, etc.) there are some specific spiritual reasons too. As well as legal issues too.
Anyway, one of the biggest things surrounding temple attendance is the idea of sacrifice. Everyone who goes has sacrificed in some manner, and for those of us who are the parents of small children lining up childcare is one of our big sacrifices. So for us to sluff off our sacrifice onto the poor soul(s) manning the child care is unjust. And leaves us lacking the proper appreciation for our attendance. After all, the harder we work for something the more we appreciate it, right? And even if we have exhausted every avenue to no avail with the result we cannot make it to the temple, the Lord will bless us for our efforts. He knows our struggles and our hearts. Also, by having childcare provided we deny others, like the YW and YM, the opportunity to serve. For those who are not yet able to attend the temple themselves, by watching our children the blessings WE receive by going are then passed on to them for serving us and enabling us to go. It is for this reason that the youth are so strongly encouraged to babysit for those wanting to attend the temple.
And for this to be a calling is like calling one or two people in the ward to cook all of the food for those who need meals provided. It would be so incredibly convenient for the relief society president and compassionate services coordinator to only have to call one or two people instead if the whole ward, right?! When in reality it would be placing the burden of service on one or two people instead of it being open to those who are willing and able. It really is an unjust thing to ask of people.
I would also like to point out that there is no child care calling within the church, and for a reason. As parents our children are our responsibility. Even nursery is a class, not a babysitting service. It’s a class catered to very small children, but still a primary class nonetheless. That is why children who have dirty diapers, behavior issues, or meltdowns are taken to their parents. If it was babysitting the nursery leaders would change those diapers and discipline those kids.
And lastly, I’m pretty sure in the past 150+ years we have had temples the idea of childcare has come up at least once. But obviously the answer Heavenly Father has given is NO. I love love love what AmyLynne said above about the importance of rearing children. Temple attendance is important too, but at this point in our lives it may not be possible to attend as often as those whose children have left home AND THAT’S OK! What is not ok is us not attending because it’s not a priority and making excuses about the inconvenience of finding a babysitter for not going.
Oh, and I just want to say to be careful of your tone when referring to the men within and leaders of our church. There are definitely those who are male chauvinists, but in my experience they are few and far between. ESPECIALLY where our leaders are concerned. Yes there are things they don’t think of regarding motherhood because they are men, but to condemn them for it is wrong. The nitty gritty details surrounding rearing children is a woman’s jurisdiction, not because that’s the way they like it, but because that is our nature. Try to remember that the next time you get disgusted with something they do or don’t suggest or implement. But as I recall, the decision for fathers to step up and watch their kids so their wives can go to church functions came from the First Presidency.
And like I said at the beginning, this was not intended to be harsh or mean, I just wanted to point out some things you obviously hadn’t thought about yet. As a mother myself anything to ease the burden of raising very young kids is very appealing (and believe me, I have done my share of complaining, especially regarding the start age of nursery), but not at the cost of some essential blessings:)
Reply
Shanna Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
“The nitty gritty details surrounding rearing children is a woman’s jurisdiction.” That statement is a pretty good example of male chauvinism and kind of disproves your point about it being rare. Children are the responsibility of their parents (plural), not one or the other.
Also, the excuse that ‘”they’re men, don’t get mad if they don’t think of it” is true to some extent but usually just sends the message of “don’t worry about forgetting to think about half of the church membership just because we weren’t represented in the priesthood meeting. No biggie!” They should be held responsible because the solutions is so easy: put yourself in your wife’s shoes (if you’re already not 50% responsible for child-rearing) or run it by a few women. Problem solved.
Reply
Jax Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 5:41 pm
What I meant was is that men’s brains aren’t wired to think about all the nitty gritty details of raising children. The vast majority of men don’t think about packing extra clothes in case of a spill, bringing snacks if you’re going to be out of the house for more than a half hour, always having a couple of small toys in your purse for unexpected waits, leaky boobs, having your body weight in band-aids in the house, and on and on and on. Does this mean that men are exempt from helping out with rearing his children? NO WAY! They are in it just as much as we are. It just means that we shouldn’t be so quick to condemn them when they miss something that is so obvious to us. I know I would be really hurt if my husband started acting like I didn’t care about him at all and was the akin to the scum of the earth because I didn’t check the tire pressure or failed to change the air filter or let the grass die. It’s not that I don’t care, it’s just that I don’t think of that stuff.
Reply
Sophia Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 6:39 pm
I would argue that has NOTHING to do with the hard wiring of their brains and everything to do with the expectations that are placed on them.
Most women rise to the occasion and learn those things/think about those things because it is expected of them, especially in societies in which men are told “you’re the provider, your wife is the nurturer.”
My father was an exceptionally attentive parents, as are several of my male friends. Guess why? They’re either single parents so they can’t rely on societal norms of expecting the woman to do it, or they are in incredibly egalitarian relationships where the wife makes it clear that parenting will be a mutual endeavor.
Honestly, most of the “clueless Dads” I see are either those who have never been asked/expected to do anything, or they are those who have tried to help, but the wife can’t step back and trust her own husband with his own child, so he never gets practice even if he wants to help. I’ve seen far too many women emotionally shut off their parents from the mental work of attending to a child’s needs. That’s incredibly sad to me, when I hear women clucking over how “clueless” and “useless” their partners are as fathers. This is not hard wired, it is a created situation.
I will give you that certain biological tendencies are present in women in regards to processes related to birth/breast feeding, but please- remembering to pack a change of clothes or change a diaper has nothing to do with that. It has to do with expectations, and reinforced behaviors. I think this is very clear once you observe non-traditional families- two dads, single dads, incredibly egalitarian relationships, etc.
I’ve seen too many of my amazing male friends/family members/my father/my own boyfriend interact in incredibly thoughtful, responsible ways with children of all ages to throw them under the “clueless male” stereotype bus. This may be due to my different social circles, however.
Reply
Danielle Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 9:36 pm
Amen. My mormon husband know how to care of children, right down to the small details. And this isn’t because his brain is wired differently than other men. It’s because caring for children is a learned skill and he learned it.
Reply
Danielle Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 9:36 pm
*knows
Reply
Jax Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
I left the longer post below, but I’m not referring to a man’s ability to parent, I’m referring to his gut instinct regarding rearing children compared to woman’s. And I’m speaking in VERY general terms. All I’m trying to say is if you picked a random man who is not a father, handed him a baby, and left him by himself with that child for an extended period of time things will probably end up ugly. But if you handed a woman a baby and said “have at it” chances are things will go better than with the man. For most dads parenting is a learning process (helped along greatly the more they are with kids) while for most moms it’s an instinctual process. And again, this is all IN GENERAL, I’ve seen amazing dads who can put me as a mom to shame.
Reply
Shanna Reply:
December 10th, 2011 at 12:18 pm
From personal experience, and looking around me at my single friends, I have to say that this is bunk. The only reason I know anything about babies is because I got stuck babysitting all the time as a yw. Did I have any idea what to do besides break out the crayons and toys my mom told me to bring? Hell no. But I was a kid, so playing was fine by me.
In college, I found a job as a nanny and finally had to learn real child care. I am pretty sure I called my mom the first time the baby screamed and squirmed while I changed his diaper, and I had no clue what activities were age appropriate or educational. I had to do a lot of research, reading of parenting books, and I spent hours on the phone with my mom going over everything from teaching letters, to time outs, to potty training to child safety. The best things I learned, though, was all from research into early childhood dev, which is something that is most definitely not intuitive.
Now, I know tons of crap about kids. Not everything, but a lot. My childless friends who babysat? Not a clue. They know none of the gross bits about child birth (your hip joints change? There’s tearing?!?!”), and they know as little about how to talk to kids as they did about doing their own laundry or cleaning their own bathroom until their parents showed them. As evidenced by all the bad but well-meaning parents out there and the child care books, caring for babies is not really that intuitive, and it’s simply a matter of learning and caring enough to learn. IMO.
Reply
Sharon Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 4:22 pm
I agree.
Reply
Sharon Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 4:23 pm
And by this I was agreeing to the poster above Shanna.
Reply
Sophia Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 6:30 pm
“The nitty gritty details surrounding rearing children is a woman’s jurisdiction, not because that’s the way they like it, but because that is our nature. Try to remember that the next time you get disgusted with something they do or don’t suggest or implement. ”
What you’re saying is that child rearing is a woman’s jurisdiction, but unfortunately in the LDS Church men do hold virtually all leadership positions- so it is kind of nonsensical to me to say that there is a division that cannot/should not be breached, and that we also shouldn’t be concerned at the lack of sensitivity shown to women’s issues.
The fact that childcare is seen as a woman’s “jurisdiction”, coupled with the fact that male leaders make ultimate decisions, is actually an argument FOR the fact that male leaders should go out of their way to think of women’s issues, since, unfortunately, women cannot make those Church wide changes for themselves.
I also agree with everything Shanna said.
Reply
Danielle Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 9:37 pm
Yep.
Reply
Jax Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 9:47 pm
I totally agree that anyone male or female, can be an amazing parent. I’m not trying to say otherwise. What I’m trying to say is that on an instinctual level men and women are different. This idea is a fundamental belief of the LDS church, presented to the world in The Proclamation to the World: The Family: “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. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.” And just like it said there, men are quite capable to help out around the home, to be an equal partner in the rearing of children. Many men are more than capable too. And I firmly believe that ANYTHING can be learned. But I was also speaking in gross generalities. There are always exceptions to the rule and I have seen plenty of proof of that in my own experience. However, IN GENERAL, men are probably not going to see a problem the same way women will, and a lot of times that means they don’t understand what the problem is. Does this mean we, as women and mothers, keep our mouths shut? Of course not. We are expected and encouraged to speak up when we see a problem. That’s why men have wives? So they can see a problem where they normally wouldn’t. And vice versa. And there are lots of instances in our church where changes were made because a wife spoke up, one of the most well-known being the origin of The Word of Wisdom. Emma Smith, Joseph Smith’s wife, saw a problem, made her husband aware of this problem (that he probably would have never known was a problem if it wasn’t for her), and he took the matter to the Lord. And Heavenly Father told Joseph that his wife was right and gave instruction to correct the problem.
I’m not trying to say that the inherent differences in men and women means we should excuse them and look the other way. I’m trying to say that this provides an opportunity to step in and notify them of certain issues they aren’t aware of without condemning them for not thinking of it first. I don’t have any issue with solving problems and correcting wrong behavior, but treating someone like crap when they didn’t know any better. Now, if they are made aware of this problem and ignore it then maybe some vinegar can creep in. But with his situation, like I said before, I highly doubt the idea has never come up (especially considering the vast number of wives who had vast numbers of children during this time frame).
Reply
Danielle Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 10:40 pm
Yeah, I’m gonna go with no again on this.
You hand a random man and a random woman a baby and see what happens? (Per your example above) Yeah you’ll get a different set of responses. First, and most significantly, because they are different people – regardless of gender. Second, if you repeated this multiple times would you likely see a greater percentage of women handling the baby with greater ease and skill? Yeah, you probably would. But that’s because of the very different ways women and men are socialized more than some inherent difference in instinct. The vast majority of baby and childcare is learned. Instinct could only account for a fraction of ability, even if you could somehow measure instinct as separate from socialized skill and behavior learning.
You can see that in the example you gave about Joseph and Emma and the origin of the WoW. Emma went to Joseph about the tobacco spit because she was the one responsible for cleaning it up because social norms of that era made it her responsibility because of her gender. If Joseph had been the one cleaning the floors then he would have noticed the problem. They didn’t see the issue differently because one was a man and the other a woman. They saw it differently because they were assigned different roles based on gender. Big difference.
Reply
Jax Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 11:39 pm
I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree:) It seems to me we’re delving into a nature vs. nurture debate. But either way, you have admitted that men and women are different, and that’s the point I was trying to get across. And the big thing I was trying say is I don’t think it’s right to judge people harshly when harm was not intended. This world is mean enough as it is and I think we all need to be more kind.
Reply
Shanna Reply:
December 10th, 2011 at 12:04 pm
Exactly. If, for some reason, women were in charge of all things temple-related, and they only had hours Mon-Fri, 9-5, do you think this would be the response to all the working men out there? “oh, sorry you can’t go because you have a job. Guess you’ll just have to sacrifice to get there! As women who don’t have set work hours as SAHMs, we’re not wired the same so we can blithely ignore something that has major repercussions on your lives.” Sometimes, this stuff just boggles my mind. Especially the point that, if families are so important, why aren’t men exempted? I remember not seeing much of my dad when he was a ward clerk, and watching my mom wrangle all the kids in the morning because he was already off at church. This was in addition to him being gone all week because he had to work hours away at a job that paid enough for him to keep my mom at home with us. I would have traded that situation for a working mom and dad who could actually pay attention to me in the evenings after school in a heart beat. Especially because I was in school activities until way beyond work hours every day. But, this is just my story and it’s anecdotal evidence.
Reply
Rachel Reply:
December 10th, 2011 at 12:38 am
I loved your comment and I agree completely.
Reply
Rachel Reply:
December 10th, 2011 at 12:55 am
And that was meant for Jax’s original comment above. Which I think was jumped on and misinterpreted. I just took it as a very loose generalization that is pretty common and true enough that women are more in tune with the needs of children and men aren’t.
Whether that is absolutely true in all situations isn’t really an issue in this discussion (about why we should/shouldn’t/could/couldn’t have childcare at the Temple). My husband is probably better with our kids than I am and yet I still am usually the one who remembers to put an extra shirt in the diaper bag, and remember snacks, toys, etc. Because he is wired to not remember? Probably not.. more likely because we’ve fallen into a pattern where I take care of that and he gets their socks and shoes on. Call it assigning gender roles but he’s the one doing the dishes and scrubbing toilets and I’m the one vacuuming and picking up toys. I don’t think Jax was really saying anything about any of that.
I was disappointed that so much has been focused on what I saw as a very small part of her whole comment. Jax, I very much enjoyed your thoughts on being able to be in the service of others and pass our blessings on to others in our ward.
Reply
December 9th, 2011 on 2:03 pm
I wouldn’t feel comfortable having my children in a nursery where I 1) didn’t know the people watching my children – even if they were very, very nice and 2) couldn’t be easily reached. When I leave my children to go to the temple I want them with someone I trust to change their diapers (something that is never done during regular church even!) and handle emergency situations should they arise. What would a temple nursery worker do if there was a 911 emergency and the parents were in a session…I know they technically could be reached but it just opens up a huge issue.
Also side thought – how reverent would such a nursery be to begin with? I just don’t think the temple is the place for a lot of toys, snacks, crying for parents, little kid fights, etc. Are you going to have beds/cribs for naps? Especially when you are talking about leaving them for 6 hours so the parents can be temple workers.
Plus the church strives to have global policies. What works in the US might not work in other countries. So just technical issue thoughts. My personal experience – the longest I’ve lived away from a temple was 4 hours. It was hard to do it with a child, but we managed to get there once a month by going with friends and taking turns watching each others children.
Reply
Lisa Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
I agree with the issue of parents not being able to be reached. The Church is VERY careful with things regarding leaving kids alone with adults (there always must be at least two adults present, children brought to parents to change diapers, young children brought to a parent to go to the restroom, etc.) and there is a reason for this. It protects both the children and the adults, and there have been legal issues in the past that have put these rules in place. So, if parents are unable to be reached during the session, that contradicts the rules that they have put in place to protect everyone involved. Also, if a kid is screaming uncontrollably for an hour, that is not fair to the leaders or other kids either, but I definitely do not think sessions should be interrupted as that would take away from the experience for everyone else.
Like others have said, I think that arranging our own childcare is our responsibility and part of the sacrifice, but definitely something that can be done together on a ward level to help each other out. I also agree that the Lord understands that as parents of young children, they are our greatest responsibility and assignment right now, and like other comments said we will have the rest of our lives to attend the temple as often as we want. My parents went a few times a year while I was growing up, and now as empty-nesters they go weekly. I think they were blessed just as much for what they were doing in the home and for the effort they made at the time w/ 5 kids as they are now going more often.
Anyway, I think that the idea sounds nice, but in my opinion wouldn’t (and maybe shouldn’t) happen for practical and spiritual reasons. I also like the comment above that nursery isn’t “free babysitting”, it’s a primary class geared toward young children and to prepare them for primary. Unfortunately, most nursery classes aren’t structured how the manual actually tells them to with lots of rotating activities, lessons, singing, etc. rather than mostly free play time.
Just my opinion though
Reply
Danielle Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 9:40 pm
I think you’re right. Also, as a child, I hated hated being left in the care of anyone I didn’t know well and it was only made worse not being in my own house (I have super vivid memories of childhood from like, age 2). I don’t think this situation sounds like a good one for the kids.
Reply
December 9th, 2011 on 3:20 pm
As a non-Mormon, I’m really confused. All Protestant churches I’ve ever attended offered childcare from infancy through 6th grade for kids of parents attending church. Do Mormon temples really not offer that? Where do the kids go during the service – are they expected to sit in the service for its entirety? Or be left at home with a sitter? I’m just confused why this isn’t done already, and why it would be controversial if it were. It just seems like such a no-brainer since there’s been nursery and childcare in place in all the churches I’ve ever been to.
Reply
AmyLynne Reply:
December 9th, 2011 at 4:08 pm
Temples are different from our regular Sunday service. There IS childcare from 18 months up for our regular Sunday meetings. The temple is somewhere we go occasionally to worship in a different way, and that is the childcare in question here.
Reply
December 9th, 2011 on 9:48 pm
Yeah, I’m not a fan of this idea. I think it poses more issues than it solves, but they’ve been pretty well articulated all ready.
Reply
December 11th, 2011 on 9:44 pm
I didn’t read all of the comments, but I read a good chunk on them. I just wanted to add that I know several people who find babysitters to go to a movie, or dinner date but yet it is just so hard to go to the temple! I know for some temples are far and it is a much bigger ordeal like one of the comments above, but those of us who have temple within 30 minutes to an hour from us is a little ridiculous to be willing to go on a date and pretend it is so hard to attend the temple. It’s all about priorities. There are so many ways to find free babysitting for temple attendance while not relying on young kids. It is not the church’s responsibility to take care of someone’s children just to make it all convenient. Having children is not convenient. You wouldn’t expect your employers to provide you with free babysitting for a business trip or during your work day, so why should this be a church expectancy?
Reply
December 12th, 2011 on 2:39 pm
Interesting topic.
I personally think that the support of wards, branches, friends and families are there to help with babysitting. Even though it can be hard to find time to go to the temple and set up a babysitter I think that is part of our challenge to see what we are wiling to sacrifice.
I believe that it is not necessarily the amount of temple work we do but our intentions and what our situation allows. Also, mothers with young children should attend the temple but I wonder if becoming a temple worker would become an unnecessary distraction from being home with children and fulfilling that responsibly. There are times and seasons for all tings don’t you think?
Reply
December 12th, 2011 on 11:34 pm
Thais,
I agree with your comments completely! So many times people find babysitters for less important things, yet they say “I don’t want to pay to go to the Temple”. Where are their priorities? I have a YW age daughter who does babysit for free for couples who want to go to the Temple, which I love about her. However, it amazes me that people just expect it and think they deserve it, rather than being appreciative of a young woman’s sacrifice of time to babysit for free.
Temples are places of our highest form of worship, not daycare centers.
I also think it is a slippery slope when people criticize or condemn our Church leaders for not submitting to their every whim or idea (i.e. childcare in Temples).
Reply