I did. I not only reached out but touched. I had to give up my recommend for six months.

Julie Beck, April 2004 General Conference.

She who hath ears to ear, let her hear.

http://lds.org/conference/talk/displ...439-26,00.html

I set them up, you knock them down. :)

Listen, I'm thankful to Cougarguard because until today, I had no idea Sister Beck's talk had ruffled so many feathers. In fact, I make the semiannual joke with Mrs. Smails to wake me up when the RS/Primary/YW counselor is done speaking, but this time around I listened, and I was very impressed (as was Mrs. Smails).

I'm a lifetime Mormon, returned missionary, living in Idaho with a stay at home mom for a wife and 5 children under the age of 9. That said, I'm usually pretty sensitive to how others might view a talk even if I tend to fall in with the rank and file, but apparently I was way off on this one.

I'm pretty sure every doctrine taught by the brethren has been consistent throughout the years and is a softer version of "a woman's place is in the home", generally with exceptions (methinks it was the lack of exceptions in Sister Beck's talk that has everyone's collective panties in a bunch) One of those softer versions is taken from the Proclamation on the Family:

"Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children."

Clearly, there are situations where a woman needs to be in the workforce. And absolutely women should get as much education as possible - I believe the Brethren have been consistent with both of these principles, but they should be "primarily responsible for the nurture of their children".

Sister Beck set the bar awfully high, I realize, but I believe the Savior said "Be ye therefore perfect". Where's the uproar over that one?

Does anyone think the Savior thinks we'll be perfect starting this week? Do you think Sister Beck thinks we will close down all MTC's and replace them with mini-MTCs?

What's wrong with proclaiming the ideal? I think that's all Sister Beck did and to that I say kudos.

and Go Cougars.

You have a smug style and look down at people due to your high self appraisal of your intellect and have a way of subtly, yet intentionally, insulting people with it. But I will try to avoid going there with you.

Let's not confuse the education aspect of this. I am not favoring women ignore their education. The church does not tell women to ignore their education. In fact the opposite. I'm mostly speaking representing my wife and people like her, and she is a BYU grad.


I don't agree you need the stresses of the workplace to hone your intellect. It's not like a stay at home mom sits on her ass all day. There are a lot of variety and challenges. CB is full of professional, working men. CG thinks they're a step above CB, intellectually. I don't see much here on CG that impresses me, intellectually, beyond what I see from my wife and other women in my life who are stay at home mom's.

I have less sharp skills because I read SI on the john and not Dostoevsky. Women who are at home are sharpening the skills for what Julie Beck says matters most--nurturing children.


I agree because I don't believe in absolutes, but you can replace all with most. If you don't believe it's the best place for most women and most families, if circumstances permit, then we can argue that point. It's clear to me the church teaches that, but that may not be entirely relevant. And it's an essential premise for my entire perspective.

Your background information, which is solid by the way, would be one reason why you were not upset nor saw a reason to be upset by the talk.

You probably don't understand why anyone gets bugged when single men are called out during conference either.

Also you live in Idaho. :)

You failed if that was your intent, but you are as brusk as they come, but I'm sure you're aware of that. So your proviso had the opposite of its stated purpose.

What I don't agree is I don't know. I don't know what current data shows, what the current trends within the desires of families and women are. I don't profess to know. It would require many sociological studies which I am not qualified to construct or perform.

We as a Church feel compelled to direct sociological structures without science to back it up. Do we need science in all aspects? No, but some wouldn't hurt.

If it's a social structure we desire, that's fine, but dictating it for all or most may not be fine. I just believe society has changed so much that structures ideal for the 1950s may no longer apply.

No, I really held back. I could have said I think you're as dumb as a brick, and you use big words and a meandering style with pointless references to physic, math, and philosophy, which you appear to have no understanding of, to cover it up. Compare that style to someone like my wife who actually has substance to her intellect and reasoning and it's laughable that you would insult someone like her.

If Requiem or anyone else would like to comment on whether this talk passes the "reaching out to all women" test, I'm open to listening.

Can I invoke the "yeah, but what have you done for me lately?" clause?

all true
 

My background info was an intentional disclaimer.

With that in mind, I am bugged by those I perceive to "kick against the pricks". There are clearly some gray areas related to stay at home mothers, single men, etc. I'm more bothered by Pro-choice mormons, or pro-lottery mormons, those who take the white stance, when the Church's position is clearly black.

While I think I could take some of the other talks more humbly than I did, I think a little humility might be in order (holy cow, I'm asking for it - duck and cover) for some who are so disgruntled by Sister Beck's talk. Does humility = quit your job/your wife's job and schedule 3 hours a day of family scripture study? No. But it would require acceptance of her talk for what it was - a talk that set the ideal, and was approved by men I believe to be Prophets of God in a forum that can be highly correlated (check me on this Indy) with "Thus Saith the Lord".

Anyone know where I can get some flame retardant.

Wherein have I affronted her? I take no affront that you dislike my style. Sometimes I dislike my style for I take no effort to review or to rewrite my meanderings. That is the therapeutic purpose here. If you do not like math or physics for reference points, feel free to ignore my posts as you're free to do. They serve as a reference point for me and nobody else. You also denigrate much of what I write, even if you ignore it may be for my own purposes not purposes which you presuppose to know.

And it's good you're married to somebody who fits your style. Congrats, she must be a very patient woman.

I notice you ignored the substance of my post.

What is interesting in posts such as these is the willingness of somebody who has accepted a certain point of view and is in agreement therewith, only to point those who may disagree, need humility. How humble is it to point out another's lack of humility?

I agree with you on the black and white issues. I have no problem with your approach. You are expressing your belief, but I sense you are allowing others the perogitive to disagree. Throwing out the "kicking against the pricks" though was marginal.

You've insulted the intellect of stay-at-home moms time and again. It started long before this weekend. You use your wife as a reference point, who you obviously have no respect for, but you apply it to all women. Sorry for attacking you, but when someone sets himself up as a model for intellect while denigrating others, then your intellect might get called in question.

The point of whether women should stay at home or not is a worthwhile discussion. I believe in it, but I'm not emotional about it. I am emotional about someone lumping all stay-at-home mom's together and making disparaging remarks about their intellect, ambitions, or work ethic.

Did you read what you quoted?
 

Judge Smails said (and you quoted): "While I think I could take some of the other talks more humbly than I did, I think..."

I recognize my need to be more humble and I identified it in my original post. I'm also not blind enough not to recognize I'm not the only one in the universe who could use a little humility.

Clearly, in cases where one has stewardship, they have a responsibility to call on others to gain humility, even if the speaker is less than 100% humble.

Being an imperfect being, I simply chose to go beyond the bounds of my stewardship, but by no means did I suggest I was without pride.

Nice try though.

Let's be clear
 

I said "What I perceive as kicking against the pricks".

Certainly, others can disagree all they want.

I perceive a 3rd of the host of heaven did as well. {extremely TIC}

Just as long as he doesn't knock them up.

I read what I want to read, not what someone actually wrote. I picked that up from Tex.

You need reading classes if you've interpreted what I've posted as a denigration of women who stay at home. In my mind, women should choose and not be castigated one way or the other. If they choose to stay home, they will reap benefits and detriments. In LDS culture, women who choose not to stay home are often denigrated by the stay at home mothers. Read my comments in that light; otherwise you could use some serious reading comprehension improvement.

I only referenced my wife as an example that I'm familiar with the stay at home mentality. I'm uncertain whether my wife, if given the opportunity would make the same choice. I suppose she would have refined the choice, but it's tough to say. You seem emotional as emotionally gone off on without cause. I've argued against the Beck approach as insensitive to those who must leave or the home or those that choose to. In our culture the stay at home moms don't need a defender because that is considered the ideal. I tend to defend the minority position.

Usually I'll avoid discussions on the intellect discussion, but the models of intellect are these: SIEQ, Pelagius, Mike Waters, Solon, AA, Jeff Lebowski, Creekster and Seattle [there are probably others including Indy in certain statistical matters and yourself in those matters]. In fact, you will not find me trumpeting my skill or expertise in anything. Perhaps in 11,000 posts you could find something of a joke, but I challenge you.

the 8 sages of cougarguard

By the way
 

after looking back I totally misquoted myself, though the context was accurate.

I don't know who I picked that up from. :)

Ding!

I guess you haven't read many of my works. I certainly would classify myself as an intellect.

Thanks Tex. Although the content is at times vague and syrupy, it does keep hope alive.

On a related topic referenced in her talk: Does the concept of single childless women being "blessed" with husband and offspring in the afterlife fall into the doctrine or folklore category? Scriptural references are unclear on this topic. If I am to understand correctly, my eternal joy will be based on if either you or Indy take me as a plural wife and "bless" me with multiple offspring? Is this pablum designed to calm the fears of single LDS women? Where are the specific scriptural references? Is this a historical tradition common to other early cultures? Are all of our earthly problems rectified in the afterlife - i.e. will you be a Heisman Trophy winner and I will be Miss America?

Serious question that is probably best addressed in a separate thread. I would be interested in the thoughts of the resident intellectuals - Archaea, CHC, Solon, SU, SC, MW, et.al. (you know who you are). I have to catch a plane and will follow up later...

Sorry, but chronic histrionics are a big turn off for me, so you're safe.

Histrionics
Hysterical
Hysterectomy

I see similarities. Who is the board etymologist?

C'mon Indy, give the gal credit. That was a pretty good one.

I like that.

Henceforth we knight ye (what is the object form of ye?) the Eight Sages.

Actually we have two missing ones, Adam and Dan, who is gone in search of the Holy Grail, or some pot of gold. So actually there were ten.

I humbly and respectfully submit a vote for BYU71 to receive Sage status. Satire and wisdom combined are a rare talent these days (especially here).

I'm far more interested in the eight idiots.

Probably because it's a much more attainable personal goal.

"Now these lawyers were learned in all the arts and cunning of the people; and this was to enable them that they might be skilful in their profession."

You do realize learned and wise are two different things ;)

you got that right.

Okay, then with Adam, Dan and 71, do we have a 12th? Requiem to inform us of the better half's wisdom and BG as an absentee? We then have a baker's dozen Quorum of Sages.

We'll worry about the Dunces of which I shall be chief.

I guess it's just too hard to say, "Wow, I guess she really does want to reach out to all women. Maybe I was wrong about her."

Yes, they all are derived from the same Greek root.

ISn't it from the greek word for uterus or womb?

I recall this being discussed during the OJ simpson murder trial after several of the news organizations repeatedly used the word hysterical to refer to Marcia Clark but nerve to any of the male attorneys. The commentary I read suggested that the usage fo the word is subtle (and perhaps unintentional) sexism becasue the word is derived from the thought that women act hysterically as a result of their gender specific plumbing, so to speak.

THis is so amusing and ironic. My wife would probabyl howl with laughter at the thought that I was considered sage of anyhting except maybe scratching inappropriately. Moreover, for such a suggestion to be made in a thread about women would probably be a little hard for my good wife to take. In fact, it is alittle hard for me to take in any thread.

I formally withdraw my name from the group. You can replace me with Arch or, really, just about anybody becaseu just about anyone could give you what I can.

Thanks for suggesting it, however.

Maybe all posters should be required to take an IQ test so we could be ranked properly. Then we could throw in the stay-at-home wives of board members to see if they truly are inferior.

You might be surprised by the results. (although I'm not worried about Lingo flashing a Mensa card).