cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/index.php)
-   Religion (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Beck talk (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12729)

jay santos 10-12-2007 05:06 PM

Beck talk
 
Here it is.

http://www.lds.org/conference/talk/d...775-27,00.html

Which parts do you think were offensive? She actually never really even tells women to stay at home.

My analysis of the controversial parts:

Quote:

Mothers who know desire to bear children. Whereas in many cultures in the world children are "becoming less valued,"2 in the culture of the gospel we still believe in having children.
I like this. I would love to have this emphasized every conference.

Quote:

I have visited sacrament meetings in some of the poorest places on the earth where mothers have dressed with great care in their Sunday best despite walking for miles on dusty streets and using worn-out public transportation. They bring daughters in clean and ironed dresses with hair brushed to perfection; their sons wear white shirts and ties and have missionary haircuts. These mothers know they are going to sacrament meeting, where covenants are renewed.
The bolded sentence might be a little over-the-top. But I still like it. She's complimenting the mothers in third world countries that are making a sacrifice to come to church and get their kids dressed up best they can. It's not an indictment on those who don't. I'm sure there are moms with teenage boys that come to church with Beatles hair and a colored shirt that were offended by this, but I don't think they need to be.

Quote:

Mothers who know are nurturers. This is their special assignment and role under the plan of happiness.5 To nurture means to cultivate, care for, and make grow. Therefore, mothers who know create a climate for spiritual and temporal growth in their homes.
I thought this was great and shouldn't offend anyone.

Quote:

Another word for nurturing is homemaking. Homemaking includes cooking, washing clothes and dishes, and keeping an orderly home. Home is where women have the most power and influence; therefore, Latter-day Saint women should be the best homemakers in the world.
This is probably the part that could have been left out. It's probably possible for a Mormon mother to be the most perfect Mormon mom that's ever walked the face of the earth and never cook, clean, or do laundry. And at a minimum, if a Mormon mother struggles with some of those areas, it doesn't mean they're not a good nurturer. My wife just blew this part off, but I can see this offending people. It offended people I know are good Mormon moms. I don't mind putting a high standard out there, such as LDS youth should be most chaste. Or LDS as a group should have most scripture knowledge, whatever. But the high standard in an area of cooking and cleaning is lame, I agree with the critics on that.

Quote:

Working beside children in homemaking tasks creates opportunities to teach and model qualities children should emulate.
I like this. Teaching children to work is one of most important jobs as a parent and working together does that + creates quality together time.

Quote:

Nurturing mothers are knowledgeable, but all the education women attain will avail them nothing if they do not have the skill to make a home that creates a climate for spiritual growth. Growth happens best in a "house of order," and women should pattern their homes after the Lord's house (see D&C 109). Nurturing requires organization, patience, love, and work. Helping growth occur through nurturing is truly a powerful and influential role bestowed on women.
I like this. The emphasis is on nurturing and creating home for spiritual growth. Very important concept and should receive a mother's best efforts. The education line is a little problematic. It's similar to the success in the world doesn't make up for failure in the home line, which applies to mothers and fathers. But education is a weird comparison. Would have been better to say "success or achievement outside the home" and leave it general.

Quote:

Mothers who know build children into future leaders and are the primary examples of what leaders look like. They do not abandon their plan by succumbing to social pressure and worldly models of parenting. These wise mothers who know are selective about their own activities and involvement to conserve their limited strength in order to maximize their influence where it matters most.
Excellent, IMHO. Only a vague reference to working outside the home. Certainly not a THOU SHALT NOT. It's the principle that matters and she stated it.

Quote:

A well-taught friend told me that he did not learn anything at church that he had not already learned at home. His parents used family scripture study, prayer, family home evening, mealtimes, and other gatherings to teach. Think of the power of our future missionary force if mothers considered their homes as a pre–missionary training center. Then the doctrines of the gospel taught in the MTC would be a review and not a revelation. That is influence; that is power.
Pretty innocuous and certainly inoffensive. She's not telling us the home is an MTC and things not fit for the MTC are not fit at home, she's just saying the home is the first place children are taught the gospel and trained to be servants in the Kingdom.

What people might be missing was how she built up mothers and the importance of the role.

My wife has been talking to other women, sisters friends, and this talk has come up a lot, some liked it and some didn't. She feels like it's the same issue with Mother's Day. Some great Mormon women have a guilt complex that's so large they can't enjoy Mother's Day because they have rabbit ears and look for something in the talks that shows they're not measuring up and then go into a pity party about it. That comes across calloused but it's not meant as an attack. Just an observation with a feeling of wanting to help the situation and help these mothers feel good about themselves while at the same time be able to acknowledge the importance of the role and examples of success.

Indy Coug 10-12-2007 05:32 PM

I'd be interested in a similarly detailed critique from Requiem.

Tex 10-12-2007 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug (Post 135303)
I'd be interested in a similarly detailed critique from Requiem.

As would I. I'm glad the text of the talks comes out so quickly nowadays. Makes it easier to debunk what people "thought" she said vs. what she actually did say.

SoonerCoug 10-12-2007 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 135315)
As would I. I'm glad the text of the talks comes out so quickly nowadays. Makes it easier to debunk what people "thought" she said vs. what she actually did say.

No kidding. Now that I've seen her talk in print, I've realized that it was as bad or worse than people claimed.

Jeff Lebowski 10-12-2007 06:29 PM

Pretty interesting article in the SLTRIB about the talk:

http://www.sltrib.com/lds/ci_7150554

Flystripper 10-12-2007 06:30 PM

All I know is that
 
while listening to

http://deseretnews.com/confer/leaders/photos/beck.jpg


I was reminded of

http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/movies...otter5-037.jpg

SoonerCoug 10-12-2007 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flystripper (Post 135327)

Hilarious. :)

Good thing she's not a GA, so she's fair game.

Venkman 10-12-2007 06:40 PM

First time I've read the talk - pretty good one, I'd say. Good analysis Jay.

I think that the early invocation of ETB telling women to not delay children, probably rubbed some the wrong way and colored how they heard the rest of the talk. And I do have somewhat of a problem with the counsel to not delay children, given that many LDS women are still in school and they're also counseled to get an education. I think there are certainly unrighteous motives for postponing children, but I don't think education is one of them.

I agree she could have done without saying cooking, cleaning, dishes, etc. Seems to imply that men get a pass on that stuff. On second thought, I liked that part. ;)

So on balance, I really liked the talk, and I think there has been some overreaction.

Tex 10-12-2007 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug (Post 135316)
No kidding. Now that I've seen her talk in print, I've realized that it was as bad or worse than people claimed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jay santos (Post 135292)
Which parts do you think were offensive?





....

SoonerCoug 10-12-2007 06:48 PM

Is it a problem in Mormonism that women don't do enough around the house? I doubt it.

Is it a problem that men don't help out enough around the house? I'd say so.

Her major, controversial points could only cause harm, and they don't address a real problem.

I think she had no idea that the things she was saying would be controversial. I think she's been in a bubble far too long.

Tex 10-12-2007 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug (Post 135337)
Is it a problem in Mormonism that women don't do enough around the house? I doubt it.

Link?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug (Post 135337)
I think she had no idea that the things she was saying would be controversial.

Outside of CG bubble, link?

Jeff Lebowski 10-12-2007 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 135342)
Link?



Outside of CG bubble, link?

Responding with "Link?" when someone expresses an opinion has got to be one of the stupidest responses possible. Please.

Tex 10-12-2007 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski (Post 135345)
Responding with "Link?" when someone expresses an opinion has got to be one of the stupidest responses possible. Please.

And I thought you were trying to be nice to/ignore me.

The implication of "Link?" is that the assertion is bunk. IOW, she didn't say women don't do enough around the house, and there is no controversy (outside of CG).

"Link?" is much more succinct.

Jeff Lebowski 10-12-2007 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 135351)
And I thought you were trying to be nice to/ignore me.

The implication of "Link?" is that the assertion is bunk. IOW, she didn't say women don't do enough around the house, and there is no controversy (outside of CG).

"Link?" is much more succinct.

When he asks a rhetorical questions and then adds "I doubt it", he is clearly expressing his opinion. Why on earth is any kind of link necessary?

Tex 10-12-2007 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski (Post 135356)
When he asks a rhetorical questions and then adds "I doubt it", he is clearly expressing his opinion. Why on earth is any kind of link necessary?

His opinion on whether women don't spend enough time in the house is not in question. The implication that Beck said such, is.

Indy Coug 10-12-2007 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski (Post 135345)
Responding with "Link?" when someone expresses an opinion has got to be one of the stupidest responses possible. Please.

Since I'm a prime "offender", I often respond with "Link?" because someone makes a comment which implies they are basing it on something they have read or learned, rather than a off-the-cuff opinion; and rather than just make a quick response to what they've said, I prefer to read more on the subject before formulating a response.

EDIT: Sometimes, I also ask just to see if they aren't just full of crap when they claim something specific (i.e. not offered as opinion) but sounds too outlandish to be true.

Black Diamond Bay 10-12-2007 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug (Post 135364)
Since I'm a prime "offender", I often respond with "Link?" because someone makes a comment which implies they are basing it on something they have read or learned, rather than a off-the-cuff opinion; and rather than just make a quick response to what they've said, I prefer to read more on the subject before formulating a response.

EDIT: Sometimes, I also ask just to see if they aren't just full of crap when they claim something specific (i.e. not offered as opinion) but sounds too outlandish to be true.

I thought it was a good talk. I still think it was a good talk, and people are blowing this all out of proportion. She didn't say anything that I thought was even a little bit offensive. Even the stuff about cleaning. IMO, men generally aren't any good at cleaning anyway. Women do a better job at it, so they probably should be spearheading the efforts to make sure the home isn't turning into a dump.

SoonerCoug 10-12-2007 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 135342)
Outside of CG bubble, link?

Don't you read the newspaper, Tex?

http://www.sltrib.com/lds/ci_7150554?source=rv

Ace Tomato Co. 10-12-2007 08:14 PM

Good post Santos. I also didn't think the talk was offensive.

As an aside, it seems curious to me that Beck is getting all the attention here. Would it change people's opinion of the talk if they knew that all the talks are vetted by the upper-ups?

Beck's talk was approved before it was given. I spent conference weekend going to a couple of sessions with the sons of a Q70 who spoke on Saturday - his talk was read beforehand and approved.

This doesn't erase the fact that Beck wrote and believes the talk, but it does illustrate that the talk was definitely church-approved.

SoonerCoug 10-12-2007 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ace Tomato Co. (Post 135377)
This doesn't erase the fact that Beck wrote and believes the talk, but it does illustrate that the talk was definitely church-approved.

And this somehow makes it better?

Indy Coug 10-12-2007 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug (Post 135381)
And this somehow makes it better?

Yes.

Tex 10-12-2007 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug (Post 135373)
Don't you read the newspaper, Tex?

http://www.sltrib.com/lds/ci_7150554?source=rv

Not the Trib. I don't live in Utah, and don't make a habit of going to their site. But thanks for the link though. It was an interesting write up on people overreacting in places like "feministmormonhousewives.org". LOL. When I saw that address my first thought was, "is Dave Barry doing LDS now?"

And the referral to Benson's '87 talk as "infamous" was a nice touch. But you proved your point, nutty anti-Beck hyperbole does stretch beyond CG.

See, Lebowski, was that so hard?

SoCalCoug 10-12-2007 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jay santos (Post 135292)
This is probably the part that could have been left out. It's probably possible for a Mormon mother to be the most perfect Mormon mom that's ever walked the face of the earth and never cook, clean, or do laundry. And at a minimum, if a Mormon mother struggles with some of those areas, it doesn't mean they're not a good nurturer. My wife just blew this part off, but I can see this offending people. It offended people I know are good Mormon moms. I don't mind putting a high standard out there, such as LDS youth should be most chaste. Or LDS as a group should have most scripture knowledge, whatever. But the high standard in an area of cooking and cleaning is lame, I agree with the critics on that.

I don't know about everyone else, but that was exactly the part that I've had the problem with. The inference there, whether intended or not, is that if you don't keep your house perfectly clean, or don't have a good, home-cooked meal every night, you're falling short.

This is the other part I had a problem with: "Mothers who know build children into future leaders and are the primary examples of what leaders look like."

As with the homemaking part, I felt this wasn't very sensitive to mothers who have children who make bad choices and don't end up as leaders - in other words, it perpetuates the "What did I do wrong?" stress that is in many cases unwarranted and unfair.

These are the only criticisms I've had with the talk that I addressed on Cougarboard, and I was still being reamed for speaking evil of the Lord's anointed.

I still haven't had anyone reasonably oppose my criticism. They just generally criticized me.

BigFatMeanie 10-12-2007 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug (Post 135457)
I still haven't had anyone reasonably oppose my criticism. They just generally criticized me.

If you werent so ugly and your breath didn't stink so bad it would be easier to criticize your posts and not you.

Archaea 10-12-2007 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug (Post 135457)
I don't know about everyone else, but that was exactly the part that I've had the problem with. The inference there, whether intended or not, is that if you don't keep your house perfectly clean, or don't have a good, home-cooked meal every night, you're falling short.

This is the other part I had a problem with: "Mothers who know build children into future leaders and are the primary examples of what leaders look like."

As with the homemaking part, I felt this wasn't very sensitive to mothers who have children who make bad choices and don't end up as leaders - in other words, it perpetuates the "What did I do wrong?" stress that is in many cases unwarranted and unfair.

These are the only criticisms I've had with the talk that I addressed on Cougarboard, and I was still being reamed for speaking evil of the Lord's anointed.

I still haven't had anyone reasonably oppose my criticism. They just generally criticized me.

I thought it was a dumb, stroke people, folk wisdom kinda talks.

So even a stay at home mom can feel guilty about a dirty house or kids not perfectly clean. It seems that we are competing with the Jews for guilt.

Jeff Lebowski 10-13-2007 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 135393)
Not the Trib. I don't live in Utah, and don't make a habit of going to their site. But thanks for the link though. It was an interesting write up on people overreacting in places like "feministmormonhousewives.org". LOL. When I saw that address my first thought was, "is Dave Barry doing LDS now?"

And the referral to Benson's '87 talk as "infamous" was a nice touch. But you proved your point, nutty anti-Beck hyperbole does stretch beyond CG.

See, Lebowski, was that so hard?

For the record, I posted that link in this same thread, 1.5 hours before SC did.

Tex 10-13-2007 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski (Post 135528)
For the record, I posted that link in this same thread, 1.5 hours before SC did.

So you did. Next time, just politely point that out instead of whining about it.

Jeff Lebowski 10-13-2007 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 135553)
So you did. Next time, just politely point that out instead of whining about it.

Must ....... resist........ comment..........arrrgggghhhhh........

(Lebowski gets dragged back up on the wagon. Phew)

jay santos 10-13-2007 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski (Post 135554)
Must ....... resist........ comment..........arrrgggghhhhh........

(Lebowski gets dragged back up on the wagon. Phew)

Hold back, dude, it's not worth it. Tex: from neutral third party, that comment to Lebowski to point it out nicely when that's exactly what he did was probably one of your dooziest doozies ever. But thanks for the MTN info, though it sucks for me.

Cali Coug 10-13-2007 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jay santos (Post 135292)
Here it is.

http://www.lds.org/conference/talk/d...775-27,00.html

Which parts do you think were offensive? She actually never really even tells women to stay at home.

My analysis of the controversial parts:



I like this. I would love to have this emphasized every conference.



The bolded sentence might be a little over-the-top. But I still like it. She's complimenting the mothers in third world countries that are making a sacrifice to come to church and get their kids dressed up best they can. It's not an indictment on those who don't. I'm sure there are moms with teenage boys that come to church with Beatles hair and a colored shirt that were offended by this, but I don't think they need to be.



I thought this was great and shouldn't offend anyone.



This is probably the part that could have been left out. It's probably possible for a Mormon mother to be the most perfect Mormon mom that's ever walked the face of the earth and never cook, clean, or do laundry. And at a minimum, if a Mormon mother struggles with some of those areas, it doesn't mean they're not a good nurturer. My wife just blew this part off, but I can see this offending people. It offended people I know are good Mormon moms. I don't mind putting a high standard out there, such as LDS youth should be most chaste. Or LDS as a group should have most scripture knowledge, whatever. But the high standard in an area of cooking and cleaning is lame, I agree with the critics on that.



I like this. Teaching children to work is one of most important jobs as a parent and working together does that + creates quality together time.



I like this. The emphasis is on nurturing and creating home for spiritual growth. Very important concept and should receive a mother's best efforts. The education line is a little problematic. It's similar to the success in the world doesn't make up for failure in the home line, which applies to mothers and fathers. But education is a weird comparison. Would have been better to say "success or achievement outside the home" and leave it general.



Excellent, IMHO. Only a vague reference to working outside the home. Certainly not a THOU SHALT NOT. It's the principle that matters and she stated it.



Pretty innocuous and certainly inoffensive. She's not telling us the home is an MTC and things not fit for the MTC are not fit at home, she's just saying the home is the first place children are taught the gospel and trained to be servants in the Kingdom.

What people might be missing was how she built up mothers and the importance of the role.

My wife has been talking to other women, sisters friends, and this talk has come up a lot, some liked it and some didn't. She feels like it's the same issue with Mother's Day. Some great Mormon women have a guilt complex that's so large they can't enjoy Mother's Day because they have rabbit ears and look for something in the talks that shows they're not measuring up and then go into a pity party about it. That comes across calloused but it's not meant as an attack. Just an observation with a feeling of wanting to help the situation and help these mothers feel good about themselves while at the same time be able to acknowledge the importance of the role and examples of success.

My problem with it is the whole "mothers who know" rhetoric.

Sister Holland has two children who have led wayward lives. This is the primary reason Elder Holland speaks so frequently and passionately about how children going astray is not necessarily the fault of parents. Even the best parents have wayward children. And yet, Sister Beck notes that "Mothers who know build children into future leaders and are the primary examples of what leaders look like." Should we assume that Sister Holland is a mother who "doesn't know?"

What about mothers who are required to work outside the home (thereby restricting their ability to "nurture"). Sister Beck noted that "Mothers who know are nurturers. This is their special assignment and role under the plan of happiness." You could be a mother working outside the home and still be considered a nurturer if she left it there, but then she goes on to specify that nurturer=homemaker. What is the purpose of that statement? How is it at all helpful to those women who would love to stay home but can't? Doesn't it only make them feel horrible about themselves?

She took a cookie-cutter approach and then applied it to the entire church. That will almost never produce good counsel, IMO. Her entire talk seems premised on the notion that there are "mothers who know" and those who don't. If you don't fit in the cookie-cutter outline she described, you must be one of those who don't know. And that is why so many people found it offensive.

Cali Coug 10-13-2007 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 135351)
And I thought you were trying to be nice to/ignore me.

The implication of "Link?" is that the assertion is bunk. IOW, she didn't say women don't do enough around the house, and there is no controversy (outside of CG).

"Link?" is much more succinct.

A link that backs up a personal opinion? Are you just wanting him to link to his own post that states that it is his opinion?

Cali Coug 10-13-2007 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug (Post 135364)
Since I'm a prime "offender", I often respond with "Link?" because someone makes a comment which implies they are basing it on something they have read or learned, rather than a off-the-cuff opinion; and rather than just make a quick response to what they've said, I prefer to read more on the subject before formulating a response.

EDIT: Sometimes, I also ask just to see if they aren't just full of crap when they claim something specific (i.e. not offered as opinion) but sounds too outlandish to be true.

So for this statement, "I think she had no idea that the things she was saying would be controversial," exactly what would you expect from a link?

Someone else's opinion that Sooner didn't think she knew what she was saying would be controversial? Or someone else's opinion that she didn't know what she was saying would be controversial? Wouldn't any such link also require yet another link to someone else's opinion? And exactly what would be the value of any of that?

Cali Coug 10-13-2007 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug (Post 135382)
Yes.

If all talks were approved ahead of time, the transcript of all talks would match exactly the published version in the Ensign, which is most certainly not the case.

Solon 10-13-2007 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black Diamond Bay (Post 135368)
IMO, men generally aren't any good at cleaning anyway. Women do a better job at it, so they probably should be spearheading the efforts to make sure the home isn't turning into a dump.

Maybe men aren't any good at it because they don't get church lessons emphasizing how important it is for females to be house-cleaners.

http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOr...ontentLocale=0

and

http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOr...ontentLocale=0

There's nothing wrong with having a clean house. It's probably not the most productive use of church instruction time, though. It's especially glaring that there is no equivalent lesson for young men. Apparently, the young men have more important things to learn.

Cali Coug 10-13-2007 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solon (Post 135560)
Maybe men aren't any good at it because they don't get church lessons emphasizing how important it is for females to be house-cleaners.

http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOr...ontentLocale=0

and

http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOr...ontentLocale=0

There's nothing wrong with having a clean house. It's probably not the most productive use of church instruction time, though. It's especially glaring that there is no equivalent lesson for young men. Apparently, the young men have more important things to learn.

That bothers me too. Do men have no responsibility to clean or help around the house? It is certainly the implication. Fathers "who know" work, go home, and watch television. I am waiting for that talk from Mr. Beck.

SteelBlue 10-13-2007 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 135556)
My problem with it is the whole "mothers who know" rhetoric.

After hearing the talk, this was the exact feeling I had. It wasn't until I went back and re-read the talk that I remembered that "mothers who know" was a tie in to Alma 56:48 ("Our mothers knew it"). I think I see what she was trying to do there, but I'm afraid it had the effect of leading folks to the logical conclusion that if one isn't doing things in exactly her prescribed manner then they are a mother who "doesn't know". I'm not sure that was her intention, but I can certainly see how people arrive at that conclusion.

jay santos 10-13-2007 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solon (Post 135560)
Maybe men aren't any good at it because they don't get church lessons emphasizing how important it is for females to be house-cleaners.

http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOr...ontentLocale=0

and

http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOr...ontentLocale=0

There's nothing wrong with having a clean house. It's probably not the most productive use of church instruction time, though. It's especially glaring that there is no equivalent lesson for young men. Apparently, the young men have more important things to learn.

Some of the Duty to God requirements for young men include making meals for the family and doing their own laundry. Lessons published by the church for young men include instruction to learn how to cook, clean, iron shirts, etc.

SoonerCoug 10-13-2007 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jay santos (Post 135594)
Some of the Duty to God requirements for young men include making meals for the family and doing their own laundry. Lessons published by the church for young men include instruction to learn how to cook, clean, iron shirts, etc.

But the reason given for males learning to cook, clean, and iron is mission prep, not marriage prep.

SoCalCoug 10-13-2007 10:23 PM

Still waiting to hear why I'm off-base on my actual criticism of Sis. Beck's talk. People on Mullah-central were very quick to condemn me, without actually addressing my criticism.

By the way, I think Cali and SteelBlue have put it much more clearly than I did. I completely endorse their posts.

jay santos 10-13-2007 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug (Post 135596)
But the reason given for males learning to cook, clean, and iron is mission prep, not marriage prep.

That's kind of true. The Duty to God requirement is more of a life preparation thing, the lessons are usually specifically mission prep. That is a mistake, IMHO.


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:29 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.