"Mothers Who Know": the Modern Offense Translation - Page 6 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Indy Coug · 03-04-2008, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat

It was meant to inspire and uplift? Could have fooled me. My wife was not inspired or uplifted afterwards, that's for sure. It arguably failed much more than just some remote aspect. Give me a break.

I agree completely with those that said her use of the phrase "mothers who know" do such and such, implied that if you don't do these things, you're a mother that doesn't know.

Also, some of her examples were nonsense. Such as mothers that know have all their sons at church, dressed in a white shirt and tie, with missionary haircuts. LMAO! We have what, half the church membership inactive, and Julie Beck is harping on white shirts, and missionary haircuts for all boys at church? Guess I need to go home and give the 1 1/2 year old a trim, and pickup a white shirt and tie for him to wear to church every week.

No, you still need to get your own ass in gear before worrying about your kids' haircuts.

ERCougar · 03-04-2008, 08:31 PM

Wow...take a several month break from CG, and we're STILL talking about this talk.

What I think is ironic about the reaction to this is that those offended are quite mullah-istic in their analysis of the talk. That is, they assume every word is intended for them, every word is fundamentally important to the talk, and try to expand the talk to far beyond what was actually said. I doubt they take the Bible (or BOM) this literally. Or admonitions to not watch R-rated movies.

Just bizarre.

And no, I don't consider that a personal failing on their part. I just think that GC talks are general messages to the church. If you don't feel like it applies to you, let it go and move on.

MikeWaters · 03-04-2008, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BYU71

I do appreciate it though when in church there is some recognition that people can happily live outside of those paremeters. I don't even mind if the indication is it is much harder to do so, I just appreciate the recognition it can be done.

I can appreciate your need for hope that it is possible.

<rimshot>

NorCal Cat · 03-04-2008, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BYU71

I must have missed that. She didn't really say that did she? By the way, what is a missionary hair cut.

"Mothers who know honor sacred ordinances and covenants. 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."

Missionary haircut = above the ears, and above the collar

BYU71 · 03-04-2008, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Wow...take a several month break from CG, and we're STILL talking about this talk.

What I think is ironic about the reaction to this is that those offended are quite mullah-istic in their analysis of the talk. That is, they assume every word is intended for them, every word is fundamentally important to the talk, and try to expand the talk to far beyond what was actually said. I doubt they take the Bible (or BOM) this literally. Or admonitions to not watch R-rated movies.

Just bizarre.

And no, I don't consider that a personal failing on their part. I just think that GC talks are general messages to the church. If you don't feel like it applies to you, let it go and move on.

I agree with you. Many don't though. How often do you hear, "this is what was said in conference" as if it is some authoritative edict. I would bet some on here who fervently are saying no offense should have been taken, can be found elsewhere saying you don't follow the counsel given in conference at your own peril.

Here is the great dichotomy. Those who are more un-mullish do take the talks as seriously as those that are mullish. One group resents it because they know the other group at some point will use them to point the finger. Why do we care so much what each of the extremes believe.

ERCougar · 03-04-2008, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat

Also, some of her examples were nonsense. Such as mothers that know have all their sons at church, dressed in a white shirt and tie, with missionary haircuts. LMAO! We have what, half the church membership inactive, and Julie Beck is harping on white shirts, and missionary haircuts for all boys at church? Guess I need to go home and give the 1 1/2 year old a trim, and pickup a white shirt and tie for him to wear to church every week.

Good lord...wasn't she talking about some woman in Africa? Yeah, I think that's kind of a neat way that THAT WOMAN (and her kids) has chosen to show respect to her God, particularly given her circumstances of likely poverty. I certainly didn't take it as a commandment to dress our kids in white and cut their hair.

NorCal Cat · 03-04-2008, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

No, you still need to get your own ass in gear before worrying about your kids' haircuts.

That's my point. I will also worry about MANY OTHER aspects of my sons' life, and appearance, before I give a rat's ass about their haircuts. I guess I'm not a "father that knows" according to Julie Beck. Darn...

Indy Coug · 03-04-2008, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat

That's my point. I will also worry about MANY OTHER aspects of my sons' life, and appearance, before I give a rat's ass about their haircuts. I guess I'm not a "father that knows" according to Julie Beck. Darn...

Yeah, you're no better than those other string-pullin' women.

ERCougar · 03-04-2008, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BYU71

I agree with you. Many don't though. How often do you hear, "this is what was said in conference" as if it is some authoritative edict. I would bet some on here who fervently are saying no offense should have been taken, can be found elsewhere you don't follow the counsel given in conference at your own peril.

Here is the great dichotomy. Those who are more un-mullish do take the talks as seriously as those that are mullish. One group resents it because they know the other group at some point will use them to point the finger. Why do we care so much what each of the extremes believe.

No idea. It sure seems we'd all be better off if we cared less about what others said or thought about us and more about what God thought of us. CS Lewis said something about a lot of strutting around in our fancy dress for each other. Wow, that was a bad paraphrase, but I understand the point.

BYU71 · 03-04-2008, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I can appreciate your need for hope that it is possible.

<rimshot>

I re-read my post quickly so I may be wrong, but I don't think I used the word hope anywhere.

03-04-2008, 08:31 PM	#52
ERCougar Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,589	Wow...take a several month break from CG, and we're STILL talking about this talk. What I think is ironic about the reaction to this is that those offended are quite mullah-istic in their analysis of the talk. That is, they assume every word is intended for them, every word is fundamentally important to the talk, and try to expand the talk to far beyond what was actually said. I doubt they take the Bible (or BOM) this literally. Or admonitions to not watch R-rated movies. Just bizarre. And no, I don't consider that a personal failing on their part. I just think that GC talks are general messages to the church. If you don't feel like it applies to you, let it go and move on.