"Mothers Who Know": the Modern Offense Translation

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

If her intent was to ascribe a shared responsibility for these things, why would she not have said "parents" instead of "mothers?" As I said, I could maybe stomach all this a little easier then.

I don't like to be told what to do or how to act based on my supposed gender role. See, that's the point. As Mike notes, there's a division of roles held up as ideal. I know that's what's taught, so to say I am offended by it is not quite correct. I just don't happen to accept it as eternal truth, notwithstanding it being taught from the General Conf. pupit.

Understood. IMO, the talk was directed towards the women of the church, and therefore didn't include nor require the inclusion of the men.

IMO, she was not specifying responsibilities that are women's alone. I guess a good explanation of what I'm trying to say is that if you've got two kids, who're both supposed to clean their bedrooms each week, and you sit one of them down to explain to them the reasons why they're doing it, you're not excusing the other from cleaning his room at all. Does that make sense?


All that said, I completely understand the difficulty involved. The church culture IS one where women's ideal place is in the home with the kids, and the man's ideal place is in the office. And that can be difficult for many people...my own wife works full-time, and I like it that way. I think she's a happier person for working than she would be if she were a full-time mom. I'm also looking forward to her working part-time, as full-time is a little much for her with our newborn.

My issue with the reaction to this talk is simply with people reading things into it that I don't believe were there to begin with.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by Spaz

Understood. IMO, the talk was directed towards the women of the church, and therefore didn't include nor require the inclusion of the men.

IMO, she was not specifying responsibilities that are women's alone. I guess a good explanation of what I'm trying to say is that if you've got two kids, who're both supposed to clean their bedrooms each week, and you sit one of them down to explain to them the reasons why they're doing it, you're not excusing the other from cleaning his room at all. Does that make sense?


All that said, I completely understand the difficulty involved. The church culture IS one where women's ideal place is in the home with the kids, and the man's ideal place is in the office. And that can be difficult for many people...my own wife works full-time, and I like it that way. I think she's a happier person for working than she would be if she were a full-time mom. I'm also looking forward to her working part-time, as full-time is a little much for her with our newborn.

My issue with the reaction to this talk is simply with people reading things into it that I don't believe were there to begin with.

And, BTW, being a full-time employee, my wife OFTEN feels out-of-place with the full-time moms in the ward. And that's really unfortunate. Hopefully there will be a talk addressing this issue in the future. Wouldn't it be great if that was given by Julie Beck?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Spaz

And, BTW, being a full-time employee, my wife OFTEN feels out-of-place with the full-time moms in the ward. And that's really unfortunate. Hopefully there will be a talk addressing this issue in the future. Wouldn't it be great if that was given by Julie Beck?

Three years ago.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...5&postcount=42

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Tex

Three years ago.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...5&postcount=42

Tex, I am truly asking for information. Isn't this talk a comfort for single gals in the church. Did I miss something in there about women who willfully choose to pursue careers.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by K-dog

I'm not offended per se...just concerned that Tex, exUte, and others can't even imagine why someone could be offended by the talk without it being a personal failing. They can't comprehend a world where offense was actually given, not taken.

Ok, K-Dog. Is it fair to see you can't imagine a world where people give their leaders the benefit of the doubt?

[exUte]

Originally Posted by Flystripper

Tex Tex Tex

It is not as long and complicated as your post. The irratation with Sis Beck's talk is simple. Her rhetoric was unfortunate. By saying "mothers that know" do such and such, she is implicitly saying that if you don't do such and such you must not "know". Few of us believe that the implication was intended, but the implication was there none the less.

it's easy to take offense or take things out of context to conform to your own 'chip'.

[Spaz]

Or, the Politcally-correct, inoffensive version...


Mothers who know desire to bear children. If you don't desire to bear children for reasons acceptable to you & the Lord, you are of course exempted from this, and can therefore know even though you do not have the desire to bear children...

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. These mothers know they are going to sacrament meeting, where covenants are renewed. These mothers have made and honor temple covenants. They know that if they are not pointing their children to the temple, they are not pointing them toward desired eternal goals. These mothers have influence and power.

Of course as long as you point your children to the temple, if you are in a location where hair styles make it appropriate to have long, unkempt hair, cannot afford such luxuries as shirts & shoes, or have some other issue preventing you from reaching the ideal, you are still a mother who knows.



etc. etc.


Ridiculous.