Dispensing with some nonsense I have read ...

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Ignorance. Obfuscation. Denial of reality.

No, perspective. You can throw out such words as much as you like but they are not an argument in favor of your opinion. They merely underline your unwillingness to consider the whole issue and not merely the parts.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

However, I am concerned about the disaffected. ... Indy think good riddance.

Honestly? Link? What have I said that could even be partially construed to lead someone to conclude this?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Honestly? Link? What have I said that could even be partially construed to lead someone to conclude this?

I may have unfairly lumped you in with Tex and Lingo. Apologies.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Archaea

If it helps your conscience to believe nothing you do harms them and that they are ultimately responsible for their own actions, then so be it. They all make their own decisions and we should do everything can to offend them. Feel better?

Don't attempt to deflect and turn it on me. I'm not talking about me and my conscience. You want to single me out because you have failed to deal with the broader issue.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Overstated or overemphasized claims by Church officials can drive a wedge into the psyches of members who are struggling with concepts.

If a woman, who has spiritual inclinations, but a need to work outside the home, hears constantly, "You women who work outside the home are evil" more or less, that will drive a wedge. It will isolate that woman from the Church.

It's not nonsense.

I agree if a woman hears your above quote. I think tooblue's point is that the self defined perspective is what dictates how such a person hears what it is they hear. If they are hell bent that the LDS position on the subject is wrong, a consequence of cultural factors, sexist, not enlightened etc, then they are not exactly approaching such a talk with what one might call an open mind. Hence, IMO they are looking to be offended because they clearly disagree with the position from the beginning.

Can I believe that today's social and cultural contructs have as much of an impact on how young LDS women are frustrated by this position as the position itself?

On another note, do folks genuinely not accept that children are better off if their primary caregiver is a parent? Or is the offensive position that that parent should be the mother?


I honestly want to understand what bothers our younger LDS women about this position. My wife and community are not representative as the women out here still can, quilt, stay at home with large famalies and are barely literate.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Ignorance. Obfuscation. Denial of reality.

Well said.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by tooblue

No, perspective. You can throw out such words as much as you like but they are not an argument in favor of your opinion. They merely underline your unwillingness to consider the whole issue and not merely the parts.

Nope. I've got things to do today. That is what my brevity underlines.

I was nice yesterday when you were less than gentlemanly with my wife.

Today, I'm telling you to take a hike.

Please let me know if this little "talk" has affected you.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Don't attempt to deflect and turn it on me. I'm not talking about me and my conscience. You want to single me out because you have failed to deal with the broader issue.

In the grand scheme of things, people ultimately shoulder the consequences for being offended or being driven off. So what.

However, instead of tackling ticklish issues in a manner that is likely to offend the disaffected, I believe another approach is in order. Apparently you do not.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I'm not speaking that a talk will drive me away physically, but talks do drive wedges psychologically and then I just dismiss the importance of the talk and move on. However, I am concerned about the disaffected. JL and Indy think good riddance. I do not. I wish the Church would reach out to the disaffected.

If you are strong, it behooves you to aid those who are not.

of course we must aid those who are not ... that's why we must not entertain double standards. Of course we should be careful not to offend. But we also should not shoulder all of the blame when someone walks away.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

On another note, do folks genuinely not accept that children are better off if their primary caregiver is a parent?

This quaint belief is not supported by current scientific evidence. And btw, my wife has not worked outside the home for a long fricking time. And if she can live off me, she won't for a lot longer.