- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
That talk was really hard for a lot of women, but, as much as I agree that there were elements that were hard to take because of the actual content, I really do think that much of the reaction was about what many women assumed she was saying and not based on what she actually said. I have read quite a few things from women who had extremely negative reactions initially who read it later after the emotions subsided and realized she hadn’t said what they thought she had said in quite a few places in the talk. Their early anger took their minds away, and they missed or over-reacted to later things, in many cases. As to why Pres. Beck has impressed me, first, just having a strong woman who speaks authoritatively in an adult voice is a simple thing I like.
She also interrupted Elder Holland and Elder Ballard in one of the CHI training sessions, and it came across as both unscripted and common as I watched it. By “common”, I mean that both of them appeared to be accustomed to being interrupted by her, just like one of the male apostles might have interrupted them in a different setting.
I’ve also heard her say more than once that a Relief Society President doesn’t need to get permission from the Bishop or any other Priesthood leader to take care of her responsibilities as the RS Pres. In one instance, in the same training session I mentioned above, she said explicitly that an auxiliary president should do what needs to be done and then report what she did – not wait for permission to do it. She has said that YW should enter RS knowing how to act as independent leaders by actually presiding as presidents over their YM classes – exactly as YM are supposed to be doing in their quorums. I don’t think it’s totally coincidental that Ward Council being made the highest council in the Church (replacing PEC) occurred during her presidency.
There are quite a few examples I could use, and I do think the reaction to that one talk complicates many people’s ability to recognize the positives she has brought to that calling.
mormom wrote:To Roy — I am sorry about your daughter. I lost a grown son in an car accident. He was nineteen. It shakes you to your core. My daughter and son in law also lost a son. He drowned. He was five. We are very close, and I understand their vigilance. I just don’t think they understand why I don’t just step up, why I focus on my inactive sons’ positive traits rather than spending all of my energy praying they will repent, come back, or whatever. I won’t start again.
Thank you, I have since been fascinated with how LDS people cope with child loss. My wife and I attended a grief support group called “Compassionate Friends.” I got to wondering how a giref group in Utah would be similar and different. Sometimes the loss of a child strengthens belief, as that belief represents the hope of seeing that child again, that the child is not truly gone as long as you believe. I cannot be sure how facing child loss might have affected me differently if Emory had been born alive or lived to varying ages.
I suspect that an additional facet of the way it impacted me is that we just don’t know what happens to stillborn children. This has much to do with the church not having a definite stance on when life begins. As a result of this, stillborn children are not permitted by church policy to be sealed to their parents. Now the line of demarcation between stillborn children and miscarried children is stark but also somewhat arbitrary, so I am aware that permitting the sealings of unborn children would be a slippery slope (any clear direction on this point might have unintended consequences on abortion, stem cell research, etc.). But the thought that someone that I care so deeply about just fell into a theological gray area has definitely been part of my journey. I appreciate the chance to talk about it even though it has such limited application to your current situation.
mormom wrote:I would never try to teach my grandchildren something behind their backs! I was talking about maybe bringing the Samuel scripture up for discussion, at their house, at their family home evening, or possibly the two talks that were quoted a few posts back. I would give it all to them, or at least to my daughter who knows him well enough to judge for both of them, to read first, if they were even willing to let me give the lesson, which they might not be. My daughter knows I am okay, just wishes I were a bit more or less something or other. Same with her husband.
I still advise to proceed with caution. I’m not sure how I would react to my MIL asking to come over and teach FHE, especially if I later felt that the subject matter of the lesson was something my MIL felt was being neglected in the raising of my children. If you regularly participate or even teach the FHE lesson and the lesson is not overt, this might not be a big deal. Perhaps I am just sensitive to others attempts to influence the rearing of my children.
mormom wrote:I am more interested in them giving me some credit, or just relaxing and not always worrying about how open- minded I am. […snip…] I don’t want to change them, just want them to stop wishing I would change.
Taken out of context this is the same predicament that so many of us face with our families, ward families, and church culture in general (think Cwald’s family accusing him of being satanic and gay and count your blessings). A big part of this site is dedicated to positively building bridges with the more traditional Mormon way of viewing things. It helps to try to understand why people see the world the way they do even when they seem to not be interested in extending the same courtesy. As always, “charity never faileth!”
It took me a bit to find the talk, called “Mothers Who Know” not “Women Who Know” and I read it. I read it calmly, and truthfully, it didn’t make me mad, and I’m sure she is a very nice person, but those mothers she describes — I don’t think so. I think we all have the best of intentions and do the best we can by our children, but there is more to it than that. If I had had to live the life she describes, although I certainly did live parts of it — well, it’s not my style and I won’t apologize for it. I won’t get specific, but — nope. Iam a mother, and Iknow many things. Talks like this one are the reason I usually skip church on Mother’s Day. I don’t want to be unkind or name names because we are all friends here and if there is anyplace we can be honest and feel safe in doing so, it should be here — but these “Mothers” sound much more like some male ideal than any sort of model most females I know would aspire to or be capable of pulling off, for long. Not to that degree. Maybe I am wrong. Anyway, I am one mother who knows I would never have been able to live the life she has described and have no regrets about this choice. My children are a mixed bag. I could not be more proud of them, and I don’t believe for a minute they would have tolerated the vacuum tube existence described in this talk. One size fits all is simply not realistic. I may not agree with all of the choices my children have made but I would never go back and change our lives. I know they appreciate that. We were an active church attending, FHE having, family prayer saying, dinner together with a blessing, no r-rated movies or late night tv type of family, way into the youngest’s early teens, but our outside activies covered more than Disney movies together, ward parties, firesides, and pot lucks. I won’t go on.
Expecting most human 21st century women to read or listen to this talk and do anything but feel guilty, get mad, or just feel relieved is expecting too much. I’m sure she’s a nice lady. I bet she only has one hole in each ear, too. Those women walking many miles in their best clothes with their brushed and scrubbed kids are doing their best. I did my best, but I doubt either of us would hold up against this model on a 24/7 basis. This should not even be a suggestion for much of the earth’s population. Is this a universal church? I have said enough.
I still don’t think I am angry. Probably, I’m more bewildered that any thinking person could read/listen to — that talk and not feel at least astonished or dismayed that is was approved for worldwide consumption. I don’t think this opinion will change, even if I reread it several times. I will end by saying I am not criticizing anyone who would like to attempt to aspire to her description. I salute them and believe if that is their choice, they should go for it. I can’t help but wonder if they wouldn’t be setting them selves up for disappointment, though. Maybe I am missing something. Its a beautiful, big, diverse, spectacular place, this earth, and there are things I thought (still think) I might miss. I was not and will never be willing to pass them and it never occurred to me to deny my children wholesome, non religious themed experiences. Doesn’t make me better or worse than these, so called, “Mothers Who Know” — just different. Some people like chocolate, some like vanilla, some like rocky road. It just the way we roll.
Maybe Sister Beck is a great lady, but she this one should have been thought through a bit more. Just one humble opinion.
I was composing a response to Ray (TCF, among other things) got distracted when almost done, didn’t save the draft and lost it and now I have to go get dressed in pastels to sing in the Stake Choir at Stake Conference tonight, so I will try to redo it later tonight. I want to just do it now, but will jam myself up. TTYL 
Yeah, I said: Quote:“I agree that there were elements that were hard to take because of the actual content.”
Iow, I agree that the talk simply wasn’t a great talk for MANY women (and men), even if it was wonderful and affirming for others. It didn’t do all that much for me, but my wife really liked it. To each his or her own.
It’s the other things I mentioned that have impressed me about Pres. Beck, not that talk.
Old-Timer wrote:That talk was really hard for a lot of women, but,
as much as I agree that there were elements that were hard to take because of the actual content, I really do think that much of the reaction was about what many women assumed she was saying and not based on what she actually said. I have read quite a few things from women who had extremely negative reactions initially who read it later after the emotions subsided and realized she hadn’t said what they thought she had said in quite a few places in the talk. Their early anger took their minds away, and they missed or over-reacted to later things, in many cases.
I was actually physically and verbally ranting and raving during that talk, and of course this was before I had so much as a clue that any other women out there were reacting the same way. I just found the talk to be incredibly guilt-inducing, particularly since I have raised two kids, both of whom are completely inactive. There is not a day goes by that I don’t think, “Maybe if I’d done this or that differently… maybe at least one of them would have remained active.” I know I made a ton of mistakes, and there were times I probably went against the Church’s counsel. But I never made any choices in child-rearing that at the time did not feel right to me. I felt like she was condemning me personally, from the beginning of the talk to the end. On the other hand, the next time she spoke in Conference, I was prepared for the worst and was very pleasantly surprised. I can’t even remember what that talk was about, but I found absolutely nothing in it to offend me in any way.Quote:As to why Pres. Beck has impressed me, first, just having a strong woman who speaks authoritatively in an adult voice is a simple thing I like.
😆 Yeah, I give her kudos for not talking in that sweet, soprano voice so many of the women have. That just drives me nuts. I don’t even know how a woman could maintain that voice throughout the duration of a talk.Quote:She also interrupted Elder Holland and Elder Ballard in one of the CHI training sessions, and it came across as both unscripted and common as I watched it. By “common”, I mean that both of them appeared to be accustomed to being interrupted by her, just like one of the male apostles might have interrupted them in a different setting.
I’ve also heard her say more than once that a Relief Society President doesn’t need to get permission from the Bishop or any other Priesthood leader to take care of her responsibilities as the RS Pres. In one instance, in the same training session I mentioned above, she said explicitly that an auxiliary president should do what needs to be done and then report what she did – not wait for permission to do it. She has said that YW should enter RS knowing how to act as independent leaders by actually presiding as presidents over their YM classes – exactly as YM are supposed to be doing in their quorums. I don’t think it’s totally coincidental that Ward Council being made the highest council in the Church (replacing PEC) occurred during her presidency.
Well, I’m liking her more already. Thanks for taking the time to post that.mormom wrote:It took me a bit to find the talk, called “Mothers Who Know” not “Women Who Know” and I read it.
😳 Oops! Sorry!Quote:Talks like this one are the reason I usually skip church on Mother’s Day.
Talks like that are the reason Ialwaysskip church on Mother’s Day. I’m supposed to be happy on Mother’s Day. A guilt-trip is the last thing I need. Quote:Probably, I’m more bewildered that any thinking person could read/listen to — that talk and not feel at least astonished or dismayed that is was approved for worldwide consumption.
I’m just curious. Who approves these talks? I have always wondered if they even are “approved”? And where along the line would they not be? I mean, I can’t imagine President Monson having to approve President Uchtdorf’s talks. I can’t imagine any of the First Presidency having to approve the talks of any of the Twelve. Must the Seventies’ talks be approved? Or would it just be the women’s talks? My gut feeling is that by the time a person is in a position to be speaking in General Conference, no approval of his or her message would be required. I’ve also wondered what, if anything, was said behind closed doors to Sister Beck in the weeks after Conference. The General Authorities could not have been oblivious to the stir her talk caused. Obviously, she didn’t say anything that ran counter to the Church’s teachings, so there wouldn’t have been anything to chastise her for. I just wonder if she might have been counseled to tone it down just a bit in the future.Quote:Maybe Sister Beck is a great lady, but she this one should have been thought through a bit more. Just one humble opinion.
Among many.Quote:I’m just curious. Who approves these talks?
Nobody – except maybe God, in the eyes of the most conservative members.
I agree with you Kat – it really ticks me off when we get these kind of damaging talks, and no one gets up and tries to “fix” the problem. NO ONE, none of the prophets has come out and addressed the 14Fs from last conference. Why? IT IS FALSE TEACHINGS! IT IS FALSE DOCTRINE! Address the problem boys, before you paint yourselves in another corner. So if Costas and Benson, they were out of line, and Beck was out of line — why don’t someone in the leadership position say so to make it right? 👿 As far as Beck goes, with the exception of this ONE talk – is there anything else she has said that is “objectionable?” I don’t think so. Take away this horrid message, and I think you have a pretty good female leader of the church. I really like the way she conducts herself in the CHI training sessions, and I think if you listen to her in those meetings, whose message is NOT what you get from the talk. She was pretty adamant that the church is putting way too much pressure on the family, and that females need to have more voice in the local leadership. She also made some comments about getting back and enjoying the sabbath again, rather than it being a drudgery filled day of church. I can respect all of that.
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:I’m just curious. Who approves these talks?
Nobody – except maybe God, in the eyes of the most conservative members.
Really? I know that Jeffrey Holland made a point at this latest conference about topics not being assigned, but though I’m no expert, my understanding was that after the Ronald Poelman debacle, that talk content was vetted and therefore at least tacitly approved.
I personally don’t think Brother Holland is being totally honest about how conference works. I am not saying he’s “lying” but I don’t think he is telling us how things really work as far as GC and the talk are concerned. I just don’t believe he’s being 100% open and honest about it. HiJolly, give us the facts, please. If I remember correctly, based on a previous thread, you are Pres. Uchtdorf posting incognito, right? Everyone, let’s hold off on any speculation about that question until HiJolly (or someone else with personal knowledge of the answer) can read this and provide the answer.
Katzpur wrote:I give her kudos for not talking in that sweet, soprano voice so many of the women have. That just drives me nuts. I don’t even know how a woman could maintain that voice throughout the duration of a talk.
Oh, thank you for saying that. I feel like I can come out of the closet and say that I have trained myself to get up and leave whenever a woman is about to give a talk in GC. It has nothing to do with sexism or any other -ism. I simply cannot be in the same room with
thatvoice. And if I have to look at that plastered-on smile … oh, the humanity. Enough about Beck. I agree about Beck being supremely irritating and clueless. But enough about that. Back to the question about the daughter. Judgmental people feel like they aren’t good enough and fear how others perceive them. People who crave control don’t trust others because ultimately, they don’t trust themselves to do what’s right. And people who let fear rule their life do so because they feel they are on the verge of debauchery and it terrifies them.
I think most of these things get better with age and experience. Plus your daughter has your genetics. She may be under the spell of her husband, especially as pertains to her kids, because they are at a difficult stage of parenting, but her true personality will emerge eventually. Give her time to sort things out herself. Just remind her gently about being charitable and not overlooking Christianity in her push to be perceived as a sufficiently orthodox Mormon. Help her feel more comfortable in her own skin and to retain her sense of humor. Remind her Jesus hung out with publicans and sinners and didn’t ask them to wear a bag over their heads lest the children be corrupted. It’s just as likely that her kids will not want tatoos and piercings because their uncles will tell them how painful it was. Kids will form their own opinions. The more she tries to control what they are exposed to, the more they will deviate from uber-orthodoxy the second they are exposed to a more reasonable alternative.
The one thing I took from Mothers who know is this…We can teach our children correct doctrines but in the end they will govern themselves. And if they choose to be piered tattooed people, then it is their choice. I was turned off by the talk completely, but I understand what she is saying. However, no matter what, we can not force our children to do the right thing and at least one Parent knew that (I’d argue two did but ….) and they sent a mediator…a savior to fix all of it through the power of repentance and forgivness. I think it’s one of the things that irks me to no end, the de-valuing of the Atonement. The whole faith without works is dead mentality, when in fact we can perform every ordinance, keep every covenant, do all we can do, but with out the Atonement it would be all for naught. I hate how people think the Atonement is the milk and the rest is the meat, when to me it is exactly the opposite. If you don’t know the true meaning of the Atonement of Christ the rest of it is meaningless.
I would hate to live in the world some live in, with no hope of their children or themselves having the opportunity to change, to think things are so black and white that the tatooed child will be lost forever, that there is no hope. What a scary place that must be to live.
and I think the story of the Good Samaritin would be a story you could tell your grandkids…how the ‘good’ people who knew better passed the beaten man, but it was the ‘sinner’ who helped him. I think Christ told this parable for exactly this type of thing, that sometimes we get so caught up in being the good mormon that we forget to be the good Christian. That the sinners are his lost sheep too. That being of the world but not in it doesn’t mean we exclude ourselves from loving those sinners. After all the comandme Christ himself gave was “as I have loved you, love one another’ there aren’t any astriks by that excluding sinners.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.