- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
It’s a line from one of my favorite movies, Some Like It Hot. I am borrowing it tonight because I am weirded out by all my LDS gal-pals who are announcing their “Social Media” fasts. My first gripe is that we weren’t told to do it now. It had no time limit.
Second gripe – we were instructed to keep it between the Lord and ourselves.
Third gripe – We are all adults. This isn’t a one up game.
In keeping with moderation in all things, I will not be having a “Social Media Fast”.
When I asked my wife how women’s session was the only thing she mentioned was the social media fast. I think she likes the idea, but honestly I don’t think she can do it. A lot of her communication, including with children and other family, is through Facebook Messaging. I told my wife that I didn’t need to worry about it because 1) the youth and women had been “invited” but not the men and 2) I don’t use social media. (She suggested my participation here, which she actually knows little about, counts because it’s social.) And, this whole thing went around our stake following RMN’s “invitation” to youth to do the same thing – we even had a youth testimony meeting about how wonderful it was (the SP even cried for good measure). So, I’m with you Mom. It is a bit nauseating to me. If I did use social media and fasted from it, do you really think I’d use the spare time reading the BoM? (Hint: no, I’d probably use another time waster like TV or games.)
That was the biggest thing my wife mentioned as well. Just my two cents: 1. Taking a break is sometimes a good way to be “moderate”.
2. If people “kept it to themselves” how would anyone else validate how good you are?
3. Deep down, adults aren’t very different from children.
It does seem like sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice, which I’m not a fan of in the Church. But of all the Church related things that make my tummy hurt, I don’t think this makes the top 10.
I also will not be doing a social media “fast” in the 10 day sense. I am analyzing and following the “Spirit of the Law” behind his request to the best of my ability. His talk prompted me review how I spend my “social media time” each day – and I realized that there were some changes to make (so I made them) on a non-temporary period of time.
To me, the points of fasting are as follows:
a) To change our behavior for a specific period of time as part of a sanctifying process.
b) To demonstrate a commitment to God.
c) To signal community participation
I guess 1.5 out of 3 ain’t bad
When I limit my social media participation to the most meaningful for me at this time in my life, I have been replacing it with a) more “present” time with my family and b) trading upward in my media usage.
dande48 wrote:
But of all the Church related things that make my tummy hurt, I don’t think this makes the top 10.
Of all the things spoken of at the women’s conference, this one also wasn’t a point mentioned that I am wrestling with.
The whole “handing off the emotional load of teaching the home-centered church-supported gospel study program to the females because they are “nurturers”” still makes me see red and want to throw up. I also mourn that President Oaks cited the PoF to justify extending the spiritual nurturing meaning, but missed an opportunity to cite the same document as an opportunity to work with your partner to co-teach the program in the home (which is what it needs to be).
While I am 90% certain that that is the gist of the request being made by President Oaks and President Nelson, I am not sure that I getting his message in the way he intended (in fact, judging from the number of women who don’t bat an eye at this expectation, I must have missed something). I also intellectually (and about 50% emotionally) recognize that my situation between my home life and the place I am spiritually puts me as an outllier in the conversation.
I am not sure exactly the context of how it was said but DW reported that President Oaks listed people getting married later as if it was a bad thing. This was concerning to her because we know of a number of couples that got married young and it did not quite end well. DW and I married at the ripe old age of 25! 😆 We specifically delayed our marriage for 6 months in order that DW could graduate with her degree first. It was the right decision for us.Again, not sure the context on this one but lots of things can go wrong if you are suggesting that young women’s life goals after high school should be to get married and have babies.
Roy wrote:
I am not sure exactly the context of how it was said but DW reported that President Oaks listed people getting married later as if it was a bad thing. This was concerning to her because we know of a number of couples that got married young and it did not quite end well. DW and I married at the ripe old age of 25!😆 We specifically delayed our marriage for 6 months in order that DW could graduate with her degree first. It was the right decision for us.Again, not sure the context on this one but lots of things can go wrong if you are suggesting that young women’s life goals after high school should be to get married and have babies.
Yes, that was a concern listed by President Oaks. He also cited smaller families as a bad thing as well. I married at age 26.
I take it as “a concern for the institution” when people marry later in life and have fewer children because that means that fewer people are locked into institution loyalty through marriage and there are fewer built-in converts to the institution. It makes sense that from his position in leadership that is what he would focus on. And when he was our age (35-55 years ago or so depending), that was a different era with a different job climate. Also, roughly back then, there was the binary of “have lots of children” or “we are overpopulating the world” as cultural messages.
Quote:am not sure exactly the context of how it was said but DW reported that President Oaks listed people getting married later as if it was a bad thing. This was concerning to her because we know of a number of couples that got married young and it did not quite end well. DW and I married at the ripe old age of 25!
😆 We specifically delayed our marriage for 6 months in order that DW could graduate with her degree first. It was the right decision for us.Again, not sure the context on this one but lots of things can go wrong if you are suggesting that young women’s life goals after high school should be to get married and have babies.
Elder Oaks has been on that train since he was put in the 1st Presidency. He and his 2nd wife (a woman who waited until she was 50 to marry) ripped into the YSA’s in Denver a year ago on the same topic. And “ripped in” was my single daughters description of the event. My daughter is TBM, and spends half her life trying to point out positive spins on church related things. That weekend she was so hurt, angry, heartbroken.
Oaks delivers no news well. If he doesn’t approve of something he uses a hammer to make his point. It hasn’t always been him, but it is now.
In her rage my daughter pointed out that not every girl could just sit in the lobby of the Joseph Smith building and hope a widower GA was walking through.
There were YSA’s who left the meeting crying. Way to build the team.
AmyJ wrote:
I take it as “a concern for the institution” when people marry later in life and have fewer children because that means that fewer people are locked into institution loyalty through marriage and there are fewer built-in converts to the institution.
I may be naïve but I assumed the counsel was more rooted in:
1) The crux of god’s entire plan is procreation (there’s a subtle dig embedded in this one).
2) Hormones kick in at an early age. Marrying young helps people avoid the sin of fornication.
3) We have a finite number of years to procreate.
If one were to wait until their 30s to get married and then wait a few more years to get established financially they may find themselves in a situation where they want to have more children but can’t.
I think that’s the thought process. Less concern for the institution and more “the clock is ticking” …’cuz god can always raise up children of Abraham from stones… from what I’ve heard.
mom3 wrote:
Elder Oaks has been on that train since he was put in the 1st Presidency. He and his2nd wife (a woman who waited until she was 50 to marry)ripped into the YSA’s in Denver a year ago on the same topic. And “ripped in” was my single daughters description of the event. My daughter is TBM, and spends half her life trying to point out positive spins on church related things. That weekend she was so hurt, angry, heartbroken.
Do you think this why? I mean, in the Church, we put such a HUGE importance on getting married and having kids. And when someone is “righteous”, etc, and yet doesn’t get married until their 50 (or at all), I’m sure they start wondering who or what’s to blame. Certainly God can’t be to blame, and the Church is pretty adamant there’s “no such thing as luck”…
Sister Oaks has been pretty hurt by being single for so long, and so I think her and her husband are on a crusade to root out the cause of the problem. Women are too carrier focused. Guys are bums. Pornography. Facebook. Video games. Gays… He spends so much time trying to determine and fix the root of the problem, that he neglects those who are suffering.
Well to them it really is a contest. They are literally trying to out Jesus everyone or they want everyone to see how faithful they are apparently. This same thing goes with those who post where they are going for their mission, create events for their mission farewell/homecomings. Or, I recently saw someone live streaming their sons mission call opening on Facebook. Leaders denounce this behavior. But sadly people are just trying to show how great they are and that’s the end result of social media. Everyone wants to foster this image that their lives are so perfect. Or, in some cases, they want to share their joy with people who live too far away to gather at their house for the old-fashioned mission letter opening. There are obvious examples of being pridefulness and religious competition, but, sometimes, what we see that way is nothing more than a benefit of modern technology. I prefer to take as charitable and understanding a view as possible.
Here were my ruminations on the social media fast, which incidentally I only found out about via Twitter, so take that for what it’s worth! https://wheatandtares.org/2018/10/09/ruminations-on-a-10-day-social-media-fast-for-women-girls/ A social media fast is a GOOD THING but not when regimented. I have no problem with a social media fast, in theory. I have a huge problem with a social media fast requested exclusively of women.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.