- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’m a big believer in making people feel comfortable. There are covers, and there is a mother’s lounge. I don’t think it’s worth it to breastfeed in a public space, in order to make a political statement. If there’s no other option (and sometimes there’s not), that’s understandable. The worst sin the woman was guilty of was being impolite. And while technically not on the list of TR questions, it most certainly
can(not “should”) keep you from getting a temple recommend. I respect that sentiment, dande48, but I’m also a big believer in not going to silly extremes to make other people feel comfortable. I believe in not offending unnecessarily, but it goes both ways – meaning I believe in not succumbing to others’ silly reasons to try to make me feel uncomfortable. The best breastfeeding statement I have heard in my lifetime is:
Quote:If my breastfeeding makes you uncomfortable, I would be happy to get a blanket and put it over your head.
Just upfront I’ll say that this may be one of those stories where we don’t know the whole story and there may be more than meets the eye going on between these people (the SP and husband/wife). That said, I don’t think this is or should be a TR issue, especially not for the husband. Really, control your wife? What year is this?
I think both sides could give a little and both be happy. I personally see nothing wrong with public breastfeeding, including (maybe especially?) in a church foyer. My wife feels very differently on the subject and believes the woman should have gone to the mother’s room. She also says that 18 months old is too old to be breastfeeding anyway.
Something that is missing in this issue is the physical change of our churches. My childhood building had a glassed in cry room, much like a balcony, for mothers/adults to take their kids to and still be connected to Sacrament Meeting. A few years ago my brother and sister-in-law moved into one of the last wards that had a building like that. It’s a gem. A mother could flop a breast out if she wanted. The only people she might offend is the Bishopric, and I am sure they have seen breast feeding. We now relegate members of our community to hidden places to feed their kids. Covered or not covered, this woman had 2 choices – I guess 3 if you include her hiding in her car.
a. She can go sit in the foyer. In my ward the chapel doors close for the Sacrament and never come open again until the final amen from the closing prayer. Even when your not caring for a child, if you move to the foyer you are no longer really part of the community. Their in. Your out. Yes you can listen over the speaker, but sometimes the speaker doesn’t work, sometimes Brother Annoying turns it down because the High Priest’s from the previous ward can’t hear their lesson without it blaring. Never mind the comings and goings in the foyer.
b. She can go to the mother’s lounge. Which usually is the size of the janitor’s closet. Has 2 cloth chairs that have absorbed all the rotten odor of spilled milk, dirty diaper, spit uppy kids. In our building the mother’s lounge has a wall to keep things private. You open the door, walk around the wall, then get to huddle in the chairs. Well just imagine if 3 breastfeeding Mom’s show up. Where does Sister #3 sit? If you are the only one, there is nothing like being alone in a stinky room, in your dress, rocking back and forth to make you feel valued.
I suspect the SP and this couple may be at odds with each other. But he is “the wiser” person. A temple recommend is not a punishable offense.
I knew a Bishops wife who quit coming to Sacrament meeting because our SP made the rule that the Sacrament could not be passed to anyone in the foyer because the Bishop’s job is to “watch” the congregation take the sacrament. This Bishop’s wife had 4 small kids and a baby. Week after week she ended up in the foyer with one or the other. She gave up trying to come to Sacrament Meeting. It wasn’t worth it.
Leaders can be real jerks.
It never ends well when male organizational leadership gets involved in the mommy wars. At least 3 people got hurt/lost out in this foray – the SP, the breastfeeding mother, and the father. You can make a provision for the additional people who reported the family to the SP. For my .02 cents – I think that a mom should be able to nurse in any room in the church – including the chapel with a cover (if she is comfortable with one). If a mom is talented enough (and small enough) to nurse discretely without a cover – all the better. I personally never had the courage to do so – I always ended up in the foyer because the Mother’s lounge was converted to a classroom during the time that my little one wanted to eat. Had a good conversation with a High Priest once this way [Caveat – He is an unorthodox amazing High Priest and friend]. I also nursed with a cover during Relief Society.
If sensibilities come into play – isn’t it better to relocate personally rather then expect others to comply with your cultural standards? Or if you know the family is always positioned in the same place, relocate your family placement for the duration of the experience? I think ignoring those situations is the best action to take in general.
I don’t think that the TR should have been pulled for only or primarily this specific reason.
For me, the central issue here is a particular enforcement of a Victorian moral code that can’t handle even thinking about women’s breasts in any way (even if they can’t be seen) vs. expelling a woman from the community of believers in a real way (including being able to partake of the sacrament in some cases) for doing what is nowhere close to either sin or transgeession but simply a natural part of being a mother. In some countries, women nurse uncovered in church. No shame. No guilt. Nobody is uncomfortable.
I think we need to get over it, not perpetuate it. Ymmv.
I didn’t realize the issues that happen in some wards/buildings. Our building (stake center) opened in 1990 and has a “spacious” mother’s room. I have not been in there in a long time (I’ll peek next time it’s our turn to clean) but as I recall it has a sofa and two chairs and it is right across from the chapel doors. It is only used as a mother’s room. Crying children go to the RS room, opposite side of the building also across from the chapel and also with sound. There are usually people of one sort or another in the foyer, where the meeting can also be heard, and sacrament is taken out to the foyers. (One of our buildings does have the chapel window room mentioned by Mom but it is no longer used for that purpose, it is the “allergy free” room, also used as a classroom, and another room has been converted to the mother’s room but I have never been in that room.) So, yeah, I agree with Curt. The issue is a misinterpretation of modesty, Victorian/Puritan rules, whatever and it’s past time we get over that. If a deacon runs by and giggles that’s his problem, not hers. In today’s technology age it’s likely he’s seen way more than that (and actually presented in a sexual way) anyway. Those Puritan type rules (including things like gambling, face cards, etc.) were never part of Joseph Smith’s church according to Givens.
I wouldn’t take a TR away for refusing to refrain from public breastfeeding. But if I were a woman, and someone objected, I’d probably go to the mother’s room and do it there out of not wanting to make waves.
Bottom line — discipline and TR-withholding are the two heavy-handed sticks that church leaders use to keep the membership in line. The problem is that the use of such tactics tends to harden a certain subset of the population, who may decide never to get one afterwards. This is because they don’t like being controlled.
I said this in another thread, but when my daughter told me not to get a TR unless I was going to do it forever, and I therefore, sat outside the temple at her wedding, that was pretty much it for me. I paid a pretty high price not to have a TR, and it’s made me even more willing to do without. If I didn’t get one for an important life event like that, why bother now that there’s nothing further of any significance?
But that goes beyond the subject of this thread.
Even though I’m unorthodox, I don’t think it’s wise to repeatedly sleep in church, intentionally pass loud wind, burp, walk around knowingly with blood on your skirt if you can avoid it, etcetera. For three reasons — one is to save oneself embarrassment and loss of influence over others you might want later, and second, is to respect other people’s experience at church, and three, for self-actualization reasons. I don’t like to think of myself as ungentlemanly. So, paying attention to such things help me achieve my vision of being at least somewhat gentlemanly.
The SP should have stayed out of it – if it’s a genuine issue the RS President would probably make a great mediator and help come up with a mutually agreeable solution. Breast feeding doesn’t have to be a spectacle and can be done discretely almost anywhere. Most men I know don’t consider breast feeding particularly arousing; I’m not sure why it’s even an issue. That being said on my mission in Guatemala one of the first Sundays I was there a young woman, probably 18ish, practically removed her entire shirt to breast feed in Sacrament Meeting and I couldn’t help but stare at first. Nobody else batted an eye – it’s mostly about cultural norms and expectations.
Currently breasts are hypersexualized in US culture. Efforts to hide breastfeeding does nothing to reduce this hyper sexualization. I actually believe that it does the opposite and that by increasing the forbidden aspect the curiosity and allure increase. Women’s bodies are seen to be inherently sexual in the broader society and are put on display. Women’s bodies are seen to be inherently sexual in the Mormon society and therefore in need of being locked away. My biggest worry is that this will become a barrier for our young women to learn to appreciate their bodies holistically as amazing machines that build, and climb, and achieve. One of the things that DW and I loved about DD’s participation with the local swim association was that the human body was treated as a performance machine. All the participants wore speedo swim attire that was form fitting. There were partially undressed human bodies everywhere and it was not the least bit sexual. Roadrunner wrote:
That being said on my mission in Guatemala one of the first Sundays I was there a young woman, probably 18ish, practically removed her entire shirt to breast feed in Sacrament Meeting and I couldn’t help but stare at first. Nobody else batted an eye – it’s mostly about cultural norms and expectations.
I agree that it is a cultural norm. As a missionary in South America, I taught more than a few discussions to women that would breastfeed… uncovered… during the discussion without even skipping a beat. The first time it happened, I found it to be very distracting but over time it became less and less of an issue.
On a related note, recently in our SS lessons about the downfall of king David a member of the bishopric said that just one look was what set David on a path to adultury and murder. This bishopric member then relayed going to the local auquatic center and and how beset he was by the immodest styles in swimwear. My wife later told me that she had been at the pool at the same day as this man and had observed him looking quite obviously at the ground or the sky to avoid looking at the imoddestly clothed bodies. She had felt that he was doing the honorable thing but it sure seemed like strange behavior. If grown men, married with children, in positions of leadership must look at the sky to avert their gaze while at the pool … then … then … we might find ourselves in some strange conflicts over breastfeeding at church.
Lastly and more specifically with the TR/breastfeeding incident, I find that with a fair number of these punitive measures the leaders are responding at least partially to perceived obstinate defiance on the part of the member. Sometimes it can be phrased as, “If the prophet asked you to stop, would you?”
Hawkgrrrl referenced a good BCC blog post on the subject of modesty and sexuality. It was excellent and said much of what I was trying to say above. https://bycommonconsent.com/2013/06/18/men-sex-and-modesty/ If a women breastfeeding is a temptation, if she is an attack on the virtue of the Priesthood, if she is a sower of impure thoughts in the minds of the YM – then it makes sense that the leadership would want to protect the flock from such a dangerous individual.
Of course, seeing a woman in this way is a problem that goes much deeper than how covered/uncovered a particular woman chooses to be.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.