- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Ann wrote:
I have a hard time believing that this came out the way she intended. But setting the incendiary comment aside, I was concerned about the reference to age. I took her to be saying, Don’t let anyone tell you you’re too young to marry. (Maybe I’m mistaken.) I get the same feeling as when I hear that missionaries returning home are told that Job #1 is to get married. Very young people can marry well, but there shouldn’t be blanket advice that translates into pressure and overrides good judgment.
But maybe this is partly just middle-aged me. I’m so “over” this style of talk. Somewhere else the hypnotic quality of it was mentioned – “You will….you will…..you will.” I know it’s a speaking technique, but it rubs me the wrong way.
I feel sorry for anyone public speaking in the church now. The internet makes everything high def. – we see all the flaws.
The comment in question has been clipped here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=v-w_q3GUY3I The full talk is here, available to a global audience. The quote is at 32:30
And yes, there was a clear theme of marrying while you’re young.
Quote:Rebeccad….I unfortunately do not think Dalton was speaking in the future, if she was she was implying that the new “virtuous” future women will know their place. I agree with you that it would be great if women could even get the small step of saying a prayer in GC.
In my heart I think that is what was she was saying.
In my heart of hearts I think that she can’t really believe that.
I have to understand her this way, otherwise I find it impossible to repress the urge to send her a nasty note encoded in math equations. Surely she can’t be telling a women that they don’t need rights, how could anyone who has traveled and met as many women as she has, and has some authority over them possibly say that.
I put my head in my hands at comments like this. I don’t want my daughter to grow up with quotes like this available to her young womens leaders. How discouraging. – First, what is the General Young Women’s President doing speaking at BYU? This shows that the church hierarchy thinks of BYU students as kids; needing to be taught in simple terms. Yet every student at BYU who attends LDS services, is either in their ward’s RS or EQ.
– As I often do, I wanted to give the benefit of the doubt to the person being quoted, that perhaps they didn’t mean it in the way it’s coming across… so I watched it on BYU TV (and mckay11 has provided the link)… it’s clear that she’s making a carefully worded statement and boxing women into defined roles and responsibilities, and discouraging them from seeking rights that would allow them to move from that realm.
– Rebeccad… Unfortunately, she was not speaking of a future day when there would be no more need to seek rights, because rights are already recognized… rather, she was saying quite the opposite. “You will understand your roles and your responsibilities AND THUS will see no need to lobby for rights.” In other words, lobbying for rights is the devil’s work, for those not satisfied with what God and his chosen male oracles have defined for you.
– Sister Dalton also expressly counselled students at BYU, many of whom are 17 or 18, not to delay marriage because they think they are too young. You can see this segment of her talk starting at 20:30 and going for about 5 minutes. It generally speaks of not thinking of yourself as too young to accomplish difficult things, but the one specific example she gives is marrying.
– I’m not going to church this week in protest. And I’m going to wear pants while I’m not at church… and a non-white shirt. Kidding aside, I feel that my connection to the church is wavering, and these statements just make me angry… and make me WANT to stay connected less.
So, I listened to this talk — most of it — from the link above. The quoted comment is somewhat of a wierd insert into what is otherwise a fairly motivating, caring talk by the YW leader. I certainly don’t like the comment, but for the rest of the talk, it’s a relatively good example of a worldview that young people today are part of mighty things to come, and need to be faithful, valiant, and virtuous in this ‘final battle’. I don’t know. I hate the comment, sure. But then again, I hate a lot of where the church gets mixed up in politics — and they most certainly do. But the problem I see here is that to reject the entire sermon based upon the one statement — which isn’t even central to the sermon — is perhaps a bit extreme.
I said some harsh and extreme things earlier in this thread.
I wonder if we can, as a people, realize that opinions abound and that leaders are human and often opinionated. This isn’t to say that the specific statement should be ignored — but rather, we need to sit at a table, somewhere, and express that while such things damage and shouldn’t be done, we aren’t rejecting the basic messages of the gospel, as so well expressed by Sis. Dalton.
I’m quite serious in this.
In order to “stay LDS”, we need the ability to sort through things and find the gems — to anchor on that which edifies, while setting aside that which does not.
I agree wayfarer. I think it was just a stupid comment…and she probably regrets saying it. I would accept an apology and an explanation, and forgive and let it go.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
It was probably taken out of context. But she did say what she said…take responsibly for it, apologize and move on. Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
rebeccad wrote:Quote:You will understand your roles and your responsibilities and thus will see no need to lobby for rights.
I heard someone interpret this to be significant because it was in the future tense. In the future Young Women will not need to lobby for rights because they will have the roles and responsibilities that God intended for them. Hopefully that future will come soon, but it is not here yet.
While I doubt that is what she meant it certainly is not out of question. I will reserve any comment for or against as I would prefer to give her some time to clarify what was intended. If I was held to every sentence that came out of my mouth, I wouldn’t be liked by many eitherDBMormon wrote:rebeccad wrote:Quote:You will understand your roles and your responsibilities and thus will see no need to lobby for rights.
I heard someone interpret this to be significant because it was in the future tense. In the future Young Women will not need to lobby for rights because they will have the roles and responsibilities that God intended for them. Hopefully that future will come soon, but it is not here yet.
While I doubt that is what she meant it certainly is not out of question. I will reserve any comment for or against as I would prefer to give her some time to clarify what was intended. If I was held to every sentence that came out of my mouth, I wouldn’t be liked by many eitherExactly. And we are also expected to apologize when we make mistakes.
So…either she apologize and clarifies….or the statement stands…and the doctrine is set.
It is a huge moment for the church. What will they do? Will they do the right thing? And what do they consider “the right thing” to do?
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
And for me…it kind of is an ultimatum. The statement as read goes way too far against my ethics, morals and spiritual guidelines. I cannot let my children be taught this kind of doctrine as coming from God. Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
wayfarer wrote:So, I listened to this talk — most of it — from the link above. The quoted comment is somewhat of a wierd insert into what is otherwise a fairly motivating, caring talk by the YW leader. I certainly don’t like the comment, but for the rest of the talk, it’s a relatively good example of a worldview that young people today are part of mighty things to come, and need to be faithful, valiant, and virtuous in this ‘final battle’.
I don’t know. I hate the comment, sure. But then again, I hate a lot of where the church gets mixed up in politics — and they most certainly do. But the problem I see here is that to reject the entire sermon based upon the one statement — which isn’t even central to the sermon — is perhaps a bit extreme.
I said some harsh and extreme things earlier in this thread.
I wonder if we can, as a people, realize that opinions abound and that leaders are human and often opinionated. This isn’t to say that the specific statement should be ignored — but rather, we need to sit at a table, somewhere, and express that while such things damage and shouldn’t be done, we aren’t rejecting the basic messages of the gospel, as so well expressed by Sis. Dalton.
I’m quite serious in this.
In order to “stay LDS”, we need the ability to sort through things and find the gems — to anchor on that which edifies, while setting aside that which does not.
You’re right of course and I’m glad I read your comment at the end of the day… But I’m not sure I can keep up this emotional twist-me-up in order to “stay LDS.” I’m just quite sicked by it all today.
FWIW, the thread on the same topic over at MDDB* lasted all of 6 hours before they locked it. Apparently they can’t handle difficult topics without banging, shouting and then burying the thread from sensitive eyes.
I need to stop reading that board for a while. It’s bad for my spiritual health. I spend too much time disagreeing with the mormons who post there that it makes me think I disagree with Mormonism.
Problem is, it’s not just MDDB. I find myself (mentally) disagreeing the people in the 3 hour block on a Sunday too. Maybe I should go to the Methodists for a while. After all, 1830s Mormonism is basically Methodists with a Joseph style rework.
*mormondialogue.com
In the spirit of Wayfarer’s comment, I truly see the admonishment for women to adjust their ambitions downward to staying in the home only as a relic of the 1950s. I really believe it is advice from the wake of WW2 when men returned from war, yearning for the safety and warmth of their childhood homes, and they needed to feel they didn’t have to compete with their wives (whom they also wanted to see as mothers at this time rather than partners). People raised on this idea, who bought into it wholeheartedly, continue to sell it to others. Is it the gospel? No. It certainly wasn’t in the early days of the church when women & men were working side by side to build houses and work the farm. Everyone worked 80 hours a week. Now that we are in the information age, the workload is mostly outside the home, we’ve been urbanized, and there frankly isn’t that much domestic work to do anymore thanks to all the advances. But people bought this idea, and they sell what they’ve bought. Even polygamy, as repugnant as I find that, allowed more women to have professions outside the home – that was part of the package deal. The notion that this is some eternal principle (women at home, men out in the workplace) is revisionist history. Because I see all this as a cultural relic, I don’t associate it with true Mormonism. Historically it wasn’t.
On Own Now wrote:– Sister Dalton also expressly counseled students at BYU, many of whom are 17 or 18, not to delay marriage because they think they are too young. You can see this segment of her talk starting at 20:30 and going for about 5 minutes. It generally speaks of not thinking of yourself as too young to accomplish difficult things, but the one specific example she gives is marrying.
I agree. She didn’t give any other example though she went on about the getting married theme for a long time. I also felt that there were many uses of the word virtuous and pure – which she earlier defines as chaste. It makes me wonder, as a YW pres. what might be some major concerns? I am thinking that two concerns could be immorality (dang hormones) and young people striking out on their own/falling away from the church. It just so happens that early marriage solves both of these problems. The sex drive is satiated and the couple is statistically much more stable and faithful than they might have been separately.
wayfarer wrote:I wonder if we can, as a people, realize that opinions abound and that leaders are human and often opinionated. This isn’t to say that the specific statement should be ignored — but rather, we need to sit at a table, somewhere, and express that while such things damage and shouldn’t be done, we aren’t rejecting the basic messages of the gospel, as so well expressed by Sis. Dalton.
This is wisdom indeed. I felt that some of the damage from the incendiary statements could be balanced by her open statements toward homosexuals.
Quote:“The virtue and purity of your lives will attract the gays of all the world” 36:20
:lolno: Quote:I wonder if we can, as a people, realize that opinions abound and that leaders are human and often opinionated. This isn’t to say that the specific statement should be ignored — but rather, we need to sit at a table, somewhere, and express that while such things damage and shouldn’t be done, we aren’t rejecting the basic messages of the gospel, as so well expressed by Sis. Dalton.
I can raise my glass (of ginger ale or root beer) to that
It would be fantastic to sit and discuss things in an respectful manner. How would that be accomplished I wonder?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.