- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Dax, that’s the crux of it all, in my mind. It’s so hard to do that when the immediate reaction is emotional, so I appreciate wayfarer’s last comment about not throwing out the baby (everything else she said that was really good) with the bathwater (the part that wasn’t good). Also, as cwald has said multiple times, this stuff (things with which we disagree) is going to be part of any religion, whatsoever, if it consists of anything other than spiritual pablum.
Yeah. Hey Ray, Bill, anybody…do you think SLC is going to address this, much like they did with BKP comments about “why would god do that?”?
I guess, like Bill kind of said…Is this comment the position of the church? Or was it just a badly worded and thought out sentence that the church will be embarrassed about and get the PR department out?
I’m just curious what the more faithful members think is going to happen.
Ray…I agree it is the crux and as Cwlad stated there will always be parts of a religion that are frustrating. I have a question though and it is sincere, how would the lay, non-priesthood holding or any member for that matter bring concerns to the GAs? I guess I have never seen anything that got the tops attention other than members leaving or negative publicity. I do not want that for the church! The church does do some amazing things! How though do we address culture issues in a respectful non damaging way?
I agree with Cwlad in wondering if this talk will now be like so many others that the culture runs with. I hope not because as was stated there were some good parts, but to put that at the end reinforces her statement.
I wish as suggested we could have a polite but honest means to express concerns.
I think that she was preaching to the far right base and the rest of the church will just ignor it just like not watching R rated movies. The leaders will always reach out to their strongest supporter, especially when the base sees the other side is trying to gain more power. If the conservatives who would rather die than wear a dress sees the church come out with a statement that women can wear pants then they will start questioning some of own values and this talk just told the old guard that they aren’t going to get pushed out just yet. I don’t have any idea how or if the top leadership will “address” this. I hope they do, even if it’s just changing the published version, but I have no idea if that will happen. I think it was a poorly considered statement that is and will continue to be embarrassing, no matter what. I hope it is used somehow in future training as an example of what not to say.
In this case, since the concern is not directed at a local leader, the “proper” avenue for expressing concern would be to the Church Headquarters directly – preferably to President Dalton herself. It would have to be phrased gently and compassionately, probably with a sincere thank you for the good messages in the talk prior to an expression of dismay at the particular statement in question. I wouldn’t recommend an exclusive broadside, since I think she is a humble, sincere person – but even humble, sincere people can struggle to not feel attacked if, in fact, they are being attacked.
church0333 wrote:I think that she was preaching to the far right base and the rest of the church will just ignor it just like not watching R rated movies. The leaders will always reach out to their strongest supporter, especially when the base sees the other side is trying to gain more power. If the conservatives who would rather die than wear a dress sees the church come out with a statement that women can wear pants then they will start questioning some of own values and this talk just told the old guard that they aren’t going to get pushed out just yet.
Thanks. This actually makes sense to me..but it doesn’t excuse it.
Personally I don’t think anything will happen with regards to this talk, though I’d love to be proven wrong. My guess is that the general membership will never hear of it and has no clue that the bloggernacle is afire with discussion because of it (unless it’s gone viral on facebook, of course which I don’t use). Even as a TBM that went to all my meetings I never heard or listened to BYU talks/devotionals. eman wrote:Personally I don’t think anything will happen with regards to this talk, though I’d love to be proven wrong. My guess is that the general membership will never hear of it and has no clue that the bloggernacle is afire with discussion because of it (unless it’s gone viral on facebook, of course which I don’t use). Even as a TBM that went to all my meetings I never heard or listened to BYU talks/devotionals.
Good point.
eman wrote:Personally I don’t think anything will happen with regards to this talk, though I’d love to be proven wrong. My guess is that the general membership will never hear of it and has no clue that the bloggernacle is afire with discussion because of it (unless it’s gone viral on facebook, of course which I don’t use). Even as a TBM that went to all my meetings I never heard or listened to BYU talks/devotionals.
So I should probably not share the 20s clip on facebook then?
Yeah, probably not. :shh: 
Old-Timer wrote:I don’t have any idea how or if the top leadership will “address” this. I hope they do, even if it’s just changing the published version, but I have no idea if that will happen.
I think it was a poorly considered statement that is and will continue to be embarrassing, no matter what. I hope it is used somehow in future training as an example of what not to say.
In this case, since the concern is not directed at a local leader, the “proper” avenue for expressing concern would be to the Church Headquarters directly – preferably to President Dalton herself. It would have to be phrased gently and compassionately, probably with a sincere thank you for the good messages in the talk prior to an expression of dismay at the particular statement in question. I wouldn’t recommend an exclusive broadside, since I think she is a humble, sincere person – but even humble, sincere people can struggle to not feel attacked if, in fact, they are being attacked.
My issue is that this could take a life of its own for bad and bad. Bad because it will hurt those who struggle. Bad because I can imagine a pious YW or RS pres now using this to tell the ‘rebels’ in their ward to sit down and shut up.
Just removing it from the published version isn’t enough. It needs to be withdrawn.
If I wanted to write to the COB/public affairs team, how would I do that? Can I email them?
Public Affairs Department Joseph Smith Memorial Building
15 E. South Temple Street Room 2W10
Salt Lake City, UT 84150
P: (801) 240-2205
F: (801) 240-1167
General Public
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
50 East North Temple Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84150
United States
P: (801) 240-1000
I don’t know about a good email address.
Quote:
So…either she apologize and clarifies….or the statement stands…and the doctrine is set.The church released a statement that clarified that doctrine is not set by the comments of one general authority in one talk, but by what is taught consistently over time. I think that statement was released specifically because there are occasions like this.
Quote: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.
You are totally right. I heard a podcast once from a former adviser to President Bush, and he talked a little about the history of women working. He said that the idea of women staying home was engineered by the income tax structure and supported culturally because the national economy couldn’t afford both genders in the workplace.
The same culture also told fathers that their primary role was breadwinner and administrator, and as long as they did that, their children didn’t need them emotionally, let the women take care of that.
cwald wrote:Yeah.
Hey Ray, Bill, anybody…do you think SLC is going to address this, much like they did with BKP comments about “why would god do that?”?
I guess, like Bill kind of said…Is this comment the position of the church? Or was it just a badly worded and thought out sentence that the church will be embarrassed about and get the PR department out?
I’m just curious what the more faithful members think is going to happen.
99% of the church is unaware of this comment as they are not scouring the discussion boards and internet like us. first thing…. they have to know about it, only then can they have an opinion. I am not recommending we drag them into it, only that most are unaware.
As a side note, I am uncomfortable with the word “faithful” being used to describe those who are different then those of us. While the word has a negative connotation, the word naive is more appropriate. I am faithful, I believe the church is exactly what it claims to be, yet I am aware of what (for the most part) is doctrine and what isn’t (culture, mores, norms). The only thing that separates me from others in my ward is awareness. that means they are not more faithful but more naive. Again it has a negative meaning in our minds but it is accurate.
I also don’t like TBM as I want to refer to them as different then me but I am also TBM. I would prefer FBUM = Faithful but Unaware Mormons….. lol I realize I am asking something that won’t change but anyway my thoughts
What do you think
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.