- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Fwiw, I have no doubt that the top leadership is well aware that there is no going back to the one-income, every woman a stay-at-home mom world of their childhood. I don’t think one or two are completely comfortable with it, but he / they won’t be around much longer. I haven’t heard that standard preached from the General Conference pulpit in a long, long time. Also, if you look at the demographics of the female general auxiliary presidencies over the past decade or so, there are some excellent examples of working women, at least one single sister, women with no (or one or two) children, etc. To take it one step further, even in the Q12, the only ones as a group with traditionally large families are those in the top half of the quorum – and the FP aren’t included in that group.
Finally, the new ad campaign (“and I’m Mormon”) features all kinds of members – from as traditional as it gets to very non-traditional. I think that’s intentional, and I think it’s approved and accepted by the top leadership as the way things are now.
I really don’t like this talk, but I am convinced it’s not representative of the outlooks of the current Q12 and FP.
I don’t doubt that most in church leadership see things differently now. Though those notions are so obviously outdated (and offensive to many), that was never really the point for me. The point was that a lot of people made difficult decisions 20 years ago because they thought it was their duty to do so, because someone took it upon themselves to speak for God when it was really only their personal prejudices (though sincerely held, I don’t doubt) speaking. And then, when those left holding the reins realized it was no longer convenient to continue to teach that particular revealed truth, they very quietly and thoroughly made it vanish, without regard to those whose lives were in many cases defined by the decisions that they had made in order to conform. In my mind, this is the ‘sporting with the souls of men’ that Oliver Cowdery refers to in my tag line. doug wrote:…The point was that a lot of people made difficult decisions 20 years ago because they thought it was their duty to do so, because someone took it upon themselves to speak for God when it was really only their personal prejudices (though sincerely held, I don’t doubt) speaking. And then, when those left holding the reigns realized it was no longer convenient to continue to teach that particular revealed truth, they very quietly and thoroughly made it vanish, without regard to those whose lives were in many cases defined by the decisions that they had made in order to conform. In my mind, this is the ‘sporting with the souls of men’ that Oliver Cowdery refers to in my tag line.
This is why we need to be very careful that we don’t just blindly accept and follow everything we hear from the pulpit — even if it is the pulpit at the conference center. God gave us brains and we need to use them, regardless of what BRM and those who take his word as god’s word might tell us when they quote, “when the prophet speaks, the conversation is over.”
I’m not sure what they can do about it now really – you’re right, the damage has been done in many cases. But yeah, this kind of thought plays right into the hands of the DA’s perpetual argument that the Leadership needs to tone down their “claims and rhetoric” about how members need to listen to their priesthood leaders, that the prophet will never lead you astray, that the church perfect, but the people are not, and that it’s either all true or it’s all false – “It’s either all true or it’s the greatest fraud…” etc etc.
Don’t hold your breath on that happening though.
cwald wrote:…This is why we need to be very careful that we don’t just blindly accept and follow everything we hear from the pulpit — even if it is the pulpit at the conference center. God gave us brains and we need to use them, regardless of what BRM and those who take his word as god’s word might tell us when they quote, “when the prophet speaks, the conversation is over.” I’m not sure what they can do about it now really – you’re right, the damage has been done in many cases. But yeah,
this kind of thought plays right into the hands of the DA’s perpetual argument that the Leadership needs to tone down their “claims and rhetoric” about how members need to listen to their priesthood leaders, that the prophet will never lead you astray, that the church perfect, but the people are not, and that it’s either all true or it’s all false – “It’s either all true or it’s the greatest fraud…” etc etc… Don’t hold your breath on that happening though.Exactly, as long as there are enough people willing to believe or do whatever they say without complaining about it then there’s not much incentive for them to do things radically different than they have so far or even to recognize any major problems with some of these policies to begin with. When I say they should tone it down with some of their claims and demands for unquestioning obedience all I really mean is that I think that would be a more graceful response to some of the inconsistencies in their story and the relative weakness of their position at this point rather than trying to pretend these problems don’t exist and then hope the majority of active members won’t notice.
However, I’m not convinced that many of these Church leaders have seriously considered some of these questions in detail to begin with and I actually think many if not the majority of them are still basically in denial or ignorant of many of these issues. My guess is that at least half of them still think the whole stay-at-home mom idea was right all along and would still be the best case scenario but they just rationalize that it’s not a good idea to try to emphasize it so much anymore. That’s why I don’t really expect them to apologize for it and openly admit they were wrong because I’m just not convinced that enough of them really believe they were really wrong enough to come to a consensus and make an official statement about it.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:That’s why I don’t really expect them to apologize for it and openly admit they were wrong because I’m just not convinced that enough of them really believe they were really wrong enough to come to a consensus and make an official statement about it.
To be fair, because I have moved away from black and white, binomial thinking…I don’t know that I see they were wrong or owe an apology. It could have been right for a certain time and certain group of people…even if it is not an eternal unchanging truth being taught that is “right” for all people (like most other things in the church, IMO).
My friend at work (not a member) was just telling me how his wife is a stay at home mom and it is difficult for them, but while their kids are young, that sacrifice is something he believes is worthwhile. I think he is right…we may make sacrifices for something better.
It seems to be a cultural problem when people take the prophets guidance on personal matters (sex, education, careers) as God’s words or eternal truths and then believe it is something others must follow or they will be cut off from the spirit. I don’t think such literalism can withstand the test of time…even for a prophet.
Regardless, many families have been blessed for making sacrifices for the good of the family, others have had trials with self-worth or unrighteous dominion as a result of it.
cwald wrote:This is why we need to be very careful that we don’t just blindly accept and follow everything we hear from the pulpit
Amen, brother…Amen.
It isn’t something that they will apologize for and I do think that many of the GA’s still think that way. It is like my husband’s grandmother, she comes from a different time when that worked for them. Of course what worked for you is going to seem like the best idea. Since these men come from the same time as the grandmother, I am sure that they do still feel that way. But (thankfully) times have changed and it isn’t always going to work the same. I do recall (but couldn’t tell you the names right now) that there have been talks that have been given that it is OK for the women to work outside the home if it is necessary. Now a days, it is necessary. I am grateful that the speakers have changed the story (even if they don’t agree 100%).
I am glad that I had my learning experience. I am very glad that I can say “it worked for them, but for me it is going to have to be a little different”. I just really feel for those that can’t do that for themselves. When YW would come to me for advice I have said many times “You need to do what works best for you.” And I fully believe that.
Yeah Heber, that is all true – but I think the advice about mothers staying at home to raise kids is the LEAST dangerous of all the advice. What about the BC, and not waiting to get married, and the have a many kids as you can, and put off education to have kids, and that Saturday Warriors is real etc etc. I don’t know, I am VERY grateful that my wife did not listen to this advice. She wanted to serve a mission, but her Dad (Bishop at the time) told her he would not support her serving a mission until AFTER she graduated from college. NOW THAT IS THE KIND OF ADVICE we need to be hearing at BYU devotions! Not get married as fast as you can and have kids right now and as many of them as you can. That causes problems down the road – lots of them.
BTW – jwald put me through school, had a pretty darn good career in medicine – and gave it up to have/raise kids when I finally got a job. Nothing wrong with sacrificing for kids and family – but I don’t think that is what happens in our culture very often – and I think this talk, and others like it before are to blame for a lot of it. Once again, I think it’s a cultural thing – and I don’t like the culture. That’s just my opinion.
I was in an institute class and the token older person (I believe there was a restriction to how many older people could attend) shared a powerful personal experience on this topic. She told of how an Ensign article was dedicated to not waiting to have children. She got the mail first and decided to hide the Ensign in the attic because she knew her husband would want to follow the advice of the article and she didn’t feel ready.
Several days later her husband spontaneously cleaned the attic and was surprised to find the current issue of the Ensign up there. When she came home from her classes the Ensign was sitting on the table.
They talked it over and decided to move forward with having children. Several years and 2 children later a medical condition was discovered and the treatment of this condition rendered this sweet woman sterile. The moral of the story is that if they had waited, they would never have had children of their own.
This story was more powerful than anything the institute instructor could have said on the subject.
When my wife and I were still newlyweds I heard of some financial planning program that took your goals into account. Perhaps I misunderstood the intent of the program, but I remember asking my wife what she would want set up incase I were to die after a year. She didn’t mention life insurance, or savings, or being debt free. DW told me that she wanted to have my baby. {FWIW we were both college grads with good jobs}
I have relatives that take the “get married young and have lots of kids” fairly seriously and they have made decisions differently than I would have. But I cannot, in good conscience, say that their life would be happier if they had me as their life coach.
The doctrine of the church (as they understand it) provides meaning and even glory to the daily tasks of caring for children.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:I actually think many if not the majority of them are still basically in denial or ignorant of many of these issues.
Perhaps for them (my relatives) and others like them to be “in denial or ignorant” truly is bliss.:thumbup: I am not debating the appropriateness or goodness of that counsel. I have no doubt that there are many families whose lives are in many ways better because they chose to follow it. Mine for instance. Others, perhaps, not so much. For the record, the counsel was for married women (not necessarily moms) to stay in the home. But, again, for me that’s beside the point. On second thought, maybe I’m not over it yet.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.