- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Ann wrote:
Unfortunately, in that sentence I think having moral force is being equated with being physically mature, i.e., having fully gone through puberty.
Edited: I had a story in here that maybe wasn’t appropriate for the thread, so I deleted it.
That is what I thought too and it fits in context with other quotes from this talk such as the one about times when women demanded commitment from men. I actually had to Google your original phrasing of “secondary sexual characteristics” and I felt that it was right on target. I actually liked your story because it illustrated how this could pan out in the real world. I still feel really weirded out though.
All this talk about moral influence/strength/force as a euphemism for a cross between “don’t give the milk away for free” and “flirt to convert.” Guys will do lots of things for access to your heart and …ummmm… other intimate parts….
😳 – you might as well divert this force toward a good cause. I get it, Elder Richard G. Scott wasn’t even considering serving a mission as a young man until his sweetheart told him she could only marry an RM, it just seems like a really uncomfortable topic for GC.I posted this in the thread about GC talks being edited, but Elder Christofferson also edited his talk about gender roles to remove “feminist thinkers” from it as an example of people who denigrate homemaking. Another excellent editing choice.
:clap: :clap: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/56982696-180/conference-lds-feminist-thinkers.html.csp On Our Own, I also have major issues with this talk and the many others like it. I feel that “moral authority” is now just one more catch phrase that states that girls/women are responsible for YM/Men’s sexual purity, thoughts and actions. The church does not want to follow society and objectify women at every possible turn. However such talks as this reinforce to all that females primary worth and danger is their sexuality and what they choose to do with it. Then we have lessons about licked cupcakes and chewed gum that teach our youth if a mistake is made their is no atonement that can make one “unlicked”. What danger and heartache lies in such teachings! We as a church set up outward markers to judge and shame girls and women and provide YM/Men justifications for their lack of responsibility. Now we are labeling this cultural practice of placing both sexes virtue on females with a fancy new label…”moral authority / responsibility”. So now females are not only eternally a “chewed piece of gum” but they are not living up to the “moral authority” placed upon them by the church and God to keep men heading in a righteous direction. If you want YW and women to say no to sex then do not constantly shame females for being seen as sexual by both the world and the church. Instead the church needs to teach ALL that a woman’s sexual appeal is NOT her identifying marker. Teach all members of the church to see the value and importance of girls and women’s minds, talents, hearts, goals, dreams and desires OUTSIDE of and independent of marriage and children. If we empower our daughters and women to see themselves as whole complete people BEFORE and after marriage and children we will have girls and women that demand respect not out of fear of being “used goods” but out of true respect for themselves and what makes them each unique and valuable. The world fails women when it screams at them your only power is your sex and the church fails women when it teaches constantly that your only worth is your virtue and chastity. Both world’s teach girls/women that they have no true power in and of themselves because both are dependent on pleasing men in some way. The church needs to teach men and women that women are worthy of respect independent of their chastity and or marital or motherhood status.
Beyond all of this though, I truly worry that we are producing generation after generation of lds girls and women that do not know their own value and worth because they have never been taught how to listen to their own inner voice and feelings. Girls start to doubt themselves and their inner voice when they have natural questions about hard and complicated topics that do not have easy answers and are told simply that “well that is how the Lord wanted/s it and you need to have more faith” or “repent if you have further questions because you are being prideful”. We teach our girls to not explore who they truly are when we as a church so narrowly define their sole purpose and role on this earth. We further dim women’s ability to hear themselves when we teach “that to question a priesthood leader is basically a sin because one is not supporting the priesthood”. I feel that we often produce women that bite their tongues and look to others for what is acceptable for them to do in many many matters. I worry that my daughter will internalize the messages of both the world and the church which are simply different sides of the same coin. How do I teach her to listen to her voice when so many in the church will ask her to push it aside if she is to be a “good Mormon girl”? How do I teach her to walk in faith and obedience while at the same time teaching her independence? How do I teach her that her “moral authority” is limited only to herself?
Quote:How do I teach her to listen to her voice when so many in the church will ask her to push it aside if she is to be a “good Mormon girl”? How do I teach her to walk in faith and obedience while at the same time teaching her independence? How do I teach her that her “moral authority” is limited only to herself?
By talking about it regularly and openly – not obsessively, but also not with any hesitation.
I have four daughters, and they have very different personalities and attitudes about a lot of things. One thing they share, however, is an understanding of the need to follow their own consciences and make their own decisions – and the knowledge that I respect their right and fundamental need to do so, even when they differ from me, their mother and/or their sisters.
Ray I LOVE your advice!!!!! I hope to be able to do that! May I ask if your daughters are dating or married if that’s what they would like? I ask because that is the area I found the single greatest pushback for not being “a normal and quiet Mormon girl”. The dating options for a confident, intelligent lds woman can be slim as MANY lds guys are looking for the “quiet,hang on their every word, arm candy” that they earned on their missions. To clarify I was asked out by many lds guys so my looks were acceptable. I was even told the ” oh I have had revelation that you are to be my wife” from several guys but was chastised for “not following the priesthood” when I wanted to obtain my own spiritual confirmations about the relationships. Marriage and children will be the only options presented to her throughout her ENTIRE church experience so it is a big deal if lds guys won’t accept her.
I worry Ray that even though I do the things you suggest that I will be setting her up for issues later when she will never find acceptance in the church. She will have a very hard road if she does not conform to being the “good, quiet, follows without question” mormon woman that sits quietly and does what she is told. Trust me being different and questioning your place as an lds woman does not magically end after marriege. If your going to stay in the church you just learn to hide and stuff your true feelings to get along at church which is a sad thing when you think about it. Is that what I want to set her up for?
Quote:I worry Ray that even though I do the things you suggest that I will be setting her up for issues later.
Yeah, that’s parenthood at its fullest.
I don’t mean that flippantly, but a big part of parenthood is helping chidren be able to handle whatever issues come to them. Issues will come to all of my children, and my hope is that I have allowed them to become “virtuous” (root word means “
STRONG“) enough to handle whatever issues come their way. That only happens, I believe, by instilling in them a sense of self-worth, independent of social norms or others’ expectations – including those of others in the Church. They have to be comfortable in their own skin – and, in my case, that means allowing one daughter to be an uninhibited, sometimes brash, absoutely non-submissive, liberal socialist, while allowing another daughter to be quite reserved and fairly conservative. Each will face issues in life, and some of those issues will be the opposite side of the same coin – especially in the Church. Going back to the comment about virtue, I would read Proverbs 31: 10-31.
The list of things that constitutes being a virtuous woman is stunning in its scope and power.Like modesty, if we taught virtue in its fullness (not just relative to appearance and sex) I would rejoice enthusiastically. I believe if you teach your daughters to be virtuous women in the context of Proverbs 31, they will be able to handle whatever issues come their way. Old-Timer wrote:Going back to the comment about virtue, I would read Proverbs 31: 10-31. The list of things that constitutes being a virtuous woman is stunning in its scope and power. Like modesty, if we taught virtue in its fullness (not just relative to appearance and sex) I would rejoice enthusiastically. I believe if you teach your daughters to be virtuous women in the context of Proverbs 31, they will be able to handle whatever issues come their way.
I had heard the following verse several times: “Who can find a virtuous wife? For her worth is far above rubies” but never the remaining verses that add context to this. Thanks for pointing that out Ray.
I think what Ray is saying is that he is trying to give his daughters the support to discover and become their own unique ultimate selves. Being true to themselves may not be easy for them – but it is much better than the alternative.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.