- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
yes there is some SMALL progress. I did read about how the general YW (or was it RS) presidency has some additional “counselors” outside of the US. They said they would generally meet virtually (Skype and email?) and these sisters would not need to move. That was a good change. I would like to see these sisters flown into SLC for women’s and other parts of general conference and give talks. Those are the board members I was referring to, LH. They generally don’t get to speak, but they do influence policy and presidency members are often called from their ranks. Here is the Mormon Newsroom article about the announcement: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormon-auxiliary-leaders-announce-international-board-members ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormon-auxiliary-leaders-announce-international-board-members https://www.lds.org/callings/young-women/leader-resources/biographies/board-members?lang=eng ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.lds.org/callings/young-women/leader-resources/biographies/board-members?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/church/news/young-women-general-board-meets-in-person-for-first-time?lang=eng ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.lds.org/church/news/young-women-general-board-meets-in-person-for-first-time?lang=eng That said, I had thought more than one of the boards had done this, but I could only find info on the YW doing so, although bios of all the boards on lds.org. Baby steps.
Taking the presidency + the board members you get the following distribution 1 Japan
1 Brazil
1 South Africa
1 Peru
7 US (6 Utah, 1 New York, 1 Washington state )
Absolutely a move in the right direction and I hope they continue to diversify even more. There is nobody from Europe.
Neill F. Marriott isn’t “just another Utah girl.” She went to Southern Methodist University. Joined the church at 22 and married 1 year later in the temple. Even though she has some impressive Mormon creds, it isn’t the typical “## Generation Mormon.” That is also progress to having a mix.
Old-Timer wrote:It really isn’t simple.
I do agree with that. The problem is that our seeing it as not simple is a sort of unilateral concession. The current make up of the three presidencies suggests that the Church does see it as simple. Let’s hope for a change this weekend.On Own Now wrote:.
To me, the issue boils down to
opportunityto live the lifestyle of “the Lord’s pattern.” Girls marrying in First World countries in 2015 and embarking on the life that will define them can be stay-at-home moms to a large number of children and remain above poverty ONLY if they A) were born into money, 
married into money, or C) married a man whose career will garner a well-above-average income. For the vast majority, even if they want to live “the Lord’s pattern”, they would have to sacrifice financial security, stay-at-home-ness, or the number of children. I think that creates a massive divide between people like these nine women, who claim to be the Vestal Virgins of the one true way on the one side and the rest of the women in the Church on the other; women who will be told (with a perplexed, but trying-to-be-compassionate look) from now ’til the end of time, that the Lord understands why it is so difficult for them to live up to His ideal, but that they should keep trying to do exactly that, anyway.This is what I was trying to say. I think the good intentions are there, but it looks more like “the Lord’s lifestyle” than “the Lord’s pattern.” Saying that it is their duty – and that it should be ours, too – to hold up this
oneway as ideal….? It’s starting to feel wrong to me. (And, except for the number of kids, I am a walking, talking advertisement for their pattern.) But when exactly did I figure this out? Not when I was in college, because then I was aspiring to be a stay-at-home-mom. Not when my kids were little, because I was too busy and their adulthood looked far away. It wasn’t until now, when the rubber has met the road and they’re schooling, working and dating. I realized that not only did the church not give them the models they need, I didn’t. Ultimately, it was my responsibility and I worry all the time that I failed. It took me many years during college to realize I wasn’t a failure for not getting married as quickly as all my high school Mormon friends; most were married and starting to have kids within four or so years after high school graduation as per the Mormon ideal. Now during our occasional yearly lunches to catch up, it seems at least one of them tries to hint at setting me up with a brother or a friend or something. Because being Mormon, I can only assume that they assume marriage is the end all for any goal I can have in life. đŸ™„ At least the close friends I have now are more diverse; it’s been great to see that you can be successful and good outside of the Church ideal and even outside of the Church itself.
Quote:I also get the feeling that Uchtdorf tries to be a bit in touch with the common man even though it has been years since he has had to worry about the size of his wallet (but then again to my point – he grew up in post-war poverty).
Like this?
[img]http://ldsliving.com/images/stories/large/19462.jpg [/img] Ann and West… two of my favorite virtual friends… Neither of you is a failure. Knowing you from afar, I would say it’s very much the opposite. And I think this an important aspect of all of this. There is nothing wrong with people who marry and start a family early and decide to have the man follow a career and the woman stay at home with the kids. If that is what they choose, that’s great for them, and if they are are able and are successful doing so, then good for them. But I can also say with certainty that there is also nothing wrong with delaying marriage, having fewer or no children, staying single all together, getting out of a failed marriage, having the dad stay at home and the mom follow a career or having both parents work outside the home. There are so many “nothing wrong with”s that it seems totally unnecessary to pick one and call that one the ideal. There are pros and cons to all lifestyles, and individuals should be able to choose the one that they are most likely to succeed with. I love my children and am grateful that we were able to follow (generally), the traditional path, but I see in my children that they have absorbed their upbringing and will adjust their lives to match the combination of what they grew up in and what they want out of life. One thing the Church does so well is teach young people how to be achievers. And in the case of West and Ann’s kids, I’m certain that the tools exist to achieve success in whatever path is chosen. On Own Now wrote:Ann and West… two of my favorite virtual friends… Neither of you is a failure. Knowing you from afar, I would say it’s very much the opposite. And I think this an important aspect of all of this. There is nothing wrong with people who marry and start a family early and decide to have the man follow a career and the woman stay at home with the kids. If that is what they choose, that’s great for them, and if they are are able and are successful doing so, then good for them. But I can also say with certainty that there is also nothing wrong with delaying marriage, having fewer or no children, staying single all together, getting out of a failed marriage, having the dad stay at home and the mom follow a career or having both parents work outside the home. There are so many “nothing wrong with”s that it seems totally unnecessary to pick one and call that one the ideal. There are pros and cons to all lifestyles, and individuals should be able to choose the one that they are most likely to succeed with. I love my children and am grateful that we were able to follow (generally), the traditional path, but I see in my children that they have absorbed their upbringing and will adjust their lives to match the combination of what they grew up in and what they want out of life. One thing the Church does so well is teach young people how to be achievers. And in the case of West and Ann’s kids, I’m certain that the tools exist to achieve success in whatever path is chosen.
I think it would be better framed as, “We need to raise children within a marriage if possible, but most important every child needs to be raised feeling loved and cared for and they need to be taught how to be successful and happy in life.”On Own Now wrote:Ann and West… two of my favorite virtual friends… Neither of you is a failure. Knowing you from afar, I would say it’s very much the opposite. And I think this an important aspect of all of this. There is nothing wrong with people who marry and start a family early and decide to have the man follow a career and the woman stay at home with the kids. If that is what they choose, that’s great for them, and if they are are able and are successful doing so, then good for them. But I can also say with certainty that there is also nothing wrong with delaying marriage, having fewer or no children, staying single all together, getting out of a failed marriage, having the dad stay at home and the mom follow a career or having both parents work outside the home. There are so many “nothing wrong with”s that it seems totally unnecessary to pick one and call that one the ideal. There are pros and cons to all lifestyles, and individuals should be able to choose the one that they are most likely to succeed with. I love my children and am grateful that we were able to follow (generally), the traditional path, but I see in my children that they have absorbed their upbringing and will adjust their lives to match the combination of what they grew up in and what they want out of life. One thing the Church does so well is teach young people how to be achievers. And in the case of West and Ann’s kids, I’m certain that the tools exist to achieve success in whatever path is chosen.
Thank you, OON. It’s much appreciated.
I respect my friends who have become wonderful parents at such young ages, and I’m glad that they seem to have found their own happiness. I wish their lives weren’t portrayed by many Church leaders as more ideal than my own, though. I wish we could have more Chieko Okazakis who are willing to speak about heavy topics like sexual abuse or Barbara Thompsons or Sherry Dews who are successful and single and were able to have prominent Church callings. I know a few friends who would probably be deeply touched to have a general women’s leader who left a failing, difficult marriage prior to serving.
Quote:Let’s hope for a change this weekend.
Don’t bet on it. Srsly, I would caution that this might be a good GC to skip for those concerned about what the impact of retrenchment will be on them. I suspect we are in for another wave of culture war talk. Just watch Bill O’Reilly instead. It will be similar. That’s my prediction.
It bothers me that there does not seem to be a proven track record of leadership with these women. I would like to have women that have a history of making decisions independant of male oversight. It bothers me that higher education seems to have been not considered, abandoned after marriage and family life entered the picture, or achieved but then not applied towards a profession.
It bothers me as OON has said that this lack of diversity in life experiences can blind them to alternate experiences and times where individuals attemps at following the “Lord’s pattern” didn’t work out so well.
Quote:Heavenly Father has a mission and plan for each of us, but He also has His own timetable. One of the hardest challenges in this life is to have faith in the Lord’s timing. It’s a good idea to have an alternative plan in mind, which helps us to be covenant-keeping, charitable, and righteous women who build the kingdom of God no matter which way our lives go. We need to teach our daughters to aim for the ideal but plan for contingencies.
I would like to pick this quote apart because it bothers me so much.
Ok, just to be clear – is the referenced “ideal” code for a marriage in a home with a working father and an SAHM or is it something else?
“Heavenly Father has a mission and plan for each of us, but He also has His own timetable. One of the hardest challenges in this life is to have faith in the Lord’s timing.”
Does this mean that HF’s mission and plan for each of the women of the church is to be SAHM? God also has a timetable and we must have faith in his timing? What does this mean? Does it mean that God in his infinite wisdom has seen fit to deny the blessings of stay-at-home-momness to some of his daughter for some pre-determined length of time? I am not even sure that it is agreed upon doctrine that God has a particular individualized plan for everybody. The circumstances that would permit someone to choose to be a stay at home mom depend upon significant life variables. I don’t know that I am comfortable with waiting upon the Lord for him to provide a provider. Would we really want to frame that as the ideal?
But suppose that God really did have an individualized plan for each of His daughters. Is it possible that His plan for a particular daughter is to invent a revolutionary item, or to land on the moon, or research the cure for terrible diseases, or to become a leader in a large organization? What if these individual “life callings” precluded or significantly intefere with the traditional roles of wife and mother? Is that a viable view in our church?
“It’s a good idea to have an alternative plan in mind, which helps us to be covenant-keeping, charitable, and righteous women who build the kingdom of God no matter which way our lives go. We need to teach our daughters to aim for the ideal but plan for contingencies.”
I like alternatives and contingencies. Sounds like good planning to me. I just don’t like it framed as your life plan is what you do while you are waiting for God to drop his stay-at-home-mom opportunity into your lap. Our young women are still being told that they should pursue an education just in case their future husband dies or becomes incapacitated and not with the express purpose to actually use it in the workforce? It is a plan B.
When is God’s timetable going to pan out? Is this one of those promises that may wait until the next life for fulfillment? Is the Mormon heaven more friendly to a SAHM or a female corporate CEO? What roles and functions would a Heavenly Mother/Priestess/Queen/Goddess perform? Is she a Co-presider with her husband that is out there organizing and directing matter unorganized?
This leads me back to the lack of diversity of perspectives. I imagine that fewer and fewer women as time goes on are going to fully buy into the traditional stay-at-home-mother role as thier ideal. If we paint our understanding of heaven as a place where all barriers to full and unending stay-at-home-momness are finally removed, where does that leave people that are not really interested in that?
If the female leadership of the church cannot relate to this percentage of sisters that seek fulfillment outside the home, then we may have a growing problem.
West wrote:I know a few friends who would probably be deeply touched to have a general women’s leader who left a failing, difficult marriage prior to serving.
I very much agree.
Hawgrrl – Amen. Blessed be Easter, I am sure I can fill my heart with joy somewhere. Roy – Double Amen. In our churches history we have had General Relief Society Presidents who were
*married with no kids
*a Women’s Rights Advocate,
*founder of a non-profit organization,
*a member of Utah State Legislature and pushed for a progressive reform bill,
* another was on the National and eventually International Council for Women
Even if you are a SAHM, the leadership or outside interests are inspirational in my mind.
Roy: Quote:“”Heavenly Father has a mission and plan for each of us, but He also has His own timetable. One of the hardest challenges in this life is to have faith in the Lord’s timing.”Does this mean that HF’s mission and plan for each of the women of the church is to be SAHM?”
Oh, c’mon. You know that’s code speak for throwing a bone to the spinsters.
Be patient, benchwarmers. Maybe one of the leftover or divorced men will pick you at long long last. Then your day will come. If not, you can always look forward to Celestial polygamy.^+^+^BINGO code for being alone and celibate all of this life with polygamy in the next.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.