[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Here it is.

http://www.lds.org/conference/talk/d...775-27,00.html

Which parts do you think were offensive? She actually never really even tells women to stay at home.

My analysis of the controversial parts:



I like this. I would love to have this emphasized every conference.



The bolded sentence might be a little over-the-top. But I still like it. She's complimenting the mothers in third world countries that are making a sacrifice to come to church and get their kids dressed up best they can. It's not an indictment on those who don't. I'm sure there are moms with teenage boys that come to church with Beatles hair and a colored shirt that were offended by this, but I don't think they need to be.



I thought this was great and shouldn't offend anyone.



This is probably the part that could have been left out. It's probably possible for a Mormon mother to be the most perfect Mormon mom that's ever walked the face of the earth and never cook, clean, or do laundry. And at a minimum, if a Mormon mother struggles with some of those areas, it doesn't mean they're not a good nurturer. My wife just blew this part off, but I can see this offending people. It offended people I know are good Mormon moms. I don't mind putting a high standard out there, such as LDS youth should be most chaste. Or LDS as a group should have most scripture knowledge, whatever. But the high standard in an area of cooking and cleaning is lame, I agree with the critics on that.



I like this. Teaching children to work is one of most important jobs as a parent and working together does that + creates quality together time.



I like this. The emphasis is on nurturing and creating home for spiritual growth. Very important concept and should receive a mother's best efforts. The education line is a little problematic. It's similar to the success in the world doesn't make up for failure in the home line, which applies to mothers and fathers. But education is a weird comparison. Would have been better to say "success or achievement outside the home" and leave it general.



Excellent, IMHO. Only a vague reference to working outside the home. Certainly not a THOU SHALT NOT. It's the principle that matters and she stated it.



Pretty innocuous and certainly inoffensive. She's not telling us the home is an MTC and things not fit for the MTC are not fit at home, she's just saying the home is the first place children are taught the gospel and trained to be servants in the Kingdom.

What people might be missing was how she built up mothers and the importance of the role.

My wife has been talking to other women, sisters friends, and this talk has come up a lot, some liked it and some didn't. She feels like it's the same issue with Mother's Day. Some great Mormon women have a guilt complex that's so large they can't enjoy Mother's Day because they have rabbit ears and look for something in the talks that shows they're not measuring up and then go into a pity party about it. That comes across calloused but it's not meant as an attack. Just an observation with a feeling of wanting to help the situation and help these mothers feel good about themselves while at the same time be able to acknowledge the importance of the role and examples of success.

My problem with it is the whole "mothers who know" rhetoric.

Sister Holland has two children who have led wayward lives. This is the primary reason Elder Holland speaks so frequently and passionately about how children going astray is not necessarily the fault of parents. Even the best parents have wayward children. And yet, Sister Beck notes that "Mothers who know build children into future leaders and are the primary examples of what leaders look like." Should we assume that Sister Holland is a mother who "doesn't know?"

What about mothers who are required to work outside the home (thereby restricting their ability to "nurture"). Sister Beck noted that "Mothers who know are nurturers. This is their special assignment and role under the plan of happiness." You could be a mother working outside the home and still be considered a nurturer if she left it there, but then she goes on to specify that nurturer=homemaker. What is the purpose of that statement? How is it at all helpful to those women who would love to stay home but can't? Doesn't it only make them feel horrible about themselves?

She took a cookie-cutter approach and then applied it to the entire church. That will almost never produce good counsel, IMO. Her entire talk seems premised on the notion that there are "mothers who know" and those who don't. If you don't fit in the cookie-cutter outline she described, you must be one of those who don't know. And that is why so many people found it offensive.