03-04-2008, 10:52 PM | #151 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,371
|
Quote:
|
|
03-04-2008, 10:53 PM | #152 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,084
|
Quote:
I know lots and lots of awesome women who are full time moms. I don't see it as an either or. Awesome women who send thier kids to church in white shirts and a missionary haircut. Awesome moms who send their kids in a blue shirt with hair hanging on the collar. I think when you stereotype any group, you are looking to be proven wrong. |
|
03-04-2008, 10:54 PM | #153 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,371
|
Quote:
|
|
03-04-2008, 10:55 PM | #154 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,589
|
|
03-04-2008, 10:55 PM | #155 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,371
|
|
03-04-2008, 10:56 PM | #156 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The People's Republic of Monsanto
Posts: 3,085
|
I'm not sure how many times I'll have to say this, but:
No one controls meaning. A speaker, such as Sister Beck, can provide a "preferred encoding," but any number of decodings (reasoned interpretations) are not only possible (including those that scholars call "negotiated" and "oppositional,"), but are inevitable and even desirable. The search for authorial intention as some kind of definitive pronouncement as to what a particular artifact--like a speech--means has been debunked for decades. Don't believe me? Research the intentional approach to meaning. The search for meaning in objects themselves has been debunked for even longer. Meaning is constructed much like human beings are. It takes something from authors and something from receivers, but is ultimately its own creature. Meaning is zygotic. Trying to discover, let alone capture and articulate, what Sister Beck "means" or "intends" is impossible, for you, me, and Sister Beck herself. Do people understand their own intentions? I assert that in many instances the answer to that is "no." Still, a competent speaker tries to anticipate the range of plausible interpretations. Certainly Sister Beck should have done this, and it's quite possible that she did. The "shot birds flutter" business is ridiculous, except that it introduces the disturbing idea of Church leaders as hunters, Church members as dehumanized prey, and the process of speaking at conference as "shooting at people." Even a comparison such as "Lost sheep bleet" would be better, although it presumes that the speaker is correct (or not "lost") and that those who disagree are wrong, which, as I've implied above, does not speak to the "meaning" of something such as a speech.
__________________
"Do not despise the words of prophets, but test everything; hold fast to what is good; " 1 Thess. 5:21 (NRSV) We all trust our own unorthodoxies. Last edited by Sleeping in EQ; 03-04-2008 at 11:00 PM. |
03-04-2008, 10:56 PM | #157 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,084
|
Quote:
They pushed that in the 60's and early 70's from the pulpit. Get married as soon as possible and start poppin kids as soon as possible. Birth control was evil. There is good reason to do this. I will bet the activity rate is directly related to how soon you get married and how fast you have kids. Especially amongst LDS men. Also, one can not deny it is easier to stay chaste the earlier you get married. |
|
03-04-2008, 10:57 PM | #158 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,371
|
Quote:
|
|
03-04-2008, 10:59 PM | #159 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,084
|
Quote:
If I felt I was speaking Gods words, I doubt I would worry about interpretations either. Hey, you don't like what I said, take it up with the almighty, they are his words. |
|
03-04-2008, 11:00 PM | #160 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,371
|
Quote:
Good thing birth control is no longer evil |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|