I listened to the Beck talk again

[Judge Smails]

Originally Posted by BYU71

Your background information, which is solid by the way, would be one reason why you were not upset nor saw a reason to be upset by the talk.

You probably don't understand why anyone gets bugged when single men are called out during conference either.

Also you live in Idaho.

My background info was an intentional disclaimer.

With that in mind, I am bugged by those I perceive to "kick against the pricks". There are clearly some gray areas related to stay at home mothers, single men, etc. I'm more bothered by Pro-choice mormons, or pro-lottery mormons, those who take the white stance, when the Church's position is clearly black.

While I think I could take some of the other talks more humbly than I did, I think a little humility might be in order (holy cow, I'm asking for it - duck and cover) for some who are so disgruntled by Sister Beck's talk. Does humility = quit your job/your wife's job and schedule 3 hours a day of family scripture study? No. But it would require acceptance of her talk for what it was - a talk that set the ideal, and was approved by men I believe to be Prophets of God in a forum that can be highly correlated (check me on this Indy) with "Thus Saith the Lord".

Anyone know where I can get some flame retardant.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by jay santos

No, I really held back. I could have said I think you're as dumb as a brick, and you use big words and a meandering style with pointless references to physic, math, and philosophy, which you appear to have no understanding of, to cover it up. Compare that style to someone like my wife who actually has substance to her intellect and reasoning and it's laughable that you would insult someone like her.

Wherein have I affronted her? I take no affront that you dislike my style. Sometimes I dislike my style for I take no effort to review or to rewrite my meanderings. That is the therapeutic purpose here. If you do not like math or physics for reference points, feel free to ignore my posts as you're free to do. They serve as a reference point for me and nobody else. You also denigrate much of what I write, even if you ignore it may be for my own purposes not purposes which you presuppose to know.

And it's good you're married to somebody who fits your style. Congrats, she must be a very patient woman.

I notice you ignored the substance of my post.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Judge Smails

While I think I could take some of the other talks more humbly than I did, I think a little humility might be in order (holy cow, I'm asking for it - duck and cover) for some who are so disgruntled by Sister Beck's talk. Does humility = quit your job/your wife's job and schedule 3 hours a day of family scripture study? No. But it would require acceptance of her talk for what it was - a talk that set the ideal, and was approved by men I believe to be Prophets of God in a forum that can be highly correlated (check me on this Indy) with "Thus Saith the Lord".

Anyone know where I can get some flame retardant.

What is interesting in posts such as these is the willingness of somebody who has accepted a certain point of view and is in agreement therewith, only to point those who may disagree, need humility. How humble is it to point out another's lack of humility?

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Judge Smails

My background info was an intentional disclaimer.

With that in mind, I am bugged by those I perceive to "kick against the pricks". There are clearly some gray areas related to stay at home mothers, single men, etc. I'm more bothered by Pro-choice mormons, or pro-lottery mormons, those who take the white stance, when the Church's position is clearly black.

While I think I could take some of the other talks more humbly than I did, I think a little humility might be in order (holy cow, I'm asking for it - duck and cover) for some who are so disgruntled by Sister Beck's talk. Does humility = quit your job/your wife's job and schedule 3 hours a day of family scripture study? No. But it would require acceptance of her talk for what it was - a talk that set the ideal, and was approved by men I believe to be Prophets of God in a forum that can be highly correlated (check me on this Indy) with "Thus Saith the Lord".

Anyone know where I can get some flame retardant.

I agree with you on the black and white issues. I have no problem with your approach. You are expressing your belief, but I sense you are allowing others the perogitive to disagree. Throwing out the "kicking against the pricks" though was marginal.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Wherein have I affronted her? I take no affront that you dislike my style. Sometimes I dislike my style for I take no effort to review or to rewrite my meanderings. That is the therapeutic purpose here. If you do not like math or physics for reference points, feel free to ignore my posts as you're free to do. They serve as a reference point for me and nobody else. You also denigrate much of what I write, even if you ignore it may be for my own purposes not purposes which you presuppose to know.

And it's good you're married to somebody who fits your style. Congrats, she must be a very patient woman.

I notice you ignored the substance of my post.

You've insulted the intellect of stay-at-home moms time and again. It started long before this weekend. You use your wife as a reference point, who you obviously have no respect for, but you apply it to all women. Sorry for attacking you, but when someone sets himself up as a model for intellect while denigrating others, then your intellect might get called in question.

The point of whether women should stay at home or not is a worthwhile discussion. I believe in it, but I'm not emotional about it. I am emotional about someone lumping all stay-at-home mom's together and making disparaging remarks about their intellect, ambitions, or work ethic.

[Judge Smails]

Originally Posted by Archaea

What is interesting in posts such as these is the willingness of somebody who has accepted a certain point of view and is in agreement therewith, only to point those who may disagree, need humility. How humble is it to point out another's lack of humility?

Judge Smails said (and you quoted): "While I think I could take some of the other talks more humbly than I did, I think..."

I recognize my need to be more humble and I identified it in my original post. I'm also not blind enough not to recognize I'm not the only one in the universe who could use a little humility.

Clearly, in cases where one has stewardship, they have a responsibility to call on others to gain humility, even if the speaker is less than 100% humble.

Being an imperfect being, I simply chose to go beyond the bounds of my stewardship, but by no means did I suggest I was without pride.

Nice try though.

[Judge Smails]

Originally Posted by BYU71

I agree with you on the black and white issues. I have no problem with your approach. You are expressing your belief, but I sense you are allowing others the perogitive to disagree. Throwing out the "kicking against the pricks" though was marginal.

I said "What I perceive as kicking against the pricks".

Certainly, others can disagree all they want.

I perceive a 3rd of the host of heaven did as well. {extremely TIC}

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I set them up, you knock them down.

Just as long as he doesn't knock them up.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Judge Smails

I said "What I perceive as kicking against the pricks".

Certainly, others can disagree all they want.

I perceive a 3rd of the host of heaven did as well. {extremely TIC}

I read what I want to read, not what someone actually wrote. I picked that up from Tex.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by jay santos

You've insulted the intellect of stay-at-home moms time and again. It started long before this weekend. You use your wife as a reference point, who you obviously have no respect for, but you apply it to all women. Sorry for attacking you, but when someone sets himself up as a model for intellect while denigrating others, then your intellect might get called in question.

The point of whether women should stay at home or not is a worthwhile discussion. I believe in it, but I'm not emotional about it. I am emotional about someone lumping all stay-at-home mom's together and making disparaging remarks about their intellect, ambitions, or work ethic.

You need reading classes if you've interpreted what I've posted as a denigration of women who stay at home. In my mind, women should choose and not be castigated one way or the other. If they choose to stay home, they will reap benefits and detriments. In LDS culture, women who choose not to stay home are often denigrated by the stay at home mothers. Read my comments in that light; otherwise you could use some serious reading comprehension improvement.

I only referenced my wife as an example that I'm familiar with the stay at home mentality. I'm uncertain whether my wife, if given the opportunity would make the same choice. I suppose she would have refined the choice, but it's tough to say. You seem emotional as emotionally gone off on without cause. I've argued against the Beck approach as insensitive to those who must leave or the home or those that choose to. In our culture the stay at home moms don't need a defender because that is considered the ideal. I tend to defend the minority position.

Usually I'll avoid discussions on the intellect discussion, but the models of intellect are these: SIEQ, Pelagius, Mike Waters, Solon, AA, Jeff Lebowski, Creekster and Seattle [there are probably others including Indy in certain statistical matters and yourself in those matters]. In fact, you will not find me trumpeting my skill or expertise in anything. Perhaps in 11,000 posts you could find something of a joke, but I challenge you.