"Mothers Who Know": the Modern Offense Translation

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by Spaz

Understood. IMO, the talk was directed towards the women of the church, and therefore didn't include nor require the inclusion of the men.

IMO, she was not specifying responsibilities that are women's alone. I guess a good explanation of what I'm trying to say is that if you've got two kids, who're both supposed to clean their bedrooms each week, and you sit one of them down to explain to them the reasons why they're doing it, you're not excusing the other from cleaning his room at all. Does that make sense?


All that said, I completely understand the difficulty involved. The church culture IS one where women's ideal place is in the home with the kids, and the man's ideal place is in the office. And that can be difficult for many people...my own wife works full-time, and I like it that way. I think she's a happier person for working than she would be if she were a full-time mom. I'm also looking forward to her working part-time, as full-time is a little much for her with our newborn.

My issue with the reaction to this talk is simply with people reading things into it that I don't believe were there to begin with.

And, BTW, being a full-time employee, my wife OFTEN feels out-of-place with the full-time moms in the ward. And that's really unfortunate. Hopefully there will be a talk addressing this issue in the future. Wouldn't it be great if that was given by Julie Beck?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

Wait, so single parents aren't "parents"? How do you figure?

and, btw, who is "this crowd."?

I was thinking you meant "parents" in the plural.

"This Crowd" = those with a habitual inclination to repeatedly criticize church leadership; with a predisposition to assume the worst in church actions and statements.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

Wait, so single parents aren't "parents"? How do you figure?

and, btw, who is "this crowd."?

"this crowd" is something banging around in his head he "chooses" to be offended by.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Spaz

And, BTW, being a full-time employee, my wife OFTEN feels out-of-place with the full-time moms in the ward. And that's really unfortunate. Hopefully there will be a talk addressing this issue in the future. Wouldn't it be great if that was given by Julie Beck?

Three years ago.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...5&postcount=42

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Tex

Had she done that, people would've accused her of being insensitive to single parents.

It's no-win with this crowd.

I gave a fathers day talk maybe three years ago. I had written what I thought was a really good talk about how important fathers are, what good fathers do, examples of great men in my life ,etc etc.

After I had written it and set it down I had the idea strike me very strongly that there were going to be people in the congregation who lost their dad's when they were little, who had dads who were abusive or a least not good guys and who, generally, had experiences that were very different than the ideal father I had prepared to talk about.

I didn't change anything I had written, but I added one last section addresses specifically to that last group. 90% of the comments I received after the talk were from people in that last group who had felt touched by the message directed to them.

That is not a "ooh look at UtahDan" story. It is just meant to highlight that regardless of whether you have a hypersensitive audience and regardless of whether anyone would be justified in taking offense, if you see offense and hurt feelings on the horizon, it isn't very hard to soften or modify the message in a way that will uplift everyone (or at least almost). I recognize that sometimes the gospel is a sword that divides brother from brother or husband from wife, but I think that is primarily a metaphoric devise. I think most of the time the goal is uplift and show love.

I understand why some are focused on the hypersensitivity of others on this issue. I get that part of it and I don't think I have ever been offended by anything said over the pulpit (read here that I have very little capacity for offense). That said, neither at church nor really anywhere in life have I ever found myself standing on the principle that an offended party is overreacting. I have often found myself saying that I intended no offense and softening the delivery next time around.

To the extent that someone gives offense (for whatever reason) and feels like the yelp they hear is evidence that they are right to give it...lets just say I think that is the wrong conclusion to draw.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Tex

Three years ago.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...5&postcount=42

Tex, I am truly asking for information. Isn't this talk a comfort for single gals in the church. Did I miss something in there about women who willfully choose to pursue careers.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

That said, neither at church nor really anywhere in life have I ever found myself standing on the principle that an offended party is overreacting. I have often found myself saying that I intended no offense and softening the delivery next time around.

Exactly. Hence my earlier prediction that Sister Beck would never repeat this episode.

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by Tex

The point is, the talk was meant to inspire and uplift. If it (arguably) failed in some remote aspect of that, why not let it slide?

It was meant to inspire and uplift? Could have fooled me. My wife was not inspired or uplifted afterwards, that's for sure. It arguably failed much more than just some remote aspect. Give me a break.

I agree completely with those that said her use of the phrase "mothers who know" do such and such, implied that if you don't do these things, you're a mother that doesn't know.

Also, some of her examples were nonsense. Such as mothers that know have all their sons at church, dressed in a white shirt and tie, with missionary haircuts. LMAO! We have what, half the church membership inactive, and Julie Beck is harping on white shirts, and missionary haircuts for all boys at church? Guess I need to go home and give the 1 1/2 year old a trim, and pickup a white shirt and tie for him to wear to church every week.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I gave a fathers day talk maybe three years ago. I had written what I thought was a really good talk about how important fathers are, what good fathers do, examples of great men in my life ,etc etc.

After I had written it and set it down I had the idea strike me very strongly that there were going to be people in the congregation who lost their dad's when they were little, who had dads who were abusive or a least not good guys and who, generally, had experiences that were very different than the ideal father I had prepared to talk about.

I didn't change anything I had written, but I added one last section addresses specifically to that last group. 90% of the comments I received after the talk were from people in that last group who had felt touched by the message directed to them.

That is not a "ooh look at UtahDan" story. It is just meant to highlight that regardless of whether you have a hypersensitive audience and regardless of whether anyone would be justified in taking offense, if you see offense and hurt feelings on the horizon, it isn't very hard to soften or modify the message in a way that will uplift everyone (or at least almost). I recognize that sometimes the gospel is a sword that divides brother from brother or husband from wife, but I think that is primarily a metaphoric devise. I think most of the time the goal is uplift and show love.

I understand why some are focused on the hypersensitivity of others on this issue. I get that part of it and I don't think I have ever been offended by anything said over the pulpit (read here that I have very little capacity for offense). That said, neither at church nor really anywhere in life have I ever found myself standing on the principle that an offended party is overreacting. I have often found myself saying that I intended no offense and softening the delivery next time around.

To the extent that someone gives offense (for whatever reason) and feels like the yelp they hear is evidence that they are right to give it...lets just say I think that is the wrong conclusion to draw.

I find that quite considerate. I am a divorced guy with abolutely no desire to give up my freedom and hook up again. I am fully aware of the need in the church to push marriage, the temple and no divorce. I do appreciate it though when in church there is some recognition that people can happily live outside of those paremeters. I don't even mind if the indication is it is much harder to do so, I just appreciate the recognition it can be done.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat

It was meant to inspire and uplift? Could have fooled me. My wife was not inspired or uplifted afterwards, that's for sure. It arguably failed much more than just some remote aspect. Give me a break.

I agree completely with those that said her use of the phrase "mothers who know" do such and such, implied that if you don't do these things, you're a mother that doesn't know.

Also, some of her examples were nonsense. Such as mothers that know have all their sons at church, dressed in a white shirt and tie, with missionary haircuts. LMAO! We have what, half the church membership inactive, and Julie Beck is harping on white shirts, and missionary haircuts for all boys at church? Guess I need to go home and give the 1 1/2 year old a trim, and pickup a white shirt and tie for him to wear to church every week.

I must have missed that. She didn't really say that did she? By the way, what is a missionary hair cut.