Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Quote:
But do you think, all else being equal, many people would choose a male babysitter over a female? There are certain occupations where females have a strong preference over males… nurses/healthcare workers, school teachers, masseuses, pharmaceutical sales reps, flight attendants… most people, both male and female, would rather be nurtured by a female than a male.
That may be true – but female nurses, massage therapists, etc deserve to be compensated for their time even if they ARE more naturally nurturing. I don’t think I’ve EVER heard someone stand up in sacrament meeting and volunteer the YM to perform free labor for members of the ward, regardless of what that labor is.
Quote:Turns out this month is the “Marriage and Family” month in the YM manual, including the lesson “How can I prepare now to become a righteous husband and father?”.
That’s good to hear. We’re also doing a better job at preparing young women to think about future education and career. I’m still not comfortable with the level of gender essential in the church but it’s getting better.Quote:As far as the young men not getting “volunteered” for babysitting… well, people these days often don’t trust males to be alone with females or any group of young children, out of fear of sexual/physical abuse
This is true – but it’s also a result of the idea that nurturing children is women’s work. Just look at the FamProc: men preside, women nurture. Look at all the YW lessons about preparing to be a mother, and then find me the equivalent YM lessons about preparing to be a father; I don’t think there are any! We do the males of the church a huge disservice by telling them that their gender isn’t the nurturing one. And that’s how you get Mormons like my father-in-law who had six children and proudly never changed a single diaper. Gender essentialism SUCKS.
Anyway, back to my initial point: maybe the answer isn’t conscripting the YW to free labor. Maybe the answer is telling the parents (especially mothers) of young children not to feel guilty if they can’t get to the temple as often as Sister Empty Nester. There will still be plenty of dead people to be redeemed once your kids can fend for themselves.
The way I see it, if God wanted me not to do homework on Sunday, He wouldn’t have made it necessary for me to go back to school in the first place. He could have let my husband have a better paying job and/or stopped my husband from being laid off six times. After all, we hear talks over the pulpit all the time about God doing stuff like that. Did I hear them mention that this initiative will involve YW as well? I know a lot of people in the Bloggernacle have been wondering why YM could participate but not YW. I guess we’ll hear more about it in the next talk. I liked the first few talks (except for Zivic which I had a hard time understanding). Eyring followed by Oaks are up next. Think I’ll go put the ham in the oven.
I’ve always thought it was weird that the men had to be separated at all – and potentially problematic that they had to separated by ‘status’ – so I see this as a good thing. Not earth-shattering but good. Yeah, the Church gets to have it both ways. The Prophet is always speaking as a Prophet. But if a past prophet says something we now find embarrassing, he was speaking as a man. Doesn’t the New Testament say something about how we don’t get to have it both ways?
😆 I am furious that the first talk out of the gate is one about following your leaders even if they are imperfect. Furious. Because I know that this is the only response that we will get to the Joseph Bishop scandal, the Rob Porter scandal, the many many failings of the church hierarchy to protect the vulnerable is “oh well, sometimes leaders are imperfect but they represent Christ so you have to follow them anyway.” It literally makes me sick. Who was Joseph Bishop representing when he asked a sister missionary to expose her breasts to him? Is that what Jesus Christ suffered and died for?
This isn’t just wrong, It is EVIL.
I didn’t ask, I told. I still haven’t been officially “released” over the pulpit but I no longer consider myself as holding that (or any) calling.
Ugh, that really is awful. Hugs to you and your daughter. I can definitely empathize – my nearly 15 year old (who is beautiful, funny, and talented) is treated as a pariah in the YW. Sometimes it’s nothing more than a local leader going on a power trip. But the damage is long lasting. I wonder if SLC realizes how many messages these girls are receiving that tell them the Church is simply not a place that they belong. This is why they are losing the young at an astonishing rate. Not because their parents didn’t keep the Sabbath.
I hope your daughter can find somewhere to showcase her talent. Sounds like your ward has shown that they don’t deserve it.
I’m not crazy about this change. Women’s voices during conference weekend have already been on the decline. Last year there were 2 talks + 2 prayers by women during the four main sessions. In April there was 1 talk + 2 prayers by women. In October there were 2 talks + 0 prayers by women. That is not an encouraging trend. Now, it’s possible that this change will come with an overall increase of female voices at the pulpit (can you imagine if all 4 of the main sessions featured at least 1 woman speaker? They’d still be outnumbered 6 or 7 to one, but it would be a huge increase!) but that would be a break from the current trend. I’ll be happy to eat my words if I’m wrong. I also dislike drawing a direct comparison between the Women’s and PH sessions. Makes it seem like our church has two genders, Women and Priesthood.
My issue with this kind of talk is that while it may be faith promoting, it isn’t and never can be faith producing.I thought the same thing during Oaks’ talk. Anti-anti-Mormonism may feel good while you are writing and delivering or listening to these talks. But is that really the Holy Ghost you’re feeling, or simply the (false) good feeling of “we’re right and everyone else is wrong”? The BoM DNA essay – though it’s still apologetic – opens up the idea that the BoM is more of a conundrum than Callister lets on. dande48 wrote:
That article was floating around not to long ago.Personally, it feels like a cheap cop out, a dishonest move to
1. Declare past doctrine “culture”, because you don’t agree with it
2. Declare failed prophecy “personal opinion”
It’s one of the biggest problems I’ve got with the Church. When you’re wrong, you should admit it; not make excuses or “reinterpret” to make it seem like you were right all along. I also don’t like it when TBMs try to come up with a reason for why I feel the way I do, that still fits within their religious paradigm.
Heads I win, tails you lose.
