Social media eruption

[bsjkki]

It’s crazy to me how much controversy erupted on social media over this post by the church. 
 

I see no issue. 

[Rain]

30 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

It’s crazy to me how much controversy erupted on social media over this post by the church. 
 

I see no issue. 

What are the comments saying?

[bluebell]

I saw this this morning on Facebook but didn't look at the comments.  What could people possibly be upset over??

[Rain]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I saw this this morning on Facebook but didn't look at the comments.  What could people possibly be upset over??

I just looked it up on Instagram (couldn't see it here). Some people are saying this makes motherhood sound less important. Others are saying "we" shouldn't have a lot of professional women, but should be emphasizing motherhood.  Others are saying the church needs more messaging like this.

[Tony uk]

I personally don't understand what would upset people. For a number of years, women have taken employment in various professional positions. With regards to parenting, there are better work place conditions than a few years ago. There is maternity leave, and certain places may include nursery places attached to the place of employment. So, best wishes the lady for taking a career, and also to the gentleman in the post for being a responsible person.

[the narrator]

I just recently rediscovered Mormon twitter after actively avoiding it for several years. It's weird. Not sure if they a version of the DezNats or something else. But it's not overrun by right wing conservatives really adamant that women should be trad wives.

Along side that are influencer wannabes endless putting out the worst apologetic arguments with the confidence of the current POTUS.

[Pyreaux]

I can't read it. It looks like it starts by just accounting what happened, not a model for other people. No two lives are the same, it's a case-by-case basis. If it had told a story about a woman who felt the spirit tell her she should end her career to be a mom and having no regrets, is not condemning the next woman who didn't do that. But social media would probably blow up anyway. Women are the majority of physicians now, stories like this only going to be more relevant. We are a High Education culture, particularly for our women so they aren't dependent and have means to make it either way, despite ex-mo social media gaslighting that we aren't.

Edited April 10 by Pyreaux

[MrShorty]

The tension I see in that post and comments section is just how much acceptance it displays of full egalitarianism. I see comments praising him for possibly accepting the role of "house husband" or "stay at home dad" when future children come into the picture. Other comments respond with "discomfort" around those possible roles and choices for him.

Ultimately, I think it is the never ending tension we experience between complementarianism and egalitarianism. As a church community, we are still trying to grapple with those tensions. We haven't, yet, picked a side to be on, and the institutional church has largely claimed no official position as it doesn't seem to want to referee the controversies.

Personally, I appreciate the example of this anecdote. It seems to me to be evidence that we are slowly sliding towards embracing egalitarianism, which, IMO, is more "true" than complementarianism. The church has a lot of inertia, so change comes slowly, but it comes.

[Senator]

46 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Ultimately, I think it is the never ending tension we experience between complementarianism and egalitarianism. As a church community, we are still trying to grapple with those tensions. We haven't, yet, picked a side to be on, and the institutional church has largely claimed no official position as it doesn't seem to want to referee the controversies.

 

I'm not so sure about that.  We have heard in the past two GCs a circling back to, and doubling down on the Proclamation on the Family, which has just a little to say about traditional gender roles. And make no mistake, the Proclamation is revealed doctrine.

So, I am little surprised to see this message from a church site. Is it a mixed message?

[the narrator]

12 minutes ago, Senator said:

And make no mistake, the Proclamation is revealed doctrine.

What do you mean? Do you have privileged information on how it was put together to add as an amici brief to a lawsuit opposing SSM in Hawaii?

[Senator]

5 minutes ago, the narrator said:

What do you mean? Do you have privileged information on how it was put together to add as an amici brief to a lawsuit opposing SSM in Hawaii?

"The proclamation on the family is, as President Hinckley stated, doctrine"

Elder Rasband,  Oct GC 2025

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2025/10/21rasband?lang=eng&id=p_mmGnZ#p_mmGnZ

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

What are the comments saying?

A sampling for those not on twitter:

"The castration of LDS men will countine until morale improves."
"I have a no problem with anyone doing this. BUT I have a massive problem with anyone holding htis up as a thing to do."
"Strongly disagree here, and I’m in medicine. Church messaging has become too sensationalized and main-stream conformist in regard to fluidity in gender roles."
"Yeah, this bodes great for the future of your church..."

"I’ll say it again, is it understanding/support vs promotion. These types of posts make it hard to tell. Stand for Something."

"Is this really the kind of rhetoric our society needs when traditional gender roles designed by God are being torn apart every day?"

 

[bsjkki]

3 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

I can't read it. It looks like it starts by just accounting what happened, not a model for other people. No two lives are the same, it's a case-by-case basis. If it had told a story about a woman who felt the spirit tell her she should end her career to be a mom and having no regrets, is not condemning the next woman who didn't do that. But social media would probably blow up anyway. Women are the majority of physicians now, stories like this only going to be more relevant. We are a High Education culture, particularly for our women so they aren't dependent and have means to make it either way, despite ex-mo social media gaslighting that we aren't.

Full post. 

Edited April 10 by bsjkki

[bsjkki]

To add to the mix, BYU Idaho released this video about a mom choosing to work and share her talents. Interesting…I watched it and now the video is set to private.

 

[MustardSeed]

When men want women to depend on them financially my thoughts go  to women I know whose husbands let them down, via divorce or death or tragedy or just plain bad luck. 

Men can tell me what they think I should do as a woman but I’ll say thanks anyway and live my life the way God and I see fit. I don’t care how other people live, that’s your life.  One proclamation of lifestyle and roles is not a fit for all humans.  It’s not the same as “don’t sleep with your neighbors wife” or “don’t rob banks”. 

Onward. 

[the narrator]

3 hours ago, Senator said:

"The proclamation on the family is, as President Hinckley stated, doctrine"

Elder Rasband,  Oct GC 2025

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2025/10/21rasband?lang=eng&id=p_mmGnZ#p_mmGnZ

Please explain how this responded to anything I asked.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, the narrator said:

But it's not overrun

Not or now?

Edited April 11 by Calm

[The Nehor]

I’m not surprised. Imagine if this was in a church magazine back in the 80s or 90s. There is less of a furor now but those people that would have gotten upset over this back then are still around. I have some British church magazines from the later 70s. The stuff in there would cause a furor for the traditional gender roles and anti-feminist messages.

The Church is still trying to straddle the line on this and is going to keep offending if they start advocating more for either side of the divide.

[MrShorty]

8 hours ago, Senator said:

Is it a mixed message?

I would say, that, yes, this is a mixed message. Mostly because it contradicts the messages I grew up with that husbands/fathers should be the sole (or primary) breadwinner while the wives/mothers should stay home (to the extent possible) and care for the home and children. The big question seems to be whether or not the church still believes this, or if the church's beliefs are drifting in a more egalitarian direction, where families/couples decide for themselves based on individual circumstance which parent will fill which roles. Personally, I believe that families/couples should decide for themselves based on their individual strengths and weaknesses, but I have not seen the church ever make a truly official statement one way or the other on that.

8 hours ago, Senator said:

We have heard in the past two GCs a circling back to, and doubling down on the Proclamation on the Family, which has just a little to say about traditional gender roles. And make no mistake, the Proclamation is revealed doctrine.

This is true. Perhaps I missed something, but every talk that comes immediately to mind failed to make a clear statement about this kind of scenario. They may have recited the appropriate paragraph from the Proclamation, but I have yet to hear a church authority (in recent years, anyway) declare that a breadwinner mom/stay at home dad scenario was inappropriate. In my experience, the church almost never "disavows" what prior prophets/apostles/leaders have taught, but the church will allow teachings to drift. This seems to me to be an example of this kind of drift. IMO, if the church and its leaders officially dislike the direction of this drift, they need to say something clear and unambiguous to that effect.

[Rain]

38 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I’m not surprised. Imagine if this was in a church magazine back in the 80s or 90s. There is less of a furor now but those people that would have gotten upset over this back then are still around. I have some British church magazines from the later 70s. The stuff in there would cause a furor for the traditional gender roles and anti-feminist messages.

The Church is still trying to straddle the line on this and is going to keep offending if they start advocating more for either side of the divide.

It is not just older people making those kind of comments.

[Rain]

3 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I would say, that, yes, this is a mixed message. Mostly because it contradicts the messages I grew up with that husbands/fathers should be the sole (or primary) breadwinner while the wives/mothers should stay home (to the extent possible) and care for the home and children. The big question seems to be whether or not the church still believes this, or if the church's beliefs are drifting in a more egalitarian direction, where families/couples decide for themselves based on individual circumstance which parent will fill which roles. Personally, I believe that families/couples should decide for themselves based on their individual strengths and weaknesses, but I have not seen the church ever make a truly official statement one way or the other on that.

This is true. Perhaps I missed something, but every talk that comes immediately to mind failed to make a clear statement about this kind of scenario. They may have recited the appropriate paragraph from the Proclamation, but I have yet to hear a church authority (in recent years, anyway) declare that a breadwinner mom/stay at home dad scenario was inappropriate. In my experience, the church almost never "disavows" what prior prophets/apostles/leaders have taught, but the church will allow teachings to drift. This seems to me to be an example of this kind of drift. IMO, if the church and its leaders officially dislike the direction of this drift, they need to say something clear and unambiguous to that effect.

Personally, I think it has always been a mixed message, but people just didn't recognize it. There have been so many things said back in patriarchal blessings over the years (check your grandparent's and great grandparent's) about the worth of women and the gifts given to them. If someone truly believes theirs came from God they ought to be open to what God wants them to do outside the home as well as inside. I can tell you mine never says anything close to something like "only in the home or as a mother" and I would be surprised if there was more than a handful that did if any. 

Then there are so many lessons on finding your talents or gifts and magnifying them in some way. I'm pretty creative and could probably easily connect any gift to motherhood, but do people really think that's what those lessons are saying? 

[Senator]

36 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I would say, that, yes, this is a mixed message. Mostly because it contradicts the messages I grew up with that husbands/fathers should be the sole (or primary) breadwinner while the wives/mothers should stay home (to the extent possible) and care for the home and children. The big question seems to be whether or not the church still believes this, or if the church's beliefs are drifting in a more egalitarian direction, where families/couples decide for themselves based on individual circumstance which parent will fill which roles. Personally, I believe that families/couples should decide for themselves based on their individual strengths and weaknesses, but I have not seen the church ever make a truly official statement one way or the other on that.

This is true. Perhaps I missed something, but every talk that comes immediately to mind failed to make a clear statement about this kind of scenario. They may have recited the appropriate paragraph from the Proclamation, but I have yet to hear a church authority (in recent years, anyway) declare that a breadwinner mom/stay at home dad scenario was inappropriate. In my experience, the church almost never "disavows" what prior prophets/apostles/leaders have taught, but the church will allow teachings to drift. This seems to me to be an example of this kind of drift. IMO, if the church and its leaders officially dislike the direction of this drift, they need to say something clear and unambiguous to that effect.

“Clear and unambiguous” gets them in trouble. Generalities is the tactic of the day. Generalities leave wiggle room for exceptions.

[Senator]

5 hours ago, the narrator said:

Please explain how this responded to anything I asked.

If I must.

You asked “what do you mean?”, in response to my statement that the proclamation is doctrine.  I then responded by quoting church authorities giving evidence to statement. Some how you do not see that as responding to “anything” you asked?🤷‍♂️

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

It is not just older people making those kind of comments.

Oh definitely. Many from those generations raised kids and passed on those beliefs.

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

This is true. Perhaps I missed something, but every talk that comes immediately to mind failed to make a clear statement about this kind of scenario. They may have recited the appropriate paragraph from the Proclamation, but I have yet to hear a church authority (in recent years, anyway) declare that a breadwinner mom/stay at home dad scenario was inappropriate. In my experience, the church almost never "disavows" what prior prophets/apostles/leaders have taught, but the church will allow teachings to drift. This seems to me to be an example of this kind of drift. IMO, if the church and its leaders officially dislike the direction of this drift, they need to say something clear and unambiguous to that effect.

I wish leadership would be more direct when things shift rather than trying to let cultural osmosis and a slow shift in emphasis take care of everything.

It is like they took Screwtape’s advice and just reversed it:

"The safest road to hellheaven is the gradual one - the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts."

 

[MrShorty]

17 hours ago, Senator said:

Generalities is the tactic of the day. Generalities leave wiggle room for exceptions.

I get it, and, to some extent, that makes sense. In a case like this, though, it seems to me that "here's a general rule, but there are exceptions and it's up to you to decide if you are an exception" means essentially cancels out the general rule. If anyone can decide on their own initiative that they are an exception to the rule without any guidance on what legitimate and illegitimate exceptions are similar, then the general rule essentially becomes meaningless. At some point, it seems best to just back down from the "complementarian with exception" rule and just adopt egalitarianism -- as long as people are taking care of their families.

 

16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I wish leadership would be more direct when things shift rather than trying to let cultural osmosis and a slow shift in emphasis take care of everything.

I agree. I don't know how best to do it. We invoke divine revelation for stuff that we believe and do, so making changes requires more revelation, but too much revelation changing what was previously revelation begins to look like God is the one who is "tossed about by every wind of doctrine."