Jump to content

"What Women Know"...


OMWO2

Recommended Posts

Or better yet, "should" an active LDS woman sign it? I stumbled upon this site through a link from another board. Being from the Ann Arbor MI area I know a few of the women who have signed this. In fact one is the wife of my former bishop. I wonder if they could face some sort of rebuking? What do any of you think of this? I personally think it is fine but then again I am no longer a member.

http://whatwomenknow.org/whatwomenknow/index.html

edited to correct spelling error.

Link to comment

"We claim the life-affirming powers of spirit, breath, and wisdom, and reject the glorification of violence in all its forms. We are filled with unutterable sadness by the Book of Mormon story of more than 2,000 young soldiers whose mothers teach them that faith in God will preserve them in battles in which they kill other mothers' children. This is not a success story. It is a story of the failure of human relationships and the horrors of war. In a world that has grown increasingly violent, we believe that one of the most important passages in LDS scripture is D&C 98:16: “Therefore, renounce war and proclaim peace. . . .”"

What a load of crap. I think if I were the Bishop of a woman who signed this, I'd hold a disciplinary council for apostasy.

Link to comment

This part is especially apostate:

In October 2007, Julie B. Beck, president of the Latter-day Saint women's organization, the Relief Society, gave a speech in the semiannual worldwide General Conference titled “Mothers Who Know.” Beck's focus on LDS families, and more particularly on the role and influence of mothers, is a subject close to our hearts.

...

Several ideas within the body of President Beck's talk conflict with our inspiration and experience. We are authors of our own lives, and this is the story we know to be true:

That's apostasy through and through. It is clearly placing themselves in a position of opposition to church leadership. Any person who signs this with a proper understanding of its contents doesn't know the first thing about the workings of God, in my opinion.

Link to comment

I think it is bloated rhetoric that is much more offensive than anything Beck said. But this is the real point they seem to be missing. They are attacking a woman, a sister. I find it shocking coming from a group that is supposed to be standing up for...women! We finally get a strong woman with bold thoughts to speak in General Conference and what do they do? Why, try to shut her down for not following the script. Let's go back to the poems and platitudes nice ladies are supposed to stick to. Do you notice they aren't going after any of the male speakers? Disgraceful treatment of a sister by self-appointed protectors of the right kind of Mormon woman.

Down with mouthy, opinioned Mormon women! Sign up, everyone. Blech.

(And this is hardly worthy of a church response of any kind...let alone a "rebuking". Let's leave it to them to do that.)

Link to comment

"We claim the life-affirming powers of spirit, breath, and wisdom, and reject the glorification of violence in all its forms. We are filled with unutterable sadness by the Book of Mormon story of more than 2,000 young soldiers whose mothers teach them that faith in God will preserve them in battles in which they kill other mothers' children. This is not a success story. It is a story of the failure of human relationships and the horrors of war. In a world that has grown increasingly violent, we believe that one of the most important passages in LDS scripture is D&C 98:16: â??Therefore, renounce war and proclaim peace. . . .â?"

What a load of crap. I think if I were the Bishop of a woman who signed this, I'd hold a disciplinary council for apostasy.

I don't know that this is a sign of apostasy-but i agree that the quote is a load of crap.

Do these women completely fail to see the difference between the lamanites and the 2,000 stripling warriors?

The lamanites came against the nephites in order to subject them to bondage and take away their freedom of religion or to kill them-whichever was easier.

The 2,000 stripling warriors tried (and succeeded) in stopping those unrighteous desires.

That IS a success story and it is NOT 'unutterable sadness' that God would keep people making moral choices safe while allowing people who have made immoral choices and have sought war to reap what they have sowed.

War is sad, and destructive, yes-but that does not mean that good cannot come out of war, or that war is NEVER necessary or the right decision...especially when we are talking about a war fought to defend principles and loved ones, as the war in the BOM was.

It sounds harsh i know, but i would be ashamed to be grouped with women who thought the above quote was an accurate way to look at the story of the 2,000 stripling warriors.

:P

Link to comment

It sounds harsh i know, but i would be ashamed to be grouped with women who thought the above quote was an accurate way to look at the story of the 2,000 stripling warriors.

I am curious as to what they think should have been the response; if the preferred option for them was what is spoken of happening to these people of the previous generation where they submitted to the sword and were slaughtered--men, women and children.

As far as the rest of the comments, I am unsure what is so earthshaking about them that they need to be written up on this manifesto as if most...if not all given correct context...of such things can't be found within the teachings of our church.

Link to comment
Several ideas within the body of President Beck's talk conflict with our inspiration and experience. We are authors of our own lives, and this is the story we know to be true:â?

That's apostasy through and through. Any woman who signs this doesn't know the first thing about the workings of God, in my opinion.

Now, now...let's not make this more than it is. Let's just make it what it is...an attack on women who think differently. I agree with some of what they say when the rhetoric is peeled away. I will never sign a public petition that belittles another woman just because she has some strong opinions and dares to express them. The above claim to authority is ridiculous...is Sis. Beck not entitled to the same? Must we all believe the same things now to be a woman?

Link to comment
I think it is bloated rhetoric that is much more offensive than anything Beck said. But this is the real point they seem to be missing. They are attacking a woman, a sister. I find it shocking coming from a group that is supposed to be standing up for...women! We finally get a strong woman with bold thoughts to speak in General Conference and what do they do? Why, try to shut her down for not following the script. Let's go back to the poems and platitudes nice ladies are supposed to stick to. Do you notice they aren't going after any of the male speakers? Disgraceful treatment of a sister by self-appointed protectors of the right kind of Mormon woman.

Down with mouthy, opinioned Mormon women! Sign up, everyone. Blech.

(And this is hardly worthy of a church response of any kind...let alone a "rebuking". Let's leave it to them to do that.)

Thanks for your straightforward response Juliann. While we are not on the same page religion wise, I always enjoy your posts/responses. I too wonder why they didn't/don't attack a talk on this same topic/magnitude when given by a male? Interesting thought!
Link to comment

That IS a success story and it is NOT 'unutterable sadness' that God would keep people making moral

This is the kind of silly over heated rhetoric that is embarrassing, "unutterable sadness"? They just uttered it.

So we have a woman who stands up in front of millions and speaks in strong terms and strong words, some of which offend. Isn't that what we have wanted for women ever since the beginnings of the feminist movement? Is that the reason they pull in Godwin's Law? If they can't get Beck for being an outspoken woman, get her for advocating murder? :P

Link to comment

I too wonder why they didn't/don't attack a talk on this same topic/magnitude when given by a male? Interesting thought!

It wasn't my thought but it puts this in the proper perspective. I think the church has made good progress in tolerating different viewpoints as will be evidenced by their ignoring this sort of thing. But this amounts to a sort of class warfare that will pit woman against woman within the church. This does not benefit women, it benefits the group perpetuating it.

Link to comment

HOw is this apostasy? Or in need of a rebuking?

Some people signed some letter. Not too big of a deal, regardless of where you stand. I get points from Beck, I get points from some of this letter. Neither have my complete seal of approval. And that's cool-we aren't all cookie cuttered women. I don't like artificial harmony-so if there's differences, it's better to air them in a respectful way.

But to say this is apostasy is jumping from point "b" to point "z." When you look at the guidelines dealing with apostasy, signing a letter here ain't gonna cut it. This is hardly scandalous.

And let's keep things in perspective-Grant H. Palmer didn't even get called into a council til years after the book was printed. Now in comparison, how does this letter really fare?

eta:What this letter and the talk are sorta butting heads about is what is inherent to gender, as well as gender roles. My personal take is not as stringent as Beck's talk(not all her talks, just this one) implies, while at the same the time this letter doesn't exactly fit my ideas or style either though. I can't put my finger on it, but it seems all a little bit puffy in it's style that I don't get. I think there's a way to write it in a less grand fashion, while still making the point I think they are trying to make.

Link to comment

I think some women got their feelings hurt because they were too busy looking on the outward substance. Several points in their manifesto seemed to indicate they were too concentrated on appearance rather than existence. Just from reading their document, I get the impression that Pres. Beck was focused on what you choose to be and they are interpreting it as the face you present to the world. Says something about their focus, doesn't it?

Link to comment

These women are not pulling any punches and have come out OPENLY and with the CLEAR INTENT to COMMUNICATE that THEY are NOT at HARMONY with the CHURCH to which they CLAIM MEMBERSHIP.

RIGHT OR WRONG?

So this is what must be decided here when we analyze this. (IMHO)

Are these women just simply BLIND? Did they feel that Sister Beck merely misrepresented the women of the lds faith and now it is their job to speak for us? If so, is that acceptable behavior to be critical of whom the Lord has called? Do we not have other ways to do this?

Did not Elder Holland recently make a statement to the tune of go ahead and have your differing opinions, BUT when you start to sell them to others and recruit... that is where YOU cross the line. (something to that effect) Now, I don't know if that only applies to doctrine, but it would seem to be that if a behavior causes disharmony IN the Church... YOU ARE ON THIN ICE!

Or, are they truly out of harmony with our teachings? It does not appear so. The stories of the Book of Mormon have many applications. Just because we have not identified them all as yet, does NOT mean they do not EXIST and are not perfectly CORRECT as well. REMEMBER there is an OPPOSITION in ALL THINGS. In FACT, IF there was not, either RIGHTEOUSNESS nor WICKEDNESS could NOT be brought to pass!!!

She had asked a direct question of us, therefore WHY are we making excuses for these women and this action?

Is this Not CLEAR to those who would HEARKEN to whom the Lord has Called and HAVE the Spirt?

If ye are not ONE, ye are NOT mine.

I personally did not hear Sister Beck make any comments in her address of "Women Who Know" (inference is of course by the spirit, meaning don't NEED to be stroked LADIES) that would in anyway suggest that lds women are not also ALL of the things mentioned in the "title of liberation" as proclaimed by our unfortunate 'hard-of -hearing-by-the-spirit' sisters. :P

(caps for emphasis only... I get passionate ;)

Link to comment

HOw is this apostasy? Or in need of a rebuking?

Some people signed some letter. Not too big of a deal, regardless of where you stand. I get points from Beck, I get points from some of this letter. Neither have my complete seal of approval. And that's cool-we aren't all cookie cuttered women. I don't like artificial harmony-so if there's differences, it's better to air them in a respectful way.

But to say this is apostasy is jumping from point "b" to point "z." When you look at the guidelines dealing with apostasy, signing a letter here ain't gonna cut it. This is hardly scandalous.

And let's keep things in perspective-Grant H. Palmer didn't even get called into a council til years after the book was printed. Now in comparison, how does this letter really fare?

eta:What this letter and the talk are sorta butting heads about is what is inherent to gender, as well as gender roles. My personal take is not as stringent as Beck's talk(not all her talks, just this one) implies, while at the same the time this letter doesn't exactly fit my ideas or style either though. I can't put my finger on it, but it seems all a little bit puffy in it's style that I don't get. I think there's a way to write it in a less grand fashion, while still making the point I think they are trying to make.

My friend, be very careful and LOOK a bit CLOSER at your POST.

...the thought, the thinker, that which is thought about, the thought, the thinker, that which is thought about...

Where my friend ARE you?

Just a friendly THOUGHT.

Link to comment

I read Sister Beck's talk again, then read the website, then read Sister Beck's talk again, and the website again.

Did any of the people who made the website or who signed the petition even attempt to read Sister Beck's talk and understand it? What did most of the points on the website have to do with Sister Beck's talk?

The disconnect was so pronounced that I have to think that those who created the website and those who signed it have agendas to remake Church doctrine and perspective in their own worldly images, and that Sister Beck's talk happened to be simply an opportunity to extract assumptions based on everything they think is wrong with the Church.

The allusions in the website are subtle and couched in terms that are designed to be softened to make them more palatable to the average person, but they are, nonetheless, attempts to present some things that are in opposition to church doctrine - in the context of other things that no one would disagree with.

Link to comment

I read Sister Beck's talk again, then read the website, then read Sister Beck's talk again, and the website again.

Did any of the people who made the website or who signed the petition even attempt to read Sister Beck's talk and understand it? What did most of the points on the website have to do with Sister Beck's talk?

The disconnect was so pronounced that I have to think that those who created the website and those who signed it have agendas to remake Church doctrine and perspective in their own worldly images, and that Sister Beck's talk happened to be simply an opportunity to extract assumptions based on everything they think is wrong with the Church.

The allusions in the website are subtle and couched in terms that are designed to be softened to make them more palatable to the average person, but they are, nonetheless, attempts to present some things that are in opposition to church doctrine - in the context of other things that no one would disagree with.

It is VERY CLEAR to SEE that yes they are just what you have IDENTIFIED with that nice piece of apparatus that you have there. :P OPPORTUNIST!

Nehor - It will be a sad story to follow the journey of these our sisters IF they do OPEN their OWN eyes and get OFF that train, which is on the track that WILL derail those who make the CHOICE to stay on it.

In this there is no doubt.

May we all here, continue to be WATCHFUL of one another and be keepers of the flock and stay within the Gate, even at times when we DO have a beef. LOL Because, don't we ALL like a big fat juicy burger at times?

But there are safety nets that are given us and they are NOT to be seen as MUZZLES or things NOT SAID, etc..

ie... unwritten rules, those Who Know,

People, these are Satan's ways to GET YOU! Can't YOU SEE?

When the conversations TAKE YOU AWAY... Look for those who will LIFT YOU UP! ;) THAT'S REAL LOVE.

Link to comment

I will not sign on to this "statement"... I am as strong minded, and opinionated LDS woman as they come, having worked in the academic community for 30 years... but I view the statement as divisive and a direct attack on and ridicule of Pres Beck and the message and ideas she conveyed.

The statement, in part, is also in opposition to the concepts of the Proclamation on the Family, hence the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve.

Additionally, to cite the story of the 2,000 stripling warriors, who were taught then encouraged by their mothers, with "unutterable sadness," is to show a lack of understanding of the will and power of the Lord for their preservation...

v. 26 "And now, their preservation was astonishing to our whole army, yea, that they should be spared while there was a thousand of our brethren who were slain. And we do justly ascribe it to the miraculous power of God, because of their exceeding faith in that which they had been taught to believe--that there was a just God, and whosoever did not doubt, that they should be preserved by his marvelous power."

I find I can relate to some thoughts contained in the statement... but overall, I view it as encouraging dissension between the women of the Church... some will sign it, some will not. We are at odds right there.

The Garden Girl

Link to comment

My friend, be very careful and LOOK a bit CLOSER at your POST.

...the thought, the thinker, that which is thought about, the thought, the thinker, that which is thought about...

Where my friend ARE you?

Just a friendly THOUGHT.

What's with all the capitalizations? Geesh, so forboding...

See, I don't get why people get all hyper either way. Alot of ladies liked the talk. Some ladies didn't like the talk. I didn't get riled up by the talk, I understand that certain aspects of the talk can be taken in a way that people don't agree with though. At the same time, I think when you take in all of Beck's talks, it's easier to put her talk in context.

They make a sort of petition with alot of points that aren't that earth shattering(men being nurturing isn't exactly ). I find it heavy handed in it's presentation, as I already said. Some points actually veer off alot from the talk even. But to respond to it the way you are doing is just adding to the heavy handedness. I feel like sometimes people just get a little dramatic on both sides, and like everyone should just chill and take a breath.

The reality is there's always been some divides with the Mormon community on some of these issues for awhile now. There's some cultural divides going on, some political divides I'd say in terms of one of those points possibly, some regional divides even. Usually they don't come to the surface that often like this, but it's there. That's what I see more than anything with this petition-people thinking that talk represented something bigger than just that talk honestly.

Link to comment

I thought the item was right on point on a few of the things they mentioned, and over the top on a few other. Also, I think they raised objections to things that Sister Beck never really said. It was after all only a 10 minute talk. She said nothing to imply that men are not expected to nurture children as well.

That said, irrespective of this item I think there was a lot in Sister Becks talk that was overly heavy and ridden with language that, dare I say it.......used guilt as a tool. She attempted really to paint a picture that to be a faithful woman one must meet a certain mold-be a stay at home mom, want kids and want them now and not delay, keep the perfect house and make sure your kids are picture perfect on the outside and so on. I thought it was pretty bad talk given the diversity of women in the Church and the fact that many, if not most LDS women work and that out of necessity though many work and have careers because they want to. I have no doubt the talk will be used in many wards by women who think they are toeing the line to club working women or women who delay or choose not to have children for whatever reason.

Link to comment

"We claim the life-affirming powers of spirit, breath, and wisdom, and reject the glorification of violence in all its forms. We are filled with unutterable sadness by the Book of Mormon story of more than 2,000 young soldiers whose mothers teach them that faith in God will preserve them in battles in which they kill other mothers' children. This is not a success story. It is a story of the failure of human relationships and the horrors of war. In a world that has grown increasingly violent, we believe that one of the most important passages in LDS scripture is D&C 98:16: â??Therefore, renounce war and proclaim peace. . . .â?"

What a load of crap. I think if I were the Bishop of a woman who signed this, I'd hold a disciplinary council for apostasy.

Hmmm, so if a person attacks my family or if they attack my neighbors who are single mothers or their children, I should ignore these attacks. The 2000 stripling warriors wasn't about glorification of war and violence, it's about the bravery of young men confronting it and overcoming it.

It sickens me when people forsake their duties to help protect others and their own and leave it to other people to do so. It's like the old cliche, "Freedom isn't free", but apparently there are those who absolutely believe that it is, at least for them and they are more than willing to let others pay the price.

Link to comment

Is "Star Wars" glorified violence?

Are the tales by the Brothers Grimm glorified violence?

Are stories about George Washington glorified violence?

Are the accounts of "Zion's Camp" glorified violence

Should all the above be shunned and all who read them, talk about them, or watch them be soundly condemned and shunned?

Kind of like Drew said, I think some of that partition is a crock of poop.

Is organized sports glorified violence?

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...