"What Women Know"...

[Teancum]

I'm not sure I follow all you're saying. I never made any statements about what women should or should not do. I do think, however, that the petition mentioned in the OP openly criticizes church leaders, scripture, and doctrine. As such, a person who openly preaches or gives support to such views is in apostasy. Apostasy does in fact warrant church discipline. Now, if a person repents, they'll be forgiven. If not, there can be no mercy.

Once again, the personal attacks are wonderful.

Keep them coming.

Nothing personal. I just would fear for your flock if you are like you are here and now.

BTW, apostasy has to be pretty egregious apostasy before you hold a council. Thus it is a rare thing. And certainly signing a letter like this on some obscure internet site is really pretty benign.

Right. It's clear because you infer it from the talk. Got it.

Based on the talk in total, Sister Beck was talking about attributes of "Women who know". It did not, as far as I can see, make judgments on those who did not have those attributes.

Given the lack of specific statements in that context, you seem to feel free to make your own interpretation from what you infer in the talk and claim clarity for it. You expand the talk beyond what was meant and then condemn Sister Beck for what you infer from her comments - without any clear support for your inference.

You bet we're going to disagree - because you haven't made a logical case for your interpretation. Not from the tone of the entire talk, nor from your attempts to claim "clarity" in your inference of what was not specifically said.

What is clear to me from your comments is that you are shaping Sister Beck's talk in the light of your own assumptions and prejudices - and claiming them as clear fact. Hence, when you claim Sister Beck said that sisters who don't share the attributes she lists are "faithless", your claim is not factual. Without specific statements from Sister Beck supporting your claim of "faithlessness", the "clarity" you claim is an illusion.

Whatever.

[Teancum]

The mocking continues. Did I ever claim to be "so full of wisdom and charitable love"? I was only defending my view against the attack that I must lack love or charity.

Maybe I should start a personal attack too so I can get in style!

Thanks for the sob story, lecture, and more judgment. You obviously didn't read what I had to say, or, like you do with Sister Beck, are judging my thoughts and putting words into my mouth. You're great at that, it seems.

Right, and this makes the fourth time that I've said that would be acceptable in my view unless the person was unwilling to repent. I guess I have confirmed you didn't read my posts for sure.

I guess now I'm supposed to lecture you about being judgmental, proud, etc, etc, etc. However, I won't return the favor.

Feel free to continue. This is quite funny. Sob story? Nope. Just life dude and much of it. Some from mine, some from others. If you only saw judgement and a son story in what I said, well that speaks volumes. Best wishes in your journey. Life will work on you and change you. That is for certain.

[Drewm777]

Nothing personal. I just would fear for your flock if you are like you are here and now.

Keep the insults coming. I love it, apparently.

BTW, apostasy has to be pretty egregious apostasy before you hold a council. Thus it is a rare thing. And certainly signing a letter like this on some obscure internet[sic] site is really pretty benign.

The Church defines apostasy in the church hand book in 4 or 5 ways. One is simply joining another church. Another is teaching doctrines that are opposed to church doctrines and continuing to do so after being corrected by church leaders. These mandate excommunication. So, if a person in my ward signed the petition, and after being warned continue to publicly support such a view, excommunication is what the Church Handbook of Instructions mandates. I would follow the leaders. Perhaps that's the real issue here. You take offense at the leaders (Sister Beck and the Church Handbook which is authorized by the First Presidency) whereas I attempt to follow them?

[jwhitlock]

Whatever.

Which is about the only thing you can really say. You're going to believe what you want to believe, whether it's factual or not. One would only hope for some realistic support of the claims of labeling people as "faithless" that you attribute to Sister Beck.

I guess we're not going to get that support.

[Drewm777]

I feel I am wasting my time, so I will take the (un)-kind suggestion of the "mod" to stop posting here.

[alter idem]

The mocking continues. Did I ever claim to be "so full of wisdom and charitable love"? I was only defending my view against the attack that I must lack love or charity.

Maybe I should start a personal attack too so I can get in style!

Thanks for the sob story, lecture, and more judgment. You obviously didn't read what I had to say, or, like you do with Sister Beck, are judging my thoughts and putting words into my mouth. You're great at that, it seems.

Right, and this makes the fourth time that I've said that would be acceptable in my view unless the person was unwilling to repent. I guess I have confirmed you didn't read my posts for sure.

I guess now I'm supposed to lecture you about being judgmental, proud, etc, etc, etc. However, I won't return the favor.

You need to step back and get the chip off your shoulder. I did not read anything of a "personal attack" in those comments Teancum made. He was stating fact. You are only 25 and you've got a lot to learn. Read his comments again and maybe you can glean a little wisdom from them.

[Teancum]

Keep the insults coming. I love it, apparently.

The Church defines apostasy in the church hand book in 4 or 5 ways. One is simply joining another church. Another is teaching doctrines that are opposed to church doctrines and continuing to do so after being corrected by church leaders. These mandate excommunication. So, if a person in my ward signed the petition, and after being warned continue to publicly support such a view, excommunication is what the Church Handbook of Instructions mandates. I would follow the leaders. Perhaps that's the real issue here. You take offense at the leaders (Sister Beck and the Church Handbook which is authorized by the First Presidency) whereas I attempt to follow them?

Yep. I have a handbook in front of me. Right now. As I type. A current one at that. Apostasy is one of the sins that mandate a counsel. ANd there are 4 things listed as apostasy. I really don't think signing this petition falls into any of those. Now if someone who signs it brings it too church, circulates it and asks for other members to sign it, wants to have a press conference about it, wants to mail it to stake members, or send it to the FP, that might warrant a counsel.

Which is about the only thing you can really say. You're going to believe what you want to believe, whether it's factual or not. One would only hope for some realistic support of the claims of labeling people as "faithless" that you attribute to Sister Beck.

I guess we're not going to get that support.

Sure you are correct. Nothing in sister becks talk says anything like what I think.

I hope you sleep better tonight now.

[LDSBruin]

2: As for defending working for women as a wonderful lifestyle where did I do that? All I am defending is the right for women to choose and still be considered faithful LDS if they do not choose the traditional role. Please don't tell be you have never seen women in the Church who are not more traditional be put down because of it.

Obviously a woman has the right to choose. But Sister Beck pointed out that the Lord has asked women to rear children and that it is an important responsibility. There are of course exceptions and plenty of them. Similarly, the Lord has asked young men to serve missions. If a young man wants to fully observe the will of the Lord, he will serve a mission. There will always be exceptions for those who can't and those who choose not to. Does not choosing to serve a mission mean you are a doomed failure? Absolutely not, but that doesn't not change the fact that the Lord wishes you had. Nobody makes it through life choosing all the right things, but that doesn't mean we should stop teaching what those things are in order to make everyone feel better about making bad decisions. We just have to accept the fact that we aren't perfect and just keep working on it.

[jwhitlock]

Sure you are correct. Nothing in sister becks talk says anything like what I think.

I hope you sleep better tonight now.

And there you go again. Another generalization about what you claim I have said about you. Which, of course, I never said.

But you do have to exaggerate in order to make your point, don't you. Such a poor foundation to base your assumptions on.

Of course, you could start to point to specific statements to make your point. But that wouldn't be as much fun as coming up with "clear" inferences that you can make up yourself.

[koakaipo]

I'm not sure I follow all you're saying. I never made any statements about what women should or should not do. I do think, however, that the petition mentioned in the OP openly criticizes church leaders, scripture, and doctrine. As such, a person who openly preaches or gives support to such views is in apostasy. Apostasy does in fact warrant church discipline. Now, if a person repents, they'll be forgiven. If not, there can be no mercy.

Once again, the personal attacks are wonderful.

Drewn-I know you aren't posting anymore, so I just want to clarify. What I mean is folks who champion Sister Beck's talk and those who have concerns with her talk in some ways are basically setting up the "other side"

to act the very way they are anticipating:

1) Sister Beck gives a talk. Some have a problem with the narrow scope of Mormon women's experiences and feel that in some ways it's leaving no room for deviation of any kind from the narrow cultural standards put forth.

so

2) Some decide to write a petition-that in turn leaves little to no room for pro Beck talk people to respond except in a defensive way

so

3) people on this thread have suggested various ways to further paint people into a corner as incentive to get them in line.

It's like watching a dance to me, and I think in many ways, the way EACH side responds to the other is setting up a self fulfilled prophecy-that the other side really is just a bunch of feminazis or mormonazis. And that's not the best destination to arrive at. Total snowball effect.

[Teancum]

And there you go again. Another generalization about what you claim I have said about you. Which, of course, I never said.

But you do have to exaggerate in order to make your point, don't you. Such a poor foundation to base your assumptions on.

Of course, you could start to point to specific statements to make your point. But that wouldn't be as much fun as coming up with "clear" inferences that you can make up yourself.

Here is the deal. When someone is trying to make a point and they list out a number of items that a woman who know does then the plain and simple implication is that women who do not do what the person lists is not what she says the woman who knows is. Faithful women have children, do not put it off, and Beck quotes president Benson to emphasize the point. Thus if one is delaying and putting it off she is left to conclude what? Simply she is not faithful

If I say, people who lose weight and are in shape exercise and watch what they eat you can easily conclude that people who don't do not lose weight and are not in shape.

If you really cannot see this and think I really jump to inferences that are just not there I cannot do anything to convince you otherwise.

[staccato]

This is where you are going off the rail, down the embankment, and into the ravine. Who are you to determine whether her time is more profitably spent in the laboratory or the nursery?

That's her call- and you have no right to demean it.

I didn't. I just said she was not living up to her potential as a scientist if she is spending her time elsewhere. This seems like a common sense enough explanation.

Neither did I demean her life, or the life of a woman who chooses to stay at home. I simply used my example as a case where a woman might not be living up to her potential by choosing to stay at home. There are a lot of women who have made substantial contributions to our society by choosing to let their light shine in an area not outside the home. I hope you don't mean to demean them as well.

I am a veritable font of bovine excrement, but the point remains. You are buying into the secular humanist notion that she can only make the full use of her talents outside the home and that she is somehow wasting her first fruits because her priorities are different than those of Babylon.

I am not buying into anything. I am a mother who works from my home part-time. But I have worked outside the home in the past with some very talented and skilled businesswomen. They have made the choice to pursue these skills and I say good for them.

[harnwolf]

Wow. I'm not sure where all of that came from, Selek. My point is that women have all sorts of talents and it is incumbent upon us to develop those talents and not hide them under a bushel. If indeed a woman is a known genius at scientific research (a general example to prove the point that womens talents are unique and diverse) then if she goes home and changes a diaper she is not developing her talent of scientific research, is she?

That was my point. I don't give a flying fig about accolades or babylon or fixations on temporal or transient. You made all of that crap up yourself.

Part of your point also implied that if a woman stays at home to bring up her kids, she has "waste brains and skills."

>>It may well be, depending on your field. If you are a genius at scientific research, for instance, and choose instead to go home, change diapers and make applesauce, your skills at scientific research are going to stagnate. You will not have reached your potential within the scientific realm. So in that scenario, you have wasted brains and skills.<<

I think that is far too broad a statement. My wife has a wonderful business sense, started a couple businesses herself, then got married, had kids, stayed home to bring up those kids, until the combination of the kids getting older, and finding a flexible part-time job allowed her to both. I don't see any time in her life that she "wasted her brains and skills." although she didn't use certain ones for a while.

My sister is a an intelligent, educated woman, who is also a single mom with an autistic child. I feel bad for her as she is relatively "trapped" due to her circumstances. But I also know that her life is not "wasted", that she has become a great student and skilled practicer of unconditional love. This, combined with my faith in God's being fair and just (even though I sometimes don't "get it"), makes me believe that her life, regardless of whether or not she ever gets a chance to use certain skills, will allow her to reach certain potentials.

I see street people addicted to Meth. At this point in time, their lives may be "wasted". Using that term in regards to anyone who chooses to stay at home to raise kids, regardless of their IQ, is, I think, short-sited.

[selek]

I didn't. I just said she was not living up to her potential as a scientist if she is spending her time elsewhere. This seems like a common sense enough explanation.

Neither did I demean her life, or the life of a woman who chooses to stay at home. I simply used my example as a case where a woman might not be living up to her potential by choosing to stay at home. There are a lot of women who have made substantial contributions to our society by choosing to let their light shine in an area not outside the home. I hope you don't mean to demean them as well.

I am not buying into anything. I am a mother who works from my home part-time. But I have worked outside the home in the past with some very talented and skilled businesswomen. They have made the choice to pursue these skills and I say good for them.

Your protestations of innocence notwithstanding, it was you who spoke demeaningly of changing diapers and making applesauce.

I'm not the only one to call you on it- your condescension is already clearly on record, desperate denials notwithstanding.

[Chaos]

Clean it up. Teancum and Drew get out of the thread now. You can take your back and forth to PM's.

I feel I am wasting my time, so I will take the (un)-kind suggestion of the "mod" to stop posting here.

The mod never told you to stop posting here, just stop posting in this thread. I don't believe the mod was trying to be unkind, I believe he/she was trying to put some flames out before things turned into personal attacks as you can see above.

[Drewm777]

Clean it up. Teancum and Drew get out of the thread now. You can take your back and forth to PM's.

I already gave up talking to him. It's not possible to talk with someone who insists on passing judgment and attacking you personally. I had to stop before I resorted to his low level of maturity.

The mod never told you to stop posting here. Just stop posting in this thread.

Right, that's what I meant. However, the mod was clearly wrong since I had done nothing to break any rules. The irony is that I'm accused of wielding unrighteous dominion while I'm being told to leave the post simply because someone doesn't like my ideas.

[harnwolf]

I think your definition of love and your criticism, is, well, narrow.

To let apostates openly teach false doctrine and/or support it is damaging to other members of the church. To discipline such behavior is an act of love both for the sinner and for those who might be damaged by their behavior. The handbook outlines this.

Did no one actually read the post? I said, such action would be taken out of concern to protect the members of the ward from apostate teachings and practices. I'm sorry if you see that as judgmental or exercising the priesthood improperly. It is not. For some reason, people think that discipline and love are not compatible. They are.

That might not be a bad place to start. I'd then counsel them to renounce those beliefs. If they did not, then I would proceed with discipline.

I'm curious which believes in their manifesto you'd require them to renounce?

[Drewm777]

I'm curious which believes in their manifesto you'd require them to renounce?

harnwolf,

That's a great question. However, I'm not allowed to express my views in this thread any more. You can PM me if you'd like.

Don't say you weren't warned. You were given the choice to move out so now we will do it for you with a suspension. ~ Mods

[staccato]

Who cares if someone doesn't reach their potenial in every 'realm' they have talents at?

God does, I suppose. He was the one that asked man/woman to realize their full potential.

What if you are a genius at science who is also a genius at molding your own children into adults that will change the world for generations to come?

If you choose science over your children-more has been wasted than was gained.

What if indeed? According to Florence Nightingale, God told her she was to go on a different mission in life. She forsook social niceties and marriage and launched a career in caring for the ill, transforming and legitimizing nursing. Was she in the wrong? Was her life more wasted than gained because she didn't have children? How many children did she save with her efforts?

And finally, thank goodness for mothers who see the benefits of changing diapers and making applesauce because they have contributed more to the world through-out time than women who have shunned such activities.

And i say that as a child of a working mother who has saved many a person's life, but who is under no delusion that there was any success that she could have in a career that would outshine the success she had as a mother.

I am a mother of more children than you, Bluebell. I think I understand both the inside home and outside home lifestyles quite well. In my world, there is no such thing as success as a mother. Mothering never ends and I have always viewed an indicator of success as a completion of a goal. (The fact that one has made it throughout any particular day without killing their teenager does not count as a success )

[jwhitlock]

Here is the deal. When someone is trying to make a point and they list out a number of items that a woman who know does then the plain and simple implication is that women who do not do what the person lists is not what she says the woman who knows is. Faithful women have children, do not put it off, and Beck quotes president Benson to emphasize the point. Thus if one is delaying and putting it off she is left to conclude what? Simply she is not faithful

If I say, people who lose weight and are in shape exercise and watch what they eat you can easily conclude that people who don't do not lose weight and are not in shape.

If you really cannot see this and think I really jump to inferences that are just not there I cannot do anything to convince you otherwise.

Here's the real deal. And I'll use Sister Beck's own words, so we don't have to endure inaccurate analogies that don't apply - like people whose metabolism keeps them thin, without regard to their exercise or how much they eat. After all, there are always other possibilities outside of the narrow options that we often confine ourselves to, because of our prejudices.

There are four statements that could be made, one of which was made by Sister Beck:

Faithful daughters of God desire children. (Sister Beck's statement)

Faithless daughters of God desire children.

Faithful daughters of God don't desire children.

Faithless daughters of God don't desire children. (your claim that this was the only possible alternative)

All four statements can be true in their own context, given individual situations. All four can be qualified by other inferred statements, which are entirely speculative - because Sister Beck didn't further qualify her statement.

There is nothing in Sister Beck's talk that indicates she would disagree with any of those statements. However, the first statement was simply made within the narrow confines of her subject at hand - which related to faithful sisters in certain situations - not faithless ones. It was the first one that she was addressing as part of the topic at hand - which was not meant to be all inclusive.

There. It's really as simple as that.

And again, you really should be more accurate in what you claim Sister Beck says - what you said (see my quote of you above) did not qualify what Sister Beck said with the important word "desire". Did you leave that word out of your paraphrase on purpose?

And also, where did I say that you jump to inferences that are not there? I was careful to point out that your "clear" interpretation was that only "faithless" sisters could be inferred as not wanting children - which, as we can see, is not the only interpretation possible.

It's always been interesting to me to see how people will take certain inferences and opinions as fact - when they can't be backed up. It's also interesting to see how some members have problems with the Church because of personal interpretations and inferences that are, many times, not accurate. To get worked up outside of the narrow scope of Sister Beck's talk by so-called "inferences" presented as fact is an exercise in futility indeed.

Don't be too eager to jump to unwarranted conclusions like the presenters of the petition did. It's why we're commanded to read and ponder using the Spirit - rather than reading with our own prejudices and assumptions.

[Teancum]

Here's the real deal. And I'll use Sister Beck's own words, so we don't have to endure inaccurate analogies that don't apply - like people whose metabolism keeps them thin, without regard to their exercise or how much they eat. After all, there are always other possibilities outside of the narrow options that we often confine ourselves to, because of our prejudices.

There are four statements that could be made, one of which was made by Sister Beck:

Faithful daughters of God desire children. (Sister Beck's statement)

Faithless daughters of God desire children.

Faithful daughters of God don't desire children.

Faithless daughters of God don't desire children. (your claim that this was the only possible alternative)

All four statements can be true in their own context, given individual situations. All four can be qualified by other inferred statements, which are entirely speculative - because Sister Beck didn't further qualify her statement.

There is nothing in Sister Beck's talk that indicates she would disagree with any of those statements. However, the first statement was simply made within the narrow confines of her subject at hand - which related to faithful sisters in certain situations - not faithless ones. It was the first one that she was addressing as part of the topic at hand - which was not meant to be all inclusive.

There. It's really as simple as that.

And again, you really should be more accurate in what you claim Sister Beck says - what you said (see my quote of you above) did not qualify what Sister Beck said with the important word "desire". Did you leave that word out of your paraphrase on purpose?

And also, where did I say that you jump to inferences that are not there? I was careful to point out that your "clear" interpretation was that only "faithless" sisters could be inferred as not wanting children - which, as we can see, is not the only interpretation possible.

It's always been interesting to me to see how people will take certain inferences and opinions as fact - when they can't be backed up. It's also interesting to see how some members have problems with the Church because of personal interpretations and inferences that are, many times, not accurate. To get worked up outside of the narrow scope of Sister Beck's talk by so-called "inferences" presented as fact is an exercise in futility indeed.

Don't be too eager to jump to unwarranted conclusions like the presenters of the petition did. It's why we're commanded to read and ponder using the Spirit - rather than reading with our own prejudices and assumptions.

I am sorry that we disagree so strongly on this but we do. It seems to me the whole point of the talk was to tell women what they should be. By default, if they are not what she outlined then they are not as faithful as those who are. Faithful people pay their tithing......and so on.

Well you can have the last word if you wish. I certainly have been wrong before and could be this time as well.

[Hyrum Page]

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?

Interesting. I do not see an attack on Sister Beck here. I see people expressing a different opinion. Nowhere is it suggested that Sister Beck is not entitled to have or express a strong opinion. Are the people who signed the statement not allowed the same without being accused of attacking Sister Beck when they did not, in fact, do so?

[Hammer]

Interesting. I do not see an attack on Sister Beck here. I see people expressing a different opinion. Nowhere is it suggested that Sister Beck is not entitled to have or express a strong opinion. Are the people who signed the statement not allowed the same without being accused of attacking Sister Beck when they did not, in fact, do so?

Is Sister Beck a Leader? Was she asked to speak at Conference? Was her talk previewed and okayed by the Brethren?

Then why are we all about opinions? I thought we went to be TAUGHT? Are we unteachable? What is said in the scriptures about those who opose Z I O N?

[Iohannes]

Hammer,

Nice to meet you. I'd also add that the leaders of the church did not edit the talk before it was printed thus adding their stamp of approval.

[Hammer]

Hammer,

Nice to meet you. I'd also add that the leaders of the church did not edit the talk before it was printed thus adding their stamp of approval.

Good point. And nice to meet you as well.