"What Women Know"...

[jwhitlock]

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.

You and I disagree on what the default opposite always is. There are other ways it can be interpreted.

The reason I hammer on this is that critics of the Church want us to believe that the full opposite of a statement made by a Church leader is always factual and true - when, as demonstrated by my post of other alternatives to Sister Beck's statement, that is not the case.

Unless a Church leader further qualifies their statement, or issues a clarifying statement about the opposite, our attempts to ascribe other statements to them are speculative in nature only - which is something those who composed the petition were loathe to acknowledge. They were too busy trying to ascribe negative factual assertions to Sister Beck's talk whereas she had made no such specific negative assertions concerning the "faithlessness" of other sisters.

And I consider the presentation of such speculation as fact to be deceptive in nature.

[Sargon]

The very first thing Drew said was this:

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.

Holding a disciplinary council, as Drew has said, is not automatic ex-communication, disfellowshipment, or even suspension from taking the sacrament. It isn't automatic discipline of any sort. It is a council to determine if any discipline should be taken. The only logical thing to do is to determine if discipline should be taken at all and of what nature, and that is exactly what a disciplinary council is for.

Drew did not say he would immediately chop off their heads.

Sargon

[Mark Beesley]

I, for one, am in favor of women cleaning . . .

My wife, on the other hand, is in favor of me cleaning . . .

Guess who cleans?

(My opinion: Only weak women would feel a need to sign that silly petition.)

[Iohannes]

The very first thing Drew said was this:

Holding a disciplinary council, as Drew has said, is not automatic ex-communication, disfellowshipment, or even suspension from taking the sacrament. It isn't automatic discipline of any sort. It is a council to determine if any discipline should be taken. The only logical thing to do is to determine if discipline should be taken at all and of what nature, and that is exactly what a disciplinary council is for.

Drew did not say he would immediately chop off their heads.

Sargon

Drew says thanks, Sargon. I think you hit the nail on the head and said it better than he probably could have.

I don't guess it is very wise for me to post on this thread.

[T-Shirt]

"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?"

My thoughts on this nonsense are best said in the following quote by John Stuart Mill:

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

Regards,

T-Shirt

[BCSpace]

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.

It reads into Beck's talk things that are not there and badly misses the point of certain scriptures alluded to or quoted. It presents views that are contrary to LDS doctrine such as the Proclaimation on the Family. It assumes that the ideal should not be attained because it is hard or somehow puts women down.

Therefore I will add my voice in saying that any LDS man or woman who signs it (active or not) is NOT a believing LDS man or women and that such should face rebuke and even disciplinary action.

[Sargon]

Drew says thanks, Sargon. I think you hit the nail on the head and said it better than he probably could have.

I don't guess it is very wise for me to post on this thread.

Tell Drew he can thank me by getting the master's autograph this weekend at Thanksgiving. The Doctor of Democracy said the following this week:

"The first contingent of over 60 members of my family arrives today for the Thanksgiving week. It's going to be an interesting week here, folks."

P.S. I'm currently serving in the bishopric of a student ward as well. It is quite an experience.

Sargon

[Iohannes]

Tell Drew he can thank me by getting the master's autograph this weekend at Thanksgiving. The Doctor of Democracy said the following this week:

P.S. I'm currently serving in the bishopric of a student ward as well. It is quite an experience.

Sargon

hahaha Unfortunately we weren't invited. It's unlikely he knows we exist.

Drew served back at SVU for about 6 months before we moved. It was a great experience, although it was sad to see so many in the ward struggling. He says that nearly 1/10 of the ward was on probation of some sort or another for sexual sin. That's one of the big problems of student wards.

[miles45]

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.

sounds perfectly reasonable. Dont get what the fuss over your view is about..

[jwhitlock]

sounds perfectly reasonable. Dont get what the fuss over your view is about..

Read the rest of the posts. That will explain what the fuss is about.

[Teancum]

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?

I do not think conference talks are previewed.

One can go to listen, be taught and so on and still have differing opinions about what is said? Does being teachable mean one does not think, evaluate, form opinions and so on?

Is every word uttered at a conference official doctrine or even official direction?

[BCSpace]

Is every word uttered at a conference official doctrine or even official direction?

If published, yes.

[Teancum]

The very first thing Drew said was this:

Holding a disciplinary council, as Drew has said, is not automatic ex-communication, disfellowshipment, or even suspension from taking the sacrament. It isn't automatic discipline of any sort. It is a council to determine if any discipline should be taken. The only logical thing to do is to determine if discipline should be taken at all and of what nature, and that is exactly what a disciplinary council is for.

Drew did not say he would immediately chop off their heads.

Sargon

Hmmmm....well sure, a council has lots of potential outcomes. One may be do nothing. One may be excommunication. The others are in between.

But consider this. The threat of a DC for any active Church member is pretty scary and intimidating. Depending on whether it is a ward council or stake Council 4-17 men are going to sit in on it and judge you. You get and official letter stating that a council is to be held because of XY or Z reason. That is pretty heavy for most people. So while a council has lots of outcome potential it is a pretty large and looming device. And they are not usually held unless there is a high chance of some sort of formal action.

[Mark Beesley]

If published, yes.

When did that rule take effect???

[Teancum]

If published, yes.

Really

So maybe we should start a thread about some of the things that were said in 19th century general conferences that were published that I have been told are not official doctrine or direction.

[Mark Beesley]

Really

So maybe we should start a thread about some of the things that were said in 19th century general conferences that were published that I have been told are not official doctrine or direction.

Why go to the 19th Century? There was plenty said during the 20th Century that has been disavowed. Just ask Elder McConkie . . .

[OMWO2]

Wow thanks for the feedback. I am struggling trying to read all the responses in the thread. As I imagined there are varied thoughts on one's participation in the website. I also have noticed, just as an observation, that the list of names on the website has grown rapidly the past few days.

[WhiteStone]

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

Drewm777,

Please don't think that you stand alone. I hope you do not take the advice which you have been given, which takes your voice and puts it in a box. IMO, If you were to take that road and not speak here any longer, you may well someday find that you give your voice to the likes of that which you state you would NOT sign, such AS the "title of liberation" in the OP.

Look, no one is being censured here for their ideas. We're just asking posters to be considerate in the manner in which they respond to others. When things get heated we sometimes ask posters to back out of a specific thread to avoid problems. If the posters can modulate and moderate themselves, then they are welcomed to continue. Drew is welcome here as well as Teancum and BCSpace and others. Differing and strong opinions are welcomed here. Just be considerate and respectful in how you respond to others and allow others their opinions. Golden rule type of stuff. No one needs to be a martyr. ~mods

Meaning, those frustrated, who feel that they have NOT a place to speak their voices, therefore they speak them inappropriately because they do not FEEL validated for personal reasons. It must have come because of frustration from NOT being heard and validated. Therefore, they jump on A bandwagon that kind of fits and feels better than anything has previously. Heck, what have they got to lose?

Isn't it interesting that nobody is arguing that WHAT these women are saying is all wrong? It is about HOW they have chosen to go about it and the ATTITUDES they have developed, as well as the possible MOTIVES that may be couched, in between not what was so much said, but what they apparently feel was NOT SAID in Sister Beck's talk.

Therefore, IMO in their minds, perhaps not all women WOULD KNOW WHO LDS WOMEN ARE by Sister Beck's talk IF this is supposed to be THE representation? To the women who have posted and signed the OP, Sister Beck's talk is unacceptable as a representation of a worldwide church and of each of them as members.

I believe that you clearly see their ACTIONS in the way they have chosen to speak as a clearly SEPARATE issue than WHAT they have spoken IN their proclamation FIRST.

SECOND is the CONTENT, which clearly also is in question as to where they each personally would be? But that is much harder to know as that is so individual. The overall ACTION of these individuals to UNITE openly in OPPOSITION to those in authority is very much a FIRST concern. Any one of us who cannot see this or understand that position that this poster is attempting to lay before this thread is choosing to ignore many talks of past, present general authorities and prophets.

I would be most happy to post as many as you would like to read on just this topic. They are some of the easiest to locate, I assure all of you. What and why would you argue on this, more than perhaps a gentler approach, if that?

Is our search for who is right and who is wrong? I would think the search would be for understanding and truth amongst the Saints. I see this as divisiveness. Particularly when we are speaking with those younger I would think we would be mentors to understanding and wider perspective and refrain from condescending responses meant to intimidate.

So YOU must continue to speak of the hazards that you clearly see before you as you discern what you know to be true. What is wonderful about you is that you ARE young and NOT as cynical as so many here on these threads. I DO speak from the experiences of which have been spoken that you apparently lack due to your age. I have been around the block so to speak...

(go and read 1&2 Timothy for a boost to your age and wisdom which is being ignored here:-)

That is all I will say on that, other than do not let that intimidate you as the spirit is no respecter of AGE. His only requirement is that we RECEIVE the TRUTH and live it and speak it. See, you are still YOUTHFUL enough to RE-MEMBER the Young Women's Theme to Stand as a Witness at All times and in all places and in all things... The law of the spirit is that IF ye are willing to RECEIVE Him and ACT in His Name, ye shall receive MORE of His spirit.

(not sure of your gender w/yw theme.. but principle remains true)

I believe that is why the emphasis on the WORD (word = meaning Jesus Christ Himself) STAND as a WITNESS of Him is the entire focus of the the YW Theme. Think back of His life amongst His own?

REJECTED. Did he not speak TRUTH?

Truth must be spoken amongst the Saints where "tolerance" is the theme as we gather and sing blindly "all is well, all is well...".

Although I am not ready to say these individuals are apostate at this time, I do agree that they are clearly on the ROAD TO APOSTASY. It is this loving tolerance which we do willingly endure "amongst" the Saints as we walk and walk and walk to Zion, yet blindly even at noonday. Funny thing though, it is dusty and hot along the way, and so we continue to press on until we must stop for a bit of rest and we notice some have wandered off on strange roads? Maybe there is a different road and we shall see each other when we get there? Yes, that is it.

Hang in there. You have many valid thoughts, which will play themselves out unfortunately. I will stand by an earlier statement and again state that these ARE SATAN'S tactics to BLIND we as Saints as well as DIVIDE us.

Although there will always be differing opinions, did we not think we were all standing on the Lord's side, at least for the most part here, hmmm

It is not right that anyone would feel cast out in this manner. Personally, although new to this forum, I oppose that this individual has been made to feel this way and has needed to defend their position to this extent, when these thoughts were not out of bounds by any means.

Perhaps the issue of the OP had become repetitive, thus she was simply a target to throw a few darts? The bulls eye being boredom.

One more thing if someone could answer for me please. I would appreciate a simple definition, applicable to this forum only of course, for the word, troll. Thank you.

My apologies for capitol use of which I will refrain in the future. Is it okay to bold and when is it not okay, as not to offend? Which of course, is not my intention.

[WhiteStone]

My apologies Drewm777, it is now apparent to me that you are not a girl but you are a boy. A big grown up boy.

[BCSpace]

If published, yes.

When did that rule take effect???

It been in place as long as I've been cognizant of such things, more than 3 decades (CHI, TeacherpPrep, Missionary prep etc.). It's recently been restated in a news release by the LDS Church called "Approaching Mormon Doctrine" in May of 2007.

Caveats would be "of latest date"..... An example would be what GBH said about evolution in the 1970's and what BRM stated (and clarified) in the 1980's....and "Presented as doctrine"...no example off-hand, but if it is stated in a Church publication that something is opinion or "Generally considered to be" etc. then it obviously is not doctrine.

[WhiteStone]

Look, no one is being censured here for their ideas. We're just asking posters to be considerate in the manner in which they respond to others. When things get heated we sometimes ask posters to back out of a specific thread to avoid problems. If the posters can modulate and moderate themselves, then they are welcomed to continue. Drew is welcome here as well as Teancum and BCSpace. Differing and strong opinions are welcomed here. Just be considerate and respect in how you respond to others and allow others their opinions. Golden rule type of stuff. No one needs to be a martyr. ~mods

Wow, maybe because I am new here I am unawares of some personal histories going on? IMHO, which is not in any way personal to anyone of these individuals, I did not find that one person should be put in a situation of needing to defend so vigorously their opinion, which was not out of harmony while facing the threat, which actually then resulted in suspension. Frankly I am floored to say the least.

I understand the need for moderation and truly do appreciate knowing this exist. Perhaps as I said I am not aware of previous history? I can only place myself in same position and imagine the frustration that I might feel and actually have felt when/if ever silenced while attempting to discuss differing positions when understanding has not been met as yet.

Yes, frustration does emerge and "warm contentions" do often arise. It has always been a concern of mine personally that there is a lack in our abilities to perceive conflict versus contention. I expect that is difficult at times for a moderator to discern? Maybe not, as you have much more experience than I on these thread.

For me, as I read this entire thread, I think through most of it I understood Drewm777 and his frustration and feel the point was not being heard. I believe he made strong points. Yet he was not supported in numbers, thus the barrage. This was unfortunate.

If warnings become necessary, I would rather see both sides validated in needing such, and not the side with more of the same opinion. I think that alone would bring it down. I have always kept in mind that it requires a minimum of ONE on each side to create any kind of friction. So IMO both must be warned equally at the same time.

It is always more difficult to speak up when you are one, than many, regardless of the circumstances. Now add opposition into the mix, etc...

Therefore... THE UNDERDOG!

But also isn't there an old saying... the squeaky wheel gets the grease?

BULLIES!

I know you tossed out the wheel eventually, but perhaps everyone could have still played nice on the block and worked it out eventually? Not really sure, but I guess I like to think so as I am a blind idealist at times and would like to think that we could all be grown-ups. I always just hated restriction!

Well, it appears they have all been around for quite a while, so I guess everyone will just kiss and make-up, right?

Look, we just do the best we can at the moment. Sometimes we get it just right, sometimes we miss the mark. The job doesn't pay well. We don't need to continue derailing this thread by discussing the moderation <hint, hint> ~mods

[MorningStar]

I would like to discuss their affirmation point by point (my comments in purple). They're not calling Sister Beck names or anything, but it is a rebuttle to what she said. It's as if they are working hard to misinterpret the things she said or didn't say.

Who are we? We are women who differ in age, income, race/ethnicity, and marital status. (Which Sis. Beck knows.) Many of us are mothers, some with exceptionally large families. Some of us are grandmothers and great-grandmothers many times over. Some are young mothers, with infants and elementary-age children. Others of usâ??for reasons of biology, opportunity, or choiceâ??do not have children. (Are they saying they disagree that we are commanded to multiply and replenish the earth? This idea didn't come from Sis. Beck. Would they be bold enough to write a rebuttal to the family proclamation?) Some of us have never married. Some of us are single because of divorce or widowhood. A few of us have been with the same partner more than 50 years. (I still can't figure out if this is a substitute for the word "husband", but I still suspect some of them are pro same sex marriage which is obviously against the church.) We all workâ??paid or unpaid, both inside and outside our homes. We share many decades of church service among us. In fact, our LDS background is our common denominator. (This doesn't mean they should expect to be told what they want to hear or that their "inspiration" trumps revelations from the prophet.)

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: (Then basically they're telling us that the prophet is wrong and they are right.)

What Women Know

Fathers as well as mothers, men as well as women, are called to nurture. Nurturing is not confined to mothering or housekeeping, but is a universal attribute that communicates patience, peacefulness, and care.

Sis. Beck didn't say it was limited to motheirng and housekeeping.

Individuals and relationships flourish when we are able to share not only our strengths but also our mutual imperfections and needs. It is difficult to be compassionate with ourselves and others when we internalize injunctions to perform (e.g., â??the highest-performing sister missionary,â? â??the best homemaker in the world,â? â??the most patient and loving motherâ?). Motherhood and sisterhood cannot be reduced to the performance of narrowly-prescribed tasks, but emerge from who we know ourselves to be.

Should LDS women have the messiest, unorganized homes with lots of yelling, children being babysat by the TV, etc.? She is not telling us to compete with each other or focusing on the appearance of the home. Why do they ignore this quote? "Mothers who know do less. They permit less of what will not bear good fruit eternally. They allow less media in their homes, less distraction, less activity that draws their children away from their home. Mother who know are willing to live on less and consume less of the world's goods in order to spend more time with their children - more time eating together, more time working together, more time reading together, more time talking, laughing, singing, and exemplifying." This is about the atomsphere and Spirit in the home. We should each be anxiously engaged in seeing to the physical, spiritual, intellectual, and emotional needs of our children. This attempt to show that Sis. Beck is trying to tell us to be a bunch of subservient neat freaks is lame. She's not. What is the purpose of General Conference anyway? To tell us we're all doing just dandy and that we don't need to work on anything? I attend expecting to hear about something I can improve on and this talk had many great examples. I don't want them to humor me and tell me I'm fine just the way I am. Last year we had the talk on the Tongue of Angels and it was a great lesson to me. I suppose I could've written an "affirmation" about how I get grumpy and snap at my kids because I'm not feeling well or I didn't get enough sleep. I am responsible for the way I talk and I have to work on it. Or what about talks on forgiveness? Why don't we all write an affirmation about the horrible things people have done to us that excuse us from forgiving. "Yeah, forgiving is good, but so and so didn something REALLY bad to me. Some of us just can't be expected to forgive because it's different for us."

Cleanliness depends upon access to resources and has more to do with priorities than purity of heart. We do not place the additional burden of â??outward appearancesâ? on our sisters who are hauling fuel and water long distances; who are struggling with poverty, isolation, or ill health; or who choose values that take precedence over orderly living quarters and polished looks.

Sister Beck is not giving a burden of outward appearances. She was impressed that even in third world countries, the moms take great care in showing respect when they go to sacrament meeting because they are renewing covenants. Meanwhile, prosperous saints show up late wearing whatever. It's about the attitude. Did Baby Jesus really want frankincense and gold? No. They were giving their best to Him. That was the point. These women in third world countries give their best to the Lord. We could all be a little more thoughtful about our day of worship and teach our children the same. It just seems that whoever wrote this is looking to be offended by Sister Beck.

Housework is something that grownups do and that children learn by example and instruction. Unfortunately, women and girls still perform the bulk of the world's low-paid and unpaid labor, including houseworkâ??often at the expense of their own education, leadership, creativity, health, and well-being. Men and boys who share care-work and household responsibilities make it possible for all family members to live happier, more fulfilling lives.

Sis. Beck never said children and husbands shouldn't help with the housework or that women shouldn't make just as much as men for the same work. Women in the church are encouraged to enrich their lives, get an education, and gain marketable skills. Also, I would like to point out that many men do work they hate day after day for the welfare of their family, so it's not all sunshine and roses for them either. Work is a part of life. Everyone's house has to be cleaned, everyone needs to eat, and everyone needs clean clothes. We all have to do work we don't want to do. People say that men get to "follow their dream". No. Sometimes they have to pick a practical profession instead of their dream of becoming a rockstar and other things.

We reverence the responsibility to choose how, when, and whether we become parents. Many of us have adoptive and foster children and grandchildren from diverse ethnicities and cultures. We have given birth to children who range widely on every dimensionâ??from personality, appearance, and sexual identity to physical, social, and mental ability. No matter what their differences, we care for them all.

When did Sis. Beck say we shouldn't love our children no matter what? Where did she say there's anything wrong with having diverse children? Sister Beck even said in the talk that not all women are called to be mothers.

Effective parenting is a learned behavior, and, as parents, we learn and grow with each child. Children come with their own gifts, challenges, and freedom of choice. We reject teachings that encourage women to shoulder ultimate responsibility for every aspect of child-rearing and family life, and to take on shame and guilt when things do not go according to plan.

They are accusing Sis. Beck of saying something she didn't. If a parent teaches what they are supposed to, it is on their children's heads if they make the wrong choices. But it takes a lot of work to make sure your kids are being taught properly. Mothers and fathers raise their children together.

The choice to have children does not rule out other avenues of influence and power. By valuing ourselves as lifelong achievers, apart from our roles as mothers, friends, partners, sisters, aunts, and grandmothers, we stand for creativity, public service, competence, and growth. We take joy in the collective contributions we make in the fields of government, medicine, academia, law, journalism, human services, business, art, health care advocacy, music, technology, child development, and science.

Sister Beck didn't say that we should only be mothers. She's just stressing the importance of mothering. And are we supposed to be seeking "power"? Sister Beck is correct that our careers shouldn't come before our children. They need us. And she knows that many mothers are in the position where they absolutely have to work full-time. I believe God blesses them and helps them in the areas they fall short somehow.

When it comes to employment, most women prefer the luxury of choice to the limitations of necessity. Women-friendly policies such as flex-time and comparable pay for women and men, access to health care, family leave for births and care-work, and affordable, high-quality childcare give all of usâ??single or partnered, impoverished or privilegedâ??greater choice in how to support ourselves and our families.

Did Sis. Beck say otherwise? She knows that some women have to work and that they deserve equal pay and benefits. Many of the prophets have stated that we should stay home with our kids if we can and that having luxuries is not a reason to work. Again, this idea didn't come from Sis. Beck.

We work because we want to; because we need to; and because we have no other choice. We know that â??children are more important than possessions, position, and prestige.â? Some of us have been thrust into the position of sole economic support of our children through desertion, divorce, domestic violence, or death. Indeed, too many of us have learned that we are just one fully-employed male away from poverty.

She didn't say you shouldn't work if you're in any of those situations.

Men are our fathers, sons, brothers, partners, lovers, and friends. Many of them also struggle within a system that equates leadership with hierarchy and domination. We distrust separate-but-equal rhetoric; anyone who is regularly reminded that she is â??equally importantâ? is probably not. Partnership is illusory without equal decision-making power.

Now this just sounds like a slam against the priesthood. Do the authors of this affirmation want women to have the priesthood? So Sis. Beck reminds us that we are equal with men but these women don't accept this at face value. She's danged if she does, danged if she doesn't. I don't think all the women who signed this understand that some people behind this have actually left the church already. They are subtley trying to lure people in.

We have discovered that healthy relationships are equitable relationships. A relationship that is balanced in terms of economic and emotional power is safer and more resilient than a relationship in which one partner holds most or all of the power. Women with active support networks and marketable skills have greater options, not only in relationships, but in life.

Gee, Sis. Beck agrees that equitable relationships are healthy, but they don't believe her and their idea of equality seems to be how much money everyone makes and who gets to do the more exciting jobs.

We claim the life-affirming powers of spirit 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?

They're not even criticizing Sis. Beck here - They're criticizing The Book of Mormon and every prophet who has mentioned this story in a positive way! No, I don't see how any active LDS woman could sign this without having some leanings towards apostasy unless they're just not thorough readers. We can all agree that war is not good, but sometimes it is necessary. It should be a last resort. If I were a bishop, at the very least I would question anyone who signed this in my ward.

Our roles as mothers, sisters, daughters, partners, and friends are just a few of the many parts we will play in the course of our lives. We may influence hundreds, perhaps thousands of lives. But we are not our roles. We are created in the image of the divineâ??people of worth in our own right, in our choices, in our individuality, and in our belief that the life story we are ultimately responsible for is our own.

They seem to be under the impression that Sis. Beck is telling us only to be mothers. She's not. A woman can be a wonderful mother and accomplish many other things, but she is responsible for seeing to the needs of her children. That is her #1 responsibility. If they're waiting for church leaders to tell us that we should stay home with our kids if we can unless we are super smart and talented, they're going to be waiting a long time. I'm off to do the demeaning task of taking my kids on an educational field trip now.

[WhiteStone]

It been in place as long as I've been cognizant of such things, more than 3 decades (CHI, TeacherpPrep, Missionary prep etc.). It's recently been restated in a news release by the LDS Church called "Approaching Mormon Doctrine" in May of 2007.

Caveats would be "of latest date"..... An example would be what GBH said about evolution in the 1970's and what BRM stated (and clarified) in the 1980's....and "Presented as doctrine"...no example off-hand, but if it is stated in a Church publication that something is opinion or "Generally considered to be" etc. then it obviously is not doctrine.

Just for the mix and not to derail this thread, but since you have not been censured I will jump in. (appears safe enough)

As I was trained in CES about two years ago... We as instructors may use anything that has been reprinted IN Church approved materials that was previously said by any church leader AFTER 1969. This would indicate that it has been RE-approved by CES for use in our current Seminary and Institute classes.

So if I am teaching a class on "Women and the Priesthood" and I want to supplement my current D&C Seminary Manual Lesson Sec 121...

I have the okay to access anything else, Gen. Conf. ensign, New Era, Talk, old manuals, anything the church has previously published, which is a lot from 1969 up until now. That would also mean if something from Journal of Discourses, etc. has been published since 1969 it is okay to use currently. If I can't find it republished by THE CHURCH, it is then a NO NO.

This can actually become somewhat confusing for people when they start having the discussion as to "What is Doctrine"? Especially as they graduate seminary and move on and say well that is what I learned in seminary... ???

Well, that gives you a little info.

As far as our general conference talks, here are a few statements; (note that this talk was given in 1992, thus many of the quotes in the talk are now RE-approved for use)

Elder John E. Fowler

Becoming Wise Unto Salvation

President Benson has taught: “Success in righteousness, the power to avoid deception and resist temptation, guidance in our daily lives, healing of the soul—these are but a few of the promises the Lord has given to those who will come to His word.” (Ensign, May 1986, p. 82.)

Accordingly, with great urgency we invite all to come to the source of the fountain of light and truth, even the revealed word of God as taught in the scriptures and by the present prophets and Apostles and other general leaders of this Church. We invite all to hear and hearken to the messages of this and other recent conferences.

President Benson’s recent instruction on this point is timeless: “For the next six months your conference edition of the Ensign should stand next to your standard works and be referred to frequently. As my dear friend and brother [President] Harold B. Lee said, we should let these conference addresses ‘be the guide to [our] walk and talk during the next six months. These are the important matters the Lord sees fit to reveal to this people in this day.’ ” (Ensign, May 1988, p. 84.)

And hear these inspired statements from three conference addresses by President Marion G. Romney:

“In this conference we have been greatly entertained at times with eloquent oratory. We have been taught by great teachers. We have heard enough truth and direction in this conference to bring us into the presence of God if we would follow it. We have been taken on to the spiritual mountain and shown visions of great glory, but how many of us have heard that voice saying we would have a part therein.” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1954, pp. 132–33.)

“What we get out of general conference is a build-up of our spirits as we listen to those particular principles and practices of the gospel which the Lord inspires the present leadership of the Church to bring to our attention at the time. … He knows why he inspired the other brethren who have talked in this conference to say what they have said. It is our high privilege to hear, through these men, what the Lord would say if he were here. If we do not agree with what they say, it is because we are out of harmony with the Spirit of the Lord.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1950, pp. 126–27.)

“Today the Lord is revealing his will to all the inhabitants of the earth, and to members of the Church in particular, on the issues of this our day through the living prophets, with the First Presidency at the head. What they say as a presidency is what the Lord would say if he were here in person. This is the rock foundation of Mormonism. … So I repeat again, what the presidency say as a presidency is what the Lord would say if he were here, and it is scripture. It should be studied, understood, and followed, even as the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants and other scriptures. Those who follow this course will not interpret what they say as being inspired by political bias or selfishness; neither will they say that the brethren are uninformed as to the circumstances of those affected by their counsel; or that their counsels cannot be accepted because they are not prefaced by the quotation, ‘Thus saith the Lord.’

“Those … who will through mighty prayer and earnest study inform themselves as to what these living prophets say, and act upon it, will be visited by the spirit of the Lord and know by the spirit of revelation that they speak the mind and will of the Father.” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1945, p. 90.)

[Hyrum Page]

My thoughts on this nonsense are best said in the following quote by John Stuart Mill:

Regards,

T-Shirt

Well, T-Shirt, it's a great Mill quote, but I don't think the statement really expressed such a sentiment.

[Hyrum Page]

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?

Sister Beck is a leader. She was asked to speak at conference. I don't know whether her talk was vetted in advance of its delivery.

Sure, you go to conference to be taught, and the learning process is more than just believing whatever people in authority tell you.