Woman Denied Temple Recommend for ...

[smac97]

Well, see for yourself:

Quote

LDS mom says she lost temple recommend for breastfeeding at church
by Bronagh TumultyWednesday, July 25th 2018

A Mormon mother of four says she has lost her temple recommend because she chooses to breastfeed at church, without a cover.

She has asked us not to identify her, but she is from northern Utah.

Three weeks ago, when she met with her bishop to have her temple recommend signed, she says she was told that members of her church had complained about her openly breastfeeding in the foyer. She was asked to either cover up or use the mother’s room, but she says that, for her, those aren’t good options.

I have a hard time with stuff like this, for a few reasons.

First, taking this to the news media is just not cool.  This is not really the sort of matter that should be hashed out in the public sphere (as evidenced by the fact that the woman apparently feels free to diss the Church, but doesn't want her own name out there).

Second, members of the Church should not seek to use adverse news coverage to embarass or coerce local leaders into capitulation.

Third, the request that she cover up is eminently reasonable.

Fourth, the loss of the temple recommend is not about "breastfeeding at church."  Gadzooks!  Thousands of LDS mothers do that every Sunday.  But they have enough common sense to not insist on doing so uncovered in the church's foyer, in full view of any and all passersby.

Fifth, the loss of the temple recommend, I think, probably pertains to disobeying an eminently reasonable, and fairly important, instruction from local leaders.

Quote

Last Tuesday, she went to her stake president so that he could also sign off on her recommend, but she says he brought up the breastfeeding issue, too.

She told 2 News, he quoted from the church's "For the Strength of Youth" pamphlet about modesty and reportedly told her that women should cover up so that men do not have sexual thoughts

I think it might have been better to not frame this issue as a "don't tempt men."  Honestly, I think there are plenty of men who would not be the least arounsed at such a thing.  It's more about decorum.  And modesty for her own sake.  And common sense.

Quote

She said she left the room several times to calm down and, at one point, while she wasn’t there, she claims the stake president told her husband that he had to control his wife — and that if he supported her, he wouldn’t get his recommend signed, either. Her husband chose to stand behind her and now neither can enter the temple.

Again, this sort of I'm-ticked-off-at-my-local-leader-so-I'm-going-to-take-this-private-matter-to-the-media-to-make-the-Church-look-bad schtick is just not cool.  It comes across as an after-the-fact vindication of the bishop's and stake president's assessment that this person is probably not in a proper frame of mind.

Quote

When asked why she doesn’t just adhere to the options offered by the church, the mother said she has never covered with her youngest, who still nurses at 18 months old.

She added that the mother’s room is through a bathroom and isolates her from the social aspect of being at church. Plus, she said she can’t hear the Sacrament meeting very well from the mother’s room and has asked for it to be rewired.

Oh, brother.  Thousands of LDS woman have gone through the same thing.  There's a reason every church building as a "Mothers' Lounge."  I have also seen mothers nursing babies in the foyer on occasion.  

Quote

Even when her youngest is weaned, she said she won’t back down on this issue. She maintains breastfeeding is not a sexual act, it is simply a mother feeding her child. She wants it to become more normalized and said even if she never regains her temple recommend, she feels as though she is still worthy because, in her eyes, she hasn’t done anything wrong.

She is quite correct about breastfeeding not being a sexual act.  That's hardly the point.

Again, her attitude her seems to vindicate the bishop and stake president.  Church services are not intended to be her personal petri dish for social engineering experiments to "normalize" women bearing their breasts in public areas of the church, during church services, with all sorts of people walking by.  This would presumably include young men, who just might get a bit confused at the message being conveyed in church by this woman's behavior.

-Smac

[ttribe]

Someone pass the popcorn.  This thread has "Epic" written all over it.

[Tacenda]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, see for yourself:

I have a hard time with stuff like this, for a few reasons.

First, taking this to the news media is just not cool.  This is not really the sort of matter that should be hashed out in the public sphere (as evidenced by the fact that the woman apparently feels free to diss the Church, but doesn't want her own name out there).

Second, members of the Church should not seek to use adverse news coverage to embarass or coerce local leaders into capitulation.

Third, the request that she cover up is eminently reasonable.

Fourth, the loss of the temple recommend is not about "breastfeeding at church."  Gadzooks!  Thousands of LDS mothers do that every Sunday.  But they have enough common sense to not insist on doing so uncovered in the church's foyer, in full view of any and all passersby.

Fifth, the loss of the temple recommend, I think, probably pertains to disobeying an eminently reasonable, and fairly important, instruction from local leaders.

I think it might have been better to not frame this issue as a "don't tempt men."  Honestly, I think there are plenty of men who would not be the least arounsed at such a thing.  It's more about decorum.  And modesty for her own sake.  And common sense.

Again, this sort of I'm-ticked-off-at-my-local-leader-so-I'm-going-to-take-this-private-matter-to-the-media-to-make-the-Church-look-bad schtick is just not cool.  It comes across as an after-the-fact vindication of the bishop's and stake president's assessment that this person is probably not in a proper frame of mind.

Oh, brother.  Thousands of LDS woman have gone through the same thing.  There's a reason every church building as a "Mothers' Lounge."  I have also seen mothers nursing babies in the foyer on occasion.  

She is quite correct about breastfeeding not being a sexual act.  That's hardly the point.

Again, her attitude her seems to vindicate the bishop and stake president.  Church services are not intended to be her personal petri dish for social engineering experiments to "normalize" women bearing their breasts in public areas of the church, during church services, with all sorts of people walking by.  This would presumably include young men, who just might get a bit confused at the message being conveyed in church by this woman's behavior.

-Smac

I think it's time for the public to be more accepting of a mother breast feeding in public, I say this because I was so modest/afraid that it made it difficult to even breast feed. I use to get so embarrassed to breast feed in front of others in public even with a blanket and my milk wouldn't come through.

But agree this woman could do it a little more discreetly than how you've described here. Maybe if we'd been there we could see what all the fuss was. And I don't understand why she wouldn't use the Mother's room if it was available. But maybe she doesn't feel the need to hide. I still think if it were me, I would have to have some kind of covering appropriate to feeding a baby, but wouldn't want the baby to get too hot or suffocate. 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think it's time for the public to be more accepting of a mother breast feeding in public, I say this because I was so modest/afraid that it made it difficult to even breast feed. I use to get so embarrassed to breast feed in front of others in public even with a blanket and my milk wouldn't come through.

But agree this woman could do it a little more discreetly than how you've described here. Maybe if we'd been there we could see what all the fuss was. And I don't understand why she wouldn't use the Mother's room if it was available. But maybe she doesn't feel the need to hide. I still think if it were me, I would have to have some kind of covering appropriate to feeding a baby, but wouldn't want the baby to get too hot or suffocate. 

I agree with you in principle that the public needs to be more accepting of public breastfeeding, but in this instance, I think the mother is being unreasonable. 

[ALarson]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, see for yourself:

I have a hard time with stuff like this, for a few reasons.

First, taking this to the news media is just not cool.  This is not really the sort of matter that should be hashed out in the public sphere (as evidenced by the fact that the woman apparently feels free to diss the Church, but doesn't want her own name out there).

Second, members of the Church should not seek to use adverse news coverage to embarass or coerce local leaders into capitulation.

Third, the request that she cover up is eminently reasonable.

Fourth, the loss of the temple recommend is not about "breastfeeding at church."  Gadzooks!  Thousands of LDS mothers do that every Sunday.  But they have enough common sense to not insist on doing so uncovered in the church's foyer, in full view of any and all passersby.

Fifth, the loss of the temple recommend, I think, probably pertains to disobeying an eminently reasonable, and fairly important, instruction from local leaders.

I think it might have been better to not frame this issue as a "don't tempt men."  Honestly, I think there are plenty of men who would not be the least arounsed at such a thing.  It's more about decorum.  And modesty for her own sake.  And common sense.

Again, this sort of I'm-ticked-off-at-my-local-leader-so-I'm-going-to-take-this-private-matter-to-the-media-to-make-the-Church-look-bad schtick is just not cool.  It comes across as an after-the-fact vindication of the bishop's and stake president's assessment that this person is probably not in a proper frame of mind.

Oh, brother.  Thousands of LDS woman have gone through the same thing.  There's a reason every church building as a "Mothers' Lounge."  I have also seen mothers nursing babies in the foyer on occasion.  

She is quite correct about breastfeeding not being a sexual act.  That's hardly the point.

Again, her attitude her seems to vindicate the bishop and stake president.  Church services are not intended to be her personal petri dish for social engineering experiments to "normalize" women bearing their breasts in public areas of the church, during church services, with all sorts of people walking by.  This would presumably include young men, who just might get a bit confused at the message being conveyed in church by this woman's behavior.

-Smac

If this is being reported accurately, I believe it could have been handled better from both sides here.

If this part is true:

Quote

 

Last Tuesday, she went to her stake president so that he could also sign off on her recommend, but she says he brought up the breastfeeding issue, too.

She told 2 News, he quoted from the church's "For the Strength of Youth" pamphlet about modesty and reportedly told her that women should cover up so that men do not have sexual thoughts

She said she left the room several times to calm down and, at one point, while she wasn’t there, she claims the stake president told her husband that he had to control his wife — and that if he supported her, he wouldn’t get his recommend signed, either. Her husband chose to stand behind her and now neither can enter the temple.

 

Then, the SP was out of line, IMO.  She is not responsible for men's sexual thoughts (at church or anywhere).  And no husband should be instructed to "control his wife".  If those things were stated by the SP, that was wrong (IMO).

I have absolutely no issue with women nursing in church (sacrament meeting, the foyer, or any class situation) and have seen women do so very discreetly (even just with their blouse or dress pulled to cover themselves...I see no need to cover them and the baby with a blanket...especially during summer months).  It's not offensive at all to look over and recognize that a Mother is nursing her baby....not in the least.   I know of many women who really hate going into the nursing room and being isolated (and not being able to hear well from what I've been told at some buildings) and also when they have other children, that can be difficult to have them all in that room with them rather than them all being able to stay in Sacrament Meeting.  

I agree about taking it public, but maybe she has tried to resolve it privately.  We really need more information at this point.

I know this is a sensitive topic, but I believe it could have been resolved without her being treated in this manner.

Edited July 26, 2018 by ALarson

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree with you in principle that the public needs to be more accepting of public breastfeeding, but in this instance, I think the mother is being unreasonable. 

How would you know that without more details?  Is it offensive to you when you see a Mother nursing her child in public?

Edited July 26, 2018 by ALarson

[clarkgoble]

26 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think it's time for the public to be more accepting of a mother breast feeding in public, I say this because I was so modest/afraid that it made it difficult to even breast feed. I use to get so embarrassed to breast feed in front of others in public even with a blanket and my milk wouldn't come through.

But agree this woman could do it a little more discreetly than how you've described here. Maybe if we'd been there we could see what all the fuss was. And I don't understand why she wouldn't use the Mother's room if it was available. But maybe she doesn't feel the need to hide. I still think if it were me, I would have to have some kind of covering appropriate to feeding a baby, but wouldn't want the baby to get too hot or suffocate. 

I agree. That said, the details of what happened in this case aren't quite clear, so I'm loath to say much. For all I know she adopted a position some women take (and that I've heard frequently on Twitter since this came out) that upper body nudity isn't wrong and that breasts are non-sexual. I'm not saying that's the case just that I have no idea what happened. Inadvertent flashing happens. It's nothing to be ashamed of. I remember my wife accidentally flashing a bunch of college kids behind us at a movie (we went to a showing we figured no one would be at). We just laughed about it. However if someone honestly doesn't care then that's a bit different.

To me what's been more interesting has been less the event itself. Again just going on what's public which may not reflect the reality and nuances of what happened. However the Exponent Crowd seemed to be dialing things up to 10. Yes, on the face of it, it sounds like the Stake President went beyond what was appropriate. No I'm not going condemn going public since there's really not a lot of ways to get relief if a SP is acting inappropriately. However those getting upset often said silly things like breasts aren't sexual, presumably because they have non-sexual uses. But honestly, that's true of male anatomy too. However if you go drop your pants in public to pee chances are you're getting a ticket and probably a permanent lewd conduct on your record. (Yes I know peeing isn't feeding a baby, and yes as someone feeding a six month old baby many times a day I know babies aren't exactly patient people)

What's unfortunate is that there really is lots of middle ground here. It's just that so many on both sides don't want to find common ground. They'd rather just be upset. The Stake President and critics shouldn't tie this to men's thoughts. I think men will survive if they accidentally see a nipple - even the Deacons. However the double standards on body parts is rather funny. So to me it's less the actual events that catch my eye (pardon the pun) so much as the overreaction to all of this.

Edited July 26, 2018 by clarkgoble

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think it's time for the public to be more accepting of a mother breast feeding in public, I say this because I was so modest/afraid that it made it difficult to even breast feed. I use to get so embarrassed to breast feed in front of others in public even with a blanket and my milk wouldn't come through.

But agree this woman could do it a little more discreetly than how you've described here.

I agree.  That's what makes this story so silly, IMO.  A small amount of discretion and accommodation would solve everything.

16 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Maybe if we'd been there we could see what all the fuss was.

Ideally we wouldn't know about this kerfuffle at all.  

16 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And I don't understand why she wouldn't use the Mother's room if it was available. But maybe she doesn't feel the need to hide.

Based on her remarks to the media, that seems to be the case.

16 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I still think if it were me, I would have to have some kind of covering appropriate to feeding a baby, but wouldn't want the baby to get too hot or suffocate. 

Quite understandable.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

How would you know that without more details?  Is it offensive to you when you see a Mother nursing her child in public?

I think I’ve already stated I believe the public needs to be more accepting of breastfeeding in public. This I earnestly believe 

I don’t think you carefully considered what I posted. I think you engaged in an unwarranted, emotion-driven, knee jerk attack. 

It is not unreasonable to ask for the use of a light nursing blanket for such occasions. 

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think I’ve already stated I believe the public needs to be more accepting of breastfeeding in public. This I earnestly believe 

I don’t think you carefully considered what I posted. I think you engaged in an unwarranted, emotion-driven, knee jerk attack. 

No, not at all (this is definitely not a topic that is an "emotion-drive" one for me). 

I simply responded to you stating: 

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think the mother is being unreasonable. 

And, I still think we need more information before we can state that.  If the SP told her and her husband what is being reported, he was out of line to do so, IMO.  Again, we need more details regarding this whole situation.

Edited July 26, 2018 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No, not at all (this is definitely not a topic that is an "emotion-drive" one for me). 

I simply responded to you stating: 

And, I still think we need more information before we can state that.  If the SP told her and her husband what is being reported, he was out of line to do so, IMO.  Again, we need more details regarding this whole situation.

My assessment is based on the facts and reasoning Smac presented. I have essentially done nothing more than agree with him. Why are you going after me in such an accusatory fashion and not him? And why are you ignoring that I said the public needs to be more accepting of breastfeeding in public?

Not everything calls for drawing battle lines. 

Edited July 26, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My assessment is based on the facts and reasoning Smac presented. I have essentially done nothing more than agree with him. Why are you going after me in such an accusatory fashion and not him?

A bit sensitive today?

I asked:

36 minutes ago, ALarson said:

How would you know that without more details?  Is it offensive to you when you see a Mother nursing her child in public?

To you stating this:

43 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think the mother is being unreasonable. 

I'm not drawing battle lines.  I've already stated that I think both sides could have possibly handled this situation better, but we need more details.

Edited July 26, 2018 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

A bit sensitive today?

I asked:

To you stating this:

I'm not drawing battle lines.  I've already stated that I think both sides could have possibly handled this situation better, but we need more details.

Why did you pose the accusatory question about me being offended when I see a mother nursing in public after I had already stated that the public needs to be more accepting of such a thing? 

Edited July 26, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[mnn727]

She can still nurse tha babies at Church, just throw a blanket or towel over her breats and the kids head. My mother did it all the time, nobody said a word, while they no doubt knew what was going on, nobody could see a thing..

This sounds like someone looking for her 15 minutes of fame rather than a Temple Recommend.

 

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why did you pose the accusatory question about me being offended when I see a mother nursing in public after I already stated that the public needs to be more accepting of such a thing? 

Geez, Scott. This isn't difficult.  He questioned your statement that you believe she is being "unreasonable" given the available evidence.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Geez, Scott. This isn't difficult.  He questioned your statement that you believe she is being "unreasonable" given the available evidence.

He also accused me, through the question he posed, of disapproving of breastfeeding in public when I had already expressed the opposite position. He came at me with a needlessly combative attitude. 

If he had merely stated that we need more information before drawing conclusions, I would have let it go, though not necessarily agreeing. 

Edited July 26, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[SouthernMo]

Does anyone know what the handbook states for giving Bishops and stake presidents latitude to make decisions about to whom temple temple recommends are given?  Clearly whether someone breastfeeds in public is not a question asked directly to ascertain worthiness.

The only question that I see maybe coming into play here is asking if one sustains local leaders. While I disagree with this inference, this question is sometimes used to ask for obedience from members to counsel given outside more generally accepted  commandments.

Anyone?  What could the states reasons for denying a temple recommend be that align with published guidelines in the handbook?

[Anijen]

On my mission (Marshall Islands 1983-85), the mothers would never cover up during sacrament meeting while breastfeeding their babies.

Moreover, they sometimes would pass their babies to other mothers who would then breastfeed the other moms child.

Even more, they sometimes would openly breastfeed their babies while bearing their testimonies.

I agree, it was not the open breastfeeding that took away her temple privileges, but the attitude against her ward leader.

Having said that, perhaps I am in the minority here, I think the Bishop asking her to cover up and other members near her reaction to a natural thing was a bit much, tempest in a teacup (or is it teapot?).  I think it is more cultural conflict than something wrong. I could be mistaken...

[ttribe]

If true, the whole "control your wife" thing - NOT OKAY.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

If true, the whole "control your wife" thing - NOT OKAY.

???

[Garden Girl]

45 minutes ago, ALarson said:

 

I have absolutely no issue with women nursing in church (sacrament meeting, the foyer, or any class situation) and have seen women do so very discreetly (even just with their blouse or dress pulled to cover themselves...I see no need to cover them and the baby with a blanket...especially during summer months).  

 

It's not as if a blanket has to be big, uncomfortable, or heavy weight... a small light-weight baby blanket would be sufficient... (I absolutely believe she should cover as a matter of simple courtesy and modesty).

GG

[JLHPROF]

59 minutes ago, ALarson said:

She is not responsible for men's sexual thoughts

I tire of this argument.  If you show off your body, male or female, in a way lacking in modesty and regardless of intent then you cannot be entirely absolved of responsibility.

I am sure she had no provocative intent, and men (and boys?) should have enough control to look away from a naked breast.  But come on, "not responsible"? At all? Really?

 

[ttribe]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

???

It's from the story.  Her husband alleges, during a discussion wherein the both of them were in the Stake President's office, she became emotional and left the room.  The SP allegedly turned to the husband and counseled him to "control [his] wife" or he would lose his recommend, too.  He lost his recommend.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ttribe said:

It's from the story.  Her husband alleges, during a discussion wherein the both of them were in the Stake President's office, she became emotional and left the room.  The SP allegedly turned to the husband and counseled him to "control [his] wife" or he would lose his recommend, too.  He lost his recommend.

That really is bizarre, isn't it? 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, ttribe said:

It's from the story.  Her husband alleges, during a discussion wherein the both of them were in the Stake President's office, she became emotional and left the room.  The SP allegedly turned to the husband and counseled him to "control [his] wife" or he would lose his recommend, too.  He lost his recommend.

OK. I missed that part. I agree it’s not OK — if true. 

Edited July 26, 2018 by Scott Lloyd