Jump to content

Working mothers


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, pogi said:

We also have direct quotes from the primary president in a church owned news paper. …

I’m going to ignore almost all of your post. I clearly hold an unpopular view here, and head-banging is not my idea of fun. 
 

I do, however, want to address the assumption implicit in the above-quoted comment, that being that just because something shows up in the Deseret News — an op-ed piece, a quote from a source in a story, an opinion column, a letter to the editor, even a house editorial — that it automatically carries the imprimatur of the Church of Jesus Christ. This assumption is starkly false — and, if given informed consideration, scarcely makes sense. 
 

It’s the second time in the past few days I’ve encountered that assumption  from individuals whose general intelligence and knowledge in other areas I respect. That it should hold such sway among some of our people mystifies me. I can only explain it in terms of their being largely unfamiliar with the newspaper and the role it serves. 
 

Notwithstanding it being among the Church’s portfolio of commercial properties, the newspaper is not the organ by which the Church expresses its formal positions. The Church has other means of doing that, including a vibrant public affairs department, magazines such as the Liahona that are directly under the ecclesiastical organizational structure, a proprietary website, numerous curriculum materials, etc. Look to those for the Church’s official stamp of approval, not to a metro daily. 

Though supportive of the Church, generally speaking, the Deseret News is a secular publication and should be regarded as such.  
 

Why am I making an issue of this erroneous assumption? Because people who harbor it stand to be misled and to mislead others. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
25 minutes ago, Calm said:

Ignore the media then, we have an official church representative making a public statement relevant to her calling, do we not?

I think the implications of her off-the-cuff quote have been stretched here beyond what they must necessarily entail. 
 

But I’ve stated my intent not to participate further in this thread. Please honor my stated desire by not trying to draw me in further. 
 

Unless you have something to say about misconceptions regarding the role of the Deseret News as official Church organ. I’d be happy to talk about that. But I think you and I have already agreed on that topic. 

Link to comment
On 6/28/2021 at 11:54 AM, Rain said:

And I want to say that I have no regrets staying home.  We have in later years looked at me working especially when my husband was working for half pay or no pay at all and we felt right for me to continue to be home.  My youngest is 20 and we still feel right about me not working.  

So it's not like I feel I need to defend my own choices.  (NOT saying you are, just talking to what others might be thinking.)

It's that we are a praying church.  We are huge for seeking after revelation for ourselves and our families.  So for me to tell someone in your family situation that only my family situation is ideal ignores personal revelation that each of us can and should receive. It also ignores the patriarchal blessings that many receive.  

We may be a praying church and seek personal revelation but don't you think that that "revelation" is highly influenced by what the Church teaches about such thing?

Link to comment
On 6/29/2021 at 2:21 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m glad you would be so tolerant. I fear not everyone would. 

Do you think it possible such a woman, notwithstanding feeling confident and peaceful about her chosen course, might feel looked down upon when encountering a thread such as this one suggesting that Church leaders were wrong back then and that recent administrative action and public comment suggest “a change in leadership thinking”?

 

I highly doubt that within church culture what you suggest would happen. Rather working women, in my experience, were made to feel less than and wrong for working outside the home. 

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

the implications of her off-the-cuff quote have

She is a very experienced lawyer, was president of her firm.  It appears to be a planned interview.  Whatever is in the quotes that leads you to conclude it is “off the cuff” instead of a planned remark?
 

 (Scott, You of course can choose to ignore my question, no problem for me if you don’t….but as long as you post a comment, I see no reason not to respond to it.  If you don’t want to be draw in, then why not just resist rather than putting it on others?)

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
51 minutes ago, Calm said:

She is a very experienced lawyer, president of her firm.  It appears to be a planned interview.  Whatever is in the quotes that leads you to conclude it is “off the cuff” instead of a planned remark?
 

 (Scott, You of course can choose to ignore my question, no problem for me if you don’t….but as long as you post a comment, I see no reason not to respond to it.  If you don’t want to be draw in, then why not just resist rather than putting it on others?j

I agree, there doesn't seem to me to be anything "off the cuff" about it.  In fact, it was not just an impromptu question, but a question that she has been asked multiple times from mothers and has therefore had opportunity to come to a well considered response, and wanted to validate and advocate for working mothers and share her well considered message to a larger public audience.

Quote

 

...She has received messages from other Latter-day Saint career women, who have wondered if their work somehow disqualifies them from Church callings. Her response?

“Oh sisters, whatever your life experience, bring it to bear. We need you. And don’t disqualify yourself. The Lord does not disqualify you because of your professional life, of your need to work or your desire to work. It’s not a disqualifier,” she said. “The Lord needs you. He needs your experience. He needs you to bring that to bear.”

 

That, to me, reads like a premeditated and prepared message by President Johnson that she wanted to share in the news, rather than an off-the-cuff response to a question she was not prepared to answer.  It sounds like the questions she has received from working mothers prompted her to want reach out to working mothers in the church publicly.  

Link to comment

I'm 64 yrs old...grew up in the 60's with a stay at home Mom.   Reading all of these comments...I can certainly see and acknowledge that "one size doesn't fit all".  Having said that...some of my happiest memories, or maybe I should say moments of growing up was coming through the door after school and yelling "mom!" and she would always reply "I'm here".   Hard to put into words what that meant to me...but for me, it always gave me peace and security and a nice snuggly feeling that all was well in my world.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Teancum said:

We may be a praying church and seek personal revelation but don't you think that that "revelation" is highly influenced by what the Church teaches about such thing?

Actual revelation? No.  I do think people do have a tendency to not be willing to change, do what the Lord asks, put in the effort etc. so they may listen to other sources besides revelation. Or may not recognize it.  

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, pogi said:

 I don’t disagree.  I am pointing it out to show a change in culture of what is seen as appropriate and acceptable.

I’ve stepped away from the conversation about working mothers. But if you don’t disagree with me about the Deseret News, you ought to avoid making even the implication that the presence of a piece of content in the so-called “Church-owned newspaper” necessarily signifies Church approbation of said piece of content. 
 

With the exception of the Church News, which is co-published by the Church, the Deseret News is, as I said before, a secular publication.
 

Perhaps it will illuminate this matter if I mention here that a sizable portion of the writers, editors and photographers at the newspaper are not Church members, and of those who are, several are less active. Membership in the Church, faithful or otherwise, is not a prerequisite to employment. For a time while I was employed at the Deseret News, the executive editor, the head guy, the one who called the shots, was not a Latter-day Saint. He was a Christian Scientist. 
 

One more thing. You’ve talked here about a “change in leadership thinking” and whether my understanding on this matter is more “black and white” than yours. This strikes me as ironic. 
 

You see, the current editor of the Church News, my former colleague with whom I worked professionally and closely for over two decades, is a working mother. In that time she has had daughters whom she and her husband have raised to adulthood. If there has been a “change in leadership thinking” that you are highlighting only now, you are a bit late to the game. 
 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
On 6/29/2021 at 11:43 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

But I’ve stated my intent not to participate further in this thread. Please honor my stated desire by not trying to draw me in further. 

Then please leave.

On 6/29/2021 at 11:43 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Unless you have something to say about misconceptions regarding the role of the Deseret News as official Church organ. I’d be happy to talk about that. But I think you and I have already agreed on that topic. 

Sorry Brother Lloyd, you don't get to dictate the direction of my thread.  So, unless you have something of substance to say regarding the topic at hand, I would appreciate it if you stop derailing my thread. 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ve stepped away from the conversation about working mothers.

Then leave.

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But if you don’t disagree with me about the Deseret News, you ought to avoid making even the implication...

I am going to respond to this once more to address your accusation and be done with it.  I've already clarified why stated what I stated however.  You continue to ignore my explanation whilst grasping at your rapidly vanishing straws. 

Maybe you should consider some of your own comments in this thread.  You said:

Quote

You are choosing to draw an inference not intended by me

I chose to accept you at your word, why don't you offer me the same courtesy?  Why can't you accept that you are inferring something that I did not intend to communicate.  I explained myself.   The implication you are digging your heels in at was not intended by me.  I did not make the implication...you inferred it.  I can't control how people might choose to interpret my words, I can only explain myself if any confusion arises.  I did so.  Now drop it so as to avoid the appearance of desperation to gain some advantage over me.  I have agreed with your point about the church news.  I have never disagreed.  It was and is a moot point.  You have misunderstood why I brought it up.  After I clarified why I brought it up, the courteous and good faith thing to do would be to let it go, as I did with you.     

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

One more thing. You’ve talked here about a “change in leadership thinking” and whether my understanding on this matter is more “black and white” than yours. This strikes me as ironic. 
 

You see, the current editor of the Church News, my former colleague with whom I worked professionally and closely for over two decades, is a working mother. In that time she has had daughters whom she and her husband have raised to adulthood. If there has been a “change in leadership thinking” that you are highlighting only now, you are a bit late to the game. 
 

I thought you said you were walking away from the topic of this thread?

I thought you said the church news was a secular newspaper?  If so, how in the world can you even pretend to draw a parallel to your boss getting her job at a secular newspaper and President Johnson's historic calling directly by a prophet to lead and preside over an entire auxiliary of the church as a first for career woman/mothers? 

 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
On 6/28/2021 at 6:13 PM, Maidservant said:

I honestly had a different "This tells me" experience. As a mother making the decision to go to work in the late 90s and early 2000s (even though I originally was fine with stay-at-home), I guilt-strickenly listened to conferences that said this each time so I could know that was either a sinner or the poor woman who "had" to but would somehow be redeemed in the eternities back into stay-at-home status. Until they didn't . . . because I was listening so closely. "I didn't hear anyone say that!" (also during the late 90s, early 2000s). The closest I heard was to make decisions about it for the best of the family. This told me that we were in a new era not beholden by the past.

It's okay for us each to have a different interpretation of the silence. Neither assessment is inherently likely (without asking the leaders directly).

I wonder if we could create a society where many jobs were kid-friendly. But where parents go, kids go to learn. I know not all of them would be . . . but again, this society is based on not just God's plan or even God's plan at all, but more accurately the world-economics plan.

Or how about a society where the parents work to provide for the village and the little ones sit around the fire and the elders teach them and play with them? So they aren't parented by their parents at all, but by the elders who have more experience with such things anyway.

I really also don't know the difference between daycare and school. They are both outsourced parenting. When I was in elementary school, it was very Lord of the Flies, especially recess. So daycare/school is either all right, or it's not, or it's okay with parental participation/oversight, or?

There just really isn't one way to do things that has GOD stamped on it once and for all.

Very true! I was looking for a part time job on indeed, which has been difficult to find something that works with my schedule of watching my grand daughter every other Saturday and every other Thursday. I saw many jobs for day care. But it's not only baby sitting they also integrate teaching them as well, and put in that you would plan learning time. That's nice IMO!

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, pogi said:

Then leave.

I am going to respond to this once more to address your accusation and be done with it.  I've already clarified why stated what I stated however.  You continue to ignore my explanation whilst grasping at your rapidly vanishing straws. 

Maybe you should consider some of your own comments in this thread.  You said:

I chose to accept you at your word, why don't you offer me the same courtesy?  Why can't you accept that you are inferring something that I did not intend to communicate.  I explained myself.   The implication you are digging your heels in at was not intended by me.  I did not make the implication...you inferred it.  I can't control how people might choose to interpret my words, I can only explain myself if any confusion arises.  I did so.  Now drop it so as to avoid the appearance of desperation to gain some advantage over me.  I have agreed with your point about the church news.  I have never disagreed.  It was and is a mute point.  You have misunderstood why I brought it up.  After I clarified why I brought it up, the courteous and good faith thing to do would be to let it go, as I did with you.     

I thought you said you were walking away from the topic of this thread?

I thought you said the church news was a secular newspaper?  If so, how in the world can you even pretend to draw a parallel to your boss getting her job at a secular newspaper and President Johnson's historic calling directly by a prophet to lead and preside over an entire auxiliary of the church as a first for career woman/mothers? 

 

I didn’t say the Church News was secular. I said the Deseret News is secular with the exception of the Church News — which is co-published by the Church and is very religious in nature — and the Deseret News. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
37 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I didn’t say the Church News was secular. I said the Deseret News is secular with the exception of the Church News — which is co-published by the Church and is very religious in nature — and the Deseret News. 

My point still stands.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Maidservant said:

That woman is my mother and myself. It's not someone other than myself.

It's not about the assessment of that woman.

It's that there is betrayal in it according to my experience and my current assessment of my own experience and of my mothers'. P.S. I doubt my mother would agree with my assessment, being much more traditionally faithful. But I hate seeing how she has ended up after giving her faith. Although she is a naturally positive person, so again, I don't think she would agree with how I see her circumstance. And she really did want to be a stay at home mom. For that matter, so did the girl I used to be.

Because as near as I can tell she and I (who both wanted to do that) have had the bottom drop out of the order of our lives because an element of that paradigm is being taken care of by a man, by God. And my mom doesn't have that and lives in poverty and instability as a single woman at the end of her life. She had to back to school in her 40s and 50s to survive the newer paradigm. She had to learn to stand up for herself and learn that priesthood doesn't mean doing everything your husband tells you. That the tradeoff of being home means that another human being (a man) determines how much income you live on and that if he decides not to, she has no other dignity than to find another man or just live like that.  And you might have to stick around even if he has no respect for you (like how he talks to you) because chances are not that you will find another man, so it's better to obey the format and raise the kids and die inside, because at least you get the obedience points.

It's not only about the children and a parent being home. It had so many other things twisted up in it, like decision making based on who makes the money. So much. It was never just about parenting, it was about the sovereignty of the woman. And I think you can separate those out as we have done better in these days--a woman choosing to parent from a home base without abrogating her sovereignty.

I had to learn that I am whole without having the God-loves-the-traditional-nuclear-family white-Mormon-picket fence paradigm which was shattered away from my life. I am barely in my 50s now pulling myself up out of poverty. I think I'll make it. But, gee, I wanted to get right on having babies and being an at home mom, that obedient, age 19, that I didn't even get a college degree when I was young. I went back when I had five kids. So I had to do both anyway. Actually, I wouldn't have been able to without my mother living with me at the time.

I love my children. But I am deeply saddened that they had to come to a home that was more concerned about obedience to checked off boxes (mine, in my 19 year old head) than to the home of a man and woman truly prepared to provide financially, spiritually, emotionally, which might have been the case with more time, more education, more mutual decision making regardless of gender, deeper questions and ponderings and practice about how to choose a partner, a coparent, and create a family than just a set of external criteria. Yes, I was foolish and naive as all young people are. I would say this is not about taking the word of a prophet but of taking the word of anyone other than myself (and partner) for what needs to happen in my life and in my family's life.

I apologize for sounding a little intense. It is very triggering for me on a personal basis. I spent years of mental, spiritual, does-God-love-me, what-does-it-really-mean-to-follow-Christ energy on this as my own life changed and progressed. It's very very real and not some academic gospel.

I watch my sons and my daughters. I also don't think most of them are ready to be parents. I think a couple never will be. They are whole as they are (barring the journey we all have to more wholeness). They will contribute the gifts they do have to their friends, their world around them.

You reminded me of how much I miss your posts Maidservant! I also have 5 children and a couple or more probably don't want kids and are similar to the child or children you mentioned. 

Women are put into situations where if they aren't happy but have no self made income, they are stuck depending. I'm impressed that you did all that you have. I bet your children are proud of their  mama!

 

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Tacenda said:

You reminded me of how much I miss your posts Maidservant! I also have 5 children and a couple or more probably don't want kids and are similar to the child or children you mentioned. 

Women are put into situations where if they aren't happy but have no self made income, they are stuck depending. I'm impressed that you did all that you have. I bet your children are proud of their  mama!

 

Thank you, my dear. Yes, I make it round here occasionally :). Good to see you.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...