SCOTUS - Oral Argument on Abortion Rights Case

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

As I am trying to extradite myself from the thread, I will merely add that one such individual in the Book of Mormon experienced just this. It changed him. He repented. His name was Alma. And he described his experience as “endless torment”. 
 

I edited before I read this to add his mortal experience as likely the example of what we all have coming eventually.  That scripture is really the perfect (well, as perfect at it gets in this world) representation to me of what we need to experience to purge those stupid behaviours we rely on to protect our deeply held wounds and self protections that we desperately hide from ourselves. 

Edited December 6, 2021 by Calm

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

God has never said that "His punishment" for failure to pay tithes is - as you put - "eternal torment." 

We joke about tithing being fire insurance.

Conversant Latter-day Saints joking amongst themselves is, in my view, materially distinguishable.  The "joke" is a reference to D&C 64:23: "Behold, now it is called today until the coming of the Son of Man, and verily it is a day of sacrifice, and a day for the tithing of my people; for he that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming."

"Burned at his coming" has, to my knowledge, never been characterized as a reference to the eschatalogical disposition of the individual.  But according to "SeekingUnderstanding," we supposedly believe that people will be "damned to eternal torment for avoiding tithing."

We take obedience to the commandments seriously.  That we may employ some "gallows humor" when speaking about such things is not intended to insult or profane or misrepresent.  Conversely, a former member of the Church saying something like "{Latter-day Saints believe that people will be} "damned to eternal torment for avoiding tithing" comes across as nothing but an attempt to insult and profane and misrepresent. 

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

I see it as possible some members think of burning in hell as the ‘other choice’ in paying tithing. Whether that is forever or feels like forever to them, I can’t say. 

Conversant familiarity with the doctrines of the Church make such perspectives difficult to maintain.

I suppose I have been operating under the assumption that "SeekingUnderstanding" was formerly an informed member of the Church.  If he made his absurd remark in ignorance, then I'll back off and leave things be.  But if, as I suspect, he was speaking advisedly, then that changes things.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

With respect, I think it's a lot more than that.  Catholics would not say that accusations of "ritualistic cannibalism" are merely "semantics."  There's a considerably more important issue at hand.  I think opponents of the Church are simply too accustomed to getting away with their casual slanders and falsehoods about us.  I've lost count of how many times I've come across patently unfair and/or inaccurate representations and characterizations like what "SeekingUnderstanding" has said here.  There isn't a conversant Latter-day Saint alive who believes that people will be "damned to eternal torment for avoiding tithing."  That is not what we believe.  That is nowhere near to what we believe, and yet people like "SeekingUnderstanding" sure seem comfortable with spewing such casual slanders.  Well, in a sense, they should feel this way.  Free Speech is a wonderful thing.  He has the right to insult us and profane and mischaracterize our beliefs, and I am grateful for that.  Similarly, Free Speech gives me the right to rebut his falsehoods.

And this is, according to "SeekingUnderstanding," equivalent to - as he put it - being "damned to eternal torment for avoiding tithing."

I see this a plain attempt to mischaracterize and mislead.  Providing clarity for those who may be confused was an appropriate response to the comment under discussion, which sure comes across as intending to "confuse."

For me, I had hoped that "SeekingUnderstanding" would retract his mischaracterization.  I still hope he will do so.

I relish the environment in which we live whereby "SeekingUnderstanding" can say such horrible falsehoods about us, as that environment also gives us the opportunity to defend ourselves against such calumnies.

Thanks,

-Smac

You guys just don't like each other and now both of you are virtue signally as hard as you can to prove which one is morally superior.  Pragmatically, it's making both of you look bad, regardless of who is right and who is wrong.

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You guys just don't like each other and now both of you are virtue signally as hard as you can to prove which one is morally superior.  Pragmatically, it's making both of you look bad, regardless of who is right and who is wrong.

Tell us what you really think. 

That just feels like the perfect end to this conversation.

Edited December 6, 2021 by Calm

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Tell us what you really think. 

That just feels like the perfect end to this conversation.

Sorry!  It's been a long afternoon.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You guys just don't like each other and now both of you are virtue signally as hard as you can to prove which one is morally superior.  Pragmatically, it's making both of you look bad, regardless of who is right and who is wrong.

Well if the shoe fits  - Appreciate your perspective always. 

[smac97]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

You guys just don't like each other

I don't know him.  All I know is that he regularly denigrates and calumnates against my faith, and that my faith is worth defending.

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

and now both of you are virtue signally as hard as you can to prove which one is morally superior. 

I don't think I have signalled my virtues.  I have only objected to mischaracterizations of the doctrines of the Church.

I don't claim to be morally superior to SeekingUnderstanding.  I do claim that he is materially misrepresenting our beliefs.

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Pragmatically, it's making both of you look bad, regardless of who is right and who is wrong.

I'm okay if that happens.  I certainly can work on disagreeing without being disagreeable, but I also have in mind these remarks by Elder Holland:

Quote

Regarding that faith-filled scholarship of which Elder Maxwell speaks, may I note plainly one thing we expect you to do because it is central to your raison d’être. It is to undergird and inform the pledge Elder Maxwell made when he said of uncontested criticism, “No more slam dunks.”  We ask you as part of a larger game plan to always keep a scholarly hand fully in the face of those who oppose us. As a ne’er-do-well athlete of yesteryear, I was always told you played offense for the crowd, but you played defense for the coach. Your coaches will be very happy to have you play both superbly well.

"No more slam dunks."

Critics and opponents of our faith endlessly and casually slander us and our beliefs.  I think it a relatively small thing to rebut such falsehoods, even if such a rebuttal is as simple as "Hey, that's not what we believe."  If that makes me "look bad" to some, I'm okay with that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 7, 2021 by smac97

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Well if the shoe fits  - Appreciate your perspective always. 

Please feel free to let me know when I start make myself look bad in the future.  I have my self-righteous moments so I'm sure it'll happen.  

[Teancum]

23 hours ago, BRMC said:

No.  Tithing isn't forced taking.  The Bishop won't show up to my house with a gun if I don't pay tithing.  

But he can revoke your temple recommend.  And not paying it may keep you out of the CK.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But he can revoke your temple recommend.  And not paying it may keep you out of the CK.

I don't understand this line of reasoning.  Can you elaborate?

Just because you don't get to pick the consequence of a choice, doesn't mean you don't have a choice.  You jump off of a cliff, then the consequence of that choice is you ending up on the ground (maybe in pieces). 

No one would ever argue that the presence of a negative consequence negated your agency.

[Teancum]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

Characterizing our beliefs as including "damned to eternal torment for avoiding tithing" is a rank falsehood.  We all know that.  What I'm curious about is what you tell others about us when we are not there to defend ourselves against your falsehoods.

\\

Tell us please, what happens to someone who does not pay tithing?  Will they be exalted?  If they don't repent will there be some sort of payment for not obeying this sin?  If they end up in the terrestrial kingdom how will they feel?  Like it or not there is some sort of punishment for not paying tithing that is eternal.

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

The irony of your handle once again comes to mind.  There is nothing about the "seeking" of "understanding" in publicly lying about the beliefs of a minority and often-misunderstood religious group.  You seem to be doing your best to perpetuate and aggravate such misunderstandings by misrepresenting us and our beliefs.  That you do so under the pseudonym "SeekingUnderstanding" only compounds the problem.

Typical persecution complex that you love to embellish. Such a horrible thing for someone to "misrepresent" what Mormonism believes about tithing on some obscure message board.

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

What's next?  Characterizing Catholics as believing in "ritual cannibalism"?  Accusing Jews of using the blood of Christian children to make matzos?  

Over the top hyperbole.  

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

Slandering and profaning religious beliefs of others for polemical purposes has an ugly historical pedigree.  That you are so casually happy to go down that road is disappointing.  I hope you have a change a heart about it.

You are not giving closing argument to a jury you know.  Though you act like it.  Quite funny really

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm quite ready to defend the doctrines of the Church.  Some of them are indeed difficult to understand and accept.  It it quite a separate thing, however, to defend them against your rank misrepresentations.  What you are saying about our beliefs is false.  That you almost certainly already know that is disappointing.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited December 7, 2021 by Teancum

[Fether]

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

If they end up in the terrestrial kingdom how will they feel?  Like it or not there is some sort of punishment for not paying tithing that is eternal.

Please expound on how the terrestrial kingdom is a punishment? I may be lacking in our doctrine on the afterlife

[Teancum]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't understand this line of reasoning.  Can you elaborate?

Just because you don't get to pick the consequence of a choice, doesn't mean you don't have a choice.  You jump off of a cliff, then the consequence of that choice is you ending up on the ground (maybe in pieces). 

No one would ever argue that the presence of a negative consequence negated your agency.

My point was to BRMC who was contrasting not paying tithing to not paying taxes. I simply noted not paying tithing, while there is no compulsion to it, does have consequences. Same with taxes.  You can not pay.  And you can go to jail.

[Teancum]

8 minutes ago, Fether said:

Please expound on how the terrestrial kingdom is a punishment? I may be lacking in our doctrine on the afterlife

Well let's start with family.  Can you have an eternal marriage and family in the terrestrial kingdom?  That seems like punishment to me.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

You guys just don't like each other and now both of you are virtue signally as hard as you can to prove which one is morally superior.  Pragmatically, it's making both of you look bad, regardless of who is right and who is wrong.

I don’t see Smac as virtue signaling here so much as presenting a vigorous defense against blatant misrepresentation. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Please feel free to let me know when I start make myself look bad in the future.  I have my self-righteous moments so I'm sure it'll happen.  

And if I happen to see somebody give you a bad rap in the future, I’ll be sure to stand up for you as I’m doing here for Smac. 

[Teancum]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t see Smac as virtue signaling here so much as presenting a vigorous defense against blatant misrepresentation. 

Of course you don't.  Rah, rah!

[Fether]

Just now, Teancum said:

Well let's start with family.  Can you have an eternal marriage and family in the terrestrial kingdom?  That seems like punishment to me.

Again, maybe there is a lapse in my understanding, but what does an “eternal family” mean?

From what I can recall, the closest definition I can think of comes from Doctrine and Covenants 19:6-12 where the word eternal is explained to simply mean “belonging to God”. This would suggest that “Eternal Family” only means being a part of God’s family.

Is there anywhere in our teaching that explicitly says people in other kingdoms will be barred from their family?

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Tell is please, what happens to someone who does not pay tithing? Will they be exalted? 

Well, they won't endure "eternal torment."

Without more (a lot more), they won't be cast into Outer Darkness.

Without more (a lot more), they won't receive the glory of the Telestial Kingdom (the glory that, per D&C 76:89, "surpasses all understanding").

So that leave possibilities including the Terrestrial Kingdom and the Celestial Kingdom.

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

If they don't repent will there be some sort of payment for not obeying this sin? 

That rather goes beyond what "SeekingUnderstanding" declared.

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

If they end up in the terrestrial kingdom how will they feel?  Like it or not there is some sort of punishment for not paying tithing that is eternal.

"If" they don't repent.

And "some sort of punishment" is a far cry from "endless torment."

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

The irony of your handle once again comes to mind.  There is nothing about the "seeking" of "understanding" in publicly lying about the beliefs of a minority and often-misunderstood religious group.  You seem to be doing your best to perpetuate and aggravate such misunderstandings by misrepresenting us and our beliefs.  That you do so under the pseudonym "SeekingUnderstanding" only compounds the problem.

Typical persecution complex that you love to embellish.

Typical gaslighting response that you and yours love to trot out any time Latter-day Saints defend themselves from various calumnies and falsehoods.

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Such a horrible thing for someone to "misrepresent" what Mormonism believes about tithing on some obscure message board.

More gaslighting.  What is the metric, then?  At what point are Latter-day Saints justified in rebutting falsehoods told about them?  How many people need to hear the lie in order for the lie to merit a response?

A lie about us told to three people is not materially different from a lie told to thirty.

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

What's next?  Characterizing Catholics as believing in "ritual cannibalism"?  Accusing Jews of using the blood of Christian children to make matzos?  

Over the top hyperbole.  

Slanders against unpopular religious groups, all.  The difference is in degree, but not kind.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Anyhoo, back to the topic...

Pro-Life Attorney: “All Indications are the Supreme Court is Seriously Considering Overturning Roe”

Quote

The Supreme Court arguments may be over, but the speculation over what happens next is just beginning. A ruling on abortion in June could mean a lot for the midterms in November. But which side stands to benefit? A lot of that depends on what the justices decide — and there are plenty of scenarios, legal experts explain.

Reading the tea leaves on any Supreme Court decision is tricky business, but on this case, Supreme Court attorney Erin Hawley thinks the justices left plenty of clues behind. The Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel (and wife of Senator Josh Hawley, R-Mo.) said she couldn’t have been “more pleased” with the oral arguments. As someone who’s clerked at the court, litigated before the court, taught law, and worked at the Justice Department, Hawley certainly knows what she’s talking about when she says the justices were receptive to pro-life arguments.

“I was really pleased with the questions asked by Justice [Brett] Kavanaugh, by Justice [Amy Coney] Barrett, and the Chief Justice [John Roberts] as well… [I]t’s always so difficult to predict the Supreme Court. But all indications from oral arguments were that the Supreme Court is seriously considering overturning Roe versus Wade.”

"Seriously considering overturning."  That's a pretty measured, if still optimistic, assessment.

Quote

In her mind, there are three possible outcomes from the case, which she explained in detail on “Washington Watch.” The first one, which she called “the one that I most definitely hope the court takes” is overruling Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood.

In her mind, Wednesday’s argument showed that “this is the direction a number of Supreme Court justices are leaning.” Justice Kavanaugh, in particular, insisted more than once that the Constitution is neither “pro-choice nor pro-life.” And, given that fact, he said, shouldn’t the court “be scrupulously neutral as to abortion and return that issue to the people so that states can protect life?” To Hawley, “this strongly indicates that he’s tired of the justices being in this position of having to legislate and create rules that are extra constitutional.”

I think that's a reasonable critique.  SCOTUS erred when it took this issue from the states in the first place.  Time to give it back.

Quote

If the court doesn’t strike Roe or Casey down, there are a couple of other options — like upholding Mississippi’s 15-week ban on abortion and limiting the ruling to just one state.

“Mississippi has a really common sense law…” Hawley insisted. “[It protects life] when the procedure is especially brutal, when babies can do things like smile and open and close their hands. They have all of their organs. They have a heartbeat. So the court could simply decide to uphold Mississippi’s law, and… this seemed to be the direction that the chief was leaning. I’m hoping he’ll go further. But he mentioned numerous times that the viability line, which currently forbids states from protecting life before 22 weeks, is completely arbitrary.”

Even the author of Roe, Justice Harry Blackmun, recognized that. So carving out Mississippi’s law as acceptable could be a middle-of-the-road position the court takes.

Hmm.

Quote

The last possibility is the worst scenario for pro-lifers — and the unborn: affirming Roe v. Wade and declaring that no state has the power to outlaw abortion before the fourth or fifth month of pregnancy.

“That would mean that Mississippi’s law would fall, and states would be unable to protect life at 15 weeks or 20 weeks,” Hawley warned. And yet, as so many scholars have pointed out — including Erin — “There’s simply nothing about a right to an abortion in the Constitution’s text structure or history.”
...
Right now, 65 percent of the country thinks abortion should be illegal in the second trimester, the AP reports. Eighty percent want it outlawed in the third trimester. By those numbers, even Mississippi’s law is more lenient than most Americans would prefer.

That doesn’t mean the next several months are going to be easy. Even if the court does overturn Roe v. Wade, pro-lifers will have their work cut out for them. But it’s work that we’ve spent the last half century praying for the opportunity to do. “Let us not become weary in doing good,” Galatians 6 tells us, “for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.” Don’t lose heart. Keep sowing in prayer, and together we’ll see what God can do!

I hope things go well.  No matter what happens, though, we can and ought to continue to persuade others to the merits of preserving the lives of unborn children against elective abortions.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Anyhoo, back to the topic...

Pro-Life Attorney: “All Indications are the Supreme Court is Seriously Considering Overturning Roe”

"Seriously considering overturning."  That's a pretty measured, if still optimistic, assessment.

I think that's a reasonable critique.  SCOTUS erred when it took this issue from the states in the first place.  Time to give it back.

Hmm.

I hope things go well.  No matter what happens, though, we can and ought to continue to persuade others to the merits of preserving the lives of unborn children against elective abortions.

Thanks,

-Smac

Throughout my life, Roe v. Wade has been so entrenched in society and the abortion culture has been so dominant, now at this late season I can scarcely take in the hope that it might be overturned, or at least moderated substantially. It’s like at long last seeing a prospect that the “sexual revolution” of the sixties might be walked back and chastity before marriage and fidelity within marriage might once more be enthroned as the societal norm. 
 

Here’s hoping that the hope isn’t dashed. 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

As I am trying to extradite myself from the thread, …

“Extradite”? 🙄 

Extricate? 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Throughout my life, Roe v. Wade has been so entrenched in society and the abortion culture has been so dominant, now at this late season I can scarcely take in the hope that it might be overturned, or at least moderated substantially. It’s like at long last seeing a prospect that the “sexual revolution” of the sixties might be walked back and chastity before marriage and fidelity within marriage might once more be enthroned as the societal norm. 

Here’s hoping that the hope isn’t dashed. 

I hope so.

I hope that people become more prudent and circumspect in their sexual behaviors.

I hope that people make use of non-abortifacient contraceptives.

I hope that women who become pregnant and have the option of doing so utilize "safe haven laws" to surrender their children rather than electively killing them.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

In a colloquy with Julie Rikelman, who argued for the Mississippi abortion clinic in Wednesday’s arguments, Justice Barrett suggested that the advent of safe haven laws, which allow parents to relinquish newborns for adoption by leaving them at hospitals or police stations, relieved women of the burdens of “forced motherhood” that impeded their professional and educational ambitions. It was a startling exchange — one that suggested that anti-abortion laws raise few constitutional issues in a world where adoption is available to those who wish to avoid parenthood.

Justice Barrett, more than any other member of the court, is in an optimal position to assess the burdens of motherhood and their impact on career ambitions. She is, after all, the mother of seven children and has successfully combined work and family.

See also here:

Quote

During oral arguments on Wednesday, Barrett mentioned safe haven laws when talking about Roe v. Wade. She said, “Insofar as you and many of your amici focus on the ways in which forced parenting, forced motherhood, would hinder women’s access to the workplace and to equal opportunities, it’s also focused on the consequences of parenting and the obligations of motherhood that flow from pregnancy. Why don’t the safe haven laws take care of that problem? It seems to me that it focuses the burden much more narrowly.”

Safe haven laws offer an easy way for a mother to drop off an unharmed, unwanted newborn baby with no questions asked and without any legal obligation to the child. Depending on the state , a mother may have 72 hours after giving birth or up to 90 days to do so.

States, municipalities, and safe haven locations, including police stations and fire departments, need to do a better job of promoting where safe haven sites are in their respective communities with additional signage. However, Barrett is correct that this is a serious alternative to abortion — and one that doesn’t kill a child.

Safe haven laws exist to prevent unwanted children from being killed. They were implemented in all 50 states as a direct response to infanticide. In Massachusetts, for example, someone gave birth at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and the baby was found dead in a trash can. So the Democratic-dominated Legislature worked with then-Gov. Mitt Romney to enact a safe haven law.

Safe haven laws weren’t in place at the time of the Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey rulings. This vital alternative to abortion came about in the late 1990s and early 2000s. As Texas governor, George W. Bush signed the first one into law in 1999. Therefore, it is something for Supreme Court justices to keep in mind when ruling on this case. It’s something that they didn’t have to consider when deciding those older cases.

There shouldn’t be a distinction between killing someone inside and outside of the womb. It’s still killing. The scientific consensus is that life begins at conception . That means every successful abortion ends a human life by killing someone, specifically the most vulnerable members of society. Therefore, abortion is evil and should not be legal.

Hopefully, the Supreme Court does the right thing and overturns Roe, leaving abortion laws to the states. In the meantime, states and municipalities should promote their safe haven laws so that people know they exist and can take advantage of them when necessary.

And who knows how many women, having not electively sought the killing of their in utero babies, may end up choosing to raise them rather than give them up for adoption.  Either way, however, I think it was important that Justice Barrett raised and addressed the "forced motherhood" argument.

As an aside, I've seen people in various venues, including this board, declare that men should not have any say in the abortion debate.  And yet Roe was authored by Justice Blackmun, who was joined by Justices Burger, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, and Powell.  These names sound suspiciously Y-chromosome-ish.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 7, 2021 by smac97

[Calm]

Quote

Justice Barrett, more than any other member of the court, is in an optimal position to assess the burdens of motherhood and their impact on career ambitions. She is, after all, the mother of seven children and has successfully combined work and family….

During oral arguments on Wednesday, Barrett mentioned safe haven laws when talking about Roe v. Wade. She said, “Insofar as you and many of your amici focus on the ways in which forced parenting, forced motherhood, would hinder women’s access to the workplace and to equal opportunities, it’s also focused on the consequences of parenting and the obligations of motherhood that flow from pregnancy. Why don’t the safe haven laws take care of that problem? It seems to me that it focuses the burden much more narrowly.”

Motherhood doesn’t begin at birth though, it begins at least by conception…earlier for those who choose to prepare for it.

I had a great friend who had 6 kids. Life didn’t change much at all for her when she got pregnant, don’t think she even had morning sickness or post partum depression or pp anything or needed much recovery time.  And she wasn’t very big so it was rather surprising as her babies were good size…and very cute.  Very easy to see why she had 6, loved that family. She begged to come to my second delivery because she wanted to see what everyone else went through. All but the last of hers were delivered at home by her husband because once full labor started it was done and baby was out and cord tied before the midwife could get there.  Dad was practically a professional by the end.  One time she was getting out of the bath where she had sat to help with the pressure (not pain) and she had to yell for her husband, who described catching the baby as it slid out as she stood up (with no pushing) like diving for a football.  She was very disappointed she got there at my side after the epidural, I tried to wait, but the pain went straight into my back when I had to lay down as my daughter was under stress and needed a monitor…most likely because the cord had wrapped around her neck three times…a sign of things to come perhaps.

Once the baby came along for my friend, then she got into the full service version of motherhood, but I don’t see her an authority on the burdens of pregnancy and the impact on career ambitions or needs for maternity leave as neither she nor her babies struggled that first year of their relationship, they adapted to each other smoothly. 
 

Otoh, my disorder went from mild to moderate with the first kid and moderate to severe with the second with one result of me walking through pregnancy as a zombie…which is why I have barely two kids when we had planned on 4 or 5.  My husband had joked about 12 on one of our first dates, his mom had 8 easy though one had died shortly before birth…so the doctor called her up and asked her to take a newborn that needed a mom….what is one more when you already have 7, right?….my mom had 5 with 2 miscarriages, me almost the 3rd…though the doctors were ordering her not to have any because the cost of pregnancy for my mom was high, they were concerned it would kill her, too much scar tissue from a childhood surgery.  And the fifth put Mom in bed way too much and she had to change her whole life into mostly self care so she could function for the rest of her time.  My older sister and I were the default mothers of the two youngest  on many days after school and the weekends until they could care for themselves, so not much chance for extracurriculars or going over to friends’  house or them coming to ours.

So while a woman with 7 kids is much more familiar with the costs of motherhood and career ambition than likely any of her male colleagues, it doesn’t mean she is an expert…. maybe if she actually researched it and perhaps she has, but simply being a mother who also worked successfully doesn’t give her the perfect view of any mother’s needs (one needs to study the unsuccessful as much to see what doesn’t work and then remove it)…and anyone suggesting “safe haven” is all that is really needed to avoid any forcing of motherhood…well, for many women, pregnancy and delivery are the most difficult and definitely the most dangerous part of motherhood.  Safe haven is a solution for what to do with the baby after birth, it does not always resolve the needs of the mother or the impact on career ambition.  I was going to be a research scientist, clinical psychologist….tinker with people’s minds….all I had ever wanted to do was be a university grad student being there where new discoveries were made (though granted that vision was of me as a physicist, the psychologist was second choice…not the best decision based on faulty info about chances of me being hired, I was too practical for my own good, next time I am going for the dream) and being a professor was the next best thing.  Took me, the ideal student, 5 years after my first was born to finish off my last semester so at least I got my BS, too crushed to even bother with graduation and I never was able to hold a job again with or without a baby….when you can’t predict when you are going to be able to get out of bed or if when out, you will have energy to do…anything, employers are not pounding at your door.  The impact of motherhood on my career ambition was to send it straight into the toilet permanently. 

Edited December 7, 2021 by Calm

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, Fether said:

Again, maybe there is a lapse in my understanding, but what does an “eternal family” mean?

From what I can recall, the closest definition I can think of comes from Doctrine and Covenants 19:6-12 where the word eternal is explained to simply mean “belonging to God”. This would suggest that “Eternal Family” only means being a part of God’s family.

Is there anywhere in our teaching that explicitly says people in other kingdoms will be barred from their family?

I think you understand this actually quite well. Will you be eternally married in the terrestrial kingdom?  Will your children be sealed to you?  Can you visit them if they are in the celestial kingdom and you are not?  This is really a rather silly line of questioning.