moksha wrote:I don't think the Church meant to denigrate all the women who dutifully stayed home to cook, sew, clean and woman the battlefront against maurading children.
I think you are no doubt right about this, Moksha.
I am just surprised that, somewhere along the way, nobody could see this kind of reaction coming from the "faithful" Mormon women who are the backbone of the LDS Church.
All the Best!
--Consiglieri
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
Don't get me wrong. I can't imagine being in your wife's shoes at all, but I'm confused by the response. I hope I can say something about it and not offend.
Perhaps the details you left out on the I'm a Mormon spot is what I'm missing, but I don't see how your wife's situation compares to the spot at all. What's wrong with showcasing women who have worked professionally? Perhaps their kids are grown, perhaps they don't have kids yet. Perhaps they have to work. What does that have to do with the idea that its best to have a mother at home for young kids? I think the Church, generally, realizes and recognizes that there are always exception to these rules.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
why me wrote:Was the woman married in the I am a Mormon spot? Did she have any children? The spot seems to lack details about the person. I think that your wife overreacted if it just shows a woman working. It seems that your wife is coming under your hypercritical influence.
What why me is saying here is this:
*The feelings and reactions of you wife are not valid
*You're wife is not capable of her own thoughts outside of what you tell her to think and feel
*Nothing the church ever does or says can lead to anything but happiness and joy and warm fuzzies. Anyone who ever reacts in any other way is damaged and to blame.
He also seems to be intimating that the woman being shown may have been single and childless, in which case working is totally valid. We all know that why me believes that all females in society have an obligation to work with children in one capacity or another. A vagina makes you a great nurturer. God wants people with vaginas to have kids, be with kids, work with kids and nurture kids; not only in this life but in the life to come.
Isn't it marvelous?!?!?!
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden ~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
why me wrote:If the kids turned out well, she shouldn't feel pissed but blessed. No sense tearing up when all went well with the kids.
Right. Because she doesn't matter. Only the kids matter. She is secondary....if that. An afterthought. Her needs, wants, goals and desires are not important.
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden ~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
why me wrote:Was the woman married in the I am a Mormon spot? Did she have any children? The spot seems to lack details about the person. I think that your wife overreacted if it just shows a woman working. It seems that your wife is coming under your hypercritical influence.
What why me is saying here is this:
*The feelings and reactions of you wife are not valid
*You're wife is not capable of her own thoughts outside of what you tell her to think and feel
*Nothing the church ever does or says can lead to anything but happiness and joy and warm fuzzies. Anyone who ever reacts in any other way is damaged and to blame.
He also seems to be intimating that the woman being shown may have been single and childless, in which case working is totally valid. We all know that why me believes that all females in society have an obligation to work with children in one capacity or another. A vagina makes you a great nurturer. God wants people with vaginas to have kids, be with kids, work with kids and nurture kids; not only in this life but in the life to come.
Isn't it marvelous?!?!?!
Not only does Why Me defend racism, he appears to be a valiant defender of sexism as well.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
why me wrote:If the kids turned out well, she shouldn't feel pissed but blessed. No sense tearing up when all went well with the kids.
Right. Because she doesn't matter. Only the kids matter. She is secondary....if that. An afterthought. Her needs, wants, goals and desires are not important.
And continuing this logic, daughters are secondary too - as long as you've prepared them to be broodmares for the church, you need not waste any more time on them and you can focus your time on those valiant, future priesthood leaders.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
just me wrote: He also seems to be intimating that the woman being shown may have been single and childless, in which case working is totally valid. We all know that why me believes that all females in society have an obligation to work with children in one capacity or another.
Isn't it marvelous?!?!?!
Okay, let me try this again for the Utah crowd. We do not know anything about the woman in the video except that she is a woman and she is working. Consigs wife hears about the video of a woman working and begins to shed tears and becomes bitter. And yet, we have no idea if the woman in the video is married, has kids, is single etc. Has kids that are now grown up etc. We have nothing of her personal life at all.
So, to get bent out of shape when details are lacking is an overreaction which the home teachers had to deal with. There are many single women working in the LDS church. And there are many married women too.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
why me wrote:Okay, let me try this again for the Utah crowd. We do not know anything about the woman in the video except that she is a woman and she is working. Consigs wife hears about the video of a woman working and begins to shed tears and becomes bitter. And yet, we have no idea if the woman in the video is married, has kids, is single etc. Has kids that are now grown up etc. We have nothing of her personal life at all.
So, to get bent out of shape when details are lacking is an overreaction which the home teachers had to deal with. There are many single women working in the LDS church. And there are many married women too.
I agree with you. I think posters here are clearly over-reacting to your posts.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
stemelbow wrote: I agree with you. I think posters here are clearly over-reacting to your posts.
You see stem, when it comes to the LDS church, the critics lose their perspective and don't consider the details. They are just interested in the attack.
But lets face it, we do know nothing about this woman. Even if she is a working mom, the church doesn't condemn the mother. I know and knew many moms who were working. No problem.
But in this case with the video, the reaction was over the top. And my take is simple: consig just may be speaking negative in his home about the LDS church, influencing his wife and so when his wife hears about this video, she over reacts ad pounces on the message and takes it personally. But really, we have no idea about the woman in the video.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith