Relief Society prez Julie Beck the new "June Cleaver"?

[_Yoda]

I found this comment written by an LDS sister on a blog talking about conference:

As I listened to Sister Beck’s comments during conference I felt like I was doing everything wrong in my life. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we all had the luxury to stay home and be full-time homemakers? Unfortunately, that is not the case for most women LDS or non-members where I live. I, along with my husband am raising five children (2 special needs) while working full-time. I spend all my available time with my family. I drop my children off at seminary and try to be home at 3:15. I don’t think my children suffer so much, but my home does. My husband does do dishes and laundry on a daily basis and appreciates my help with finances as I make nearly as much as he does. We do not live lavishly. In fact, we’re barely holding our heads above water. It would be nice to have support for our current circumstances and not guilt for what cannot be at this time. I felt the talk was short-sighted and guilt-ridden.

I can really relate to this woman, which is why I told Gaz to kiss my ass earlier.

This describes most middle American families I associate with. I could be this woman. Hell, I AM this woman. I have 3 children, not five, but everything else fits pretty closely.

Thank God, I'm educated and have a career that allows me the flexibility to be home as much as I am.

Let me throw a question out there for Gaz, and any other TBM folks who are taking Sister Beck's words as gospel.

The Lord gave us all talents. He COMMANDED us not to "hide them under a bushel". If I am utilizing my talents with computers, with music, in a way to support my family, and further edify my family and others, how is this wrong?

I admire women who can sew. I can't sew my way out of a paper bag! LOL It's a talent! I respect that talent. I hope that others can respect my talents in the same way, and not look down on me because I'm not Molly Mormon, domestic goddess.

[_Belial]

Thank you, voice of reason!

:)

Oh come on, liz. What reason? Everyone on MAD knows that my time is usually spent making blanket assumptions and generalizations while dripping with arrogance and smug self-righteousness.

You and everyone else everywhere on the Internet, why we love it so much.

[_Blixa]

It's hard to know where to start with Gaz's comment because that sort of thing fills me contempt, disdain, hatred and disgust. In fact, I think Belial may have been the spirit that prompted Gaz's post..

I will make one point, though. Not everyone should procreate. In fact, many shouldn't be allowed anywhere near children. I doubt most Americans (I'm only speaking from personal observation here, thus the limit to a single nationality) even realize that they have a choice: having children just seems like an inevitabiltiy rather than an important decision to be carefully thought through and planned.

[_Belial]

Whats the controversy? Everything she said was dead on correct.

Mothers are quickly becoming an endangered species, hunted down by liberal idiots who are so short sighted they can't see the longstandign benefits of a woman in the home rearing good children.

What this woman said should be placed under the windshield wiper of every woman dropping her kids off at a day care center.

No, not every woman. And if you don't see that, I probably can't do much to help you.

It'll be a chilly day in the Outer Darkness when the Church starts considering people's individual circumstances and personalities instead of the "general rules". For some women, this lifestyle is just peachy. The others would have to gorge themselves on Prozac, as someone has already noted above.

It's like saying "stay together for the kids", which is a pile of steaming excrement. Kids benefit much more from having happy, but divorced, parents than two miserable smiling hypocrites.

And no, I don't think that stay-at-home moms is the ideal, either. I think the ideal is different for every individual family.

See, this is what we want LDS to think, demanding that their individual circumstances be considered at Conference. This is of course ridiculous to expect. The LDS espouse the general Plan of Salvation, those things that are true for everyone and some counsel on how to implement it.

That some are so defensive shows a weakness in how sure they are of their lifestyle. If LDS men and women were sure that what they were doing was the right way of living based on their individual circumstances they would simply ignore counsel that did not help. Hell's studies show that the families who are sure enough of their own lives are the ones who have a powerful enough relationship with God that the parents and God have mutually worked out a method of living pleasing to all of them.

Hell of course encourages people to either live strictly by the letter of the law in all cases particularly when misery is increased or to toss the whole law and deride it. The latter is amusing but the former is even more fun. Lucifer does not care if people are good or not so much as he cares whether he is in charge and others are miserable. His original plan would have served both purposes.

[_Yoda]

See, this is what we want LDS to think, demanding that their individual circumstances be considered at Conference. This is of course ridiculous to expect. The LDS espouse the general Plan of Salvation, those things that are true for everyone and some counsel on how to implement it.

Why is it ridiculous to expect individual circumstances to be acknowledged? Faithful LDS members listen to conference to be edified...to receive counsel and guidance, do they not?

Implementing the Plan of Salvation is NOT the same for everyone. Are there general standards? Yes, and they are found in the scriptures.

However, what is suppose to separate the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints from other churches is that it does give more insight to its' members based on modern revelation.

And yes, I'm requesting you drop the demon bulls*** for a moment and engage me.

[_Belial]

See, this is what we want LDS to think, demanding that their individual circumstances be considered at Conference. This is of course ridiculous to expect. The LDS espouse the general Plan of Salvation, those things that are true for everyone and some counsel on how to implement it.

Why is it ridiculous to expect individual circumstances to be acknowledged? Faithful LDS members listen to conference to be edified...to receive counsel and guidance, do they not?

Implementing the Plan of Salvation is NOT the same for everyone. Are there general standards? Yes, and they are found in the scriptures.

However, what is suppose to separate the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints from other churches is that it does give more insight to its' members based on modern revelation.

And yes, I'm requesting you drop the demon bulls*** for a moment and engage me.

I've been through four rather nasty engagements with Lillith so no, I will not get engaged to you.

If I were to play Angel's Advocate though my response might be something like:

The reason individual circumstances are not all explicitly acknowledged is that circumstances are too varied. They do receive counsel and guidance. The counsel should be considered carefully through prayer with such questions as:

Is this possible?
Is is helpful?
What of this do I need to apply?
How do I apply it?

If you're looking for a reason to take offense then you will find it. Guilt-ridden members who go insane for failing to meet standards really need to figure out the whole Atonement thing and get over those feelings. You are inadequate. Get over it.

(end speaking in heavenly tone)

*hack* *cough* *wheeze*

I need to go eat some babies to get this taste out of my mouth.

[_Zoidberg]

Belial aside, I think that outlining approved haircuts, piercings, clothes and (until recently) sexual positions is a sad attempt to add credibility to the LDS community (they look normal and wholesome, therefore their claims must not be as crazy as we previously thought). Of course, if one remembers Jesus' opinions (which are so oft overlooked in the LDS Church because the Bible conveniently isn't translated correctly when it says something contrary to the current leaders' claims), he didn't give a rat's ass about appearances, having often hung out with sinners, prostitutes and the much-hated folks from the IRS, and shown blatant disregard for the Sabbath observance.

In fact, Jesus really didn't think much of homemaking at all, which is evident from Luke 10:38-42:

38 Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.
39 And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus’ feet, and heard his word.
40 But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me.
41 And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things:
42 But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.

This passage must be hard for Relief Society domestic goddesses to swallow, so the following spin is put on it by Barbara W. Winder, another Relief Society president (emphasis added):

"In his counsel, “but one thing is needful,” could the Lord have been referring to one thing lacking in Martha’s preparation? Probably. There is need for balance. Our physical preparation—including a clean, orderly home—makes it possible for the Spirit to be present. Likewise, the Spirit of the Lord brings an atmosphere of peace and contentment to our orderly home."

Yeah, that's precisely what he meant. How hard do they have to twist to convince themselves that their careful avoidance of self-actualization is precisely what God wants and that they are the most righteous women out there?

As Blixa so eloquently put it, my vomitorium runneth over.

[_Yoda]

I've been through four rather nasty engagements with Lillith so no, I will not get engaged to you.

Well, dear, I don't want to be engaged to you, either. But we must engage (verb usage) in another hot and heavy tryst sometime soon. ;)

If I were to play Angel's Advocate though my response might be something like:

The reason individual circumstances are not all explicitly acknowledged is that circumstances are too varied.

I'm not asking that individual circumstances be addressed. But even a precursor stating that "every family has individual needs, and should adapt this general counsel to your individual circumstances" would be nice to hear every once in a while.

There is a difference between completely addressing and acknowledging individual circumstances. I don't think that asking for an acknowledgment from leaders is raising the expectation bar too high.

They do receive counsel and guidance. The counsel should be considered carefully through prayer with such questions as:

Is this possible?
Is is helpful?
What of this do I need to apply?
How do I apply it?

I agree.

Guilt-ridden members who go insane for failing to meet standards really need to figure out the whole Atonement thing and get over those feelings. You are inadequate. Get over it.

Although I agree that individual members have the responsibility to process the material involving the atonement, isn't it an ecclesiastical leader's responsibility to guide them as to how to do that for themselves?

Also...."You are inadequate. Get over it." is in direct conflict with "I am a child of God and He has sent me here. Has given me an earthly home with parents kind and dear. Teach me, guide me. Walk beside me. Help me find the way. Teach me all that I must do to live with Him someday."

[_Belial]

Although I agree that individual members have the responsibility to process the material involving the atonement, isn't it an ecclesiastical leader's responsibility to guide them as to how to do that for themselves?

Also...."You are inadequate. Get over it." is in direct conflict with "I am a child of God and He has sent me here. Has given me an earthly home with parents kind and dear. Teach me, guide me. Walk beside me. Help me find the way. Teach me all that I must do to live with Him someday."

It is a leader's responsibility. If they really need help, the Bishop is there. Consulting with God is better. Again, we prefer ranting and raving about things....particularly in the middle of the freeway during Rush Hour.

The song you quote admits inadequacy. Without God you cannot progress. It is one of the LDS's main tenets that no one is able to achieve heaven or much of anything at all without God's help. It is Hell's opinion that that disgusting ditty teaches humility and a dependence on God. For that reason it has been replaced in Hell's jukebox by endless loops of Death Metal sung by Alvin and the Chipmunks.

[_Yoda]

The song you quote admits inadequacy.

No, it doesn't admit inadequacy. It admits a royal birthright, hence the title: "I Am a Child of God."

It is Hell's opinion that that disgusting ditty teaches humility and a dependence on God.

Humility and inadequacy are two different things.

From dictionary.com:

humility

noun
1. a disposition to be humble; a lack of false pride; "not everyone regards humility as a virtue" [ant: conceit]
2. a humble feeling; "he was filled with humility at the sight of the Pope" [ant: pride]

inadequacy

noun
1. a lack of competence; "pointed out the insufficiencies in my report"; "juvenile offenses often reflect an inadequacy in the parents" [syn: insufficiency]

The Lord wants us to be humble, but not to feel inadequate. We are all competent in having the ability to return to his presence.

You demons need to read more.

;)