Sister Beck's Talk

[Sola'lor]

I agree with both sides actually. Women should have equal respect voice as men. Men and women should work together and support eachother. And I also believe that women have certain responsibilities that are best suited for them. Men also have responsibilities that are best suited for them. Our gender is a key part of who we are it's not something we should try and ignore and try to overcome.

I also want to add that I'm not in a position to say what responibilities are better suited for women exept the obvious ones.

 

[Katzpur]

As much as I disagree with the conclusions of Sister Beck's critics, I find your choice of humor to be far more offensive.

I'm just curious as to whether you read my post #167, DeepShadow.

 

[DeepShadow]

Several of us have been very outspoken about Sister Beck's talk. Several others have defended her. Sister Okasaki held a position of authority equal to Sister Beck, so her opinions on this subject would have to be considered just as valid and authoritative as Sister Beck's. While she has not been outspoken about the talk, judging from everything I've read of hers in the past, she would not have been any more impressed by it than those of us who have been outspokenly critical.

You may be exactly right about how Sister Okasaki would feel, but how would she respond? Would she publish a vocal disagreement on a blog? Start a web site drawing attention to way it made her and others feel?

Sister Beck may well have been out of line. But how are we to respond to her? That's the question.

I hope you understand, I don't consider you one of the "critics" I was speaking of earlier. No, I was referring to the people who have jumped on this talk in a political fashion, creating petitions and calling for action of some kind, as if revelation could be lobbied. It chills me to hear their responses to people who ask them to tone it down--they say that they need to be heard, but by whom, and why? My voice is already heard by the One who matters. Do they think the Prophet needs their input to guide the church?

Where I come from, that's steadying the ark.

 

[Sola'lor]

You may be exactly right about how Sister Okasaki would feel, but how would she respond? Would she publish a vocal disagreement on a blog? Start a web site drawing attention to way it made her and others feel?

Sister Beck may well have been out of line. But how are we to respond to her? That's the question.

I hope you understand, I don't consider you one of the "critics" I was speaking of earlier. No, I was referring to the people who have jumped on this talk in a political fashion, creating petitions and calling for action of some kind, as if revelation could be lobbied. It chills me to hear their responses to people who ask them to tone it down--they say that they need to be heard, but by whom, and why? My voice is already heard by the One who matters. Do they think the Prophet needs their input to guide the church?

Where I come from, that's steadying the ark.

Agreed. I'm sure everyone has heard a talk in church they don't agree with. I know I have. You don't sign a petition and tell everyone about how you disagree with it. THe proper thing to do is go talk to the Bishop about it.

If the church leadership had anything wrong with Sister Beck's talk I'm sure they've discussed it with her. We don't need to bring any more attention to it. If there was anything to be taken care of it's already been taken care of.

 

[Bishka]

THe proper thing to do is go talk to the Bishop about it.

You know what my bishop would say? That I need to be a better wife and homemaker. He's said something very similar to a similar concern of mine. some of these women do not feel like they have anywhere else to go.

 

[DeepShadow]

I don't see the need to discuss these things with a bishop when I can just as easily go over his head and pray.

My bishop would try to help me with any hard feelings I was having, but he'd probably work with me such that I didn't keep bringing these things to him.

 

[Sola'lor]

You know what my bishop would say? That I need to be a better wife and homemaker. He's said something very similar to a similar concern of mine. some of these women do not feel like they have anywhere else to go.

Before anyone jumps all over me for this I just want to say that I don't mean this directed at any particular person or situtation. The only situation I'm refering to is a general situation where the council of a church leader doesn't apeal to the member seeking the council. And obviously Church leaders aren't perfect. But I think sometimes members are looking for council that makes them feel comfortable in their opinions. Unfortunatly not everyones opinion is correct. It's possible that we can have an opinion that disagrees with the church says and we are wrong. I know I've had this experience before. In those cases I think people need to get over themselves and find a way to change themselves to agree with the church.

Again I want to say, I'm not saying that those who disagree with Sister Beck are wrong. Or that those people who disagree with council from their church leaders are always wrong. I just wanted to offer it as something to consider.

:shoutPlease nobody kill me. I don't want to bring about a woman's wrath upon myself.

 

[nutshell]

But why keep quiet? Sometimes outside pressure can assist in change. Certainly, that existed when polygamy was put on hold and when the priesthood was extended to every worthy male. I think anyone who denies this is fooling themselves and/or incredibly naive.

 

[Sola'lor]

But why keep quiet? Sometimes outside pressure can assist in change. Certainly, that existed when polygamy was put on hold and when the priesthood was extended to every worthy male. I think anyone who denies this is fooling themselves and/or incredibly naive.

I agree, voicing an opinion is essential to change. However sometimes change is not the right thing.

Actually we are having a similar situtation here in my ward. A sex offender has just recently been released from jail. He lives in our ward and can to church for the first time last week. OUr previous stake president said that once he was released and came to church he would have to have a priesthood escort wherever he went inside the church. But our current stake president said that he wont have an escort. Basically saying that he would be less closely observed than the previous stake president had indicated. Many people were upset by this. Needless to say the Bishop's schedule was filled with interviews with upset people.

Basically the feelings of everyone was divided into two divisions: Those who were concerned but decided just to trust in the decisions of our stake president; and those who thought the stake president wasn't looking out for them. They felt insulted that the current stake president wasn't taking any action. But the guy was released from prison. He came to church, no escort. Those people who disagreed with the stake president had to get over it and trust what the stake president had said.

In our situation are those who didn't agree with the stake president weren't really wrong. They just had some big concerns. Nothing any of the preisthood leaders gave them any comfort. So they just have to accept the stake presidents stance and live it.

 

[DeepShadow]

I think there's room between "keeping quiet" and "lobbying for revelation." It's not one or the other.

Moreover, unlike polygamy or the priesthood, this isn't about church doctrine, but only about a talk. What kind of action are we to expect from it? Do people expect Sister Beck to be removed from her position? Issuing a retraction or correction seems wrongheaded, because it's a conference talk, and therefore not official doctrine. Are we expecting a reminder of that fact? Is that what this blog is about? A church-issued reminder that we are free to disagree with Sister Beck all we want?

What really do people expect the church to do about this? The bloggers are trying to get the attention of the higher-ups, but for what? To let others know that this is bothering them...why? I hear things in conference that bother me--the Spirit doesn't confirm it to me--but that's as far as it goes. If I were to stop President Hinckley on the street and say that I didn't feel inspired--or even felt offended--by X or Y conference talk, I would expect he'd be thinking, "So what?" Sure, he'd probably be more polite about how he said it, but what am I expecting him to do?

 

[Bishka]

? Start a web site drawing attention to way it made her and others feel?

I'm curious how this is really wrong. These women feel this way and they want to reach out to other women who feel similar, is that a problem?

 

[DeepShadow]

I'm curious how this is really wrong. These women feel this way and they want to reach out to other women who feel similar, is that a problem?

At least in the instances I've seen, I believe that this keeps the hurt going. We find other people who were hurt in order to validate our own right to be offended. We identify a "club" of people who disagree with her, as if this was a basis for identity. Many so-called support groups have this problem (speaking now as a psych major) of identifying with victimhood and thereby perpetuating the damage.

In Miracle of Forgiveness, President Kimball says that forgiveness means forgetfulness. Assuming that Sister Beck was wrong to say what she said, do you really think sites like this encourage people to let it go, to forget the offense and let her try again? Supposing her leaders talk to her and she repents of these hurtful things, how will she be recieved next time she speaks, because of this backlash?

 

[DeepShadow]

If I were to stop President Hinckley on the street and say that I didn't feel inspired--or even felt offended--by X or Y conference talk, I would expect he'd be thinking, "So what?" Sure, he'd probably be more polite about how he said it, but what am I expecting him to do?

My sweet wife has pointed out that this may be taken as depicting President Hinckley as unfeeling, and I'm sorry if any of you took it that way. Allow me to clarify:

If I met the Prophet on the street and expressed such concerns to him, I'd expect him to counsel with me, because he'd be concerned about my feelings. The Prophet is obviously in my line of authority, and therefore is just as open to counsel on my behalf as a bishop.

But there's the rub: I'd get the same counsel that I would from my bishop. Nothing more, nothing less. No special dispensation to see things changed for me, because I was talking with the Prophet.

There's been a valid complaint that some bishops are jerks, and I'm sorry to say I know that can be true. But barring that, it's the same calling, the same counsel. Hopefully we'll get fewer jerks in this matter as the members continue to mature.

 

[Francine]

Actually, that's an ignorant interpretation of feminist. While some feminists certainly fit that mold, applying the definition to the whole group is no better than interpreting "Mormon" as polygamist.

On a transatlantic flight, a plane passes through a severe storm. The turbulence is awful, and things go from bad to worse. Then one wing is struck by lightning.

One woman in particular loses it. She stands up in front of the plane and screams "Well, if I'm going to die, I want my last minutes on Earth to be memorable! No one has ever made me really feel like a woman! Well, I've had it!! Is there ANYONE on this plane who can make me feel like a WOMAN?"

For a moment there is silence. Everyone has forgotten their own peril, and they all stare at the desperate woman in the front of the plane. Then from the back of the plane in a baritone voice came a reply:

"I can make you feel like a woman."

The woman looked toward the back of the plane and saw the man who had answered stand up. Oh, my God. He's gorgeous! Tall, built, with long, flowing blond hair and jet black eyes, he starts to walk slowly up the aisle, unbuttoning his shirt one button at a time. No one moves.

The woman is breathing heavily in anticipation as the stranger approaches. He removes his shirt. Muscles ripple across his chest as he reaches her, he extends his arm holding the shirt then whispers:

"Iron this."

 

[Katzpur]

You may be exactly right about how Sister Okasaki would feel, but how would she respond? Would she publish a vocal disagreement on a blog? Start a web site drawing attention to way it made her and others feel?

Well, Sister Okasaki is clearly a class act. I don't imagine she would have been quite a crass as some of Sister Beck's critics were. On the other hand, she doesn't have to rely on a blog to get her point across. She can write a book, have it published and marketed by Deseret Book and retain her quiet dignity. The women you are speaking of don't really have that option. They were hurt and responded by doing what people do when they're hurt. They fight back. Is it the best way? I don't know, but I do know that there is a way to get a message across without making people feel inadequate.

 

[DeepShadow]

Well, Sister Okasaki is clearly a class act. I don't imagine she would have been quite a crass as some of Sister Beck's critics were. On the other hand, she doesn't have to rely on a blog to get her point across. She can write a book, have it published and marketed by Deseret Book and retain her quiet dignity. The women you are speaking of don't really have that option. They were hurt and responded by doing what people do when they're hurt. They fight back. Is it the best way? I don't know, but I do know that there is a way to get a message across without making people feel inadequate.

If Sister O wanted to mention this in her next book, I'd expect she'd do so without mentioning Sister Beck or the talk specifically, but take on the generally guilt-laden approach in general. That being said, I don't see how she has more options with regard to her response than the more vitriolic critics. She can choose to be diplomatic or crass in her books; they can choose to be diplomatic or crass in their editorials and blogs. It's the same choice, whether multiplied a thousandfold or only tenfold it makes no difference. I daresay that it's these kind of choices that made Sister O the wonderful person that she is.

Taking this from the top again:

I'm not a woman, obviously, nor was I present when the talk was given, to hear the crucial tone. Therefore, I am willing to assume for the sake of argument that Sister Beck was out of line. So what do we do about that? That appears to be the question.

 

[Bishka]

So what do we do about that? That appears to be the question.

So what do we do about it?

How are these women supposed to address their concerns?

 

[nutshell]

I think there's room between "keeping quiet" and "lobbying for revelation." It's not one or the other.

Moreover, unlike polygamy or the priesthood, this isn't about church doctrine, but only about a talk. What kind of action are we to expect from it? Do people expect Sister Beck to be removed from her position? Issuing a retraction or correction seems wrongheaded, because it's a conference talk, and therefore not official doctrine. Are we expecting a reminder of that fact? Is that what this blog is about? A church-issued reminder that we are free to disagree with Sister Beck all we want?

What really do people expect the church to do about this? The bloggers are trying to get the attention of the higher-ups, but for what? To let others know that this is bothering them...why? I hear things in conference that bother me--the Spirit doesn't confirm it to me--but that's as far as it goes. If I were to stop President Hinckley on the street and say that I didn't feel inspired--or even felt offended--by X or Y conference talk, I would expect he'd be thinking, "So what?" Sure, he'd probably be more polite about how he said it, but what am I expecting him to do?

You don't have any expectations because you're not one who was hurt.

 

[DeepShadow]

You don't have any expectations because you're not one who was hurt.

What makes you think I haven't? I've heard conference talks that made me so angry I had to leave the room. It happens infrequently, but I've been hurt nonetheless.

 

[DeepShadow]

So what do we do about it?

How are these women supposed to address their concerns?

As I said, that appears to be the question. First let me apologize for failing to distinguish between whatwomenknow.org and femenistwomenhousewives.org. I misremembered some of the comments and attributed all of them to the former. Checking into the actual whatwomenknow website a little more, I must say I was mistaken about their general tone and intent.

That being said, I still have concerns about what I'm hearing. From FMH:

Let’s consider some other options for responding to the talk that have been suggested to us:
1. Discuss it privately with friends. That might make us feel better but probably won’t do much to change anything, unless we happen to be well-connected in the church. Only talking to our friends is an approach that keeps us from having a true voice. And if we’re discussing things that make us unhappy– then we’re accused of murmuring.

The part in bold strongly suggests that they are trying to change things with the WWK statement. Granted, I discovered this desire is not shared on the WWK website, but this is what I was worried about--lobbying for revelation.

The part in italics is...curious. I'm not sure what to make of it yet, except to say that finding friends to talk to is one of the greatest ways I've found to handle these kinds of issues.

2.Write personal letters to Julie Beck. If we write quiet letters to Salt Lake City, nobody else knows we’re suggesting there’s a problem. This leaves most everyone else in isolation, including ourselves.

This again suggests that their intent is not to find personal peace, but to enact change.

One great thing about the emails we’ve received has been the response from many women–and men–saying that they’re glad that someone spoke out and that they’re not alone. One sad response from someone who has left the church said, “Where were you women when I was considering leaving the church?”

This actually sounds like it may be doing some good...but unless I'm mistaken, this is the part they are less interested in! They've already said they care less about finding like-minded friends to talk to than about being heard by higher-ups.

3. Talk about it in Relief Society. Hmm, are we serious, here? I suppose that in some wards there might be some honest discussion of how this talk made many women feel. But my guess is that in most wards, even mildly critical discussion would be stomped down quickly. And would any of that conversation be passed along higher up?

I'm sensing a trend: getting personal closure seems to be low on their list.

4. Talk to our local leaders. Not a bad idea, and it might possibly work to bring about change on a local level, for a time, but realistically we still might be accused of murmuring, and our local leaders are not likely to have a lot of power to pass on our opinions to those in higher positions.

And the trend continues. Once again, is this about personal closure or about solidarity for the sake of political expression?

So we made this choice, as phrased by a member of our group, “We’re talking out loud. Not murmuring. Not expecting anything to change. Just asserting our right to be grownups, to talk out loud”.

And again with the apparent contradiction: you say you aren't expecting anything to change, but you are taking actions admittedly calculated to enact such change.

Granted, the WWK website itself was less political and less intent upon change, but the FAQ's still contain things worth commenting on:

We initiate conversations to identify our strengths, become more explicit about our values, and reduce feelings of isolation and inadequacy. For us, the significance of this project is the process of thinking, questioning, and taking responsibility for our own lives.

Yet they include no forum for discussion? I find that odd. Not indicative of anything, just odd.

This statement represents our dialogue with each other, which we hoped would spur larger discussions. We initiate conversations to identify our strengths, become more explicit about our values, and reduce feelings of isolation and inadequacy. For us, the significance of this project is the process of thinking, questioning, and taking responsibility for our own lives.

This and other comments indicate an insight into the real issue, but they defend the comment about stripling warriors, which to me still seems monumentally tangential.

Overall, I have less concern about the WWK website now than I do with how others are using it. But I suppose that's to be expected: the statement, like most of life, is not good or evil by itself, but a tool that can be used for either.