General Relief Society Conference
Here in my stake, ’twas the annual free potato and salad bar capped off by two hours of addresses directed specifically to the women of the church. Whether or not starch came along with your viewing and/or listening pleasure, I imagine many of you had the opportunity to catch some of tonight’s conference. What did you think? Any particular high points or questions you wish to share?
I began the evening with high hopes, for Muffin kindly sat in his portable high chair obediently snarfing down carrots with quiet and happy relish. (That’s the “relish” of enthusiasm, not pickley bits of questionable vegetable–because how gross would carrots with pickely bits taste? Ugh.) He displayed such fine behavior that maternal love inspired me to generously share my slice of chocolate cake, and therein lay a large error in maternal judgement since the little feller turned into a sugar-fueled wind-up car of frenetic toddler nuttiness for the remainder of my evening. Thusly, the actual speeches found me engaged in the activity of trying not to flash everyone (short skirts and children don’t mix) while keeping a 16-month old from jaunting up the stand, pulling down the skirts of innocent bystanders (bysitters?), running rampant through the hallways, and turning in happy circles until falling on our heads during the hymns. Ok, I admit, I enjoyed and encouraged the latter. It’s one of my favorite Muffin antics.
Here’s some memorable bits from what little I heard:
- President Beck calls for women to turn RS into a more powerful organization, one less centered on a Sunday meeting. My general impression was that she may not have fleshed this idea out with details, but since I heard little past the first paragraph, I could be wrong. Feel free to fill me in! I’d love a real call to power for RS, a full-hearted embrace of how we might better employ our minds, spirits, and bodies in making communities within and without the church stronger. How we might be as essential to the church-as-organization as is the priesthood, something else I’m pretty sure she said. You know, offering “Relief”! (Prescriptive linguistic sidenote: why is the word pronounced absent the “f”? Weird.)
- Somebody–don’t know who, I was in the hall–sternly announces that those who don’t fit the “Married w/Children” mold are as essential to the power of RS as anybody else and that the organization shouldn’t have peripheries. I’m not sure if the paraphrase is accurate or not, but I hope it is. I got the vague impression that she may have then enacted the error of talking about how those folks are important only in regards to how they may *help women with kids and husbands*, but I’m hoping I heard wrong. (On the other hand, I’d love it if somebody would volunteer to help me with my kid during SM. I did it for years and should karma decide to help return the favor, hurrah.) But helping me corral the ever-cavorting Muffin is not a single or childless woman’s central role in the church. Surely the speaker didn’t imply that? Please tell me she didn’t. I’m hoping the crux of the message centered on all women helping all others come to Christ, in whatever form is needed.
- Someone else (hall again) reminds us that small service in our immediate surroundings and to our neighbors constructs easy opportunity for offering relief, and that we needn’t go scrounging about for dramatic causes when our neighbors require a shoulder to sog upon. Surely far-and-away causes and helping the besogged lady next door needn’t be mutually exclusive. Still, I get overwhelmed with all the causes to which I want but cannot currently dedicate my time, and perhaps I’m not alone. A kick in the hiney reminding me that I can help without helping on a large geographic scale = useful. So long as it’s not taken as an excuse to be apathetic towards the suffering of those outside the boundaries of my vision and hands, that is–and seeing has how the speakers reminded us repeatedly that RS is a worldwide organization, I can’t imagine justifying such myopia.
- Elder Uchdorf tells women to embrace their gifts and talents and stop apologizing for things already. Since the average Mormon female’s need to apologize for, you know, pretty much everything up to and including existing remains one of my pet peeves in life (especially since I do it, dagnabit) I rejoiced that a member of the First Presidency would tell us to cut it out. Plus, and you can all call me a sexist poo-head, I like looking at Elder Uchdorf. He is handsome handsome handsome and I bet he cut quite the figure in a flight suit. Mostly though, I’m glad he told us to stop apologizing. Hallelujah, amen and amen. And I hope that while his wife teaches herself how to stop apologizing she also teaches him how to cook something more expansive than toast and a fried egg.
- The hymns. Excellent zesty hymns with actual beats, not sung with the metronome set on “dirge.” I’m a believer in hymns as intergral portion of the meeting, and since Muffin actually likes them, I got to hear them. Good hymns. Yay to whomever chose them.
Y’all?
Janet, you can watch it again anytime here.
I thought it was an awesome meeting. I felt Sister Beck helped create a sense that the Relief Society really is in a sense a parallel to priesthood quorums. It is the organization provided by God for us to do His work and to play an integral role in it.
I was moved by the reminder of how much people through the dispensation have sacrificed to get to the temple. Sister Allred talked of people who would use basically all their income and 5 days each way on an uncomfortable bus to get to the temple.
I also appreciated the reminder that we don’t need to go searching for causes…that there is so much opportunity for service all around. I agree that being anxiously engaged can include causes that we feel impressed to support, but as I listened, I committed to be more aware of what is going on around me in my own little circle of influence. I felt Sister Beck, Sister Thompson, and Pres. Uchtdorf’s talks all got to this. I loved what he said about the good we can do as we answer prayers, not just pray them.
I just feel the power and potential we are invited to tap into as women in this amazing cause of the gospel…that we really do have something important and unique as God’s daughters.
Comment by m&m — September 28, 2008 @ 12:44 am
HI Janet,
Thanks for posting. Muffin sounds wonderful I’m glad the two of you had fun and you were able to catch a bit of the conference.
To me, tonight was potentially a turning point for Relief Society or maybe better stated a returning point — an emphasis on essentially returning to the constitution or foundational thrusts of Relief Society that were outlined by Joseph Smith when the society began. This is the second conference where this presidency has made it a point to say we have been studying the history of this organization as a presidency and we need to get back to our roots and that theme permeated all of their talks.
I imagine the foremost book they’ve read is Women of Covenant: The Story of Relief Society. I started reading this history a year or so ago myself and yearned to have today in our Relief Societies what they had back then. At the outset what I found was essentially an amazingly spiritual group of woman anxiously preparing to sanctify themselves to receive the newly revealed temple endowment, women regularly exercising ALL the spiritual gifts, women gathering regularly sharing profound spiritual experiences and expounding the gospel with one another as well as carrying out volumes of both lofty and simple relief efforts with considerable conviction and zeal.
As I listened tonight to each of the talks from this presidency, I recognized powerful and repeated calls to return the Relief Society to this stature of power in the lives of its members and those we touch because this is what RS is meant to be and must be to carry forward the work of God. The emphasis on seeking personal revelation and temple worship to again — receive personal revelation to move the efforts of RS forward particularly stood out to me which I think emphasizes that each woman has in important and unique role to play in this “RS renewal effort.” very cool.
I really look forward to reading all of these talks again.
Comment by Laura — September 28, 2008 @ 12:48 am
I loved the meeting tonight. I got that the main point of Sister Beck’s talk was strengthening the individual, which in turn strengthens the whole. But what you said about offering relief - that was definately something I took away from the meeting. The fact that there are others I need to serve.
As for the comments to “not married/no children,” she (Barbara Thompson, unmarried ?2nd? counselor) said that they are in a prime position to serve in the temple. She mentioned other places, but I forgot them, honestly. (I have a bad habit of only paying attention to the things that concern me.) But I know that it was more than offering free babysitting. Loved her talk.
I also like the reminder to look for people to serve in my own community, and not come up with service projects that take a lot of time and benefit people I’ll never know. I think that was also Sister Thompson. She told us to “Step up and be strong.” Love it.
When Pres. Uchdorf began speaking, I thought, “Oh, he tends to tell stories. Don’t know how much I’ll get out of this. But he is pretty handsome, for an old guy, and that accent’s fun.” I was SO pleasantly surprised by his talk!! His story about his wife’s vs. his cooking was great, and I LOVED him talking about our need to create. I’ve never heard that in a conference before. (That I can remember.) Such a great talk!! I’m looking forward to re-reading this.
And the music was perfect. The chorister was awesome. She made me smile.
–When Sister Beck began speaking, I was reminded of some male commenter on this blog saying he’d be interested to hear opinions on Julie Beck vs. Sarah Palin. I think I like Sister Beck better. Yep, pretty sure I like her a LOT more.
Comment by alyssa — September 28, 2008 @ 12:56 am
I really enjoyed the conference- President Beck’s and Thompson’s talks especially. I got the same feeling as M&M- a sense of the power and potential that women have, and the capacity of the RS to direct and magnify that power.
I was also very impressed by Elder Uchtdorf’s talk, and his use of the word “creative.” I’ve long thought it is a shame that whenever we talk of having or developing ‘talents’ the discussion almost always dwells on musical, or artistic talent, leaving those with different sorts of talents out of the discussion entirely. I loved the various ways he encouraged us to be ‘creative.’ To see how many smiles we can create, to create an atmosphere, a living, an attitude etc. I especially love how he compared those acts of ‘creation’ to God’s. It was a very heartening talk to hear.
Comment by Starfoxy — September 28, 2008 @ 1:10 am
I also liked Sister Beck mentioning that energy and passion of younger sisters is and important resource, and that they should not be sidelined or shut out of leadership because of youth or inexperience.
Comment by Starfoxy — September 28, 2008 @ 1:13 am
Oooh, now I’m really looking forward to reading Elder Uchdorf’s talk! I know he spoke about talents, but I missed the heavy emphasis on multivalent meanings for creation, and that’s completely up my alley.
Actually, these comments make me excited to review the whole evening. Since the baby went down for the night, I’ve been rereading some stuff about Dorothy Day and internally lamenting, “where is my Mormon Dorothy Day?” She’s all of us, if we dedicate ourselves to be such by renewing the commitment to serve humanity by developing ourselves and helping others do likewise. I’d love it if I felt like RS inspired me towards social justice rather than detracted from it, and sadly I’ve felt somewhat the latter in recent history, for reasons which don’t need explication here. The notion that RS could compel me towards something other than superficial service, be an impetus for the sort of work I’ve done in the past but sadly let slide, well, that excites me.
Comment by Janet — September 28, 2008 @ 1:22 am
Only a woman who spends a lot of time with a toddler could come up with the phrase “sexist poo-head.” :o)
Comment by Mommie Dearest — September 28, 2008 @ 2:20 am
Loved it! Elder Uchdorf’s talk was the best! It touched on everything I was worrying/thinking about in my life. It made me feel SO SO SO much better and made me feel so special to be a daughter of God. I really want to share it with my husband. Does anybody know when his talk will be available to read somewhere? Thanks
Comment by Niccole — September 28, 2008 @ 4:03 am
I agree the music was upbeat and well performed, but I cringe a bit when I hear Hymn 220 “Lord I would follow thee” performed in a relief society setting without switching the words from brother to sister.
This is a hymn to which the church holds copyright, so I don’t think it is a big deal to change it to, “I would be my sister’s keeper.”
And it is much more powerful and appropriate sung that way, in a setting like that.
Comment by Naismith — September 28, 2008 @ 6:24 am
Also, is it really two hours? I thought it was more like 1.5.
Comment by Naismith — September 28, 2008 @ 6:26 am
Ha! I’m sitting in the Boston airport crew lounge surrounded by pilots who “cut quite the figure in a flight suit” as I read this.
I hadn’t even heard that this weekend was RS conference…so I’ll have to catch it after this trip, but I’ve enjoyed hearing the tidbits you’ve all shared.
Happy Sunday everyone! I’m stuck flying all over the kingdom for the next 14 hours. Let’s pray it’s a great day.
♥
Comment by Blue — September 28, 2008 @ 6:45 am
Last evening during the women’s conference, our Relief Society sisters were anxiously engaged in giving an older couple in our small branch (with little means to do it themselves) a wedding reception. They had been married in the temple that morning. We recorded the women’s conference talks and will view them complete with a dinner on Thursday evening. After reading in your blog that the theme was about putting some real ‘relief’ back into our organization, it makes me feel even better about our decision to do this together for a sweet couple, their family, and friends.
Comment by Cake Lady — September 28, 2008 @ 7:54 am
Elder Uchtdorf’s talk was spectacular! This message (God’s nature is Creativity + Compassion; those two gifts are our divine heritage, thus how we will find joy is in exercising those qualities) is what I have been looking for all these years. At last! a yard stick for what it means to live in a Zion manner, the reason for choosing what I do, and how it makes a difference. This was a Melchizedek talk, not an Aaronic talk. Thanks be to God for this wonderful talk!
Comment by Coffinberry — September 28, 2008 @ 7:58 am
I was 10 or 12 years old before I ever noticed the term “Relief Society” in writing. I had no idea what it might be. A society for relief? Never heard of it. Then suddenly I realized that it was actually the name for the meeting called “rileesusiuty” that my mother went to every Tuesday. I had heard of it my whole life, but had no idea how it was spelled or that the term might have any meaning outside of being a name for the meeting that women went to.
I read the SL Tribune article on the conference. The title puts the term “Mormon brand of female empowerment” in quotation marks indicating that it is attributed to Beck, but the article itself uses the term as if it is to be attributed to the reporter as a description of Beck’s comments, and does not give any quotation from Beck including that phrase. Is that really a quotation from Beck?
Comment by Left Field — September 28, 2008 @ 8:05 am
Jumping in here because I wanted to post a point of comparison with Elder Uchtdorf’s talk, the new song attached to the 2009 Primary outline (http://tinyurl.com/4qlv7g). I remember the angst about the families are forever theme a couple of years back; this song gives me much hope with how the theme is approached today. I think Elder Uchtdorf’s message is capturing the new direction we are going with how to live and present our message of hope and empowerment.
Comment by Coffinberry — September 28, 2008 @ 8:25 am
I think the silent ‘f’ is a regional thing. I’ve never heard it (and live in the pacific northwest). As for the reason, my guess would be that it’s because its followed by and ’s,’ another soft, voiceless fricative. The two sounds share a lot in common, and English speakers tend to run their words together, especially when they’re acting as a single unit, like “Relief Society.” The ’s’ fills in for the ‘f’.
Comment by ~Chris — September 28, 2008 @ 9:03 am
Totally agree on ” Lord, I Would Follow Thee.” i cringed as well. They lost an opportunity for great impact.
To me the hymn is pedestrian when sung by women using “brother” instead of “sister.” But then, I always sing “sister” and “she” regardless of the congregation i”m in.
Comment by Older and wiser — September 28, 2008 @ 9:21 am
I, too was energized by this meeting, particularly by Sister Beck’s and President Uchtdorf’s talks. The comments above have mentioned all the things that particularly touched me and motivated me.
I agree with Chris (#17) that the silent “f” in “Relief” must be regional. I seem to have heard the “f” in the Pacific Northwest, the East and Texas. (Maybe it’s just that since I pronounce it, I “hear” it when others speak? LOL!)
Re the hymn, “Lord, I Would Follow Thee.” To me the words are powerful just as they are–perhaps because I’m old, and always regard the word “brother” in that context as meaning siblings of both sexes. And, don’t we want to help men as well as women?
Comment by RoAnn — September 28, 2008 @ 10:04 am
Whoops. The comment about the silent “f” by Chris was #16, not 17.
Comment by RoAnn — September 28, 2008 @ 10:07 am
Roann, I too am old and like the way it is sung. When one says they are their brothers keeper, I never thought it was literal, just as in the same sense of this song. I think it would be easy for me to take my feminist views very far and micromanage these things. So I try to not sweat the small stuff, but wouldn’t it be an interesting R.S. to bring it up and cause a debate. Kind of like a verbal blogging of opinion like we get here, and I would LOVE IT.
Comment by big mama — September 28, 2008 @ 10:58 am
#18 and 20 Well, you all are just not radical leftist feminists, like my good friend Naismith.
I am sorry, Naismith, I couldn’t resist!
Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — September 28, 2008 @ 11:01 am
Thanks for the write-up, Janet. I’ve skipped the General RS meeting for the last few years because it’s usually so unbearably substanceless and sappy. (”Know that you’re a very, very special daughter of God, and God loves you.” Therefore, what? I always want to say, a la Boyd K. Packer. I’m long past the point in my life at which I find it amusing to be addressed in they syrupy, vague tones ordinarily reserved for three-year-olds.)
But it sounds as if this session is actually worth listening to! Maybe someday we will actually experience a revival of Relief Society into a meaningful organization.
Comment by ZD Eve — September 28, 2008 @ 11:25 am
Anyone else out there get a case of the giggles at the sight of the wild-eyed chorister enthusiasticly leading the choir?
Comment by Patti — September 28, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
“#
Anyone else out there get a case of the giggles at the sight of the wild-eyed chorister enthusiasticly leading the choir?”
Yep. She was fun.
Comment by Julie M. Smith — September 28, 2008 @ 12:50 pm
I loved the chorister. And Elder Uchtdorf’s quote about increased creativity being tied into the spirit (and being the spirit children of a creative being) was my favorite part of the conference, well, aside from having a group of about eight ladies who took pity on me (DH was on call and I couldn’t go to the stake center) who came over to watch here. Watching (and talking about it afterwards) in a small, intimate group was wonderful.
Comment by Shelah — September 28, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
The chorister was my high school choir director. She’s a passionate, energetic and fun-loving woman who gets along well with teenagers. I’ll agree with “enthusiastic”.
Comment by Artemis — September 28, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
The chorister was my favorite. Lucky Artemis! Poor gal with braces who had the camera person almost up her nose…
Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — September 28, 2008 @ 1:47 pm
looking forward to watching the recorded version at our rs smorgasboard night soon!!
Comment by debrauk — September 28, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
I just listened to Elder Uchtdorf’s talk and really liked it, particularly the emphasis on creativity. Not that the reminders about compassion and service aren’t always timely, but the idea that a creativity beyond cleaning teenagers’ rooms is a vital part of a happy life is, I think, a great and (to date) somewhat unusual message for Mormon women.
Comment by ZD Eve — September 28, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
Yeah, me too. If we’re singing it in RS I usually just substitute “sister” for “brother” and sometimes the people around me start substituting as well. Still, what could it hurt in something like the GRSM to briefly announce a slight change in lyrics?
You’re probably right about the time. I didn’t look at the clock and just assumed it was the same duration as the general meeting for the men.
Comment by Janet — September 28, 2008 @ 3:14 pm
Cake Lady — that is just awesome. Your ward is clearly cool.
Patti — I stopped Muffin from twirling for a minute and pointed out the choir director on the big screen for him. He got a good case of the giggles, and then so did all the ladies around us there in the back. She was awesome!
ZD Eve — I’ve felt that way about GRSM in the past as well,and I worried that perhaps President Beck’s talk didn’t flesh out the promise she delivered in the introduction, but the comments here make me hopeful that she did. I don’t envy our leaders, trying to relate ideas which will inspire women worldwide as well as illustrative examples which aren’t ethnocentric or confusing when translated into Swahili–ouch! And I figured President Beck might have become a wee bit gunshy when her specific examples caused such a(n understandable) firestorm in the recent past. But now I’m all excited to review her address. And President Uchdorf’s. Except I’ll watch his–because, you know, handsome :).
Comment by Janet — September 28, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
I was very, very hesitant to go sit in an overcrowded chapel to listen to the RS general meeting this year. Much too public a place for me, especially after Pres. Beck’s talk a year ago. So I jumped at the chance to watch a friend’s baby last night, and figured I’d listen or not listen on the privacy of my own MP3 player later, depending on the reports I heard.
So after bowing out of church this morning (I’m sick and prefer to be so in the privacy of my PJs) and reading Janet’s post and everyone’s comments, I crawled into bed with a set of headphones and a fervent prayer that I’d hear something that helped me feel more connected to RS and the church as a whole. (It’s been a rough year.) Dozed through the first three talks, I’m sorry to say, though I was very impressed with Pres. Beck’s call to reinvigorate RS. Then I woke up to hear Elder Uchtdorf’s talk and cried my eyes out for most of it. He said a lot of things I needed to hear: that I’m too hard on myself, that I can celebrate the things I create (vegetable soup! children who know how to share! a home that’s mostly calm and non-chaotic! beautiful and accessible websites and newsletters!) without agonizing about perfection, that the acts of creation and compassion are things that bring light to fight the darkness. (Okay, so those weren’t his exact words. But that’s what I got out of it.)
I love hearing that man talk. And someone please explain how I can hear what is probably intended to be the exact same message — namely, that homemaking is godlike — from two different people and have it affect me in completely different ways. Anyone?
Comment by Libby — September 28, 2008 @ 3:23 pm
Hey, if any of you other permas know how to put a paragraph break between the bullet points without causing html mayhem, could you let me know? I keep putting a break in the code and it keeps going wonky, but the text is pretty annoying in one big lump. Thanks!
Comment by Janet — September 28, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
Libby — as to your last question, I’m going to step out on a limb and say that one of the speakers wrote a better talk. Dallin Oaks also talked about the importance of homemaking in the leadership conference roundtable, and I found his very brief remarks incredibly inspirational. He flat-out said that homemaking isn’t just housekeeping, that it’s about creating (ooh, look, that word again!) an environment conducive to love and the Spirit. He made me feel a great deal better about my current state of non-contribution to the workforce and the fact that I spend a lot of time cleaning up a house my husband doesn’t notice is clean. I assume if it were dirty, he might notice. And even if he didn’t, there’s no way *I* could peaceful for very long in chaos. That mopping is not and end to itself = a good reminder.
Comment by Janet — September 28, 2008 @ 3:34 pm
[…] At Feminist Mormon Housewives […]
Pingback by Virtual Oases: Relief Society Meeting edition « The Exponent — September 28, 2008 @ 3:51 pm
hee hee speaking of elder uchtdorf, i watched the meeting alone but as soon as he came to the podium i texted a friend about how handsome he is. before i could send it i got one from her (watching it with her ward) saying the same thing, and mentioning that five girls oohed when he came to the podium.
Comment by kitties4prez — September 28, 2008 @ 3:59 pm
I say “Amen” to what’s already been said.
Anyone catch the suit that President Monson was wearing?
Comment by berzerkcarrottop — September 28, 2008 @ 4:42 pm
I felt like each talk got better and better.
I *loved* Elder Uchtdorf’s address. I found it very inspiring! In so many ways, it was just what I needed to hear. I feel renewed after a RS conference, for the first time in years.
Comment by the law school widow — September 28, 2008 @ 4:47 pm
Our Stake (not in Utah) has had a nice sit down dinner before the broadcast the last two years. Before that there were only a handful of us there, but now the chapel is quite packed. Anyway, I had planned to go, but hubby and one of my older boys was getting back late from a camp out and my babysitters (my own kids!) were all taken. So I parked my youngest kids in front of a DVD and watched it on the internet. I was surprised at how good of a connection I had! They have a new thing where you can watch online, pause at any time and come back and take up where you left off. Pretty cool. Anyway, all I got out of the first three talks was “go Relief Society!” Sort of like a pep talk reminding us of how great it is. I enjoyed Elder Uchtdorf’s talk the most, it seemed to relate to me more. I was thankful I didn’t end up feeling like mud like I do sometimes when it seems they want more, more, more, better, better, better. I’m sure it’s just my perception though or like Elder Uchtdorf (I think) mentioned something to the effect of we shouldn’t compare the worst of ourselves to the best in others. Loved your recap Janet! I miss those days in the hall. Really.
Comment by wistfulblue — September 28, 2008 @ 4:56 pm
CWC- You watched? What did you think?
Comment by Roxanna — September 28, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
P.S. In my stake center everyone laughed at that particular moment with the enthusiastic chorister. I felt a little bad about it. I loved that she was so into it.
Comment by Roxanna — September 28, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
I’m trying to figure out the implications of all the comments about how good looking President Uchtdorf is.
How would we readers of fMH feel if men indicated such an increased interest in one of the female speakers in General Conference because she was good looking?
Is there a double standard lurking here?
Comment by RoAnn — September 28, 2008 @ 5:12 pm
My 22 year old daughter leaned over and whispered. “I have a girl crush on the chorister.” Me too. Loved her.
Comment by your momma — September 28, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
RoAnn, I honestly don’t think there’s anything wrong with noting that a particular person is attractive so long as that’s not actually why somebody pays attention to them. To admit that an attractive person attracts your attention is simply to be honest about being human. To allow their aesthetic appeal to substitute for substance, on the other hand, would be dangerous indeedy (the Palin effect comes to mind).. President Uchdorf’s talk was really good, though–or what I heard of it certainly was.
Comment by Janet — September 28, 2008 @ 5:44 pm
From all my wife said and from all the comments on line, I’d take it that this RS conference gets an A+. I was a little worried there would be more Julie Beck tension, but it seems that no one is holding her previous talk against her. Here’s hoping the Men get s lucky next week, and that we all get as lucky in the general sessions. I am really looking forward to conference now.
Comment by Matt W. — September 28, 2008 @ 6:48 pm
*lol, “get lucky”*
sorry, I must have a dirty mind. IT’s not all that farfetched though… I don’t know what it is about conference. Maybe it’s my husband in his sunday clothes, and the lulling drone of the general authorities speaking voice or something…
Comment by sare — September 28, 2008 @ 6:51 pm
Matt W — you’ll probably get a talk about porn, but I imagine that’s not what you meant about “getting lucky,” now is it :). You know, I’ve often wondered why nobody ever talks to the women about inappropriate distractions in life. I say this because I’m (somewhat shamefacedly) looking forward to the *Desperate Housewives* season opener tonight. Could there be a more vacuous way to spend an evening?
Comment by Janet — September 28, 2008 @ 7:01 pm
I got to attend the meeting in the Conference Center with my roommate and I surprisingly loved it. Sometimes I feel like the women’s general meetings are fluffy (RS and especially YW), but the talks were full of more substance this time. The spirit in the conference center was fantastic as well.
And a side note that my roomie pointed out: everyone’s outfit was different. Thousands of women, all wearing different things.
Comment by kelsy — September 28, 2008 @ 7:07 pm
janet–it was good to see you there and help corral muffin! he’s a cutie.
re #37: a woman in our ward who is always cutting edge fashion noted in RS today that she was so impressed that pres monson had on a light gray suit since that’s “really in” right now. i seem to remember GBH wearing light gray suits on occasion, so i doubt that it was a fashion statement, but interesting that women note the outfits (someone else at church was excited about the coordinating purple ties on the first presidency, which i hadn’t noticed).
Comment by anita — September 28, 2008 @ 7:57 pm
I noticed Pres. Monson’s suit, too. He’s probably fighting against the tendency for the male leaders of the church to look like “penguins” (as Pres. Hinckley once lovingly quipped).
Comment by Patti — September 28, 2008 @ 8:59 pm
I’ve lived in the northeastern U.S. my whole life and have never heard the f not pronounced, but I’ll be sure to listen for it from non-natives from now on.
f and s are both voiceless sibilant fricatives, but I think that regardless of the sounds, those words could easily be slurred.
Comment by Kate — September 28, 2008 @ 9:02 pm
well, after all that, I will HAVE to watch. I DVR’d it while it was on, torturing the kids begging for spongebob but left it on anyways. now, must watch for gray suit and listen to Sis. Beck empower us all and of course, Bro. U.
have I mentioned that i love this website? thanks y’all! and for the record, I dont’ remember releesusiety with an “f” either. Didn’t they try to change it to “home, family and something else enrichment”? I still like RS better, maybe it is the long standing name…. hhmmmm
Comment by Mari — September 28, 2008 @ 9:07 pm
I’ve lived in UT, MA, AL and OH. I’ve never heard the “f” not pronounced - except perhaps from a little child who couldn’t pronounce the “f” sound yet. My second son had consonant articulation problems (from not hearing certain sounds and talking too fast), and this sounds like something he might have said.
Comment by Ray — September 28, 2008 @ 9:10 pm
you could tell Eder Uchtdorf’s was going to be the sort of “breakaway” talk of the session- I loved it because I am as an artist I love the analogy/definition of creation as eternal and necessary. I believe the act of creation and direction in our lives gives us fulfillment. It gives strength and power to our concept of self worth– it is what i have long tried to instill in young women so steeped in the cultural psychology of our post maslowian self actualization/self esteem “like yourself” age. I like their charge to do more - do better- step it up. I hope conference will bring some standout rousing messages.
Comment by smartmama — September 28, 2008 @ 9:21 pm
I made greasy fried eggs and burned toast for supper, in honor of Pres. Uchtdorf.
Comment by Ardis Parshall — September 28, 2008 @ 9:50 pm
I’ve been thinking about the intersection of creation and compassion and might even argue that compassion IS creation. We not only create happiness/spiritual experiences, etc. in others, we are creating them in ourselves. Maybe compassion is the insight to see the need for creation?
Comment by Annie B — September 28, 2008 @ 10:24 pm
I went to the actual conference center and was entranced by the atmosphere and estrogen in the enormous venue. I also had a weird experience as I was waiting for the people I was meeting. All these women passing by looked the same, old/young, different races, the were all beautiful. They all had that light.
I have had a hardtime with the cheesy/syrupy nature of the broadcasts in the past- I don’t like to be coddled. I would really like to get past all the “you are special, just say hi to your neighbors, quit apologizing stuff” and really be taken to task in one of these meetings just once. They are all so careful not to offend! (Obviously, this is why I don’t get relief society callings)
Elder Uchdorf did say what I wanted said, just in nicer way. I loved the philosophical tangent about wondering about God’s happiness. What he said really rang true with me, because I am only happy when I compassionate and creating.
And I like that Sis. Beck doesn’t sugar-coat.
Comment by Hildegard — September 28, 2008 @ 11:23 pm
Roann, I too am old and like the way it is sung. When one says they are their brothers keeper,
As I read the comments about that I just thought that it’s a play off the scriptural account, perhaps…:”am I my brother’s keeper?”
as to your last question, I’m going to step out on a limb and say that one of the speakers wrote a better talk.
I think a lot depends on us as receivers of the talk — where we are, what we need, etc. And I think different personalities reach and touch different people — and at different times.
I’ve never stopped being amazed at how often a talk that didn’t really connect with my soul will be the one talk that sticks out for someone else. I’m also surprised sometimes how the Spirit can make a talk connect with my soul when in the past (or when first hearing the talk!) that didn’t necessarily happen.
In short, I think there is always more at play than just the talk-writing skill of the speaker.
Comment by m&m — September 29, 2008 @ 2:27 am
I haven’t listened to the Relief Society broadcast, but I’m finding it interesting that the talk that generated the most buzz is the talk given by a man.
I wonder if this is because Mormon women have been conditioned to credit the words of men more than women (not surprising given that the words of Mormon women are rarely if ever referenced in official or unofficial Church settings), or because Mormon men typically give better talks than Mormon women.
Comment by ECS — September 29, 2008 @ 6:52 am
Or because a General Authority has the (cultural/institutional) ‘authority’ to depart from the expected in a public venue in a way one of the rest of us could (or would) never get away with ……….
Comment by Not Ophelia — September 29, 2008 @ 7:13 am
i don’t think it has ro do w/ man woman thing so much- i thought sis beck’s was the breakaway last year. but i do find it interesting that her “bold” talk ;ast year was percieved by many as not warm fuzzy enough. I do find i sometimes relate more to the men’s talks but probably because they are as a whole often bolder and thats my speed.
Comment by smartmama — September 29, 2008 @ 7:14 am
oh thats to not ro (in case you thought i was turning into scooby doo) (NAK)
Comment by smartmama — September 29, 2008 @ 7:15 am
smartmama - it wasn’t that Pres. Beck’s talk wasn’t warm and fuzzy, that bothered most people, it was the substance of her talk. That Mormon women should be the best homemakers in the world, etc., etc.
Comment by ECS — September 29, 2008 @ 8:35 am
Well the women I spoke to about sis becks talk some felt pressured by the message others wanted a more pat on the back tone…I liked it though
Comment by smartmama — September 29, 2008 @ 9:39 am
I too liked Sis. Becks talk. I don’t fit the mold of typical stay at home mormon mom. I was not offended by the things she said. We choose to be offended. I took what I could into my life and bettered the flow and spirit of my home. I guess for me it was about perception and choice.
Comment by big mama — September 29, 2008 @ 9:51 am
Of course that’s true, M&M, and it’s a good thing since we’re a lay church and everyone gets a shot at the pulpit. Nonetheless, it stands to reason that speeches with better-crafted and more inclusive rhetoric which also are given with the spirit will resonate people more easily than will a poorly-crafted talk. Obviously missionary service provides excellent evidence that eloquence isn’t requisite for carrying God’s intent into people’s hearts, but the vehicle does matter. It’s not all that matters, but it still matters. !00 scriptures might carry the same message, but there’s a reason we hone in on the ones which convey that message with beauty and power–and timelessness unbounded by cultural limitations.
ECS, I’ve wondered the same thing about the reasons we pay attention to male speakers. Right before President Beck’s homemaking talk, I wrote how peeved I was that some guy had told me the women’s talks served as designated bathroom breaks. At the same time, I understood why. As sad as I am to admit it, I think the men of the church *generally* give better talks than do the women (though my favorite GC talk ever was given by a woman). This seems to be largely the fault the women, too. Whenever DH and I have been asked to speak in church, we’re given the same topic. Exactly. I assume it’s the same way with other men and women, and yet almost invariably if a married couple is speaking, the woman blathers about their courtship not for 30 seconds, but for 5 minutes. And follows this up with a definition from the dictionary and rarely consults scripture. It makes no sense to me–it’s not like the YM get lessons on how to speak in public and the YW don’t, right? Anyhow, it’s one of the reasons I generally prefer SM when a married couple don’t make up part of the meeting. Our bishop has started to have the halves of married couples speak on different Sundays. I think he was truly inspired
.
Comment by Janet — September 29, 2008 @ 10:45 am
#59- or it could be because he just gave a really good talk and it has nothing to do with his sex.
The only reason you could ever say that Mormon men give better talks than Mormon women is because men don’t ever use that sugary sweet, laden with syrup, voice that sounds like they’re talking to 3yrs olds. This is why I miss Sherry Dew.
Not that I agree that we’ve been “conditioned” but sometimes I wonder if women take criticism/suggestions/counsel,etc., better from men than from other women. For example, I’ve always wondered what the reaction to Sis. Becks last talk would have been if it’d been given by an apostle. And would the difference be due to the apostle status, or the man status.
I say this because for me personally, I bristle at a man,(for example, my husband or FIL), trying to tell me what to do better or differently in regards to child rearing or house keeping - things that right now, are my jobs, my domain. But it’s also easy for me to roll my eyes and say, “oh, like you know anything, you who are gone all day. When was the last time you did ______! ” And I can dismiss them. But if a fellow woman/mother/SAHM were to say the same thing, I’d be furious, and unable to dismiss it. I’d probably assume she thinks she’s better than me. Does that even make sense?
I don’t know, maybe we have been conditioned. I just don’t like the sound of that.
Comment by bewitched — September 29, 2008 @ 10:52 am
Janet - I’ve been in too many sacrament meetings where I liked the wives talk better than the husbands to agree with that. Our last stake president gave okay talks, but I always loved his wife’s! I can think of lots of examples like that, so maybe in GC, the difference is the apostle status. Hmmm….. I’m still going with the sugar sweet voice and generally sweet messages. Maybe that’s why I liked Sis. Beck’s homemaking talk…nothing too sweet there!
Comment by bewitched — September 29, 2008 @ 11:05 am
Bewitched — cool. I’m extremely glad that’s been some people’s experience. I do think part of what I detailed stems from the wife usually preceding her husband on the schedule. She often speaks very briefly and then the hubby feels morally obligated to take up both of their allotted time, and thus explicates the topic more thoroughly. Although I wouldn’t mind getting out early, either.
Comment by Janet — September 29, 2008 @ 11:17 am
The one time DH and I were asked to speak in our ward, the bishopric asked us to tell about our courtship, looking at me, saying that it was a way for the ward to get to know us better, etc. So it may be a combination of women expecting to do it, because all the other women do, and because the leadership is expecting/requesting it.
I do think men get more practice and training, generally speaking, than the women. But, like bewitched, I’ve heard a number of really great talks by women. And of course, we all know the men are not immune to bad & boring talks. General Conference seems to be where you see the most noticeable difference and I think it’s clear that the men have had much more experience with public speaking by then than the women.
Of course, both sexes, in General Conference or out, seem prone to writing by formula and I confess that sometimes the Mormon formula(s) get old to me. I think we should all visit other churches more often, if only to get other ideas about sermon/talk delivery and style.
Comment by Artemis — September 29, 2008 @ 11:37 am
As for this R.S. Conference, I thought that all the talks were good and much less syrupy and sentimental than last year (or other years). I was actually wondering if they’d read the FMH thread about what we don’t like about syrupy talks, how we’d like more substance/doctrine, whatever, because I thought they all had well organized, doctrinal, and substantive talks.
The only big thing I could wish for about General Conference (general R.S. or general General) would be for somebody to acknowledge, however distantly, that the temple is not always a place of supernal peace for some of us, and that it’s okay. That sometimes temple attendance can “raise questions or concerns” in our minds. That we don’t have to enjoy it to be spiritual or have spiritual understanding. Rather than creating doubt–I know they want to inspire–I think it would soothe people’s doubts about their own compatibility with the temple–and, by extension, the gospel.
Comment by Artemis — September 29, 2008 @ 11:44 am
Field Trip!
Comment by Janet — September 29, 2008 @ 11:45 am
Janet, I hate that too! Just once I’d love to see the husband speak first. It does create a feeling of the husband being the more important speaker. Maybe it’s a “ladies first” concept but it’d be nice to mix it up a little.
Comment by bewitched — September 29, 2008 @ 11:50 am
When DH and I are asked to speak, he always goes first. We ask the bishop if he cares and thus far, none have. My introverted husband far prefers the first slot. I was pissed when one bishop made a joke about how our decision to have me go second meant I was “playing family patriarch” for the day, though. As if having the last word were integral to patriarchy . . . oh, wait, maybe it is. Sigh.
Having a rough morning here in Zion.
Comment by Janet — September 29, 2008 @ 12:05 pm
Goodness, Janet, what convoluted prose you have.
Comment by Kaimi — September 29, 2008 @ 12:34 pm
Totally. It was the first time I have seen Pres. Monson in a pale suit, and it was jarring. In a good way.
I absolutely loved this meeting. I went away genuinely refreshed and uplifted, thinking about things that I had been told that I don’t think I’ve ever heard before. That hasn’t happened in a long time. I was even touched by Sister Beck. Excellent, excellent stuff.
Comment by Heather O. — September 29, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
You are addressing a few issues.
#1–We are buzzing about Pres. Ucthdorf’s talk because it was easily the best talk given that night, if not the best talk given at a RS broadcast in recent memory. It’s certainly the best talk I’ve ever heard, and for the first time ever, I want my husband to listen to a talk given at the RS broadcast. So I don’t think it’s a matter of conditioning–it’s just that President Uchtdorf was that much more engaging.
#2–Do Mormon men give better talks? Maybe, but I’d say it depends. I’ve sat through some pretty awful High Council talks, and I’ve been really moved by talks by women in my ward. Certainly, though, men get more practice at public speaking than women do, with high counciler’s talks, bishoprics bearing their testimonies every other week, apostles and stake presidents talking at Stake Conference. I think you can generalize it like that, but do so only knowing that there are going to be exceptions.
Comment by Heather O. — September 29, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
Someone please edit Janet’s new post about the Counterpoint Conference. MS Word doc codes are breaking your site.
Conference program also available here:
http://www.mormonwomensforum.org/counterpoint2008.html
Comment by Johnna Cornett — September 29, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
As to male Church leaders seeming to give better talks than female Church leaders, this is largely a matter of sample size. After any given General Conference, one can think of four or five “really good,” memorable talks by men, and no or perhaps one “really good,” memorable talk by a woman. Why? In the April 2008 General Conference, for example, counting only the four general sessions, there were two talks given by women and twenty-six talks given by men. Most of those talks given by men were not particularly memorable and are unlikely to be quoted by future speakers or lesson-preparers. If the female Church leaders achieve just one “really good,” memorable talk in a year, that is equivalent to a half-dozen or more “really good” talks given by men. If you think about it this way, I think that the women do a pretty respectable job. Past women leaders including Sis. Okazaki and Sis. Dew are quoted regularly, even by the male General Authorities.
Comment by Ford — September 29, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
Johnna — it looks fine on my computer. What’s it doing on yours?
Comment by Janet — September 29, 2008 @ 1:09 pm
It seems that everyone is agreeing with you on this, Heather, but I’m interested in why you think Pres. Uchtdorf’s talk was better than the talks given by the women in the Relief Society presidency.
Men get more practice public speaking in a Church setting, but many women have opportunities to hone their public speaking skills as professors, corporate trainers, conference organizers, etc. I think there’s something unique about the type of public speaking expected of women speakers in the Church that makes it difficult for women to transfer their skills to a Church setting.
Comment by ECS — September 29, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
# 80 On my home computer and now at the library (I know. I’m an addict.) the site doesn’t open. I had to get in via the back door by googling fmh+relief society. Even then I can click on comments and get into a post but if I click on the main header I get Janet’s post topic, no post and no way out. That sounded more ominous than I meant. Trapped by the Mormons, no way out…!
Comment by crazywomancreek — September 29, 2008 @ 3:02 pm
Janet, what was your favorite conference talk ever? I had to ask!
Comment by Kinda O — September 29, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
#40 Mixed. I liked some of Sister Beck’s talk. I am fundamentally uncomfortable when someone seems primed to burst into tears at any moment. I know it was very emotional and fraught for her, the stuff she was talking about- it’s just my thing. It makes me squirm. Her and the blonde gal both.
The parts I liked about Uchdorf’s talk was the talk about knowing that people have loneliness and sorrow and he wasn’t seeking to trivialize it. It struck me the wrong way though when he spoke about women feeling “less than” (unlike men who can feel heroic for doing the smallest thing) divorced from why that is true. Great he is seeking to find ways to heal that, better if he acknowledged the part men have played in creating that. That choir was a whole lot of white and not just the shirts.
Truly, the part I liked best was the chorister. She seemed active, alive, unapologetic, skilled, passionate and intense.
Comment by crazywomancreek — September 29, 2008 @ 7:15 pm
CWC-
As far as the choir being a whole lot of white, they were from the whitest part of Utah county. If you pick a choir from those stakes, I don’t think there’s much of a choice to get more diversity. I honestly can’t recall ever seeing any diversity in those towns (not in the grocery stores, fast food places, along the streets, walking to church, botiques, gas stations, etc.) One of the reasons I’m glad to live in Salt Lake County instead (and especially live by the University). It’s much more diverse outside of Utah County.
Comment by Tonya — September 29, 2008 @ 7:32 pm
Oh and by much more diverse, I mean more than Utah county, but less than the rest of the country.
Comment by Tonya — September 29, 2008 @ 7:33 pm
Although, as ECS points out, many women have opportunities to hone their speaking skills, it’s still to some degree a matter of sample size. Most of the women in the church do not have civilian leadership experience and church leadership socializes women to communicate in a certain way. There’s that RS/Primary president lip-smacky sound, for example. Sherri Dew gave good talks. Chieko Okazaki gave good talks. Both had professional leadership experience. Both were published authors.
To some degree it’s a matter of structure and not content, and that’s a learned skill. I’ve heard some pretty inarticulate talks and still felt the Spirit, but I don’t know that I would have called those “good” talks.
And, weighing in on the Elder Uchtdorf swooning here, a friend of mine described why women like priesthood session thus on his blog (http://whatmormonslike.blogspot.com/2008_04_01_archive.html): “Women Mormons use this time to enjoy away from their neglectful spouse, to see a movie, or discuss the undeniable fact that President Uchtdorf is a real hottie.” Indeed.
Comment by marianne — September 29, 2008 @ 7:45 pm
All this talk about Pres. Uchtdorf’s appearance is lighthearted and harmless, but it’s a bit disrespectful - no? How would we react if bloggers discussed Pres. Beck’s attractiveness?
Comment by ECS — September 29, 2008 @ 7:56 pm
Can someone fill me in on the past controversy w/Sister Beck? I haven’t been around that long and don’t know what speech y’all are talking about.
#88 - if giving equal treatment we probably shoudln’t talk about whether pres. Uchtdorf is or isn’t attractive (he is) but I think it feels so harmless because we think of this as one of his tertiary characteristics. If people said something about Pres. Beck’s hair I would probably jump all over them and say “hey, she’s more than just a haircut! She’s brains and leadership too!” but probably no one feels like we are “objectifying” Uchtdorf because it’s not normally an issue to judge a man (especially in that position) just on his looks.
OR I may just be trying to justify a little school-girl fun because it was one of the more enjoyable parts of the broadcast.
Comment by Shannon — September 29, 2008 @ 8:50 pm
#89 Here is a transcript and here are some of the discussions that ensued: fMh and the Exponent.
Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — September 29, 2008 @ 9:25 pm
55 Ardis, you are hilarious.
It does sound kind of creepy talking about Pres. Uchtdorf’s physical appearance.
I may be in the minority but I look forward to this conference every year. I don’t know if it’s just the stage of life or what but anything that I can glean from meetings like this seems increasingly precious.
I am grateful for my membership in Relief Society.
Comment by Lupita — September 29, 2008 @ 10:12 pm
It seems that everyone is agreeing with you on this, Heather, but I’m interested in why you think Pres. Uchtdorf’s talk was better than the talks given by the women in the Relief Society presidency.
I actually really liked Sister Beck, too.
I think perhaps part of what was appealing about his talk was that it took a couple of concepts and coupled them powerfully together in a unique way. I think most of us won’t look at creation in the same way, for example, after this talk. There are talks like that that take concepts that perhaps were buried a bit in our minds and hearts, and teach in a way that makes them pop out and stick in the mind (think of Elder Bednar’s tender mercies talk).
But I don’t think that that should be the only measure of a ‘good’ talk. I recall Pres. Hinckley’s quip about how hard it is to speak and be expected to share something new. Ours is a gospel of repetition, and so those kinds of talks should be expected to the in the minority. And some of the talks that have had the most impact on me are the ones where the ’same ol’ stuff’ was presented but this time the Spirit was able to reach me in a different way. I still think that that is often more about me and my receptiveness than about the speaker.
Comment by m&m — September 29, 2008 @ 10:41 pm
Of course, that isn’t to say that speakers can have skill, too, but I think too often we blame speakers when we don’t like what they say and I think that is often not really fair.
Comment by m&m — September 29, 2008 @ 10:42 pm
I’m glad there are people out there who genuinely feel this way. I’m a lot more ambivalent, myself. There have been times in my life when I’ve made powerful connections with the women in my ward through RS or outside of it, but RS itself hasn’t been a generally positive experience for me for–oh, a decade or so.
One of the things that bothers me about the General RS Meeting is the way the women speaking often announce things such as, “We are _so_ blessed to belong to Relief Society” or “We _all_ belong to Relief Society regardless of our age, marital status, education, etc.” These are lovely ideals toward which we should most definitely strive, but the way they’re so emphatically declared in fervent testimony tones makes me feel as if there’s no room whatsoever for my experience–which has been, as often as not, that Relief Society is a source of misery and isolation and that no, I really do not belong among Mormon women, that I have little in common with many of them and that they simply don’t know what to do with me, nor I with them. That’s the ongoing reality of my Relief Society experience, and hearing it cheerfully denied at these conferences tends to make me want to bang my head against the wall in despair. I have absolutely no doubt it’s not the intended outcome–for that matter there’s hardly anyone I feel sorrier for than the General RS Presidency, who have an impossible job–but at the same time I long so deeply, in general meetings and in local ones, to hear someone, anyone, stand up and say something, anything, that sounds to me like the reality of her experience in such a way that it makes _room_ for the reality of my experience instead of just announcing what the ideal experience is in such a way that any contradicting experiences become almost inconceivable.
Joseph Smith is a prophet. The Church is true. And Relief Society is a great blessing to all of us. Well, then, since I can’t subscribe to that last statement…guess I’m an apostate, huh?
Sorry for the bitterness. It’s late and I should finish my reading, get some sleep, and try to turn into a more cheerful person tomorrow.
Comment by ZD Eve — September 29, 2008 @ 10:48 pm
Interesting that the conversation is going to “what’s different about (wrong with) LDS women’s talks”. I have been pondering this question for the past few weeks, and missing Sr. Okazaki and Sr. Dew.
I came to the conclusion that women speak about what we have been taught/told about our stewardship: that we’re all about home and family. Thus, our talks are generally centered around roles and not doctrine. I have yet to do thorough research on this to verify my supposition.
A discussion of roles can bring unity, direction, and all sorts of nice warm fuzzies. But there isn’t that major aha you get like when you are truly being taught doctrine. And the message is most often gender-specific, in that men don’t necessarily need a “rah rah relief society” or a “women who know” talk.
In my opinion it’s time for more strong women to step up.
Comment by Annie B — September 29, 2008 @ 11:25 pm
It wouldn’t bug me unless the people discussing it then proceeded to use her appearance as a means of either crediting or discrediting what she has to say. In fact, I’ve seen her appearance and hairstyle discussed online. Didn’t bug me, still doesn’t . . . so long as it’s a side note.
Comment by Janet — September 29, 2008 @ 11:51 pm
ZD Eve,
I wish you could have been in my regional conference. Elder Marlin Jensen talked about how the leaders must teach the ideals…but that we in our culture have to be sensitive to those whose lives don’t match the ideal. I sobbed through the entire talk, because I came to the meeting feeling very different in my own way (for me, it’s health issues that mean I can’t participate always as I would like to).
Maybe just knowing there was such a talk can help you know that our leaders do realize that we don’t all fit an ideal mold. And they acknowledge that our culture is often not good at reaching out to those whose lives don’t meet an ideal.
Frankly, I think this is part of why we hear talks like we did Saturday. Because we need to do better in RS about reaching out and helping each other…in simple, pure, compassionate ways. Might we miss those around us who are silently suffering?
I firmly believe our leaders at the general level are aware of how many people struggle with feeling less than ideal. But they rely on us at the local level to be more tuned in. That is some of what I hear them saying to us! “Seek, receive, and act on personal revelation” — I’m listening again to Sister Beck. Last year, she talked about asking God whom we can serve. If more of us did this more often, being an answer to others’ prayers as Pres. Uchtdorf invited us to do, wouldn’t the Church be a better place for all of us?
Sometimes, we may need to help those around us know how we are struggling…like you did here. I hope you can find a safe place and way to share your struggles with people in your ward, too.
Hugs to you, sister.
Comment by m&m — September 29, 2008 @ 11:52 pm
#83, Kinda O — I don’t remember the woman’s name. I was in high school and she told a story/parable about her childhood and her pet sheep. I know it sounds too sweet to stomach, but it was great. I’ll see if I can find it and link to a copy. It was awesome and made the atonement very real to me as a kiddo.
Comment by Janet — September 29, 2008 @ 11:52 pm
Elder Jensen rocks! I really really like that man–he seems very tuned into the pain of others. He and Jeffery Holland seem naturally empathetic.
And Eve, you are part of my RS. You help me feel included. RS isn’t just in your ward–it’s across all those miles and state boundaries that separate us. I’ve felt left out, miserable, and lonely as well, and nobody would’ve guessed with all my extroversion. You are one of the people that made it better. Yep, you’re in my Relief Society.
Comment by Janet — September 29, 2008 @ 11:59 pm
For fun, I have to share another “attractive General Authority” story. I worked in the BYU archives during my undergrad years, and my “office” was a little place hollowed out of stacks of endless boxes ala the last scene in *Raiders of the Last Ark.* One day I had folk music on my little stereo and was dancing around barefoot while organizing said boxes. I had a happy little bun in my hair and a jar of Nutella in my hand. I twirled to the music, turned around, and bumped right smack dab into . . . Dallin H. Oaks. Chocolate smeared across my dorky mouth, I looked up at him agape and said, “Hello. You look like Yul Brenner.” His response? “Thank you! My wife says so as well, but I am more handsome.”
I like him.
Comment by Janet — September 30, 2008 @ 12:02 am
RS isn’t just in your ward–it’s across all those miles and state boundaries that separate us.
Well said, Janet.
Comment by m&m — September 30, 2008 @ 12:05 am
btw, Janet, can you email me?
Comment by m&m — September 30, 2008 @ 12:06 am
ZD Eve, another thought I had while listening again is the focus they had on the history. If you don’t feel connected with RS and your experience now, perhaps you can feel a tie to our female forebears.
??
Comment by m&m — September 30, 2008 @ 12:11 am
m&m, I do appreciate your kind words, and I’m sorry to hear about your health difficulties and resulting limitations on participation. It sounds like it’s a major source of pain for you.
I’m glad you find this comforting, just as I’m glad that Lupita is grateful she belongs to RS. But I’m in no doubt whatsoever that our leaders realize we don’t fit the ideal, partly because they seem to say it over and over lately, so this isn’t a point on which I need reassurance. In fact, I think that’s a major problem with RS–too much reassurance (you’re all beloved daughters of God, feeeel that divine worth, etc. I just want to say to all these absolutely lovely and perfectly well-meaning sincere women on the stand, Oh spare me the self-help platitudes with the lip-gloss of religion; let’s read the Book of Ecclesiastes aloud, how about, instead?), and not enough reality (e.g., examination of the institutional inequalities or, failing that, even just some complex real personal experience without a neat little moral at the end). Too much sugar and sap, too many tears, in short, too much sentimentality, and waaaaay too much emphasis on appearance. (I recently gave a VTing message to my VT group on not judging, and within 5 seconds two of the women had turned it into a discussion of their self-esteem problems comparing their hair to other people’s, and one into efforts she had spent trying to fix her sister’s evidently damaged appearance. It was such an unbearably trivial discussion–not to mention a harshly judgmental one!–it was all I could do not to scream.)
Yeah, RS makes me crazy. And I really do appreciate your compassionate effort to reach out through the Internet and be kind. But really, it’s not a matter of me having these unbearable burdens that if only I could break down sobbing on some other sister’s shoulder I would be buoyed and strengthened. I’m just arrogant enough to believe that the problem isn’t me, are at least isn’t entirely me, that the problem is a poor fit between my personality and the sappiness that seems to characterize broad swaths of Mormon femininity.
As for your suggestion to look to the past–yeah, I find Eliza R. Snow and Emmaline B. Wells inspiring, powerful women who ran their own organization. But let’s face it, these women would be shocked at what RS has been reduced to–centerpieces, doilies, crafts, meetings, lots of trivia, lots of tears, not much substance. Emmaline B. Wells publicly debated B.H. Roberts on women’s suffrage. No way is that kind of image of feminine strength going to be on display as we all now submit sweetly to male guidance in our new post-correlation utopia.
And that, boys and girls, is why FMH is my Relief Society.
Because here the realities that can’t be spoken in the room with the soft orange chairs can be spoken. And what a relief it is!!
Comment by ZD Eve — September 30, 2008 @ 12:23 am
Janet, thanks to you as well. You’re part of my Relief Society too.
Comment by ZD Eve — September 30, 2008 @ 12:26 am
ZD Eve, I guess I’m not sure what to say in response to that. I know that you don’t need more sap, and that certainly wasn’t what I was suggesting or trying to offer. I’m sorry it’s all so hard for you.
Comment by m&m — September 30, 2008 @ 12:43 am
But let’s face it, these women would be shocked at what RS has been reduced to–centerpieces, doilies, crafts, meetings, lots of trivia, lots of tears, not much substance.
I do think, though, that this is a bit unfair. I think Sister Beck is encouraging more substance, which implies that sometimes we fall short. And perhaps your ward is all fluff. But I find a lot of meat and a lot of power in the women I know, and we are being led by women who get it. You may envision forebears who are doing nothing but clucking their tongues, but I believe that our forebears rejoice in much good that is being done. I find great strength from women of faith, power, testimony and vision, at church and in other associations I have.
And I think we need to be patient with each other, too, as we each try to figure out more how to better be the women God wants us to be.
Again, I don’t disagree that there is room for improvement, and I realize that you are not alone in some of your frustrations with RS, but I think you are not giving the organization or your sisters enough credit with such generalizations as above.
Comment by m&m — September 30, 2008 @ 12:56 am
m&m, I’m really sorry if I came across as excessively harsh in response to your kind gesture. I do know you’re not trying to offer me more sap, and I do appreciate your thoughtfulness and consideration.
Clearly we have fundamentally (maybe irreconcilably) different views of the organization, its limitations, our current leaders, etc., but I certainly wouldn’t want those differences to obscure kindnesses such as yours.
Comment by ZD Eve — September 30, 2008 @ 1:33 am
Amen, amen and amen. And as long this remains the case, Relief Society will never become a “meaningful” organization.
Janet - I find all the attention given to Elder Uchtdorf’s physical appearance a bit creepy, since it’s usually one of the first things a woman says about him. Oooh, he soooo handsome! I guess. Of course it’s less sinister to remark about a man’s appearance, but all the gushing about the “hottness” of a GA makes me queasy.
Comment by ECS — September 30, 2008 @ 6:03 am
what RS has been reduced to–centerpieces, doilies, crafts, meetings, lots of trivia, lots of tears, not much substance
This so trivializes what I try to do with my lessons and VT visits, and with what I know other sisters in my ward try to do even when we/they fall short. Except for the sister who shared the last of her garden’s roses with us this week, nobody in my ward ever gives two seconds’ thought to the decor. I may get sick to death of the constant harping on serving our families, as if we all had families, but the discussions seem earnest and specific, not trivial or tearful. I may shudder at the lesson two weeks ago on the three degrees of glory where the teacher insisted we discuss scriptural characters and assign them to post-mortal kingdoms based on what we knew of their lives, but that’s bad teaching based on her inexperience; she was trying to make the concepts real to us, and the attempt was not trivial.
The past wasn’t the utopia you imagine. Even in E.B. Wells’s day, I doubt you could have found three sisters able and anxious to debate B.H. Roberts — and how productive was that, anyway? That’s an unfair and unrealistic assessment of the imagined “substance” of Relief Society’s past.
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — September 30, 2008 @ 7:21 am
Ardis - doillies and debates aside, you’re an excellent historian, do you see the substantive differences in the Relief Society’s scope and effectiveness pre-correlation and now? I think that’s what Eve is getting at here.
Comment by ECS — September 30, 2008 @ 7:55 am
Not to presume to answer a question asked of Ardis (I hope she answers) but it seems from my reading of the history of the Relief Society, that in the early days an awful lot of gossip went on during the work meetings. In order to counter some of this, many of the Relief Societies started a program of educational or spiritual readings during the work meetings. This would have been about a century ago. I don’t think that people were much different back then than they are now.
On the other hand, the Relief Society did have some control over its own funds, but the net effect was very similar in how the poor were attended to, buildings were built, and activities were carried out. I, for one, am glad that I don’t have to participate in regular Relief Society bazaars like my great grandmother and try and sell crocheted kleenex box covers and macrame plant holders in order to be able to operate the Relief Society.
Perhaps some see the loss of this control as impeding the actual workings and sisterhood of the Relief Society, but I really (to repeat what I’ve already said) don’t see that the net operation of the Relief Society is much different. The poor are still being taken care of, the sisters still get together, and visiting teaching is still done.
Comment by Researcher — September 30, 2008 @ 8:09 am
We had a sister in our ward a year ago, from Sierra Leon, who gave a harrowing description of the civil war there, of having her family shot down as they ran and her not daring to look behind, of being forced into line by rebels who were chopping off arms and legs and hearing the UN helicopters arrive just in time to save her, and of nearly starving to death as she refugeed from one part of the country to another, before she was able to come to the US and joined the church. She had only one tangible thing from those days, something she had been given somewhere along the line and had hung onto not only for its practicality but because it gave her hope that somebody somewhere in the world cared what happened to her — a ragged plastic bag with the remnants of a hygiene aid kit put together by some Relief Society who has no idea where it ended up.
I have a 93-year-old sister on my VT list who has no visitors from one VT visit to another, except for the delivery of groceries. She needs to talk, and she needs to hug.
Last year, while neither the UN nor LDS Humanitarian Aid could get any help into the country, our ward Relief Society, through personal contacts, managed to get more than $1,000 worth of rice and cooking oil and candles into a village in Zimbabwe. They sent us a picture of the women — not only LDS, but every woman — holding this aid that they desperately needed.
We had a very young sister in our ward until recently who needed the daily support of Relief Society sisters to keep her clean and get her to her daily NA meetings. Every milestone she could announce on any Sunday was applauded by us all.
That may not be as flashy and as cool as political debates or carrying petitions to national women’s conventions, but I submit that it duplicates far more precisely the contributions of Relief Society in 1842 and 1902 and 1952 than the rare big ticket items feminists like to trumpet. And I submit that a hungry family in Zimbabwe or a lonely old widow in Salt Lake are as deserving of our Relief as anyone anywhere ever was. When you actually get involved in Relief Society, and don’t sit in class on Sunday rolling your eyes over the banality of it all, today’s Relief Society is as substantive as it ever was.
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — September 30, 2008 @ 8:51 am
“big ticket items feminists like to trumpet”
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall
The Relief Society can trumpet their small accomplisments, which to my mind collectively are big ticket items AND feminists can trumpet their successes. It’s not a matter of either or. Demeaning women’s contributions to the human society is what the patriarchy does. Women don’t have to do that to each other.
Comment by Ruby — September 30, 2008 @ 9:30 am
Ardis,
You’re the historical expert; and what you’re saying makes sense, too. I suspect that the Relief Society under Emmeline B. Wells was 95% soup for widows, and 5% debates with B.H. Roberts. And on the ground floor, many sisters would really see no difference between 1920 or 1940 or 1880, and today.
At the same time, I can see Eve’s point — that for at least some sisters, that 5% really did make a difference, and they mourn its loss today.
I’d personally be happy to see a broader intellectual role and dynamic in RS. Many women I know feel unhappy or stifled by the lack of discussion that takes place.
But it’s absolutely true that that discussion should not, cannot, displace existing areas in which the RS is doing very, very well.
I like to think of it as yet another humanitarian mission. (grin). Some people are starving, and we bring them food. And others are starving for intellectual stimulation, and we can and should bring them debate and discussion (nourishment of a different sort). Without compromising on the other areas where the RS is doing very well.
And the same goes for those such as Eve — some sisters are craving the crafts and the tearful testimony meetings, and it’s not helpful to denigrate their own needs. If the organization is really about relief, I would think (hope) that it’s broad enough to provide debates and doilies and everything in between, according to each sister’s needs.
Comment by Kaimi — September 30, 2008 @ 9:51 am
p.s. Isn’t Janet just so cute when she starts talking about Elder U? She’s a doll, isn’t she?
In all seriousness, I think both Janet and E have good points. On the one hand, everything in context. It’s less problematic to focus on male appearance, because that’s not something that’s been used for decades to trivialize male accomplishment, the way it’s been used with women. On the other hand, it _is_ a little weird how Mormon women swoon over Elder U. And for some men, appearance does become a weird obsession (see media focus on Mitt Romney’s hair).
I don’t think that Janet is in weird obsession territory here (or at least, no weirder than usual for her
), but I can appreciate E’s concern. Also, I suggest that in honor of Janet’s nutella/Oaks story, we henceforth refer to her as “sugarlips.”
Comment by Kaimi — September 30, 2008 @ 10:01 am
“has been reduced to”
This echos the “dumbing down of public school” which in my Mother’s mind was always dumb. It served to teach kids to punch a clock. It went south from there.
Young people have no desire to contribute. Every organization I know of has less than a 10% activist rate. Even in 12 step programs new members come in, sit and wait to have recovery given to them wrapped in fluff. To have to do the work to make their lives different is a foreign concept.
Comment by Ruby — September 30, 2008 @ 10:05 am
I wrote my last from home, and while walking down to the library composed this next, which rather duplicates Kaimi’s. It’s also so different from my last that some FMHer might want to check the ISP to know that it’s really me — but I’m writing from a different server, so that won’t help. It’s me.
Relief Society gives me plenty of opportunities to be involved in work that does, very often, have an important and needed benefit, sometimes a lifesaving one, on other people. That’s what it has always been, and that’s what it is, and that’s probably what it always will be.
But as for serving me and my needs, it’s an utter failure. My visits to my little widow, my contributions of a few dollars here and a few hours there to welfare projects, while gladly given, don’t do a thing to make life meaningful for me. Teaching four times a year, especially when the lessons are thoughtlessly chosen by a stake presidency who picks talks because an apostle gave them, not because they address local needs (remember the one last year addressed to deacons about how to prepare to be missionaries when they turn 19? the one with the long, long track and field story as an illustration? the one I had to teach to the elderly women in my ward?). I visit teach and try to do it in the spirit intended, and be of service, but my own VT is a complete washout — one of them always, but always, monopolizes the time with a recital of her own difficult life history, which is of no service to me. Tying quilts for refugees tomorrow may be a worthwhile service, but it doesn’t begin to satisfy my needs for creativity or to make use of any talents I have to share. And well-meaning but disastrous lessons, like the “assign the Biblical figure to a kingdom of glory” lesson two weeks ago, or the recent first-Sunday ones from presidency members about sustaining our husbands and teaching our children with no adaptation for the unfamilied, are dreadful, no matter how well-intentioned they are.
Relief Society doesn’t meet any of my needs, and I hate it.
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — September 30, 2008 @ 10:10 am
Go away, Ruby. You have no idea what you’re talking about, and you bore us.
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — September 30, 2008 @ 10:10 am
Ardis, what would have to change to make it meet your needs? Do others where you are possibly share this view? Is there wiggle room for growth or would it require a total dismantling?
Comment by crazywomancreek — September 30, 2008 @ 10:14 am
I know, I know! Let’s do local fmh R.S. outings, say, once a month. Ardis, you’re in SLC, right? Wanna get together? Say, once a month? It’ll be something like a cross between girls’ night out, the R.S. discussions we envision, and Enrichment. Or maybe do one one month, one the next, and so on. Yes?
So. Cal?
Boston?
Austin?
Comment by Artemis — September 30, 2008 @ 10:27 am
(This is my first time posting so I apologize in advance for any mistakes in format)
m&m says:
And ZD Eve reponds:
I appreciated both points. In terms of familial status, my life has not fit into the “ideal.” One week ago, at age 40, I married for the first time, to a man who is not LDS. I spent many years feeling that my life was not “ideal,” in terms of Church cultural (and even doctrinal) definitions, even though there were many, many positive things about my life. At times, it did help to know that church leaders understood how left out of the “ideal” I felt.
But more recently, I questioned, and even become angry about, the emphasis on an “ideal” that involves factors that are beyond the control of so many trying to achieve that ideal, and that puts so many well-meaning people at risk of feeling that their lives are, in a sense, defective. To me, it doesn’t seem right to have an “ideal” that just doesn’t seem to be part of God’s plan for everyone in this life. And, statements that the “ideal” will be available in the next life have never really been helpful to me.
Why cannot the “ideal” be something more universally obtainable for those who are trying to live righteously? Something along the lines of living our lives to the fullest, taking advantage of the opportunities God gives us and that we create to reach our potential and help others do the same–whether those opportunities present themselves in the form of education, professional development, service to others, formation and care of families, or overcoming challenges–and otherwise becoming more Christlike? Perhaps these broader goals are also taught as an ideal, but it is my experience that the “ideal” is often defined as, or reduced to, a very particular version of family life. And by no means do I criticize that version of family life, but it is simply not available to all. Not available to many, in fact. (And perhaps for some who are in that “ideal” situation, it is more complex and difficult than expected.)
I’m not suggesting that the Church needs to shy away from declaring the importance of families, or that there is anything wrong with desiring and pursuing family life, even the “ideal” family life. And, to some extent, holding up a certain “ideal” regarding family life may help some people make good decisions about family life. But if God’s plan for someone in this life does not line up with the “ideal,” perhaps the usefulness of this single “ideal” should be examined.
And it would be wonderful if Relief Society were a place where women did not have to wrestle with the feeling that their life did not fit the “ideal.” (Or where women with the “ideal” life could talk honestly about unideal it may feel.) FMH certainly provides such a forum for me, even though, before today, I just lurked.
Comment by JM — September 30, 2008 @ 10:43 am
Artemis says,
And Boston? Did she really say Boston? I’m in! Who else is up here?
Comment by Libby — September 30, 2008 @ 11:17 am
Great points, JM.
(As an aside, don’t I know you?! Congratulations on your marriage–that’s so awesome–and I really am sorry I wasn’t able to come to your shower.
)
Comment by Kiskilili — September 30, 2008 @ 11:18 am
I’m all for one in So Cal.
(I know, I’m not technically invited. But can’t I be the priesthood protection tag-along who sits in the foyer and reads a book during the actual meeting, and who eats all the leftover cookies afterwards?)
Comment by Kaimi — September 30, 2008 @ 11:40 am
Libby! I’m in New England (CT) and Boston wouldn’t be a problem…I was soooo bummed I couldn’t attend the last snacker.
Comment by Kimberly — September 30, 2008 @ 11:43 am
Re #121:
Austin has been doing this for years.
General comment:
There’s a lot of sentiment on this thread re RS not meeting people’s needs. I’ve never heard anything similar about EQ/HP. What should we conclude from this?
Comment by Julie M. Smith — September 30, 2008 @ 11:57 am
I’m in Boston
And re #124
Kiskilili–You must know me, but I can’t tell who you are! Did I see you on the subway last night?
Comment by JM — September 30, 2008 @ 12:03 pm
And I’m in Boston too!
Send me an email: kiskilili at zelophehadsdaughters dot com. I have to keep my identity secretish since the Strengthening the Members Committee is trying to hunt me down. (Okay, not really.)
Comment by Kiskilili — September 30, 2008 @ 12:20 pm
#127 - That most men don’t verbalize it - and perhaps that they have lower expectations. Instead they sleep through it and chalk it up to life. I’m positive it’s not because the meetings are SO much more fulfilling and uplifting and empowering. Believe me, of that I am sure.
Comment by Ray — September 30, 2008 @ 12:29 pm
Oh, and if anyone in Boston attends the Arlington Ward, please say hello to everyone who was around in the late 80’s - early 90’s for me and my wife. (Ray and Michelle) Tell them our little redhead is a senior and was just ordained an Elder. That should make them feel old.
Comment by Ray — September 30, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
Well, yes, I understand that the original hymn has to do with the scripture.
But the point is that in a room full of women, when the goal is to promote sisterhood, with a choir that has practiced and practiced, why not change the words to be more appropriate?
I don’t have a problem with the hymn as it was sung. Of course it’s a lovely hymn. It was just a missed opportunity, kinda like having plain vanilla ice cream instead of a hot fudge sundae.
It brings a very sweet spirit to have it sung that way. Perfect for a visiting teaching conference, for example.
I don’t recommend it for congregational singing, because the word brother appears a few different places, and we don’t want people to feel confused. But fine for a choir.
Comment by Naismith — September 30, 2008 @ 12:37 pm
Re #127
I’ve never considered it the mission of my priesthood quorum to meet my needs. Honestly, we’re so caught up in helping others in the ward that this more than fills any time we have on Sunday, and keeps us pretty busy during the week.
Comment by Struwelpeter — September 30, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
Ooops. Yesterday when I waded into this discussion I had a sinking feeling that I shouldn’t get involved in this conversation in my current state of frustration with RS, that I would end up just venting instead of really thinking and speaking carefully. That’s clearly what I’ve done, and my apologies, again, to anyone I’ve hurt in that ill-advised process.
Ardis, I can completely understand why you’ve drawn the conclusions you have from my hasty remarks. However, I would like to clarify a couple of them. I don’t think the past was by any means a utopia, and I’m not at all interested in trumpeting only “big-ticket feminist items” when thinking about it. My points, which I didn’t make well, were these: life in the nineteenth century clearly involved a great deal of very hard physical labor, which I think precluded a lot of the current worry over centerpieces, hairstyles, etc. that I see in my ward. And before correlation, women did have more control over the organization.
I also didn’t mean in any way to trivialize the kind of work that Ardis describes going on in her ward, a description I found really moving. I’d love to get involved in and see more of that kind of work in my own ward. Frankly, I’m both much more interested in that kind of work and much better suited to it than carrying placards or engaging in public debate.
To clarify a bit where I’m coming from: I’ve worked on and off in RS for the last several years at the ward and stake levels, and I’ve been really frustrated with a lot of worry about expensive parties and centerpieces, a lot of guilt trips from leadership for not attending said parties, a great deal of concern that someone might come to one of these parties in pants and enter the chapel. (It’s not even that I object to dress standards, but they seem so much less important than other matters–like spiritual sustenance–that aren’t even getting any mention.) Similarly, there’s been a great deal of concern with decorations and games. For the recent RS broadcast the stake decided on a theme of “patriotism” and told us all to wear red, white, or blue.
I’ve tried to participate and help and fulfill my calling; I really have. I realize that it’s important to socialize and get to know each other. So at the last Enrichment night I helped with, I and another sister organized the games, I went to the store and got some supplies for one, only to get to the activity itself and be brusquely informed by the other sister that someone who wasn’t even assigned to the issue had decided that the game I had prepared was a bad idea and that we therefore weren’t doing it. The other sister who had stepped in didn’t so much as bother to email me to tell me not to bring what I had prepared.
Similarly, VTing is currently pretty hard for me. My group gathers for hours and hours, it’s hard to get them to the message so that we can go home, and one sister in particular who I realize is just very young and has lived a very sheltered existence talks incessantly about hairstyles, clothes, people who have the wrong hairstyles and clothes (me, for sure!), the disgusting way poor people live, how ugly fat people are, how stupid people in the South are, how the gays are messing up her insurance….I find it beyond emotionally exhausting to deal with her. I try to limit myself to one expression of disagreement per meeting, but the whole exercise is something I dread.
None of that justifies my hasty remarks above. I’m just struggling with RS, as I have for most of my adult life. I do appreciate m&m’s very kind attempts to reach out to me, but at this point I don’t think it’s just my emotional deficiencies and personal trials that make me dislike dealing with it–the organization as a whole seems like a poor fit for the person I am.
I have no interest in RS meeting my needs, or expectation that it will, and I’m happy to try to meet others’ needs in whatever way I can. I just don’t want the organization to actually tear me down and make me miserable. That doesn’t seem like so much to ask, does it?
All right, I’ve reached the point where I’m just pouring more and more words over a situation I feel pretty bad about and digging myself in deeper and deeper, so I’ll stop now and try to collect myself, not to mention attend to the rest of my life.
Comment by ZD Eve — September 30, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
Eve, for what it’s worth, what you have described would be difficult for me, too. I guess for me it’s just hard when your local experiences are generalized to the whole organization and to all women. There are many of us who are really trying to add to and participate in the organization in substantive ways. I agree with you that things need to be more substantive…just want it to be recognized that in some places, this is happening. And I really feel that is some of what our leaders are calling us to — we need to be more focused, more intent on really fulfilling our purpose as an organization. If we were doing that, we wouldn’t keep hearing ‘we need to do more.’
The organization should not be tearing you down, and it shouldn’t be focused mostly on trivial things. And I really am sorry when I hear about things like this (or Ardis’s three degrees of glory story — yikes!)
To be honest, I think your feedback is worth giving to your leaders, if you feel you have a ward or stake leader you can approach about this. And I think it’s not inappropriate to ask for a VT change if it really isn’t working for you.
I’m sorry you experience has been so bad.
Comment by m&m — September 30, 2008 @ 2:11 pm
And here’s a genuine question that has been in my mind. I don’t feel that all my talents, interests, and creative energies can be channeled well through RS in a formal way. I think I hear Ardis saying some of the same thing (if not, Ardis, sorry for misrepresenting what you are saying). I guess my question is, isn’t part of being a woman of RS being anxiously engaged in good causes that may not directly associate with RS? I felt a lot of focus on Relief Society specifically in the meeting, but I don’t sense, esp. with Pres. Uchtdorf’s talk, that that means we should all be able to feel that RS as a formal structure is the only way for us to contribute through creation and compassion, service and sacrifice.
Then again, I am also feeling that I need to consider more what to do within the structure and function of RS as an organization, and I’m not sure how to do that. For me, it may just be more the little things…praying to know who needs me in my little world.
Don’t know if my question makes sense, but wondered if anyone else wondered about this.
Comment by m&m — September 30, 2008 @ 2:19 pm
If Relief Society was my main identifier and involvement in life, I would live a very sheltered existence. It is not. I belong to other communities and participate in some of them more fully than I do in Relief Society. Of the four sisters on my visiting teaching route, I send cards to two and let my companion usually take care of the other two. I do not currently hold a Relief Society calling, and that is just fine. I don’t often make it into RS on Sundays due to the age of one of my children.
But some of the skills I’ve learned through participating in Relief Society are skills that I take into my other communities, including the other women in the neighborhood and the other mothers on an online heart kids support group. I do feel the same or more responsibility towards some of these women than I do toward my visiting teaching assignments.
I don’t know how well that addresses m&m’s question, but it was an attempt!
Comment by Researcher — September 30, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
Thanks, Researcher. On one hand, it seems like a stupid question, but it’s still something I’m mulling over. I wonder how or if we could help the organization by more deliberately bringing our abilities, interests and talents more to the table, for example. Or how to expand the reach of RS to include and tap into more of the talent and abilities that are there.
I think, for example, of a friend of mine who came with lots of ideas to her calling and all were nixed because people just are too used to their own ways of doing things.
Some of our challenge, imo, may sometimes be in the fact that people get used to ‘this is how we have always done it’ and aren’t willing to ask, ‘Is this the right thing to be doing right now?’
But there is a balance, because we don’t need to be overhauling everything, either.
Anyway…don’t mind me…just rambling.
Comment by m&m — September 30, 2008 @ 3:14 pm
Yeah. Well. Like m&m and Researcher, RS doesn’t fill my needs and probably never will, and like them I’ve learned not to expect that — but i haven’t yet learned not to hope that maybe this week will be different. I’m most like ZD Eve: when I most need the outlet and uplift that RS could provide, but does not, going to church is almost more than I can bear (because it isn’t just RS; SS and SM often leave me emptier than when I started, because the talks and lessons — no matter how prayerful and true and beautiful they may be, they are always about somebody else’s life, never ever ever ever about what I need). I also find that constantly trying to serve others without having a single soul anywhere in the world trying to serve me is exhausting and unfulfilling, and that it isn’t true that losing yourself in the service of others is always a cure for what ails you.
[Ruby, don’t even start. This has nothing to do with a systemic failure on the part of the church, and everything to do with the personalities — chiefly mine — involved. Your spite is predictable, tiresome, and ignorant.]
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — September 30, 2008 @ 3:29 pm
Ardis, if it helps at all, there are at least a few people out here in the world that are trying to serve you - even if only by acknowledging and appreciating the absolutely astounding work you are doing over on Keepapitchinin, since our distant locations don’t allow anything else.
I know that doesn’t do anything to help within your tangible or local church life, but I for one would be worse off without what you do - and if all I can do to serve you is to acknowledge that publicly . . . consider it done with heartfelt appreciation and love.
Comment by Ray — September 30, 2008 @ 3:38 pm
DITTO to what Ray said, Ardis. I don’t think you know how much you have impacted many people with your talents. It’s people like you with talents like that that make me think that it simply has to be that sometimes we reach outside of the formal structure to help with God’s work. Your help with family history, your help connecting people with the Saints of the past, even helping men figure out their priesthood line of authority. Seriously. You are doing much, and much good.
Comment by m&m — September 30, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
And, btw, I don’t expect RS to fill all my needs, either. But I think it can do better particularly at the local level, and that is some of what I hear RS leaders saying. I still think it would be interesting to have a conversation, here and even perhaps locally with leaders, to figure out how more of women’s talents and abilities can be tapped into and more women’s needs can be met. I think there are many women who suffer silently and I wonder how we can reach out to them better. I don’t think that can happen, though, unless some who do suffer are willing to articulate how RS can help. I, for one, know that I care deeply about reaching out, but sometimes simply don’t know how!
Again, that is some of what I hear our leaders saying. RS leaders, tap into your sisters and their talents! We are being invited to really tune in and nurture those around us. And I hear them inviting us to figure out individually, too, how to bring our talents to bear in the Lord’s work. “Serving God’s children” seems to me to be pretty broad. Creation and compassion do, too.
Comment by m&m — September 30, 2008 @ 5:31 pm
I’m reminded by private email, and then come to find these additional comments, that my “nobody loves me” is far more bitter than I *ever* feel, and that I have lots of friends, including internet contacts. You realize, I hope, that my fingers run away with me sometimes, and that I’m talking about always feeling like the one whom the ninety-and-nine think is safely in the fold and don’t even notice has wandered off. I’m sure my VTs are sincere when they say “if there’s anything we can do for you, give us a call,” and that my RS president would be horrified to know that I don’t find any outlet for my talents in RS despite my cheerfully filling my assignments. I find other outlets — including my blog — and have a handful of friends who may be the only five or six people in the world willing to tolerate a crusty loudmouth knowitall like me. And I really should not say so much in public.
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — September 30, 2008 @ 5:48 pm
Ardis, I think you just nailed one of the things I hope my wife and daughters get out of RS - a recognition that every person needs a group where they are acknowledged, understood and loved for who they are - not whom people want them to be.
I know a lady who grew up in a home where she was the stereotypical overlooked and under-appreciated child. She was a peacemaker, naturally faithful, a great student, etc. What happened, however, is that her parents took that for granted, held her up as an example to everyone (including her siblings) and imposed unrealistic expectations that reinforced her natural perfection complex. She speaks with me occasionally still, and she often mentions feeling lost even while in a group - because she was and is overlooked, not because she is absent physically.
I hope RS functions as a real community of sisters where all are valued and recognized and acknowledged and known and involved. I know that is idealistic, but it still is my hope - and I am sorry (truly apologetic) if describing that hope causes pain for anyone in a different situation. I only can pray that it can change, through the efforts of the women in each RS group.
Comment by Ray — September 30, 2008 @ 6:28 pm
I’ve only read the last few posts and admittedly have no idea what this post is really about but I’ll chime in about RS. I don’t like it. Never have. Not in college, not single professional, not married no kids, not divorced single mom, not remarried mom to 2 kids plus hubby. I find the ’sisterhood’ it promises never delivers for me. Of course, I’m not your typical Mormon lady so I’m sure it’s my fault. I completely and totally hate VT. I hate VT-ing, I hate having VTs in my house. The lessons are usually so difficult and boring to sit through. Last Sunday, I just couldn’t do it anymore so I got up and left to go get a frozen yogurt. Enrichment nights? Dread them. I like the women for the most part but would much rather skip it. I have no idea how to fix it but I definitely don’t fit in.
Comment by Lulubelle — September 30, 2008 @ 6:31 pm
Maybe the RS ’sisterhood’ feels too contrived to me…?
Comment by Lulubelle — September 30, 2008 @ 6:32 pm
Hmm. I hope I can say this right.
And I’m just arrogant enough to believe that I matter and that my experience and comments might be of use to someone.
While I am grateful for my membership in Relief Society, that’s not to say that I am ignorant of its failings. Of which there are many. It’s not because I love doilies, Footprints in the Sand, listening to Celine Dione for music appreciation, or insincere expressions of concern. It’s not that I don’t hear the oblivious comments about motherhood, marriage, service, education, etc. etc. that aren’t audience appropriate.
It is because, wherever I attend, I am fascinated that there is this big room full of women who are willing to attempt sisterhood. I didn’t grow up with any sisters so to me, this is truly fascinating.
And because I feel like if I’m not there, I can’t change it. I honestly don’t try to be antagonistic but I don’t feel like anyone is served by not challenging silliness and ignorance (with love!
Comment by Lupita — September 30, 2008 @ 6:44 pm
And, I’m not sure what this says about me, but pretty much my ideal RS would be filled with crusty loudmouth knowitalls.
Comment by Lupita — September 30, 2008 @ 6:47 pm
“And, I’m not sure what this says about me, but pretty much my ideal RS would be filled with crusty loudmouth knowitalls.”
So what we need is for all of us to start a commune big enough for its own ward and then . . .
Comment by Julie M. Smith — September 30, 2008 @ 6:51 pm
I’m talking about always feeling like the one whom the ninety-and-nine think is safely in the fold and don’t even notice has wandered off.
I remember a time in my ward years ago when I finally broke down while talking to a bishopric member. I was one of the dutiful people, had multiple callings, etc. But I felt alone and was struggling in my life. He said something I will never forget (can’t remember exact words, but this was the substance): “Sometimes we forget the strong ones” (the irony was that I wasn’t feeling strong, but I think it can be easy for leaders or visiting teachers or neighbors to assume that if you are able to serve and fulfilling all you should be doing, that you don’t need anything).
“In the quiet heart is hidden sorrow that the eye can’t see.” I think we all should remember this. I think there are often people who play the part at church, but are suffering big time.
Just a thought, fwiw. With my health struggles and such, I’m finding that sometimes I have to help people around me know how to help. (I wrote about this on my blog a while ago.) (My RS president even recently said as much. She is so willing, but simply hasn’t know how to help. I let her take my kids to church this past two weeks when I couldn’t, and hubby was out of town.) It’s SO hard to do this when you are in need, but I have found that it actually sometimes helps. Sometimes it probably won’t, but I think more often than not, people want to help but are clueless about how to go about it, or clueless about what is really going on in the “quiet heart.” And they might be afraid to ask or to pry (when what many of us want is to just have someone come out and say — how are you, really?)
Ray, amen to 144. So, how do we go about making this happen?
Anyway, more ramblings….
Comment by m&m — September 30, 2008 @ 6:53 pm
Hi, all. I just wanted to let you know I haven’t purposefully abandoned my thread. Comcast has decided to let our coverage go spotty, and this is the first in 24 hours I’ve been able to log on. And I’m leaving for the Pacific Northwest in the morning.
As Ardis has made clear, she and I live in a ward where RS often works. I experience a lot of angst over a few things in the ward which drive me bananas, but ours is a ward where RS often seems to work quite well so far as compassionate service to our sisters is concerned. I’m wondering, Ardis–is our ward really representative of your other experiences with RS? Of all the wards I’ve lived in, only two have really seemed to tap into the kind of charity you relate by using RS as an avenue.
I appreciated President Beck’s call to improve because I think RS has devolved into a great deal of fluff in many places. I also think her call to make RS as powerful as the Priesthood groups reveals her belief that we aren’t there yet, that we have gotten a bit lazy in our post-correlation days. Which (and here’s the feminist take) patriarchy renders very, very alarmingly easy. A lack of true independence breeds impotence and, dare i say it, apathy. Our current challenge, it would seem, is taking the organization as it currently exists–because we aren’t going to ditch the oversight anytime soon–and making it more powerful. I’ve also noticed a good deal of emphasis from GAs on the notion of spiritual independence, of not looking to leaders for every stinking bit of direction in life. Applying those to RS seems a good idea. It’s how we got that stuff to Zimbabwe in our ward, after all–we didn’t wait around for some SP to assign us something. We knew a family who knew more families, and things snowballed.
Comment by Janet — October 1, 2008 @ 12:56 am
You’ve got me giggling, Ardis. You know DH and I ADORE you, right? Not to mention Muffin. We think you should say more, not less, in public. Especially in church. The Sundays you teach are my favorites. (You know, when we actually go to our own ward instead of sneaking into an afternoon meeting, that is
).
Comment by Janet — October 1, 2008 @ 1:00 am
that we have gotten a bit lazy in our post-correlation days.
Hm. So you think correlation is to blame for the fact the RS isn’t meeting its potential?
I think maybe we are sometimes just lazy, as in human…or simply too busy and distracted in our world of busyness and distractions.
I think it’s a little much to put it all on correlation. Or on patriarchy.
And interestingly, I noted that we were actually reminded to stick wtih correlated material, implying that could HELP us get power in our classes. Of course, that means people need to learn to teach well with the material, but I thought that was interesting, given how often the correlated material is criticized and given the context and content of this meeting.
As our bishop said, if it weren’t for the women, it would be the men slacking along.
Comment by m&m — October 1, 2008 @ 3:03 am
M&M — I don’t think it’s to blame, just that it’s a contributing factor. Patriarchy is a larger contributing factor, however. Nonetheless, we’re responsible for our own apathy and lack of action, though understanding things which augment those qualities can help us improve.
Off to the Pacific Northwest I go! Hurrah! See you guys in 2 weeks.
Comment by Janet — October 1, 2008 @ 12:03 pm
Only read the first 30ish comments. But I have now listened to Pres. Uchtdorf’s talk online, and listened to the closing song. My thoughts so far:
LOVED the talk. And I went out and bought some acrylic paints, brushes and paper as a direct response to it. I’ve long thought it’d be fun to use acrylic (and less frustrating for one of my limited artistic abilities than the water colors I got back in my college days), and his talk was the little nudge I needed to let myself do it…even though I’m not expecting to produce anything magnificent or even half decent. I’m going to create!
CLOSING SONG by the choir just made me cry. Literally. And I don’t know if I’ve ever seen a choir director who looked so joyful and happy. She made me want to sing along. What choir was that? I’ll have to watch the rest to find out. What a beautiful sound they made!
From the comments I understand that they sang Lord I Will Follow Thee…and that some people have issues with not changing the wording to “sister’s keeper”. I’ve personally never been bothered by the language of the scriptures. To me it has always seemed like just another tool that Satan uses to rile people up, cause offense, or distract from the true meaning found therein. It’s not conceding anything or giving up an iota of our intrinsic worth, nor do I believe it’s perpetuating the oppression of women or anything like that to use archaic language in it’s original form. So I’m chill with it. I love that song, and it’s beautiful either way. It would be almost making a statement to change it…and I just don’t think a statement needs to be made. Would make us sound like we’re insecure or whining or something…quite the opposite effect than we’d be hoping for by changing verbiage in the first place.
Last, I was hanging out in Boston on Saturday night. I went running for 8 miles along the Charles River in the rain by myself, because I had nothing else to do. I just hadn’t heard that women’s conference was that night…twould have been fun to attend there with the Bostonians on this list! Missed opportunity!
In case Mary Magdalene hasn’t already said so today…it’s a beautiful Thursday everyone!
♥
Comment by Blue — October 2, 2008 @ 10:28 am
[…] comment on Janet’s post General Relief Society Conference at […]
Pingback by Zelophehad’s Daughters | My Nacle Notebook 2008: Funny comments — August 31, 2009 @ 3:21 am
[…] comment on Janet’s post General Relief Society Conference at […]
Pingback by Zelophehad’s Daughters | My Nacle Notebook 2008: Interesting Comments — September 8, 2009 @ 6:54 pm