Virtuous Young Women
As soon as President Dalton began speaking about virtue I admit that I got pretty tense. It isn’t that I have a problem with virtue per say. All in all, I’d say I am pro virtue. I hope to act with virtue, hope to teach my children to do so as well.
And all in all, I thought President Dalton did a pretty good of articulating the type of “virtue” that will make us strong and healthy and wise. I admit to a few minor cringes, but IMO the topic is a mine field.
It’s just that the history of a “virtuous woman” isn’t exactly pretty. Virtue has been used as a hammer to control and punish women since time immemorial. Men act(ed) with impunity while one mistake and a woman’s entire self became worthless, and she was killed or thrown out like trash to suffer alone as an outcast until she died. And the fear of this end is exactly what kept the virtuous women from doing dangerous things like becoming educated or independent.
So I guess I have a hard time discussing “virtue” especially “virtue” directed primarily toward the Young Women by their leader without some acknowledgment of the ways that “guarding virtue” can so easily twisted into something ugly and manipulative and stifling and even evil.
But then, we Mormons aren’t exactly big on parsing out the gray areas. I guess I just feel that the lesson would be so much more powerful if we did.
I don’t know, what did you think of President Dalton’s talk? What would you like to see discussed when speaking to young people about virtue?
I guess I’ll have to go back and read it when its published, but I didn’t have too many initial problems with it. I like this passage of one passage made by the Messenger and Advocate:
We have been desensitized thinking moral standards are no longer important. We are being poisoned by degrees. We are forgetting our Divine identity. Youth busy every texting, but never coming to a knowledge of the truth. What can be more deceptive?
Comment by queuno — October 5, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
I really liked it - largely because it didn’t put the responsibility on women to control men’s improper thoughts. She laid that responsibility squarely on the men, and I appreciated that. I also like that he framed our attempts to find virtue and live virtuous lives as being much more than just a sex-related effort. Actually, that was one of my favorite parts of her talk.
I agree it is a hard topic to handle without appearing to blame (or obviously blaming) women for men’s actions, but I thought she did an excellent job not going there.
Comment by Ray — October 5, 2008 @ 1:53 pm
She mentioned the latin virtus, but she didn’t take it to the real root: “vir” means “Man.” A “virtuous” woman is a manly woman. SUCH a history, oh such a history, that word, that concept….
Comment by hero — October 5, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
I really liked her talk. My favorite part was that she told the YW that they could change the world. She didn’t fall into the typical trap of qualifying it by saying that they could change the world by raising sons who would change it, but that they could change it.
Comment by Keri Brooks — October 5, 2008 @ 2:20 pm
I liked that she addressed the men squarely and held them as “guardians of virtue”. The talk was just as much for/about men as it was for/about women. I also like that she showed a photo of herself and her counselors IN JEANS. What other general authority has done that?
Comment by Annie B — October 5, 2008 @ 2:32 pm
Her talk was fantastic! I think if we look at the intention behind her talk, which wasn’t to make women less, but more, we will see that the message that she had for them (and for us older, more adult women) was a message of inspiration, hope, and determination to continually try to be the best that we can be.
Comment by Becca — October 5, 2008 @ 2:37 pm
Oh, I absolutely loved her talk - my favorite of the morning. She made the point of saying that the word “virtue” comes from the Latin word for Strength. Beautiful. What better than a strong woman who knows truth, and stands for it? (which, to me, would include knowing when someone is trying to treat you improperly, and not allowing it)
Comment by Julie P — October 5, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
Additionally, I think we also have to see her talk pertaining to the spiritual rather than the temporal. Her intention wasn’t to make women scape-goats for men, but rather make them the best that they could be for themselves, and in turn, for Heavenly Father. When you take on that perspective, there is no question that her talk on virtue was nothing more than to improve on who we are, men and women alike.
Comment by Becca — October 5, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
In general, I don’t enjoy talks by women in conference. It is usually on a topic that is uncomfortable as you described above. I try really hard to overcome my discomfort and listen with a full heart but I can never quite let it all go.
I thought Dalton’s talk was a better one than a lot of other talks given at GC by women ( i liked Sister allred’s talk, hers are always good)… at least the ENTIRETY of it wasn’t about her family. I wonder why it is that when given 15 minutes to talk to the world, so many women tell long stories about how great their families are. Do they not know that we are imperfect, struggling people? Tell me a story about your son who is a drug addict, and the strength that the gospel gives you to love and support him. Or tell me a story about your children who left the church and the strength that you feel as you pray for them. Give me something real. I can never relate to these women. When I hear them speak, I feel like I am an outsider.
Again, I generally liked Dalton’s talk, and amen to what Keri Brooks said above. Still, I wish the women of the church would paint a more accurate picture of what it means to be a follower of christ in these General Conference talks.
Comment by Jessie — October 5, 2008 @ 2:42 pm
Talk about twisting something good into something ugly… that’s just what you’ve done.
Comment by rj — October 5, 2008 @ 2:55 pm
I didn’t hear the talk, but I was going to make the point no. 3 hero made. Virtue derives from Latin virtus “manliness” (from vir “man”), which seems to me could be an interesting point to make in parsing the responsibility young men should take for their own actions in this sphere.
Comment by Kevin Barney — October 5, 2008 @ 3:18 pm
One of the talks during the Priesthood session last night was specifically about virtue. In the Church, it’s not just a common topic for young women.
Comment by Michael — October 5, 2008 @ 3:38 pm
I thought that Pres. Dalton’s talk was pretty good, as talks on “virtue” go. I agree that kids need to hear a credible alternative to today’s sex-saturated teenage culture, but I wish there were a “cool” way to discuss abstinence. It’s too easy to tune out people your parent’s age telling you not to have sex - and then sex becomes just one more fun thing your parents tell you not to do.
I’m just glad we escaped another GC relatively unscathed. No talks on “walking pornography” or that Mormon women have to be the best housekeepers in the world. Although there was a near miss with Elder Oak’s talk on men wearing white shirts to Church. Guess it’s official.
Comment by ECS — October 5, 2008 @ 3:42 pm
More to the point, how likely are men in this church to get away with acting with impunity? It happens in isolation. But institutionally? With the responsibilities and consequences that we’re constantly reminded of?
This makes feminism look like pornography. It makes it impossible to appreciate something beautiful because you’ve spent so much time studying ugliness.
Comment by The Right Trousers — October 5, 2008 @ 3:55 pm
[…] Our favorite YW blog has a great review of Pres. Dalton’s talk today — love the shout-out to the outdoor meeting. Let’s hope that takes. There’s also a lively discussion about it at FMH. […]
Pingback by Virtual Oases: October 5 « The Exponent — October 5, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
A great talk! I watch with my 3 teen-aged boys. I saw a roll of the eyes in the beginning, but then they actually took heed and listened. I think Sis. Dalton did a good job. Wasn’t the typical kind of virtue talk, thank heavens.
Comment by big mama — October 5, 2008 @ 5:12 pm
That’s just plain silly.
Comment by MCQ — October 5, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
#10 sounds a bit harsh…but hit the nail on the head…
Comment by Julie P — October 5, 2008 @ 5:51 pm
I had a hard time getting past that “cutesy” condensending tone of voice she used used for the first five minutes, I’ve noticed almost all sisters speaking in conference do it. Sister Beck is the worst
Comment by Kristin — October 5, 2008 @ 6:00 pm
“She didn’t fall into the typical trap of qualifying it by saying that they could change the world by raising sons who would change it, but that they could change it.”
Comment by Keri Brooks
Which is what feminists have been telling you for forty years. Now are you going to to do it?
Comment by Ruby — October 5, 2008 @ 6:08 pm
#9, #17, I agree… the cutesy tones and subject matter of women’s talks in GC is troubling for me as well at times. Maybe if I lived in Utah it would be different. I liked Sis Dalton’s talk though, after I toned out the tone.
Comment by renee — October 5, 2008 @ 6:19 pm
#20 - . . . . . . . . . Never mind.
Comment by Ray — October 5, 2008 @ 7:38 pm
The word virtue actual means power in many contexts and the talks I hear the General Authorities give tend to lean that way in my mind. I really enjoyed that talk.
I do understand you cringe at the history that the concept of virtue has taken for women,but I also have to say that the fact that in the “sexual revolution” we “freed” ourselves from some of the oppression that was perpetuated by the word virtue by making sure every one knew we should be able to behave as badly as men do . . . we’ll I think we went the wrong way trying to fix that double standard.
Comment by LibbyAnne — October 5, 2008 @ 7:48 pm
#3 & #11, when I heard her define the word (which should be “manliness” as defined by the Romans) I wondered if my classics professor in the MoTab was squirming in his seat and whispering to his neighbors up there. I liked that they went on a hike. And my mom called in the middle of her talk to critique her outfit. She didn’t love the shoulder-bows or ruffles or whatnot. I didn’t love that she wore solid black which made her seem a little disembodied. Yeah, we’re shallow.
And this came up in another thread, but women in the church seem socialized to speak in a certain way. It’s the Primary President lip-smacky thing that I can’t stand.
Comment by marianne — October 5, 2008 @ 7:59 pm
#21 - Those of us who live in Utah feel the same way. I sometimes wonder if that’s just those women’s regular voices - maybe they always sound like that.
Comment by Becky — October 5, 2008 @ 8:09 pm
10, and 18,
I agree, that something lovely has been made ugly. But facts is facts, and “female virtue” has a bad bad history.
I wonder if you mean to tell me that I should just ignore that history? Or let us all dwell in blissful ignorance? And how will that make things better, I wonder?
Comment by fMhLisa — October 5, 2008 @ 8:19 pm
Gosh darn it Lisa, there you go, looking backward, when you should be looking forward!
Comment by Ann — October 5, 2008 @ 8:38 pm
Ah ha ha!
“the past is prologue.” !!
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 5, 2008 @ 8:42 pm
Yeah, Lisa, hasn’t Pres. Bush taught you anything about not looking back and just plowing ahead?
Comment by Ray — October 5, 2008 @ 8:54 pm
Her talk was one of my favorite of the conference. There were other times that I “cringed” but not during her talk.
Are we too critical of other women? There were a couple other talks I can think of that were “harder” - but are we talking about Sister Dalton’s because she’s female?
She took her counselors hiking - how cool is that?! My daughter is only 6 months old, but when she is 12, I want a YW Pres like Sister Dalton.
Comment by lyn — October 5, 2008 @ 9:21 pm
When she started the whole thing about virtue I took it as a cue to go lay down and take a nap. Virtue talks make me nervous for many of the reasons cited by LisafMh. I think after reading this I will read it online and give the talk a chance. But hey at least I made it through some of all 4 sessions, which hasn’t happened in a few years.
I will say this I think most people are probably unaware of all the historical implications behind the word virtue. So they naively talk about the subject.
Comment by Violet — October 5, 2008 @ 9:23 pm
I am glad she gave that talk. I think it is something that we all have to be reminded of, no matter what we have or haven’t done, because it is good to hear the truth. I was happy to hear it and I’d hear it again. Wait a month and we’ll get to read what they told the men in priesthood and it will probably be something similar. Yay for virtue!!!
Comment by Michaela S — October 5, 2008 @ 10:01 pm
For what it’s worth, regarding priesthood session, the highlight for me was that Richard G. Scott gave a talk about the vital importance of gender equality, in and out of marriage. He spoke against those who would listen to a man’s opinion or advice more that that of a woman. And not a single mention of ‘presiding.’
Comment by ~Chris — October 5, 2008 @ 10:07 pm
Of course they didn’t need to mention ‘presiding’ because they already have that ability. It would be like mentioning “we’re all women here” at the opening of RS. It’s the obvious that’s rarely talked about.
Comment by Mary Magdalene — October 5, 2008 @ 10:16 pm
I guess I had in mind an old post on Zelophehad’s Daughters:
http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2007/11/30/the-trouble-with-chicken-patriarchy/
I thought it was good to hear a talk that advocated equality very strongly without saying that men preside nonetheless.
Comment by ~Chris — October 5, 2008 @ 10:41 pm
Now I know everyone will probably laugh at me… as this will show my lack of education, but what is the historical context behind the word “virtue”? I would really like to know…
Comment by bookwormmama — October 5, 2008 @ 11:26 pm
I thought the talk itself was pretty decent. Ever since Sister Beck’s talk last year I get a little nervous when the women are asked to speak. I guess I kind of assume that if the brethren wanted to call women to repentance (leading more traditional lives, being better homemakers, etc.) they’d probably make sure a woman gave the talk to soften the blow.
I’m kind of paranoid.
Comment by Cordy — October 6, 2008 @ 12:20 am
This wasn’t a talk about virtuous women of any age — it was about a return to virtue on the part of everyone. Free passes for bad behavior to those with penises were not issued.
I think it’s good to raise some awareness of the history of how the term has been misused, but I don’t see anything Sis. Dalton said that would bring this to mind other than the word “virtue.” Much of the comments in this thread are noting things she didn’t say, rather than on what she did say. Is that striking anybody else as odd?
Comment by Blain — October 6, 2008 @ 12:23 am
Blain- yes.
Comment by brian — October 6, 2008 @ 2:06 am
One of the things I liked about her talk is that she implied virtue is more than just sexual purity. I wish more talks did that. Same goes for the use of “immorality”.
Comment by Kim Siever — October 6, 2008 @ 6:59 am
This was my favorite talk from conference…well, of the talks I actually heard. (Watching conference with kids and in-laws around is difficult.) Breath of fresh air for the YW program, and all. Her remarks about the (un)importance of physical appearance were nothing new, but the way she phrased them earned a loud “Amen, sistah!” from me AND my husband.
Comment by Libby — October 6, 2008 @ 7:06 am
Critquing talks? Wow.
Comment by Lo — October 6, 2008 @ 7:30 am
#13-ECS- Is it true? White shirts only? I must have spaced out after he made it clear that flip flops were innapropriate.
If he really came out and said that I will be really dissapointed, my husband looks really hot in his purple or his blue shirt, white is just so boring!
Comment by Roxanna — October 6, 2008 @ 9:08 am
Some of my notes from her talk: virtue is a pattern of thought & behavior based on high standards; moral courage brings confidence; we (and I took that to mean the whole population of the church, young & old, men & women) must have self-discipline, focus, & take instruction from the scriptures.
I thought it was a great message that gave me much to think about for myself & my children. There was much meat and little fluff.
Don’t let the voice detract from the message. If it’s too hard, I recommend reading the talks. I have always found I get much more out of President Monson’s talks through reading.
Comment by TXgirl — October 6, 2008 @ 9:12 am
#36, Bookwormmoma:
This from the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary definition of “virtue”:
(And, as an aside,I think it’s interesting that, though the Latin “vir” is translated as “man”, the primary meaning of the latin “virtus” is “bravery” or “valor”)
VIRTUE, n. vur’tu. [L. virtus, from vireo, or its root. See Worth.] The radical sense is strength, from straining, stretching, extending. This is the primary sense of L. vir, a man.]
1. Strength; that substance or quality of physical bodies, by which they act and produce effects on other bodies. In this literal and proper sense, we speak of the virtue or virtues of plants in medicine, and the virtues of drugs. In decoctions, the virtues of plants are extracted. By long standing in the open air, the virtues are lost.
2. Bravery valor. This was the predominant signification of virtus among the Romans.
Trust to thy single virtue.
[This sense is nearly or quite obsolete.]
3. Moral goodness; the practice of moral duties and the abstaining from vice, or a conformity of life and conversation to the moral law. In this sense, virtue may be, and in many instances must be, distinguished from religion. The practice of moral duties merely from motives of convenience, or from compulsion, or from regard to reputation, is virtue, as distinct from religion. The practice of moral duties from sincere love to God and his laws, is virtue and religion. In this sense it is true,
That virtue only makes our bliss below.
Virtue is nothing but voluntary obedience to truth.
4. A particular moral excellence; as the virtue of temperance, of chastity, of charity.
Remember all his virtues.
5. Acting power; something efficacious.
Jesus, knowing that virtue had gone out of him, turned - Mark 3.
6. Secret agency; efficacy without visible or material action.
She moves the body which she doth possess,
Yet no part toucheth, but by virtue’s touch.
7. Excellence; or that which constitutes value and merit.
- Terence, who thought the sole grace and virtue of their fable, the sticking in of sentences.
8. One of the orders of the celestial hierarchy.
Thrones, dominations, princedoms, virtues, powers.
9. Efficacy; power.
He used to travel through Greece by virtue of this fable, which procured him reception in all the towns.
10. Legal efficacy or power; authority. A man administers the laws by virtue of a commission.
In virtue, in consequence; by the efficacy or authority.
This they shall attain, partly in virtue of the promise of God, and partly in virtue of piety.
Comment by Mary B — October 6, 2008 @ 9:16 am
Just as in most talks this conference, there were some things I liked, and some things that bothered me in Sis. Dalton’s talk. I loved the hiking, the banner, the link of “strength” with womanhood (linguistically correct or not). If you haven’t read the Beginnings New review on this, you simply must.
Hated how she made men the “guardians” of virtue. When I read the print version of the talk, I’ll probably have more to say on that.
Her overly cheery, high-pitched opener was annoying. But, sad to say, this is how my voice sounds in talks, too. Must every feminist need a low-pitched alto voice to be taken seriously in public speaking?
Comment by Bored in Vernal — October 6, 2008 @ 10:13 am
lol!! haha…. well… good point..
Seriously tho, i think it’s in the water… every woman in GC talks this way, except sis Allred, which makes me think it’s a cultural thing.
I’m an RS rookie (under age 25) so I don’t know about RS presidents from way back… and I don’t mean to be disparaging towards other people’s dialects. Maybe I’ve associated the high pitch cutesy condescending tone with too many talks about why I should be a good homemaker:-(
Comment by Jessie — October 6, 2008 @ 10:21 am
I think the high pitched cutsie “sweet” voice is either a cultural thing, or that the male priesthood leaders who make the choice of who is to fill the positions of the general presidencies of primary, YW, and RS, think that is how righteous women are supposed to sound. So, either the women think that is how they are supposed to sound, or the men pick women who sound like that because the men think that is how they are supposed to sound.
Either way, I turned her talk off because I disliked the voice tone. Now I find I missed an interesting talk because she came across sounding like she was talking to five year olds.
I am also glad someone else mentioned that they like to read Monson’s talks more than hear them, because I find his conference speaking voice bothersome and wondered if it is just me. When he tells those “sweet” stories in that sing song voice, it just gets to be too much for me and I would much rather read his talks.
Comment by alas — October 6, 2008 @ 10:40 am
OK, look. No more disparaging the high-pitched cutesy voice. Those sounds continue to issue forth from my throat, no matter how much I try to imitate Eleanor Roosevelt. And I didn’t grow up in the Church, or in Utah.
I did not choose this affliction, I WAS BORN THIS WAY!!
Comment by Bored in Vernal — October 6, 2008 @ 10:58 am
but you can get voice lessons and train your voice to speak in lower tones.
Comment by mfranti — October 6, 2008 @ 11:18 am
Says mfranti in her beautifully modulated molasses tones!
Comment by Bored in Vernal — October 6, 2008 @ 11:24 am
I am disgusted by this forum. It’s one thing to tear apart political debates and newspaper articles, but completely another to tear apart conference talks. Your time would be better spent actually doing something for the kingdom instead of tearing it down by complaining about it. Does no one else see the hand of the adversary in such comments? The first steps to apostasy include criticizing church leaders. What was it Nephi said? The guilty taketh the truth to be hard? What should that tell you about yourself if you don’t like something that is said by the church leaders? Obviously something is not in harmony with the true and living gospel. I love conference because it calls me to repentance. I hear things that motivate me to make changes in my life to qualify me for the kingdom. Satan wins when we complain of trivial things to detract from the truth of the message. In such cases we are no better than Laman and Lemuel.
I do not consider myself a feminist, but I read your discussions from time to time to try to understand women in my life who are. To those who CHOOSE to take offense and criticize conference talks– sounds to me like you are doing a pretty good job of poisoning yourselves.
Comment by AA — October 6, 2008 @ 11:33 am
ahem- calling into question my personal righteousness? Not all of us are perfect like you AA.
Comment by Jessie — October 6, 2008 @ 11:36 am
Wait a minute. I am supposed to agree with everything the leaders say?
Seriously. Am I?
Comment by mfranti — October 6, 2008 @ 11:36 am
#21 and #25 - Some women truly do just sound like that. I know many women, both in and out of the church, that have a similar manner of speech.
Comment by Patti — October 6, 2008 @ 11:40 am
AA
Everyone is unique. Everyone has personal issues they struggle with. Some people struggle to follow the prophet, others are prideful, others can’t stand to listen to cutesy condescending voices but WANT to feel the spirit of conference. Honesty helps each of us realize we aren’t horrible for thinking the way we do about these things, and this forum is a way of support.
The GA’s aren’t always right, you know. Remember that little bit about Blacks NEVER holding the priesthood? Yeah, they are human and subject to the same cultural judgments and political persuasions as everyone else. Am I bad for not liking a talk? Amm i going to hell if I disagree? I think when Jesus judges me he will not ask if I ddisagreed with a conference talk.
Comment by bali — October 6, 2008 @ 11:42 am
No no, I never said I was perfect. I am called to repent every Sunday and every conference especially. I never said you had to agree. But you are supposed to try and learn. It makes sense to me that if we find fault with the Lord’s message, given through his messengers, we in essence are finding fault with the Lord himself. If Conference becomes an issue of semantics and not an opportunity to learn and grow, we cheat ourselves out of a special experience.
Comment by AA — October 6, 2008 @ 11:46 am
where did we find fault? I thought this was pretty mild. I think everyone said they liked the talk.
Comment by bali — October 6, 2008 @ 11:50 am
I wasn’t talking to the ones who got it. I was appalled at the crticizers. I thought it was a fabulous talk. In my small world I just never considered that there would be people who could really crticize such a beautiful talk or take offense from it. I was so excited about conference and I love our leaders. I know that it is not my place to judge, and I apologize if I came off self righteous..But if honesty is what this forum is about, then my honesty is that I don’t understand how anyone could take offense from any of the talks given. And it was offensive to me to read something beautifully given and said trivialized because of the tone, or blouse she was wearing.
Comment by AA — October 6, 2008 @ 12:05 pm
AA, you said:
Can you see that your comment sounded exactly like what you decried in it? Most people here said they liked the talk - even those who didn’t like the voice tone. Your comment sounded like you “took offense and criticized” this post and comments on it - that it was a call to repentance to people who talked about liking what was said.
Please take this as friendly advice: Two speakers (at least) mentioned communicating with love. Please re-read your comment, and I think you will understand why people reacted as they did. Also, please read very carefully and address specific comments and phrases from those comments. Otherwise, your words sound like generic broadsides, and nobody wants to be hit by those.
Comment by Ray — October 6, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
Thanks Ray
AA I would like to know specifically where you took offense with someone criticizing the talk on this post, can you be more specific as to what you don’t agree with and who’s comment it was?
Thanks
Comment by Jessie — October 6, 2008 @ 12:19 pm
you know, I think I am just going to stop before I dig myself deeper into a hole. Communication has never been my strong suit. I don’t think on the same level as this group. I read the forums because I was attempting to understand friends and family who do think like you. Call me an idiot, ignoramus, or self righteous jerk, but I am just going to stop. I didn’t mean to offend the entire group or really anyone. I was just trying to express my own thoughts and obviously I don’t do it well. I’ll stick to reading leave ya’ll to your own.
Comment by AA — October 6, 2008 @ 12:30 pm
AA- your opinion is valuable to us, we would love to hear it. It’s important for everyone’s voice to be heard whether the majority agrees with it or not.
If you think of a way to communicate what you meant (without calling into question our rightsousness of course), please share.
Comment by Jessie — October 6, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
That’s a good way to be, AA. You are backing down when so many would keep on fighting. It looks like you took something from Conference and are trying every day to be like Christ. I see both sides here. People are free to express their feelings, but I also marvel how anyone would criticize such a moving talk.
Comment by AOW — October 6, 2008 @ 12:43 pm
39 — I guess it’s just you and me.
Comment by Blain — October 6, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
a discussion is not the same as a fight.
Comment by bali — October 6, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
Ah, this conversation may be dead, but I’d like to add one thought. I don’t get as much out of conference by just listening to or reading it. I need to discuss it, to analyze it, in order to internalize the message. People do this in different ways. For some, it improves their experience to gush over how sublime the conference talks are. For me, this just irritates. The discussion here was just the ticket for me. I have enjoyed turning this gem of a talk over and over, looking at its different facets and watching how it has affected women in different circumstances. A bit of humor here and there only improves the conversation and the comraderie. I hope that AA will take my style of learning into consideration. It doesn’t mean I, or my compatriots, are apostate or unwilling to learn from the words of our leaders.
Comment by Bored in Vernal — October 6, 2008 @ 1:26 pm
AA, I hope you don’t stop commenting. Rather, I hope you read what you write and ask yourself how you would react if someone said those words to you. That generally is enough to help craft a comment that is what you want to say.
When I started commenting in the Bloggernacle almost two years ago, I screwed up royally. I have a naturally sarcastic sense of humor, and I immediately jumped into some discussions on BCC between long-time friends and started making comments in the same vein as those friends - things that seemed funny to me but were totally wrong for those who didn’t know me from Eve. Luckily, Steve Evans talked with me privately and explained how my comments were being perceived. I owe him a lot for being willing to do so - and for not banning be for coming across as such a jerk.
After that, I tried to slow down and consider everything I typed before submitting it. I still screw up occasionally (often when I forget my own rule and comment in a rush), but I think I have made great strides in the last two years. Some people still push my buttons, so I probably should take this opportunity to apologize to Ruby (mea culpa) and commit to try not to bristle when I see her name on a comment, but I hope my time spent trying to learn how to communicate in a forum like was productive and worthwhile.
Religion is such a personal and emotional thing, and it is so hard to let it ride and not take things personally. It’s so hard to hear what you love and cherish mocked and ridiculed that it’s easy to see offense when no offense was meant or given - and that is true of “liberal” AND “conservative” beliefs. It might seem impossible right now, after taking what amounts to a public beating, but take it from someone who also took a deserved beating nearly two years ago - it is worth persevering. The people here and I don’t see eye to eye on a lot of things (less than they think, perhaps, since I often don’t express my own views but rather address others’ comments), but this is a wonderful community for those who are willing to be respectful and sincere in their efforts to understand each other.
Sorry for the length, everyone else. I really hope you read this, AA. I would hate to have one flogging keep you from risking another.
Comment by Ray — October 6, 2008 @ 1:26 pm
Elder Oak’s talk on men wearing white shirts to Church. Guess it’s official.
Go back and check again. I believe he was specific to those officiating in the ordinance of the sacrament.
Comment by m&m — October 6, 2008 @ 2:10 pm
I thought it was a great talk. She is the General YW President, but her remarks weren’t directed toward YW. They were directed to everyone. I wrote in my notes, “Am I virtuous enough”? It’s a good reminder. I liked the slow poisoning analogy.
Comment by Stephanie — October 6, 2008 @ 2:11 pm
m&m - it’s official either way. It was never “official” that men had to wear white shirts to pass the sacrament, either. The white shirt custom was up to personal preference of the local bishop or stake president. Now that Elder Oaks has spoken up about white shirts officially at GC - no more colored shirts to pass the sacrament.
Comment by ECS — October 6, 2008 @ 2:20 pm
ECS, m&m’s point is that Elder Oaks was not talking about all men who attend Sacrament Meeting. Individual zealot leaders might try to make that standard, but it won’t be consistent with the words of the apostles and prophets, who have not said that. He didn’t even imply it. He only addressed those who administer the ordinance and pass the sacrament.
If there is one thing about that talk that bothers me, it is the reaction by those who apparently didn’t read it or try to understand it - who automatically started blasting Elder Oaks and saying, “There’s no way in Hell I’m wearing a white shirt every week to church.” Elder Oaks never said that.
I know this is a threadjack, so I’ll stop. Sorry.
Comment by Ray — October 6, 2008 @ 2:26 pm
Are you sure Elder Oaks wasn’t talking about all men who attend Sacrament Meeting? Wouldn’t it be better to wear a white shirt, because then you’ll be prepared if there aren’t enough guys wearing white shirts to pass the sacrament?
I guess you could wear a colored shirt, but then you’re acknowledging you’re either not worthy to pass the sacrament or just don’t feel like it.
Comment by ECS — October 6, 2008 @ 2:29 pm
#73 - I can see that in small units, especially, but what’s so different with that and having a white shirt available when you travel to a city with a small temple - just in case? I can see someone wearing a colored shirt to church but having a white shirt available - just in case.
I have never thought of this before, but it would be cool to have white shirts in the same closet that holds the baptismal clothing in many buildings - just in case. Those who attend not expecting to officiate in the sacrament could take a couple of minutes to change and focus spiritually on what they are about to do. That might be cool.
(Free flowing there, so it’s not been considered carefully.)
Comment by Ray — October 6, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
The top was somewhat distracting.
Her talk…didn’t have a problem, but my head did pop up when she said that men were the guardians of virtue… eh? What does that mean? Then I just said to myself, I am the keeper of my virtue, he is the keeper of his virtue, and together our virtue will be covered. I didn’t know exactly why, I thought it curious she would say that… and honestly, I thought the hike was cool, but of course they would see the temple up on the hill. It was a weird moment for me, it almost seemed cheesy, but sometimes I am that way, cheesey is weird…and I also wondered why they don’t call younger women to the General YW’s presidency. Actually I know the answer, but I still wonder if they wouldn’t benefit from it.
Loved Elder Oaks talk… and m&M is right… at least that is what I understood him to say….
Comment by Sunshine — October 6, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
The transcript comes out on Thursday, or you can listen to the talk now to clarify. I heard that men/YM who are officiating need to be wearing a white shirt.
Comment by Stephanie — October 6, 2008 @ 3:02 pm
Oh Sunshine, thanks! I kept my mouth shut because so many said they liked it, but I thought the hike was cheesy too. I mean, that’s cool that they went on a hike for a meeting, but the temple and then the flag waving thing, I mean…….waving a flag, um, okay….cheesy. It made me uncomfortable for some reason. That, coupled with her tone, I could barely focus on her talk.
At the end of it my FIL said, “well she was sweet”. And I thought, “Yeah, sweet, just what I needed.”
Now I have to go read it so I can see if I liked the actual talk.
Comment by bewitched — October 6, 2008 @ 3:34 pm
Look, even if Elder Oaks limited the white shirts directive to men administering the sacrament, wearing a colored shirt to Sacrament Meeting now means that you are otherwise unable to officiate in the sacrament ordinance. Whether you care enough about participating - or being ready to do so if needed - to bother wearing a white shirt is of course up to the individual male member.
Comment by ECS — October 6, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
Bewitched, glad that I am not the only one. It just seemed a little…”okay Suzy Homemaker, now we are going to go on a hike and over look the valley and see the temple and we will be inspired something great” It was almost EFY-ish, (which I totally love and encourage young people to attend) but I just thought you could get that same inspiration sitting at home having the meeting.
I know, hikes are beautiful and you can be inspired, but of course they would go on a hike where they could see the temple (don’t get me wrong, the view of the temple is beautiful) but let’s be a little more creative. The temple isn’t the only beautiful thing in the Salt Lake Valley…. IMO.
I liked Saturday’s sessions better than Sunday…. or maybe it was just so good because I was feeling sad that my dog tried to eat a porcupine. . . *shrug*
Comment by Sunshine — October 6, 2008 @ 4:30 pm
I admit that I found the whole flag thing a little cheesy, too. But, I did like the talk.
Comment by Stephanie — October 6, 2008 @ 4:30 pm
The Saturday sessions are usually my favorite (kind of like how the adult session of stake conference on Saturday evening is usually my favorite, too).
Comment by Stephanie — October 6, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
I loved that they went on a hike. Shows they are strong women who commune with nature. Why is their improvised flag cheesy but Captain Moroni’s wasn’t?
Comment by ECS — October 6, 2008 @ 4:33 pm
Are you sure Elder Oaks wasn’t talking about all men who attend Sacrament Meeting? Wouldn’t it be better to wear a white shirt, because then you’ll be prepared if there aren’t enough guys wearing white shirts to pass the sacrament?
This is a worthwhile point, and a good idea, imo (I tend to be one who thinks white shirts are just a good way to go) but I do think for the sake of keeping things clear, it’s important not to put words in Elder Oaks’ mouth. There was a recent discussion at Segullah about this very thing and some people got kind of upset at the notion that there are those who think white shirts are the only church attire. This has never been explicitly said, and when white shirts are mentioned, there is the focus on those who prepare, bless, and pass the sacrament.
I’m listening again…notes:
Appropriate dress for those who receive the sacrament and especially for those who officiate any part of the sacred ordinance. Nothing about appearance or actions that would call special attention to themselves or distract anyone. He quotes Elder Holland who addresses specifically the Aaronic priesthood holders and invites them to wear a white shirt.
“May I suggest that wherever possible a white shirt be worn by the deacons, teachers, and priests who handle the sacrament. For sacred ordinances in the Church we often use ceremonial clothing, and a white shirt could be seen as a gentle reminder of the white clothing you wore in the baptismal font and an anticipation of the white shirt you will soon wear into the temple and onto your missions.”
I like this from Elder Holland as well:
I think Elder Oaks was getting at this as well. How we dress does matter, and we should dress as we would going to the temple.
Comment by m&m — October 6, 2008 @ 4:41 pm
I liked the hike too, I saw it as symbolic and I love symbolism. But Sunshine, that part about men being the guardians of virtue was the part that bothered me, too. It will be interesting to go back and read that part to see where she was coming from.
Comment by Bored in Vernal — October 6, 2008 @ 4:41 pm
More reasons for wearing white shirts over at my blog…
Comment by Bored in Vernal — October 6, 2008 @ 4:43 pm
I loved that they went on a hike. Shows they are strong women who commune with nature.
And that they wanted to get away from it all, and get some perspective, and maybe even connect with our forebears a bit.
Comment by m&m — October 6, 2008 @ 4:44 pm
Oh, don’t get me wrong, I loved the hike. I really thought, that’s different, but maybe it was just the way she described it, and that of course she overlooked the valley and saw the temple and was automatically inspired. Sometimes inspiration doesn’t always come that way. Sometimes it comes on your knees in your bedroom, or in the shower sobbing, or talking to your Dad on the phone. .
It almost seemed like a typical Mormon thing, but hey, that’s okay its just my perspective. It didn’t distract me from the message of her talk though…
Comment by Sunshine — October 6, 2008 @ 4:46 pm
#68 Ray: “Some people still push my buttons, so I probably should take this opportunity to apologize to Ruby (mea culpa)”
Apology accepted.
I would like to suggest that you take back your power (I’m usually offering this to women) and come to the awareness that no one has the power to push your buttons. Your buttons or feelings may get triggered more easily by one thing or another but those feelings are inside you and are completely under your control. If you don’t like them you have the power to change them. Maybe Steve knows this too.
Comment by Ruby — October 6, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
Sometimes inspiration doesn’t always come that way. Sometimes it comes on your knees in your bedroom, or in the shower sobbing, or talking to your Dad on the phone. .
I doubt she would disagree with you.
Comment by m&m — October 6, 2008 @ 5:31 pm
Actually, she was comparing their flag to the one unfurled by Brigham Young and his associates. She said that BY hiked to Ensign peak and put a yellow bandana on a walking stick as an “Ensign, or standard, to the nation”.
She said that she and her counselors hiked to Ensign peak and unfurled a yellow shawl on a walking stick as “our Ensign, our standard to the nation, our banner calling for a return to virtue”.
I guess I just find it a little cheesy. Then again, I am not the newly called general YW President with the heavy mantle of that calling and all of the responsibilities it entails, so I probably don’t appreciate how much the moment meant to them (and its symbolism for them) as they began their presidency.
Comment by Stephanie — October 6, 2008 @ 5:38 pm
re: white shirts
I guess I’m just fundamentally against all things designed to make us all look like cookie cutters. Especially euro centric cookies cutters.
I mean, what makes the “white shirt” the only proper way to dress for God’s service? is the 18th century Protestant music played on the organ God’s one true music?
If Joseph Smith had been born in Mumbai, could we not be singing to a Sitar and the men passing sacrament wearing colorful Sherwani? It just makes me a little bit nuts this assumption that (especially men) must dress like identical little soldiers with their identical hair and their white shirts and tie, and this is the only way to be dressed up and appropriate.
Bah!
And Ray and Jessie, thank you for your thoughtful administrative responses. I’ll be sending you a check in the morning.
Comment by fMhLisa — October 6, 2008 @ 5:40 pm
Out of curiosity, ECS, why wasn’t the white shirt thing “official” back when Elder Holland first offered the quote Elder Oaks cited, back in 1995 (and in a General Conference session, to boot)?
Is Elder Oaks somehow more credible than Elder Holland?
Comment by JimD — October 6, 2008 @ 5:42 pm
Yes, JimD. Oaks trumps Holland in GA poker.
Comment by ECS — October 6, 2008 @ 5:49 pm
Kind of an odd choice, yellow for virtue. White is traditionally the color associated with virtue. Yellow is traditionally associated with cowardice; in the US, more recently with returning troops (again, an odd association); in Australia, with cancer research. I understand the historical significance; but considering we wave white hankies at temple dedications; considering the long-standing association of white with virtue; surely those histories outweigh BY’s choice?
Comment by Quimby — October 6, 2008 @ 5:53 pm
But, there’s a point to all looking like cookie cutters in ordinances. It takes the focus off of the individual and puts it on the ordinance or covenant itself.
Comment by Stephanie — October 6, 2008 @ 5:55 pm
Quimby, I think BY said something about being a light unto the world. That might be the symbolism of using yellow.
Comment by Stephanie — October 6, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
Well as I recall, in China black was for modesty, white represented death (ever been to a Buddhist funeral?) and yellow was for p0rn0graphy
Cultural norms aren’t exactly universal……..
Comment by Not Ophelia — October 6, 2008 @ 6:00 pm
Oaks has six children; Holland has three.
Everyone knows that a full house beats three of a kind.
Ruby, it is because I understand that nobody has power over my reactions unless I give it to them that I offered an apology for allowing you to “push my buttons”. I want to respond further, but I am choosing to reset the buttons without further comment.
Lisa, checks are never unappreciated - even if it’s only a few cents. I will be expecting an envelope, so send me an e-mail and I will give you my mailing address. (or just send an electronic gift card)
Comment by Ray — October 6, 2008 @ 6:01 pm
this is starting to feel weird.
why not mandate uniforms? this way nobody violates the dress code.
Comment by mfranti — October 6, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
mfranti, aren’t temple clothes kind of like mandated uniforms? Worn expressly for the purpose of an ordinance?
Comment by Stephanie — October 6, 2008 @ 6:10 pm
do you think that we should all dress the same for sunday services?
Comment by mfranti — October 6, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
so not to be too negative, but another thing I don’t quite get is the point of the beauty of the temples. Maybe I wouldn’t feel this way if in the past we didn’t spend so much money making them SOOOOO ornate, and spend money renovating them when people are starving. (i know, i know, temples are important so you don’t have to remind me that I’m a heretic). In the bible, I wonder if they marveled at the beauty of their portable temples the way we marvel at the beauty of our modern day temples.
But why do we put values on such superficial things? Why don’t we get inspired when we see a poverty stricken child? Temples are beautiful, and I love looking at them, going to them etc. In fact, I get a little jolt of excitement when I am driving to the temple and I get the first glimpse of the beautiful angel moroni. But is it right to have such a regard for a material thing? Is it so different than the crystal cathedral in california ( I know it is because of the ordinances inside, but I mean is the money we spend building such a beautiful building any better than the millions of dollars that went into the beautiful yet weird looking crystal cathedral?)
Just a thought. I’m hoping I won’t get pounced on.
Comment by Jessie — October 6, 2008 @ 6:15 pm
Me? No, but no general authority ever said that. Oaks quoted Holland saying that YM who are performing the ordinance of the sacrament should wear white shirts (if available). That’s about it. It makes sense that in looking like cookie cutters, the YM would not distract from the sacrament with their dress. In our ward, extreme hairstyles will get YM excused from participating in administering the sacrament as well (don’t think Elder Oaks said anything about that).
Comment by Stephanie — October 6, 2008 @ 6:27 pm
I’m rather sad after reading these posts today. I wish everyone here had the oppurtunity to meet Sister Dalton. She is the most sincere, loving woman I have ever met. When you sit with her, you can feel God’s love for you.
My biggest question is, why do we always pick apart womens remarks in GC. I never read comments like these about what the men say. Are we truly so worried about hoisting ourselfs up that we tear down other women in the process?
Comment by Tonya — October 6, 2008 @ 6:42 pm
Tonya brings up a good point. Why do we pick apart women’s conference talks?
I think maybe it’s because we feel we are not being represented well? We can’t relate to these women maybe? Maybe I should just shut up next time:-(
Comment by bali — October 6, 2008 @ 6:44 pm
… i don’t really understand this sentence tho. I feel god’s love for me when I’m by myself… I think there’s something dangerous in idealizing church leaders.
but yes, i get your general point Tonya.
Comment by bali — October 6, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
do you think that we should all dress the same for sunday services?
I think there’s a difference. In the temple, the entire congregation is officiating (or, at the very least, being prepared to officiate) in priesthood ordinances.
The same is not true in a sacrament meeting. We all receive the Sacrament, but we do not all officiate in it.
Comment by JimD — October 6, 2008 @ 6:47 pm
Could you explain what things you consider picking apart? I’m honestly curious, because I don’t really see it myself.
I generally address the women’s talks because that’s what I do. I like talk about womyn. Thus, this blog. niffty no?
Comment by fMhLisa — October 6, 2008 @ 6:50 pm
Sorry, when I say that I really just mean that I feel the spirit in her presense as much as when I’m in the temple. Maybe I’m not very good at feeling the spirit in my home life, but it really stands out to me when just being around a person helps me feel the spirit. It’s a goal in my life to be like Sister Dalton (to me she’s a real person that I can relate to because I’ve met her. Much easier than trying to be like Pres. Monson whom I’ve never met)
Comment by Tonya — October 6, 2008 @ 6:50 pm
I’m a little confused about what was being talked about here; started with virtue, went to white shirts, then something about a hike. I’m all for the thought salad, so here’s my two cents about the white shirts.
My philosophy has always been dress in “sunday best.” I don’t have the time to look up the reference, but I believe there was a talk about it in the last year or two. To me, sunday best can mean, on occasion, a nicely ironed, colored shirt.
It bothers me when people say things like “I guess you could wear a colored shirt, but then you’re acknowledging you’re either not worthy to pass the sacrament or just don’t feel like it.” I see women at church quite often wearing whatever skirt and t-shirt they picked up off the floor that morning, and I’ve never question their worthiness. Why is there not talk about women being expected to wear a certain color or cut of dress? Is it just because they don’t administer the sacrament (yet…)?
My point is not to say women should wear a certain color or cut of dress, of course. I merely mean to say that I get a little tired of the “wear a white shirt or it makes a statement about your worthiness and spiritual dedication” arguments. When I give a blessing, or participate in some priesthood ordinance, I’ll wear a white shirt. If the Prophet said in general conference that all men should wear white shirts to church on sunday, I’d do it. Many comments have been made about white shirts, and that has never been one of them; it’s always in reference to sacrament administration.
Until one is made, I’ll thank you for not judging my worthiness on the color of my nice, clean, pressed shirt and tie, and I won’t judge you based on the color or cut of your dress.
Comment by McMedstudent — October 6, 2008 @ 6:51 pm
McMedstudent/My husband- Although I agree with you that its silly to judge a man based on whether or not he is wearing a white shirt, I find it funny that you are saying you won’t judge a woman based on the cut or color of her dress. Hello! Women get berated about the way we dress at church a lot more than men do. However, I’m grateful they aren’t dictating my choice of fashion all the way down to the colors, so I do sympathize with you.
Comment by Roxanna — October 6, 2008 @ 6:55 pm
McMedstudent,
Perhaps I should not speak for ECS, but i believe that her point was much the same as your own. That if a message is sent that men must wear white shirts to pass the sacrament (or whatever), then many people (not alll, not rightly, not ECS, but still many) will make judgments about a man’s attitude/worthiness. That’s just the way people’s petty little minds work.
Comment by fMhLisa — October 6, 2008 @ 6:59 pm
FMHLisa, are you suggesting we develop a new vocabulary to use in teaching young women about the Law of Chastity?
Comment by JimD — October 6, 2008 @ 7:01 pm
Tonya,
Not everyone works that way tho. I for example don’t feel the spirit right off the bat with a particular leader. It took me a few months to get used to Monson being a prophet. A lot of these women come and go so quickly that I rarely get to know them.
However I don’t see how picking apart the talk is in a sense offending her. We find what we can relate to, and find what we can’t relate to culturally. By voicing what we can’t relate to, we find a deeper sisterhood in knowing that we are all different and can be honest and respectful of each other, and find what we have in common.
Comment by bali — October 6, 2008 @ 7:04 pm
Lisa,
By picking apart, I mean this whole post in general. I don’t see a post dedicated to every talk in conference, even though every talk was directed to both genders. I don’t hear us complaining about men’s voices, even though there are some that bother me (I can’t take monotony. I just tune it out.) I mean reading into every word choice a woman uses. Does a person really need to research the history of every word they use? Isn’t just knowing the common use of the word good? Reading into everything they say. So she said men should gaurd virtue. I took that as saying that women aren’t responsible for men’s thoughts. Appearantly other’s took it to say that women aren’t capable of gaurding their own virtue. When I’m told I should be a good homemaker, I take that to mean that I should stand at the head of my home and make sure that it’s a comfortable place to be, the same way I stand at the head of my branch that I manage and make sure every customer is comfortable. That’s not the image that other people thought of during Sister Becks talk. So, if a woman uses a word we disagree with, then we immediatly jump all over her. Are we just paying more attention to talks by women? Cause I’m pretty sure I could jump all over some word choices by the male speakers too.
Comment by Tonya — October 6, 2008 @ 7:08 pm
Tonya-
i don’t know about the rest of us, but I definitely have jumped all over the word choices by male speakers in the past:).
It’s not just women, I’m just a heretic:-(
lol but really, I see that it is alarming to see people pick apart a conference talk… We are all from different backgrounds and cultures, and word choices DO matter, since they mean different things depending on where you go. Not to threadjack or bring up that dreadful topic of Sister Beck’s talk last year, but delivery and word usage has a lot to do with getting your point across. I specifically remember the word IRONING that screamed OBSCENITIES IN MY HEAD.
Thank you for sharing what you thought that word meant. That’s all we’re doing:) We like to discuss stuff like this… with everyone:).
Comment by Jessie — October 6, 2008 @ 7:17 pm
Aack, I can’t keep up with all the responses. Sorry I opened a can of worms.
Bali, I didn’t say that it was offending her. I doubt that Sis. Dalton even reads this forum. I just have seen a tendency to single out the womens talks on this website. I think it’s more offensive to me than to her. If I was ever asked to speak in GC, I would turn it down quickly. I’m not tough enough to be up for this type of critisism.
I also don’t idealize Sis Dalton as a leader. I idealize her as someone I have sat in their home, and would like to emulate. Both her and her husband are amazing, wonderful people who have been influential in mine and my husband’s lives. So, feeling the spirit off the bat isn’t something that happened by listening to her speak. That’s why I relate to her more deeply. She’s the same person at home that she is on the stand. Also, if something that was said makes you confused, curious, or a little down, that’s one thing. But I think it crosses the line when we start nitpicking voices and word choices. I feel a little down every time someone mentions having kids. But it’s an internal issue, not one with the speaker.
Comment by Tonya — October 6, 2008 @ 7:20 pm
In the bible, I wonder if they marveled at the beauty of their portable temples the way we marvel at the beauty of our modern day temples.
Actually, they used a lot of gold and fine fabrics and such even in the portable tabernacle as well as in the actual temples. If you think about what that might have meant in terms of monetary sacrifice…. I think you might be underestimating what happened anciently.
We give our best to God. That’s what temples symbolize to me. And He promises His all to us, too.
Comment by m&m — October 6, 2008 @ 7:20 pm
You know, JimD, I hadn’t thought of that, but it might not be a bad idea. There is so much evil baggage tied up in virtue and chastity, the ideas themselves are noble, but they’ve been used and abused so long, perhaps there is no longer anyway to use them without dealing with thousands of years of sexist history. maybe if we could frame the ideas, the important parts (the strength and character, and whatnot), in a new vocabulary you wouldn’t have the feminists cringing and the teens rolling their eyes and falling asleep. Or maybe not. But it’s an idea anyway.
Comment by fMhLisa — October 6, 2008 @ 7:30 pm
m&m- thanks for the explanation. I didn’t know that about portable temples (I should pay more attention in sunday school).
I get the story about the kirtland temple and how everyone sacrificed so much to build it. I get the sacrifice part. and it’s amazing. but I guess (and please, i know the importance of temples) I’d like to think God would be ok with us using something comparable to a church building and giving the rest to those in need. Maybe that’s why they started building mini temples.
Still, I wonder if He intended us to be so awestruck about their appearance….
Comment by Jessie — October 6, 2008 @ 7:44 pm
Jessie, I often wonder about that same sort thing, but there is something to the idea that we want and perhaps need some things to be special. We have special outfits for special occasions, that we as humans seem to have a need to break up the monotony with celebrations and ceremonies and to beautify things, with art and separate out the mundane from the special.
I too get a bit of a gut ache at seeing beautiful expensive things, whether they be a private home or a wedding chapel or a beautiful religious building when I think about the number of people this could have fed or whatever. But we desire, and to some degree need those things, I think, just like we need art. We need some special places.
Like everything, It’s all about balance. I think mcmansions and mansions are a bad use of this, but I think that temples and churches are probably a good use of this.
Comment by fMhLisa — October 6, 2008 @ 7:51 pm
tonya, I think maybe your offense stems from a kind of culture shock.
You’re not used to hearing churchy things, conference talks, spoken about this way (picked apart) and it makes you feel uncomfortable and offended. I probably would have felt the same way back in the day before I could no longer ignore all the questions. But the fact remains that some of us need to pick things apart to make sense of them, (as BIV mentioned) and this is how we work through our issues.
It’s not that your way is right and mine is wrong, it’s just a different way of doing things. I’m happy to let you digest conference your way, but please allow us to do it our way without judgment.
Maybe try reading this post I wrote a very very long time ago. I think it will explain what I mean better.
As to discussing the talks by women, again, that is what I do. I am interested in woman stuff, it’s why I started this blog. If you don’t want the focus of your discussion on women, then might I suggest you read a different blog. I guarantee the focus will be on men most everyplace else (with a few bright exceptions) in the Mormon universe.
Comment by fMhLisa — October 6, 2008 @ 8:03 pm
Nice Lisa, I don’t agree with you so I must be naive. If you want to discuss content that’s one thing. If you are upset about men’s talks geared toward women the same way you are upset about womens talks geared toward women, that’s one thing. But when people are picking apart vocal tones, I just think that goes a little far. I just don’t get why we aren’t more supportive of the few women that get to speak in GC.
Comment by Tonya — October 6, 2008 @ 8:12 pm
Tonya,
I was one who picked apart vocal tones. I also said I liked Dalton’s talk.
i don’t see the big deal i guess.. out here in the east we talk differently. It takes a while to get used to the talks when everyone sounds the same, but different then you. You had the benefit of getting to know Sis Dalton. All we hear is her talk for 15 minutes. Naturally, if we knew her, we wouldn’t talk about her this much (what would be the point??). I thought the feedback was generally positive… I still don’t see how talking about the way someone talks is so unsupportive and undermining our female general authorities.
Also, if I feel a certain way, should I really keep my mouth shut about it just because I’m worried about offending someone who feels fine about it? I don’t think so. If I had, i wouldn’t find that there are other women who struggle with the same things I do.
Comment by Jessie — October 6, 2008 @ 8:21 pm
re voices and regional dialects: I really like politics and I’m generally able to consider carefully and tolerate political views from across the spectrum, but I don’t know if I’ll ever be able to forgive that darn guv’ner for turning my western, folksly, female way of speaking and turning it into farcical sounding gibberish, regardless of the actual content. **sigh** I don’t know how to speak, except with my own voice, which these days, to me, sounds utterly ridiculous. Ya’know?
Comment by Amy S. — October 6, 2008 @ 8:39 pm
125 !!! I know! Howdy is my standard greeting and even though I can, when called, curse like a one yed sailor, I usually employ terms like durn it and fiddlesticks. It is beyond galling to think that my regional dialect has come to stand for the worst pandering stnad in for authenticity.
Grrr. Well said, Amy S. Rather, girl, you done good.
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 6, 2008 @ 8:42 pm
one eyed. one yed sounds like a funny yiddish sailor.
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 6, 2008 @ 8:43 pm
CWC, my exact thought was, “I haven’t heard that one. Must be a Yiddish version.” Too funny, girlfriend.
Comment by Ray — October 6, 2008 @ 8:52 pm
I guess I should say, I’m sorry for even bringing anything up. I just personally feel that when only 2 women speak during all of GC, we should be supportive of them. I know a lot of people enjoyed her talk, and a lot of people have said that on here. Anyway, I’ll just go to another blog where it’s okay to say what I think. See ya all around.
Comment by Tonya — October 6, 2008 @ 10:32 pm
Like everyone said, they liked the talk…..I still don’t understand… I guess I’ll give up now.
Comment by Jessie — October 6, 2008 @ 10:34 pm
TONYA
I feel like feminists get a bad rap- putting down other women, putting down the family, etc. Just because we are honest doesn’t mean we are supportive.
Again, I think any “critiquing” done to Sister Dalton’s talk was not aimed at Sister Dalton. The discussion of the word “virtue” was not aimed at disparaging Dalton, it was a discussion of the widely used word in our religion. To discuss such isn’t “unsupportive” of the person who used it. It’s a DISCUSSION.
As for the talking about sis dalton’s voice, I think the women were talking mostly about how the delivery of a talk hampers them from seeing the whole message. We are not perfect, of course we have problems! Some of us can’t stand that Monson tells the same stories all the time!! Just because we voice that doesn’t mean that we don’t support him as our leader, as our prophet, we are just expressing ourselves, like you just did.
Tonya, I think you’ve already made up your mind about how “bad” we are, so I doubt any of this will change your mind. Your sentence:
is ironic, since that’s what we’re doing here, saying what we think… on this blog. Is that not okay? Or do you have a beef with us because we are feminists, and feminists are bad women who undermine faith and family?
Comment by bali — October 6, 2008 @ 10:52 pm
Like I said Bali, I screwed up. I think it’s interesting that we can all point out that women have cutesy voices,etc, but when I point out that that is non–constructive critisism, I’m a bad mean person. I probably phrased it wrong. I’m probably on the wrong website. But, that’s why I’m done with this site. It got me through some hard times when I was too sick for church. I felt like I had some relief society (ie. other LDS women) contact. Now, I’m done. I’ll move on and stop bothering you guys.
Comment by Tonya — October 6, 2008 @ 10:58 pm
re: 48 and the “high pitched” voice:
haven’t you guys heard what Seriously So Blessed says about the voice?! that you should keep it “as high as your standards”?!
re: 3
so, hero, when the bible says “who can find a virtuous woman,” what they mean is, “who can find a *manly* woman?” yeah, those might be harder to find, I’m guessing.
Comment by Isis — October 6, 2008 @ 11:01 pm
Some of us can’t stand that Monson tells the same stories all the time!!
Oh, I daresay I agree with this. I was mentioning it to my husband after conference got over, and he said, “Well, when you’ve been an apostle for 45 years and got called when you were something like 35, you just don’t have that many stories to pull from”. Good point.
Comment by Stephanie — October 6, 2008 @ 11:07 pm
Questioning is good - Criticizing is bad. Unfortunately, there is a very fine line between the two. I made it clear in my earlier comments that Sister Dalton, and I believe every person who spoke in conference (and this coming from a girl who a year ago almost left the church because she was convinced it wasn’t true), spoke with the best of their understanding, and spoke with the best of intentions.
There is a quote that says, “We judge others by their behavior. We judge ourselves by our intentions.” I would be surprised if anyone disagreed with this. I think that we truly become mature, self-loving and service-giving LDS women when we judge ourselves by our behaviors and modify our attitudes accordingly, but judge others based on their intentions, and assume the best.
I say this with love, sisters (and brothers). Be careful - criticism will get you nowhere. Love and giving others the benefit of the doubt will get you everywhere. Let’s judge others intentions - and only when they have proven us wrong in the past, by their bad intentions, should we judge on their behavior. Let’s not poison ourselves, but instead uplift and encourage! We can only grow as a result!
Comment by Becca — October 6, 2008 @ 11:08 pm
Tonya
No one is interested in badgering you, or calling you a mean person. we just want to discuss something- when we discuss what the actual problem is, we find out that neither of us are mean people, and there’s one thing we don’t agree on. Ok, we don’t agree that saying dalton has a cutesy voice is a big deal. OK! that’s fine!! i get it that Dalton is important to you personally and that this somehow bothers you.
It’s really not that big of a deal. No one said your words weren’t welcome here, they just wanted to discuss what you meant, and they disagreed. It’s ok to disagree. It is you that said OUR words aren’t welcome. when you said things like “i’ll just go to another blog where it’s ok to say what I think”, it doesn’t make sense to me, because we are saying what we think and you don’t think it’s ok.
hearing women talk about a cutesy voice is hardly a reason to stop a conversation all together, or stop visiting a web site that you once liked. fmhlisa meant no condescension in her message to you, she was trying to show you that she once felt the way you did. She was trying to relate to you. But you refused to relate. You took offense. No one wants to fight with you Tonya. Please don’t silence your voice because you don’t agree with the other voices. your voice is important.
Comment by bali — October 6, 2008 @ 11:12 pm
Tonya, I’m very sorry you feel that way. If you decide to go I will miss you and I am sure I’m not the only one.
My 2 cents (okay, I’ll round it up to a dime, since the economy’s so crappy): Citicising tone is non-constructive criticism. Cnsidering our lowly positions, criticising content is probably non-constructive criticism, too. But, we have done it with male speakers too - I remember a comment about the way Monson speaks: “Talks were given. Prayers were said.” I do it with people outside the church - at the moment I’m having a field day with Palin and throwing in random “we’re gonna”s and “you betcha”s whenever I can fit them in. I also mercilessly mock a certain type of Australian accent (for anyone in the know, the “Tru and Pru” accent from Kath and Kim). And, being the only yank around, people mercilessly mock my accent too (I generally respond by mocking their exaggerated impersonation of my accent). The way people speak is just funny sometimes. As long as it’s not an actual speech problem. I spent about half a dozen years in speech therapy and am acutely aware that it’s just not on to tease someone’s actual speech problem. But if it’s an accent or a cadence, particularly if the person is a native speaker though not so much if they aren’t, it’s open season. (Although I have to admit, there’s a high councilman in my stake who is originally from Mexico. When he speaks I don’t take in a single word he says; I grew up in an area of the US with lots of Mexicans and I just miss the accent! So I sit back and get all dopey just listening to his speech pattern. It’s the only chance I get to hear one of my favorite accents.)
Comment by Quimby — October 6, 2008 @ 11:13 pm
I liked hearing different accents during conference. It seemed to me that more of the 70 from around the world spoke this time. Did anyone else feel that way?
Comment by Stephanie — October 6, 2008 @ 11:19 pm
Quimby, since you’re awake, will you release my comment about president Monson always telling the same stories? I’m not sure why it got caught. Thanks.
Comment by Stephanie — October 6, 2008 @ 11:20 pm
It was caught in the spam filter. I’m telling you, Stephanie, it’s because you eat children.
Comment by Quimby — October 6, 2008 @ 11:23 pm
A habit I am really trying to overcome . . .
Comment by Stephanie — October 6, 2008 @ 11:25 pm
They taste wonderful smeared in jam.
Comment by Quimby — October 6, 2008 @ 11:28 pm
Aaack Quimby, drawing me in again. I perfer honey.
PS. Darn you, you make it hard to leave this site. Your just too nice.
Comment by Tonya — October 6, 2008 @ 11:35 pm
prefer not perfer. Darn this no spell check.
Comment by Tonya — October 6, 2008 @ 11:37 pm
Stephanie, I liked all the accents as well. I kept thinking how it was proof the church has gone completely global. We aren’t just ‘those mormons in Utah’ anymore.
Comment by big mama — October 6, 2008 @ 11:43 pm
Darn you for using such mild swear words! Darn you to heck!
Comment by Quimby — October 6, 2008 @ 11:43 pm
Quimby == too nice == messed up…
Comment by Ann — October 7, 2008 @ 12:57 am
Ann, as an old teacher used to say - I resemble that remark!
Comment by Quimby — October 7, 2008 @ 2:22 am
Quimby, nice? The end of days, people, the end of days.
Comment by fMhLisa — October 7, 2008 @ 3:00 am
Personally I blame those pesky pregnancy hormones
Comment by Quimby — October 7, 2008 @ 3:37 am
well stop it. (not the pesky hormones those are good for baby)
I could use a good does of really really scornful sarcasm. Please.
Comment by fMhLisa — October 7, 2008 @ 4:04 am
#151 - OK; here goes:
Stop whining, LIsa. As a woman who is more spiritual than men, you need to set the example for us - the poor, oppressed men who come here with tails tucked away, de-horned and de-clawed and whimpering in abject submission.
How’s that?
Oh, you meant from Quimby. My bad.
Comment by Ray — October 7, 2008 @ 8:22 am
really? how would you know? (giggles)
Comment by mfranti — October 7, 2008 @ 4:58 pm
I have a sister who used to do that, mfranti. The clothes were always clean but she claimed they were allergic to the hangars, so they lived on the floor.
Comment by Quimby — October 7, 2008 @ 5:02 pm
Here’s what I think is funny:
Some people were so concerned that we pick apart only women’s talks, when so much of this thread was spent picking apart Oaks’s white shirt talk.
Comment by Minerva — October 7, 2008 @ 5:47 pm
If, to a hammer, everything is a nail, Then, to a nail, is everything a hammer? Gosh, the way you look at things….
your paradigm is so….random.
Comment by MoMuffinchucker — May 1, 2009 @ 6:45 pm
This website just tears apart at things that are meant to inspire. Who cares what the history of a word is? The English language, especially when spoken by Americans, is constantly changing and evolving. Why does everyone seem to take horrible experiences that have happened in the past or to others and personalize them to make them their own badge of suffering? Oh us poor women we have been treated SO badly. Are you a victim to be victimized by everyone else’s experiences? When what is important is not the past or even our own pasts, but how we strive each moment to live.
Who cares what she was wearing? you’re really going to call yourselves feminists and then go over piece by piece what she wore there and in her picture. Isn’t part of feminism about letting each of us wear what we want to wear, instead of everyone HAS to wear a “uniform” to fit in. Do we all have to wear jeans and tshirts and go hiking in order to be acceptable to other women?
I am sick and tired of every single group of people in this country whining about how picked on they are. Stop victimizing yourselves by whining about the past. Do what you can to change the future.
Comment by shauna — July 2, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
shauna,
lead by example. thanks.
Comment by mfranti — July 2, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
I do, thanks!
Comment by shauna — July 5, 2009 @ 1:32 am
Someone mentioned the ark of the covenant! Yes! There was one (some think, maybe two at different times, but let’s not digress….) Do you know what was in it? Not that poser set of 10 commandments that we all learned in church, and that Moses broke in a fit of anger, but this set, below from Exodus 34. So, how many of you have been eating milk with meat? Hmmmm?
Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.
All that openeth the matrix [is] mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, [whether] ox or sheep, [that is male].
But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem [him] not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.
Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.
And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year’s end.
Thrice in the year shall all your men children appear before the Lord GOD, the God of Israel.
For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the LORD thy God thrice in the year.
Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.
The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.
AaaH! My verse numbers disappeared, oh well.
Comment by djinn — July 5, 2009 @ 6:35 pm
Oh, and all you sisters who are horrified (HORRIFIED) that actual discussion is going on, DONT GO TO THIS BLOG. Just back away from the internet, and everything will be A-OK.
Comment by djinn — July 5, 2009 @ 6:36 pm
My point about the ark of the covenant, is that it is only misunderstood by Christians, as we/.they insist on paying attention to the wrong set of 10 commandments.
Comment by djinn — July 5, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
mfranti,
LOL! Love it. Pretty sure Shauna didn’t get it…
Comment by Jennifer — July 5, 2009 @ 7:41 pm
I got it. I’m not an idiot.
I like mfranti’s blog a lot, and don’t have an issue with mfranti, I just don’t understand why at times there is so much focus on the history of abuse and intolerance associated with words.
Her talk was meant to inspire. She didn’t participate in the events you associate with the word, it’s not her fault the value she was speaking on makes you cringe any time you hear that word.
Thanks for listening to someone’s viewpoint that doesn’t completely line up with your own. Now if you wanted to discuss the point I was trying to make, instead of make personal comments, then that would be an actual discussion.
“Oh, and all you sisters who are horrified (HORRIFIED) that actual” disagreement in a “discussion is going on, DONT GO TO THIS BLOG. Just back away from the internet, and everything will be A-OK.” adapted from a quote by djinn
Comment by shauna — July 5, 2009 @ 10:51 pm
Shauna you really, honestly sound angry.
Comment by Jennifer — July 6, 2009 @ 12:03 am