Feminist Mormon Housewives » Indoctrinating my babies: Primary Songs and Gender Roles

Indoctrinating my babies: Primary Songs and Gender Roles

By: Shelah - October 29, 2009

Our ward had its Primary program a few weeks ago. Our family was spared any major embarrassment– all of my kids delivered their lines without incident (my five-year-old proclaimed, “In our family, my mom is responsible for taking care of the kids”), and none of them grabbed the standing microphone, Sinatra-style, and crooned into it at the top of their lungs (although that did happen). Since then, the kids have had Primary songs on the brain, this verse of “The Family is of God” in particular:

“A mother’s purpose is to care, prepare, to nurture and to strengthen all her children./ She teaches children to obey, to pray, to love and serve in the fam’ly.”

I don’t know why it rankles when I hear my son’s sweet little voice singing this song. I expect that when I send my kids to Primary on Sunday, they’ll learn about stories from the Bible and the Book of Mormon, and will also learn about things like the Family Proclamation. In short, I don’t expect them to learn anything different from what they are learning, it just surprises me how much the lyrics make my skin crawl.

Our Primary Presidency really did a great job corralling the masses, getting them to sing, and making things move smoothly (and on time!). They also infused humor into the kids’ talks. One of the kids in my son’s class said that his dad “is responsible for going to work and changing light bulbs.” It’s true that I’m responsible for taking care of the kids, at least 95% of the time, but my negative reaction to his statement shows that I’m a little bit resentful about that too. It just sounds like I don’t have anything else interesting going on in my life when he puts it that way, and I think I’m afraid that it’s true. Would I prefer that he says that his mom is responsible for “meeting her kids’ most basic needs and spending lots of time on the computer?” That would be true too, and a heck of a lot more likely to earn him a laugh.

I guess I like to think that I’m a stay-at-home mom because we decided as a couple that it would be the best thing for our family’s particular needs, not that I’m doing it because of cultural pressure and expectations, (even though, at the time, we were so young and naive that I don’t think we seriously considered that any alternatives could work for us). As I looked around while the song was being sung, I saw the physician mom sitting across the row from me, and the working mom behind me, sitting next to her non-LDS husband, and kept thinking, “If I’m having this reaction, I wonder what they’re thinking.”

Last year’s hot button Primary program song may have been “Home.” We’ve been singing “Home” at our house for years, because it was written by my husband’s grandma, Caroline Eyring Miner. The lyrics go like this:

Home is where the heart is/ And warmth and love abound./ Home is where warm circling arms/ Go all the way around.

Home is where there’s father/With strength and wisdom true./ Home is where there’s mother/ And all the children too.

Home is where our Father,/ Who dwells in heav’n above,/ Guides us in the way we live/ And let us feel his love.

When I actually started thinking about the lyrics, I wondered whose family she was writing about. This one sounds so traditional and so idyllic, and while Caroline had eight kids, she was a working mom (in the thirties, forties, fifties and sixties– if you went to Highland High School, she may have been your teacher), a published author and award-winning poet, and a world traveler who did as she pleased. I know the line about being a mother is only five words long in the song, but I worry that we might see our roles as reductive, as closely circumscribed as those five words, when those are the lines our kids get in their heads and put on repeat play.

So how I do I get out of this funk? Play some Laurie Berkner to get the song out of my kid’s head? Apply to grad school? Or just, somehow, make peace with my current lot in life? How?

Permanent Link

174 Comments »

I will confess first that I actually like singing this song - it has a nice melody and is right in my range. As a work from home mom, and the primary wage earner in our family, I just pretend the lyrics start with “among other things.” Because I DO care, prepare, nurture and strengthen my children. I just also have a job.

This kind of stuff doesn’t bother me anymore - maybe because after having to get back to work after an all too short unpaid maternity leave I am currently jealous of all stay at home mothers, and starting to wonder if maybe all of those “dad should be the only wage earner” diehards are a little bit right. I’ve actually been considering whether or not it would really be all that awful to tell my daughters to make an effort to fall in love with a rich man.

(Um…. please don’t take my feminist mormon housewife card away. I’m just having a moment.)

Comment by Sue — October 29, 2009 @ 5:18 pm
Wow, that comment went wildly off track. Hormones. I blame hormones.

Comment by Sue — October 29, 2009 @ 5:19 pm
ACK, that is probably a wildly unfeminist thing to say as well.

Somebody stop me.

Comment by Sue — October 29, 2009 @ 5:20 pm
It helped me to realize that being a mom is not something you settle with - it’s something you can embrace. It’s the worldly view that makes us feel like we have to do MORE or we’re not doing enough.

Comment by Jen — October 29, 2009 @ 5:21 pm
Amen to Jen.

I have been working hard on not being apologetic for “just” being a mom when people ask me “what I do.” I’m getting better at saying it with confidence, unashamed. It bothers me how hard that can be in a world of kudos and resumes and checklists. But it’s a good kind of hard for me.

I think it’s up to us to help our children understand that these roles aren’t reductive — and also to help them understand them in the context of the other tugs and pulls of life that are part of mortality.

Lastly, I go to what Elder Holland said (last WW leadership brodcast) about how the Church’s job is to teach the ideals, even though they know that our lives won’t always match the ideals. The ’specific lives’ part is our responsibility. That’s another element of this, imo…to help our children learn early how to embrace the general doctrine as truth, but to also realize that life doesn’t always unfold in an ideal way, so we lean on God to help us know how to apply the teachings in the best possible way in our messy lives.

Comment by m&m — October 29, 2009 @ 5:32 pm
Shelah, that song would drive me nuts, too.

Comment by Lorian — October 29, 2009 @ 5:40 pm
I was a Primary music leader VERY uncomfortable with teaching the kids all the verses of “Home.” In fact, I was so uncomfortable with the proscribed gender roles in verse 2, that we only sang verses 1 and 3 for the program. It just seemed so different from the realities that most of my sweet Primary kids were living with — many in single-parent households. I know the party line about teaching them “ideals,” but I can’t see the utility of teaching them “idealized” gender roles.

Comment by Melissa — October 29, 2009 @ 5:52 pm
Did you ever sing this in primary?

“When I grow up, I want to be a mother,
And have a family, one little, two little, three little babies of my own
Of all the jobs, for me I’ll choose no other! I’ll have a family
Four little, five little, six little babies in my home.”

Comment by Char — October 29, 2009 @ 5:59 pm
Char, I remember that song (although not singing it in primary). I think we had it on a record with songs like “I’m a Mormon.” Somehow, in our house, it mutated into “When I grow up, I want to be a swingset.” I don’t know what words followed those.

Comment by Ziff — October 29, 2009 @ 6:09 pm
I changed the words to the second verse of “Home,” because I couldn’t stand how the father gets to be wise and strong and the mother is just there. My line went something like “Home is where Mother/teaches truth.” (It was a Spanish-speaking ward. In Spanish it rhymed.)

Comment by Sara Bay — October 29, 2009 @ 6:11 pm
I didn’t hear that song until I was an adult. But, my husband remembers the girls singing, and well enough that he remembers the lyrics.

Comment by Char — October 29, 2009 @ 6:12 pm
In sharing time Sunday, the 1st counselor was teaching about gender roles as outlined in the Proclamation. When she agreed with one child, that yes, mothers give birth, my son added, yeah, but dads give sperm. It was the only part of the discussion that didn’t make me cringe.

Comment by reader Rachel — October 29, 2009 @ 6:16 pm
I got put in as the Primary pianist a few weeks before the program and I’m so glad to learn this song bothered others too. I don’t like the other verse about fathers:

A father’s place is to preside, provide,
To love and teach the gospel to his children.
A father leads in family prayer to share,
Their love for Father in heaven.

In my family no one has a “place” or a “purpose” based on their gender. My husband and I preside equally over our family. We both provide for our family. We both love and teach the gospel to our children. No one leads in family prayer. It’s on a volunteer basis in my family. This song is total indoctrination. It’s funny because that’s the exact word I thought when I first learned to play this song.

How about being told in church what our families should be, we let each individual family decide?

Comment by Risa — October 29, 2009 @ 6:28 pm
Ooops, I meant

How about instead of being told in church what our families should be, we let each individual family decide?

Comment by Risa — October 29, 2009 @ 6:29 pm
I was singing leader in January and only taught the kids verses 1 and 4. However, this wasn’t because I object to the message of the middle verses. Rather, I am uncomfortable teaching children messages that are so contrary to their realities. Many of the kids in primary don’t know who their dad is, etc. I decided to teach the kids the verses that include a message over which they have power (heavenly father’s family and their own, future family). Like Jen and M&M, I consider myself to have a very open mind - but there is an ideal presented in the Family Proclamation and it includes mothers having the really amazing responsible to love and nurture ALL her children

Comment by shannon — October 29, 2009 @ 6:39 pm
Heard this song for the first time on Sunday during our Primary Program, sitting next to my non-member husband who was there to support our six-year-old son. The melody was so beautiful, and then I heard words. They made me sick to my stomach. I also stay home with the kids but just cannot stand when gender roles are so specifically defined at church. I have thought of this song every day this week, so it was so wonderful to see your post, Shelah, reflecting my thoughts exactly.

Comment by Amy — October 29, 2009 @ 6:41 pm
I was a primary teacher and this was my least favorite song of all those in the presentation. With only two of six kids in my class in a “traditional” home, I was glad they seemed too young to really comprehend what the words meant.

Comment by bug — October 29, 2009 @ 7:00 pm
How will a child without a father learn how to be a dad? Will he just naturally know that dad’s change diapers? Will it help him to have these songs in his brain to know dad’s have a real place in the home and with the children? What about a girl growing up with out a dad or with a looser mom? Will it help her have a concept that she can be a good mom some day?

I dont’ see nurture and teach as too gender specific…I see bake bread and change diapers being assigned to one gender as too specific…does that make sense?

Comment by britt — October 29, 2009 @ 7:17 pm
#4- Believe me, I’m doing everything I can to make sure my kids don’t see the songs as reductive. Every time he sings it we have to have a talk about the other things his mom does, and the other things the moms we know do, even if those things are going grocery shopping and working in the yard. We have talked about it so much that I may have dissuaded him from singing the song anymore.

$6- Char, did I ever hear that song? Did I ever hear that song? I think that song shaped my teenage years. I never went to Primary. I joined the church as a teenager, and that song was on a tape we acquired shortly after getting baptized. Pretty soon my parents were alarmed when their daughter, who had previously had dreams of attending ivy league architecture schools, suddenly cared only about getting an MRS degree from BYU. When my DH brought me home to meet his parents for the first time and they asked me what my life plans were, I told them I wanted to stay at home and be a mom, and I thought they’d be pleased. I think they were sort of freaked out by my zeal and hoped I wouldn’t sink my hooks too far into their son.

Risa– I agree that the father verse is equally troubling here.

Comment by Shelah — October 29, 2009 @ 7:19 pm
Ditto everything in Amy’s response except for my son is still in nursery.

Comment by Nicole — October 29, 2009 @ 7:20 pm
This song was not in our program- I don’t think the chorister even taught it, since I subbed piano for three months over the summer and we never sang it. They even skipped the first verse of “Families are Together Forever”. The little girl singing the solo is from a part member family and they only had her sing what was relevant to her, her own preparation for a family.

It is frustrating to see how directionally pointed specific teachers can get in lessons, be it primary, YW, PH, RS, or SS, when ithere lessons contradict some of the talks from the early prophets women were encouraged to be more than housewives (not that that is a bad thing).

Comment by JJ — October 29, 2009 @ 7:30 pm
Comments #1-3 had me cracking up.

Comment by RJ — October 29, 2009 @ 8:02 pm
I like this song. It doesn’t hurt that my bff’s brother wrote it but like others said I think the melody is catchy. I think if you compare it to the Proclamation, it is fairly consistent.

Then again after I listened to Sister Beck’s Mother’s Who Know talk I felt inspired to be a better mom so you may want to just skip my post

Comment by Courtney — October 29, 2009 @ 8:08 pm
I wonder constantly what I am going to do when my son hits primary age. He just started nursery so it feels like time is flying. Am I allowed to make a “no traditional gender roles” rule to the primary teachers upon threat of… giving all the children candy before class each week? No? No threats? I seriously have no idea how I’m supposed to teach a 5 year old “the church is true, but… we don’t really believe THAT part.” I don’t want to leave the church but sometimes I wonder if it wouldn’t actually be better for my kids to wait until they are adults to make the decision themselves… Bad Mormon, I know.

Comment by Alyssa — October 29, 2009 @ 8:40 pm
I teach primary and I HATE this song. Our pianist is the former stake president - and he HATES it too.

Even better, my kids have parts to deliver during our program and my 4-year-old is supposed to complete the following statement: “My father presides over our family by ___________________.” Are you freaking kidding me?! I am doing some creative re-writing of this line.

Comment by Eris — October 29, 2009 @ 8:58 pm
Courtney, I think the song is definitely consistent with the proclamation — it’s just that a number of us have issues with that part of the proclamation, too. So yes, Shelah, I have some issues with the song, too (though my kids don’t really sing anything but popcorn popping yet, so hearing it at home isn’t an issue).

I think the best way to stay unbothered by it is to have goals and projects of my own, and to actively work on them. I’m also a better mother when I’m getting time to work on something else — I enjoy the time with my kids more when I have a break from it.

Also, when I’m get more bothered by things like this and that they’re indoctrinating my kids, I just have to remember that I grew up in the church, I heard most of the songs and talks (though luckily not the song in number 8), my mom stayed home and my dad worked — but somehow, I managed to remain unindoctrinated. I think it was because my parents were very egalitarian in how they handled things at home and in our family, and they taught all of us that we could be and do whatever we wanted. I just have to hope that my kids will see mine and my husband’s example and be able to ignore all the other stuff.

Comment by Vada — October 29, 2009 @ 9:16 pm
For all of you with younger children, just wait til they’re in YW/YM. After my daughter’s first year in YW, i told my husband, after all my wacky teachers and bizarre lessons, that the only way my daughter was going to YW was if he went with her. He agreed. Seriously, there are way too many people with way too much power over impressionable young people. I didn’t let my daughter go to standards night because I remembered what guilt trips they were. Sure enough, they taught the youth that they weren’t supposed to french kiss anyone until AFTER they were married. I told my daughter that I’d never give my blessing to a marriage if she hadn’t french kissed her fiance first. Holy Moly! First of all, you need to date someone long enough that you want to french kiss someone (usually only a single date for me, but I’m loose that way ) BEFORE you get married. If you manage to get married before frenching, you didn’t date long enough or you aren’t attracted to them. BOTH bad ideas. So, yeah, kind of a threadjack, but not really. Our kids are taught wacky things, “traditional ideals” ALWAYS being better than some more modern thoughts and scenarios is one of them.

i seriously spend more time worrying about what they learn in church than I do worrying about what they learn from society. The way things are taught at church (because God said so and so does the prophet so don’t question), with my tacit approval by taking them there, is far more unquestioned by them than untruths they learn at school and recognize for what they are.

hope that makes some sense. Just frustrated and worried.

Comment by lola — October 29, 2009 @ 9:17 pm
Iola– I remember being at YW camp and having the leaders go through a long, detailed explanation of how french kissing simulated the motion of the penis in the vagina. I was a good girl, but a good girl who french kissed her boyfriend, and that talk put lots of ideas in my head that had not been there before. After listening to them, every time I kissed him, I not only felt guilt, but also had the image of sex in my brain, where it hadn’t been before.

Comment by Shelah — October 29, 2009 @ 9:29 pm
I _hate_ that new song “The Family is of God”. I’m with the other commenters who say that my family doesn’t have “places” or “roles” that are assigned to us. Mother presides and provides as much as I do. I care, prepare, and nurture my children. It sickens me that these are the songs that our children will be singing for the next 20 years in their heads as they remember their primary days.

I was so glad in our primary program last week to hear the children sing only the verse about Heavenly Father sending us to Earth in families to help us grow. I have a feeling that someone else in the primary presidency didn’t like the verses about mothers’ and fathers’ roles.

Comment by SteveS — October 29, 2009 @ 9:34 pm
Shelah, speaking of bizarre lessons, I remember a bishops fireside where we were shown all sorts of ads from magazines and all the ’subliminal’ sexual innuendo and imagery in those ads (things like SEX supposedly written in the curls of models’ hair).

I suppose the bishop thought it far better that those things were brought to our FULL consciousness so we could be more savvy 13 year old shoppers. However, I don’t think many of us were in the market for vodka or brandy, which represented a higher percentage of the ads shown us. Did you know that there are pictures of naked people in the ice cubes in those ads? You didn’t? Well, maybe because those naked people WEREN”T REALLY THERE, just the imaginings of a sicko bishop. (Not that I’m naive enough to believe advertisers don’t appeal to our subconscious sometimes).

I still remember one for bonnie bell lipgloss. It had a model with full, shiny lips (duh, the ad was for lip gloss). Her lips were so full that they kind of puffed over and cast a shadow on her chin. Our bishop told us the shadow was in an oval shape because it was symbolic of OVULATION and so made us think of sex, and presumably, made us horny and eager to buy the product and make men horny with our chin shadows. GADS!

I left that lesson thinking 1. our bishop was a perv and 2. he must have thought ovulation wasn’t spelled ovalation.

Yeah, I get nervous about indoctrination. More so now that I have children than when I was a kid because my kids aren’t as cynical as I was (small miracle) and wouldn’t automatically think the leaders are wacky the way I did.

Comment by lola — October 29, 2009 @ 10:14 pm
I visited my husband’s ward on Sunday and attended Relief Society. They opened by singing all 9 verses of “Follow the Prophet.” I’m not kidding.

It was the first time I had looked over all the lyrics of the song, and while there were numerous things that annoyed me about it, for the purposes of feminism, I was annoyed (but not the least bit surprised) that no female prophets were mentioned.

I’m tempted to write verses about Miriam, Deborah, Huldah and Anna and teach them to my daughter. See how her Primary teachers like her singing that.

Comment by Bridget Jack Meyers — October 29, 2009 @ 10:17 pm
oops. that should read “he must think ovulation is spelled ovalation.”.

Sorry for the overuse of commas and lack of semi-colons too. In a rush to say it all.

Comment by lola — October 29, 2009 @ 10:18 pm
Like others, I’m not a fan of “The Family Is of God.” For your convenience, though, I’ve rewritten it to make the message more obvious (here’s a link to the original):

Our Father has a family. It’s me!
It’s you if you’re a straight two-parent fam’ly.
The gays and singles he’ll expel, to hell
To keep things straight in his fam’ly.

[Chorus]
God gave us families: the people God loves have the kind that he likes.
This how we know who’s bad; passing judgment is of God!

A mother should have voice of lilt, and guilt
Must plague her if she ever works for money
How many children should she bear? Through prayer
She’ll know that she’s done when she dies!

A father’s really quite a dolt, he’ll bolt
Unless he gets to be the one presider
His purpose is a salary, fam’ly
Comes after employment and church!

Comment by Ziff — October 29, 2009 @ 10:23 pm
Ziff, I think I like your re-write better… :giggle:

Comment by Lorian — October 29, 2009 @ 10:35 pm
me too! You’re a genius, Ziff!

Comment by Shelah — October 29, 2009 @ 10:36 pm
I love reading everyone’s comments…I am so glad I found this blog!

Comment by Mandi — October 29, 2009 @ 10:44 pm
#31—I think someone wrote a post about female centered verses to “Follow the Prophet” a couple years back. ‘Twas pretty cool. Any long time readers remember this post…if so, could someone post the link/direct us to it?

For the record, I’ve made a point of singing gender-inclusive renditions of the hymns and using only gender-inclusive language when I read scriptures in classes. It’s been quite the fun challenge. Once when we were singing “Put your shoulder to the wheel” I couldn’t come up with a good substitute for “men” in the first line quickly enough, so I think I wound up singing “the world has need of willing folk” and I think the people in front of me thought I was singing another word that starts with f.

Sorry…I’ve been the champion of threadjacks lately. Trying to get back on topic…I’d encourage everyone to try changing words of hymns to be more gender-inclusive. It’s made me feel tons better. =)

Comment by Phoenix — October 29, 2009 @ 10:54 pm
Ziff, I’m still doubled over laughing at the memory of you singing “When I Grow Up, I Want To Be a Swingset” at the top of your lungs. Confess: we ALL know you were the one who invented that! Born to be a hymn satirist, you were.

I love your latest invention as well.

Comment by ZD Eve — October 29, 2009 @ 10:57 pm
#37 Phoenix ~ I was able to find it with a search, here. Thanks for telling me about it!

We still need a verse about Miriam though. Micah 6:4 is a pretty powerful statement of Miriam’s status in ancient Israel. She was sent by God to redeem Israel just as Moses and Aaron were.

Comment by Bridget Jack Meyers — October 29, 2009 @ 10:59 pm
My children’s primary parts are all quotes from their very own talks earlier this year and I of course helped my five year old write her talk so her part includes:
……………….Dad’s love their families and take care of their children. They cook and go to work and pray and give hugs and they teach us. I love my dad and my mom.
(What I love about her talk is that she can say it by looking at clipart I put together so I didn’t have to whisper in her ear).
The song lyrics don’t bother me at all because no one expects a song to tell the entire story. The line about mothers is actually pretty accurate although it does not incorporate everything I do, but I really am trying to teach my kids to love and serve in their family and I try to teach them to obey and to pray and I really do try to strengthen my children (or help them reach for their potential is more accurate) and what mother doesn’t care, and prepare is obviously just a word that rhymes with care. Nurture is good. It is a very feminine word and I consider it a good word.

Comment by jks — October 29, 2009 @ 11:00 pm
“The Family is of God” doesn’t bother me half as much as “Home” did last year. Father is idealized “with strength and wisdom, too” while we have mother . . . and children.

To be fair, both of the songs are a little hokey, and I know it’s hard to find words to fit rhymes and rhythms, but not even a single modifier of mother? Just that she exists?!?!? (to serve the children, of course)

I think the mother verse of this new song doesn’t bother me that much because these are all things I want to do as a mother - whether I work outside my home or not. I do want to care, prepare, nurture and strengthen my children. I do want to teach them to obey, pray, love and serve in the family. (I would REALLY like to figure out how to teach them to obey). I think the frustration is more with the “A mother’s purpose” part, but I don’t take that to mean the whole woman - just her acting as a mother. I don’t know. Maybe I’m making stuff up to feel better, but this verse hasn’t ever bothered me.

The father verse bothers me a LOT more, mostly because of the father leading in family prayer line. Of all the things to modify and point out that fathers contribute to families, that’s it? That’s the big, huge point to why fathers need to preside?!?!

Comment by Stephanie — October 29, 2009 @ 11:07 pm
Stephanie, amen. It’s always the father stuff that gets the weirdest.

Comment by ZD Eve — October 29, 2009 @ 11:09 pm
I wish that Ziff’s rewrite didn’t have some painful truths to it.

Comment by Stephanie — October 29, 2009 @ 11:10 pm
37- I remember the gender inclusive rewrite you’re talking about, but I don’t have the link.

my daughter is due in March and while on the one hand I’m concerned about her getting the wrong message from certain oversimplified songs, on the other she’ll see first hand that mommy makes more than daddy and that daddy cooks way better than mom. Hopefully she’ll get balance between the two.

Comment by Bro. Jones — October 29, 2009 @ 11:17 pm
#25–”My father presides over my family by my mother.”

#31–my husband wrote extra verses to that song on his mission. he calls them “Follow the Lesser-Known Prophets.” For example,

“Ehud was a prophet,
called to serve the Lord.
Stabbed a very fat man
with a homemade sword.
Ehud by his acts brought freedom to the land.
Ehud is a hero for those who have left hands.

We’ve got one about Deborah in progress. You should totally write some!

Also, a story about the song under discussion, which my husband and I both hated (and we are both Primary teachers, so we heard it over and over!). The chorister was trying to help the children learn the words to verse about mothers.

Chorister: “Now who remembers what a mother’s purpose is? What do mothers do?”

Little Kid: “Obey!”

I think the look on my face at that moment was probably priceless.

Comment by ifrit — October 30, 2009 @ 12:26 am
I may be really in trouble here, depending on who checks this site, but I work full-time (I am a professor and I love it), but not by choice. My husband can not find a job that pays even 1/2 of our mortgage, so I work. Last year I worked 2 jobs… and went back to work 8 days after having a c-section and the day after my son was released from the NICU. He was 5 weeks early.

I actually like working and feel interesting feelings about all the stay at home moms- particularly the ones on welfare- in my ward, BUT! If I could, I would stay at home too. It is just not a reality and after 3 years of this, I am pretty sure it never will be.

My daughter is in YW now and my son is a baby, so we will not have children singing that, but you can be sure my family will have a conversation about that song after church on Primary Sunday in a few weeks…

My LEAST favorite song, however, is the very cultish “In our Lovely Deseret…” but then again this was the first I had heard of “four little, five little, six little babies…” That ain’t weird…

Comment by Crystal — October 30, 2009 @ 1:28 am
My LEAST favorite song, however, is the very cultish “In our Lovely Deseret…”

I get through that song by interchanging the melody (or words…both work) with “Basket Case” by Green Day.

It’s glorious.

Comment by NicoleB — October 30, 2009 @ 1:43 am
You know, I think the “Home” song is better. Although the focus on the mother is really short, the father is also at home in the song. That sounds nice to me.

Comment by Michelle Glauser — October 30, 2009 @ 2:43 am
Shelea, Your reaction is understandable. My husband introduced to me a website that has been helpful. It is ‘the Mormon Curtain.’ Good luck!

Comment by Emily — October 30, 2009 @ 5:01 am
Deborah was a prophetess and judge in Israel.
She was wise and brave and led the people well.
When Barak was scared to fight with his army
Deborah fought with him and set the people free.

Anna was a prophetess who was very old
She fasted and she prayed and she was very bold.
She saw baby Jesus and recognized her Lord
She testified of redemption to all who’d heed her words.

that’s a little rough isn’t it…

How about Dad presides over our home by serving us.

Comment by britt — October 30, 2009 @ 8:12 am
I knew after posting this I’d want to change something…maybe line 2 of Anna should be “She prayed in the temple and was very bold.”

Comment by britt — October 30, 2009 @ 8:23 am
I was worried about this too so after the primary program I quizzed my children (this is the only year they are all 4 in primary) individually about what they talked about in terms of families, I got several versions of how boring and lame sharing time is, and they racked their brains and couldn’t think of anything they learned. My 9 yr old finally admitted she heard (in super snarky voice) “Families are forever - but I think we’re all aware of that by now”

Then I laughed because here the church sets out to really teach our kids and yet mine are so bored they shut them out completely.

Comment by mel-odrama — October 30, 2009 @ 9:47 am
Eris (#25)-

My father presides by….working as a team with my mom to make decisions in our family.

Comment by Alliegator — October 30, 2009 @ 9:59 am
I wasn’t a huge fan of that song last year, either. Luckily my kid didn’t learn all the words. I think the “I am a builder” song is much more appropriate this year. I also like that my kids are learning, “When my mother calls me, quickly I’ll obey.” I have no problem with that “mother” reference!!

Comment by wonder woman — October 30, 2009 @ 10:28 am
Thanks for all the tips. I have decided to ask Littlest Ms. Eris what she thinks Dad does to help the family and then she can talk about that, but it will start with “My father HELPS preside over my family by….” and she will likely say “cooking, doing laundry and coaching soccer.”

Comment by Eris — October 30, 2009 @ 10:35 am
I have such a hard time with primary and “some” of the things taught there. All I can say is that I still want to take my kids to church but they know full well that I think parts of the Mormon culture are bizarre– like gender roles, early marriage, and the focus on such trivial matters as bikini/tankini/one piece (we leave in SoCal and there are many pool parties so we hear a LOT about this in the summer especially). Why oh why can’t we just focus on concepts that help us be more Christlike than about dad’s presiding over the family?

Comment by Lulubelle — October 30, 2009 @ 10:59 am
#55–helps preside is way better. I was trying to work in the confines of what was given, but if you’re good with changing that, more power to you! I do wonder how your kid will make it through rehearsals without someone trying to do something about it, though.

Comment by ifrit — October 30, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
I think when you become a mom the reality of inequality hits you. No longer is it you alone. What will you say when your daughter asks is it fair? I’m preparing now to say no it’s not fair and we should have the priesthood. Who knows I come out during sunstone and now this blog but other than that it’s bad looks under the half smile. But it’s important to speak with our partners on how we will respond to our children. I feel horrible for couples who don’t Agree on those core issues. How hard it must be.

Comment by Cz — October 30, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
“First of all, you need to date someone long enough that you want to french kiss someone (usually only a single date for me, but I’m loose that way ) BEFORE you get married.”

lola - this had me laughing so hard my colleagues were giving me weird looks. Well, and you laugh most at funny things you can relate to, so…

“I have been working hard on not being apologetic for “just” being a mom when people ask me “what I do.” I’m getting better at saying it with confidence, unashamed.”

m&m - I have this same sentiment except it is the opposite in the community I live in. Being a working mom is a huge exception here and I find myself feeling uneasy when the topic comes up because I often get “the look” from these moms. I’ve had to try to get over it after working all these years but I still feel like a bit of a misfit when I show up to an after-school football game wearing a suit and I get the once over from the parents.

Comment by Lawyer Lady — October 30, 2009 @ 2:30 pm
I love the second verse of “Love is Spoken Here,” but I very much dislike that this is the boy’s verse:

Mine is a home where ev’ry hour is blessed by the strength of priesthood pow’r,
With father and mother leading the way,
Teaching me how to trust and obey;
And the things they teach are crystal clear,
For love is spoken here.

Thanks for sharing the other verses to “Follow the Prophet.” Jael has always been one of my favorite characters in the Bible!

That new family song botherd me a lot! My husband kept glancing over at me during the program.

Comment by Hopeful — October 30, 2009 @ 2:58 pm
Hopeful, why don’t you like that verse? I love it–it seems to be saying that both father and mother have the priesthood (which they do) and lead the family together. What’s the objection? Oh, and when I was singing lady (that, of course, is the OFFICIAL calling title, even when a man has it) I had the boys sing the mother verse and the girls sing the priesthood verse.

Comment by Molly — October 30, 2009 @ 3:07 pm
Every time I attend a wedding ceremony where the officiant says “Do you promise to love honor and obey?” To the bride my flesh crawls. Most have replaced this with cherish but it is still out there in a few parts of the country!
Also the part where it is asked “Who gives away this bride in marriage?” and the response is,” I do.” said by the father.
It should be either “Her mother and I do.” or maybe noone, maybe she gives herself away because she is a big girl now worthy of that decision alone!

Comment by Travelin' Pants — October 30, 2009 @ 3:14 pm
I am wondering the same thing - What is it about that verse that you don’t like, Hopeful? Molly, I like that idea of changing who sings what verse.

Comment by Stephanie — October 30, 2009 @ 3:27 pm
@62
At my cousins wedding, his uncle married them. He asked both of them in their vows to submit to each other. I loved it.

Comment by Anon for this time...... — October 30, 2009 @ 4:05 pm
Woops, meant her uncle married my cousin and his now wife.

Comment by Anon for this time...... — October 30, 2009 @ 4:14 pm
Maybe I’m the only one who doesn’t have a problem with these songs. The eternal concept of gender and gender roles is pretty important in our church doctrine - it’s not just some silly “cultural” thing we can all roll our eyes at. Besides, it’s just a few short lyrics in a children’s song. It’s not meant to accurately define every single aspect of family life.

Comment by skippy — October 30, 2009 @ 5:13 pm
I didn’t word my post very well. I love that song! I love the words. I was saying that I didn’t like in the song book that it had the girls sing the first verse and the boys sing the second. I like it when both genders sing both verses. I am glad that Molly had the boys and girls switch verses.

Comment by Hopeful — October 30, 2009 @ 5:29 pm
skippy #66 - I remember a great many “few short lyrics in a children’s song” from my overly-religious Assembly of God upbringing which I wish I could now forget and which, as a child, imbued me with many concepts about God and life which I now consider to be very false and sometimes damaging. It is amazing how impressionable the minds of young children are, and how very much they take in of the unspoken and minimally-spoken messages we give them.

“My mommy told me something that a little girl should know,
It was all about the devil, and I learned to hate him so.
He always causes trouble if you let him in the room.
He will never, never leave you if your heart is full of gloom.”

A little dark, huh?

Then there was:

“Jesus loves the Indian boy,
bow and arrow for his toy.
Big John Smoke and Little Chinese.
They all live way overseas.”

Heaven help us.

And then, when I wasn’t too much older than that…

“Life was filled with guns and war,
and everyone got trampled on the floor,
I wish we’d all been ready.
Children died, the days grew cold,
A piece of bread would buy a bag of gold.
I wish we’d all been ready.
There’s no time to change your mind,
The Son has come, and you’ve been left behind.

Two men coming up a hill, one disappears,
and one’s left standing still.
I wish we’d all been ready.
Man and wife asleep in bed,
She hears a noise and turns her head, he’s gone.
I wish we’d all been ready.
There’s no time to change your mind,
how could you have been so blind?
The Father spoke, the demons dined,
The Son has come, and you’ve been left behind.”

Do you know how many years it has been since I’ve sung those songs? I’m 48 and I left that church when I was about 18. But stuff you learn in childhood does not fade away. And it does influence you in ways you would not think were possible, simply because the concepts are internalized with little in the way of “nuance,” because children’s brains are not really capable of understanding “nuance.”

I’m very careful about what I let my children learn and be exposed to, particularly my autistic daughter, who is more literal than I would ever have believed possible. When she started obsessing about when she and I were going to “die on the cross” when she was 4, we stopped going to church at all until she got to be old enough that we could feel confident that our explanations would clear up any fears she might have about things she might encounter at church.

Comment by Lorian — October 30, 2009 @ 5:49 pm
27: Hey, I’m down with that. So long as the youth aren’t “necking” or “petting” it’s kosher, right?

But back to primary songs we hate, I loved “Follow the Prophet” when I was in primary because it was the only song in a minor chord. Now it’s just plain spooky. If that was sung in a Primary Presentation I’d have a hard time explaining to a non-member that we weren’t a cult. They just say “follow the prophet” over and over and over…

I still like the tune, though. I had a Zone Leader that could play a killer funk cover of FTP.

Comment by Cross — October 30, 2009 @ 8:49 pm
I haven’t read the comments… but I HATE the lyrics of that song. Unfortunately, it has a super catchy tune. I’m a primary teacher, and I silently protest the song by not singing those verses (real subversive, huh?). It is actually the father verse that grates on my nerves even more.

Comment by lyn — October 30, 2009 @ 9:06 pm
I am currently in medical school and a mother of two. My husband stays home with the kids. Whenever he tells people what he does, they respond with one of two answers: “Oh . . . and what else do you do?” and “Wow, you must be some amazing guy to be willing to do that!” He finds both equally demeaning. But I’ll tell you what; he does an awesome job presiding at home.
The decision to go back to school was hard, mostly because of the guilt I felt from years of indoctrination from primary songs, YW teachers, and relief society lessons that focus on woman’s innate qualities as nurturer and homemaker. I felt defective because, deep inside, that wasn’t me. I still cringe whenever I hear those songs.
At this point, I think it is not possible for any of us to be “just” moms (or dads), because that would mean that we did not exist outside of our roles as mothers. That is the problem . . . I don’t think many of us our allowed to exist in our own realm. I don’t think we all need to be doctors, but I think we need to be allowed to be individuals.

Comment by Hez — October 30, 2009 @ 9:13 pm
Ok… PARTY at MY HOUSE with ALL OF YOU! I loved, loved, loved reading these comments. I felt… UNDERSTOOD! (Where has this blog been all my life?)

..and can I just tell you that I know all the lyrics to “When I Grow Up I Want To Be A Mother” (one little two little..), as well as the “I’m A Mormon” lyrics. Every once in a while my mom still has me sing that song just for a good laugh, and we just about DIE when we realize that we used to sing it with a straight face. (I’m 45… just sayin’)

This isn’t so much a feminist thing, but… after doing EVERYTHING “right” (mission, temple marriage, BYU graduate, SAHM, to name a few) I am currently divorced. It irritates me to no end to hear the lyrics proclaim that a happy family is a mom and dad… especially the “he loves us and so you see” part. Quite frankly, even I have a hard time believing that we can be a “happy family” without a dad around. It just doesn’t jive with what I was taught, and taught, and taught.

I totally need to get out in to the work force, and soon, but I can not seem to let go of the guilt I feel after many years of “indoctrination” telling me that staying at home is the best way to be a good mom. I keep thinking I am feeling “the spirit” tell me “DO NOT DO IT” when I find somewhere with good pay and benefits. Logic tells me something different, but… ditto #68… concepts are internalized. UGH!

Anyway, thanks to each of you for your comments!! Can’t wait to read more. *sigh* :O)

Comment by Zammsmom — October 30, 2009 @ 11:17 pm
You know, I wonder if I’m the only husband who gets really bothered by these songs and how they portray the genders while his wife looks quizzically and says “I don’t get what y’all are making such a fuss about…”

I’m not familiar with this song, (not having been involved with primary for almost twenty five years), but I’m entirely with you guys (same with that “Home” song as well). Just another example of how the cultural gender standards the Church reinforces need to be overturned.

I’m glad you’re taking a stand to twist the message, Eris!

Lorian, sounds like the religious songs of your youth were indeed scarier.

I’m also with those who express dismay at “Follow the Prophets.” Sounded cool musically as a child, but I don’t want my kids drinking that Cool-Aid.

Comment by Derek — October 30, 2009 @ 11:31 pm
I loved reading this! Thanks for the reminder I’m not alone.
My seven year old came home with her part for the Primary program beginning, “A father has priesthood authority over the family…” and my husband read it to her, “A father has priesthood responsibility for the family.” I liked that so I had her practice it. She was worried, “But won’t I get in trouble if we change my part?”
I then remembered she is an intelligent girl, highly capable of making her own decisions. So I said in a neutral voice, “Authority means that the dad is the boss of the family. What do you think about that?”
She said, “I don’t think Daddy’s the boss of us,” and we had a good discussion. I looked her in the eye and told her it was completely her choice: she could say the part the way it was written or she could rewrite it the way she wanted it, and either way was alright with me.
Sunday she proudly stood up and perfectly recited our rewritten line about how a father has responsibility for his family. As the next child’s line was, “A mother is responsible for nurturing the children,” our line ended up fitting in rather well.
I think this taught me a good lesson for the future–discuss what we believe, and let her make up her own mind.

Comment by Day — October 31, 2009 @ 12:34 am
#24, Sorry, we need to revoke your fMh card. #1-3, you can keep yours.

Comment by Andrea — October 31, 2009 @ 6:34 am
Whoops. Make that #23, not #24. Sorry #24.

Comment by Andrea — October 31, 2009 @ 6:37 am
Go easy on 23, she’s a friend of mine.

Comment by Shelah — October 31, 2009 @ 8:41 am
Glad I’m not the only one that doesn’t love all the songs they are learning in primary.

Not that they teach anything I don’t beleive in, but I can’t stand the Article of Faith songs. We’ve decided we aren’t teaching our kids to recite those from memory before they can understand what they mean, so I’m a little bugged that the primary is still managing to teach them these (although my 5 year-old pretty much never sings in primary). And seriously, have you heard a room full of little kids singing #2:

“We believe that we will be punished for our own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression”

to a very ominous, gloomy sounding tune. I’m sorry, but that just sounds so incredibly wrong as a song.

Comment by Kim — October 31, 2009 @ 11:05 am
Our primary program is in a couple of weeks. I don’t think we are singing “The family is of God” At least, I’ve never heard it, and I’ve been in primary for a few months now. (again, been there in the past a few times)
I sound like that might be a good thing.

Comment by Karen — October 31, 2009 @ 12:01 pm
“it sounds” sheesh. sorry about the bad spelling.

Comment by Karen — October 31, 2009 @ 12:02 pm
Hez (#71)–I’m in my last year of residency and have 2 kids. My oldest was born during my last year of med school, and since then my husband has been the primary caretaker of them (he’s doing grad school right now). There’s not that many LDS women in medicine, although I’ve met a few, so it’s nice to see someone else in a similar boat.

Comment by Braids — October 31, 2009 @ 2:14 pm
Re the Deborah verse # 50/51 - change “She testified of redemption” to “she declared redemption”. It flows better. I like it!!

Comment by Mary — October 31, 2009 @ 3:27 pm
Anyone remember this gem. i had the record AND the songbook…

I Want to be a Mother

When i grow up, i want to be a mother and have a family One little, two little, three little babies of my own.

Of all the jobs for me, i’ll choose no other, i’ll have a family; four little, five little, six little babies in my home.

And i will love them all day long and give them cookies and milk and yellow balloons.

And cuddle them when things go wrong, and read them stories and sing them pretty tunes.

When i grow up, if i could be a mother, how happy i will be: one little, two little, three little babies i can love.

And you will say each sister and each brother all look a lot like me; four little, five little, six little blessings from above.

Comment by StepfordWife — October 31, 2009 @ 10:16 pm
Re 83 - Wow, no wonder we’re all on Prozac.

Comment by Stephanie — October 31, 2009 @ 11:47 pm
being raised by a pedophile, i hate the song that went

“when my father calls me,
quickly i’ll obey,
for father knows just what is best,
each and every day.”

i should note that they’ve changed the words on the 3rd line to
“i want to do just what is best…”, but still, squirm!!!!
♥

PS: I have the entire “Songs for a Mormon Child” music book here. I’ll sell it if you’re interested

Comment by blue — November 1, 2009 @ 12:19 am
Wow. I was just looking for the lyrics to this song, and thinking I would play it in the background at the start of our gospel principles lesson #37. I came across this site during that brief search.

I think the song is really beautiful, and I’ve heard so many of the sisters who are in primary say how much they love it. I’m surprised to see such reservations about it. I mean, pick a song, any song — most probably fall short or are inadequate in describing their larger message.

Maybe unfairly (only read a small handful of the comments/replies) I wonder why anyone would be bitter about a song that speaks to some plain, simple, fundamental truths about the family. I get the vibe from this post that some feel ‘indoctrinated’ by it, that it’ll define gender roles. Some feel like they want to be in control of all things. Why is it so hard to just listen and allow God to be in control of defining certain aspects of the family unit. Because he does, and it’s simply a matter of listening — my 4 year old constantly objects to things, but is not yet very adept at just pausing, listening, learning, and willingly accepting.

Gender and family roles are beautiful and critical as far as I’ve been able to experience. We ought to protect the very fundamentally beautiful things as we are taught through divine guidance.

Just some thoughts.

Comment by JC — November 1, 2009 @ 12:40 am
Truth be told when my first daughter was 2 i left the church. i just couldn’t raise her knowing she would go through the same hell i was going through. Shortly after we were married in the temple i realized i didn’t even want to go to the celestial kingdom.

It took 8 more years before i had the courage to google my own religion, because of her. i love her so much.

i will not indoctrinate my daughter to any belief system the way they brainwashed me. i just won’t do it and i won’t stand idly by while others do it either.

Comment by StepfordWife — November 1, 2009 @ 3:13 am
“A mother’s purpose is to care, prepare, to nurture and to strengthen all her children./ She teaches children to obey, to pray, to love and serve in the fam’ly.”
“…I know the line about being a mother is only five words long in the song, but I worry that we might see our roles as reductive, as closely circumscribed as those five words, when those are the lines our kids get in their heads and put on repeat play.”

OK, done preparing my lesson, and I think I will play this song, because it fits in pretty well. Looking at your quotes above, I’m not sure why you feel so minimized and defeated by this song. What part of the “mother” lines don’t you like? And, what does the SAHM vs. Pediatrician have to do with anything? Can’t the working mom also prepare, nurture, strengthen, teach, love and serve. Those are all good things!

And, guess who else should also be doing all those things — dads. And, mothers also preside at times, protect, provide, etc.

I think if you distill it down, the differences mainly come to two key things: preside vs. nurture. Both mom and dad do these, although in LDS culture, dad’s usually preside and mom’s do more of the nurturing.

Why is that? Because fathers hold the priesthood — that’s it. Dad’s preside because they basically HAVE to. Some dads are really bad at it, but do it even though the mom would be much better at it (take me for example; my wife is way better than me in every respect, and could better preside, but she allows me to grow in my role of presiding, because she honors the priesthood, and respects divine direction).

Why do mothers tend to nurture? Well, it’s nature! Mother had the baby growing in her womb, went through child birth, was equipped to provide baby the most basic sustenance in the early years, and are (whether you agree or not with the gender stereotyping), much more caring and tender than men (on average). Who would God make the nurturer in this case? Dad!! Heck no.

As I said, my wife is better than me, and as such, could do any responsibility I have better than me (well, except the protect part…I’d take her in a street fight easy). But, she doesn’t define herself according to society’s standard or expectation. She doesn’t have a control complex. She simple, much like myself, just wants to listen to what counsel we have about the Family unit (see “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” — 7th paragaph beginning with ‘The Family’).

If we we’re too busy trying to find out if we’ve been reduced or minimized, indoctrinated or pigeon-holed, we’d just yap and never listen (like my 4 year old). We’d miss the point, and fail to see the sense and beauty of a plan prepared by one infinitely more qualified to suggest what we should focus on in life.

Comment by JC — November 1, 2009 @ 3:33 am
@ #87. You won’t indoctrinate your daughter to any belief system? Surely, there must be beliefs you adhere to and pass along to your family — not just religious beliefs mind you. I posit that there is simply no way a parent can be involved in their child’s growth and NOT indoctrinate them with something.

So, what do you propose? NEVER suggest to them that anything is right or wrong? NEVER teach them any of the thing’s you’ve found to be true and hold on dearly to? What kind of mother would you be then? Pitty on the child left hungry when there’s food to be had.

Even if you could resist ‘indoctrinating’ your child with some basic foundational blocks with which to build her life, someone would step into your place and DO IT FOR YOU; whether that be her peers, public schools, Al Gore or what(/whom)ever.

And, what’s with the “brainwash” insult? People may believe in something you didn’t believe in, but to presume therefore that they must have been brainwashed shows a total lack of depth in your understanding of how people gain faith and testimony, To me, brainwashing implies a lack of personal choice and ability to formulate ones own opinions or to test out a principal, but rather be forced or coerced into acceptance. From my many years as a member of the church, I’ve not observed any brainwashing as you so haphazardly point to. By the way, I’ve given enough service and held enough leadership responsibilities that I would just ask one more thing: whose running the washing machine? I mean, I must have missed a memo or something, because nobody has approached me yet with any super-secret manual on how to carry out the alleged brainwashings to the ‘lil ones. Must not be high enough in the church yet? Or, I guess if there’s no manual, then we’re ALL (each and every last one of us faithful mormons) just perpetuating the brainwashing we received.

When I listen to the leadership of the church at general conference, it doesn’t sound to me like they’re presiding over a secret brainwashing operation. Their testimony is as sweet and genuine as it comes. For example, I really liked Elder Jeffrey R. Holland’s last talk “Safety for the Soul” (watch it here: http://broadcast.lds.org/genconf/2009/10/50/GC_2009_10_503_HollandJR___eng_.wmv).

Worth checking out if you get the urge…careful though! It’s some MEAN indoctrination.

Comment by JC — November 1, 2009 @ 4:12 am
Just realized the link above (#89) is rather large (video file).

Here’s the voice only .mp3 file:

http://broadcast.lds.org/genconf/2009/10/50/GC_2009_10_503_HollandJR___eng_.mp3

JC

Comment by JC — November 1, 2009 @ 4:18 am
Mary…thank you. That does flow much better.

Comment by britt — November 1, 2009 @ 8:01 am
I thought that LDS women who “know” should desire to have children and stay at home with them. I also thought that LDS women were supposed to be the best homemakers in the world - with immaculate homes, boys dressed in white shirts, etc. Why is it such a shock to hear primary songs that have lyrics that echo that ideal?

Comment by Laura — November 1, 2009 @ 10:35 am
Singing songs which teach my daughter’s their purpose is to bear children and keep house really cannot be equated with me “indoctrinating” them that they have a right to grow up and live their lives as they see fit. Of course i teach them to be honest and kind, i also teach them to stand up for themselves. Its not like i’m teaching them to go out and be serial killers if they want. Your argument that if i don’t indoctrinate them with mormonism we’re all going to fall into anarchy is silly. Its born of fear, the fear they plant in your heads to keep you popping your prozac and singing their songs every week.

i don’t need songs or propaganda to teach my children to be good people. Can you say the same for the church?

Comment by StepfordWife — November 1, 2009 @ 10:57 am
i’ve already seen Holland’s talk where he comes unhinged. The leadership is panicking. They are losing too many active members. Theses people aren’t just falling into inactivity. They are active tithe payers one week and apostates the next.

When we left my husband was executive secretary to the bishop and i was in the YW presidency. We made the decision the church was no longer good for our family and walked away. That was 4 years ago. Mormonism is still very much a part of who i am, i cannot change that but i can try to make the future brighter for my daughters.

Comment by StepfordWife — November 1, 2009 @ 11:03 am
#47 - I just had to try that out and you were right. It was wonderful.

Comment by Lulu — November 1, 2009 @ 6:41 pm
92.I thought that LDS women who “know” should desire to have children and stay at home with them. I also thought that LDS women were supposed to be the best homemakers in the world - with immaculate homes, boys dressed in white shirts, etc. Why is it such a shock to hear primary songs that have lyrics that echo that ideal?

It is these stereotypes that people generally object to. It is my understanding that free agency enables us to choose what we want to do, regardless of what society (or the Church) thinks we should do.

Comment by Lulu — November 1, 2009 @ 7:13 pm
Everyone should be encouraged to define their own best. my primary issue was not wanting my daughter to feel like she either had to choose their version of best to be celebrated; to only be “tolerated” if she chose some other path.

i want to celebrate her life with her when she chooses to do good things that bring her fulfillment, whatever path that might be. If she grows up to be a stay at home mom she will have my unconditional support.

Comment by StepfordWife — November 1, 2009 @ 8:00 pm
I’m Primary pianist and I’m 70. This is a wonderful blog. I sit there and feel exactly like so many of you and get the feeling that everyone else just loves the words. I’m so glad to know that I’m not crazy thinking all my non-conformist thoughts (and reading a novel when I’m not playing!).

Comment by slopeggy — November 1, 2009 @ 8:30 pm
[…] am Tags: indoctrination, LDS Primary songs, Mormon culture, parental rights, values conflict A recent blogger expressed concern about the family values promoted in some of the more sappy Primary songs—the […]

Pingback by Indoctrination « Course Correction — November 1, 2009 @ 8:36 pm
Your argument that if i don’t indoctrinate them with mormonism we’re all going to fall into anarchy is silly. Its born of fear, the fear they plant in your heads to keep you popping your prozac and singing their songs every week.

i don’t need songs or propaganda to teach my children to be good people. Can you say the same for the church?.

That wasn’t my argument. And, to me, your rhetoric sounds very mean and hateful — I can’t help but see irony when you call it all “propaganda” — it sounds like you’ve been taking in the propaganda from the anti crowd. So, be careful about calling everyone else brainwashed pill poppers.

Like you, I don’t believe we must have the church in order to teach our children to be good people. Anyone can do that. And, the church teaches that the most important things we do are in our homes with our families. The purpose of the church is to support and provide programs where we can serve. And, it’s also a structure set up up by God, so that he can bless us in ways not possible otherwise and to give organization to his house. If it all vanished, I could still teach my kids to be good, but what’s wrong with having a place for members to meet and learn?

A tandem argument would maybe be we don’t need schools in order to teach our children to be smart people. While it’s true that many people home school, they normally do so with the support of external programs provided by the schools or the state. And, there’s eventually college, and as far as I’m aware, you can’t become a doctor through home schooling. You can home school, but at some point, you need an established school system to support you.

Maybe not a perfect correlation, but I think it’s kind of like this with the church. You learn more with it.

Comment by JC — November 1, 2009 @ 9:03 pm
JC– Extending your analogy:

I send my kids to public school. It’s the best option for our family– it fits in with our ideals about education, it’s usually convenient, and it gives my kids a variety of experiences that they definitely wouldn’t get at home. But when my 4th grader comes home with 90 minutes of math homework, I also feel like it’s my right to voice my frustrations. Does that mean that I want to pull my kids out of public school? Not at all. I believe in public school, and I also believe that intelligent feedback can make my kids’ educational experience better. I’m just doing, in my little way, the same thing here, since there’s not an institutional outlet for feedback within the church like there is when I email my kid’s teacher.

Comment by Shelah — November 1, 2009 @ 10:10 pm
Shelah: Just a little thread jack here: I would LOVE for my 4th grader to only have 90 mins of homework a night. How about 3+ hours last Thurs? It’s ridiculous! And I sure raised some hell to the teacher on Fri.

Comment by Lulubelle — November 2, 2009 @ 12:25 pm
Here’s a smattering of my thoughts:

1. While we’re doing parodies how about one to the tune of I See My Mother Kneeling. . . (I only remember the first line)
“I see my mother kneeling as she scrubs the floor each day,
I hear the words she whispers, she says go outside and play.”

2. Primary kids are SMART. They are especially expert at sniffing out hypocrisy (I think Elder Bednar mentioned this in conference?) So I wonder how a child proccesses a song like Home in primary? It might mean they just discard it if it doesn’t fit their life? But maybe not, many commenting here seem to be quite influenced by a Mormon tune about having a bazillion babies. Bottom line: we should be really careful about the things we sing/say/teach in primary. Maybe said Home song and others aren’t really appropriate.

3. It’s nice to find support here with others who were bugged by the Home song and other annoyances in the primary curriculum this year, but shouldn’t we take the next step and try to improve the curriculum? Talk to your stake president or stake primary president about how/why it bothered you. Write a letter to the general primary board. I know it probably won’t do a lick of good, but the church has changed in the past and mighten it change in the future? Don’t we owe it to our kids and our grandkids to leave primary a little better than we found it?

4. Lastly, I’ve been thinking lots lately about what really gets to count as “the church”. For example, the family proclamation, an official church document, says the mother has the primary responsibility for nurturing children (or something like that) but just because people interpret that to mean a mother’s entire responsibility is to nurture her children and if she does anything besides that she is a sinner and a harlot, doesn’t count as “the church” or a gospel principle. It’s difficult to parse out church doctrine and the overwhelming church culture that can feel like doctrine. Hmm. . .what was my point? I guess that we focus on teachings steeped in doctrine in primary and not dwell on the cultural aspects of Mormonism.

Comment by lache — November 2, 2009 @ 3:46 pm
The first time I heard this song I got angry and drafted letter after letter about why the kids shouldn’t sing it. My husband no longer attends Church and to hear the kids singing about a father presiding just seemed unfair.
Then in our Program, it was my son who said “Fathers provide for, preside over, and protect the family with love.” While my husband is still a wonderful man who loves us, it seems very cruel to pick the kid in Primary with an inactive father to say it. Everyone thought I was crying because of the Spirit. I wasn’t.

Comment by felicity — November 2, 2009 @ 4:32 pm
I’m the pianist in the primary and, on my first day, was introduced to this song by the chorister asking what the order of the verses were (God, Father, Mother, Children).

One girl raised her hand and said, “I know why they are in that order. God is in charge of Dads, Dads are in charge of Moms, and Moms are in charge of kids.”

…I wanted to do something rash…pound the keys or refuse to play the song or something.

Also, I’m a little bothered (not as much as ‘The Family is of God’) by the fact that, for the program, we’re having the boys sing the first verse and the girls sing the second verse of “My Eternal Family” (aka, the “Builder Song”).

The reason?

The boys will sing the verse that begins, “I am a builder working each day…” And the girls will sing the verse that beings, “I am a builder, building a home.”

hm.

Comment by Pinto — November 2, 2009 @ 5:23 pm
felicity #104 - i’m sorry.

Comment by Lawyer Lady — November 2, 2009 @ 11:34 pm
#104, that was most definitely an error in judgement on the part of your primary presidency. I am sorry you had to deal with that.

Thanks to all who suggested helps and edits for my daughter’s part in our program. I can report that I spoke to the primary pres two days ago and informed her I was not comfortable with the wording and would like to change it to “My father helps preside over my family by…” and she was fine with it. Quite supportive, actually.

We’ll see if I get the riot act on Sunday, but all is well for now

Comment by Eris — November 2, 2009 @ 11:42 pm
This year’s primary program hurt many. I teach primary. I heard so many comments over this year’s songs — many by women but also by some of the men. Even the children thought this program was odd.

This fundamental problem with these songs is that they are utterly inconsistent with the real world facing most members of the church.

First, many households lack a mother and father. Single parent households are rampant. Yet, they were treated as non-existent. I know one girl in our primary who lives with grandparents who reduced to tears.

Second, the clear directives are that fathers are to preside and provide. Others have expressed irritation with the concept of unrighteous and unwarranted presiding. But, imagine how many fathers were hurt by the reference to the role of provider in today’s economic environment. Many lack employment. Many are desperately seeking work. Others struggle with the requirement that their wife work in order to cover basic needs.

Third, the mother’s role is very limiting. It is completely child-centric. But, how many mothers are torn between the world of work and the world of home? Many cannot have children. I heard whispering about how the song failed to recognize the intellectual skills and talents of women in the church.

These songs feel like something out of the 1950s. They convey stereotypes, ignore alternative roles and are unnecessarily hurtful to many.

This was poorly done. Hopefully the 2010 effort will be more sensitive and relevant.

Comment by Steve — November 2, 2009 @ 11:59 pm
I understand and feel for a lot of the emotions expressed in this post. When something bugs you to the core it’s very difficult to get over it.

I sometimes wonder if this is part of what the Savior would ask of us when we are required to sacrifice a broken heart and a contrite spirit. The only thing we actually possess and can claim as entirely ours that we are required to give until the Lord is our will. Which is certainly harder to give than all our money and possession sometimes…

I know that God does love us all, and He certainly blesses those who are posting here (and elsewhere) who are struggling with either gospel principles (or ward members who are teaching gospel principles imperfectly) yet strive to obey the Lord anyway.

Blessed are the peacemakers.

Comment by sam — November 3, 2009 @ 11:21 am
Slight threadjack:

I’m in the Primary Presidency in my ward (and have been for four years now — my favorite calling EVER) and at our Stake Primary Presidency meeting last Spring, I was sitting with the sisters in my ward’s presidency, experiencing a lot of cognitive dissonance about the 2009 message.

As an LDS mother of two, married to a non-member (and before that long-time single-mom), I am exquisitely aware of messages that are out of touch with my family’s circumstances and this whole year’s message just didn’t resonate with me. I struggled while I thought of all the children in our Primary who were from single-parent homes or soon to be so. How to teach the principles of eternal families when my own husband wasn’t even a member? How could I, as a loving leader, stand up in Primary and teach them principles about family roles when so many of the children, including my own, were in situations which were so obviously different from the gospel principles and yet so obviously out of their own control? I was almost in tears in my frustration over this.

As I sat there agonizing over how to be faithful in teaching the principles I believe in, in a manner that would be sensitive to the needs of our kids, the Stake President stood up to conclude the meeting. His remarks addressed exactly the issue I was struggling with.

He began by saying he was aware that many of us might be struggling with how to teach perfect gospel principles in the reality of an imperfect world. He recognized the fact that many of our children are from circumstances that are less than ideal, but continued with reassurance that each of these children was placed in his or her family for a reason and that HF is aware of and loves these children and is mindful of their needs. He bore his testimony of the eternal importance of family and emphasized that with sensitivity and the guildance of the Spirit, we, as Presidencies, would be able to know how best to teach the principles in a manner that would reach the children without alienating them because *their* situation wasn’t ideal. He reminded us that each of these children would be growing up and able to make choices about his or her own family and that an eternal family didn’t have to come from a long line of eternal families — it could start with the choices each child would make.

I’ve rarely felt so heard without ever opening my mouth. It was such a blessing to know that my HF hears the silent prayers of my heart and sends me answers to them.

Comment by Karasioux — November 3, 2009 @ 9:36 pm
Thanks for sharing that Karasioux.

Comment by Shelah — November 3, 2009 @ 9:49 pm
Pinto (#105)–aaaaaaa!

I’ve been thinking of wrangling a Primary calling to get out of SS and RS, but now I’m rethinking that strategy.

Comment by ZD Eve — November 3, 2009 @ 10:37 pm
Re: 109 Sam
“blesses those who are posting here (and elsewhere) who are struggling with either gospel principles (or ward members who are teaching gospel principles imperfectly) yet strive to obey the Lord anyway.”
I think your intention was pure in your statement. Mediators learn that both sides have validated views in a discussion.
The idea is to seek to understand their viewpoint to create value added change. We change from the bottom up, starting with a church patron’s experience and ideas, which is ameloritave change, or from top down, which is tranformative change. We do not have a due process in our church or an ameliorative change process because individual members do not have due rights process because they do not have individual rights. I did not have a right to pay tithing under my own name, even upon my request.
To tie this into your comment, our leaders equate “striving to obey the Lord” with “striving to obey the good ol’ boys who are leaders in the church”.
Regarding your comment, ” Members who are teaching the gospel principles imperfectly.”
Under these conditions, where members voices are not always heard, and leaders actions can be capricious, inconsistent and without due process or due diligence, imperfect is expected.
They don’t have consistency because they do not have equality or respect the individual members of our church.
That is what needs to change. It would be honorable if they would even considerfollow Christ’s example and treat all souls as equals in our church. Let us value the individual as an equal soul more than our desire to apply the program developed by the elite group in the church to our members. Right now, that is not how we operate. Ask for the change needed in the church. We can be more Christlike, if that is our desire. Blessed are the peacemakers and it is difficult to be a peacemaker, because they always ask for a change of heart in those with whom they work.

Comment by Jo — November 3, 2009 @ 10:39 pm
[…] I recently learned about a song primary kids all over the country are learning. It’s called “The Family is of God” and here are the 2nd and 3rd verses. […]

Pingback by What’s a Feminist Mom to Do? Gender Roles and Primary « The Exponent — November 4, 2009 @ 1:23 am
I’m not sure I’ve heard the “Family is of God” song, having been released from Primary. (Our Primary program is in a couple weeks.) But I LOATHED the “Home” song last year. I would often make fun of it in a way that really disturbed DH (he thought I was being sacriligious). I didn’t try to make it rhyme, I would just sing stuff like, “Home is where there’s Father, with strength and wisdom and general fabulousness too. Home is where Mom and the kids, pointless and brainless and unspiritual when compared to awesome Dad, also happen to live.” He’d get way upset with me. Nobody else in Primary seemed to grind their teeth when we sang it, though.

I also like to sing “And Woman” instead of just “Man” at the end of verse 1 of “I Lived in Heaven.”

There are a lot of Primary songs that I can’t stand. I also hate that “I Am a Builder” song they’re singing this year. Not because it’s anti-feminist. Just because the music is annoying and the lyrics are dumb.

Comment by calico1cat — November 4, 2009 @ 3:49 pm
#108 Thank you, Steve. You summed up my life and the reason I’ve hated this year’s songs perfectly.

Comment by calico1cat — November 4, 2009 @ 3:58 pm
I am the primary chorister, and I completely ignored “The Family Is of God.” My president didn’t even ask why I’d skipped it, which was a big relief (and not much of a surprise since in a recent personal discussion she nonchalantly advocated women holding the priesthood). We have our program this Sunday, and I feel very good about what we are presenting, which is great given the reluctance I felt about this topic at the beginning of the year.

Comment by Minerva — November 4, 2009 @ 4:13 pm
Oh wow, the comments on here!

O.K. I am a guy and a primary chorister. I loved the Family is of God song. I think I understand were some of you get ruffled by the “oh the woman is a mother, confined to a certain role” verse. Maybe living in Utah, some of you would feel that way.

But I think the song states a fact that is true. Women are more nurturing and caring than men. This song does not indoctrinate children that they cannot serve different roles as they go forward life. Instead, it tells them the gifts they have because of who they are.

No matter how loving and caring of a father I may be to my children, my wife will always do it better — because she is a woman and their mother. Our Heavenly Father understands that truth. This song merely states that fact. I know when I heard it song, the spirit whispers that true to my sole. Then again, I am a guy, maybe I am listening to the wrong spirit.

Comment by Jeff K. — November 5, 2009 @ 2:23 pm
Jeff #118 -

But I think the song states a fact that is true. Women are more nurturing and caring than men.

Really? Universally? Women are more caring than men?

I know plenty of men who would be up in arms if a feminist made that comment in any other context. I could probably type up the whole conversation in advance for you, and the men would just be steaming mad that a woman would make such a “sexist” remark.

And, even though I’m a feminist, I’d have to agree with them. It would take quite a jaded and radical woman to stand up and claim that men are less caring than women. In fact, if I said that, I’m sure people would (probably rightfully) call me a “man-hating lesbian.” (Which I’m not. Lesbian, yes; man-hating, no.)

Comment by Lorian — November 5, 2009 @ 2:42 pm
Lorian - common calm your emotions!

Yes, I will stand by my statement. You know, what is so wrong with recognizing the differences between men and women? Why is that so threatening for either a man or a woman?!

I don’t care if men are spitting mad that women are typically more caring or have a disposition to being more emotional or in touch with themselves and therefore their children’s needs. Generally, they are! So deal with it.

Why does such difference matter anyway? If a woman or man in the LDS culture are to pursue their life’s dreams and aspirations to their fullest extent, why would that statement that men and women have different strengths and weaknesses really bother anyone?

I guess the real problem I have with the statements in this thread, so many women feel jaded by any comment that differentiates them from a man. Hell, you ought to be thankful to be a woman in today’s world. You can have it all!

Comment by Jeff K. — November 5, 2009 @ 3:09 pm
Have you considered, Jeff, that you might be the one who is less caring or does not enjoy nurturing, but that these may be traits which are specific to you, and that, possibly, you generalize them to other men because it makes you feel better about refusing household tasks which you find less appealing? Perhaps in your household (what am I saying, perhaps? You’ve admitted already that it is the truth) you ARE the less caring, less nurturing parent. I don’t know, though, that other men would necessarily appreciate being assigned to the “less caring, less nurturing” category simply because you find that you don’t have those qualities in abundance (or because caring and nurturing tasks do not appeal to you and it’s easier to let your wife fill in those gaps).

Comment by Lorian — November 5, 2009 @ 3:15 pm
Jeff,

If a woman or man in the LDS culture are to pursue their life’s dreams and aspirations to their fullest extent, why would that statement that men and women have different strengths and weaknesses really bother anyone?

Perhaps because buying into such gross generalizations tends to have the effect of forcing people to be confined to roles which are identified with the gendered expectations placed upon them, whether they actually feel those feelings or not.

You might not be a caring, nurturing person. Fine. But another man might be, and he may wish to take on tasks which involve exercising his caring and nurturing abilities. A woman also might or might not be strong in the caring and nurturing department. If she’s not, she should have other options available to her, and perhaps she will marry someone who is more caring and nurturing than she. And as far as that goes, in my opinion, children benefit from all the caring and nurturing they can get. Having two very loving, caring and nurturing parents (even if, in some cases, it might be more difficult for one parent or the other to perform those caring and nurturing behaviors) is of incredible benefit to children.

Nurturing moms and distant, cold fathers don’t actually produce the best parenting results, 50’s television shows aside.

Comment by Lorian — November 5, 2009 @ 3:21 pm
Jeff K., your argument reminds me of an episode of Everybody Loves Raymond where Raymond convinces Robert to act inept at wedding planning so he can get out of helping at all. Rational? Women really just want to do all of that stuff themselves anyway.

Comment by Minerva — November 5, 2009 @ 3:24 pm
And it may be necessary to state that I do not agree with Raymond.

Comment by Minerva — November 5, 2009 @ 3:24 pm
Women are more nurturing and caring than men.

Somehow I think I must have missed the “nurture” part of my DNA when God made me a woman. I love my son, but I do not feel that my sole purpose in life is “mothering.” So why didn’t God give me those “gifts” he gave other women and, if we should seek after all good gifts, why could he not give the same gift to a man?

My husband is very nurturing and gentle. Why couldn’t the spirit direct him to raise my child just as well as a woman? Is God less caring because he is male?

Comment by Hopeful — November 5, 2009 @ 3:26 pm
I can’t believe how binary this discussion has become. I am not saying ALL men are not less nurturing than women. My children actually prefer me over my wife, when they are hurt and scared. And yes, there are some men that are better at raising their children than women. But com’on, don’t go throwing the baby out with the bath water. Studies clearly show that a mother has a different impact on a child than a father does and visa versa. Ultimately, a two parent home provides the best for a child, no matter what roles are taken in the relationship. But, I am not going to convince you of any of this, and that is fine.

I guess what disturbs me more than anything in this thread is the underlying hate and frustration that many on here have displayed in their comments. Some of you must have had some really tramatic experiences at the hands of men in your lives.

Comment by Jeff K. — November 5, 2009 @ 3:35 pm
Jeff K.

My husband is one of the most nurturing and caring men I know. So is my father and so was my grandfather. Me? I have to work on it. And he has taught me a lot about becoming less selfless and more giving. Being raised as the oldest of 9 children, he grew up sharing, serving others, and taking care of people. It took me a while in our marriage to let him take care of me because that is how he shows his love for me. He is a wonderful, nurturing, caring father. Our children adore him. There’s nothing more wonderful than to see one of my kids curled up in his lap while he reads them a book. When our children were babies, he taught me how to change a diaper, he got up in the middle of the night and brought them to me (I was nursing), he rocked them until they were asleep. Yes, we both do those nurturing and caring things for our children. For him it comes naturally. For me, I’m having to working on becoming more nurturing. I’m much better at being a leader, organizing things, and making sure tasks are accomplished. I’m so grateful for a husband who lets me be myself and loves me in spite of it. He never judges me and he makes me want to be a better person. In my defense, he says those same things about me (the inspiring to be a better person part).

So why are we objecting to your generalizations of inherent traits in men and women? Because they ARE over-simplified generalizations and I don’t think that my family is the exception to the rule. Open your mind, consider a different opinion, take a class in diversity. If you did, you would know that gender roles are social expectations and not genetic traits.

Comment by Risa — November 5, 2009 @ 3:35 pm
Some of you must have had some really tramatic [sic] experiences at the hands of men in your lives.

Nope. I don’t hate men. I have a wonderful father, have been blessed with good bishops, etc. I just don’t have a testimony of patriarchy, because feminism as I’ve experienced is for the most part so intuitive and logical and true. Whereas with patriarchy it seems like we have tie ourselves into all sorts of convoluted explanatory knots.

Comment by Minerva — November 5, 2009 @ 3:40 pm
Jeff #126 -

Studies clearly show that a mother has a different impact on a child than a father does and visa versa.

Which studies, exactly? Please cite them and explain how they demonstrate what you claim they demonstrate.

Ultimately, a two parent home provides the best for a child, no matter what roles are taken in the relationship.

This is a fact, but this fact holds equally true in same-gender parents as in opposite-gender parents, so it does nothing to demonstrate your claim that “women are more nurturing and caring than men,” or that “a mother has a different impact on a child than a father does” (beyond the mere fact of giving birth, and possibly breastfeeding when the child is an infant, both of which, I’ll grant you, a mother will do considerably better than a father).

Comment by Lorian — November 5, 2009 @ 3:48 pm
Lorian -

There are numerous studies that indicate the benefits of defining roles of fathers and mothers in the home. Some that are easily obtained from BYU are Dimensions of Fathers and Mother’s Supportive Behavior: The Case for Physical Affection and Maternal Gatekeeping. One that I think many on here would support is Father Presence and Young children’s Behaviorial and Cognitive Adjustment, which was produced by Lisa Crokett and David J. Eggebeen of Pennsylvanna State U.

Once again, someone can be lost in the generalization of men and women. I understand there are many men who are more maternal then their wives. But typically, men and women are different in this regard. Most of the men I know do not have the same disposition and temperment with their children as their wives.

Comment by Jeff K. — November 6, 2009 @ 12:45 pm
One final note of this issue and then I will rest. I guess what has struck a raw nerve with me is the words from the song, The Family is of God. They are taken directly from the Family Proclamation.

Now, I know there are families who will never be the “typical” mormon family. They are either single parents, or part member marrirages. There are some members who will never be married in the temple. I get that.

But, the purpose of Primary, Primary Songs and Sunday school doctine, in general, is to expose the members to those principles and ideals that will bring them the most happiness and peace in this life, as well as exaltation in the world to come.

Does that mean every mormon family should live exactly that way? No. Does it mean a role of a man and woman is not different, based on the strengths and weakeness of their marriage? No. However, it does mean we should strive in our own personal lives to become that way.

The Family Proclamation is a declaration from a prophet of God. You may not agree with that. That is fine. But, if you believe in the principles of the LDS Faith, I would think you would not dismiss it so hastily and with such racor as has been displayed in the comments above.

Comment by Jeff K. — November 6, 2009 @ 12:56 pm
Jeff K.- You said that beautifully.

Reading through these comments I am astonished at some of the hostile feelings behind them. Do you women truly think that your child singing songs about happy families with (heaven forbid) stay-at-home-mothers is indoctrination????

And comments about being offended by certain songs because your husband is a nonmember. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? You are the one who chose that path for your life. YOU made that decision. So if you are getting offended by songs that mention a church going father, then that’s your problem.

I’ve always thought that some women take the feminist thing much too far and this post has done nothing but prove that. It’s great that we are women. We are strong. We are independant. We are SMART. We can make our own decisions and we DO make our own decisions. And of COURSE we are equal to men, each having our own strengths and weaknesses. But going from one extreme (the indoctrination everyone is so worried about) to another extreme (”I am a feminist and I don’t want my children attending Primary if they are singing songs about mothers who stay at home and fathers who preside over the family!!!”) is no way to show our strength as women in general.

Also I don’t understand how you consider yourself a Feminist *MORMON* housewife if you don’t even believe in the Family Proclamation, which was written by our dear Prophet of God? If the Proclamation is misguided, then that means Gordon B. Hinkley was not a true Prophet of God at all, and that means that our whole religion has been based on false prophets. I just don’t get it. Gordon B. Hinkley was inspired by GOD to write that document and this blog has just become a place to dismantle it.

Comment by Suzette — November 6, 2009 @ 5:42 pm
Dear Suzette,

Thank you for calling us all to repentance. I’ll remember in the future to never have my own opinion about anything unless a prophet told me to think it. How right you are.

Comment by Risa — November 6, 2009 @ 6:01 pm
#104- Felicity

Then in our Program, it was my son who said “Fathers provide for, preside over, and protect the family with love.” While my husband is still a wonderful man who loves us, it seems very cruel to pick the kid in Primary with an inactive father to say it. Everyone thought I was crying because of the Spirit. I wasn’t.

I have a hard time with this. Do you honestly think it was cruel? The definition of cruelty being: a deliberate infliction of pain and suffering.

I understand that your husband no longer attends church, and I think it would be cruel if they had your child talk about a preisthood holding father. But they didn’t. Im sure they took into account that your child DOESN’T have a Preisthood holding father, and therefore didn’t give him a part to say about having the preisthood in the home. Doesn’t your husband still provide for, preside over, and protect the family with love?? I’m pretty sure you don’t have to be a church going man to do those things.

I think you are just looking for reasons to be offended at church. And we all know that when you look for reasons to be offended, you will find them, however ridiculous they may be.

Comment by QuoteMe — November 6, 2009 @ 6:32 pm
Jeff #130 - As I expected, the studies you cite are primarily related to the issue of families with both parents in the home vs. families where one parent has left the home (most generally the father) due to divorce or abandonment. In fact, the second study you cite specifically states:

Findings suggest that father-effects operated through family characteristics and did not represent unique effects of fathering

It is quite common for those who wish to “prove” their beliefs that same-gender couples make inferior parenting units as compared with straight couples, to cite comparison studies of intact, two-opposite-gender-parent-families, vs. single-parent families where one or the other parent has moved out of the home because of divorce or abandonment.

Clearly, the parenting results of the intact, two-parent family structure will most generally be far better than the parenting results where children have lost a parent to divorce or abandonment, and the studies show these differences quite plainly.

What they do NOT show, however, is that the different genders of the parents have a specific, irreplacable effect on parenting outcomes that is superior to that of two same-gendered parents. In fact, the studies which have compared parenting outcomes for families with two same-gendered parents vs. those with two opposite-gendered parents have found no significant difference. Children of same-gendered parents are equally as healthy, happy and well-adjusted as children of opposite-gendered parents in similar two-parent households.

This clearly implies the conclusion that there is nothing particularly distinctive about gender roles within parenting which leads to a better outcome if both genders are present in the parenting pair vs. only one gender. Gender roles do not contribute significantly to good parenting outcomes.

Comment by Lorian — November 6, 2009 @ 7:01 pm
Suzette #132 -

Also I don’t understand how you consider yourself a Feminist *MORMON* housewife if you don’t even believe in the Family Proclamation, which was written by our dear Prophet of God? If the Proclamation is misguided, then that means Gordon B. Hinkley was not a true Prophet of God at all, and that means that our whole religion has been based on false prophets.

Really? That seems a bit extreme to me. I am not a Mormon, but I would have a hard time with saying that the entire truth of any religion could be destroyed by one wrong, or partly-wrong, or somewhat misguided statement of one single leader.

For instance, the Roman Catholic Church has had to (gingerly) retract a few of the statements it has made in the past (think “Earth as the center of the universe and poor old Galileo in prison”). In fact, Mormonism has had to do some gentle reworking of a few doctrines over the years, too.

I just don’t see where infallibility in a Proclamation is necessary in order for your faith to be valid.

Comment by Lorian — November 6, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
But again, I’m not Mormon, so maybe I’m missing something.

Comment by Lorian — November 6, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
I’m not as extreme as some feminists here, but I have a habit of shelving some things I don’t get or can’t reconcile. Prayer is also extremely helpful in identifying issues which are situation specific, related to one idiot, or just not meshing because in my life a different direction is needed.

Please also recognize that this is basically a vent post-and comments-it’s not like these people are this angry all the time. If you look you will also see the blessings of the gospel they value and the truths they cling to.

Remember faith is a blessing..some people are blessed with a greater ability to accept things on faith…others study things out a bit more-it’s different style, not a right or wrong. Both ways of going about things have weaknesses and strengths.

Comment by britt — November 6, 2009 @ 7:24 pm
Good post, britt.

Comment by Lorian — November 6, 2009 @ 7:29 pm
re: 131

But, the purpose of Primary, Primary Songs and Sunday school doctine, in general, is to expose the members to those principles and ideals that will bring them the most happiness and peace in this life, as well as exaltation in the world to come.

And there could be some wonderful primary programs and songs which promote the importance and happiness of family without also prescribing arbitrary and limiting gender stereotypes.

Does it mean a role of a man and woman is not different, based on the strengths and weakeness of their marriage? No. However, it does mean we should strive in our own personal lives to become that way.

Are you saying that men and women are inherently different? How so? Are you suggesting that we should strive in our personal lives to become different–ie, to align our lives in a such a way that we conform to those gender stereotypes?

Comment by Derek — November 6, 2009 @ 8:29 pm
I found a link to an mp3 of “I Want to be a Mother”. You’re welcome.

That song sure makes me like “The Family is of God” more.

Comment by Chelsea — November 9, 2009 @ 9:48 am
If the Proclamation is misguided, then that means Gordon B. Hinkley was not a true Prophet of God at all, and that means that our whole religion has been based on false prophets.

Suzette…read some history.

Comment by Minerva — November 9, 2009 @ 12:33 pm
Women and men have different divine missions. No other calling is greater than that of a mother. The proclamation of the family is from God. So take it for what that is worth to you. There is no need to twist it into something it is not. Not sure why anyone would be offended by it.

Comment by Nat — November 9, 2009 @ 3:48 pm
I would also like to say that while not all of us are from traditional families. I think most of us would hope that our children would grow up to have one of their own. And we want our sons to know they need to be responsible good providers. This should not diminish from those single parents who have to provide both roles or couple who share roles but just remind us of the ideal.

Comment by Nat — November 9, 2009 @ 3:51 pm
Re #136

Well said.

Comment by no name — November 9, 2009 @ 3:54 pm
Being a mother and being the primary nurturer are not necessarily inextricably bound, though, Nat. Nor are being a father and being the primary nurturer necessarily mutually exclusive.

Being a mother IS a wonderul and even a miraculous calling. But that doesn’t mean that it is the ONLY calling a woman should have, or that she cannot have a life outside the home as a professional person, or that she cannot work outside the home to help provide for her family, particularly if she finds doing so fulfilling (or necessary to the family’s survival).

I hope for my children to grow up to have fulfilling and happy lives doing the things for which their talents and desires best suit them. If that means marrying and settling down to become SAHMs and homemakers, then so be it, if that is what they want. But NO, I EMPHATICALLY do NOT believe that there is anything intrinsic to the “traditional family” (by which I am assuming you mean SAHM, Dad working outside the home) which is more valuable or more desirable that many other possible configurations. Nor do I want a “traditional” role thrust upon my daughters against their will or at the expense of them having lives which are happy and fulfilling in other areas than solely childrearing and homemaking.

There is no one single “ideal.” There are many paths to an “ideal” outcome, and all of them are valid.

Comment by Lorian — November 9, 2009 @ 4:08 pm
If SAHMs with Dad working was the “ideal” family structure, the church wouldn’t hire mothers for employment. Your version of “ideal” isn’t everyone’s version of ideal. Ideal for me is having a roof over my head, food on the table, and sanity. A sane mom equals happy and healthy children.

Comment by Risa — November 9, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
Nat: A no other calling for a male is more important than Father either. That doesn’t mean that’s it– and that that is the only role that should define a man. And, likewise, being a mom is not the only role that does (or should) define me.

Comment by Lulubelle — November 9, 2009 @ 4:50 pm
I am proud that my job is to nurture my children. I have a husband who also nurtures my children, and appreciates all my efforts. Why does this song feel demeaning to you? Are you not proud of your important roll? The words to the song do not say “mothers do not work, mothers only do what they are told”. Women should embrace their rolls.
I strengthen my children. I teach them to pray. I teach them to obey. I care for them. I teach them to love and serve their family. This does not make me less of a woman, or less of a person.

Comment by Leah — November 9, 2009 @ 4:51 pm
Women should embrace their rolls.

I’ll embrace my role as woman and mother the way I see fit, and you can embrace your role as woman and mother the way you see fit. I don’t need a song in Primary to tell me who I’m supposed to be. I don’t need someone on a blog questioning my devotion to my children or how seriously I take being a mother. I am lots of different things. I refuse to have a church or a person define me based on my genitalia.

Comment by Risa — November 9, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
I wish I could embrace my rolls . . .

Comment by Stephanie — November 9, 2009 @ 6:13 pm
Stephanie, I embrace my rolls everytime I cross my arms. Or try to touch the floor. Or do a sit-up.
(sorry.)

Comment by numi — November 9, 2009 @ 6:24 pm
..or shave my legs.

Comment by mfranti — November 9, 2009 @ 6:33 pm
Leah, I don’t hear any mothers here objecting to nururing their children, strengthing their children, teaching them to pray or to obey, or teaching them to love an dserve their families. That’s not what’s objectionable about this song. It’s difficult to believe that it’s so hard to understand the message of this thread.

None of those are objectionable as parenting tasks. What is ojbectionable is that those particular tasks are arbitrarily assigne as being the role of the mother. Supporting the family is arbitrarily assigned as being the role of the father, along with presiding and teaching the gospel to his children.

I do all of those things for my children. So does my spouse. It is not objectionable to be described as doing ANY of those things. It is objectionable to, for no good reason, have our children taught that we, as mothers are confined to one set of those valuable parenting characteristics, and that fathers are confined to the other. Why should anyone but the parents, themselves, determine what roles they will adopt in the home and who will take care of which parenting duties with their children at any given point in time? I think THAT’S the point.

Comment by Lorian — November 9, 2009 @ 6:34 pm
m and numi!

Comment by Lorian — November 9, 2009 @ 6:35 pm
and stephanie!

Comment by Lorian — November 9, 2009 @ 6:35 pm
Lorian, you always say what I’m thinking only way more diplomatically.

Comment by Risa — November 9, 2009 @ 6:42 pm
Thanks, Risa!

Comment by Lorian — November 9, 2009 @ 6:48 pm
#153 No shaving legs after the shorts get put away. That hair is my winter coat! Wait, I think this was on a thread last year…

Comment by numi — November 9, 2009 @ 7:15 pm
Actually, someone was taking the name of Hairy-legged Man-hating Lesbians in vain just the other day, numi!

Comment by Lorian — November 9, 2009 @ 7:28 pm
I think that HOME is just a primary song that talks about parents. I hardley think it is worth getting that upset over. It does not say that only a mother or only a father has certain roles. It just is a song. And #148 No one is saying being a mother is the only role that defines you. I know for me however it has changed everything about me and I embrace and love being a mother as I am sure you do. I think the major point of the song and church is for us to have loving homes. Each of us has the light of christ within and can determine what that is. Sadly this song and many others about the family do not apply to many children who grow up neglected or in abusive homes. But, hopefully a loving happy home is in their future.

Comment by Nat — November 9, 2009 @ 7:32 pm
Nat, this song is ALL ABOUT defining gender-based roles. The very first thing it specifies regarding father and mother is:

A father’s place is to preside, provide,
To love and teach the gospel to his children.
A father leads in fam’ly prayer

That pretty clearly implies that those things are NOT a mother’s place, particularly when placed in the context of much of LDS teaching on the family, and roles for women.

If you don’t find this song offensive or troublesome, then don’t be offended or troubled by it. But that doesn’t mean others are wrong for being so.

Comment by Lorian — November 9, 2009 @ 7:44 pm
Dude, again Lorian beats me to the punch and says it way more eloquently than I.

I have no problem with motherhood being one of my many roles. What I do have a problem with is people telling me what motherhood looks like and what I should be in order to be a good one. I don’t like this song and that’s my prerogative. If you like it, by all means sing it at every FHE and from the rooftops. Just because you like this song doesn’t make you a better mother, or a better Mormon, than me.

Comment by Risa — November 9, 2009 @ 8:00 pm
#163 I would never imply I am a better mormon than you or mother. But I can have an opinion just like you.

Comment by Nat — November 9, 2009 @ 8:10 pm
I was more addressing Leah in #149 who questioned if we were all proud of our roles as mothers, because obviously if we dislike this song, that means we’re not proud of being mothers.

Comment by Risa — November 9, 2009 @ 8:25 pm
Re 161 & 162: If Nat is talking about “Home”, those aren’t the lyrics. The lyrics of home are (something like):

Home is where there’s father with strength and wisdom true.
Home is were there’s mother, and all the children, too.

Comment by Stephanie — November 9, 2009 @ 10:23 pm
*sings: We are the dinosaurs, marching marching…*

Bless you Laurie Berkner, and your brain-wiping abilities.

Comment by Eryn — November 10, 2009 @ 3:47 am
As I listened to this song in our program on Sunday, I thought about this discussion. And while I can understand why some may feel frustrated, I think in the end, it’s really important not to lose sight of the big picture and also of the fact that God still gives us agency in how we respond to the principles we are taught. No one song, or article, or talk can cover it all. And sometimes I feel like the frustration that is expressed does not really acknowledge the richness of the big picture, as well as the reality that is acknowledged of agency and revelation in the process of making decisions. And to exercise agency, that means that sometimes there will be things that won’t be absolutely clear, even when we have general principles and commandments to guide us. We have to study things out, turn to God, and take steps…and learn by experience.

One thought I had is — do we really need to be *afraid* of one song? I mean, honestly, what song covers all the nuance of our doctrine? What song can really give our children the whole picture? And what thoughtful parent can’t help fill in some of the gaps that will ALWAYS be there because the gospel is so broad and deep…even as it is simple, too.

So, as I listened to this song with my fmh ears on, I thought, “Hm. Yeah. It’s not quite complete.” But then we talk about partnership all the time in our house. I don’t see the gender roles as being reductive, but as being instructive as a basis from which to have partnership discussions about how to balance it all. I am not apologetic about teaching gender roles. I think that we would have so much MORE confusion if we didn’t have those basic primary roles as a guideline. I don’t understand it all, but I feel there is purpose in those principles…but they don’t suddenly take away the reality of partnership, agency, and revelation, too. It’s all part of the package, and the fact that it can sometimes feel hard to process (e.g., figuring out how presiding and equality can actually coexist) to me is part of the program of learning to lean on God and on each other as spouses!

Comment by m&m — November 10, 2009 @ 4:17 am
A few more thoughts….

I usually shy away from quotes, but I think these are worth sharing:

For example, from Elder Oaks:

[H]omemaking is a word of disparagement in the eyes of some, and it should not be. But we may need to define it. Homemaking is not just baking bread or cleaning a house. Homemaking is to make the environment necessary to nurture our children toward eternal life, which is our responsibility as parents. And that homemaking is as much for fathers as it is for mothers.

and

Sister Lant: You know there has to be a division of labor to some extent in a marriage, because you can’t do it all by yourself. But…each couple has to work out how they will do things.

Elder Holland: You’re taking me back to the proclamation, which speaks of being equal partners and that we don’t just say, “You’re going to be the only nurturer, and I’m going to be the only one that’s concerned about the money and whatever.” There will be ebbing and flowing. There’s a balance and components, but we’ve got to be in this together. We’ve got to share in this.

Is that really so far from what people sometimes want to insist doesn’t exist at all — that acknowledgment of the give and take, the ebb and flow, the space for personal revelation and partnership?

I believe equality needs to be seen a lot more broadly than just an equal checklist of tasks. I also don’t believe men and women should be treated as interchangeable beings, so I am grateful that there is that simple foundation of some basic ‘primary roles.’ But “primary” doesn’t mean rigidly, exclusively gendered. It doesn’t mean it should all come naturally off the bat. It doesn’t mean that there won’t be crossover.

In my view, equality is about merging hearts and minds and spirits to figure out, with God, what, given all the counsel and guidance about ALL of these things, is best for your family. The Proclamation is not somehow a prescriptive family description, but a document to use as a foundation in making these decisions. It’s scripture-like in its weight and authority, but even scripture can mean something different at different times with pondering, seeking, and asking for specific guidance.

Comment by m&m — November 10, 2009 @ 4:22 am
I’m still confused…why is this song evil?

Comment by JC — November 11, 2009 @ 12:32 am
#169 (m&m), you summed it up nicely. Why do you hesitate to share quotes - each of them speaks to the topic very well.

I think some people are reading a little too deeply into this song.
It’s a song for kids, not philosophers. It’s for Primary, not Gospel Doctrine class!

I think the song says something that — at it’s root — is very true. And, that is, the family is of God. Each member brings something to the table. We all serve in different ways to make the home and family a great place to be. God blessed us with a family so that we can learn about him and love.

It’s important that each family member has some idea about their role in the family, but I don’t think the song is intended to create a firm delineation of responsibilities, or even implies that there should be no overlap in these things.

Again, I’m confused…what is so wrong with this song? Why are dozens of you here fighting this as if it’s a major threat to your identity?

Comment by JC — November 11, 2009 @ 12:49 am
Why are dozens of you here fighting this as if it’s a major threat to your identity?

It’s not, JC. It’s just one of hundreds of tiny, insidious messages about what is the “right” role for one’s gender, and it is aimed at the most vulnerable and most impressionable population.

Comment by Lorian — November 11, 2009 @ 1:01 am
re: 168&169

I think those quotes are good quotes, and are evidence that the position of the Church is evolving in a positive direction (earlier Church leaders are much more firm about the gender roles). What do you think makes more of an impression on the culture of the Church: the few occasional words about flexibility and personal accommodation, or the multitudinous, regular, persistent words about the separate gender roles and hierarchical nature of the relationship, words in evidence in all these primary songs?

I think that we would have so much MORE confusion if we didn’t have those basic primary roles as a guideline.

What sort of confusion do you see resulting by egalitarian gender messages from the Church, statements about the crucial importance of the family and the importance of each couple to work together to determine how best to fulfill all the responsibilities associated with family? I’m sure there could be some negative consequences to promotion of egalitarianism and the dismissal of gender roles (nothing on this earth is perfect), but how would they be worse than the many problems associated with prescriptive gender roles and characteristics which we repeatedly discuss here?

Comment by Derek — November 11, 2009 @ 9:49 am
A bit late I know, and hope I am not dredging up dead and buried threads… but after reading this I need to say something.

I grew up in the church, in South Africa. My family were sealed in the Johannesburg temple after it opened here in the 80’s, when I was a little girl. My father died when I was 8 and my mother (who had worked for many years already before I was born) worked 2 jobs to raise us.

I serve currently as the Primary President (I took over about 6 weeks before the primary program last year).

That’s my background to what I am about to say, just so you know where i am coming from.

I think that there is a definite difference in what is the Gospel and how the Church leadership sees that and in the Mormon culture, which all too often seems to be totally different.

I think of the seminary teacher who told me I couldn’t serve a mission or study at university because I was a girl, and this after i won a scholarship to a rather expensive private school. My mother went ballistic and went off at the bishop over that one. I told her that she didn’t understand the gospel if that is what she believed. (I wonder why she didn’t like me lol)

I think of the YW who I grew up with - all of whom had more rules and strictness imposed on them than I did, all of whom are now inactive and in serious self-destructive life cycles. Yet these were the girls who the leaders thought were the wonderful ones - I was the strange one with strange ideas of mission and university and working for myself. I was the odd one who was excited about the scriptures, passionate about the growth of the church etc, all because my mother taught me that I could be anything I dared to dream, purely because I am a Daughter of God.

So on that hand, yes the typical gender roles have never applied to my life and have never been taught to me. My mother (convert at 19) loves the gospel and the Saviour and has taught me to make my own choices and to take responsibility and control for my own life.

I will try and teach that to my own sons, along with how to load the dishwasher, care for babies, cook, clean and pick their own wet towels off the floor!! (something my catholic MIL never bothered to teach to her sons btw)

Every time I teach a class at church I teach the principles that I know to be true - that Heavenly Father believes that we as woman are strong, independent, wonderful and that we can be anything we want to be. That men have the responsibility to see that, to appreciate it and to uphold that right.

I have ALWAYS encouraged every class I teach to think for themselves, to think about what they are learning and to question it.

One of the moms of the seminary class i taught did not appreciate this. When the bishop asked me about it, I pointed out to him that if more of our youth were able to freely question and gain a deeper understanding for themselves before they were out of school, then more of them would have a true conviction and testimony of the gospel truths, BEFORE the heady freedom that being an adult can bring places before you a smorgasbord of options that you never ever knew existed.

No brainwashing, no “Accept it or be damned”, just this is what the Saviour teaches - now what do you think? Because he does expect us to think for ourselves, to apply HIS teachings within the perameters of our own lives.

Case in point, the builder song may have lyrics that make us cringe, but it still points to the fact that Parents are primarily responsible for teaching their own children. any parent that leaves that up to “the leaders” is nuts. Its our job as parents to ensure that our kids understand what they are being taught, the context in which it is taught and how it fits into their own lives.

In south africa it is a rare luxury to be a SAHM - even in the church most mothers work, and some i know are the primary bread winners. I am a WAHM, married to a non-member, who is totally supportive of raising our kids in the church - on the proviso that they never think the way of the typical mormon culture. He goes to church with us most sundays (when not playing golf haha) we do FHE, scripture study etc blah blah. He talks to our oldest son (now 3) about mission one day, AND about what he wants to be when he grows up. No where in the scriptures does it say a 21 year old must marry the instant he gets off the plane, yet so many do (nuts IMO)

My point (and I do have one I promise) is that there is a huge difference, unfortunately, to what the gospel teaches and the way it has been interpreted over generations and is now accepted as the “mormon way”.

I am not a traditional mormon in that sense, and I never will be - how can you be when you see your mother working to support you and yet still instill in you a love for the priesthood (who were nowhere to be found when my younger brother needed a male support system)? how can I be the typical SAHM as seemingly prescribed when I don’t even see that this prescriptive life is the same one that my Heavenly Father wants for me? And most importantly when I state proudly that I am not a housewife, I am a stay at home mom - my day time job is not to clean the house, it’s to raise happy, healthy wonderful kids. So I expect hubby to help with cooking, cleaning, bathtime etc. and yes our house looks like a giant playroom on a good day (to my mom and MIL’s horror) but I DON’T CARE because I am doing what I believe I am supposed to be doing - I am with my kids, doing stuff that matters to them, a lot more than a pile of ironing will mean to me.

I don’t see a problem with asking a child with an inactive/non member dad to say something about fathers and the fact that they do have a responsibility to their families (because its the truth and its one I use often to remind my husband that he cannot leave all the moral teaching of our kids to me just because I am the member.
I would have a problem with asking a child without a father to do it yes (I recall being asked to sing a solo fathers day song 3 months after my father died!! we never attended on fathers day again after that until I could drag my hubby along)

the Lyrics to many songs may not gel with us today for whatever reason - but still i will teach the eternal family principle to the kids I teach, because it is an essential truth. It is a principle that can bring hope, peace and unity to many kids hearts and help them understand why they need to live a good life - so that they can one day have those eternal relationships. At the end of the day, that is the only way we will get the true meaning of motherhood/fatherhood - when we see it in action between our heavenly parents.

so that’s my long say. I hope that you understand that I just wanted to say that there is a big difference between what the gospel actually teaches and how it has been lived out in the lives of members around the world. doesn’t make it right, but it does make us accountable for how we ensure the same thing is not happening in our homes

Comment by Lauryan — January 16, 2010 @ 1:51 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.
TrackBack URI

Indoctrinating my babies: Primary Songs and Gender Roles

174 Comments »

Leave a comment