In the past I’ve tried to live-blog my thoughts on General Conference, but this year I decided to write up a recap with video links and note my favorite talks. If you’re new to That Wife and haven’t read about General Conference before, I wrote up an explanatory post about it here. The following talks are those that really stuck with me after the conference was over.
As We Meet Again
Our prophet, Thomas S. Monson, stood up to say hello and announce new temples being built around the world. This is always my favorite part of conference! He shocked us all by announcing that the Provo Tabernacle (which recently burned down) would be rebuilt as a temple! If you watch the video, you can hear a collective gasp ripple throughout the crowd. No one expected this, but for anyone who has spent time living in that area it’s an exciting announcement, and another temple in that area is very needed. The existing Provo one is always very busy because of the high population of LDS college students in the area.
President Monson also announced temples to be built in Barranquilla, Colombia; Durban, South Africa; Kinshasa in the Democratic Republic of the Congo; and Star Valley, Wyoming. Everyone laughed about the Whyoming temple, not because we aren’t excited, but because all of the other announced locations were so exotic. He also introduced us to the General Temple Patron Assistance Fund, a fund available to members around the world would who would like to visit the temple but don’t have the means to do so. Although we have 135 operating temples around the world, we still have hundreds of thousands (maybe millions!) of members who haven’t been able to go yet.
Children
This is a topic I feel the Church has’t addressed for awhile, the importance of having children. This topic is touchy, but I really liked this talk. It spoke to me personally because this is something I really struggle with. When should we have our next child, and how many should we have. How many does God want us to have? I imagine there are a lot of other couples/women/men throughout the Church struggling with this thought now as well. It’s uncomfortable to confront the reality that God might not care if I want to be able to go on vacation or photograph more or have more of whatever makes me feel (temporarily) happy. I really liked this BCC post on the talk, and in particular this comment from Chris:
I thought his talk was a potential minefield, but my impression was he is saying this:
1 Children are important, if you can you should start having them.
2 Others shouldn’t judge
3 Its between you and the Lord what you decide to do
4 But #3 doesnt mean you should decide to postpone, it just means no one but the Lord can judge you (ie. its up to you to disobey this commandment and the church won’t do anything about it and your neighbors/family/friends should keep it to themselves… but seemingly there are spiritual repercussions if your exceptions are truly not merited in the eyes of the Lord)Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think much attention was given to good reasons to not have kids. The only scenarios it seems the talk would suggest are health and infertility.
A lot of commenters bring up emotional readiness. I personally think this is a fairly new concept that the information age and all its over-analyzing has brought on, the idea that you can somehowbe “ready” for what parenthood brings. The majority of us are certainly mentally/emotionally/financially able, but are we willing? I’m still working through this one.
Love Her Mother
I often feel frustrated by the membership’s attitude for women speakers. On the one side, we have the feminists who want more female participation and representation. On the other we have a lot of men who just tune out whenever a woman is speaking (I know they do it, I’ve seen the look in their eyes). And then once the talk is over both sides rip it apart for not being what they thought it should have been! This talk was particularly interesting because it was a woman addressing men, something that I don’t think has been done before in a meeting like this. I loved the talk. Fathers can, and should, be involved in the raising of their daughters. The best way to help her see what kind of man she should want to spend the rest of her life with? Be a good husband. This is something my dad did for me, and I can see a lot of my father’s best qualities in That Husband.
The Importance of a Name
As a blogger striving to talk about the Church, this talk was fascinating to me. Elder Ballard breaks down the name The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and helps clarify how the term Mormon is to be used (this was mainly for the media’s sake I believe).
Every word is clarifying and indispensable. The word The indicates the unique position of the restored Church among the religions of the world.
The words Church of Jesus Christ declare that it is His Church. In the Book of Mormon, Jesus taught: “And how be it my church save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses’ name then it be Moses’ church; or if it be called in the name of a man [like Mormon] then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel” (3 Nephi 27:8).
Of Latter-day explains that it is the same Church as the Church that Jesus Christ established during His mortal ministry but restored in these latter days. We know there was a falling away, or an apostasy, necessitating the Restoration of His true and complete Church in our time.
Saints means that its members follow Him and strive to do His will, keep His commandments, and prepare once again to live with Him and our Heavenly Father in the future. Saint simply refers to those who seek to make their lives holy by covenanting to follow Christ.
and
While Mormon is not the full and correct name of the Church, and even though it was originally given by our detractors during our early years of persecution, it has become an acceptable nickname when applied to members rather than the institution. We do not need to stop using the name Mormon when appropriate, but we should continue to give emphasis to the full and correct name of the Church itself. In other words, we should avoid and discourage the term “Mormon Church.”
Teaching After The Manner of the Spirit
It was one line in this talk that really spoke to me. Those who teach after the manner of the Spirit understand they teach people, not lessons.
October 9th, 2011 on 9:48 am
The LDS emphasis on having lots of children is strange to me since most of the people I know think it’s irresponsible or even wicked to have more than two (even three would be pushing it; five is basically unthinkable).
Personally I don’t have any objection to the idea of large families. But I do believe that with the advent of very effective birth control, any children you have exist because you made a deliberate decision to have them. As such, I feel you owe it to them to provide a very high-quality environment (though how you might define this would vary depending on your values). The world is so complex and competitive now, that any children who don’t receive such an environment are going to suffer under a permanent and severe handicap.
I don’t think I could possibly provide a large number of children with what I would define as a high-quality environment (which for me includes staying home with them in infancy, exposure to a wide variety of activities, cultures and environments=frequent classes and travel, access to an excellent education, including college, and parents with a strong marriage). So I would never have more than three children, in any possible scenario.
While some parents are just amazing people who really can effectively parent a large number, for the most part a big family means less resources, and the children lose out. For example, the average IQ of children declines with each child (the first is the smartest on average, and it goes down from there). I am not sure if the LDS Church is doing anyone any favors by encouraging larger families, given how many people seem to have more children than they can provide for/parent effectively as things stand.
Reply
Jackie Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 10:39 am
This is interesting because it is something my Cburch (Catholic) gets a lot of flack for. Interestingly though, although we teach that you can only use contraception in cases of need (like the BC pill for endo or condoms to avoid passing AIDS, etc), we don’t actually teach that you should have a large family. This I think differs from the LDS church because we don’t believe their is a pre-existing number of children who need to be born, rather, that souls are given at conception, so there is no pressure to bring spirit children into the world. A lot of people think the goal is to either a) populate the world with more Catholics, or b) something like the Duggar mentality – leave everything up to God.
Being in public health/anthropology, population and overpopulation come up a lot, as does birth control. I feel like it’s a really sensitive subject, and most people in PH don’t think it is. We see countries in Africa that are “over-populated” for their resources, and think “we need birth control in that country!” I have problems with that mentality for a few reasons: 1) I think it kinda has this idea of “control the poor” – people who are too poor to have kids shouldn’t have them. Leave that to the rich folk. This to me is like a lesser version of forced sterilization. 2) We forget about people’s religious beliefs – a lot of people in poorer countries are Catholics and don’t want to use (or can’t afford/access!) condoms or the birth control pill. Other people in richer countries should understand and respect that! It shouldn’t be seen as an antiquated idea or controlling women if people are freely choosing it. 3) Their are often times cultural taboos against birth control – it is seen as not fully giving yourself to your partner if you are prohibiting the exchange of bodily fluids. It’s difficult for us to understand in the US because that’s not how we think of sex, but other people do. 4) There should be more emphasis on improving resources – encouraging vegetarian/semi-veg diets in the rest of the world, stopping the exploitation of resources by foreign countries etc.
So while I’m all for having a sensible size of family for your resources and protecting the earth’s carrying capacity, it bothers me when churches are the problem for this. (I know you were talking more about home environment than the natural environment, but I just wanted to chime in on this!)
Reply
Shanna Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 11:49 am
This is so interesting. I admit that I frequently feel the same way (people who don’t have the income to support them shouldn’t have kids) but I have never thought about it this way. You bring up a lot of good points that I will have to think about.
I have a question for you, though. What do you mean by “it bothers you when churches are the problem?” In this case, I have to agree with Grace that the LDS church does put an undue amount of pressure on people to have children, start ASAP, and have as many as you can afford/want. In some (many?) cases, at least in the US where we have plentiful access to birth control, the choice to have a large family is based on religious ideals. Am I reading your statement wrong, because you say in point # 2 that people often have large families because they don’t want to use BC.
Reply
Jackie Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 12:40 pm
I meant “it bothers me when people say churches are the problem.” Like blaming someone’s personal religious beliefs. I believe people have the freedom to practice their religion as they choose. I think some churches can have unhealthy attitudes about this kind of stuff, but I think people should be able to choose if they want to follow the teachings of their church. Does that make sense?
I also should point out that there are natural ways of “family planning” – natural family planning where you chart your ovulation, or breast feeding longer to lower your fertility. I feel that these things tend to be more acceptable in different cultures.
Reply
Shanna Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 1:59 pm
Ah, I see. And I agree with you for the most part but regarding Mormonism, it’s not what I would call a “pick and choose” religion. I feel like it’s a very “you either follow everything or you’re not Mormon” kind of a thing. This particular facet, though, is very personal and so it doesn’t fall under that category so you’re absolutely right that it is completely up to the individual. My response would be that it is very, very hard to go against the flow of what you’re taught to believe. Some religions are less pervasive but Mormonism is kind of all-encompassing. Some of Jenna’s comments about not having any idea what her life would be like if she wasn’t a member attest to that. When your religion permeates to every facet of your life, going against the general teachings of your church is a hellishly difficult choice to live with. I say this most from my own personal experience.
My thoughts about natural family planning are that it’s more acceptable in places that don’t have other options? Since regular, chartable periods don’t seem to be very common, that kinds of negates it as a dependable choice with a high success rate. Same with breast feeding. I know that they are out that and that they are used, but their efficacy is what makes me reject them as a viable method of birth control rather than an arbitrary dislike. I feel that they’re more for people who wouldn’t mind getting pregnant but don’t really want to try rather than people like me who DO NOT want to get pregnant.
Reply
Shanna Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 11:59 am
Grace, I agree with you. I grew up in a large-ish family (4 kids) and I think that some of us kids would have done much, much better if my mother hadn’t been so frazzled having to deal with all of us, all of the time. A little more personalized attention would have helped a lot, I think, especially in school. This is among the reasons why I won’t have a large family myself, and why my husband and I have chosen to have our future kids live with people other than my family in the case of our deaths.
I have read a few convincing articles that reject the idea of over-population based on resources, but all of them are based on a different living style than most. In order to have large families be sustainable, people have to give up the standard US way of living and work to be more green. Unless this is emphasized just as much as the importance of having a family, I don’t think I will agree with the idea of having a large family.
Reply
Stephanie C Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 4:00 pm
Just wanted to throw this out there.. I was an only child of my parents and I don’t feel like I had the best parents or their personalized attention.. so I would say it really depends on the people wanting to have kids. I feel very strongly about the decision to have kids.. I think it is definitely a valid idea to be emotionally ready.. my parents could obviously afford to have me.. but I can say that neither of them should’ve been parents… This is why I am all for psychoeducation about parenting before people have kids
People don’t realize how huge a responsibility it is.
Reply
October 9th, 2011 on 12:17 pm
Providing for a family that is large means knowing how and where to get resources, not necessarily having them within your own nuclear family.
We have 2 kids under the age of 2 and had them in the last 2 years. We plan on having more children. Will my kids’ rooms look like an IKEA magazine or will they have the best of the very best according to someone else? No. But that isn’t my type of quality.
When I think about the quality I want my kids to have it deals more with good food, good company, adventures, learning experiences, and being surrounded by people that love them. I think about 20 years from now how I want to laugh at the stories my children tell of their lives together, the pranks they pulled, the things they did behind my back.
I will never have those conversations with my siblings because my parents were divorced and I only saw my brother once or twice a year and during summer. So I think the drive behind what size family someone has is decided by what kind of childhood they did or didn’t have.
Ps. No one is ever emotionally ready for the adventure of having and raising a child. You just do it and surround yourself with people who can help.
Reply
October 9th, 2011 on 12:31 pm
Jenna, I have to disagree with your opinion that being emotionally ready for children is a product of the information age. I think it has to do with a lot more than that. I guess my question for you would be “At 17, were you ready for kids?” What about 18? Knowing what you know about yourself now, don’t you think that you’ve grown a lot in the past few years? Judging from your writing, I think you have and I think that maturity that you’ve shown all of us has made you a better mother.
Science has shown that the human brain doesn’t stop developing until age 24 or 25, and I think that you can kind of tell that in a lot of people. Impulse control is greater after your frontal lobe develops fully, and I think that is extremely important in parenthood. A few years ago, I would definitely not have been ready for kids. I was a mess and could barely take care of myself. But I grew up, got my act together, and have been learning how to make myself a better person. Now, I don’t think I would be half bad as a mother, so it’s more that I’m unwilling at this point.
I think this idea of being ready has always been around but now we have the luxury to wait until we ARE ready. I had the wonderful luck to be born in the US to educated parents who educated me, and so I made the choice to wait until I was 25 to get married. Before then, I got to use birth control when I was sexually active to ensure that I didn’t have kids I couldn’t take care of. Now that I’m in a stable relationship, I will use birth control until we make the decision that we’re in the place we want to be financially and then we’ll think about having kids. All of these things (education, choices about my sexual freedom and my body, choosing when and whom to marry, independence as a woman) that came from women’s suffrage give us more power to choose what we want instead of having these major decision be out of our hands.
Reply
October 9th, 2011 on 12:32 pm
Jenna, I have to disagree with your opinion that being emotionally ready for children is a product of the information age. I think it has to do with a lot more than that. I guess my question for you would be “At 17, were you ready for kids?” What about 18? Knowing what you know about yourself now, don’t you think that you’ve grown a lot in the past few years? Judging from your writing, I think you have and I think that maturity that you’ve shown all of us has made you a better mother.
Science has shown that the human brain doesn’t stop developing until age 24 or 25, and I think that you can kind of tell that in a lot of people. Impulse control is greater after your frontal lobe develops fully, and I think that is extremely important in parenthood. A few years ago, I would definitely not have been ready for kids. I was a mess and could barely take care of myself. But I grew up, got my act together, and have been learning how to make myself a better person. Now, I don’t think I would be half bad as a mother, so it’s more that I’m unwilling at this point.
I think this idea of being ready has always been around but now we have the luxury to wait until we ARE ready. I had the wonderful luck to be born in the US to educated parents who educated me, and so I made the choice to wait until I was 25 to get married. Before then, I got to use birth control when I was sexually active to ensure that I didn’t have kids I couldn’t take care of. Now that I’m in a stable relationship, I will use birth control until we make the decision that we’re in the place we want to be financially and then we’ll think about having kids. All of these things (education, choices about my sexual freedom and my body, choosing when and whom to marry, independence as a woman) that came from women’s suffrage give us more power to choose what we want instead of having these major decisions be out of our hands.
Reply
October 9th, 2011 on 12:51 pm
I think maybe people are looking at the general idea we (the majority of us in the LDS faith) give off about having children, rather than the larger more in-depth scope. We are not told “Get married and have babies as fast as you possibly can”. We ARE told not to put it off for our own personal desires. Becoming a parent is a selfless act and as we are taught not to be selfish. Should I deny someone else the opportunity to come to this earth and gain the experiences they need to have, simply because I don’t want to have the responsibility?
Now, that doesn’t mean that you will be caused to conceive immediately. It took my husband and I three years and a miscarriage to finally have a healthy pregnancy leading to birth. (I say “leading to” because I’m still in the gestating stage
.) I believe that those years helped me grow and learn and become stronger. Even help others in their experiences with infertility. So, I really can’t say that I would change those years if it were in my power to do so.
The idea that you should put off having children because of monetary or personal reasons isn’t strongly reinforced, I believe, because we are all meant to have different experiences and struggles in life. I understand that babies and children are expensive and they may not have all the opportunities others may have, but does that REALLY matter? And does it necessarily define how they will be and live all of their lives? No, I don’t think so. In some cases it might, but generally speaking I don’t think it does. Their choices will mold their life, just as ours molds our own.
However, I would like to reiterate what has already been spoken that “it’s between you and the Lord what you decide to do”. If later rather than sooner is right for some, then by all means let it be later. It’s not my place to say that someone should or shouldn’t have however many number of children. Not that I don’t judge a little sometimes. I’m human, I make mistakes, but the idea and goal is to avoid such behavior.
My personal view on how many children my husband and I have: I don’t have a set number. I have an idea of what I would like, but who doesn’t. For us, we will have a child when we, with the Lord’s guidance, feel we are ready and generally have the sense that someone else is missing from our crew. If we are complete with one, or eight, it doesn’t matter to me. It has always been my experience that the Lord provides a way and if I follow his guidance and commandments I will be blessed for it.
Just for the record, these are my own thoughts and opinions, not that of the entire church, or even leadership of the church.
Reply
Grace Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 10:14 pm
Of course parents can do a great job without much money (though I think children will not thrive if their parents don’t invest a huge amount of time and effort in them).
But let’s be honest. While dedicated parents can do a great job even if they are poor, having money is a big advantage to children. It means they can focus on school (don’t have to work), start life without debt (no college loans), have access to interest-free loans if necessary (Bank of Mom and Dad), and have the freedom and flexibility to fail. If you do something stupid (get arrested, drop out of school, start taking drugs), your parents have the resources to get you out of your mess and you can go on to succeed anyway; if you are poor, one misstep has permanent negative effects. (See: the career of George W. Bush)
Also, many worthwhile endeavors are risky (like starting a business), or don’t pay well. If your parents have money, you can accept this risk (because if it doesn’t work out, you have a backup); if you are really poor, you just can’t. This is one reason almost everything in the US is run by the offspring of the upper middle class.
I don’t mean to say that if you are poor, you shouldn’t have children. But if you are contemplating having a large family, you should be aware that the fewer resources available per child, the less well each child is going to do (with the younger ones affected most).
Reply
Jenny Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 1:23 am
Maybe, I just don’t agree with how we, as parents, would handle situations like you are describing. For the most part it seems like these would come up in their adulthood so I will address them as such.
If my children make mistakes or go through difficulties, then they are the ones who will deal with the consequences. Even if my husband and I were financially able enough to “take care of” our children in whatever negative situation came their way, we wouldn’t just do it because they are our children (though every situation is different and I can’t say that I would NEVER help my child when they are in need of it). It kind of goes back to what I wrote before about how we all are given different experiences and struggles. If I am the “Bank” for my children what does that teach them? Certainly not how to gain for themselves. I would expect my children to learn from us and by that I mean how to work hard and take care of their problems. To do otherwise, to me, it seems like it’s telling them, “Don’t worry if something goes wrong in your life. I’ll be the one dealing with it, not you.” How do they learn consequences? How do they learn and become a stronger person for it? Or I should say, how will they get the opportunity to make the right choices?
To say that those who are poor can’t afford those luxuries to their children almost seems like a good thing. I’m not saying that I WANT my kids (or even myself for that matter) to be of meager means, but I would rather they learn the realities of life, than be bailed out situations only to never learn how to deal with hardships.
Reply
Gina Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 6:54 am
Money does not equal time and attention. Sure, some wealthy people can afford to purchase someone else’s services to provide attention. But look at Jenna and TH – in good financial shape, Jenna stays at home with T1, but he doesn’t seem to be getting a lot of attention from either of them. We don’t get Jenna’s full-life on the blog but the whole image she puts forth is that her child is inconvenient. My parents were wealthy (and both worked in demanding careers) but they read to me, played with me, made the time to give me the attention needed. It wasn’t easy for them because time was a premium but they did it. In my neighborhood, there were plenty of wealthy SAHMs and even working moms whose kids wound up doing a whole lot of nothing because they were chronically understimulated. A lot of them got a little too used to the Bank of Mom and Dad too.
Reply
Meg Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 11:24 am
Gina- Whoa. I don’t think Jenna puts an image of inconvenience in regards to her child. However, Jenna does put forth a more honest depiction of parenthood how she experiences it. Many of her readers commend her for putting forth an honest account of parenthood. Her recap on parenting includes subjects that many don’t agree with, like yourself. Oh how dare we moms be honest about how children test us emotionally and physically.
Reply
Jenny Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
Gina~ I completely agree that money does not equal time and attention and understand, as well as appreciate, the overall message you were trying to get across. However, I don’t agree with the statement, “he doesn’t seem to be getting a lot of attention from either of them”, in regards to Jenna and TH and how they parent. It’s unfair to judge a situation when you really aren’t fully aware of what’s going on behind the blog. I do agree with Meg, that Jenna provides an honest take on parenthood. It can be hard and frustrating and isn’t a big bed of roses. Even if that’s what Jenna decides to write about, that doesn’t equal how she feels 100% of the time.
Reply
October 9th, 2011 on 4:26 pm
The talk about parenting was one that I paid a lot of attention to. My child is nearing her first birthday, and I honestly do not feel emotionally ready to have another for a good while. I don’t agree that the emotional argument is something borne of the information age, though I do see where you are coming from.
I had post-partum depression, and it was a very difficult time for me personally, emotionally, spiritually, and mentally. It lasted months and I am finally starting to feel like “me” again, now ten months after having my daughter. I agree that you can never be fully prepared and ready for a drastic change like motherhood, but there are situations where the emotional state of a couple or individual needs to be taken into account.
I did not feel like I was “ready” per say to have my daughter, I was still finishing my masters, teaching, and newly married and living in a tiny apartment with no room for a kid, but I knew it was what God needed for our family. I have finished school, quit teaching to work from home, and since bought a home where she can play to her heart’s content, but even though financially we would be fine with another, emotionally I can’t do it yet. I am glad I followed the spirit, and I will in the future, but I just wanted to throw in my two cents and help others see that the emotional factor is one that should be taken into account
Reply
October 10th, 2011 on 1:36 am
I find Ballard’s talk interesting in the wake of the “I’m a Mormon” advertisements. It is really contradictory, but then again, so are all sorts of commercials about how it is great to be an “unstereotypical” Mormon, when the norm is heralded.
I’ve waited to have kids. I am so happy we did. Four years later, we know each other a lot better than we did. Maybe it is because I am the daughter of a mental health professional but I think there is a lot to be said about mental readiness. I hear a lot of people complain about their children in ways that makes me think they shouldn’t have done it — so many people have kids because it is the “next step” or “what they are supposed to do.” That isn’t why someone should have kids. That’s maybe why you go to college, but not why you should have kids.
Sorry, that rant is NOT to you – motherhood is so your calling Jenna – but I really didn’t like that talk — it just opens up judgment. Like when people comment on your blog and say “I don’t want to be mean, but” — I feel like it allows people to judge my choices. It really isn’t anyone else’s business including a GA.
Also? People may blame things on readiness because there are deeply personal/physical reasons that they’d rather not discuss.
Reply
Sophia Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 8:05 am
“It is really contradictory, but then again, so are all sorts of commercials about how it is great to be an “unstereotypical” Mormon, when the norm is heralded.” Bingo. You really hit the nail on the head as to what bothers me so much about those “I’m a Mormon!” commercials. So many of them feature really non-traditional Mormons- and many of those featured have moms that work outside the home. Yet, as you said, that is not the message that Church elders tend to preach. To me, it is definitely contradictory. I could see how it would be appealing to a potential convert, but personally if I were one of those non-traditional type Mormons already, and I saw those commercials, I’d think “huh, if being different is so great, why don’t I hear about it from the pulpit at General Conference??”.
Reply
Lauren Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 1:32 pm
I’m not a normal commenter on this blog but I have to agree with you that Elder Andersen’s talk totally opened up the floor for judgement despite the fact that he advised others not to judge.
My husband and I have been married for 3 years (yes, we’re LDS) and we have waited and are continuing to wait to have children. Just earlier in that week, I was having a conversation with a good friend about our reasons to wait. I was at work during his talk but I got a text from this same friend (presumably during his talk) that “Elder Andersen is out to get you.” I was confused, then livid. I came home and watched the talk and wrote back to her, pointing out mainly that it was a matter between husband, wife, and the Lord, no one else. She responded back that I was being too defensive. Why shouldn’t I have been? The comment that he was “out to get me” was 100% judgement: the very thing he said not to do.
As I’ve thought over the talk, I believe his true purpose was to encourage those to have children who might otherwise be waiting; not to stop others from judging. I know most everyone is judging me, people ask me when I’m having kids far too often for most people not to be, and there’s nothing I can do to stop it, especially after this talk.
Reply
Danielle Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
I’m sorry. That was judgey. People should mind their own business more. I mean, not as in people can’t talk to one another about personal issues and decisions, but, rather, that people should stop trying to tend to someone else’s life.
I hate the attitude of “I won’t judge you because judging is wrong but you better have a good reason for what you are doing, preferably one that I can know about/verify.” It’s gross feeling.
Reply
Megan Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 3:34 pm
Do you believe that apostles speak the word of God? Aren’t their talks considered scripture? So is your problem with what he said or how people act on/interpret what he said? Two different things.
Reply
Danielle Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
Um, scripture is not exactly the same thing as the word of God – or maybe words spoken by God. You read (or listen) to scripture and discern the truths therein that are inspired by God/inspire one to draw closer to God. Words spoken directly by God are in different category entirely. And I think that conference talks fall into the former category. Some more inspired than others.
Cultural, racial, economic, and political experiences and beliefs will necessarily inform the topics the church leaders speak on and how they frame them. Sometimes their biases will drown out what God might prefer them to say. That’s inevitable. They’re human. God only gives you so much guidance or knowledge and then he pushes you off to accomplish it the best you can.
So, why can’t Natalie’s issue be both. Mine is. The message was so ambiguous. He initially affirmed that the decision of when and how many children to have was between a husband, a wife, and the Lord. But then the stories he chose to illustrate his point completely countered that message. A young man being told by a priesthood leader that to delay children would show a lack of faith – President Kimball was not in that marriage and was not entitled to revelation about their family. A father rushing to the bedside of his wife just after she had their 6th child to tell her they would have another – where is the wife and her own entitlement to revelation and the decision making process in this story? Or in the first one. Additionally, there was no acknowledgement in the talk that women really and truly lose opportunities (like going to med school at all) for the sake of having children, even though you can see that sacrifice in both stories he told.
For those who are eager to do the right thing as the leadership defines it this talk is a mine field full of guilt trips and unclear counsel. Family planning choices are between a husband, wife, and God. Full stop. All he needed to do after making this point was emphasize that it can be easy to forget to bring God into these decisions, so actively seek his guidance, comfort and wisdom in baby-having choices. There is nothing wring with waiting. There is nothing wrong with jumping right in. There is no right or wrong number once you get started. Just make sure God is with you on these things. These big life issues aren’t black and white. That’s why we have personal revelation. Empower people to use that gift.
Reply
Megan Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 6:16 pm
I guess what I took from his message was what you said the talk lacked. About having the decision be between you, your husband and God. Maybe that just comes from different perspectives?
Reply
Danielle Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 8:58 pm
Yeah, probably different perspectives. For me, as I said, the stories he told directly conflicted with the husband, wife, God dynamic he started with. And he spent more time going through those problematic stories than encouraging people to use personal revelation. And a couple of the stories included outside judgement that wasn’t labeled as wrong (from a priesthood leader, from a ward). But, if the first part is what sticks for you that’s good because that is true part of what he said. And we agree on that.
Reply
Natalie Reply:
October 11th, 2011 at 12:15 am
No, I don’t believe everything they say is the word of God or scripture. If I believed that everything a prophet or apostle said was scripture, I would believe a whole bunch of contradictory things that don’t make sense in the end. From Joseph Smith to Thomas S. Monson, every prophet and apostle has said several things that are no longer considered true or never were. Just look at Mormon Doctrine — once a heralded book, now the church doesn’t print it. And texts (Gospel Principles comes to mind) are updated all the time with certain parts omitted or redone.
So I find that going with my relationship with God ends up being the most important.
Reply
Maggie Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
I think you missed the point of his talk by being defensive of this topic already. I like Katy’s comment below. That’s what I took from the talk. If waiting 4 years to have kids was the right thing for you to do, that was the right thing for you to do! It is between husband and wife and the lord. If this is opening up people to judge that is their problem and exactly what this GA was discouraging. People will take it however they want but that doesn’t mean that’s what was taught.
Reply
Katy Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 7:16 pm
Exactly. We can’t control if other people (including family) judge us for our decisions – as *annoying* and degrading as it can be. YOU know what’s best that the Lord has confirmed for you.
What we can control is making sure that *we* don’t judge. I think that is the overlooked part of this talk – - – people will judge no matter what you do: have kids super quickly – they judge. Wait awhile – they judge. The point of this talk and every talk about passing judgement is to realize within ourselves not to do this and to worry about ourselves.
Reply
October 10th, 2011 on 5:20 am
You know me – usually not brief
– but it’s pretty easy to sum up Elder Andersen’s parenthood talk:
*Make sure you & your spouse are one with the Lord in when to have kids and how many.
*The church isn’t mandating when/how many.
*Don’t get into each other’s business and assume you know what’s best for other people. Worry about your own life.
That’s it. Seemed pretty clear to me
Reply
allison Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
That’s exactly what I got from his talk too, Katy. And I thought he handled the issue of infertility well.
Reply
October 10th, 2011 on 4:12 pm
I think I understand what you mean regarding emotional readiness – no one will ever truly be ‘ready.’ However, I think there is a difference in perception here.. coming from a mental health perspective and from my own personal experience with emotionally unstable parents.. I think it’s something people should definitely consider. From this perspective, I think certain issues may need to be dealt with before deciding to bring in another individual into that family life. Family issues are carried throughout generations and often not dealt with, causing much mental and emotional anguish.
Reply
October 10th, 2011 on 5:15 pm
Love Her Mother was a mixed bag for me. I loved that Sister Beck addressed the men, I love that she told them to be very involved with parenting – especially with daughters, and I loved that she encouraged men to love their wives not only because, duh, she’s your wife and partner but because it matters to your kids (daughters) as well.
I did not like some of the language she used. “Fathers are guardians of virtue” for example. First of all, it’s creepy in the way that I find evangelical purity promises between fathers and daughters to be creepy. Second, people are accountable to themselves. My husband is not THE guardian of virtue and righteousness in our home. We both are responsible for that and not one more than the other. That’s the second article of faith. But Sister Beck loves her some gender roles, so I wasn’t surprised. but also, when we have kids, they’ll be responsible for themselves to the degree that they have been taught and the light and knowledge they have received.
Also did not like modesty as a principle of protection. That is such a reductive and unhealthy view of what modesty – a beautiful and complex virtue – is.
And hearing that fathers are their daughters heroes was a little hard. She meant that so sweetly and motivationally, but as someone with a crummy dad it twisted a little. That’s my personal thing, though.
Reply
October 10th, 2011 on 6:58 pm
I always love to hear what others favorite talks are. Adam translates and interprets for General conference into Amharic- his native language.
He has done it for the last two conferences and its an amazing thing to be a part of.
He spends so much time and energy working on those talks its amazing to watch. Sometimes I get to hear lines from talks or sections when he needs help with English idioms or cultural references.
I listen so intently to the talks he interprets and I’m praying like crazy while he does that live interpretation, those talks have ended up being my favorites!
Then I get the Ensign, and love them all!
♥ Celina
Our first year of our marriage has been a learning experience check out this lesson on fighting about Principle V. Preference
Reply