YSA 1st Stake

[Craig Jessop]

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/65314/

I don't have time right no to elaborate, but... I was in that stake last year and I absolutely hated it. I thought the stake president was creepy and dogmatic, and that he seemed obsessed with making sure we knew that he was Our Chosen Leader and that we had to follow him. Then he would share his opinion on everything -- women in the workplace, school, homosexuality -- and essentially pronounce it the Word of the Lord. Then reemphasize that we had to follow his counsel or go to hell. He was honestly in my top 3 reasons for moving to my current ward and stake (which I absolutely LOVE, and whose leaders I would follow to the end of the earth).

Favorite 1st stake president quote you ask? Fine. "Brethren, if anybody ever suggests to you that one of your leaders at the general or local level is not acting under the influence of the Spirit of the Lord in any decision he makes, the person or influence telling you that is of the devil and you should FLEE." And then he told us all about something that I immediately tuned out.

I stopped going to priesthood meetings and ditched ward conference just so I wouldn't have to hear him. And if you know me AT ALL, that is a Big Deal.

[mic0]

o_O

Uhhhh. That's a little extreme.

[Marduk]

Personally, that fellow sounds AWESOME. I'd love to spend an afternoon being entertained by him.

Also, I really want to hear about that stake conference. Also also, Are we really bringing up the ERA? What is this, 1972?

[Craig Jessop]

Ah yes, then the dating topic. In a teary voice he said (one of my roommates and I would commit to memory what he said, just for pure entertainment... until that roommate ended up buying into his philosophies): "Brethren, ask the sisters on dates. It need not be expensive. Just a little time together, maybe a stroll in the park, followed by a refreshment [small sob]."

Everything in that quote is perfectly fine and kosher. No problems here. But the WAY he said it made it sound so... creepy and old-fashioned and dogmatic and gross. Gah... just thinking about the man gives me the freaking willies!

I could totally see him talking about or endorsing a talk about the ERA. After all, one of his major stake priesthood meeting talks was all about how women should stay in the home and we should never countenance the idea of seriously dating a girl who thinks otherwise (but we should ask her out, just so she feels good and can see the error of her ways). Personally, I find that offensive. Yes, for a variety of reasons I want to marry a woman who wants to stay at home with the kids. Key word: WANTS. But the idea that a woman MUST work inside the home or be a failure of a mother and wife is utterly and completely offensive.

[The Happy Medium]

I'm in this stake and although I'm fairly conservative myself, I can usually pick up on things that others might find offensive. I think the problem that people might have had was with the one woman who spoke about the Equal Rights Amendment. She talked about how when she was in college she was offered to wear an armband to show her support for the amendment, which she didn't really know anything about. While wearing the armband she was approached by an RM friend who told her that she shouldn't support it. But she didn't really explain what the ERA was, so I'm not sure everyone understood why the Church was against it. Perhaps some people were offended that she let a man convince her not to support the ERA and didn't like the implication that women can't think for themselves.

That's the only thing I can think of that could have been bothersome. As for me, I thought the conference was spiritually uplifting and inspiring, but I would be interested to hear the thoughts of others who were there.

[Carrapicho]

After all, one of his major stake priesthood meeting talks was all about how women should stay in the home and we should never countenance the idea of seriously dating a girl who thinks otherwise (but we should ask her out, just so she feels good and can see the error of her ways). Personally, I find that offensive. Yes, for a variety of reasons I want to marry a woman who wants to stay at home with the kids. Key word: WANTS. But the idea that a woman MUST work inside the home or be a failure of a mother and wife is utterly and completely offensive.

This really hits close to home for me. First of all, it's really, really hard in today's economy to rely on one income to support a family, especially if we're still supposed to multiply and replenish the earth (a commandment still in force, according to the Proclamation). Not all men can make the big bucks and support the SAHM and several children. Secondly, I've been a FT working mother for almost four years now. Originally, I was working solely to put my husband through school (he's still there, won't be done until next year, and is thinking about a graduate program after that, so it could take awhile), but I'll be honest: the longer I work, the more satisfaction I get from my job and the more I worry about eventually staying at home. We only have one child so far and medical issues have precluded us from another pregnancy for the past couple of years, but we're hoping we can start trying next summer. I'm just honestly not sure I want to be a SAHM anymore. I'm struggling with the idea that I could be wrong in that feeling and am wondering if I need to pray for the Lord to soften my heart so that, if and when we can afford for me to be a SAHM, I am willing to do it.

Leaders like this particular stake president worry me, because they really blur the lines on what is personal feeling and what is the Lord actually saying. Sure, the Proclamation says "Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children." But that is so open to interpretation. Sure, I work and my husband goes to school full-time, so he is home sometimes with our son and sometimes our son goes to (gasp!) daycare. But who do you think my son runs to when he falls down? Who does he want to comfort him, even during the day when Mom is working? Who does he always want to sing songs to him before he goes to bed? I think I'm doing a darn good job of nurturing that kid, and I'll do the same with any more we have.

Sorry to make this thread all personal. But it's just something that's been on my mind a lot lately and I had to stop and respond.

[Dragon Lady]

I just want to state that I was really confused when Marduk brought up ERA (I hadn't read the question yet) and the only thing I could fathom was that this was possibly what old-timers called the New Era. Kind of like how my uncle refuses to call mutual "mutual" or "young mens" or "young womens" but insists on calling it "MIA". Because that's what it was called when he was young. But I still couldn't figure out what an old-timer's view on the New Era had to do with anything.

[Unit of Energy]

I think that it's important to follow our leaders, and that we will be blessed for obeying the counsel of all of them. That includes misguided local leaders. But that doesn't mean that we have to stay in positions where we are being taught dogma for doctrine. We also have our agency to follow the spirit which will lead us to places where we will be better able to serve the Lord.

Also, interesting note I learned in one of my classes. Lucy Mack Smith provided for her family economically. Yes, she may have stayed in the home while doing so, but her husbands and sons were home as well while they were providing.

[TheAnswerIs42]

Don't worry, Carrapicho, you're in good company here. People who decide what is right for THEM and apply it to EVERYBODY, especially with household roles, drive a lot of people crazy. I had issues with the Marriage and Family class teachers in my ward for doing that, and really all they projected was their views on who should do how much of the household tasks. You figure out your balance, and we'll pray about it and figure out ours, m'kay?

I think it is actually really tough in today's world to adjust to SAHM. I spent years of my life working on my education and my career, loving how much I acheived and the associations I had there - and then suddenly, you get to sit at home all day and clean up poop. I know having an education is a good thing for a mom and can help me raise my kids better, but it was still a large jump to go from a job I adored to not leaving my house or having a conversation with another adult during the day.

Anyway, what this conversation is really reminding me of is the Stake Patriarch I had at home. I remember when I got my blessing, a lot of it seemed really good - and a lot of it felt like it came out of left field. And then slowly people would share bits of their own in lessons at church or something, and five or so people would come up to that person afterward and say "mine says that too!" It turns out he told everyone I knew in my ward that they would be called on a foreign speaking mission (a few were called stateside, and some like me felt strongly that they weren't supposed to go) and that they should not get married until they were done with their education (which I'm fairly certain is not the right priorities for anyone). There were other common threads as well. Apparently there were some letters back and forth to the SLC office, but he passed away not long after that anyway. I honestly think that must be a REALLY difficult calling, and he was a great guy, but . . . way to put your own projections onto things and pretend they are church doctrine.

[Eirene]

I don't have anything to add to this thread other than to say how much I enjoyed reading these stories. Crazy stories are awesome as long as they're not happening to you. This has been a good study break.

[Katya]

I think that it's important to follow our leaders, and that we will be blessed for obeying the counsel of all of them. That includes misguided local leaders. But that doesn't mean that we have to stay in positions where we are being taught dogma for doctrine.

I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that we have to follow local leaders, no matter what, but it's OK to move out of their boundaries if they're preaching things as doctrine that aren't?

[Drinking Problem]

Ok, I was the original question poster. I got the phrasing exactly from my friend who was the most upset (though she wasn't the only). Just as background information I lived in the 1st stake for three years (every year except freshman year) and it was ok, but I did feel like the stake president was kind of...weird.

"There were a couple things that bothered me. First of all, they kept talking about how awesome marriage is. The stake president read poetry he'd written his wife for h---'s sake. It was just kind of rubbing salt in the wound. (Here she ranted about what sort of uplift was she supposed to get from the poetry. And what spiritual purpose did it serve.) Like, we KNOW it's great, don't you think we wish we were married. And then the women made it seem like I should feel bad for wanting a career."

During and actual conversation about this with my friends they talked about how bad they felt like they were doing something wrong to not be married and that they'll get past it, but some people won't. Some of the girls they talk to (one is in a relief society presidency in her ward) are convinced they must be sinning or something because they're not married yet.

There was also an add in to the conversation about a comment one of the speakers made about not being married when you're 25, 24, 23 and how you should be.

So, writer comments? Eirene? Phaedrus?

Also reader comments, of course.

[Unit of Energy]

I think that it's important to follow our leaders, and that we will be blessed for obeying the counsel of all of them. That includes misguided local leaders. But that doesn't mean that we have to stay in positions where we are being taught dogma for doctrine.

I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that we have to follow local leaders, no matter what, but it's OK to move out of their boundaries if they're preaching things as doctrine that aren't?

Not so much that we have to, but that we will be blessed for it. I still think that we have our agency for a reason, and that in the end what we do is between us and God.

[Eirene]

Interesting. I think I've heard (moderately insensitive) talks like that about how we need to work harder to date and get married in just about every ward I've been in--whether it was from someone from the stake presidency, the bishopric, or the congregation. It sounds like it might have been particularly heavy pressure in this particular meeting, but unfortunately, stuff like that isn't new.

I know, I know, we're supposed to respect/obey/etc our leaders and stuff, but at some point you really just have to take their good intentions for what they are (because I do think most people who say stuff like that really do want us to be happy), and roll your eyes a little at the way they've expressed those good intentions.

[wired]

Ah. So glad to be out of singles wards and stakes. (Over three years now.) Very consistently there has been an undue emphasis, in my opinion, on cultural aspects of Mormonism and not about becoming good Christians. I feel like I need to start an "It gets better" campaign for people in YSA wards. (Not to treat lightly the "It Gets Better" campaign; I think it is a laudable promotion.)

[Genuine Article]

Interesting. I think I've heard (moderately insensitive) talks like that about how we need to work harder to date and get married in just about every ward I've been in--whether it was from someone from the stake presidency, the bishopric, or the congregation.

At first all the pressure is to get married. Then you do get married and all the talks switch to people telling you to have babies.

[Katya]

Interesting. I think I've heard (moderately insensitive) talks like that about how we need to work harder to date and get married in just about every ward I've been in--whether it was from someone from the stake presidency, the bishopric, or the congregation.

At first all the pressure is to get married. Then you do get married and all the talks switch to people telling you to have babies.

Right, but there are far fewer "married w/o kids" wards than there are singles wards, so you're more likely to be in a more demographically diverse ward and thus get a greater diversity of haranguing.

[Craig Jessop]

"There were a couple things that bothered me. First of all, they kept talking about how awesome marriage is. The stake president read poetry he'd written his wife for h---'s sake. It was just kind of rubbing salt in the wound. (Here she ranted about what sort of uplift was she supposed to get from the poetry. And what spiritual purpose did it serve.) Like, we KNOW it's great, don't you think we wish we were married. And then the women made it seem like I should feel bad for wanting a career."

During and actual conversation about this with my friends they talked about how bad they felt like they were doing something wrong to not be married and that they'll get past it, but some people won't. Some of the girls they talk to (one is in a relief society presidency in her ward) are convinced they must be sinning or something because they're not married yet.

These perfectly describe why I hated living there (and I use hated, not disliked. I really, really, really, really hated it). I never felt anything but guilty, as if being unmarried is a sin somehow. I don't remember hearing a talk about another Gospel principle as the principle focus. I'm certain that I'm wrong and that my memories are distorted, but that was the taste the 1st stake left in my mouth: get married you sinner, go on dates you heathen, we know you secretly view pornography, and don't even think about a career, girls.

[Defy V]

Just out of curiosity, what was the old name of this stake before everything got YSA'd?

[Craig Jessop]

BYU 1st