YSA 1st Stake

[Dragon Lady]

... and the rebuke from Rifka...

Just to be fair, I don't think that it was intended as a rebuke. I think it was intended as a well-meaning suggestion from someone who cares deeply about the subject and feels like (s)he should stand up for his/her beliefs.

As another tangent, sometimes standing up for the "Molly" perspective is the hardest stance to take. Especially on controversial subjects like this. Because what if everyone judges you as being holier-than-thou and shuns you? It's a large reasons why I don't often speak up in conversations like this (nor did I as a writer, either) and then people assume that the majority of the forum/group/etc. don't have a strong opinion on the black and white, but only the grey, when in fact, the people who see something as black and white are simply to scared to speak up. So I actually really appreciate Rifka's remarks that I rarely ever see as condescending or as a rebuke, because they are often things that I also believe, but am too anti-confrontational to speak up about it. I'm grateful that Rifka has the guts to say things that I wouldn't have. And if I were to have said them, I never (well, very rarely anyway) would have intended them as rebuke, but rather as standing up for what I believe.

If someone who disagrees with me stands up for what they believe in, I don't take it as a rebuke. I take it as a disagreement of opinion. If I disagree with someone and use scripture to back it up, why does that automatically make it a rebuke? It's quite possible that there is another scripture out there that could back up the other perspective. (Scriptures are funny that way.) "Rebuke" just has such a harsh connotation behind it.

[Marduk]

DL, I must confess I've used you for a little experiment. And thanks for proving me right.

This look familiar?

[Defy V]

... and the rebuke from Rifka...

Just to be fair, I don't think that it was intended as a rebuke. I think it was intended as a well-meaning suggestion from someone who cares deeply about the subject and feels like (s)he should stand up for his/her beliefs.

As another tangent, sometimes standing up for the "Molly" perspective is the hardest stance to take. Especially on controversial subjects like this. Because what if everyone judges you as being holier-than-thou and shuns you? It's a large reasons why I don't often speak up in conversations like this (nor did I as a writer, either) and then people assume that the majority of the forum/group/etc. don't have a strong opinion on the black and white, but only the grey, when in fact, the people who see something as black and white are simply to scared to speak up. So I actually really appreciate Rifka's remarks that I rarely ever see as condescending or as a rebuke, because they are often things that I also believe, but am too anti-confrontational to speak up about it. I'm grateful that Rifka has the guts to say things that I wouldn't have. And if I were to have said them, I never (well, very rarely anyway) would have intended them as rebuke, but rather as standing up for what I believe.

Seconded.

And I'm curious if the nature of forums in general makes it hard to be the "Molly." After all, forums seem to be a place where logic reigns supreme and the point is to create a healthy dialogue. Thus, when someone starts quoting the Handbook, Gospel Principles, or General Conference talks, well, there goes some of the logic, and here comes emotion. And no one wants that.

Also, I love how derailed this thread is. Hooray for YSA 1st Stake leadership! . . . I guess.

[Katya]

And I'm curious if the nature of forums in general makes it hard to be the "Molly." After all, forums seem to be a place where logic reigns supreme and the point is to create a healthy dialogue. Thus, when someone starts quoting the Handbook, Gospel Principles, or General Conference talks, well, there goes some of the logic, and here comes emotion. And no one wants that.

Mmm, this forum might tend towards the logical, but I've seen forums where not being a Molly was the exception. And I wouldn't call the Church Handbook, etc. emotion-based, exactly. Maybe "authority-based"?

[Defy V]

Yeah, authority is a better term. There are already plenty of emotions involved in many of these topics (and for good reason).

[Defy V]

And I guess this is the only forum I've done more than glance at, so it makes sense that not all function like this one.

[Katya]

And I guess this is the only forum I've done more than glance at, so it makes sense that not all function like this one.

I'm assuming you mean forum in a fairly broad sense, though. If you mean something as narrow as PHP-based message board, my experience is also fairly limited.

[Defy V]

And I guess this is the only forum I've done more than glance at, so it makes sense that not all function like this one.

I'm assuming you mean forum in a fairly broad sense, though. If you mean something as narrow as PHP-based message board, my experience is also fairly limited.

I read the comments at the Deseret News website, and none of those comments are logic based. So I don't count it as a forum.

But other than that, I've glanced at comments at By Common Consent a few times, but I haven't followed anything closely so I can't make a judgment.

What forums are you referring to that have a "Molly"-ish flavor?

[Katya]

And I guess this is the only forum I've done more than glance at, so it makes sense that not all function like this one.

I'm assuming you mean forum in a fairly broad sense, though. If you mean something as narrow as PHP-based message board, my experience is also fairly limited.

I read the comments at the Deseret News website, and none of those comments are logic based. So I don't count it as a forum.

But other than that, I've glanced at comments at By Common Consent a few times, but I haven't followed anything closely so I can't make a judgment.

What forums are you referring to that have a "Molly"-ish flavor?

Here's a couple: http://ldsliving.com/topic/lifestyle , http://segullah.org/

[Craig Jessop]

I faithfully read By Common Consent and I'd say that it's definitely NOT a Molly forum. It's about as "Molly/Peter Priesthood" as I am, ... take that as you will.

[Dragon Lady]

DL, I must confess I've used you for a little experiment. And thanks for proving me right.

This look familiar?

I had actually considered linking to that thread, because I had wanted to comment about "rebukes" on both of these. But I was too lazy to go find that thread to link to it.

So… just curious, what was the experiment? And how did you use me? Did you use the word rebuke just to see if I personally would take the bait? Or something completely different? </curiosity>

[Marduk]

Yes, I was seeing if anyone (in general) would get bothered by my use of the word rebuke. I think both "rebuke(s)" had about the same level of actual calling to repentance (i.e., not a lot and in a general rather than specific sense) and were both fairly low on the offensive scale. You just happened to be the first fish that I hooked.

It seems that it is often difficult when dealing on this type of forum to address concepts in general rather than specific terms or phrases. I think there is far more agreement than disagreement, generally, we just find specific triggers that agitate us just right. </wax philosophical>

[Rifka]

First of all, I want to thank Dragon Lady for your response. You said pretty much everything I wanted to say in response. And you interpreted my desires quite accurately. And I'm a girl (in case you're wondering!)

I know you said you were bowing out of this forum, Carrapicho, but I wanted to clarify a few things in case you read this.

I never said that my entire argument was that it's hard to support a family on one income.

And I never said that it was.

Don't get me wrong, Carrapicho. I'm not saying that being a stay-at-home mother is the right course for you. I don't have stewardship to receive revelation for you. My sentiments above were entirely focused toward the argument I isolated, not toward your specific circumstances.

I clearly stated that I was not trying to convince you to stay at home, Carrapicho. I told you I was only responding to one part of your argument that I disagreed with.

And while I appreciate that story, I don't know that it applies to my situation.

I never said that I included that story because it perfectly mirrored your situation. I included that story because I thought it illustrated well the idea of acting with faith, even if things are hard. It was a support for my argument, not an attack on your situation.

I feel like your request comes with the assumption that I WILL get the answer that the Lord will want me to stay home.

I can see how my last paragraph could have sounded like I assumed that you would get the answer to stay home with your children. I probably should have balanced out my thoughts here by discussing the other option (that the Spirit could be prompting you to stay at work), but I forgot to. It's entirely possible that the Spirit could prompt you to continue working as a mother, and if it does, by all means follow those promptings. In no way did I mean it to appear that I know what's best for you. Once again, I remind you of my own wording:

I'm not saying that being a stay-at-home mother is the right course for you. I don't have stewardship to receive revelation for you

I'm really sorry that you felt attacked, Carrapicho. I get the feeling this is a very emotional topic for you, and I think because it's so emotional for you, you misread some of what I was saying. I really don't want to be your judge or revelator. I just wanted to express my feelings about one of your points. More importantly, I want to help you. You reached out to this discussion board because you wanted help in a tough situation. I want to do my best to help you, and so I shared my opinion. I'm really sorry if I offended you, but I did not intend any offense. I hope you now have a better idea of where I was coming from, and that you can find something useful from my thoughts. If not, at least I hope you leave understanding that I don't hate or condemn you. Best of wishes in whatever you decide!

[Carrapicho]

I want to apologize for my defensiveness yesterday. Now that I've had a night to sleep on it (and lots of discussion with my husband last night), I realize now that I overreacted and took things out of context and proportion. It really is an emotional topic, as Rifka and others have said, and I was reading things that weren't there. I guess it's a product of living where I do, with a lot of Church members around me and a lot of pressure to be a SAHM, which isn't an option for my family at this point--and the more I work, the harder it is for me to want to be a SAHM, which could be mostly due to the fact that being a working mom is all I know and being a SAHM would be out of my comfort zone. I talked it over with my husband last night, and we know for sure that I should work right now. We only have one child, and he goes to preschool a couple days a week and stays home with my husband the other days, and that works for us. He'll be in kindergarten by the time my husband finishes school and can take over as the main provider, so we have decided that, when and if I become pregnant in the future, we will re-address the situation. At that point, if we can afford for me to stay home, we will pray to see if the Lord wills that for me and for our family.

Thanks to everyone for your support and understanding. It's hard to be outside the norm sometimes...but I appreciate knowing that you all wish the best for me and my family. It means a lot.

Edited for clarification

[Dragon Lady]

I live with Yellow's parents and currently his grandmother, who watches the BYU Devotional every day. On non-Tuesdays they do old devotionals and other talks. Today they did "Daughters of God" which was a conference talk in 2008 by M. Russell Ballard. I felt it was a wonderful addition to this topic. He states in there very clearly, I thought, that it is not expected for all mothers to stay at home, but rather, "What matters is that a mother loves her children deeply and, in keeping with the devotion she has for God and her husband, prioritizes them above all else." Seriously, go read it.

[wired]

Thanks to everyone for your support and understanding. It's hard to be outside the norm sometimes...but I appreciate knowing that you all wish the best for me and my family. It means a lot.

Edited for clarification

Meh, being in the norm is itself outside of the norm.

[Katya]

DL, I must confess I've used you for a little experiment. And thanks for proving me right.

Well, I was actually testing you to see if you were testing anyone else. So there!

[Carrapicho]

I live with Yellow's parents and currently his grandmother, who watches the BYU Devotional every day. On non-Tuesdays they do old devotionals and other talks. Today they did "Daughters of God" which was a conference talk in 2008 by M. Russell Ballard. I felt it was a wonderful addition to this topic. He states in there very clearly, I thought, that it is not expected for all mothers to stay at home, but rather, "What matters is that a mother loves her children deeply and, in keeping with the devotion she has for God and her husband, prioritizes them above all else." Seriously, go read it.

THANK YOU so much for linking to this talk by Elder Ballard, Dragon Lady. I'm currently at work and was only able to skim it quickly, but I am going to print it out and study it more tonight...and probably get my husband to read it, too. Even a brief glance through it helps me feel comfort. Again, thank you.

[Marduk]

Dragon Lady, I'm going to go ahead and add to that and say that that's good advice for everyone, regardless of gender.

[Craig Jessop]

Dragon Lady, I'm going to go ahead and add to that and say that that's good advice for everyone, regardless of gender.

You dirty liberal, you.