In the article announcing the new Relief Society Presidency, the reporter writes that President Beck’s “primary concerns are the lack of self-worth and sense of identity that plague too many women, she said, adding that Relief Society functions under inspired leadership and can help counter such feelings.”
Some thoughts on this:
(1) I wonder how many of you think that the primary concerns among LDS women involve self-worth and identity. (These are two things that are not on my radar, but then again, I don’t think I’m normal.)
(2) If lack of self-worth is a problem, what’s the best way to fix it?
(3) Is the self-worth problem related to the identity problem? If so, how do they interact?
(4) What is the solution to the identity problem (if there is one)? What is the identity of LDS women? Is the solution as simple as telling them what their identity is?
My take on this: I grant that I may not entirely understand Sister Beck’s concerns (and/or they may have been lost in translation by the reporter). But I think that the last 15 years of official pronouncements to LDS women have consisted almost entirely of “You’re great! You’re a daughter of God with infinite worth!” My sense is that this annoys women (including me) who don’t struggle with these issues and simply doesn’t help those who do. (If they’ve heard it for 15 years and haven’t gotten the message, why would one more iteration change things? I’m not convinced this is a message that can be conveyed over a pulpit.) What would help? I’m not entirely sure since I haven’t personally been down that road. But I suspect that the same thing that works for children would work for adult women–and it isn’t gold stars. It is giving them significant, important, challenging tasks and allowing them to enjoy the sense of self-worth that comes from the successful completion of those tasks. What would that look like in practice? Beats me.
The identity issue is trickier. So tricky that I don’t even know how to begin talking about it, except to say that I think we need to hold the fort against the demise of the SAHM while at the same time (1) not encouraging poor marriages and/or marriages to nonmembers to reach that goal, (2) not encouraging SAHMs to give up everything else in their lives, and (3) not rubbing salt into the wounds of those who can’t be SAHMs. And I’ll put a gold star on your forehead if you can figure out how to do that.
“But I suspect that the same thing that works for children would work for adult women–and it isn’t gold stars. It is giving them significant, important, challenging tasks and allowing them to enjoy the sense of self-worth that comes from the successful completion of those tasks.”
Amen, and hallelujah, Julie.
And, in practice, I think we don’t have to look all that far for examples–there’s the RS Literacy Program, administering Primary Children’s hospital, actually running the RS and publishing a magazine about it… The talks about self-esteem start right about the time Correlation fully takes hold and a generation of women grows up without the experience of being trusted to run their own organization.
It also occurred about the same time American society went to full-bore self-esteem mode. But I’m sure the explanation that makes Correlation responsible is the more accurate one.
Actually, I do think this is a major problem with women, in my experience. I think this is not just a mormon woman problem, but ALL woman. I think we get such a crazy mix of messages from media, work, home and church…that we are often left either not knowing who we are or not liking who we are because we think we have to be someone else.
I also agree that the way to fix it isn’t to do put all woman on a pedestool or talk ad nasuem about how awesome we all are and what a great job we are doing (how do they know I’m doing a great job? I hate it when they say that in talks, it seems so insincere). I hope that they might take a more grass-roots approach and focus on empowering women instead of just telling us we’re special.
I don’t know if the identity issue is so tied to the SAHM mom thing as you think, although I am sure that is one current. I think the reason so many women, moms or not, face such identity issues is because we have been force-fed the ‘you are a mother in zion’ line so much. Maybe we should focus more on the fact that you can be a good woman without being a mom at all, and that focusing on ourselves will lend itself to having better relationships with kids or spouses (there was a great post about this at Segullah a couple days ago). What I’m trying to say is, it is important we know who we are as individuals outside of our relationships, whether with spouses, children, or whatever.
What women in the Church really need are:
1. To be left alone by presumptuous and condescending ecclesiastic leaders (male and female) to decide on their own what they need
2. To grow up under the existential weight of believing–as almost every boy does from the time he’s 5 or 6 years old–that in the not-too-distant-future she’s going to have to be the sole financial supporter for a wife and family, and that her life henceforth is not her own to waste away as a mallrat
Oh good grief.
I agree with Kristine for once.
This whole identity issue self worth struggle is part of the environment as a whole in the US (and the west in general) for women. We may have a unique LDS struggle with it but the evangelical women in my office have the same struggle. As do feminist professors at Yale or a working mom at the factory. We simply have time and energy and money (and lots of books and Oprah) to worry about this type of stuff.
In Africa on my mission nobody every talked about this topic. everybody was to busy putting food on the table, running a household, and worrying about the clan down the road.
“But I suspect that the same thing that works for children would work for adult women–and it isn’t gold stars. It is giving them significant, important, challenging tasks and allowing them to enjoy the sense of self-worth that comes from the successful completion of those tasks.â€
Money quote right there
Except for a few visibly downtrodden or depressed LDS women, I’m no good judge of whether self-worth and identity are major problems — I suspect from personal experience that women are masters of putting on a brave face and not letting others know of our interior struggle, so the problem may be larger than I can uess. In my own case, I have a pretty healthy sense of identity and self worth; if there is a problem, it is in getting others to recognize my identity appropriately.
Once upon a time when the church was small and localized, and in an era where women had few resources outside of home and church, Relief Society was invaluable in expanding women’s possibilities — art and music study, “scientific” study of child care and housekeeping, basic health care, were all much needed emphases of Relief Society. Is that true anymore, at least in developed countries? If I want to go into hospital administration or publish a magazine, do I need the Relief Society to sponsor me? Not so much. Translate Relief Society into the world context and a magazine published by a few dozen women in Salt Lake offers nothing at all for any but those few dozen that can’t be duplicated by better women’s voices in the Ensign/Liahona.
As for offering meaningful tasks that lead to a sense of self-worth through successful completion, I think paying more attention to the original goal of Relief Society — charity — is a key. We need bigger, more significant, more rewarding projects. I’m not knocking the putting together of hygiene kits — what I think needs to change is the once-a-year-for-an-afternoon assembly of hygiene kits. The itty bitty commitment and concentration required for this kind of project gives me no sense of accomplishment or involvement. I’d like to be given a concrete goal (say, providing Christmas for a given number of families, or sewing temple dresses/shirts for new members in the middle of nowhere) and then be allowed to work for the whole year toward achieving that goal. That would require creativity and organization and fund raising and scheduling and, once achieved, a real sense of accomplishment.
On second thought, KHH may also be right about the causes. Multiple causation is my new hobby horse.
Good comments, all.
atsea writes, “To grow up under the existential weight of believing–as almost every boy does from the time he’s 5 or 6 years old–that in the not-too-distant-future she’s going to have to be the sole financial supporter for a wife and family, and that her life henceforth is not her own to waste away as a mallrat”
The irony here, of course, is that Pres. Hinckley is castigating the YM to arise from the dust. So something doesn’t add up here.
bbell, thanks for reminding us of the international angle to this.
And on further thought, I retract my “beats me” response. If I were asked to address LDS women with the goal of raising their sense of self worth, my talk would look like something like this:
–get more serious and prayer and scripture study so you can discern what God would have you do
–did I mention you can do anything God wants you to do?
–now get to work!
Ardis, I absolutely adore your idea for a grand, year(s)-long project. How wonderful that would be. Even as a mom to three very young kids, I have moments I could steal away to do something. You’ve opened my eyes up to something fascinating–I don’t NEED the RS to help me serve, but it’s more fun when you’re in a group. Maybe my playgroup can do something all together…any ideas?
Julie, I love what you’ve said. “Now get to work!” indeed.
Adam, of course causation is multiple and diffuse. If you promise to disagree more strenuously with me about something soon (lest we usher in the apocalypse), I’d even wager that one of those causes was the devaluing of traditional women’s roles in the feminist movement of the 70s.
“Translate Relief Society into the world context and a magazine published by a few dozen women in Salt Lake offers nothing at all for any but those few dozen that can’t be duplicated by better women’s voices in the Ensign/Liahona.”
Yes, but 4 decades later, those “better women’s voices” haven’t yet developed…
I was actually just thinking about this very thing this morning, and considered writing a blog post about my own experiences with self-worth and finding my identity. It took me awhile to figure out who I am—what my strengths are, what my weaknesses are, etc. It’s been one of my primary goals as a parent to help my kids figure that stuff out *before* they graduate high school.
Ardis, I think your idea for a long-term project sounds wonderful, but most women (mothers or not) seem so overscheduled these days. Do you think most would have the time or inclination to participate in something like that?
Rivkah, one of the benefits of a large-scale project is that there’s something for everybody to do. The woman with strong administrative skills — or interest in developing them — could direct the project. The extroverted woman with social skills can keep everybody in touch and collect progress reports. The woman who is so busy that she can only spare a few minutes a month to sew on buttons while her visiting teachers are giving the message can do that. Everybody contributes something and is invested in the overall project.
I think long-term projects are really easier to schedule than occasional short ones; at least that’s true with client research work. A long-term project becomes a habit and I work on it regularly. A one-time project is something that I have to squeeze into time that is otherwise filled with other work. That’s how I feel about those one-afternoon-a-year hygiene kit projects — I have to crowd it into a Saturday that is normally taken up by errands. On the other hand, I have standing appointments with the sisters I visit teach, so I’m never inconvenienced by having to work them into a schedule that’s already filled.
When I think of myself as an individual, I feel pretty good about my self worth – I am a nurse, have three good kids, along with several talents. But when I think of myself in context of the church, especially in the temple, I feel that I am second. I am told on one hand that my husband and I are equal, but all around me I see examples of hierarchy, with me being on the bottom after God and my husband. That’s where I struggle with self worth. Intellectually I know we are equal but it is hard to feel it emotionally.
Sister Beck has traveled and talked with women extensively, so I believe that it must be a big issue with many women. The church tells us we are wonderful, but until women have a greater voice in the church, it rings as hollow rhetoric.
The identity issue is trickier.
I didn’t connect identity with SAHM at all; I’m wondering why you think it is tricky. I’ve long believed that if we really, really know who we really, really are (read: daughters of God with infinite worth), then any specific role we have or don’t have won’t determine our worth or sense of identity. Just look at the first line of the YW motto and the RS declaration. Both start with what I think our leaders want us to really internalize about our identity. Our culture, on the other hand, ties identity with what we DO. And I think it’s all too easy to be caught in that trap of trying to find worth by what we DO instead of who we ARE and can become.
In short, my own take on this (for what it is worth) is that women look to the wrong sources for their sense of validation and worth. My feeling is that we need a better grasp and confirmation of doctrinal truth, not more or bigger things to do to help us feel more “self-worth.” I think we need more sense of our spiritual worth.
Ditto to what others have said. I think this is the key quote:
“But I suspect that the same thing that works for children would work for adult women–and it isn’t gold stars. It is giving them significant, important, challenging tasks and allowing them to enjoy the sense of self-worth that comes from the successful completion of those tasks.”
m&m, I agree that getting women to recognize that they are daughters of God is important, but getting back to what Julie said, I don’t think that merely telling women they are daughters of God is going to convince them of that. I think that “doing” often helps them recognize their divine worth. When women feel like powerful agents of good (i.e. can sense their divinity through using their talents and strengths to do great things), in the ways that many others have suggested, that’s when they recognize that they are divine beings (daughters of God).
I think it\’s been shown that people gain self worth through meeting challenges and overcoming them, not through just being told that they\’re great for doing nothing specific or special. I think about the studies they\’ve done with children where they\’ve told half that they\’re smart and the other half that they have done good by working hard. Turns out that when faced with hard challenges, the ones who are praised for what they are (smart) give up easily, while those who are praised for what they do (trying hard) still attempt the tough challenges and feel good about their work along the way, even when the task is impossible.
If we could praise women for meeting their challenges, maybe the praise would feel solid and real, and inspire more of the same. My worry with this is that upon hearing how other women meet their challenges, they would compare themselves and lose hope. Maybe that would be resolved by going through a process where we log what challenges we faced that day/month/year and what we did that was good during that challenge, even if we failed overall.
KHH (#11) So what’s stopping them? Better women’s voices have more opportunity for being heard than ever before — I don’t understand the demand that our personal pet projects have the official church stamp of approval. Aside from the occasional family home evening presentation or the pages I write for the ward RS newsletter, none of the historical work I’ve ever done has had the weight of the church behind it. I can’t see how that could or should possibly stop me from continuing my work.
And I don’t think my self-worth or sense of identity must come exclusively from the church. The church teaches me what I can’t learn elsewhere; the part of my life that can be sustained and encouraged outside of the church doesn’t need church sponsorship.
16. A different take in agreement with m&m: my status has prevented me from doing anything in the Church for well over a decade, yet I I feel much more worth now than before. This has come from a couple sources: 1) coming to know that God loves me fully, even without me teaching, giving talks, leading, or doing any high-visible thing in the Church and 2) feeling myself *become* much more Chirstlike during this period of grace and repentance. I cheerfully echo m&M in that it isn’t what we do so much as what we become — then the visibility/authority we have in what we do with what we’ve become is inconsequential. I used to depend upon externals like callings, professional advancement, house size, etc to prop my sagging sense of self-worth. Now, I’m happy with what I’m become(ing) and I’m growing inattentive to measuring how I feel about self-worth.
Seraphine, I see where you are going, and I largely agree. We need to be anxiously engaged in good causes to find joy and satisfaction at any level. But really and truly, do you know many women who are sitting around doing nothing? Who really aren’t doing anything? I don’t think I know such a woman. So, I have a hard time with the idea that some people seem to have that it’s the church’s fault that women don’t find satisfaction and a sense of accomplishment in their lives, that they somehow need more or different things to do to find a sense of worth and value. My view is that women need more perspective on the value of what they ALREADY do. More projects or different organizational structures are, to me, not the fundamental fixer of this problem. We already have plenty to do, plenty of opportunity in and outside the church, IMO. I think if we really looked to God as Julie said in #8, if we understood His will for our lives and how He wanted us to use our talents and then sought to follow His direction and His will, we could find that satisfaction. If we have a conviction that we are doing God’s work and will, what greater satisfaction could there be?
I really think that part of our struggle is living in a culture that defines success in a rather instantaneous, visible, accoladeable way. Often God’s will and work requires a longer, even eternal definition of success and value. We can’t ultimately look to a to-do list alone to find our worth. But if our to-do list has eternal meaning, then that can change everything.
manaen,
Thank you for sharing that. Beautiful. Isn’t the challenge ultimately the word “self”? (Spoken by someone who often still struggles along that line…. I write in part to remind myself of things I know but haven’t fully internalized myself yet….)
m&m,
I may very well be wrong to have jumped from ‘identity issues’ to ‘issues related to SAHMs.’ However, we define the phrase ‘son of God’ to mean ‘worthy priesthood holder’ and take the conversation from there. How do we define ‘daughter of God’? I don’t think most people would get too far into that definition without talking about motherhood, and that’s why I put those ideas together. If there is another way of thinking about identity issues for LDS women, I’d be curious to hear it.
Ardis, I agree that there’s nothing stopping individual women from doing, writing, singing, or painting whatever they want. (I’m certainly not waiting for the Ensign to publish anything I write :) !)But if the institutional church is concerned about women’s sense of worth, it might think about giving a stamp of approval to some of those endeavors. In some ways I suspect it’s exactly the women who don’t have the independence and drive to go do whatever they want out in the broader world who most need a boost from church-sanctioned endeavors.
Excellent questions, Julie.
If one more person tells me I’m a daughter of God with infinite worth, I may just throw up all over that poor well-meaning soul. But I realize I’m hardly representative of Mormon women as a whole, in part, or of anyone other than myself, really, so my response to this infinite worth talk may simply and correctly indicate that I have an overdeveloped gag reflex.
Now that I’ve gotten my disgusting physical response to this out on the table, so to speak, perhaps I can think more calmly about what it is I mistrust about this rhetoric. (Or perhaps not.) I don’t WANT to “internalize an identity.” I don’t want to cultivate a divine identity in the hothouse of my soul like an overbred poodle. In fact, I don’t even want to have an identity anymore. They cause nothing but trouble. Something about finding one’s life to lose it and losing one’s life to find it.
Life’s much too short to sit around contemplating one’s identity.
(But clearly not too short to sit around blogging all day…! Oh, the hypocrisy.)
oh, my shoes, my shoes…will someone help me clean this gunk off my shoes? …..
Eve, I have the same gag reflex that you do.
As far as worrying about cultivating an identity goes, I think your comment points in the same direction as bbell’s: identity issues are a luxury good for people who don’t have to worry about where their next meal is coming from. However, I’m also attracted to another way of looking at the issue: Jesus must have had a very firm grasp on his identity to do what he did during mortality. Without that understanding of his identity, I doubt that he could have completed his mission. Similarly, if an LDS woman thinks she’s “just a housewife,” she probably won’t do the same kind of work as her neighbor who thinks that she is “a co-creator with God in bringing spirits to earth and leading them back to their eternal home.” (OK, I’m not really into that kind of language and it is triggering the gag reflex, but you get the idea.)
Teresa of Avila wrote that the Lord walks among pots and pans. If you think that, washing the dishes is an entirely different experience. And so I think that some dealing with identity issues in a religious context may be worthwhile–up to a point.
Julie, indeed, what comes to mind is that the Lord was I AM. He knew exactly who He was, and from where (from Whom) He got His to-do list. He went about doing God’s will and had complete confidence in what He did and who He was. But in knowing who He was, fully and completely, He was able to not worry one bit about Himself (or what others thought or said or did to Him) and focus on others and on God’s work. In my mind, then, the focus on identity is not an end, IMO, it’s getting us to a point where we don’t have to focus on self at all and instead focus wholly on doing God’s work (even as we do dishes), which of course includes serving others (being instruments in God’s hands, a la the VT messages).
“the focus on identity is not an end, IMO, it’s getting us to a point where we don’t have to focus on self at all and instead focus wholly on doing God’s work”
Bingo. Maybe I would have been more comfortable with President Beck’s comment if it had included this idea; as it stands it seems a little too Oprah for me–the ultimate end being about Self.
“We define ‘son of God’ to mean worthy Priesthood holder.”
I don’t think this is quite right. Aren’t we all God’s children, whether members of the Church or not? If so, what does Priesthood have to do with it?
I think Ardis is about right when she said ‘go to work.’ I also wager that if we all listen to Sis. Beck, we will hear her tell us that we should all go to work, too.
And, as a parting thought, I wonder if the issue of Priesthood would become less of an issue if we would say to the men who lead us “we expect you to lead us in righteousness. You should not expect us to follow you in unrighteousness. Nor will we permit you to exercise unrighteous dominion over us,” instead of saying “You are a threat, and your gendered authority structure demeans me.” I wonder if we would become more “anxiously engaged in a good cause” “of our own free will” instead of insisting that someone above us adopt our ideas, if we would magnify our calling by doing everything we can within its bounds, if we would not see something marvelous happen to ourselves and to those around us. We might even see Zion.
Julie,
I think we need to remember to take something as brief as a press statement for what it’s worth — a brief statement that expresses her personal love and concern for the sisters, and perhaps even reflecting what she has seen in her travels. If the majority of sisters are still at the ‘I feel worthless” stage, they will need some help to get to the “forget self” stage, perhaps?
That said, I think there’s way too much already going on in RS, most of it others-focused, for too much cause for alarm that we might be exchanging RS for Oprah-esque stuff. :)
Ugly Mahana, ten cows to you for your comment. :) (Sorry, just watched the end of Johnny Lingo the other day as I passed through a room where it was being watched…..)
Hard to find a single answer but in my experience there are a fair number of women who feel trapped in a “divine calling” that just doesn’t seem to fit their attributes or talents. Men have the luxury of defining themselves as both father / husband / faithful priesthood holder / and in addition, whatever else they choose to pursue as a career. Granted, there are many men trapped in meaningless, mindless, uninteresting jobs simply because of that need to provide. But, many women have a hard time finding the time to be a full time mom AND pursue other work / activities that are meaningful to them. Many women find joy and deep satisfaction in child rearing. Others feel immense guilt and find limited joy in that divinely inspired role. We have four young children at home, including one with severe disabilities. My wife works incredibly hard with our children, but quite frankly would never have chosen this particular lifestyle as her ideal. She often states that others could probably do her job better than she could (and the therapists that we hire for our disabled daughter quite frankly do, as she would readily admit) She had a professional musical career and would prefer to work part time to break the monotony and develop other talents but feels the stigma involved would be too great. I think that the limited freedom to choose one’s calling or role for many women is one of the problems. I often wonder, not being very mathematically inclined, how I would respond if I were told that my divine calling as a man was to be an Engineer. I could do other things on the side, but for a significant period of my life I was expected to be an Engineer–and expected to love it. Not only that, every other man in my neighborhood had the same expectation and our “work” was continually being evaluated. I heard Claudia Bushman speak several weeks ago at UVSC on the topic “Should Mormon Women Speak Out?” She related that one of the reasons she pursued an academic career was to escape the petty, incessant competition among the young mothers in her ward.
I just reread the comments and realized that I’d attributed to Ardis something that Julie actually said (see #8). Not that Ardis didn’t expand on the point…
I’m not exactly sure how to respond to this in a way that makes sense to anyone but myself, but I’ll give it a go.
I’ve never had a real problem with identity or self-worth. I’ve always had a firm idea of who I am and what I’m good at and what I can and want to and should contribute to the world. I count that as a great blessing, actually, because I do see so many women (inside and outside of the church) struggling with a sense of self.
If we are to discuss specifically Mormon women, then my initial reaction is this: *of course* many Mormon women don’t have a sense of self when they are constantly told that A) all women have the same role and (should have) the same desires (Robert O. expressed this nicely above, I think) and/or B ) that they shouldn’t be thinking of themselves at all (see Julie’s and M&M’s comments even on this thread about getting over one’s Self).
So my question is, which is it? Are we to have a sense of Individual Worth in addition to our Divine Nature, or not? Are we to love ourSELVES well enough to know how to love our neighbors, or not?
I’ve always felt that I felt so comfortable in my own skin and at peace with God *because* I didn’t heed the pressure to conform and give over my divinely individual self to any idea that others had for me. The irony might be that my brand of self worth and identity is precisely what Sister Beck would *not* want for the general female population of the Church.
I think, as people before me have said, that this isn’t a problem that just plagues women in the church.
Last year I wrote a short paper for a class on the culture wars about how society sets a much higher bar for a woman that has it all, than it does for a man that has it all.
Society allows a man to spend most of his time away from home, but will grant him the distinction of “good father†if he spends a couple of hours a day with his family.
For a woman, that balance is hard, if not impossible to strike. There will always be criticism, from one side, thinking women should be empowered, and rise above “just†taking care of children, and then from the other side who thinks that women who “let other people raise their children†damage them irreparably. So, in some sense, women are always doomed to being condemned as a failure.
I think that the greatest thing that the RS could do for women is to tell them that they should just stop feeling like they are competing with other women, and to do what makes them happy and fulfilled.
For some women, being a SAHM is enough. For a lot of women, they need an outlet, so that they don’t start to measure their own development solely in terms of the development of their children. Some women want to pursue careers, and if they can make it work, more power to them. Some women will pretty much have to work, and they shouldn’t be looked down upon for that. I think the biggest way that the church could help is to stop obsessing about it, because it makes women, well, mean to each other.
But I think change is probably a long way off, both in society and in the church.
m&m, I can only hope that Teresa of Avila’s God of the pots and pans is down there with me helping me scrape my own projectile vomit off of my sisters’ shoes….
Julie, you make a very good point about the “just a housewife” syndrome. (I once overheard a staunch defender of traditional gender roles tell my husband that his mother was “just a housewife” and although I myself never been a housewife of ether the “just” or the more exalted vision variety, I was very annoyed. And then, on second thought, somewhat amused that he’d betrayed what he really thought of the women he was claiming to so honor.)
Now that I’m done vomiting and making fun of myself and cleaning up m&m’s shoes, perhaps I can be slightly more serious for just a moment. I think your question about whether Jesus had a complete identity in order to be so selfless is a really good one, and it’s perhaps the same question as EmilyS’s, about whether we’re supposed to love ourselves or lose ourselves, whether we have to have a self to lose in selflessness.
I find it a very difficult question to think through, but one thought I’ve sometimes had is this: perhaps self-hatred and identitylessness actually arise from the same sources that selfishness and self-absorption do. Both are manifestations of self-concern. Sometimes I think we LDS women (and here I wholeheartedly include myself as Exhibit A) are prone to confuse extended self-flagellation and genuine spirituality: I must be good because I’m beating myself up so much over how bad I am!
I love this discussion. I have often felt discouraged over, as Julie said, the way in which \”the last 15 years of official pronouncements to LDS women have consisted almost entirely of \’You’re great! You’re a daughter of God with infinite worth!\’\”. It\’s good to know that there are others who feel the same way, a faithful frustration.
The way I have solved most of my \”identity\” problems (although I don\’t know if I would call them that) is by pondering my scriptures and praying and serving in the Church. That\’s it. The doctrines of the gospel, nice basic stuff like faith and repentance and charity, heal self-absorption and identity crises. This is why I feel frustrated with all the pats on the back I get. I want them to open up the scriptures and teach me how to be a better person from them. I want them to respect me enough to call me to repentance when I need it. Which, being human and fallen and all that, I always do.
There are two possible solutions:
One is a strong jolt of Jonathan Edwards’ Calvinism. “Got a self worth problem. Deal with it. Because you are worthless. But so is everybody else.”
The other: Bryant Hinckley (whom Julie seemed to be channeling in part): “Forget yourself and get to work.”
Re #30:
I wasn’t being clear. What I meant was something like this: when we say that someone is a son of God, we are very clear on the behavior that that should translate into (i.e., being a worthy priesthood holder). But when we say that someone is a daughter of God, what does that imply that she is doing?
Re #31,
As I acknowledged in the original post, I think that there is a very real possibility that the reporter may have misrepresented President Beck’s thoughts. However, given that the majority of messages to women recently have been of the “You’re great!” variety, I don’t know that the statement is that far off of the mark.
It pains me to think of women, members and non-members, feeling like they don’t measure up. Personally, I don’t know ANY
idle women. I know women who from the moment they arise in the morning are engaged in giving service to those around them ,usually their family. Then in their ” free time”, LDS women give service connected with church work and callings. LDS women could be busy 24/7 if they only didn’t need to sleep. We have so much to do and it has to be done. As soon as children leave the nest,and often before they do, we take care of our aging parents. When they’re gone, it’s the grandchildren’s turn. Then we nurse an ill or disabled husband. I personally don’t have a problem with self-worth because I know I make people’s lives better than they would be without me or what I do. People depend on me. My issue is I wish I had the time for me that I had before I married, had children, aging parents, ailing spouse, etc. I work and work and work until I drop and the days of my youth when I read scriptures and discussed them in Institute class–I tell my children, this is your time NOW. Read what you want, travel if you can and take any music lessons or classes in school that you find interesting because never again will you have what you have now….
your health, and youth, your good eyesight, time to enrich yourself with good studies, time for YOU without having to quit what you’re enjoying to run home and make dinner or drive kids to their lessons, etc. How great to be able to choose to not cook dinner–just have a piece of fruit and yogurt and read a good book instead and no one needs you to be doing something for them.
Someday you will have to schedule your wants and needs around everyone else’s. And you may never have time like you used to
and when you do you could be elderly and not well and will have lots of time but because of age related problems you may not be able to do what you once could.
Sorry I went on for so long here. But I don’t know any women who
are correct in thinking they don’t measure up or do all that they should. The last thing the Lord would want is for us to feel we never measure up because we are His daughters–and to me that means we do all the good that we can to our best ability. Some are able to do more than others. So we should stop comparing ourselves. We women are blessed with more than enough to do!
EmilyS, your comment made a lot of sense to me. I am neither married nor a mother (at least, not yet), and I define my identity, to a large degree, in terms of my passions for academic learning and teaching. I’m not really looking for visible measurements of success (I don’t need accolades and awards), but I really struggled for awhile until I came to understand that these aspects of myself were part of my eternal self. And what I struggled with for a number of years was that I didn’t get this affirmation at church (like you, I was told that my only role was a role that I did not have)–I had to find it through my own personal soul-searching.
For all who are \”ready to throw up\” or otherwise nauseated by sickeningly sweet words of encouragement from leaders—-there are just as many, even more, who wish to be you.
For those who do have identity issues and self-worth problems, they affect their entire life in every single decision they make. DOnt take for granted the internal self-worth and self-esteem you each may have, if you are fortunate enough to have figured out everything in your life already. Or even if you havent, you are very lucky to have a healthy sense of who you are to help you get through lifes problems.
For the rest of us, the Spirit touches us each time we read Sister Beck and others\’ words- strenghtening our testimony in Heavenly Father\’s love for us and in the truthfulness and rock of this gospel. Didn\’t Christ say, Let everything be done unto edifying?
M. Nakamato, there are people out there who envy my ability to projectile-vomit on other womens’ shoes? I’m stunned! My gifts are in demand! My self-esteem is on the rise! (Oh…wait….)
OK, on a slightly more serious note (sorry for all the flipness, it’s a terrible disease I have that mostly torments others) I don’t think a highly overdeveloped gag reflex necessarily means one has self-esteem, self-worth, or a healthy sense of who one is (although part of what seems to be at issue here is whether any of those things are worth having). Personally, I owe much of my self-esteem/self-worth/identity, such as it is, to the miracle of modern psychopharmacology. (Having resisted the medical model of mental illness for years, nay, decades, I find myself forced to concede its validity on an extremely practical level. Sigh.) If you check the Bloggernacle in the middle of the night, the little ads will start to show up in the threads….
On a much more serious note, you raise a problem I’ve struggled with all my life. I hate this sappy talk, I really do. I find it counterproductive to my spiritual growth. As I believe Emily M. said above, I expect speakers to do me the courtesy of treating me like a moral agent and calling me to repentence. I don’t want to be patted on the head and told about my worth. But apparently find it sustains them. I don’t know what to do with that contradiction. I’m suspicious of the discourse, but I’m equally suspicious of my suspicion. Maybe self-esteem is a crock. Or maybe I’m just a snob who likes to feel superior to people who relish self-esteem talk. I’m not very proud of that in myself. In fact, thinking about the situation you bring up of people who are lost and desperate (maybe all of us at different points in our lives) I’m downright ashamed of myself for using anyone else’s pain as an occasion for my pride.
But as far as what to make of the larger contradiction–I haven’t a clue.
Uh, that is, some women apparantly find it sustains them. Yep, it’s the middle of the night and time to go to bed.
I do think it’s important to realize that there are probably many different styles and messages that will help different women. Some feel confident in who they are; others compare themselves and always think they come up short; others think that because they don’t hav a husband and/or children that somehow they are less of a person; others can’t stand sappy talk ( that was for you, Eve ). For any one of us to say, “This is what our leaders should be saying” seems really kind of unfair because I think they try to reach all of us, maybe just not all in the same talk. I have heard many different styles and focuses in talks in the last years, and I don’t think it’s all of one thing. This makes me want to go back and actually search them to see. We only know what we hear and feel. We can’t assume that anyone else feels or hears as we do.
Therefore, I think it’s important that we hear some pats on the back for those who need it, some good scriptural food for thought so others can continue on the path they are on and learn s’more, perspective about how what we are doing in our efforts to do God’s work and the good work of life is all part of an eternal bigger picture, etc. etc. etc. I think sometimes we need line upon line to help us get to a point where we can handle the ultimate doctrinal solutions. I think we DO hear those, too, but not everyone is going to hear or want or need the same message. As we each seek for what WE need to hear, it might be good for us to be patient when we hear something that doesn’t quite float our boat — accept it in a spirit of charity assuming that there is probably someone else who really needed that very thing.
p.s. To that larger question that is being discussed, I think it’s possible, given the range of places we are all in, that we need both kinds of messages…some may need help getting to a point where they can think beyond “self” and turn heart and life to God and others. I also think that the gospel’s definition of “self-worth” isn’t Oprah-like, and so we might want to consider that such concepts include our worth because of the Atonement and that eternal perspective thing, not simply because of what we do. Don’t know if that is making sense…..
It has taken me years to reach the point where I believe I have self-worth. Women generally are far harder on themselves – and each other at times. I have given all my life to building the Lord’s kingdom, and being a compassionate sister, wife and mother and yet I still didn’t feel it was enough. Why? Because Sacrament talks, General Conference talk, Relief Society lessons,etc we are made to feel we’re not doing enough, being good enough, we need to be attending to our duties with greater dedication. That’s all fine for those who aren’t – but what about those who are? We just feel plain guilty because we haven’t done that extra bit of family history, gotten our 72 hour packs complete, etc. etc. I resolved this by just saying in my prayers ‘Heavenly Father, I’ll just do the best I can” and forgetting about the rest. This means not feeling guilty all the time – just remembering ‘times and seasons’. The odd bit of ‘we think you sisters are wonderful’ just doesn’t cut it for counteracting that feeling. A dear friend said something to me one day which really helped when I was bemoaning the fact that I was so far from being a good mother ‘ “but you’re good enough”. I think that’s the nearest we can get to perfection in this life?
Incidentally when I was a member of another church and a Sunday School teacher, giving an hour of my time a week the Church of England vicar thought I was a truly dedicated and good Christian because I showed up each week and was always willing to serve. I felt my standing with the Lord was good. It took me years in this church to reach that level.
I go to church every sunday, my family prays. We read scriptures, do family home evening.
I smoke. I swear sometimes. I am a convert, my wife was raised in the church. For the first few years of our marriage all I heard at night on sundays were tears. RS, and the church at large focus too much on how great things are when _______. My wife and a few others get to feeling like they are worthless if everything with the family isnt how \”everyone\” invisions it should be, according to the gospel. I get the same feelings when going to priesthood. Im not good enough or my wife is not good enough, or my family sucks, because im a loser who doesnt have a temple recommend. I think women have these issues because the church leadership focuses so much on how great thou art, that anyone who is even slightly lacking, cant help but feel depressed and without identity. And there is the shunning, done possibly unintentionally, by members if you dont immediately conform to church \”Norms\”. I love the gospel, people are my issue, if we spent less time judging, or feeling like we are judged, we could hold identities, and lose the depression in the RS and in the church in general.
Sorry not trying to invade your social blog here, just cant vent to folks at my ward, lol. Thank you.
Is the self-worth problem related to the identity problem? If so, how do they interact?
The trick for children is to give them service opportunities. With adults, it is to allow them to serve without being overwhelmed.
The self-worth problem is related to the feeling overwhelmed problem.
And the fact that different people have different needs. Some people need the sappy stuff and feel terrible when they don’t get it.
“But when we say that someone is a daughter of God, what does that imply that she is doing? ”
Well, what *I* imply is that she is being worthy of wifehood and motherhood. I understand that this is not what everyone would want to imply.
Adam, that’s a good way to look at it, but it still, I think, requires a lot of fleshing out: there’s probably a fifteen year old smacking her baby for blocking her view of the TV in your city right now; and that means that we need to do some defining of wifehood and motherhood so that your idea doesn’t mock the 48-year-old single LDS woman. That’s something that’s going to take real work–the kind of work that could be done in talks directed at women if we didn’t constantly hear “you’re great!” Sheri Dew took a stab at it with her “Are We Not All Mothers?” talk.
Adam, sometimes I seriously wonder if your idea of a singles program is mass excommunication.
I think that “identity” and “role” are not identical concepts, and that it is unhelpful to conflate them.
I thought that Mel Gibson knew the answer to this in that movie were he can hear womens thoughts?
I agree with Anna and others that we need to disassoctiate our identity and self-worth from our roles, and our relationships. Women need to learn to define themselves outside of ‘wife and mother’. Those may be roles and relationships you might have during your life, but thats not all you are, and you will certainly have at least periods of your life – if not all of it – where you aren’t either one of those things. And if your identity was defined as those (whether by RS or yourself), you are going to be left a little lost.
Does this advice include the role of “feminist” as well?
“But I suspect that the same thing that works for children would work for adult women–and it isn’t gold stars. It is giving them significant, important, challenging tasks and allowing them to enjoy the sense of self-worth that comes from the successful completion of those tasks.”
I haven’t read through the comments, so forgive me if this has already been stated, but this seems condescending to me. Women so lack initiative that they have to be “given” tasks that are significant, important or challenging? They don’t know there are hungry people in the world, damaged people in their communities, agonized students in the schools, and anxious children in their homes?
I think the self-esteem movement is self-defeating, no one has ever found themselves while looking for themselves. Lose yourself, forget about yourself. Emphasize the happiness of *others*. Rather than tell people (including women) that they have doubts and needs and crises, tell people (including women) that the world is full of doubting needy people in crisis, and it’s their Christian duty to heal them.
Guy –
While I wouldn’t define ‘feminist’ as a role or relationship, but rather an idealogy…..sure, whatever.
“I agree with Anna and others that we need to disassoctiate our identity and self-worth from our roles, and our relationships. Women need to learn to define themselves outside of ‘wife and mother’.”
I disagree. My identity as a man is inextricable from my role as a husband and father, and this was already true before I was married.
On second thought, I partially agree. Dang. I had the identity of a husband and a father before I exercised the role, so, yes, identity and role are not the same. On the other hand, women should understand themselves as wives and mothers. Any understanding of identity that treats that as a mere role will lead to malaise.
Adam, sometimes I seriously wonder if your idea of a singles program is mass excommunication.
Mr. Taber,
I’m hurt and offended that you think I would favor mass excommunication. Despite my Catholiphilia, I am no transubstantionist and don’t recognize the juridical efficacy of their sacraments.
Apparently you misunderstood me, perhaps deliberately. But I would maintain that we are here for more than to simply multiply and replenish the population. (That Adam and Eve wore clothes, and had a written and spoken language says something to me about that.)
I don’t appreciate those who imply that those who could be married but aren’t (like I was for ten years, two months and nineteen days between mission and marriage) or could have children but don’t (my wife and I have been married for two years and eight months to the day, and it hasn’t happened yet) are shirking responsibility and just shouldn’t bother to come out to church. The three bishops who called me as ward membership clerk (always in a “family” ward) when I was single (one of whom is now my stake president) and the stake presidency who called me as an assistant stake clerk (where I’ve served now for almost five years, almost half of that while single) certainly wouldn’t agree. It really bothers me that so many do.
My patriarchal blessing states that my most important calling in life is that of husband, and that was never something I didn’t want. But there were times when I did a lot of soul-searching over the fact that it hadn’t happened yet, and wondered if it ever would. Many, many members implied during my “ten years in the wilderness”, particularly the latter part, that I hadn’t done my “duty”, or wasn’t capable of it. _That_ hurt.
John #63
As I like to say… Direct your complaints at men like Elder Oaks. Adam is not drawing his comments out of thin air. See here.
Every YM organization I have ever served in has repeated the mantra over and over again that the role of Father and Husband is THE most important role a man will ever have. It is more important then careers, sports or video games.
I see no reason for the YW to be taught the same lesson that the role of wife and mother is the most important role in their lives. In fact its a common teaching even outside Provo.
The appropriate scripture is Matthew 10:39. One loses their life when one marries and has children… But then finds it.
That’s a tale of woe to move a stone to tears, sir. First many, many people *implied* things that hurt, and then I *imply* things that hurt, and then I *deliberately* misunderstand you.
And then I offer faux sympathy.
Um, bbell, whatever the importance of motherhood, fatherhood, etc., your reading of Matt. 10:39 is untenable, at least without (significant amounts) of further explanation.
UM SAM B.
I disagree. When one loses ones life in the service of others one finds their life
Applies to any service oriented topic. SWK agrees with me and its in the EQ lesson #8
“Giving selfless service leads us to the abundant life.
Service to others deepens and sweetens this life while we are preparing to live in a better world. It is by serving that we learn how to serve. When we are engaged in the service of our fellowmen, not only do our deeds assist them, but we put our own problems in a fresher perspective. When we concern ourselves more with others, there is less time to be concerned with ourselves! In the midst of the miracle of serving, there is the promise of Jesus that by losing ourselves, we find ourselves! [See Matthew 10:39.]
Not only do we “find†ourselves in terms of acknowledging divine guidance in our lives, but the more we serve our fellowmen in appropriate ways, the more substance there is to our souls. We become more significant individuals as we serve others. We become more substantive as we serve others—indeed, it is easier to “find†ourselves because there is so much more of us to find! …
Examples of areas were this applies in my view
Missionary work
Charity work
Church service
marriage (serving spouse)
Children (raising kids is for sure an act of service)
Shoot! I hate it when I miss the beginning of a really great discussion.
All I have time to say is, “Way to go, Julie! Spot on. My sentiments exactly! You go! Woo hoo!”
I’m sure I’ll be compelled to come back for more later.
Already back. I forgot to add that Rasband’s excellent Confronting the Myth of Self-Esteem fits right into this topic.
No doubt the ROLES of mother/father are extremely important. But who we are is not just our roles in life, and it definitly does not hinge on ONE role in life, no matter how imporant that role. Knowing who we are and having a secure sense of self independent of anyone else will help you serve better in those roles that you do happen to be called to.
Isn’t the underlying assumption in saying that who we are IS wife/mother/husband/father that who you are isn’t fully realized until those roles are assumed, and when/if those roles end that your idenity has been lost?
No. I agree that “who we are isn’t fully realized until those roles are assumed,” but when we lose those roles we don’t lose our identity. Our identity just isn’t as fully expressed anymore.
It is exceptionally condesending (and plain wrong) to tell everyone who isn’t a wife/mother/husband/father that they simply don’t know who they really are yet. Give me a break.
bbell,
I appreciate the explanation; I still find it a misreading of the scripture. In Matthew, Jesus doesn’t say he who loses his life _in the service of others_ will find it–it’s whoever loses his life _because of Jesus_ will find it.
Your reading seems to have the stamp of approval of Pres. Kimball, but I’m not convinced: the “[see Matt. 10:39]” appears to me to have been emended to the paragraph by the manual’s author. Pres. Kimball’s language derives from scripture, but I’m not convinced that he was explaining or elucidating scripture.
I agree with you that service, including service of spouse and children, helps us become better people. But I don’t think that Matthew gives scriptural support to the idea that we need to be married and have children to find ourselves.
Sam B,
I guess that your disagreement seems to be with the CC and SWK then? See 2 Peter 1:20. I generally tend to take what Q12 FP types say about scriptures as the interpretation per 2 Peter 1:20
I will consult “Miracle of Forgiveness” tonight and see if SWK elaborates any more on the topic. I bet he does.
It is exceptionally condesending (and plain wrong) to tell everyone who isn’t a wife/mother/husband/father that they simply don’t know who they really are yet.
There are two meanings of realized. You’re using a different one than I am. Not that I agree with your statement here anyway.
m&m: “And I think it’s all too easy to be caught in that trap of trying to find worth by what we DO instead of who we ARE and can become.”
I may just be “caught in the trap,” but I’m not sure how to distinguish between who we are and what we do. All women are children of God, but some will still attain celestial glory and some won’t. It tells us where we came from, but what does it mean with regard to who we ARE?
Our spiritual heritage does address what we can BECOME, which is helpful. But, again, don’t we reach our potential by, well, DOING things that move us toward Christ? Again, I don’t know how to separate who we become from what we do, either.
Seraphine: “I think that “doing†often helps them recognize their divine worth.”
Amen to that. I’ve really become almost irritated by what seems the constant public stroking of women. I don’t want to be told over and over than I’m awesome. I want to DO something really awesome, really meaningful.
When I hear woman addressed so as to not induce “more guilt” on their psyches, it says to me, “You can’t handle the truth.” Truth is, generally LDS women–just like LDS men–have a long way to go to be perfect, to be sanctified, to reach our potential. It’s the human condition. So what? I believe real guilt is from God and it is to be used to move us forward. Instead of assuaging our guilt by patting each other on the head, why don’t we concentrate on how to remove the guilt by removing the problems that brought it about?
m&m: “But really and truly, do you know many women who are sitting around doing nothing?”
At the risk of being shunned again…yes. I do. Of course, I might define “nothing” differently than some.
Eve #25: I’m laughing so hard I nearly choked on my Crystal Light. But I now have the courage to confess. I don’t even know what an identity is. What is it I’m supposed to be searching for that isn’t either painfully obvious or that won’t present itself when the time is right? It’s all psychobabble to me. Can’t we just prayerfully move forward doing the good work?
In response to Robert O. (“But, many women have a hard time finding the time to be a full time mom AND pursue other work / activities that are meaningful to them.”) and similar sentiments by Meg, I really just utterly disagree.
Men are expected to provide financially for their families, WHETHER OR NOT that particular endeavor holds great amounts of personal fulfillment. (That, to a great extent, is what makes them “good fathers.”) Women are expected to raise and nurture their children, WHETHER OR NOT that particular endeavor holds great amounts of personal fulfillment. (That, to a great extent, is what makes them “good mothers.”)
First, I don’t believe that some notion of “personal fulfillment” or “personal expression” is paramount. Some of us get lots of that and some little. And some times in our lives we get more than others. Second, if we don’t get it from our primary responsibility–and want more of it–then isn’t it our job to be creative and flexible enough to find ways to get that…without ignoring our primary responsibilities?
Speaking as a woman who SWORE from the age of 13 on that I would NEVER stay home to do “menial labor,” I can now easily say that there is great personal fulfillment to be had in doing what God wants first and interspersing what we want in the (sometimes minimal, sometimes gaping) leftover spaces.
Re Matt in #58:
After I wrote that statement, I wondered about my phrasing, so I think I understand where you are coming from and I don’t disagree with you. What I was trying to say was: when women show up for a general RS meeting, they are going to be “given” something: whether it is a pat on the head, slap on the back, kick in the pants, platitudes, deep doctrine, or challenging assignments. That’s all I meant by it.
Great post, Julie. One of the few messages directed to women in the church that I remember with fondness, in that I felt touched strongly by the spirit and called to repentance, was by Sherri Dew in the October 1998 General Relief Society broadcast (thus in the Nov 1998 Ensign) :
“Is it possible that in this twilight season of the dispensation of the fulness of times, when Satan and his minions roam the earth inspiring deceit, discouragement, and despair, that we who have been armed with the most potent antidote on earth—the gift of the Holy Ghost—don’t always fully partake of that gift? Are we guilty of spiritually just “getting by†and not accessing the power and protection within our reach? Are we satisfied with far less than the Lord is willing to give us, essentially opting to go it alone here rather than partner with the Divine?…It is vital that we, the sisters of Relief Society, learn to hear the voice of the Lord. Yet I worry that too often we fail to seek the guidance of the Spirit. Perhaps we don’t know how and haven’t made it a priority to learn. Or we’re so aware of our personal failings that we don’t feel worthy, don’t really believe the Lord will talk to us, and therefore don’t seek revelation. Or we’ve allowed the distractions and pace of our lives to crowd out the Spirit. What a tragedy!”
Of course everyone is touched by different things at different times, but I felt genuinely called to live up to a higher spiritual standard by her message. It felt real – it acknowledged that we are perhaps not being as valiant and true as we might be. It felt inspiring – I want to partner with the Divine! It gave us something to DO that wasn’t just something to put on a checklist. If everyone would talk to women the way Sherri Dew talked to women it would suit me just fine.
Sam MB:
I think King Benjamin makes the connection you are looking for. And Christ does, too, when he talks about serving “one of the least of these my brethren.” The discussion between you and bbell sounds a little like splitting hairs along the lines of “show me your faith without works and I will show you my faith by my works.” One of your positions is a special case of the other…
Sam MB, “But I don’t think that Matthew gives scriptural support to the idea that we need to be married and have children to find ourselves.”
I agree that Matthew didn’t teach this truth; the necessity of relationships and sealings for exaltation (to fully be) is one of the pearls of the restoration.
(In response to Robert O. (â€But, many women have a hard time finding the time to be a full time mom AND pursue other work / activities that are meaningful to them.â€) and similar sentiments by Meg, I really just utterly disagree.
Men are expected to provide financially for their families, WHETHER OR NOT that particular endeavor holds great amounts of personal fulfillment. (That, to a great extent, is what makes them “good fathers.â€) Women are expected to raise and nurture their children, WHETHER OR NOT that particular endeavor holds great amounts of personal fulfillment. (That, to a great extent, is what makes them “good mothers.â€)
Alison,
First, there is no typical SAHM. One woman’s situation, say two children, both in high school with large blocks of free time, a law degree, a house cleaner and a large disposable income is very different from another mom with six kids under the age of 8, marginal income, little help, and a family history of depression. Look a little harder and you will find those whose limiting factor is time.
Second, men get to choose HOW to provide for their families. That some choose unwisely doesn’t negate the fact that the choice is there. Also, I would contend that being a “good father” goes far beyond being a good provider. In fact, I think its safe to say that men are also expected to “raise and nurture their children.”
Gina,
I agree to a certain extent with the comments of Sherri Dew. I have always appreciated her direction and counsel. However, there are women to whom the job description of SAHM just does not and will never resonate–no matter who they divinely partner with. To assume that every single mother that walks the earth holds mothering as the most self fulfilling activity that she could engage in is a significant oversimplification. Heavenly Father may help them “get through it” and may even give them comfort in avoiding the guilt that is ever present. But, to just keep telling them that their feeling are not real, or worse yet, shameful or sinful is no help. Not to sound redundant, but there are many men who are lousy fathers (little patience with, and time spent with their kids) but are great providers. They seem to be given a much greater break and don’t walk around feeling that they are failing at their divine role as “father.”
Robert O.:
*****First, there is no typical SAHM. …Look a little harder and you will find those whose limiting factor is time.
Don’t have to look hard. I have six children, ages 3-19. I homeschool them. All year long. I work as the CFO of our engineering company from home–not because it’s my lifelong dream, but because the work needs to get done. I exercise every day–not because I love athletics, but because I need to get in shape. I help my elderly father. I transport six kids to medical/dental, four to karate, three to soccer, three to swimming, three to crochet class, two to ortho, two to mutual, one to activity day, one to drama, one to choir, one to violin, one to seminary. I have no cook, cleaner, or laundress, but I manage a huge house and a big piece of land. Then I have the usual LDS mom stuff, callings, service, FHE, scriptures, garden, VT, etc.
I’m kinda short on time myself.
*****Second, men get to choose HOW to provide for their families.”
Men get to choose how they provide, only so far as their choice doesn’t prevent them from providing. Women get to choose how they mother, so far as their choice doesn’t prevent them from mothering.
As you said, “That some choose unwisely doesn’t negate the fact that the choice is there.”
As I said, Robert, staying home was the last thing on my list of “fun things to do.” So what? I have learned (1) to enjoy it much more than I thought, (2) to find fulfillment in things that I used to think were mere drudgery, and (3) to be inventive and creative and disciplined in order to do things I really love and find personally rewarding.
I also learned that I don’t always get as much time for “my projects” as I might *feel* like. Again, so what? Is my purpose here on earth to have “me time”? I figure that now is a season in my life for more “them time.” When they have less full-time, direct need of me, I can have more of me back.
Funny thing is, there are times in my husband’s work that he has a bit of time to delve more into the research he’s most interested in and then stretches of months at a time when it’s “crunch time” and the required projects take all day and then some without time to breathe. Still, he’s never come home and complained that his life just isn’t fulfilling enough and he needed “more.”
*****Also, I would contend that being a “good father†goes far beyond being a good provider.
And being a “good mother” also goes far beyond “raising and nurturing children,” but those two things are still the things that God specifically pointed out as our duties.
*****In fact, I think its safe to say that men are also expected to “raise and nurture their children.â€
Which would be why I said, “to a great extent” instead of “entirely.” But didn’t you just say that they are “allowed” to be gone most of the time while doing the providing? If so, then they don’t have the same expectation in fathering that women do in mothering. And women are expected to help provide for the family, also, in less primary ways. We are expected to be good stewards over our resources, with careful use of time, of money, being frugal and making things last and not wasting.
FWIW, I think you misread Gina’s post as I don’t see her presenting any of the things you argue against in your response to her. Still, I’d like to address a couple of them.
*****However, there are women to whom the job description of SAHM just does not and will never resonate–no matter who they divinely partner with.
Sorry to sound repetitive, but so? Does God’s will HAVE to “resonate” with us?
*****To assume that every single mother that walks the earth holds mothering as the most self fulfilling activity that she could engage in is a significant oversimplification.
Who cares if any mother “holds mothering as most self fulfilling”? Isn’t parenthood about the CHILDREN? I’m not trying to be flippant, but doesn’t this all come back to WHY we are on earth in the first place?
If it’s to find ourselves in company management or scrapbooking, let me know! :)
Insofar as the Church has contributed to this problem, and I believe Individual self worth to be a problem among LDS men and especially LDS women, I think our constant counsel to serve is at the root. We are taught to serve, but what that means when run through the Mormon cultural translator is that, “A lack of plannning on my part constitutes an emergency on your part.” Much of the service we are engaged in is misplaced compassion. We seek those who don’t manage their lives well and then require those who do manage their lives better to stoop to the lower level of thinking to serve them in their weaknesses, rather than elevating them to the level playing field of self sufficiency. In such a world no one feels good about themselves.
To the degree we serve as the Savior did, when the Savior would, who the Savior did, and what the Savior did, we will feel better about who we are. If this is in our home, office, church or back alley, the results will be the same.
Alison,
Wow, I’m very impressed–no, seriously. But you have now become exhibit A as to why many women feel inadequate. You obviously have excellent organizational, time management, financial skills, etc. Many are not so lucky. So you either have very little free time (I’m kinda short on time myself.)–which was the original point you “utterly disagreed” with. Or you still manage to get it all done–in which case you are part of the guilt inducing culture that many find it hard to measure up to. With great talents should also come great humility.
Robert O-
As Alison said, I think you misread my comment. I’m not really sure how what you wrote is in any way related to my comment. But I will say that with Alison, does God’s will HAVE to “resonate†with us? I am sympathetic to much of what you say. I am a SAHM with small children, and I would not say that I feel this resonates with me, and it is definitely not the “most self fulfilling activity that I could engage in.” But I do feel it is meaningful, I do feel it is my responsibility and what I am called to do at this time in my life, and I do have faith that eternally I will be grateful I am spending my life this way at this time. I think our emphasis on motherhood would be easier to swallow for some women (me included, and perhaps your wife) if it focused more on our responsibility and duty to raise up the next generation with dedication and grace, despite the sacrifices we will be required to make, and less on how wonderful and fulfilled it will make us feel.
BTW, I have no idea how you have time to blog, Alison, but I’m always glad when you do and appreciate your comments!
Alison, I’m agog. Just for kicks I’m going to post a version of my life, modeled on yours.
I have no children, but I did, I would frog-march them straight through the doors of the local public school, starting at age three, even if it were a fortress of metal detectors and barbed wire. All year long. I work as a freshman writing and lit instructor, come to think of it because it is my lifelong dream, more or less. (I adore teaching, and I’m very fond of my students. I freely confess that I’m extremely lucky in being able to do what I love.) I exercise myself into a frumpy sweat once every other weekend without fail–not because I love athletics, but because I like to indulge my persistent illusion that I’m getting in shape. I help myself to the Cheese Whiz. After a great deal of portracted whining, I transport myself to medical/dental (my husband is male and therefore cannot be persuaded to submit to medical care unless a limb has actually been torn from his body), school, the library, home, the grocery store, politically correct locally owned bookstores, chain bookstores (skulk in and out), chain-bookstore cafes (more skulking), economically and organically correct cafes, and Blockbuster. (Especially Blockbuster.) I have no cook, cleaner, or laundress, but I manage a modest house and a tiny piece of land. (I hate suburbia. I feel like I live in a cloned village.) I would have the usual LDS mom stuff, except that I’m not a mom, I quit my stake calling in February, my husband is agnostic and has no interest whatsoever in FHE, and I like to think that I’m serving people by refraining from biting their heads off. I’m currently on overdue sabbatical from VTing.
I do like to read my scriptures, though.
I am not looking to marry a woman who sees her identiy in life as merely a housekeeper and baby-making-machine. Such women also seem to be looking for a man to be merely a meal-ticket and a sperm-donor.
Yet such desperate women seem to be common in the single social circles in the church.
Church leaders rightly emphasize marriage and parenthood, but they also emphasize balance, well-roundedness, and setting priorities among a large list of important things. Church leaders teach that there are many areas in which we must improve ourselves and move forward, both while anxiously seeking out righteous opportunities for marriage, and after marriage.
But most LDS church members, like most people in the world at large, appear to me to fail to see the overall context, and they end up over-emphasizing the most imortant (the “highest calling”) to the exclusion of those things which are next in importance.
Such narrow focus transforms what is the most important thing into “the only” important thing. Lack of balance, and lack of attention to lesser-important but necessary things, then almost seems to guarantee disatisfaction in life.
In my observations, such people tend to smother their children with a stifling “need” type of love, instead of an empowering love. Such people tend to pass along their dysfunctions to their children. Such people seem to fall apart when they become empty-nesters.
Gina,
I agree completely. I remember as a college freshman reading Scott Peck’s “The Road Less Traveled.” It struck me when he stated that the first “rule” of life is to remember that life is tough.
Mothering is tough. Earning a living is tough. Being a good parent, spouse, friend, father, and Christian is often tough. Despite that fact, there are many wonderful compensations that recommend all of the above. My only point is that often the difficulties are not acknowledged. Do I believe we should only engage in activities that “resonate” with us? Certainly not. Most of the growth in my own life has occurred while engaged in activities that most certainly did not resonate with me. But lets just acknowledge that for many women, being a SAHM is tough. My only criticism of Sherri Dew’s quote is when she says such things as, “Are we guilty of spiritually just ‘getting by?'” It adds yet another question of adequacy for many women. Many women I know are awash in guilt. The combined RS/PH lesson two months ago was Bonny Parkin’s “Encircled in the Arms of His Love.” Basically she said the same thing Pres. Beck said, namely that “the single most important thing for the women of the church to hear is that God loves them.” Why would she pick that? The answer is obvious. The women in the church don’t hear it enough, they don’t feel it enough, and apparently many don’t believe it enough. Contrast that with the men. “Don’t do porn.” is more often than not the injunction. Its quite a contrast. Thats why I personally don’t think Alison’s approach, i.e. “look at how I’m keeping all my balls in the air,” is that useful for many women. Many are acutely aware of how far they have to go without someone else raising the bar for them. I think Elder Ballard’s talk “O Be Wise” speaks to the point when he states,
“Fourth, eliminate guilt. I hope it goes without saying that guilt is not a proper motivational technique for leaders and teachers of the gospel of Jesus Christ. We must always motivate through love and sincere appreciation, not by creating guilt. I like the thought “Catch others doing something right.â€
Still there are those who experience some feelings of guilt as a consequence of their service in the Church. These feelings can come when our time and attention are being torn between competing demands and priorities. AS MORTALS, WE SIMPLY CANNOT DO EVERYTHING AT ONCE. Therefore we must do all things “in wisdom and order†(Mosiah 4:27). Often that will mean temporarily postponing attention to one priority in order to take care of another. Sometimes family demands will require your full attention. Other times professional responsibilities will come first. And there will be times when Church callings will come first.
He urther states, “just do your best.” I love that. I wish that was said over and over. It’s tough. Do the best you can. There are many rewards but some may not be evident for many years. If it comes easily to you, be grateful and be compassionate to those to whom it doesn’t come so easily.
Julie wrote:
“But I think that the last 15 years of official pronouncements to LDS women have consisted almost entirely of “You’re great! You’re a daughter of God with infinite worth!†My sense is that this annoys women (including me) who don’t struggle with these issues and simply doesn’t help those who do. (If they’ve heard it for 15 years and haven’t gotten the message, why would one more iteration change things? I’m not convinced this is a message that can be conveyed over a pulpit.)”
I’ve thought about this a bit. For someone like me who is blessed with a sense of peace about who I am and what I’m trying to do, these issues are not front and center. But I think we need to realize that for some of us these messages can be life sustaining and an important piece of the puzzle of dealing with life.
Let me give you three examples of sisters I work with in our branch. (I could give you lots more, but three will do.)’
Sister A. accepted baptism in her early 20s, has a high school education and still struggles valiantly against the learning disabilities that make it hard for her to comprehend what she reads or write notes to herself about anything. She married a man who is as educated as she is and who works full time at a job that pays little in a part of the country where underemployment rates are high. She works four days a week as well for a relative in a contentious family business and her family of 6 children seriously struggles with financial shortages. Two of her beloved children are seriously rebellious and her husband struggles with depression. She serves in her callings and bears her testimony again and again of the love her father in heaven has for her and how that sustains her through her difficult times.
Sister B. grew up in a family with a verbally abusive, rejecting mother, a father who left the family and a grandfather who sexually molested her. She left home at 15, finished high school in night school and joined the military. She was in her thirties, a single mother with an angry pre-adolescent son when she encountered the missionaries. She lives alone now, working 70 hour weeks at a low paying job and takes in abused animals. Her son, now an adult, has refused all contact with her and it has been years since she has seen or heard from him. She is fiercely loyal to her heavenly father. She doesn’t call him “heavenly father”, just “Father”. She feels him and his care and knows she can rely on him totally. That she is a beloved daughter of a father who is aware of her and will always be there for her is a lifeline for her that keeps her temper at bay and her desire to do right strong.
Sister C. was abandoned by her father when she was a preschooler and raised by a schizophrenic mother, She married a man who was argumentative, unstable and physically abusive and had two children with him when the missionaries knocked on her door. I have watched her take hold of the reality that she is a beloved daughter of a heavenly father and place the load in his hands innumerable times over the years as she has found the courage to divorce her husband, raise those children, and finish a college degree.
I know and have seen how these dear sisters of mine find it so very helpful to be reminded, year after year after year, that, in spite of all the voices in their past and present lives that are naysayers, that they ARE daughters of God of infinite worth.
I’m willing to hear it said over and over not because I need to be reminded (I already know it and it’s a part of the foundation of truths that empower me) but because I have sisters for whom such reassurance is a blessing.
For some of my sisters, those voices over the pulpit and in their church interactions are the only authoritative voices in their lives that validate their worth as daughters of a loving God.
Perhaps it was these sisters of mine, and thousands more like them, that Sister Beck was thinking of.
I think our emphasis on motherhood would be easier to swallow for some women (me included, and perhaps your wife) if it focused more on our responsibility and duty to raise up the next generation with dedication and grace, despite the sacrifices we will be required to make, and less on how wonderful and fulfilled it will make us feel.
Amen. I think that what happened is that faced with “women’s lib” rhetoric, the Church responded with “but motherhood is fulfilling!” rhetoric, ignoring the fact that not all women feel fulfilled by motherhood and that feelings of fulfillment are beside the point. All it does now is make perfectly adequate mothers feel guilty that they don’t love mothering.
Mary B, that’s a very helpful perspective; thank you for writing that.
“She had a professional musical career and would prefer to work part time to break the monotony and develop other talents but feels the stigma involved would be too great.”
Maybe I am missing something, but I have little patience for anyone, male or female, who cares about “stigma.” My momma used to say that sticks and stones can break your bones, but names can never hurt you.
Why in the world does she care what anyone else thinks?
I joined the church as a single mother, so I understand how narrowminded some folks can be, but it ain’t their life.
Also, if one is going to be a Relief Society president or bishop’s wife, it’s time to stop worrying about what other people think, because no matter what you do or how hard you try, you will be the worst ever in some folks’ books. So you just ignore it and go on.
And yes, I’m employed part-time in a field I love. I’m still home after school with my kids, my husband cared for the children when we had preschoolers.
Thanks for the interesting discussion! What a great topic.
I would like to share a quote attributed to Hyrum Smith (and I wish I knew more about the context):
\”Be not discouraged, neither allow the spirit of doubt or gloom or despondency to come into thy life, for these are tricks of the evil one to destroy thy faith and thy usefulness. But look upon the bright side of life, to be cheerful, humble, prayerful, and pure in thy devotion, and in thy habits, and the Lord will remember thee in mercy. His power and blessings will be upon thee. Therefore, look unto the Lord in humility, and thou shalt be comforted in the answers to thy prayers and be guided in the path of thy duty, day and night.\”
Our attitude about our roles and responsibilities is up to us. When we choose to be grateful and look to the Lord, we are blessed with the ability to feel good about ourselves, receive guidance regarding the path of our duty, and see things in the proper perspective.
The evil one is so good at \”destroying our usefulness\” by making us feel less than we are, whether it\’s through discouragement, guilt, or whatever. And as so many have pointed out above, feeling un-useful can certainly make us feel bad about ourselves.
When I read Rand\’s post above (#85), my first inclination was to agree.
\”We seek those who don’t manage their lives well and then require those who do manage their lives better to stoop to the lower level of thinking to serve them in their weaknesses, rather than elevating them to the level playing field of self sufficiency. In such a world no one feels good about themselves.\”
I\’m a Relief Society president in a rough area of town, and it\’s hard to find joy in service when I think to myself that the people I try to serve will probably never become self-sufficient and what a burden it is to have to get them food and rides week after week. There are sisters I visit teach who have plainly said they\’re not interested in going back to church, but now that I have built a relationship with them, I feel that I\’m trapped – I couldn\’t just quit visiting them without feeling a LOT of guilt. At the same time, I feel guilt that I\’m not doing more. When I give in to these thoughts, I feel no satisfaction in calling.
HOWEVER, when I sincerely try to do my very best at whatever God wants me to do, I can find joy in serving even when other rewards are low. At such times I find what Sister Beck called a \”mother heart\” as I reach out to the sisters in my ward.
Anyway, moving back to the topic of this post . . .
I do think that \”what women need\” is to feel the Love of the Lord in their lives daily, but I don\’t think that can come without each sister actually seeking Him. However, I also think that having someone tell you how much He loves you – just for being his daughter – can go a long way towards making you want to draw closer to Him.
I can\’t wait to see what Sister Beck will do in her new calling!
I would love to write more about roles and how that relates to our self-worth, but must go to bed.
Mary B –
I agree. I also know a lot of sisters struggling with various problems of all kinds, and they just can’t be told enough about how much Heavenly Father loves them.
Naismith –
Thank you for commenting. It’s true – worrying about what other people think is a bit waste of time!
I think the problem is that many of the men running the church really do think women are inadequate, less intelligent, less spiritually privileged. They try to hide it but they fail.
I may just be “caught in the trap,†but I’m not sure how to distinguish between who we are and what we do. All women are children of God, but some will still attain celestial glory and some won’t. It tells us where we came from, but what does it mean with regard to who we ARE?
If we are becoming Christlike, then we DO things because of an inside-out kind of change, not simply to go through the motions of a checklist. Sometimes the doing can help with the becoming, but we need to “always remember” the Savior and seek to “do” for God’s glory and not our own. How’s that? :)
We can only become through the Atonement. If we are spiritually begotten, if we move toward our eternal potential, leaning on Christ and staying true to our covenants, we can become heirs, joint-heirs with Christ.
I believe real guilt is from God and it is to be used to move us forward. Instead of assuaging our guilt by patting each other on the head, why don’t we concentrate on how to remove the guilt by removing the problems that brought it about?
No, only godly sorrow is from God. Too often, we create our own worldly sorrow by focusing too much on ourselves and not enough on Christ. “Real guilt” is sometimes a little hard to recognize if we are artificially and inappropriately hard on ourselves in the wrong way (which causes us to ignore the blessings of the Atonement). Nothing here can be generalized, though…part of the journey of life is to figure out how to rely on the Savior more and on ourselves, our own measurements, etc. less. I think the adversary can catch us in traps of unhealthy guilt and we need to learn the difference.
Eve #25: I’m laughing so hard I nearly choked on my Crystal Light.
Ha. You are only laughing because she didn’t vomit on YOUR shoes. Ha. It must be nice to be you. :)
Mary B., thank you for your comment (92). That was exactly the kind of thing I was trying to get at when I said that sometimes we need to have charity as we hear things that may not float our boats, because it will probably be exactly what someone else needs to hear.
Eve #25: I’m laughing so hard I nearly choked on my Crystal Light.
Ha. You are only laughing because she didn’t vomit on YOUR shoes. Ha. It must be nice to be you. :)
m&m, I assure you that I feel nothing but the deepest contrition at having [virtually] vomited on your [virtual] shoes. See? Watch me [virtually] repent.
(1) Recognition: I just threw up all over m&m’s shoes!
(2) Remorse: In an unpleasant but morally necessary period of self-examination, I come to the realization that my projectile-vomiting habit is destructive to my spiritual life and to my relationships with others. (Also, people with nice shoes are starting to back away from me nervously.) I acknowledge that I am powerless to stop my destructive habit and resolve…nope, that’s AA.
(3) Restitution: I am determined to set things right. I rush to the online virtual shoe store, conveniently open 24-7, buy m&m a new pair of shoes, and FedEx them to her with my profusest apologies.
(4) Resolution. I will not throw up on other peoples’ shoes…I will not throw up on other peoples’ shoes….
(5) Um, I forgot what’s last. Successful abstention? I need to re-read The Miracle of Forgiveness; the last time I read it I was on my mission, reading in Italian, and I wasn’t entirely clear on exactly what some of those sins with long names were. It’s entirely possible projectile vomiting was mentioned.
m&m re #3: So what do you want the FedEx man to bring you? Stilettos? Green alligator loafers? Knee-high combat boots? (I’m kind of a clog-and-Birkinstock kind of person myself, but hey, these are YOUR very own pair of vomit free shoes. Go to town!)
Alison, I’m afraid I don’t really see where you disagree with me…
All I said was that the standard for “having it all” for men (as viewed by society) is pretty standard, no matter what a person’s view on gender roles is. Men can be “good providers” and “good fathers” at the same time. You seem to think they are the same thing. I DON’T but that isn’t really the point, and if anything, it kind of proves my point.
For women, the standards are different inside and outside of the church. What a woman has to achieve for both people across the board to see her as “having it all†is close to impossible.
I’m curious; does anyone think this is a fundamentally untrue statement? On what grounds?
We can’t continue to pretend that women aren’t affected by the perceptions of them that others have. Most women are. If you aren’t, well, more power to you, but that doesn’t mean that you can write off the rest of womankind for being confused by mixed messages.
What if the world, all of the sudden decided since there are more women than men getting college educations, and since women aren’t plagued by testosterone running through their bodies, women were now going to run the show, and men were going to be expected to stay home and raise the children? What if people started berating men for spending 40+ hours a week at work, because it meant they were neglecting their fatherly duty?
And say that in the midst of all of this, the church continued to maintain their view, and tell men that they needed to be good providers. Can any man say that this would have no effect on him, on how he felt about himself, when people looked down upon him for following a standard that the church taught was correct? When he felt like he could relate to other men, because well, they were full-time fathers, and he just spent a couple of hours after dinner with his family, before the kids went off to bed.
I’m not asking if it changes the right answer. I’m just saying it makes it a lot harder. And I’m afraid that I don’t really see how anyone could honestly say that it wouldn’t.
I do think that \â€what women need\†is to feel the Love of the Lord in their lives daily, but I don\’t think that can come without each sister actually seeking Him. However, I also think that having someone tell you how much He loves you – just for being his daughter – can go a long way towards making you want to draw closer to Him.
What a great thought on a thread full of great thoughts.
Responding to Julie’s #93,
I know this was tangential to the thread. But, are you saying that personal fulfillment (and thus individual dispositions) should not be given any consideration in whether a mother chooses to stay home full time with her children? That she should choose to stay home with her children even if she is not at all fulfilled by it?
Michelle, that is exactly what I am saying. I’ll flesh out why I think that later–I’ve got to run–but I don’t think whether it is found fulfilling should be on the table when determining whether to stay home with children.
Michelle (#104), here are my thoughts on whether a woman should stay home. even if it’s not fulfilling:
1. Past the baby stage, it seems that a woman lucky enough to be a SAHM actually can have some discretionary time if she chooses. Hobbies, part-time work, and volunteer work can help a woman feel more fulfilled. In fact, I’m willing to bet that there isn’t a single SAHM out there who could stay sane without having some sort of hobby or activity, paid or unpaid!
2. President Faust said a woman can have more than one career in her life. The children are going to grow up some day.
3. It’s true that none of the options I’ve mentioned are the same as having the kind of high-powered full-time career that takes a lifetime to develop (ie a graduate degree, then _years_ of experience as you work your way up.) But at the end of your life, looking back, which would be more fulfilling? Knowing you passed up time you could’ve had with your children for a career that will soon be forgotten? Or knowing you sacrificed for them and did your best?
“But at the end of your life, looking back, which would be more fulfilling? Knowing you passed up time you could’ve had with your children for a career that will soon be forgotten? Or knowing you sacrificed for them and did your best?”
I think we always ask these questions as though we already know the answers. I’m not sure we do, and I think we may miss out on a lot of personal revelation when we assume that we do. I think God has important work for parents to do both inside and outside of the home, and we’d do well not to assume we know for sure which is more important (at any given time) unless we’ve asked and received an answer. It’s perfectly possible, for instance, that God would send easy kids who will do well with minimal parental input to someone who has important work to do in his/her career. Other children absolutely require full-time (and then some!) parenting for a significant portion of their childhood/adolescence. Some people won’t be able to have children, but won’t know this until long past time to make decisions about career. So much better to prayerfully discover what God intends than to assume that prioritizing family is the ready answer in every situation.
Kristine,
Good point – each family is different, and we should seek personal revelation on the question of employment and career.
It’s also true that the time to make decisions about education and career ofen comes before a person knows if they’re even going to marry, let alone have children. Young LDS women are stuck with such tough decisions about education . . . Do we choose to study something we love, or something we could fall back on to make money if needed? We’re told to magnify our talents, but really it’s hard to be a dedicated, diligent student in a challenging field while hoping, deep down, that in a few years our husbands will provide us with children and everything we need to raise them. Personal revelation is hard enough to receive, even without being fettered by other people’s ideas of what career decisions are appropriate for for mothers, but there really is no other answer.
However, making an employment choice based on personal revelation is very different than making a choice based on personal fulfillment.
“However, making an employment choice based on personal revelation is very different than making a choice based on personal fulfillment.”
Well said!
OK, I’m back. Michelle, I know of nothing in the scriptures or teachings of prophets that commands us to seek personal fulfillment and/or suggests that it is important. We are here to be tried and tested to see if we will be obedient. One of the areas where we are asked to be obedient is in having mothers in the home as much as possible with young children. Some women find this fulfilling. For those who don’t, I would suggest that they tweak their schedules as much as possible within the confines of caring for their children. This may include things such as part-time work, taking classes, trading child care with another mother, spending a lot of time at the gym, etc. But I would not suggest that they give up SAHM-ing because it isn’t fulfilling. Again, personal revelation may come into play here. But generally speaking, seeking personal fulfillment means seeking after the psychobabble of this world and not the kingdom of heaven.
“But generally speaking, seeking personal fulfillment means seeking after the psychobabble of this world and not the kingdom of heaven.”
Well, there is that one pesky scripture about “men are that they might have joy”, and JS saying “happiness is the object and design of our existence…” I get that happiness/joy/fulfillment are not exact synonyms, but they’re related enough that your assertion seems a little too reductive, Julie. (appealing though it would be to believe in such a relatively simple prescription for all mothers…)
Kristine, not only are they not synonymous but I don’t think they are in the same neighborhood. I never find semantic debates terribly useful, though.
However, imagine this: let’s say that someone felt that watching porn brought him “personal fulfillment’ that he couldn’t achieve any other way and, since it is scriptural that we are here that we might have joy, he feels justified and in fact feels that his porn use is scripturally mandated. How do you think that would fly?
I’m also unclear as to what you are reading as a “relatively simply prescription for all mothers.”
“President Beck’s primary concerns are the lack of self-worth and sense of identity that plague too many women”
I take this more as an index of the relative affluence of the US Saints than anything else. In adulthood, low self-worth and poorly-defined identity are the problems of rich people. “Affluenza” might apply here.
Thank you for stating this, Rosalynde. I know it would require a lot of nuancing and additional thoughts, but so much what is being discussed here comes from a U.S. or, broader, rich Western perspective. Of course we do not equate affluent = U.S. or West in all circumstances, given the poverty in also many of our countries. But the perspective of self-worth and sense of identity is certainly also socially, financially and culturally determined. And the Western “poor” assess their situation from what they see around them in terms of affluence, commercial publicity to create needs, availability of credit…
“In adulthood, low self-worth and poorly-defined identity are the problems of rich people.”
Are you KIDDING me???
I agree with Rosalynde too.
“Affluenza” is the root of it all — or at least most of it. And it afflicts many of the lower class in the west as well (why with living in such close proximity to the wealthy, what with the constant parading of the rich and famous up and down every conceivable media avenue).
While some are slowly dying of Affluenza others are wishing they’d catch the deadly disease.
Kristine,
I have to agree with you that happiness and fulfillment (however you choose to define the latter) are not only in the same neighborhood, they live in the same house. I don\’t think equating fulfillment through porn with fulfillment through the development of one\’s God given talents is a useful analogy. A focus on the former is uniformly condemned as sin, while the later is to be encouraged (as my own patriarchal blessing admonishes.) A quick search through Gospellink seems to give credence to the notion that fulfillment and happiness are closely intertwined. Early church history is replete with stories of talented women being sent East to study art, architecture, medicine, etc. Not all were encouraged to do so but some had exceptional talent and promise and were so directed. Having said that, I agree that someone has got to take care of the kids and that someone is most often the mother. It was interesting to watch the negotiation amongst my non-LDS couple friends who felt strongly that a parent should be the primary caregiver. Most often the spouse who had the greatest earning potential stayed on the job while the other was home with the kids. I\’ve had the great pleasure of knowing many men who did a wonderful job as Mr. Mom.
“I don\’t think equating fulfillment through porn with fulfillment through the development of one\’s God given talents is a useful analogy.”
That was phrased much more diplomatically than I could manage–thank you. I think some women lose themselves in service to their own children, other women lose themselves serving others’ children. Children require a great deal of sacrifice, but a worthy life’s work can also offer the opportunity for doing something holy (sacer + facere).
Just don’t carry the “career=fulfillment” thing too far. Otherwise, you’ll be in the upper 3% crowd — not a substantial enough crossection, IMO.
Julie,
I think that we’re defining fulfillment quite differently. For me, developing and using inherent potential and talents are essential to fulfillment.
In general, there are a couple of things I’m wondering about.
First, how to develop talents when the bulk of one’s time is spent in activities (here, child rearing) where there is little natural ability.
And, the children of mothers who do not find satisfaction in child-rearing. It seems possible that both mother and children could benefit from adding other care givers into the family so that the mother could pursue other interests, in whatever form those may take.
It seems that your definition of stay at home mom is fairly broad if it includes part time work. Do you think of SAHM mostly in terms of primary caregiver? Or do you think of it more in terms of the amount of time a mother is with her children?
I think Cami and Kristine have both missed the point of my analogy. Prophets have told us that porn use is wrong. They have also told us that it is wrong for mothers of young children to work fulltime if they have a choice. To decide to go against either of these teachings out of a desire for self-fulfillment is, therefore, wrong. I’m sorry, Kristine, that you found it hard to respond calmly to this–if it is any condolence, it took me a good long time to get past my initial response to (what I perceived to be) your tone in #111.
Michelle writes, “developing and using inherent potential and talents are essential to fulfillment.”
I think it is within the realm of possibility that someone would be called to sacrifice the development of their potential and talents in order to raise their children. (In fact, I think most women are.)
So for your first “wondering”: maybe the time of young motherhood is a time to sacrifice the development of talents. Or maybe it is a time find a friend you can swap kids with for a few afternoons per week so you can write a book (something I did with a 1 and 4 year old) or have your husband work late one night per week so he can come home early another night so you can teach Institute (something I do regularly) or feel a twinge every time you look at your Hebrew grammar because you can’t find the time to devote to it right now.
“It seems possible that both mother and children could benefit from adding other care givers into the family so that the mother could pursue other interests, in whatever form those may take.”
I think the small-scale addition of other caregivers is consonant with what prophets teach is in the best interest of families; I think full-time alternative care is not.
“It seems that your definition of stay at home mom is fairly broad if it includes part time work. Do you think of SAHM mostly in terms of primary caregiver? Or do you think of it more in terms of the amount of time a mother is with her children?”
It is fairly broad. I don’t think it would be right to put a concrete definition (or, heaven forbid, hour maximum) on it because it depends on so many factors (quality/kind of alternative care, support of spouse, age and number and needs of kids, etc.); I think that this is where prayer really has to come in.
Michelle writes, “developing and using inherent potential and talents are essential to fulfillment.â€
I think the concept of fulfillment as primary goal (i.e., equating it with “happiness” or “joy” as defined in gospel terms) is potentially very problematic. And also could be missing the boat. Short-term fulfillment is not the purpose of life. “Inherent potential” is at the level of godhood, not just being able to find fulfillment in mortality. God wants us to be happy in an eternal sense. And that might not always equate to completely fulfilled dreams in this sphere. I really don’t think fulfillment should be the main criterion for our decision-making. God’s will and guidance, communicated through prophets and through personal revelation, should be what we aim for. Obviously, for each person, the specifics might look a little different, but the driving factor can’t simply be fulfillment or we’d all be living pretty selfish existences, and that’s just not why we are here.
“They have also told us that it is wrong for mothers of young children to work fulltime if they have a choice.”
Julie, I don’t think that’s an entirely unproblematic claim–the counsel for mothers to be at home with young children has generally been couched in terms of not working for the sake of greater *material* satisfaction, and has included exceptions both at the low end of the socioeconomic scale (when women must work to support their families) and at the high end (President Hinckley’s praise of Margaret Thatcher, Sandra Day O’Connor and other high-profile women in the early 80s, his more recent approving description of the nurse who was able to enjoy her career while mothering). I don’t think I’ve ever seen a statement as cut-and-dried as yours above.
(Also, as you know, at the practical level, my choices were quite similar to yours, and we are in broad agreement about the need to put children’s needs ahead of parental desires when they are truly in conflict.)
“I don’t think I’ve ever seen a statement as cut-and-dried as yours above.”
Kristine, are you serious? The temptation to bury you in GA statements is almost overwhelming here, but I’ll limit myself to one: “the counsel of the Church has always been for mothers to spend their full time in the home in rearing and caring for their children.” (Pres. Benson)
Julie, even President Benson, in that very talk, noted exceptions to the rule.
“In adulthood, low self-worth and poorly-defined identity are the problems of rich people.”
While, I can see that this is often the case, I don’t think it’s completely accurate. Do you mean it’s mostly rich people who have these problems? First, I think we have to realize that our PERCEPTIONS of the way others feel about themselves are not always (rarely?) reality. Second, I personally know more “poor” women who struggle with self-worth/ identity, but this may be because I know more poor women than rich.
It’s clear from the comments that most of you have never dealt with these issues yourselves – count your blessings! I agree that the remedy is often “putting our shoulder to the wheel” and pioneering on. But surely even those strong female pioneers whom we so often admire for their apparent unbreakable spirits also had moments of doubt and guilt-induced sorrow. Let’s be careful not to point the blame out women who struggle to overcome guilt of simply “not having enough work to do” or “focusing too much on self”
Kristine, I never not once implied that there were not exceptions. I thought it was clear that we’re talking about general principles here.
“I don’t think equating fulfillment through porn with fulfillment through the development of one’s God given talents is a useful analogy.â€
While the porn analogy didn’t work for me, either, nor does equating “fulfillment,” as it’s been used in this thread, as heeding the parable of the talents from the NT.
First, it seems to conflate God with the marketplace, though there’s little reason to believe that the talents God cares about are those rewarded by the market. I would hope that most people believe God expects them to develop their talents for service, charity, forgiveness, and testifying, and that God isn’t that impressed by your dedication to becoming a great realtor, golfer, musician, dispatcher, marketer, tax preparer, securities trader, staff supervisor, administrative assistant or customer service manager. Or even CEO. (I am honestly interested in hearing from anyone who thinks the parable of the talents should be understood to obligate us to maximize our success in pursuits like these.)
Second, the primary fulfillment from working, it seems to me, stems from the tangible benefits of increased social status and purchasing power. These are benefits, I would hope, that most people believe God wants them to work _beyond_, not toward.
Excuse me ladies. I was just changing channels on my television and catch the last part of the talk show that lead me to this web sight. I just briefly read some of your discussion. Usually I am a passive observer when coming to the Internet. I must say it is quite encouraging seeing women evaluating their self worth and their role in life. At this moment I am at a cross road in my life. I think that because of the lack of self-esteem and self worth many women are prone to being involved in different types of harmful situations and relationships. I have noticed that for men, such a situation can be quite appealing because it is their playing field.
However for me as a Christian it is quite opposite. I have avoided personal relationships for some time simply because I feel that woman tend to gravitate to what is not always quite acceptable. Perhaps I am just looking in the wrong place or perhaps I am not even looking for situations that are creative in nature. Those who might be somewhat Godly minded or Christ centred should have an idea of what I am talking about.
The web sight requested that email remain confidential. It would have been quite interesting if I could have continued this conversation via Email. Simply because I have seen people meeting people on the internet and never was bold enough to take up such a challenge.
I am flabbergasted, you people are strange, you equate self worth with church service, it maybe a portion in some womens eyes but not in all, and now I cant find the post about “many women were sent out east to get an education” Ya right, when in the last 20 years at their expense? Women were and are second class people in the US and most of the world. If they were not why do so many people sit by while the slave trade (even here in the US) in women continues? Or is it elitism they are not my skin color/religion that makes it OK?
Every one is different, everyone is unique, every one has different psycho/social needs, no blanket statement will work for all women anymore then, one statement about Mormons fits all members.
It is the middle of the night, and I’m up with my insomnia. That sometimes brings me to Times and Seasons. I have enjoyed reading this particular thread. For me, the posts by Ardis, Alison, Mary B., and Julie Smith have been particularly thought provoking.
My comment, even though this tread has probably about run its course…
My primary profressional focus is the study of international folk art. Most of this art is created by women. Most of these artists have, by Western standards, very modest financial resources. Most of this art serves their society/families in a very practical ways (clothing, utensils, bedding, home decoration, celebrating religion, affirming behavioral values and relationships, etc.). I find that this art is some of the most beautiful and substansive in the history of art.
I have sat in Hopi homes and watched three generations,( grandma, mom, and very young daughters), making pottery together on the kitchen table. Generational bonding seemed to be happening. Conversation was happening. Values were being shared. Skills were being taught. Children were being “cared for,” indentity and worth were being reinforced, and the objects being made were permanently adding to the beauty of the world. The plan of salvation teaches us that we are supposed to try to emulate the Lord. One of his attributes is the Creator. These Hopi families that I have seen seem to be doing their best to move in that direction. And yet home and family are not short changed in the process, they are enhanced.
I realized that this blog tends to attract and speak to people who have a more litterary and academic bent. But perhaps there are some other cultures that could widen our perspectives a bit. One thing about folk art, is that it has passed the test of time. Since most folk art is made by women, I thought that there might be some patterns of life reflected in the matrix of its creation that could be useful for this thread.