This is certainly a possible and a reasonable explanation, that I’m not necessarily refuting. This follows the same caveot, that “it is good to be learned as long as one hearkens to the commandments of God.” When we deviate from prophetic counsel, we do so at our own peril.

Look I’ve enjoyed watching GC this week-end, and have felt uplifted, inspired, and appreciative of the messages that have been shared. I’m grateful that education was emphasized for both male and female audiences this year.

Not to disparage any speakers, or type of speakers, but I still occassionally cringe when a certain type of female speaker comes across as if her audience is a group of 5 year-olds (ie she talks real slow, with big smiles, too much drama, and extols and hyperbolizes her message to the point that everyone in the audience is assumed to be a 5 year old). This pedagological approach works great for kindergarden, but less effectively for a more diverse audience.

#244
“Granted President Benson’s teachings are fairly explicit and traditionally reinforced by the Church, but I think it’s fair to say not all LDS women fit into this paradigm. My sister didn’t. She is a Harvard educated, highly motivated and successful career women who couldn’t bend to the traditional LDS mold she was supposed to embrace. She left the Church…”

Not speaking specifically to your sister, but this general idea has been put forth so many times in my life that I can’t count. There is some implication that bright, educated, motivated people are somehow incapable of following specific prophetic counsel if it counters what they would do without the existence of counsel. Couldn’t it be that some bright, educated, motivated people just aren’t dedicated enough to do so?

The same argument is put forth with regard to almost every disagreeable prophetic statement that I can think of. People who are really “in touch with their sexuality” simply cannot be expected to bend to the “chastity mold.” It just doesn’t fit. (Those who do remain celebate until marriage are, obviously, simply frigid.)

#247
“As far as a bigger tent idea, I would love to hear a RS leader in GC give a talk and say, “young women, get a good education, develop skills or obtain a profession that will support you (in case your personal circumstances require it), and have a family at a time and place of your choosing.â€?

Gosh, are you channeling? With the exception of the last phrase, that’s almost verbatim what President Hinckley said in the General RS Meeting last week. :)

ECS, staying home does not require the loss of skills nor of staying out of the workforce. But it does require creativity, flexibility, and gumption.

“When John comes home tired, you will be fresh and pleasant; the house will be orderly; the dinner will be tempting; and life will have real meaning.�

Would it be OK if I had the house orderly, the meal fresh from the freezer, and myself tempting?

I’ll be interested in your post! Be well, Adam G.

As far as “needing to work,” it will be a rare USAmerican family indeed who can afford to retire comfortably on just one income. In this day of very few guaranteed pensions, but more defined contribution plans, saving for retirement is up to the individual. And since the tax benefits are “per employee,” having two employed people allows twice as much tax-advantaged savings. So there are compelling reasons for mothers to return to the workforce once their children are grown (especially if you want to retire young enough to serve a mission, etc.)

Your principle/rule distinction is interesting. What we see in the law is that a rule will be announced to deal with a problem (e.g.-women preferring career to family). Over time, it will become obvious that the rule needs some exceptions and clarifications (e.g.-divorced women who avoided education, because they didn’t want a career, find themselves mired in poverty*). At this point one of two things usually happens–the law either becomes much more elaborate or its replaced with vaguer and more flexible principles. We prefer ambiguity in our theology, too, so I wouldn’t be surprised if the Church chose to go the principles route and not the Mishnaic route.

A postcript–over time, principles tend to evolve into rules again, because the return to principles usually leads to an upsurge in the original problem. If you are right about the principle/rule distinction being the main thing that’s going on with women and the church, and I’m right about the reason from the switch from the one to the other, then after a while we should see more Kimball/Benson rhetoric and less Hinckley rhetoric. But I don’t think this will happen. I do think the principle/rule distinction is part of what’s going on, but I think there are complicating factors: first, I believe that the rhetorical changes for women-at-home and birth-control are only partly inspired by this kind of principle/rule distinction and partly by something else that Rosalynde W. hints at in her comment. I’ll post about it sometime when I get out of drug rehab. Second, I think that over time the Church will become more responsive to the needs and interests of the Global South and I’m not smart enough to know how this will affect things–maybe the Global South being much more conservative makes a return to rules more likely, or maybe the differences between areas of the church makes rules less likely. Dunno.

Well, Eve, I do have children, and I stay at home, and what you described describes much of my life as well. :) I think it would be nice for hubby to come home to a clean house, but it’s not happening….

This quote / advice is certainly a relic from the past. It’s hard to argue with a straight face that a newly married couple with no children should have the women stay home and babysit the house in order to provide piping hot meals (a la June Cleaver) to her husband.

Curiously, I’ve seen this very thing occur in our ward, where a newly married women with no kids quit her job after getting married in order to play homemaker for years before children ever come (ostensibly to be consistent with the spirit of this advice from the Kimball era). Wow…that’s a tough sell today…