Thanks for the discussion. I’m closing comments now. You can continue some aspects of the discussion on either of Kaimi’s two new threads.

Or just as easily, and more likely, to not be related at all.

Perhaps Elder Oaks was referring only to letters requesting apostolic confirmation when a personal exception is suspected. I did not see a conjunction (but it’s okay to write letters in other scenarios) – but maybe it wasn’t Elder Oaks’ responsibility/purpose to describe all exceptions to his counsel on letter writing :). And to me it seems, based on what Elder Oaks said, that a single private letter (or a series of seperate letters received from individual concerned members….such as some have suggested the manifesto writers should have pursued) expressing general concern with counsel would likely be seen in the context of a “personal exception” anyway – and therefore is something Elder Oaks discourages.

(See http://personal.atl.bellsouth.net/w/o/wol3/hinckgb1.htm ).

Mindbogglingly stupid.

I found the whole thing completely silly. I understand that many might find her comments a little jarring but after re-listening and re-reading the talk I find this whole argument pointless.

It seems like a typical situation where no one in my ward here in Canada would even have noticed or cared but seems to just grab the Utah saints. Yes I know the letter was signed by people who are not all from Utah. But I also know that no one either in relief society or elders quorum here in Canada seem to go ballistic about it.

If you do not agree with it then do not listen to her. If you think it is just her personal opinion then fine. But women who get offended by talks like this should go read the Priesthood session of conference. We are called to repentance for a whole lot worse not mildly pointed out that we can do better. These talks are just as frank and harsh.

Personally, my wife and I have chosen together that she was to stay with the kids in the home as much as possible.

Some times that has not been economically sensible but we made the choice because all the social studies done, as well as common sense and the general authorities have suggested it. We have suffered financially but in our case this is nothing compared to what might have happened for our son who has learning disabilities was left to the school system to teach.

After living in Britain for four years I can say that I have seen what can happen when kids are not raised responsibly or in the home and it is ugly. They have school from 3 years old and are talking about fully funding nationalized daycare from six months old. Personally after seeing what is happening to Britain’s youth I would not wish that on anyone.

I believe that this argument is being launched because Julie Beck is an easy target. You are not attacking the “bretheren” there is an idea that you can get away with it easier.

It also seems be an agenda which is focused around ideas that the Church is not progressive enough for some people so rather than take a soft approach some want to agitate. So hitting at Sister Beck is just an underlying way to hit every conservative leader in the church who are against feminist ideas and the feminist approach. Much like Harry Reid’s diatribe at BYU against conservative Mormons who apparently are sheep who follow right wing leaders because they were Apostles.

Hurt feelings and expressions of protest will not change the opinions of the leaders, or most of the members. I would dare say that they do go a long way to hardening attitudes. Creating as straw man arguments against the talk, putting meaning into Sister Beck’s talk which may be unintended seems a great way to make a statement which makes others look at the weakness of your argument over the validity of it.

Era battle late 1970′s

The feminist part of the September 6 situation in the early 1990′s.

I expect to see it again in what 2020-2025