LDS Moms ~ It's that time of year again!

[Amira]

Tried to go to the local LDS church today. Yeah...DISASTER!!!! My three year old is a bit rambunctious today.

Also, there are NO KIDS at this ward. Am I able to pick another ward a bit farther from my house? I want my kids to connect etc too.

 

It sounds like you went to a young adult or student ward. In some places there are a few different types of wards available to go to, but every place will have a ward with kids that you can go to. There is probably another ward that meets at a different time in the same building you went to today. Did you try putting your address into the ward finder on mormon.org? That should tell you the nearby wards, the times they meet, and whether it's not a typical ward (young adult, foreign language, etc.). Then you can pick what works for you.

 

And I totally agree that it's hard to go to a non-kid ward when you have kids!

[melbotoast]

I would agree that culture is a factor. I listened to an interview with Elder and Sis. Cook (I think) who served in the Pacific Island area, where there is a matriarchal culture. Therefore, although the wives do not generally do so, Sis. Cook got to go along and teach the women of the church there. I will see if I can find the link to that podcast.

 

ETA: I'm not finding the podcast I'm thinking of, but it was one of these: http://mormonchannel.org/conversations/47-elder-william-r-walker

I don't think it was Elder Cook.

Edited October 14, 2012 by melbotoast
add

[welovetoread]

I did put my address in and that is the ward it put me. There were alot of older people and people with no kids and only a few kids.

I dunno, today just isn't a good day lol

[Amira]

I did put my address in and that is the ward it put me. There were alot of older people and people with no kids and only a few kids.

I dunno, today just isn't a good day lol

 

Oh, that's too bad that weren't many kids in the ward. Generally we go to the ward we're assigned to geographically. But you're certainly welcome to try out a different ward if you like. It's possible one of the other wards in the area would have more children. Did you meet anyone today who might know the wards in the area?

[welovetoread]

I'm not sure. We might try one that is a bit farther but might be worth the drive etc.

[blondeviolin]

Yep. Think of kings in The Book of Mormon. If your king is Benjamin, life is pretty good despite having to defer to his leadership. If your king is Noah, life is not so good because you have to defer to his leadership.

 

Defending an unequal system by saying that the leaders are mostly good and kind is like saying slavery was fine because not all slave owners beat their slaves. Yes, that is a hyperbolic comparison, but it still applies.

 

These discussions remind me of the tensions between suffragettes and female anti-suffragettes. That Lady Gaga parody about suffrage has lyrics that are particularly appropriate.

 

Anti-suffragette:

"I think you're psycho. I think that it's sick. I'm queen of my home, raise my babies, that's it. Don't need to vote."

 

Men (as they are directing her on what to say/think):

"No, no, she don't want to vote."

 

Gotta go finish getting ready for church.

 

Luckily, I've yet to encounter a glaring issue with my bishop. I understand there are bishops where issues like that arise. But women leaders are also capable of counseling with stake and local leaders if there concerns there. I would imagine it is a problem that many of those other leaders are also male? In the case of me being primary president, there is also the stake primary president who has other contacts and people to defer to.

[LittleIzumi]

I don't believe that the leaders are intentionally sexist and going against God. The culture of our country (and the world) in regards to women has been slowly changing over the last 60 years. As the men that were raised 50-60-70 years ago pass away, a different culture in the church will come forth (and has already started to). Heavenly Father has to work work with us as we are/were, and will adjust to the times as they improve.

 

If they decide to change it in the future, I will certainly not complain! It keeps getting better and better. :D

 

 

Hubby read to the girls today about the Priesthood, and mentioned young men getting it, and without missing a beat told them when they go to the temple they'll be able to exercise the Priesthood there. I didn't even have to give him The Eye or anything. :lol: It was just part of his lesson. I enjoyed that. Nothing about the controversy, just boys get it here, and girls get it here.

 

I did put my address in and that is the ward it put me. There were alot of older people and people with no kids and only a few kids.

I dunno, today just isn't a good day lol

 

:grouphug::grouphug: Today my 5-year-old ran off to find me sobbing once, was brought to me by her teacher sobbing once, and was brought to dh sobbing once and sat with him in dh's class for the rest of the day. Sigh. Maybe there was something in the air. Some wards have a lot of children (like 80) and some have almost none. Our ward has 8 kids in nursery (18 months to 3 years) but I think maybe three or five young women total (ages 12 to 18). The balance changes everywhere. You can try another ward (or get the bishop's phone number from the Website and call and ask about the number of children) or try your closer ward again and ask if all the children were there, set up playdates with the kids/parents who are there to get to know them better, etc. The first time or two in a ward is always weird until you adjust to the new group. In ours, we happened to come when people were talking about the deaths of relatives constantly, every meeting, for the first three times we came. It freaked us out and we told the bishop we weren't comfortable in the ward at all. He looked at us like we'd grown three heads and said he thought the dynamic was completely different from that, and that normally it wasn't like that at all, and that we should keep coming. And he was right. We just had the worst luck those first times. It's actually a fabulous ward with a bunch of spunky single women and a lot of new moms and kids and lovely couples, and we just walked in at a weird moment.

 

Oh, today in testimony meeting our stake patriarch said the missionaries often ask investigators to read 3 Nephi chapter 11 as the first Book of Mormon chapter they read (because it's so fabulous and amazing and spiritual and just... wow) and asked everyone to go home and read it. We read through it again tonight as a family, explaining it to the girls and giving them turns to read and such. It was wonderful, and the girls were explaining what they and asking questions, etc. Great Sabbath evening. (Followed by hubby playing his digeridoo and The Sponge dancing around to it, shaking a maraca. :lol:)

 

 

And, and (LOL), there's been something that hubby's been... reluctant to work on for a while, and while I bring it up occasionally he has to work on it himself. Today dh asked me if I had been praying for strange ways to get him to work on it (nope). Today his Priesthood leaders set up a monthly thing, including him as a large part, that requires him to work on that very thing. And since it's now a Priesthood responsibility with someone outside our home who would know if he was working on it or not, he's planning to finally do it. Woohoo. Priesthood FTW. :lol:

Edited October 15, 2012 by LittleIzumi

[Caitilin]

So, because I'm nosy like that, I went and read the citation Little Izumi mentioned...and it says clearly, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one, and that the Father and the Son are one. 'Splain to me how that is non-trinitarian, please? :D (I don't want or intend an argument--I really just like explanations.):)

[DianeW88]

So, because I'm nosy like that, I went and read the citation Little Izumi mentioned...and it says clearly, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one, and that the Father and the Son are one. 'Splain to me how that is non-trinitarian, please? :D (I don't want or intend an argument--I really just like explanations.):)

 

We believe they are completely united and one in purpose, and we often say they are one. But we do not believe they are one in body. Here's a reference that I hope gives you a better explanation...because I'm not very articulate this late at night. :lol: If not, feel free to ask.

 

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/10/the-only-true-god-and-jesus-christ-whom-he-hath-sent?lang=eng&query=trinity

[LittleIzumi]

We believe they are completely united and one in purpose, and we often say they are one. But we do not believe they are one in body. Here's a reference that I hope gives you a better explanation...because I'm not very articulate this late at night. :lol: If not, feel free to ask.

 

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/10/the-only-true-god-and-jesus-christ-whom-he-hath-sent?lang=eng&query=trinity

:iagree: It also says that the Father testifies of the Son, and the Son testifies of the Father, and the Holy Ghost testifies of them both, and that Christ teaches the doctrine of the Father, etc. We believe they work and function as one--no contention, no dissention, in perfect harmony. We refer to the three separate Father, Son, and Holy Ghost working as one as "The Godhead." After all, Christ also said in the Old Testament that He wanted the apostles to be one as He and the Father were one. He certainly wasn't asking them to become literally one flesh and one spirit, but one in purpose and perfect harmony. That is how we believe the Godhead are one.

[dangermom]

We've been gone all weekend, but I thought I'd pop in and say that my niece got baptized yesterday and it was just lovely. What a great meeting. :) It was actually the largest baptism meeting I've ever been to, because they were doing 4 kids at once, which we don't really do up here. But regardless of size, the spirit there was wonderful.

 

Also we visited my brother's workplace, which is one of the Lawrence Labs full of classified military-industrial-complex-type stuff. World's biggest laser! World's biggest supercomputer! Like that. I really liked the laser. I think the kids liked my brother's lunchtime dojo the best.

[garddwr]

We've been gone all weekend, but I thought I'd pop in and say that my niece got baptized yesterday and it was just lovely. What a great meeting. :) It was actually the largest baptism meeting I've ever been to, because they were doing 4 kids at once, which we don't really do up here. But regardless of size, the spirit there was wonderful.

 

Also we visited my brother's workplace, which is one of the Lawrence Labs full of classified military-industrial-complex-type stuff. World's biggest laser! World's biggest supercomputer! Like that. I really liked the laser. I think the kids liked my brother's lunchtime dojo the best.

 

Ah, we got to attend a baptism yesterday as well, for one of my children's friends. It was a really sweet service. I'm particularly fond of baptismal services because the first time I remember having a strong spiritual experience was at a baptism I attended when I was about 9 years old. Baptisms always remind me of that.

[garddwr]

:iagree: It also says that the Father testifies of the Son, and the Son testifies of the Father, and the Holy Ghost testifies of them both, and that Christ teaches the doctrine of the Father, etc. We believe they work and function as one--no contention, no dissention, in perfect harmony. We refer to the three separate Father, Son, and Holy Ghost working as one as "The Godhead." After all, Christ also said in the Old Testament that He wanted the apostles to be one as He and the Father were one. He certainly wasn't asking them to become literally one flesh and one spirit, but one in purpose and perfect harmony. That is how we believe the Godhead are one.

 

Maybe this is the reference were thinking of?

John 17:20-24

 

King James Version (KJV)

 

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

[LittleIzumi]

Maybe this is the reference were thinking of?

John 17:20-24

 

King James Version (KJV)

 

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

 

Sounds right, thanks! I can't highlight and quote on my iPad so I gave up on that, lol. :o

[MamaSheep]

Such an interesting discussion...so little time...sigh.

 

...

 

One of my favorite stories in the Old Testament is the daughters of Zelophehad (check out verses 1-11 if you don't know the story). I come from a family of only five daughters like they did so this story has long been important to me. If they had not voiced their concerns, nothing would have changed. God agreed with the change, but He didn't initiate it....

 

I like that story too. It also reminds me that the Word of Wisdom was given in response to Joseph inquiring of the Lord at Emma's prompting.

 

I very much agree that it's important for the voices of the women of the church to be heard. On both (or rather all) sides of issues like this. I think they ARE heard.

 

Thanks for the kind words! Mormon women aren't usually the shy, retiring types. We're a pretty opinionated bunch. :D

:lol: Ya think? :D

 

Exactly. President Hinckley said that there was no agitation for women to get the priesthood (or more equality, etc.). Here I am agitating away. :)

 

And I'm sure you won't mind if I agitate in another direction. :)

 

To the bolded: of course our tradition is sexist. It's not surprising due the sexist history of our world. We have yet to experience leadership from a majority group (of men) whose childhood and young adult culture has valued equality between women and men. The leaders of the church fought the ERA and asked members to do the same. With that and other anti-woman history (*cough*polygamy*cough*), I do not automatically assume that an all male leadership understands women's needs and issues. ;)

 

I think you are vastly oversimplifying and caricaturing the church's positions on both the ERA and *cough* polygamy. There's a great deal more to it than being anti-woman, some of it extremely pro-woman, especially for the times.

 

I do not automatically assume that an all male leadership understands women's needs and issues either. Nor do I automatically assume that women understand men's needs and issues either. Which is why I think it's important for us to have both our own distinct support structures that meet our different needs, and an interface that connects each to the other and informs each about the other's needs and issues.

 

This is not the experience I had with our bishop as Primary President. The way I was treated is what led me to investigating more of the things that have been discussed on this thread over the last 4 years. Other women in presidencies in our ward have told me they were treated the same way. But he had the authority and the Stake President supported him.

 

Well just because my own personal experience with the men I've dealt with in church leadership has always been positive, doesn't mean I don't acknowledge or believe that others have had less fortunate experiences. As my dad says, "There are buttheads everywhere." :D

 

Sometimes the men need to be educated about their proper role, and women can (and should) certainly help in that.

 

(And sometimes people are given time and space to learn and grow into callings instead of just being removed at the first sign of trouble. Even bishops. Sometimes they wind up accepting the need to change, and sometimes after a time they are removed. I've had one bishop who was like that too. He was in for a couple of years while various people worked with him at different levels and in different roles to help him to better understand, but he ultimately was replaced earlier than originally intended. Dh was one of his counselors and often frustrated with the bishop because of his attitude and some of his actions (many of which he couldn't tell me much about due to confidentiality issues). Since I was his wife and well acquainted with the bishop's wife (who was part of the problem, to be honest) from a previous stint in an RS presidency together, (and because for some reason some of the women in the ward thought I was an appropriate person to whine at about it) I knew a lot more about the situation than the average ward member. I would be very much surprised if there wasn't more going on with getting that situation worked out than you may be aware of. And it may be that although the stake president "supports" him in his calling, he is also working with the bishop behind the scenes to correct matters.)

 

If you're in a position to appropriately educate and influence such a bishop, my recommendation would be to sit down with him privately, or with him and the stake president (and the Stake RS, Primary, or YW president if you want some feminine support), and in a non-confrontational manner explain to him that his attitude toward women is interfering with your ability to fulfill your calling well. You could be specific about things he has done that were inappropriate. It might be helpful to point out to him some of the many statements published by the church regarding women in church councils, and the relationship of priesthood with women. For example, the June Ensign this year focused on the priesthood, and included quotes like these, which could be useful in such a discussion:

 

These are from the article "Counseling Together in Marriage", which points out that the family council (husband and wife) is the basic council of the church, and that principles that apply to priesthood councils at church also apply in the home. I've bolded a few pertinent bits:

 

"President Howard W. Hunter (1907–95) said: “A man who holds the priesthood accepts his wife as

a partner in the leadership of the home and family with full knowledge of and full participation in all decisions

relating thereto. … The Lord intended that the wife be a helpmeet for man (meet means equal)—that is,

a companion equal and necessary in full partnership

.”8 We are made to help each other. When we invite and accept our spouse’s participation, we can enjoy one of the great benefits of marriage.

…

Understanding the correct meaning of presiding is vital in conducting an effective priesthood council.

Those who preside “watch over the church” (Alma 6:1) and are responsible for ensuring that unity, equal participation, and other principles of counseling are being practiced

. Elder Ballard reminds us that “those who hold the priesthood must never forget that they have no right to wield priesthood authority like a club over the heads of others. … Priesthood is for service, not servitude; compassion, not compulsion; caring, not control.

Those who think otherwise are operating outside the parameters of priesthood authority.

”9

…

The husband’s patriarchal duty as

one who presides in the home is not to rule over others

but to ensure that the marriage and the family prosper. President David O. McKay (1873–1970) explained that one day every man will have a personal priesthood interview with the Savior: “First, He will request an accountability report about your relationship with your wife. Have you been actively engaged in making her happy and ensuring that her needs have been met as an individual?”10

The husband is accountable for growth and happiness in his marriage, but

this accountability does not give him authority over his wife. Both are in charge of the marriage

. In righteous marriage councils both spouses share a set of virtues that when applied help them focus on each other.

We can study some of these virtues in Doctrine and Covenants 121:41: “No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned.”

We cannot use the priesthood to assert power and influence. Therefore, we can’t use unrighteous means to establish dominance in marriage.

True power comes only when we work together in righteousness

and so qualify for blessings from the Lord."

 

Here's a snip from President Eyring (First Counselor in the First Presidency) from the First Presidency Message in that issue, pointing out that men should sustain female leaders in the church:

"As we raise a hand to sustain a person, we commit to work for whatever purpose of the Lord that person is called to accomplish. When our children were small, my wife was called to teach the little children in our ward. I not only raised my hand to sustain her, but I also prayed for her and then asked permission to help her. The lessons I received of appreciation for what women do and of the Lord’s love for children still bless my family and my life. "

 

There are some other good articles about the priesthood in that issue too. And I think I recall there was a good talk in a Worldwide Leadership Training meeting a couple of years ago in which the men of the church were (gently) reminded that women's contribution to ward councils is vital and it's the presiding authority's responsibility to make sure they get to have their say. 2011 maybe? I'm out of time to look it up though.

 

Anyway, the fact that some men need to be educated about their priesthood, and about their proper relationship with women does not mean that the whole system is rotten or sexist. In my opinion.

Edited October 15, 2012 by MamaSheep

[stansclan89]

Anyway, the fact that some men need to be educated about their priesthood, and about their proper relationship with women does not mean that the whole system is rotten or sexist. In my opinion.

 

I'm sure it is not everywhere. The problem is that with the system that is in place is that they won't be educated, unless some man in authority directly above them makes sure it is changed. If the man above them thinks the same way, we are out of luck.

 

Unless something blatant is done that can be used as an example (such as sexual harassment, not just discrimination) , what can I do to make myself heard above the bishop? If I say anything, I am then told that I do not support my leaders, which is required of anyone with a temple recommend. If there were a woman to go to somewhere in the chain of command, I would feel more understood. I guess I could have gone to the Stake Primary President, who would in turn take it to the Stake President. I didn't have much faith that that would help matters any more than me going to the Stake President.

 

The particular bishop I had issue with was not released early, and was loved my most men including the Stake President. A man's man. His wife was somewhat submissive, imo, and would not be helping to educate him either (again imo).

Edited October 16, 2012 by stansclan89

[LittleIzumi]

I'm sure it is not everywhere. The problem is that with the system that is in place is that they won't be educated, unless some man in authority directly above them makes sure it is changed. If the man above them thinks the same way, we are out of luck.

 

Unless something blatant is done that can be used as an example (such as sexual harassment, not just discrimination) , what can I do to make myself heard above the bishop? If I say anything, I am then told that I do not support my leaders, which is required of anyone with a temple recommend. If there were a woman to go to somewhere in the chain of command, I would feel more understood. I guess I could have gone to the Stake Primary President, who would in turn take it to the Stake President. I didn't have much faith that that would help matters any more than me going to the Stake President.

 

The particular bishop I had issue with was not released early, and was loved my most men including the Stake President. A man's man. His wife was somewhat submissive, imo, and would not be helping to educate him either (again imo).

 

Then you go above the Stake President. Heck, a friend put together a mass letter to the Prophet once with a bunch of people's personal stories (including mine) on something she thought needed addressing.

[mamatohaleybug]

Having served in numerous leadership positions at the ward and stake level (almost all I've ever done in the church), I can honestly say that I have very rarely come across any man not completely respectful of me as a woman. I have rarely felt unequal. I read the WAVE article and while I agree that culturally and traditionally many things could change for the better (and not just for women), I think younger men in leadership today are worlds apart in their philosophy from older men I served with even 10-15 years ago. I have high hopes for the future of the church and especially for women! Personally, I love being an LDS woman today. I have had amazing experiences serving in the church and like others have stated, have no desire to have additional priesthood responsibilities added to my plate. I do understand those feeling differently and I'm excited to see how the church traditions and policies continue to evolve.

 

Great discussion! <3

[MamaSheep]

Then you go above the Stake President. Heck, a friend put together a mass letter to the Prophet once with a bunch of people's personal stories (including mine) on something she thought needed addressing.

 

:iagree: You could express your concerns to the area authorities, the General Primary Presidency's office, or the office of the First Presidency. I had a friend who wrote the First Presidency's office about something his stake president was doing (adding a requirement to the temple recommend interview) and he said it didn't take very long before it was corrected.

 

But a lot of educating can be done just by female leaders in the ward quietly insisting that things be done right, like speaking up confidently in ward council meetings, gently pointing out inequities, and such. Keep in mind that you have as much right to expect them to sustain you in your callings as they have to expect you to sustain them. If their behavior is interfering with your ability to do your calling, then you have a right to call them on it.

[Veritaserum]

I'm sure it is not everywhere. The problem is that with the system that is in place is that they won't be educated, unless some man in authority directly above them makes sure it is changed. If the man above them thinks the same way, we are out of luck.

 

Unless something blatant is done that can be used as an example (such as sexual harassment, not just discrimination) , what can I do to make myself heard above the bishop? If I say anything, I am then told that I do not support my leaders, which is required of anyone with a temple recommend. If there were a woman to go to somewhere in the chain of command, I would feel more understood. I guess I could have gone to the Stake Primary President, who would in turn take it to the Stake President. I didn't have much faith that that would help matters any more than me going to the Stake President.

 

The particular bishop I had issue with was not released early, and was loved my most men including the Stake President. A man's man. His wife was somewhat submissive, imo, and would not be helping to educate him either (again imo).

 

:iagree: The system is inherently sexist because only males get the final say despite all the lovely sentiments about women giving input and whatnot. Individual men within the system may or may not be sexist. It's a crap shoot what kind of bishop or stake president you get. Appealing to area or general authorities is hardly an easy thing to do. And we are told all the time to support and follow our leaders. That's not a huge problem when your leaders are sensitive and kind and doing what they are supposed to be doing. It can lead to spiritual abuse or worse when they are not.

 

I don't want my girls to believe that they have to follow a man in order to know God. That's what an all male leadership indicates as the proper way of things. It's not ok.

[stansclan89]

Then you go above the Stake President. Heck, a friend put together a mass letter to the Prophet once with a bunch of people's personal stories (including mine) on something she thought needed addressing.

 

:iagree: You could express your concerns to the area authorities, the General Primary Presidency's office, or the office of the First Presidency. I had a friend who wrote the First Presidency's office about something his stake president was doing (adding a requirement to the temple recommend interview) and he said it didn't take very long before it was corrected.

 

But a lot of educating can be done just by female leaders in the ward quietly insisting that things be done right, like speaking up confidently in ward council meetings, gently pointing out inequities, and such. Keep in mind that you have as much right to expect them to sustain you in your callings as they have to expect you to sustain them. If their behavior is interfering with your ability to do your calling, then you have a right to call them on it.

 

You guys give me a lot of hope ;). I am not in that ward anymore and no longer have the issues. I didn't realize that the other women were having the same issues I was having until after I moved and talked to them later.

 

He was respectful in his speech and manner, but would micromanage our callings and not the men's. Absolutely drove me crazy. He insisted that this was ok, because ultimately he was responsible. It didn't matter what I felt inspired to do, he would make us do it differently. I talked to my dad about the issues often (he had been a bishop 4 different times when I was being raised) and he kept telling me that they are trained not to do the things he was doing.

 

We had a good deal on a rental house come up in another ward and jumped on it. I wouldn't have jumped on it quite so quickly if it weren't for him. I felt like I had to get away from him.

 

We ended up moving back to that ward later, but we refused to even look at houses in that ward until he had moved out of state. He upset both dh and I that much.

[MamaSheep]

Having served in numerous leadership positions at the ward and stake level (almost all I've ever done in the church), I can honestly say that I have very rarely come across any man not completely respectful of me as a woman. I have rarely felt unequal. I read the WAVE article and while I agree that culturally and traditionally many things could change for the better (and not just for women), I think younger men in leadership today are worlds apart in their philosophy from older men I served with even 10-15 years ago. I have high hopes for the future of the church and especially for women! Personally, I love being an LDS woman today. I have had amazing experiences serving in the church and like others have stated, have no desire to have additional priesthood responsibilities added to my plate. I do understand those feeling differently and I'm excited to see how the church traditions and policies continue to evolve.

 

Great discussion! <3

 

I read the WAVE article too. It's clear that the author is passionate about her point of view, and I can respect that. There are, of course, items on her list that I would take issue with (which is probably fairly clear at this point in the chat...lol).

 

For example, one complaint was that although having a baby is an inherently female-dominated time period, it is celebrated at church with an all-male ritual. From my perspective, that first bit about it being inherently female-dominated is a key concept. It's ALREADY inherently female-dominated. The mom has been walking around church looking pregnant for ages. The mom's visiting teachers would be checking in on her for months to see how she's doing and whether she needs help. If there are any complications, the church will generally arrange for child care, transportation to doctor appointments if needed, extra meals, and housekeeping if needed, as well as supplement the family's income if it's needed because the mom is unable to work. There are usually baby showers for the moms too. And when the baby is born, half the women in the ward descend on her to coo over the baby and wish her well. The women of the church gather around the mother for MONTHS in support. It's already all about the mom in the church. The dad can't gestate the baby, he can't give birth--he can only stand there helpless while the love of his life pukes her guts out and screams in agony, and nobody is there to hold HIS hand. He can help with baby care, but dads often get somewhat shoved off to the side when a baby comes, while the spotlight is on mama and baby. But there's one thing--ONE thing--that can be a special moment for the dad and help him feel like he has a unique contribution to make, something he can do for his child that is just his. There's ONE event in which HIS friends can stand up and show support for him in front of his wife, in front of his community. His wife gets the community's attention and support for months. He gets the community's attention and support for two minutes. He gets to do ONE special, unique thing for his baby.

 

Even if we "let" him keep the baby blessing, having a baby in the church is an event that is STILL skewed toward the women. If we really want things to be "equal" we should be looking for MORE ways to get the men involved, not taking away the one thing they've got.

 

(And yes, I know that there are women who have babies without a husband, or whose husbands do not qualify to perform the baby blessing for one reason or another. I know some women argue that in those cases at the very least the mom ought to be able to do the job. I disagree there as well, but on different grounds. I think in those cases, it's important for the woman to know she has support from the men in the community as well, and that there's a brother, uncle, friend, home teacher, or bishop she can lean on for help, even if it's just help with church-related stuff when she's got a perfectly good non-LDS husband at home. I think it helps incorporate the baby into the community in ways that would not happen if the mom just did everything her own self, and I think that it's good for her to reach out and connect with her community in that way too.)

[DianeW88]

I read the WAVE article too. It's clear that the author is passionate about her point of view, and I can respect that. There are, of course, items on her list that I would take issue with (which is probably fairly clear at this point in the chat...lol).

 

For example, one complaint was that although having a baby is an inherently female-dominated time period, it is celebrated at church with an all-male ritual. From my perspective, that first bit about it being inherently female-dominated is a key concept. It's ALREADY inherently female-dominated. The mom has been walking around church looking pregnant for ages. The mom's visiting teachers would be checking in on her for months to see how she's doing and whether she needs help. If there are any complications, the church will generally arrange for child care, transportation to doctor appointments if needed, extra meals, and housekeeping if needed, as well as supplement the family's income if it's needed because the mom is unable to work. There are usually baby showers for the moms too. And when the baby is born, half the women in the ward descend on her to coo over the baby and wish her well. The women of the church gather around the mother for MONTHS in support. It's already all about the mom in the church. The dad can't gestate the baby, he can't give birth--he can only stand there helpless while the love of his life pukes her guts out and screams in agony, and nobody is there to hold HIS hand. He can help with baby care, but dads often get somewhat shoved off to the side when a baby comes, while the spotlight is on mama and baby. But there's one thing--ONE thing--that can be a special moment for the dad and help him feel like he has a unique contribution to make, something he can do for his child that is just his. There's ONE event in which HIS friends can stand up and show support for him in front of his wife, in front of his community. His wife gets the community's attention and support for months. He gets the community's attention and support for two minutes. He gets to do ONE special, unique thing for his baby.

 

Even if we "let" him keep the baby blessing, having a baby in the church is an event that is STILL skewed toward the women. If we really want things to be "equal" we should be looking for MORE ways to get the men involved, not taking away the one thing they've got.

 

(And yes, I know that there are women who have babies without a husband, or whose husbands do not qualify to perform the baby blessing for one reason or another. I know some women argue that in those cases at the very least the mom ought to be able to do the job. I disagree there as well, but on different grounds. I think in those cases, it's important for the woman to know she has support from the men in the community as well, and that there's a brother, uncle, friend, home teacher, or bishop she can lean on for help, even if it's just help with church-related stuff when she's got a perfectly good non-LDS husband at home. I think it helps incorporate the baby into the community in ways that would not happen if the mom just did everything her own self, and I think that it's good for her to reach out and connect with her community in that way too.)

 

:iagree: Completely.

[dangermom]

But there's one thing--ONE thing--that can be a special moment for the dad and help him feel like he has a unique contribution to make, something he can do for his child that is just his. There's ONE event in which HIS friends can stand up and show support for him in front of his wife, in front of his community. His wife gets the community's attention and support for months. He gets the community's attention and support for two minutes. He gets to do ONE special, unique thing for his baby.

 

Even if we "let" him keep the baby blessing, having a baby in the church is an event that is STILL skewed toward the women. If we really want things to be "equal" we should be looking for MORE ways to get the men involved, not taking away the one thing they've got.

I do really agree with this.

 

Otherwise I am enjoying this discussion but don't have much time to post, so keep it up everybody!

[Xuzi]

What MamaSheep just expressed about the Baby Blessing is actually very similar to thoughts my DH shared with me back when our oldest was Blessed. I asked to hold her when he sat back down after performing the Blessing, and he just held her tighter and said "This is MY day" :lol: I'd gotten the flowers delivered to my hospital room, and the baby shower thrown by the Relief Society, and the boxes of chocolate from my Visiting Teachers, now here finally was *his* moment to be on the receiving end of all the special attention that comes with welcoming a new baby into the family.

[MamaSheep]

Yep. Think of kings in The Book of Mormon. If your king is Benjamin, life is pretty good despite having to defer to his leadership. If your king is Noah, life is not so good because you have to defer to his leadership.

 

Defending an unequal system by saying that the leaders are mostly good and kind is like saying slavery was fine because not all slave owners beat their slaves. Yes, that is a hyperbolic comparison, but it still applies.

 

These discussions remind me of the tensions between suffragettes and female anti-suffragettes. That Lady Gaga parody about suffrage has lyrics that are particularly appropriate.

 

Anti-suffragette:

"I think you're psycho. I think that it's sick. I'm queen of my home, raise my babies, that's it. Don't need to vote."

 

Men (as they are directing her on what to say/think):

"No, no, she don't want to vote."

 

Gotta go finish getting ready for church.

 

:iagree: The system is inherently sexist because only males get the final say despite all the lovely sentiments about women giving input and whatnot. Individual men within the system may or may not be sexist. It's a crap shoot what kind of bishop or stake president you get. Appealing to area or general authorities is hardly an easy thing to do. And we are told all the time to support and follow our leaders. That's not a huge problem when your leaders are sensitive and kind and doing what they are supposed to be doing. It can lead to spiritual abuse or worse when they are not.

 

I don't want my girls to believe that they have to follow a man in order to know God. That's what an all male leadership indicates as the proper way of things. It's not ok.

 

With respect, I agree that you are being very hyperbolic. I can understand that, because this is clearly something about which you feel very strongly. As easy and popular as it is to mock and pigeonhole someone with a label like "anti-suffragette", and as tempting as that becomes when we're frustrated with people who don't agree with us, I hope you will also be open-minded enough to broaden your view and consider the arguments of those with different viewpoints with the same courtesy you hope for from "the other side".

 

For the sake of others who may be following the discussion, however, I would like to just mention that the church specifically teaches that the priesthood authority held by men is very NOT like that of a "king" or a "slave owner", and that in fact trying to use it in that way invalidates that man's authority in that matter and deeply offends God. The church specifically teaches that we do NOT have to submit to unrighteous dominion, and indeed SHOULD not do so.

 

It is true that we are asked to support our church leaders; this includes both male and female leaders in the church, and it includes leaders in ALL positions in the church, not just those who are our supervisors in whatever work we are doing. This means that the Bishop is just as responsible to support the Primary President as the Primary President is to support the Bishop. When someone is called to a position in the ward, this is announced in front of the congregation, and the church members are given an opportunity to commit to supporting that person in that position by a show of hands; at the same time we have an opportunity to object to that person being in that calling. Women are absolutely allowed to object to a man receiving a leadership calling, and her reasons for such an objection would be checked into and taken into consideration.

 

The LDS church also emphatically teaches that every individual has direct access to God, and that a woman does NOT have to follow a man to "know God". The church teaches that men are to serve women in certain ways through the priesthood (which is about service, not control), and that women have a RIGHT to request a priesthood holder's services (such as a blessing) at any time, but men do NOT have a right to refuse a woman's request that he exercise his priesthood on her behalf. The church also teaches that the highest blessings available to mankind are ONLY obtainable by a man and woman joined together in a fully functional, loving, EQUAL partnership, and that any man who oppresses a woman not only disqualifies himself, but seriously displeases God.

 

As a historic note, female members of the LDS church have had the right to vote on church matters since the beginning of the church. Utah gave women the right to vote when it was a territory, but it was rescinded by the federal government as a condition to statehood. The LDS women's organization was actively involved in the national women's suffrage movement with the moral and financial support of the male leadership of the church.

[Veritaserum]

I used to argue your side, MamaSheep, so I am fully aware of what's involved in the thought process and argument. ;) I have (obviously) had a compete change of opinion after giving the current church set-up more thorough analysis and thought.

 

Try as anyone might to paint the church as egalitarian, it simply is not so. Now, if you are happy with that (as you seem to be), you have nothing to complain about. Those of us who are unhappy with the inequality should not be silenced. :)

[6wildhorses]

So I'm in the middle of fall break and don't have a lot of time to respond, as I'm doing planning and fun fall break activities. However, I just wanted to thank Veritaserum (and others) for taking the time to articulate so many of the issues that many Mormon women face. I just want people to know that there are many Mormon women who love the principles of the gospel (faith, mercy, unconditional love, forgiveness, etc.) but do not like the current practices of the Mormon church.

[MamaSheep]

I used to argue your side, MamaSheep, so I am fully aware of what's involved in the thought process and argument. ;) I have (obviously) had a compete change of opinion after giving the current church set-up more thorough analysis and thought.

 

Try as anyone might to paint the church as egalitarian, it simply is not so. Now, if you are happy with that (as you seem to be), you have nothing to complain about. Those of us who are unhappy with the inequality should not be silenced. :)

 

And I used to argue your side, Laura, until I realized through greater thought and analysis how much is missed with such a narrow focus, and how important those subtleties really are. I am sorry if I underestimated your understanding of my point of view. I can only go by what you have said here on the forum, which has not seemed to me to demonstrate more than a superficial familiarity.

 

I have certainly not attempted to silence you in any way, only to exercize my "equal" right to express my opposing opinion. And to suggest that name calling is not particularly helpful to the discussion. I am sorry that you're not happy. Some of the changes you champion would make me unhappy, and I think I have as much right as you to make my voice heard. Those of us who believe as I do should also not be silenced.

[Veritaserum]

And I used to argue your side, Laura, until I realized through greater thought and analysis how much is missed with such a narrow focus, and how important those subtleties really are. I am sorry if I underestimated your understanding of my point of view. I can only go by what you have said here on the forum, which has not seemed to me to demonstrate more than a superficial familiarity.

 

I have certainly not attempted to silence you in any way, only to exercize my "equal" right to express my opposing opinion. And to suggest that name calling is not particularly helpful to the discussion. I am sorry that you're not happy. Some of the changes you champion would make me unhappy, and I think I have as much right as you to make my voice heard. Those of us who believe as I do should also not be silenced.

 

I don't know what you're talking about regarding name calling. I have been careful to criticize arguments rather than people. :)

 

Of course I am intimately familiar with the patriarchal structure of our church! I don't know why you would have thought otherwise.

 

For anyone who might be curious, I was born and raised in the church by my pioneer stock, orthodox father and my convert and orthodox mother. After 17 years attending church weekly with my parents, graduating from four years of LDS seminary, and participating in countless other church-oriented activities (daily family scripture study, weekly FHE, etc.), I attended BYU (church-owned and church-run university). While there I attended my student ward as well as the requisite number of on campus religion classes. I was very orthodox throughout this time and had no idea what people were talking about when they criticized the LDS church as subjugating women. I knew they were crazy or misinformed because I knew that I was treated equally even though only men call the shots.

 

I met my returned missionary husband at BYU, who was also raised in an orthodox home by a pioneer stock father and convert mother. We got married when I was 19 and we knew that we should not put off having babies because past prophets said that was selfish/wrong/whatever. Our first child was born when I was 20. I did not follow the common pattern of dropping out after giving birth. Instead I finished my degree and graduated from BYU at 21.

 

Dh and I continued to lead a fairly orthodox LDS life until 2008. The church's involvement with Prop 8 was earth-shattering for me in a negative way. How could the church I love, the church that I always believed to be welcoming and loving and egalitarian, be involved with something so hateful and discriminatory? My heart was broken. It still is. :(

 

Once I started examining the church's negative history with homosexuals, I began to see that the church does not treat women equally, either. I've been searching, pondering, and praying for peace and understanding ever since. The more I do, the more I feel confirmation that the church's actions, traditions, and organizational structure do not always reflect God's will or plan.

 

So, yep. Intimately familiar. :)

[MamaSheep]

I don't know what you're talking about regarding name calling. I have been careful to criticize arguments rather than people. :)

 

I was referring to your "anti-suffragette" remarks.

 

Of course I am intimately familiar with the patriarchal structure of our church! I don't know why you would have thought otherwise.

 

I did not say that you are not familiar with the general structure of the church. I did say that you do not seem to understand MY point of view regarding the structure, functioning, and doctrine of the church (which I only pointed out because you claim to have previously championed my point of view and I don't think you understand it well enough to have argued it.). This post has only reinforced my opinion in that regard.

 

For anyone who might be curious, I was born and raised in the church by my pioneer stock, orthodox father and my convert and orthodox mother. After 17 years attending church weekly with my parents, graduating from four years of LDS seminary, and participating in countless other church-oriented activities (daily family scripture study, weekly FHE, etc.), I attended BYU (church-owned and church-run university). While there I attended my student ward as well as the requisite number of on campus religion classes. I was very orthodox throughout this time and had no idea what people were talking about when they criticized the LDS church as subjugating women. I knew they were crazy or misinformed because I knew that I was treated equally even though only men call the shots.

 

I met my returned missionary husband at BYU, who was also raised in an orthodox home by a pioneer stock father and convert mother. We got married when I was 19 and we knew that we should not put off having babies because past prophets said that was selfish/wrong/whatever. Our first child was born when I was 20. I did not follow the common pattern of dropping out after giving birth. Instead I finished my degree and graduated from BYU at 21.

 

I, too, come from a "pioneer stock", "orthodox" LDS family and have been active in the church my whole life. However, I have noticed that knowledge is not hereditary, and regular participation does not give one a deep understanding of the principles taught by the church anymore than sitting in a garage makes one a car, as the old saying goes. It comes from a great deal of personal study and prayer, and often from being willing to set aside preconceptions and look at things objectively.

 

Dh and I continued to lead a fairly orthodox LDS life until 2008. The church's involvement with Prop 8 was earth-shattering for me in a negative way. How could the church I love, the church that I always believed to be welcoming and loving and egalitarian, be involved with something so hateful and discriminatory? My heart was broken. It still is. :(

 

Once I started examining the church's negative history with homosexuals, I began to see that the church does not treat women equally, either. I've been searching, pondering, and praying for peace and understanding ever since. The more I do, the more I feel confirmation that the church's actions, traditions, and organizational structure do not always reflect God's will or plan.

 

So, yep. Intimately familiar. :)

 

I am sorry that you are unhappy. It sounds like you are in a difficult position. I hope you find peace someday.

[stansclan89]

Once I started examining the church's negative history with homosexuals, I began to see that the church does not treat women equally, either. I've been searching, pondering, and praying for peace and understanding ever since. The more I do, the more I feel confirmation that the church's actions, traditions, and organizational structure do not always reflect God's will or plan.

 

So, yep. Intimately familiar. :)

 

This is how I have been feeling since the issues I've had with that particular bishop. I also had problems (the same type) with my 19yos's YM President and the current bishop in that ward because of the YM President. The reason I am still going to church is because I completely believe the gospel is true. But the church is full of people and church politics that I don't necessarily agree with.

[MamaSheep]

So I had a nice Skype chat with my mom a little while ago and she shared something that just made me giggle in light of this discussion so I thought I'd share. She and my father are serving a temple mission in Germany right now, and evidently President Monson is over there for a conference and decided to visit the Freiburg temple. She said the temple got a call to give them a heads-up that he'd be there within half an hour, but he arrived after only about 10 minutes. I asked if the temple workers got to meet him, and she said yes, she got to meet him and shake his hand but Dad didn't. I asked why that was, and she said he shook hands with the sisters first and there wasn't time for him to greet all the men. Thinking of this thread I jokingly said, "Well that seems kind of sexist!" And she pointed out that it's rude to greet the husband without acknowledging the wife first, and it was only good manners.

 

There's no point to this really, just that I thought it was funny timing in light of this conversation.

[Veritaserum]

I was referring to your "anti-suffragette" remarks.

 

 

 

I did not say that you are not familiar with the general structure of the church. I did say that you do not seem to understand MY point of view regarding the structure, functioning, and doctrine of the church (which I only pointed out because you claim to have previously championed my point of view and I don't think you understand it well enough to have argued it.). This post has only reinforced my opinion in that regard.

 

 

 

I, too, come from a "pioneer stock", "orthodox" LDS family and have been active in the church my whole life. However, I have noticed that knowledge is not hereditary, and regular participation does not give one a deep understanding of the principles taught by the church anymore than sitting in a garage makes one a car, as the old saying goes. It comes from a great deal of personal study and prayer, and often from being willing to set aside preconceptions and look at things objectively.

 

 

 

I am sorry that you are unhappy. It sounds like you are in a difficult position. I hope you find peace someday.

 

So you're accusing me of not knowing my own religion and religious tradition? Because I have come to a different conclusion than you? :confused:

 

"Oh, that crazy Veritaserum. She obviously lacks spiritual depth and maturity because doesn't understand the true doctrine of why men are in charge. She can't possibly be a real Mormon with her views."

 

What's the point of that? :001_huh:

[Xuzi]

I'm personally of the opinion that it's entirely possible to look at the exact same body of evidence, and draw vastly different conclusions from them, based on our own experiences and personalities. I actually am rather glad that there are many different voices and "views" about how the Church is run, because IMO it helps us from getting too comfortable with things. If we're constantly being called to evaluate why things are the way they are, then it becomes easier to eventually root out any error that might creep in unnoticed, even if it's a "long-standing tradition" (and even if it takes time to completely root it out), AND it could help solidify the Truths that MUST remain, because those who understand that Truth will be pushed into actually standing up to defend it, instead of taking it for granted.

 

ETA: just to be clear, I'm not implying anything about MamaSheep's or Veritaserum's views on things. just making a general observation. ;)

Edited October 16, 2012 by Xuzi

[MamaSheep]

So you're accusing me of not knowing my own religion and religious tradition? Because I have come to a different conclusion than you? :confused:

 

"Oh, that crazy Veritaserum. She obviously lacks spiritual depth and maturity because doesn't understand the true doctrine of why men are in charge. She can't possibly be a real Mormon with her views."

 

What's the point of that? :001_huh:

 

Please calm down. Once again, I did not say you don't know your own religion. Nor did I say that you are not a real Mormon. Please don't put words in my mouth.

 

I only said I do not think you have a very complete grasp of MY POINT OF VIEW, which is clearly different from yours. And I pointed out that ancestry and activity don't necessarily guarantee knowledge. That is as true of me as it is of you. A pioneer heritage doesn't automatically make either one of us more knowledgeable or faithful than any other member of the church.

[garddwr]

So you're accusing me of not knowing my own religion and religious tradition? Because I have come to a different conclusion than you? :confused:

 

"Oh, that crazy Veritaserum. She obviously lacks spiritual depth and maturity because doesn't understand the true doctrine of why men are in charge. She can't possibly be a real Mormon with her views."

 

What's the point of that? :001_huh:

 

Ya know, MamaSheep didn't say those things--lets try not to put words in each other's mouths, 'kay?

 

If I ever figure out how to organize my own household I might have some brain power left over to try to organize something else:D

 

ETA: looks like MamaSheep was typing her own response at the same time

Edited October 16, 2012 by thegardener

[LittleIzumi]

I'm personally of the opinion that it's entirely possible to look at the exact same body of evidence, and draw vastly different conclusions from them, based on our own experiences and personalities. I actually am rather glad that there are many different voices and "views" about how the Church is run, because IMO it helps us from getting too comfortable with things. If we're constantly being called to evaluate why things are the way they are, then it becomes easier to eventually root out any error that might creep in unnoticed, even if it's a "long-standing tradition" (and even if it takes time to completely root it out), AND it could help solidify the Truths that MUST remain, because those who understand that Truth will be pushed into actually standing up to defend it, instead of taking it for granted.

 

ETA: just to be clear, I'm not implying anything about MamaSheep's or Veritaserum's views on things. just making a general observation. ;)

 

:iagree: That doesn't render either of them invalid or make the opposite point of view wrong or ignorant, or just a case of seeing what we want to see. The fun of free will. ;)

[DianeW88]

Hey, I just made some chocolate chip cookies. Anybody want some? :D

[garddwr]

So I had a nice Skype chat with my mom a little while ago and she shared something that just made me giggle in light of this discussion so I thought I'd share. She and my father are serving a temple mission in Germany right now, and evidently President Monson is over there for a conference and decided to visit the Freiburg temple. She said the temple got a call to give them a heads-up that he'd be there within half an hour, but he arrived after only about 10 minutes. I asked if the temple workers got to meet him, and she said yes, she got to meet him and shake his hand but Dad didn't. I asked why that was, and she said he shook hands with the sisters first and there wasn't time for him to greet all the men. Thinking of this thread I jokingly said, "Well that seems kind of sexist!" And she pointed out that it's rude to greet the husband without acknowledging the wife first, and it was only good manners.

 

There's no point to this really, just that I thought it was funny timing in light of this conversation.

 

You reminded me of a story my grandma likes to tell about Pres. Monson. I think it happened back when she was a temple worker and then-Elder Monson came through one day and seeing her came up and greeted her enthusiastically with "It's so good to see you again!" --Grandma looked at him in surprise because she had never met him before. Turns out he had mistaken her for someone else he knew:) --made Grandma's day though!

[MamaSheep]

I'm personally of the opinion that it's entirely possible to look at the exact same body of evidence, and draw vastly different conclusions from them, based on our own experiences and personalities. I actually am rather glad that there are many different voices and "views" about how the Church is run, because IMO it helps us from getting too comfortable with things. If we're constantly being called to evaluate why things are the way they are, then it becomes easier to eventually root out any error that might creep in unnoticed, even if it's a "long-standing tradition" (and even if it takes time to completely root it out), AND it could help solidify the Truths that MUST remain, because those who understand that Truth will be pushed into actually standing up to defend it, instead of taking it for granted.

 

ETA: just to be clear, I'm not implying anything about MamaSheep's or Veritaserum's views on things. just making a general observation. ;)

 

I agree wholeheartedly with your general observation. :)

 

Hey, I just made some chocolate chip cookies. Anybody want some? :D

 

I would love some. Thank you.

Edited October 16, 2012 by MamaSheep

[garddwr]

Hey, I just made some chocolate chip cookies. Anybody want some? :D

 

I'm in! (good thing we already settled the question of whether or not chocolate is permitted by the Word of Wisdom:tongue_smilie:)

[MamaSheep]

You reminded me of a story my grandma likes to tell about Pres. Monson. I think it happened back when she was a temple worker and then-Elder Monson came through one day and seeing her came up and greeted her enthusiastically with "It's so good to see you again!" --Grandma looked at him in surprise because she had never met him before. Turns out he had mistaken her for someone else he knew:) --made Grandma's day though!

 

:lol: That is cute. Thank you for sharing. :)

[LittleIzumi]

Hey, I just made some chocolate chip cookies. Anybody want some? :D

 

Watch out--a lot of us are close enough to take you up on that! :lol:

[meggie]

Watch out--a lot of us are close enough to take you up on that! :lol:

 

Let's carpool! :auto:

[MamaSheep]

Let's carpool! :auto:

 

:iagree::auto:

[DianeW88]

LOL Come on up! If you can get here before my boys inhale them, you can have as many as you want! :D

 

I'm going to start baking (and freezing) goodies for Christmas this week, too. I'm hoping in vain that if the cookies are frozen, I won't snarf them all before Christmas Eve. Although gnawing my way through a rock hard, ice cold Snickerdoodle or two isn't outside the realm of possibility...unfortunately. :lol:

[LittleIzumi]

Sigh. In lieu of cookies I'm getting ice cream. It's one of those days. (I'm also bagging up most of the toys tonight, hurrah!)

[MamaSheep]

Sigh. In lieu of cookies I'm getting ice cream. It's one of those days. (I'm also bagging up most of the toys tonight, hurrah!)

 

:grouphug:

[Heidi]

nm.

Edited October 17, 2012 by hmsmith
too much personal stuff.