5 Reasons to Avoid Russian Women

[passionflower]

What is cultural Marxism? I have heard the term here but, like a lot of things, I can really only vaguely guess what it means.

Well, to summarize, the left found its message of overthrowing the capitalistic system of the west to be falling on deaf ears in the 1950s. You see, living conditions of working class Americans were fantastic and when compared to the Soviet model they were out of this world. So what to do? Well, a lot of leftists in both psychology and academia decided that if, as Freud said, civilization was based on shared ideals and repression of the more aggressive aspects of the libido, the thing to do would be to overturn the model and unleash forces that would shatter the foundations and collapse the society. And rather than go against (forgive the science fiction analogy) the battlestar with a basestar (and lose) the best way to take out western civilization would be with small attack fighters. To take the analogy another step, each would symbolize different challenges to the system; one might be minority oppression, the other sexual liberation, the other feminism, the other gay liberation, the other reproductive rights and so on. The idea would be to get people fragmented and more individual (not in the traditional sense of individuality), anti-religious and against tradition. You see this tactic being used today against not only conservative values but even in the LDS Church. My wife has a life-long friend who is now nearing 50 and has left the Church over the issue of gay equality. When my wife talked with her she spoke of her new activities of organizing pride celebrations this summer. She was always interested in men but never found "Peter Priesthood" (she was always ultra-devout) and my wife wonders if she may have gone over to the other team. So a little here, and a little there...

Thank you. I would like to understand this better.
There is that D&C section 88(?) that begins by prophesying of the civil war and goes on to describe wars that will envelop all nations with slaves rising up against their masters. This section is a prophesy of doom and I cannot believe that God would ever be the inspiration behind the class warfare described here.

So how can I believe God would inspire women, gays, blacks, labor unions, etc, to act like a "class", and then turn around and condemn whites, particularly white males, as a "class"? How can anyone achieve the high ideal of love among "neighbors" while one neighbor hits the other over the head with a club and name calls, bears false witness, robs, murders, and otherwise condemns. Such conflicts show no interest in equality, but in conquest. ( and I call living off of welfare a form of robbery. My husband had a black guy tell him he had a right to take from him or the government because somehow being "white" meant my husband or the government had taken it from HIM ).

I wondered for years how the Civil War could possibly be connected to the World Wars in Europe, but now I see that in each case, those who suffered the most and were nearly obliterated were the upper class. Now who would really benefit from getting rid of them? I don't think poor russian peasant farmers did , or the Negro slave, or the working classes of Europe, either. So who is the winner here?

Sorry about your wife's friend. Single women have more opportunity to give charitably to others than the rest of us, and so many people are in much need. I am afraid to ask, but Why or WHY would she then devote herself to supporting a Gay Pride Parade?

[passionflower]

I see boys in elementary school crying ALL.THE.TIME. Emotional meltdowns over, "he said I was meaaaaaaaaan" and stuff like that.

I see women offended by DC 25, especially the "be better" part, didn't Jesus know Emma was a daughter of God??

At least our RS is pretty good at putting the women in their place, off the self-aggrandizing pedestal. I love hearing those reports.

I'm glad my wife got a huge chocolate bar, because I ate about 80% of it. :))

Oh, my Stake RS presidency story: In the bishopric, I asked the SRSP when they visited our ward to teach, "Could you please talk to them about honoring, sustaining, supporting, and loving their husbands?" "Huh??! No." So they proceeded to give their talks, and from what I heard, there was quite a bit of contention, and it ended on a bad note, lol.

Although, my mom's Stake RS presidency story is different: She gave a talk that the chauvinistic, controlling bishop didn't like, who talked to the SP, who chided her with the bishop present. She politely told him basically to forget it, and that if that was the way it was going to be, she would quit. She didn't have to, as she got released quickly after.

Good for your RS. My bishop asked me to make comments in RS along those lines, too.
My husband eats my chocolate bars, etc, too.
Wow, your mom's Stake RS President defied the SP and the Bishop? And would ditch a calling given by God? And she couldn't see anything wrong with that?
Is the church having some kind of psychotic episode right now? Maybe it is all that Cultural Marxism.

[brianj]

So how can I believe God would inspire women, gays, blacks, labor unions, etc, to act like a "class", and then turn around and condemn whites, particularly white males, as a "class"? How can anyone achieve the high ideal of love among "neighbors" while one neighbor hits the other over the head with a club and name calls, bears false witness, robs, murders, and otherwise condemns. Such conflicts show no interest in equality, but in conquest. ( and I call living off of welfare a form of robbery. My husband had a black guy tell him he had a right to take from him or the government because somehow being "white" meant my husband or the government had taken it from HIM ).

I wondered for years how the Civil War could possibly be connected to the World Wars in Europe, but now I see that in each case, those who suffered the most and were nearly obliterated were the upper class. Now who would really benefit from getting rid of them? I don't think poor russian peasant farmers did , or the Negro slave, or the working classes of Europe, either. So who is the winner here?

You don't need to believe God will inspire people to condemn whites and so forth. If you do believe that, it isn't true. God will inspire people to do what is good and right. Satan will inspire people to fight one another and so forth. God knows the end from the beginning and sees what the future holds for all of us. God knows that people will become increasingly wicked and become pawns to Satan, and knows what this will precipitate.

Remember that before Christ was born the final destruction of the Nephites was prophesied. God didn't make the Nephites and Lamanites fight one another; He foresaw that it would happen. Just as He has foreknowledge of what will happen in our day and afterward.

[MMbelieve]

I have a friend who got asked by the Stake RS President to speak to her ward RS this last Mothers' Day about Mothers' Day. But she was instructed to NOT talk about Motherhood, or anything "like unto it", because somehow Motherhood is an offensive topic.

Instead, she was instructed to focus on womanhood in a sort of female empowerment "you don't need a man or kids to be fulfulled" way.

She didn't like that AT ALL, so she said to herself "screw the Stake RS. My husband is the bishop and if he says it's OK to talk about motherhood on Mother's Day, I will!" And he did. And she did,

So she gets up in RS and gives a little 10 minute talk of on the simple joys of motherhood, nothing deep or heavy here, But she couldn't get through it. Just about every other sentence, the ward RS pres interrupted her with corrections, criticisms, and talked over her until she completely ruined my friend's talk.

When my friend told me what happened, I said, "Women in this church will go to great lengths, I mean literally stop at nothing in order to feel emotionally and socially validated. (the victim thing) They won't care who else they steal this validation from, or who or what principles they walk on."

These kind of stances are not meant to create equality between women, the genders, to be fairly heard by the church, or even to stand up for what is right. They are simply defensive ways of saying " I am OK, but you are not OK", which is the MO of feminism and a form of controlling behaviour . You can see this behaviour in action in the video on another thread showing a 12 year old girl "bearing her testimony" with a lesbian theme. This self-validating-attention-getting-testimony bearing is done so often by other women in the church that we don't even notice where the speaker ( or writer of the speech ) is setting us up and getting us hooked for the "I am coming out of the closet as a lesbian" payoff shock. At first, It just seems like another ordinary testimony ( except that it is being read).

Like I have said so many times before: women with controlling behaviour is the number one cause of divorce in this church(IMO).

Stories abound of the drama queens who refuse to come to church on Mothers' Day or leave Sacrament Meeting in tears. Because they are not mothers themselves, they can't be big enough to celebrate other mothers or even think of their own mother. They just claim church is the ultimate evil by "making" them feel bad. I have also seen a woman storm out of Sacrament Meeting because she found the Bishop's praises about his own mother offensive ( she couldn't stand to be "made" to feel inadequate by the stories he told of her ).

Have you thought that maybe a woman without a child aches in her heart? God gave her the desire and duty to have children and she can't or her children died? Making fun of her and telling her how she "should" behave or think is CONTROLLING behavior on your part.

[brianj]

Stories abound of the drama queens who refuse to come to church on Mothers' Day or leave Sacrament Meeting in tears. Because they are not mothers themselves, they can't be big enough to celebrate other mothers or even think of their own mother. They just claim church is the ultimate evil by "making" them feel bad. I have also seen a woman storm out of Sacrament Meeting because she found the Bishop's praises about his own mother offensive ( she couldn't stand to be "made" to feel inadequate by the stories he told of her ).

Have you thought that maybe a woman without a child aches in her heart? God gave her the desire and duty to have children and she can't or her children died? Making fun of her and telling her how she "should" behave or think is CONTROLLING behavior on your part.

To be blunt, so what?

What about the fathers whose wives took their children away in a divorce and ignore court orders to allow the father visitation or any access to his children? Should we pretend that Father's Day isn't happening to protect their feelings? There is plenty of research indicating that men feel emotions more intensely than women, so shouldn't we protect their feelings?

And what about parents whose children turn from the church? Shouldn't we stop making a big deal out of another ward member leaving on a mission or returning to protect their feelings? Or those whose are forced to sit through a baby blessing after their child left the church or died, suffering because they will never see grandchildren blessed? Or... Or... Or...

I almost decided not to go on a mission at the last moment. Why? Not because of anything you would expect. Because I asked EVERYBODY I could think of to go to the temple with me, knowing I was supposed to have an escort, and not one person was willing to be my escort. Finally I decided that If the next person doesn't agree to be my escort I'm just not going. That person agreed to be my escort. But almost EVERY SINGLE TIME I go to the temple I am forced to face big families providing an amount of support to someone receiving their endowment that I can't begin to imagine. So why don't you call up the general authority in charge of the temple department and tell him to prohibit families from going to the temple together when someone receives their endowment to protect my emotions?

Or better yet, look beyond Mosiah 18:9. Take a look at Romans 12:15 where we are instructed to "Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep."

When I see someone in the temple surrounded by 40+ family members, or over 100 people in front of the temple waiting to celebrate a new marriage, or a baby blessed, or the love that other men are receiving on Father's Day, I really wish that someone would mourn with the man who is mourning, weeping with him that wishes he could bring himself to weep. But that doesn't give me a pass so I try to rejoice with them that do rejoice.

As painful as seeing other people's dreams come true when you have the same dream and it was crushed, it sucks. But that shouldn't stop those with crushed dreams from trying to support those who are rejoicing.

[Sarah]

Stories abound of the drama queens who refuse to come to church on Mothers' Day or leave Sacrament Meeting in tears. Because they are not mothers themselves, they can't be big enough to celebrate other mothers or even think of their own mother. They just claim church is the ultimate evil by "making" them feel bad. I have also seen a woman storm out of Sacrament Meeting because she found the Bishop's praises about his own mother offensive ( she couldn't stand to be "made" to feel inadequate by the stories he told of her ).

Have you thought that maybe a woman without a child aches in her heart? God gave her the desire and duty to have children and she can't or her children died? Making fun of her and telling her how she "should" behave or think is CONTROLLING behavior on your part.

To be blunt, so what?

What about the fathers whose wives took their children away in a divorce and ignore court orders to allow the father visitation or any access to his children? Should we pretend that Father's Day isn't happening to protect their feelings? There is plenty of research indicating that men feel emotions more intensely than women, so shouldn't we protect their feelings?

And what about parents whose children turn from the church? Shouldn't we stop making a big deal out of another ward member leaving on a mission or returning to protect their feelings? Or those whose are forced to sit through a baby blessing after their child left the church or died, suffering because they will never see grandchildren blessed? Or... Or... Or...

I almost decided not to go on a mission at the last moment. Why? Not because of anything you would expect. Because I asked EVERYBODY I could think of to go to the temple with me, knowing I was supposed to have an escort, and not one person was willing to be my escort. Finally I decided that If the next person doesn't agree to be my escort I'm just not going. That person agreed to be my escort. But almost EVERY SINGLE TIME I go to the temple I am forced to face big families providing an amount of support to someone receiving their endowment that I can't begin to imagine. So why don't you call up the general authority in charge of the temple department and tell him to prohibit families from going to the temple together when someone receives their endowment to protect my emotions?

Or better yet, look beyond Mosiah 18:9. Take a look at Romans 12:15 where we are instructed to "Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep."

When I see someone in the temple surrounded by 40+ family members, or over 100 people in front of the temple waiting to celebrate a new marriage, or a baby blessed, or the love that other men are receiving on Father's Day, I really wish that someone would mourn with the man who is mourning, weeping with him that wishes he could bring himself to weep. But that doesn't give me a pass so I try to rejoice with them that do rejoice.

As painful as seeing other people's dreams come true when you have the same dream and it was crushed, it sucks. But that shouldn't stop those with crushed dreams from trying to support those who are rejoicing.

I think you are accusing MMbelieve of saying something she was not saying. She wasn't suggesting that the Church do away with Mother's Day talks and praise of motherhood for the sake of those who aren't mother's. She was calling out passionflower's criticism and mocking of women who really do feel a great deal of sadness on Mother's day, and her assumption that if they don't go to church they must be "Drama queens." Every time one of these types of threads appear, all I see is mocking, name calling, and over-generalizing of women in the Church, assuming they are all the same. Just because a woman has difficulty hearing about mothers doesn't mean she is a feminist. I had a small taste of these feelings when I was infertile in the beginning of my marriage. I can't imagine what some women go through who never marry or have children when that is something they have always longed for.

MMbelieve is right on with all her posts in this thread. Yes, there are feminists in the Church. I've known some who were pushing the Bishop to give women more say in ward government for example, but to assume that the majority of women are controlling for example - that is just way off. There are just as many controlling men out there.

[MMbelieve]

Stories abound of the drama queens who refuse to come to church on Mothers' Day or leave Sacrament Meeting in tears. Because they are not mothers themselves, they can't be big enough to celebrate other mothers or even think of their own mother. They just claim church is the ultimate evil by "making" them feel bad. I have also seen a woman storm out of Sacrament Meeting because she found the Bishop's praises about his own mother offensive ( she couldn't stand to be "made" to feel inadequate by the stories he told of her ).

Have you thought that maybe a woman without a child aches in her heart? God gave her the desire and duty to have children and she can't or her children died? Making fun of her and telling her how she "should" behave or think is CONTROLLING behavior on your part.

To be blunt, so what?

What about the fathers whose wives took their children away in a divorce and ignore court orders to allow the father visitation or any access to his children? Should we pretend that Father's Day isn't happening to protect their feelings? There is plenty of research indicating that men feel emotions more intensely than women, so shouldn't we protect their feelings?

And what about parents whose children turn from the church? Shouldn't we stop making a big deal out of another ward member leaving on a mission or returning to protect their feelings? Or those whose are forced to sit through a baby blessing after their child left the church or died, suffering because they will never see grandchildren blessed? Or... Or... Or...

I almost decided not to go on a mission at the last moment. Why? Not because of anything you would expect. Because I asked EVERYBODY I could think of to go to the temple with me, knowing I was supposed to have an escort, and not one person was willing to be my escort. Finally I decided that If the next person doesn't agree to be my escort I'm just not going. That person agreed to be my escort. But almost EVERY SINGLE TIME I go to the temple I am forced to face big families providing an amount of support to someone receiving their endowment that I can't begin to imagine. So why don't you call up the general authority in charge of the temple department and tell him to prohibit families from going to the temple together when someone receives their endowment to protect my emotions?

Or better yet, look beyond Mosiah 18:9. Take a look at Romans 12:15 where we are instructed to "Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep."

When I see someone in the temple surrounded by 40+ family members, or over 100 people in front of the temple waiting to celebrate a new marriage, or a baby blessed, or the love that other men are receiving on Father's Day, I really wish that someone would mourn with the man who is mourning, weeping with him that wishes he could bring himself to weep. But that doesn't give me a pass so I try to rejoice with them that do rejoice.

As painful as seeing other people's dreams come true when you have the same dream and it was crushed, it sucks. But that shouldn't stop those with crushed dreams from trying to support those who are rejoicing.

I think you are accusing MMbelieve of saying something she was not saying. She wasn't suggesting that the Church do away with Mother's Day talks and praise of motherhood for the sake of those who aren't mother's. She was calling out passionflower's criticism and mocking of women who really do feel a great deal of sadness on Mother's day, and her assumption that if they don't go to church they must be "Drama queens." Every time one of these types of threads appear, all I see is mocking, name calling, and over-generalizing of women in the Church, assuming they are all the same. Just because a woman has difficulty hearing about mothers doesn't mean she is a feminist. I had a small taste of these feelings when I was infertile in the beginning of my marriage. I can't imagine what some women go through who never marry or have children when that is something they have always longed for.

MMbelieve is right on with all her posts in this thread. Yes, there are feminists in the Church. I've known some who were pushing the Bishop to give women more say in ward government for example, but to assume that the majority of women are controlling for example - that is just way off. There are just as many controlling men out there.

Thank you for your support sarah.

It seems that kindness it hard to find these days. Sympathy towards women appears to be outdated anymore. Now, we find mostly criticism and I would dare say hatred. Sad indeed. And it's really sad that people are not noticing how they are playing right into Satan's plan. Destroy men, destroy women, divide the sexes, divide the home, compare, compete, judge, and become hard hearted.

Hearts are failing

[Sarah]

What is cultural Marxism? I have heard the term here but, like a lot of things, I can really only vaguely guess what it means.

Well, to summarize, the left found its message of overthrowing the capitalistic system of the west to be falling on deaf ears in the 1950s. You see, living conditions of working class Americans were fantastic and when compared to the Soviet model they were out of this world. So what to do? Well, a lot of leftists in both psychology and academia decided that if, as Freud said, civilization was based on shared ideals and repression of the more aggressive aspects of the libido, the thing to do would be to overturn the model and unleash forces that would shatter the foundations and collapse the society. And rather than go against (forgive the science fiction analogy) the battlestar with a basestar (and lose) the best way to take out western civilization would be with small attack fighters. To take the analogy another step, each would symbolize different challenges to the system; one might be minority oppression, the other sexual liberation, the other feminism, the other gay liberation, the other reproductive rights and so on. The idea would be to get people fragmented and more individual (not in the traditional sense of individuality), anti-religious and against tradition. You see this tactic being used today against not only conservative values but even in the LDS Church. My wife has a life-long friend who is now nearing 50 and has left the Church over the issue of gay equality. When my wife talked with her she spoke of her new activities of organizing pride celebrations this summer. She was always interested in men but never found "Peter Priesthood" (she was always ultra-devout) and my wife wonders if she may have gone over to the other team. So a little here, and a little there...

Thank you. I would like to understand this better.
There is that D&C section 88(?) that begins by prophesying of the civil war and goes on to describe wars that will envelop all nations with slaves rising up against their masters. This section is a prophesy of doom and I cannot believe that God would ever be the inspiration behind the class warfare described here.

So how can I believe God would inspire women, gays, blacks, labor unions, etc, to act like a "class", and then turn around and condemn whites, particularly white males, as a "class"? How can anyone achieve the high ideal of love among "neighbors" while one neighbor hits the other over the head with a club and name calls, bears false witness, robs, murders, and otherwise condemns. Such conflicts show no interest in equality, but in conquest. ( and I call living off of welfare a form of robbery. My husband had a black guy tell him he had a right to take from him or the government because somehow being "white" meant my husband or the government had taken it from HIM ).

I wondered for years how the Civil War could possibly be connected to the World Wars in Europe, but now I see that in each case, those who suffered the most and were nearly obliterated were the upper class. Now who would really benefit from getting rid of them? I don't think poor russian peasant farmers did , or the Negro slave, or the working classes of Europe, either. So who is the winner here?

Sorry about your wife's friend. Single women have more opportunity to give charitably to others than the rest of us, and so many people are in much need. I am afraid to ask, but Why or WHY would she then devote herself to supporting a Gay Pride Parade?

God never inspired enmity, nor class-warfare, but he did inspire freedom, and Brian is right in saying that the Lord knew what his children would do with that freedom. What many people choose to do with their freedom is to try to exert control or influence on others. So we went from the sins of slavery (I had ancestors who were slave-owners), to sins of revenge. A similar dynamic is simply happening with women. Women who felt controlled in the past are asserting their control now. Both sexes, all people, need to understand that all power and influence cannot be maintained except by principles of righteousness. In the eternities we will neither be totally free nor totally bound. We will live in a balance of freedom with covenant keeping, as those covenants will actually be lived by all parties in righteousness. Some people think they are living their covenants when in fact they are not giving or receiving with others correctly, according to righteous principles.

[MMbelieve]

Stories abound of the drama queens who refuse to come to church on Mothers' Day or leave Sacrament Meeting in tears. Because they are not mothers themselves, they can't be big enough to celebrate other mothers or even think of their own mother. They just claim church is the ultimate evil by "making" them feel bad. I have also seen a woman storm out of Sacrament Meeting because she found the Bishop's praises about his own mother offensive ( she couldn't stand to be "made" to feel inadequate by the stories he told of her ).

Have you thought that maybe a woman without a child aches in her heart? God gave her the desire and duty to have children and she can't or her children died? Making fun of her and telling her how she "should" behave or think is CONTROLLING behavior on your part.

To be blunt, so what?

What about the fathers whose wives took their children away in a divorce and ignore court orders to allow the father visitation or any access to his children? Should we pretend that Father's Day isn't happening to protect their feelings? There is plenty of research indicating that men feel emotions more intensely than women, so shouldn't we protect their feelings?

And what about parents whose children turn from the church? Shouldn't we stop making a big deal out of another ward member leaving on a mission or returning to protect their feelings? Or those whose are forced to sit through a baby blessing after their child left the church or died, suffering because they will never see grandchildren blessed? Or... Or... Or...

I almost decided not to go on a mission at the last moment. Why? Not because of anything you would expect. Because I asked EVERYBODY I could think of to go to the temple with me, knowing I was supposed to have an escort, and not one person was willing to be my escort. Finally I decided that If the next person doesn't agree to be my escort I'm just not going. That person agreed to be my escort. But almost EVERY SINGLE TIME I go to the temple I am forced to face big families providing an amount of support to someone receiving their endowment that I can't begin to imagine. So why don't you call up the general authority in charge of the temple department and tell him to prohibit families from going to the temple together when someone receives their endowment to protect my emotions?

Or better yet, look beyond Mosiah 18:9. Take a look at Romans 12:15 where we are instructed to "Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep."

When I see someone in the temple surrounded by 40+ family members, or over 100 people in front of the temple waiting to celebrate a new marriage, or a baby blessed, or the love that other men are receiving on Father's Day, I really wish that someone would mourn with the man who is mourning, weeping with him that wishes he could bring himself to weep. But that doesn't give me a pass so I try to rejoice with them that do rejoice.

As painful as seeing other people's dreams come true when you have the same dream and it was crushed, it sucks. But that shouldn't stop those with crushed dreams from trying to support those who are rejoicing.

It's okay Brian, I was only stating that a woman who desires children will have an ache in her heart if she wasn't able to. I said NOTHING of protecting her feelings or changing any celebrations or changing anyone else's behavior. Just a simple compassionate recognition to a real painful truth.

A man who lost his job or cannot work is greatly affected. Some say a man losing his job is similar to experiencing a death. We cannot deny his deep feelings can we? And if there is something specific that does remind him of his perceived failure or inadequacies do we call him controlling if he doesn't gleefully smile and join in to celebrate all the other "sucessful" men who actually can do what their role and calling in life?

If you are hard on him for not being just as happy as the rest and being their cheering squad then I would tend to believe that you were lucky enough to not experience such a defeat or witness a loved one who did. Messing with a man's job, his role in life, is serious. And so is a womans. It's alot if not all of their identity. It is all clear in the proclamation of the family. We have our set jobs and they are who were are.

My reply to passion flower was far simpler than you seemed to have taken it.


Questions for you:

Why are you angry at a woman who has pain? Why also would you be angry if she skipped church that day? I assume you are a man, honestly why would you even notice or think about it in anyway other than, she must really feel bad - and then feel sorry for her? This is a charitable thing to do.

If my husband bad mouthed a woman for these things you guys speak of I would have to wonder what his issue was with women and then question what he thought of me as his wife. It would make me feel unsettled. And then I would wonder why he was even aware of it or thought it to be his business.
It's just not proper, unless of course you guys are all bishops.

[Sirocco]

Have you thought that maybe a woman without a child aches in her heart? God gave her the desire and duty to have children and she can't or her children died? Making fun of her and telling her how she "should" behave or think is CONTROLLING behavior on your part.

To be blunt, so what?

What about the fathers whose wives took their children away in a divorce and ignore court orders to allow the father visitation or any access to his children? Should we pretend that Father's Day isn't happening to protect their feelings? There is plenty of research indicating that men feel emotions more intensely than women, so shouldn't we protect their feelings?

And what about parents whose children turn from the church? Shouldn't we stop making a big deal out of another ward member leaving on a mission or returning to protect their feelings? Or those whose are forced to sit through a baby blessing after their child left the church or died, suffering because they will never see grandchildren blessed? Or... Or... Or...

I almost decided not to go on a mission at the last moment. Why? Not because of anything you would expect. Because I asked EVERYBODY I could think of to go to the temple with me, knowing I was supposed to have an escort, and not one person was willing to be my escort. Finally I decided that If the next person doesn't agree to be my escort I'm just not going. That person agreed to be my escort. But almost EVERY SINGLE TIME I go to the temple I am forced to face big families providing an amount of support to someone receiving their endowment that I can't begin to imagine. So why don't you call up the general authority in charge of the temple department and tell him to prohibit families from going to the temple together when someone receives their endowment to protect my emotions?

Or better yet, look beyond Mosiah 18:9. Take a look at Romans 12:15 where we are instructed to "Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep."

When I see someone in the temple surrounded by 40+ family members, or over 100 people in front of the temple waiting to celebrate a new marriage, or a baby blessed, or the love that other men are receiving on Father's Day, I really wish that someone would mourn with the man who is mourning, weeping with him that wishes he could bring himself to weep. But that doesn't give me a pass so I try to rejoice with them that do rejoice.

As painful as seeing other people's dreams come true when you have the same dream and it was crushed, it sucks. But that shouldn't stop those with crushed dreams from trying to support those who are rejoicing.

I think you are accusing MMbelieve of saying something she was not saying. She wasn't suggesting that the Church do away with Mother's Day talks and praise of motherhood for the sake of those who aren't mother's. She was calling out passionflower's criticism and mocking of women who really do feel a great deal of sadness on Mother's day, and her assumption that if they don't go to church they must be "Drama queens." Every time one of these types of threads appear, all I see is mocking, name calling, and over-generalizing of women in the Church, assuming they are all the same. Just because a woman has difficulty hearing about mothers doesn't mean she is a feminist. I had a small taste of these feelings when I was infertile in the beginning of my marriage. I can't imagine what some women go through who never marry or have children when that is something they have always longed for.

MMbelieve is right on with all her posts in this thread. Yes, there are feminists in the Church. I've known some who were pushing the Bishop to give women more say in ward government for example, but to assume that the majority of women are controlling for example - that is just way off. There are just as many controlling men out there.

Thank you for your support sarah.

It seems that kindness it hard to find these days. Sympathy towards women appears to be outdated anymore. Now, we find mostly criticism and I would dare say hatred. Sad indeed. And it's really sad that people are not noticing how they are playing right into Satan's plan. Destroy men, destroy women, divide the sexes, divide the home, compare, compete, judge, and become hard hearted.

Hearts are failing

Well a lot of them brought it on themselves, feminism is in many ways a toxic, hateful ideology.
You can't say to give a woman sympathy or such things is sexist, then demand it when you realize men not caring for you at all kind of sucks.
I admit to having no sympathy for them. In a world where sjw's are in the grass everywhere, one can never know when they might run into a crazy feminist, walking on egg shells around most of them, they get so easily offended and having them as friends is next to impossible.
That just might be me, but I somehow doubt that.
And I know the destruction of the family is certainly a larger plan, they want us in some 1984 thing, and these crazies are happy to hand over everything in exchange for transgender bathrooms and gay marriage.
Even importing thousands who will rape and murder them (because tolerance).

Women can't demand to be treated as men then quickly switch back to being treated as women at their convenience, this is what they wanted, these are the drawbacks.

[MMbelieve]

To be blunt, so what?

What about the fathers whose wives took their children away in a divorce and ignore court orders to allow the father visitation or any access to his children? Should we pretend that Father's Day isn't happening to protect their feelings? There is plenty of research indicating that men feel emotions more intensely than women, so shouldn't we protect their feelings?

And what about parents whose children turn from the church? Shouldn't we stop making a big deal out of another ward member leaving on a mission or returning to protect their feelings? Or those whose are forced to sit through a baby blessing after their child left the church or died, suffering because they will never see grandchildren blessed? Or... Or... Or...

I almost decided not to go on a mission at the last moment. Why? Not because of anything you would expect. Because I asked EVERYBODY I could think of to go to the temple with me, knowing I was supposed to have an escort, and not one person was willing to be my escort. Finally I decided that If the next person doesn't agree to be my escort I'm just not going. That person agreed to be my escort. But almost EVERY SINGLE TIME I go to the temple I am forced to face big families providing an amount of support to someone receiving their endowment that I can't begin to imagine. So why don't you call up the general authority in charge of the temple department and tell him to prohibit families from going to the temple together when someone receives their endowment to protect my emotions?

Or better yet, look beyond Mosiah 18:9. Take a look at Romans 12:15 where we are instructed to "Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep."

When I see someone in the temple surrounded by 40+ family members, or over 100 people in front of the temple waiting to celebrate a new marriage, or a baby blessed, or the love that other men are receiving on Father's Day, I really wish that someone would mourn with the man who is mourning, weeping with him that wishes he could bring himself to weep. But that doesn't give me a pass so I try to rejoice with them that do rejoice.

As painful as seeing other people's dreams come true when you have the same dream and it was crushed, it sucks. But that shouldn't stop those with crushed dreams from trying to support those who are rejoicing.

I think you are accusing MMbelieve of saying something she was not saying. She wasn't suggesting that the Church do away with Mother's Day talks and praise of motherhood for the sake of those who aren't mother's. She was calling out passionflower's criticism and mocking of women who really do feel a great deal of sadness on Mother's day, and her assumption that if they don't go to church they must be "Drama queens." Every time one of these types of threads appear, all I see is mocking, name calling, and over-generalizing of women in the Church, assuming they are all the same. Just because a woman has difficulty hearing about mothers doesn't mean she is a feminist. I had a small taste of these feelings when I was infertile in the beginning of my marriage. I can't imagine what some women go through who never marry or have children when that is something they have always longed for.

MMbelieve is right on with all her posts in this thread. Yes, there are feminists in the Church. I've known some who were pushing the Bishop to give women more say in ward government for example, but to assume that the majority of women are controlling for example - that is just way off. There are just as many controlling men out there.

Thank you for your support sarah.

It seems that kindness it hard to find these days. Sympathy towards women appears to be outdated anymore. Now, we find mostly criticism and I would dare say hatred. Sad indeed. And it's really sad that people are not noticing how they are playing right into Satan's plan. Destroy men, destroy women, divide the sexes, divide the home, compare, compete, judge, and become hard hearted.

Hearts are failing

Well a lot of them brought it on themselves, feminism is in many ways a toxic, hateful ideology.
You can't say to give a woman sympathy or such things is sexist, then demand it when you realize men not caring for you at all kind of sucks.
I admit to having no sympathy for them. In a world where sjw's are in the grass everywhere, one can never know when they might run into a crazy feminist, walking on egg shells around most of them, they get so easily offended and having them as friends is next to impossible.
That just might be me, but I somehow doubt that.
And I know the destruction of the family is certainly a larger plan, they want us in some 1984 thing, and these crazies are happy to hand over everything in exchange for transgender bathrooms and gay marriage.
Even importing thousands who will rape and murder them (because tolerance).

Women can't demand to be treated as men then quickly switch back to being treated as women at their convenience, this is what they wanted, these are the drawbacks.

I think the word femanist is thrown around too much. I personally wasn't speaking at all of femanism. Not all women are femanist.

I agree that a woman cannot have it both ways, the same as a man cannot have it both ways or a child cannot have it both ways.

If a man acts less manly (womanly) then demands to be treated like a man do you also deny him? Cause there are plenty of men who don't behave like men but more like children or women. Or is it woman's fault with her femanism that is of course causing men to lose their manhood?

I ask that question because alot of this thread is blaming women and it's not right to single one person out to take the blame. Much like a marriage, fault finding and blaming ALWAYS backfires and makes things worse. Also, marriage (problems between men and women) is very rarely the fault of one. Even if it appears the blame is on say a cheating husband, how many times is the wife brought in to show her all the ways she has messed up the marriage?

I wish the female bashing would stop. I wish the blanket assumptions of women would stop.

Yes, we all likely find that modern day femanism is not good but I view it much like I view the gay movement. It's actually a smaller majority than society wants us to believe. We also should be careful to not lump all women under the umbrella of femanism for anything and everything that isint barefoot and pregnant saying yes to husband on everything. That's ridiculous. A strong woman is not a femanist! A femanist, according to everyone's definition here, is a woman who tries to smash men to essentially stand as a Victor over his head.

I actually don't know anyone like that, you hear hints of that aggression in the media personalities but I just don't see it as widespread at all within the church. I actually see a bit more of the opposite taking place. Especially with the current wave of woman bashing.

Society and this thread is just like a bad marriage. It's really annoying and nearly hopeless.

Who would have thought that a very simple truth such as this : "husbands love your wife as Christ loved the church". would be mocked and ridiculed. Christ didn't say this was conditional but he commanded it. How come we as LDS no longer believe or respect anything? And we want further knowledge and truth? I mention a this because at very simple truths, I have been attacked on this thread. It amazes me.

Sirroco, my comment is generalized and no necessarily meant solely as a reply to yours.

See women are more visible in their intents and more straightforward, men on the other hand can do great damage but it's done quietly and such. For example, ignoring a wife or not extending a compassionate ear. That's very damaging to a woman. But it's all to often men scoff at that.

[MMbelieve]

All this man woman bashing is because we are not living the commandments and following God. Women behaving poorly and actually trying to demonize men have fallen some distance from the gospel teachings. And men bashing women and demonizing them and blaming them for their problems have also fallen some distance from the gospel teachings.

I know we are all struggling in this crazy world, but to actually fight and despise the oposite gender is pretty bad. And yes, some men are now doing it. You may just be venting your frustrations and pains and woes but you are doing exactly what you complain women have and are doing.

This will only crash and burn. We must remember who we are and not follow the momentum of the earth. They are heading for a cliff and will consume anyone not rooted deep in the gospel. All we have to do in these last days to make it, is not follow the world down. That's it!

We are better than this. We know that love heals, we know that charity is not spiteful, we know that compassion and empathy are traits needed.for our fellow man and we also know that we shouldn't judge others for we know not why they may do what they do.

If our lives were in order and we were at peace, we would only uplift not degrade. Degrading, complaining, judging etc are all reflections of ourselves. We all have a little bit of a sickness this world has inflicted upon us, we need to seperate from it and then pull our loved ones out of it.

Sitting in a hole attacking everyone else in the hole doesn't change the fact that your in the hole.

We all have our own journey on this earth, we do not know who why or what of others, we need to be sure that we are living our best as individuals and just let the rest go.

Honestly, your neighbor is a femanist, how does that affect you? So she doesn't value you as a man? Isint that okay, or does that bother you so much you want to fight and complain? Maybe giving into her is what brings you down to her level?

The same could be said toward women. Women have seen their bodies openly displayed and criticized and exploited for selfishness EVERYWHERE, if she gives into that and starts dressing poorly herself, is she not stooping to that level and degrading herself?

We can be better and it starts with waking up. We often speak of that on this thread, but we also need to wake up to our own selves. See the beam in our own eyes and remove it so we can see clearly.

We must not lose ourselves!

[Sirocco]

I fully admit to having terrible luck with women and understand that can effect the mind, but being aware of it is the first and biggest step to prevent being consumed by it.

I do have a grand relationship with my mother, so at the end of the day I know they're not all bad, my mother is a fantastic human being.

[passionflower]

I have a friend who got asked by the Stake RS President to speak to her ward RS this last Mothers' Day about Mothers' Day. But she was instructed to NOT talk about Motherhood, or anything "like unto it", because somehow Motherhood is an offensive topic.

Instead, she was instructed to focus on womanhood in a sort of female empowerment "you don't need a man or kids to be fulfulled" way.

She didn't like that AT ALL, so she said to herself "screw the Stake RS. My husband is the bishop and if he says it's OK to talk about motherhood on Mother's Day, I will!" And he did. And she did,

So she gets up in RS and gives a little 10 minute talk of on the simple joys of motherhood, nothing deep or heavy here, But she couldn't get through it. Just about every other sentence, the ward RS pres interrupted her with corrections, criticisms, and talked over her until she completely ruined my friend's talk.

When my friend told me what happened, I said, "Women in this church will go to great lengths, I mean literally stop at nothing in order to feel emotionally and socially validated. (the victim thing) They won't care who else they steal this validation from, or who or what principles they walk on."

These kind of stances are not meant to create equality between women, the genders, to be fairly heard by the church, or even to stand up for what is right. They are simply defensive ways of saying " I am OK, but you are not OK", which is the MO of feminism and a form of controlling behaviour . You can see this behaviour in action in the video on another thread showing a 12 year old girl "bearing her testimony" with a lesbian theme. This self-validating-attention-getting-testimony bearing is done so often by other women in the church that we don't even notice where the speaker ( or writer of the speech ) is setting us up and getting us hooked for the "I am coming out of the closet as a lesbian" payoff shock. At first, It just seems like another ordinary testimony ( except that it is being read).

Like I have said so many times before: women with controlling behaviour is the number one cause of divorce in this church(IMO).

Stories abound of the drama queens who refuse to come to church on Mothers' Day or leave Sacrament Meeting in tears. Because they are not mothers themselves, they can't be big enough to celebrate other mothers or even think of their own mother. They just claim church is the ultimate evil by "making" them feel bad. I have also seen a woman storm out of Sacrament Meeting because she found the Bishop's praises about his own mother offensive ( she couldn't stand to be "made" to feel inadequate by the stories he told of her ).

Have you thought that maybe a woman without a child aches in her heart? God gave her the desire and duty to have children and she can't or her children died? Making fun of her and telling her how she "should" behave or think is CONTROLLING behavior on your part.

I really do think that women can be happy for those who are mothers even if they themselves are not. Glad for them. Rejoice with them and celebrate with them. Didn't Neal A Maxwell say this well, "Empathy during personal agony is a portion of the divine."

IMO not being able to do so is a show of poor character and self absorption.

Lets clear up here what I mean by "controlling behaviour" among women. It isn't just disappointment with sisters in church and trying to point the way to something better.

Controlling women are unreceptive women, and they starve themselves to death for spontaneous love and attention. For them, "equal partners" means " I am in charge", and they always know what it best. They know when the house repairs need to be done, the bills need to be paid, the car needs oil, how the children are to be disciplined, where the family vacation will be spent, and do not trust their husbands ideas or plans, or anyone else for that matter. They know how everything should be done in church, school, work, VT,etc, and when relationship problems arise, always want to "talk" about things, leaving others feeling drained, dictated to, and husbands feeling blamed. No matter how messed up their own life is, these women are always first in line to solve other peoples problems for them and take care of everyone but themselves. In extreme cases, they want their own job, money, car, and a virtually separate and independent life from their husband, but absolutely will not grant him the same privilege, with a general "I can do what I want, but YOU can't" prevailing as the MO in the marraige.

And they reject compliments, always having to say something self depreciating instead of just a simple "Thank you".
Controlling behaviour is indeed VERY common among women in the church. It is unusual to find a woman who is not habitually engaging in it.

The opposite of a controlling woman is a gracious receiver. She is open, vulnerable and isn't afraid of spontaneity. She LETS people love her of their own accord, without telling them how, when, and how much. and "without compulsion on the souls of the children of men".

A graciously receiving woman wants what she has, instead of wasting time trying to get what she wants.

[Gage]

See women are more visible in their intents and more straightforward

LOL, is this a joke?

A graciously receiving woman wants what she has, instead of wasting time trying to get what she wants.

Never met one, a woman's entire existence is all about getting what she wants.

[MMbelieve]

I have a friend who got asked by the Stake RS President to speak to her ward RS this last Mothers' Day about Mothers' Day. But she was instructed to NOT talk about Motherhood, or anything "like unto it", because somehow Motherhood is an offensive topic.

Instead, she was instructed to focus on womanhood in a sort of female empowerment "you don't need a man or kids to be fulfulled" way.

She didn't like that AT ALL, so she said to herself "screw the Stake RS. My husband is the bishop and if he says it's OK to talk about motherhood on Mother's Day, I will!" And he did. And she did,

So she gets up in RS and gives a little 10 minute talk of on the simple joys of motherhood, nothing deep or heavy here, But she couldn't get through it. Just about every other sentence, the ward RS pres interrupted her with corrections, criticisms, and talked over her until she completely ruined my friend's talk.

When my friend told me what happened, I said, "Women in this church will go to great lengths, I mean literally stop at nothing in order to feel emotionally and socially validated. (the victim thing) They won't care who else they steal this validation from, or who or what principles they walk on."

These kind of stances are not meant to create equality between women, the genders, to be fairly heard by the church, or even to stand up for what is right. They are simply defensive ways of saying " I am OK, but you are not OK", which is the MO of feminism and a form of controlling behaviour . You can see this behaviour in action in the video on another thread showing a 12 year old girl "bearing her testimony" with a lesbian theme. This self-validating-attention-getting-testimony bearing is done so often by other women in the church that we don't even notice where the speaker ( or writer of the speech ) is setting us up and getting us hooked for the "I am coming out of the closet as a lesbian" payoff shock. At first, It just seems like another ordinary testimony ( except that it is being read).

Like I have said so many times before: women with controlling behaviour is the number one cause of divorce in this church(IMO).

Stories abound of the drama queens who refuse to come to church on Mothers' Day or leave Sacrament Meeting in tears. Because they are not mothers themselves, they can't be big enough to celebrate other mothers or even think of their own mother. They just claim church is the ultimate evil by "making" them feel bad. I have also seen a woman storm out of Sacrament Meeting because she found the Bishop's praises about his own mother offensive ( she couldn't stand to be "made" to feel inadequate by the stories he told of her ).

Have you thought that maybe a woman without a child aches in her heart? God gave her the desire and duty to have children and she can't or her children died? Making fun of her and telling her how she "should" behave or think is CONTROLLING behavior on your part.

I really do think that women can be happy for those who are mothers even if they themselves are not. Glad for them. Rejoice with them and celebrate with them. Didn't Neal A Maxwell say this well, "Empathy during personal agony is a portion of the divine."

IMO not being able to do so is a show of poor character and self absorption.

Lets clear up here what I mean by "controlling behaviour" among women. It isn't just disappointment with sisters in church and trying to point the way to something better.

Controlling women are unreceptive women, and they starve themselves to death for spontaneous love and attention. For them, "equal partners" means " I am in charge", and they always know what it best. They know when the house repairs need to be done, the bills need to be paid, the car needs oil, how the children are to be disciplined, where the family vacation will be spent, and do not trust their husbands ideas or plans, or anyone else for that matter. They know how everything should be done in church, school, work, VT,etc, and when relationship problems arise, always want to "talk" about things, leaving others feeling drained, dictated to, and husbands feeling blamed. No matter how messed up their own life is, these women are always first in line to solve other peoples problems for them and take care of everyone but themselves. In extreme cases, they want their own job, money, car, and a virtually separate and independent life from their husband, but absolutely will not grant him the same privilege, with a general "I can do what I want, but YOU can't" prevailing as the MO in the marraige.

And they reject compliments, always having to say something self depreciating instead of just a simple "Thank you".

The opposite of a controlling woman is a gracious receiver. She is open, vulnerable and isn't afraid of spontaneity. She LETS people love her of their own accord, without telling them how, when, and how much. and "without compulsion on the souls of the children of men".

A graciously receiving woman wants what she has, instead of wasting time trying to get what she wants.

I agree with some of what your definitions are or characteristics, not all.

There is nothing wrong with a woman knowing and asking for the love she needs and desires. Also, nothing wrong with talking through problems and issues. And how come a woman cannot know when to pay bills? That one is ridiculous.

In your definition, you are also recognizing I'm sure that this would necessitate that her partner is a man who is fulfilling his duties to the same degree of righteousness.
Otherwise the bills won't be paid, issues won't be solved, misunderstandings would never result in "understanding" and the list goes on.

Putting the burden on women to be ideal in un-ideal situations is also unrealistic. I do hope you have the same expectation on men to be ideal. It's only when both are working that it truly works.

Men must learn to live with their wife in understanding and love her like christ loves the church. And women need to not take his role and responsibility away or try to rule him. This can be accomplished only when both are striving to do it.

Also, not all women and men are created equally. We all have different strengths and abilities. A husband may be very good at something a woman typically is or is expected to do and vise versa. It's sad really that we get too caught up in things. A man who loves to cook makes the food for his family and they appreciate it. No hard feelings or bad things in their home but others looking in create a problem by attacking the woman and victimizing the "poor" man.

Not disagreeing that there are real problems out there. But they are not all women's fault or women's doing. I do hope you know this.

A controlling woman is no worse than a controlling man. Both are bad and both happen all the time. Women also don't need to be any more vulnerable that a man would have to be in marriage for there to be harmony. A man who is a "dry place" offers little to the intimacy (oneness and connection) of the marriage. How many men are dry places? But instead we tend to mock the woman for wanting to "talk" or share her feelings? Maybe she wants a connection with her husband? Shouldn't that bring him confidence and honor? He must learn to live in understanding with his wife. It's a command. The command is not that women need to stuff themselves and feelings and desires because the man doesn't get it.

[MMbelieve]

See women are more visible in their intents and more straightforward

LOL, is this a joke?

A graciously receiving woman wants what she has, instead of wasting time trying to get what she wants.

Never met one, a woman's entire existence is all about getting what she wants.

Women are not quiet creatures is what I am referring to. Men tend to be more quiet. Yes women can be confusing and hard to understand but that also often means that she is struggling to know herself. A little help from.a loving husband could go along way in that situation.

Passion flower would have to respond to the other statement.

[passionflower]

See women are more visible in their intents and more straightforward

LOL, is this a joke?

A graciously receiving woman wants what she has, instead of wasting time trying to get what she wants.

Never met one, a woman's entire existence is all about getting what she wants.

I know a bishop, who has a job kind of like you have where he counsels employees as head of a human resource dept. And the place he works at employs a great many women.

Anyway, he would totally agree with you on everything you have said on this subject.

O how I wish some women, instead of going into an emotional tizzy, would get a brain in their head, drop the pride and listen up to some feedback.

[passionflower]

I have a friend who got asked by the Stake RS President to speak to her ward RS this last Mothers' Day about Mothers' Day. But she was instructed to NOT talk about Motherhood, or anything "like unto it", because somehow Motherhood is an offensive topic.

Instead, she was instructed to focus on womanhood in a sort of female empowerment "you don't need a man or kids to be fulfulled" way.

She didn't like that AT ALL, so she said to herself "screw the Stake RS. My husband is the bishop and if he says it's OK to talk about motherhood on Mother's Day, I will!" And he did. And she did,

So she gets up in RS and gives a little 10 minute talk of on the simple joys of motherhood, nothing deep or heavy here, But she couldn't get through it. Just about every other sentence, the ward RS pres interrupted her with corrections, criticisms, and talked over her until she completely ruined my friend's talk.

When my friend told me what happened, I said, "Women in this church will go to great lengths, I mean literally stop at nothing in order to feel emotionally and socially validated. (the victim thing) They won't care who else they steal this validation from, or who or what principles they walk on."

These kind of stances are not meant to create equality between women, the genders, to be fairly heard by the church, or even to stand up for what is right. They are simply defensive ways of saying " I am OK, but you are not OK", which is the MO of feminism and a form of controlling behaviour . You can see this behaviour in action in the video on another thread showing a 12 year old girl "bearing her testimony" with a lesbian theme. This self-validating-attention-getting-testimony bearing is done so often by other women in the church that we don't even notice where the speaker ( or writer of the speech ) is setting us up and getting us hooked for the "I am coming out of the closet as a lesbian" payoff shock. At first, It just seems like another ordinary testimony ( except that it is being read).

Like I have said so many times before: women with controlling behaviour is the number one cause of divorce in this church(IMO).

Stories abound of the drama queens who refuse to come to church on Mothers' Day or leave Sacrament Meeting in tears. Because they are not mothers themselves, they can't be big enough to celebrate other mothers or even think of their own mother. They just claim church is the ultimate evil by "making" them feel bad. I have also seen a woman storm out of Sacrament Meeting because she found the Bishop's praises about his own mother offensive ( she couldn't stand to be "made" to feel inadequate by the stories he told of her ).

Have you thought that maybe a woman without a child aches in her heart? God gave her the desire and duty to have children and she can't or her children died? Making fun of her and telling her how she "should" behave or think is CONTROLLING behavior on your part.

I really do think that women can be happy for those who are mothers even if they themselves are not. Glad for them. Rejoice with them and celebrate with them. Didn't Neal A Maxwell say this well, "Empathy during personal agony is a portion of the divine."

IMO not being able to do so is a show of poor character and self absorption.

Lets clear up here what I mean by "controlling behaviour" among women. It isn't just disappointment with sisters in church and trying to point the way to something better.

Controlling women are unreceptive women, and they starve themselves to death for spontaneous love and attention. For them, "equal partners" means " I am in charge", and they always know what it best. They know when the house repairs need to be done, the bills need to be paid, the car needs oil, how the children are to be disciplined, where the family vacation will be spent, and do not trust their husbands ideas or plans, or anyone else for that matter. They know how everything should be done in church, school, work, VT,etc, and when relationship problems arise, always want to "talk" about things, leaving others feeling drained, dictated to, and husbands feeling blamed. No matter how messed up their own life is, these women are always first in line to solve other peoples problems for them and take care of everyone but themselves. In extreme cases, they want their own job, money, car, and a virtually separate and independent life from their husband, but absolutely will not grant him the same privilege, with a general "I can do what I want, but YOU can't" prevailing as the MO in the marraige.

And they reject compliments, always having to say something self depreciating instead of just a simple "Thank you".

The opposite of a controlling woman is a gracious receiver. She is open, vulnerable and isn't afraid of spontaneity. She LETS people love her of their own accord, without telling them how, when, and how much. and "without compulsion on the souls of the children of men".

A graciously receiving woman wants what she has, instead of wasting time trying to get what she wants.

I agree with some of what your definitions are or characteristics, not all.

There is nothing wrong with a woman knowing and asking for the love she needs and desires. Also, nothing wrong with talking through problems and issues. And how come a woman cannot know when to pay bills? That one is ridiculous.

In your definition, you are also recognizing I'm sure that this would necessitate that her partner is a man who is fulfilling his duties to the same degree of righteousness.
Otherwise the bills won't be paid, issues won't be solved, misunderstandings would never result in "understanding" and the list goes on.

Putting the burden on women to be ideal in un-ideal situations is also unrealistic. I do hope you have the same expectation on men to be ideal. It's only when both are working that it truly works.

Men must learn to live with their wife in understanding and love her like christ loves the church. And women need to not take his role and responsibility away or try to rule him. This can be accomplished only when both are striving to do it.

Also, not all women and men are created equally. We all have different strengths and abilities. A husband may be very good at something a woman typically is or is expected to do and vise versa. It's sad really that we get too caught up in things. A man who loves to cook makes the food for his family and they appreciate it. No hard feelings or bad things in their home but others looking in create a problem by attacking the woman and victimizing the "poor" man.

Not disagreeing that there are real problems out there. But they are not all women's fault or women's doing. I do hope you know this.

A controlling woman is no worse than a controlling man. Both are bad and both happen all the time. Women also don't need to be any more vulnerable that a man would have to be in marriage for there to be harmony. A man who is a "dry place" offers little to the intimacy (oneness and connection) of the marriage. How many men are dry places? But instead we tend to mock the woman for wanting to "talk" or share her feelings? Maybe she wants a connection with her husband? Shouldn't that bring him confidence and honor? He must learn to live in understanding with his wife. It's a command. The command is not that women need to stuff themselves and feelings and desires because the man doesn't get it.

Asking for the love you want is great, but telling someone how to love you when to love you and what you expect is not so great.

If you think I am asking women to do all the work in a marraige, then you don't get what works.

[MMbelieve]

Have you thought that maybe a woman without a child aches in her heart? God gave her the desire and duty to have children and she can't or her children died? Making fun of her and telling her how she "should" behave or think is CONTROLLING behavior on your part.

I really do think that women can be happy for those who are mothers even if they themselves are not. Glad for them. Rejoice with them and celebrate with them. Didn't Neal A Maxwell say this well, "Empathy during personal agony is a portion of the divine."

IMO not being able to do so is a show of poor character and self absorption.

Lets clear up here what I mean by "controlling behaviour" among women. It isn't just disappointment with sisters in church and trying to point the way to something better.

Controlling women are unreceptive women, and they starve themselves to death for spontaneous love and attention. For them, "equal partners" means " I am in charge", and they always know what it best. They know when the house repairs need to be done, the bills need to be paid, the car needs oil, how the children are to be disciplined, where the family vacation will be spent, and do not trust their husbands ideas or plans, or anyone else for that matter. They know how everything should be done in church, school, work, VT,etc, and when relationship problems arise, always want to "talk" about things, leaving others feeling drained, dictated to, and husbands feeling blamed. No matter how messed up their own life is, these women are always first in line to solve other peoples problems for them and take care of everyone but themselves. In extreme cases, they want their own job, money, car, and a virtually separate and independent life from their husband, but absolutely will not grant him the same privilege, with a general "I can do what I want, but YOU can't" prevailing as the MO in the marraige.

And they reject compliments, always having to say something self depreciating instead of just a simple "Thank you".

The opposite of a controlling woman is a gracious receiver. She is open, vulnerable and isn't afraid of spontaneity. She LETS people love her of their own accord, without telling them how, when, and how much. and "without compulsion on the souls of the children of men".

A graciously receiving woman wants what she has, instead of wasting time trying to get what she wants.

I agree with some of what your definitions are or characteristics, not all.

There is nothing wrong with a woman knowing and asking for the love she needs and desires. Also, nothing wrong with talking through problems and issues. And how come a woman cannot know when to pay bills? That one is ridiculous.

In your definition, you are also recognizing I'm sure that this would necessitate that her partner is a man who is fulfilling his duties to the same degree of righteousness.
Otherwise the bills won't be paid, issues won't be solved, misunderstandings would never result in "understanding" and the list goes on.

Putting the burden on women to be ideal in un-ideal situations is also unrealistic. I do hope you have the same expectation on men to be ideal. It's only when both are working that it truly works.

Men must learn to live with their wife in understanding and love her like christ loves the church. And women need to not take his role and responsibility away or try to rule him. This can be accomplished only when both are striving to do it.

Also, not all women and men are created equally. We all have different strengths and abilities. A husband may be very good at something a woman typically is or is expected to do and vise versa. It's sad really that we get too caught up in things. A man who loves to cook makes the food for his family and they appreciate it. No hard feelings or bad things in their home but others looking in create a problem by attacking the woman and victimizing the "poor" man.

Not disagreeing that there are real problems out there. But they are not all women's fault or women's doing. I do hope you know this.

A controlling woman is no worse than a controlling man. Both are bad and both happen all the time. Women also don't need to be any more vulnerable that a man would have to be in marriage for there to be harmony. A man who is a "dry place" offers little to the intimacy (oneness and connection) of the marriage. How many men are dry places? But instead we tend to mock the woman for wanting to "talk" or share her feelings? Maybe she wants a connection with her husband? Shouldn't that bring him confidence and honor? He must learn to live in understanding with his wife. It's a command. The command is not that women need to stuff themselves and feelings and desires because the man doesn't get it.

Asking for the love you want is great, but telling someone how to love you when to love you and what you expect is not so great.

If you think I am asking women to do all the work in a marraige, then you don't get what works.

Your comment was okay with me until your last line. I said that I hoped you were aware of what it takes from the men as well. So far you have only mentioned women and in quite a negative way.

I mentioned to you how it takes both to work in unison and in basically a complimentary fashion. Why would you then say I don't get what works?

The only thing I might not get about your view is that you require the women to set the pace and the environment through her submission to her husband and then he choses how and when and to what degree to engage with his wife and she is to accept gracefully whatever he has chosen to do. If this is NOT the case, then I think I fully understand that men and women need to both fulfill their roles righteously for things to be in harmony.

[brianj]

Stories abound of the drama queens who refuse to come to church on Mothers' Day or leave Sacrament Meeting in tears. Because they are not mothers themselves, they can't be big enough to celebrate other mothers or even think of their own mother. They just claim church is the ultimate evil by "making" them feel bad. I have also seen a woman storm out of Sacrament Meeting because she found the Bishop's praises about his own mother offensive ( she couldn't stand to be "made" to feel inadequate by the stories he told of her ).

Have you thought that maybe a woman without a child aches in her heart? God gave her the desire and duty to have children and she can't or her children died? Making fun of her and telling her how she "should" behave or think is CONTROLLING behavior on your part.

To be blunt, so what?

What about the fathers whose wives took their children away in a divorce and ignore court orders to allow the father visitation or any access to his children? Should we pretend that Father's Day isn't happening to protect their feelings? There is plenty of research indicating that men feel emotions more intensely than women, so shouldn't we protect their feelings?

And what about parents whose children turn from the church? Shouldn't we stop making a big deal out of another ward member leaving on a mission or returning to protect their feelings? Or those whose are forced to sit through a baby blessing after their child left the church or died, suffering because they will never see grandchildren blessed? Or... Or... Or...

I almost decided not to go on a mission at the last moment. Why? Not because of anything you would expect. Because I asked EVERYBODY I could think of to go to the temple with me, knowing I was supposed to have an escort, and not one person was willing to be my escort. Finally I decided that If the next person doesn't agree to be my escort I'm just not going. That person agreed to be my escort. But almost EVERY SINGLE TIME I go to the temple I am forced to face big families providing an amount of support to someone receiving their endowment that I can't begin to imagine. So why don't you call up the general authority in charge of the temple department and tell him to prohibit families from going to the temple together when someone receives their endowment to protect my emotions?

Or better yet, look beyond Mosiah 18:9. Take a look at Romans 12:15 where we are instructed to "Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep."

When I see someone in the temple surrounded by 40+ family members, or over 100 people in front of the temple waiting to celebrate a new marriage, or a baby blessed, or the love that other men are receiving on Father's Day, I really wish that someone would mourn with the man who is mourning, weeping with him that wishes he could bring himself to weep. But that doesn't give me a pass so I try to rejoice with them that do rejoice.

As painful as seeing other people's dreams come true when you have the same dream and it was crushed, it sucks. But that shouldn't stop those with crushed dreams from trying to support those who are rejoicing.

It's okay Brian, I was only stating that a woman who desires children will have an ache in her heart if she wasn't able to. I said NOTHING of protecting her feelings or changing any celebrations or changing anyone else's behavior. Just a simple compassionate recognition to a real painful truth.

A man who lost his job or cannot work is greatly affected. Some say a man losing his job is similar to experiencing a death. We cannot deny his deep feelings can we? And if there is something specific that does remind him of his perceived failure or inadequacies do we call him controlling if he doesn't gleefully smile and join in to celebrate all the other "sucessful" men who actually can do what their role and calling in life?

If you are hard on him for not being just as happy as the rest and being their cheering squad then I would tend to believe that you were lucky enough to not experience such a defeat or witness a loved one who did. Messing with a man's job, his role in life, is serious. And so is a womans. It's alot if not all of their identity. It is all clear in the proclamation of the family. We have our set jobs and they are who were are.

My reply to passion flower was far simpler than you seemed to have taken it.


Questions for you:

Why are you angry at a woman who has pain? Why also would you be angry if she skipped church that day? I assume you are a man, honestly why would you even notice or think about it in anyway other than, she must really feel bad - and then feel sorry for her? This is a charitable thing to do.

If my husband bad mouthed a woman for these things you guys speak of I would have to wonder what his issue was with women and then question what he thought of me as his wife. It would make me feel unsettled. And then I would wonder why he was even aware of it or thought it to be his business.
It's just not proper, unless of course you guys are all bishops.

It appears that I grossly misunderstood the comment I was responding to. For that, and for any offense I may have caused, I apologize.

To answer your questions:
I am not angry at anybody who has pain. I am deeply disturbed by people who expect special treatment because of their pain.
I would not be angry at someone who skips church. To be candid, most of the time someone misses church I don't even notice. I would be upset with someone who skips church or walks out of a lesson then advertises why they did so as a way of fishing for sympathy and attention.

The Sunday before last many wards, maybe most, taught a Priesthood / Relief Society lesson on eternal marriage. I participate in support groups for those who have been, or are going through, divorce. There were a lot of people in those groups expressing a great deal of pain over what they endured in their third hour lesson. But they didn't skip church, they didn't walk out of the lesson, and they didn't complain about that subject in church. I heard from at least one sister who said the teacher made some very rude and hurtful remarks about those women who divorced their husbands and, although she endured a great deal of pain that day, she did not complain at church of seek special treatment.

Just to fill you in on a few details about me:
In 2009 I was laid off from my job. When the economy started picking up I was consistently rejected by employers for not being employed or having recent enough experience. Then my son's autism became worse and he needed a stay at home parent, and since my wife's income was far better than any of the jobs that were considering me I wasn't able to go back to work. It felt like torture to see someone move into the ward who had landed a great job, or to hear of a great promotion some other guy received. But, as painful as it was to do so, I was able to congratulate them. As I started sharing their rejoicing I was comforted.

More recently my wife filed for divorce and gave me a wonderful parting insult: she said that the worst thing is that she won't get what she deserves for wasting all of those years with me. She took my son someplace I can't afford to visit, changed her phone number and address in violation of a court order, cut off contact with her mother and her step father even though the agreement with her attorney was that I would be able to get mail and gifts to my son through them, and saw to it that I would not have any cards or contact with him for Father's day. It was extremely difficult to go to church last Sunday. But there was a big comfort available for anybody in my situation who tried (successfully or not) to be happy for those men who were experiencing the joy of that day.

Joseph Smith taught that only the religion that requires the sacrifice of all things can produce the faith necessary for exaltation. It's somewhere in the Lectures on Faith. Sometimes we even have to sacrifice our happiness, but when we do so that happiness comes back in greater measure.

So I hope you see that I don't have a problem with women, men, or any other group. I have a problem with those who focus on their pain instead of trying to step beyond it. And I have a problem expressing myself tenderly.

[JohnnyL]

Stories abound of the drama queens who refuse to come to church on Mothers' Day or leave Sacrament Meeting in tears. Because they are not mothers themselves, they can't be big enough to celebrate other mothers or even think of their own mother. They just claim church is the ultimate evil by "making" them feel bad. I have also seen a woman storm out of Sacrament Meeting because she found the Bishop's praises about his own mother offensive ( she couldn't stand to be "made" to feel inadequate by the stories he told of her ).

Have you thought that maybe a woman without a child aches in her heart? God gave her the desire and duty to have children and she can't or her children died? Making fun of her and telling her how she "should" behave or think is CONTROLLING behavior on your part.

To be blunt, so what?

What about the fathers whose wives took their children away in a divorce and ignore court orders to allow the father visitation or any access to his children? Should we pretend that Father's Day isn't happening to protect their feelings? There is plenty of research indicating that men feel emotions more intensely than women, so shouldn't we protect their feelings?

And what about parents whose children turn from the church? Shouldn't we stop making a big deal out of another ward member leaving on a mission or returning to protect their feelings? Or those whose are forced to sit through a baby blessing after their child left the church or died, suffering because they will never see grandchildren blessed? Or... Or... Or...

I almost decided not to go on a mission at the last moment. Why? Not because of anything you would expect. Because I asked EVERYBODY I could think of to go to the temple with me, knowing I was supposed to have an escort, and not one person was willing to be my escort. Finally I decided that If the next person doesn't agree to be my escort I'm just not going. That person agreed to be my escort. But almost EVERY SINGLE TIME I go to the temple I am forced to face big families providing an amount of support to someone receiving their endowment that I can't begin to imagine. So why don't you call up the general authority in charge of the temple department and tell him to prohibit families from going to the temple together when someone receives their endowment to protect my emotions?

Or better yet, look beyond Mosiah 18:9. Take a look at Romans 12:15 where we are instructed to "Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep."

When I see someone in the temple surrounded by 40+ family members, or over 100 people in front of the temple waiting to celebrate a new marriage, or a baby blessed, or the love that other men are receiving on Father's Day, I really wish that someone would mourn with the man who is mourning, weeping with him that wishes he could bring himself to weep. But that doesn't give me a pass so I try to rejoice with them that do rejoice.

As painful as seeing other people's dreams come true when you have the same dream and it was crushed, it sucks. But that shouldn't stop those with crushed dreams from trying to support those who are rejoicing.

Thank you, so well said, and nicely.

[JohnnyL]

I see boys in elementary school crying ALL.THE.TIME. Emotional meltdowns over, "he said I was meaaaaaaaaan" and stuff like that.

I see women offended by DC 25, especially the "be better" part, didn't Jesus know Emma was a daughter of God??

At least our RS is pretty good at putting the women in their place, off the self-aggrandizing pedestal. I love hearing those reports.

I'm glad my wife got a huge chocolate bar, because I ate about 80% of it. :))

Oh, my Stake RS presidency story: In the bishopric, I asked the SRSP when they visited our ward to teach, "Could you please talk to them about honoring, sustaining, supporting, and loving their husbands?" "Huh??! No." So they proceeded to give their talks, and from what I heard, there was quite a bit of contention, and it ended on a bad note, lol.

Although, my mom's Stake RS presidency story is different: She gave a talk that the chauvinistic, controlling bishop didn't like, who talked to the SP, who chided her with the bishop present. She politely told him basically to forget it, and that if that was the way it was going to be, she would quit. She didn't have to, as she got released quickly after.

Good for your RS. My bishop asked me to make comments in RS along those lines, too.
My husband eats my chocolate bars, etc, too.
Wow, your mom's Stake RS President defied the SP and the Bishop? And would ditch a calling given by God? And she couldn't see anything wrong with that?
Is the church having some kind of psychotic episode right now? Maybe it is all that Cultural Marxism.

No, it was my mom.
The bishop of the ward she was visiting was furious and wanted her reprimanded by the SP because her talk showed how the RS saved the church (and the brethren) (this is history, by combining the RS with the church, the church went from financial insolvency to solvency), and tried to control her view that women can be good and glorious--they were supposed to ALWAYS to be made to feel as second-class, under the priesthood (of men who were definitely not following DC 121).
No, she knew the gospel too well to accept that kind of control and "correction" from her leaders.

The calling might have been from God, but it was controlled by the SP. ;)

They had another stake president who took up 45 minutes of a meeting after being released, talking about how good he was (and lying in part of it), to leave the visiting seventy and apostle 5 minutes total.

My father also "got fired" by another SP for not manipulating numbers so they could get more budget money. He also said it was wrong, and he wouldn't do it, they'd have to release him. So the SP did.

[Gage]

Wow, your mom's Stake RS President defied the SP and the Bishop? And would ditch a calling given by God? And she couldn't see anything wrong with that?

Callings like these are not given by God, they are given my man (SP or Bishop) in order for the member to serve the church and God and grow spiritually.

[JohnnyL]

Beware single men:

http://russiafeed.com/5-reasons-you-sho ... ian-woman/

Just stick to overweight, entitled, Disney princess Americans.

Just to be fair though, there are other foreign women who are good marriage material as well.

BTW, at a glance last Sunday, the majority of women in our ward and others I saw, are overweight. (Yes, this includes singles, young mothers, and even older women.)

Of those, more than half are at least 1.5x "non-fat" weight (she should weigh 100, but weighs 150 or more).