hmm . . .

Julie Beck's (in?)famous talk is back in the news again; ergo, I've spent another two hours or so reading commentary and reactions. Seeing as I've been meaning to blog about it for many moons now, here we go:

For some reason a small part of me still feels uneasy about her talk. I believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ with all my heart; I believe that church leaders at all levels of leadership are called by divine inspiration; I believe that Sister Beck is called to lead the women of this church and receive revelation on their behalf. And I believe so much in what feels to me like the core of her message--that woman's role as nurturer is divinely appointed and that families take paramount importance over all other obligations (save one's personal relationship with the Savior). I know these things are true.

But heavens, did she have to say what she did? And, more importantly, how she said it? I understand the frustration of women in the church who feel like she has egregiously misrepresented them: single moms who have to work, single women who haven't been blessed with a family of their own (don't these two groups make up more than a third of the women in the church anyway?), righteous wives who can't have children . . . based on the reaction I've read, it seems that many of them feel like Sister Beck has dealt them a blow below the belt. And what of the women of the church who don't fit into the mold of the Utah Valley homemaker--like all the women outside the U.S. who have no idea what Sister Beck is talking about when she tells stories of driving her daughters to the prom? It's very problematic to me that so many faithful women get excluded from Sister Beck's image of ideal womanhood because of circumstances beyond their control.

Perhaps more troubling to me is the idea that motherhood defines women--that a woman's ultimate goal is to be a mother. A woman's (a person's) ultimate goal should be to come unto Christ. Yes, motherhood is divine--arguably the most important calling a woman can fulfill. But motherhood is NOT the defining element of righteous womanhood. Can I say that? Do I believe that? I think so, yes. According to my understanding, women (and men!) can be saved in the Celestial Kingdom without producing mortal offspring. Men and women have been sent to earth with the charge to learn to become like the Savior and to create earthly families and raise them righteously. But procreation is not a prerequisite to salvation. And a righteous woman should (and will, I believe) be judged on the strength of her personal testimony, not on whether or not she was a mother.

Please, please, please, please do not think for a moment that I am disparaging the importance of motherhood! I firmly believe that there is no higher calling under heaven than to bear and raise righteous children, for women as well as for men. I'm very excited about being a mother one day, and I feel like that blessing and that responsibility will be, in a way, the culminating expression of my faith in God's plan for me. But I'm not ready for it yet--and I believe that that doesn't make me any less of a woman or any less righteous.

I believe that the church values women and womanhood, and that it offers a support system for mothers unparalleled by perhaps any other organization in the world. These are good things. It's just some of the rhetoric that makes my skin crawl, because much of what is said (rather, how it is said, I suppose) seems to foster the kinds of attitudes that make people like my mom (a working mother who chose to wait to have kids until after she graduated from college) afraid to go to Relief Society--not because of the doctrine, but because of the attitudes of the other women there.

I did come across a quotation in my wanderings that made me feel happy and warm about the matter (contrary to much of the reactions I read, which just made me feel frustrated and sick...maybe I should learn something from that): it's by Neal A. Mawell, and I found it here.

We know so little about the reasons for the division of duties between womanhood and manhood as well as between motherhood and priesthood. These were divinely determined in another time and another place. We are accustomed to focusing on the men of God because theirs is the priesthood and leadership line. But paralleling that authority line is a stream of righteous influence reflecting the remarkable women of God who have existed in all ages and dispensations, including our own.

I guess, in essence, I don't have too much of a gripe with what Sister Beck said so much as how she said it. Hmm. But also, what to make of women who have the opportunity but choose not to have children? Is this wrong? My gut wants to go with, "Not a sin, but not living up to potential/not fulfilling all aspects of the law/willfully missing out on promised blessings," although even that doesn't feel quite right. Thoughts?