Daughters in My Kingdom: Chapter 2

So it's been a while since I've written about Daughters in My Kingdom.  I'm sick with a cold and probably food poisoning, so it will give me something to do.  Chapter 2 is entitled, '"Something Better" The Female Relief Society of Nauvoo.' How appropriate as I'm missing our ward RS dinner tonight I can reflect on the history of the RS.

I've always wondered what it meant to "organize the women . . . after the pattern of the priesthood" (12) (1/15/12 update - DH Oaks gave a great talk relating to this.).  It's still not totally clear to me, but one way was that the women who were asked to serve were set apart through a blessing, just as men are ordained to the priesthood -- not something that would happen in other women's groups of the day.  In the Church today, we still set apart people to positions of service.

Another term that always makes me want more info is when Emma Smith is called "an elect lady."  I think I've always been taught that it meant that she was righteous and predestined to fulfill the position.  Now that's not explained in the book, but I believe it's in one of the Mormon Channel podcasts on Emma that it explains that when Emma was called to the position, the group was asked to raise hands to support her, as in "elected" -- this type of "sustaining" action is still done today.  Maybe this podcast? on Emma or this one on the Organization of the RS.

Additionally, in regards to organizing the RS, I guess I have always felt the RS and Priesthood/Men were organized differently -- yet they're supposed to be so much the same.  I started thinking about how they could be organized differently and, therefore, feel more similar to me.  Other than actually "holding" the priesthood, I'd guess the biggest difference is that the boys when they're 12 and receive the Aaronic Priesthood start their associations with other men in the ward (priesthood opening exercises).  For the girls, this doesn't really happen until they are are 18 and actually become members of RS.  I think more and more now, though, young women (12+) are being included on occasion with the 18+ group, but maybe if the younger women were included when they also turned 12, like the boys, they'd feel more involved/important?  I do wonder why there isn't an opening exercises for all the females 12 and up just like there is for the males.  I'm sure there's a reason, I just don't know what it is.

On page 14, it mentions Emma's responsibility to compile hymns for the Church.  It doesn't mention, though, how much W.W. Phelps also had to do with it, which I didn't know until I listened to this podcast from the Mormon Channel.

One thing that confused me a little bit in looking at the wording from back then is where Joseph Smith turns "the key" to the Relief Society.  I'm guessing this means the "key" (14) to govern the RS?  From my understanding now, keys are tied to the priesthood, yet because the women don't hold the priesthood, I wouldn't think they really held the "key"?  Maybe it just means they were authorized to organize.

I was fascinated when I learned that not all women in the early days of the Church were included in the RS -- they had to "petition to belong, and they were accepted based on their goodness and virtue" (15).  I found this interesting because, if I remember correctly, too, not all men were priesthood holders either back then.  Now days, all women over 18 are included in the RS and all men/boys over 12, in good, active standing, receive an order/level of the priesthood.

I was surprised that there was no mention that to be a member of the RS, women had to pay dues (even up until the last century if I remember correctly).  To me, when I learned that detail at another point in my life, it made RS that much more significant.  I thought, if I had to PAY to belong to RS, how would that change my perspective of it?  Would I be more involved in it?  Would I take it more seriously?  Would I show up to my RS activities more often?  Would I try to bond with the other sisters more?   Because I don't pay dues, I think in the past I'd really taken RS for granted.  So, maybe in the book, the editors felt it was an insignificant fact, but to me, paying to belong to something is a big deal because it shows one's dedication to it.  The more we sacrifice for something, the more important it is to us.  (However, I can see the desire of Church leaders for inclusion of ALL women in the Church, so I can see some good benefits in opening membership up to all...)

I liked where Joseph Smith said, "You are now placed in a situation where you can act according to those sympathies which God has planted in your bosoms" (16).  Because of the organization of the RS, the women were able to act in an organized manner beyond their typical household roles.  If any of them had desires to serve outside the home, this was a great way they could be involved.  However, the book also mentions the women "never lost sight of their responsibilities toward their own families and homes" (18).  Well I'd sure hope not!  If they'd lost focus of that, they wouldn't have survived!

I also liked learning that at RS meetings, women were taught by Joseph Smith "to seek their own salvation. . . all must do it for themselves. . . none can do it for another" (17).  In one of the Joseph Smith Papers podcasts (sorry, can't remember which one), I learned that in that day, women of other faiths were taught that their salvation was tied to their husband's.  So if you had a lousy husband, I guess that meant you couldn't go to heaven.  How terrible.  This did bring up a question, though.  In V.H. Cassler's essay on polygamy, she points out that it was common for a woman to be sealed to a Church General Authority (and her husband to be sealed into that union as a child) to guarantee her salvation.  Obviously there was some confusion there because she didn't need to be sealed to a GA, she just needed to be sealed.  Now days we are obviously sealed in the temple to our husbands, and we, as individuals prove our own worthiness independent of the actions of our spouse.

I really liked, "Let this society teach how to act towards husbands, to treat them with mildness and affection.  When a man is borne down with trouble -- when he is perplexed, if he can meet with mildness, it will calm down his soul and sooth his feelings. . . . When you go home never give a cross word, but let kindness, charity and love, crown your works" (19)  Now I know some women will be offended by this and I admit I thought, now why do I have to be so nice? but the quote shows me that women back then weren't much different than we are today.  They needed to bite their tongues just as much as we do.  And, just to make it fair, men were taught to "love, cherish, and nourish his wife" and "regard her feelings with tenderness."  So, it wasn't only the women who were asked to be nice.

The Reason for the Season

My friend, Michelle, shared this beautiful song/video by Shawna Edwards entitled, "Do You have Room." I hope you enjoy it.

I shouldn't even open this can of worms, but it's something I've been thinking about. I decided yesterday that Christmas, for me, is about two separate things. 1 - the message of Christ in this song, and 2 - Santa and presents and excitement. The older I get, the less I see them intertwined. I've always been one to try and focus on the Savior and mix in the Santa and pagan stuff, but really, when it comes down to Christmas day, who is it really about? Um, Santa and how much stuff I got.

If I were really die-hard about changing tradition, though, I'd probably get rid of the tree and the stockings and whatnot, but I like them. I like the presents. I like getting them. I like giving them. I like the parties. I sort of like the decorations -- just not putting them up. I like the generosity that comes out in people this time of the year. There's a lot of good that happens. There's a Family Home Evening Lesson that we even did last Monday about what decorations can symbolize, yet part of me feels that those definitions are kind of pushing it to make the pagan fit with the Christian (you also see this in a lot of the books and stories out there).  I have to admit, that if you aren't going to believe in Christ and celebrate his birth, the next best thing is probably exemplifying the goodness of St. Nick to those around you.  I guess I see it as a matter of good, better, best.  I'd say it's obviously nice to be a good person, it's better to be kind and giving toward people in the name of Santa Claus, but it's best to follow Jesus Christ and exemplify his attributes towards others.

I guess if I were to redefine Christmas, I suppose I'd keep the Santa stuff in December and move the religious part of it to Spring/Easter, rather than trying to mix it together.  But I think if I did that, the whole December Christmas stuff would kind of go the way of Valentine's Day or St. Patrick's Day and not a lot would happen -- I guess I'm not so big with traditions and holidays.  Or, I suppose I could do the Savior stuff on Christmas Eve and the Santa stuff Christmas Day, but that seems backwards to me -- shouldn't it be the Savior stuff ON Christmas?  Oh, how could you not do presents on Christmas?  Wouldn't that be kind of a let down? I guess you could justify it by the wise men brought presents to Christ and Christ is a gift to all of us. . .

Anyway, I do love Christmas.  I love the Savior and my testimony of Him.  I'm grateful for a restored Church of Jesus Christ on this earth. I'm grateful for all the other Christians and other people out there who try and make this world a better place.

Enjoy the season!

P.S.  12/6/11:  Here are a couple advent ideas that I've wanted to look more into.  1 - a 25-days Christmas book from Hands full and loving it and scriptures/ideas from LDS Women of God.  And one more from Mormon Women.

Nobility in Service & Motherhood

Don't forget to read Chocolate on My Cranium's post:  Motherhood -- Service of the Highest Order -- and read the whole story of Sister Bean.  It will make you cry.

12/6/11:  Shortly after reading the above post, I was looking on my iPod for something to listen to and I found a Legacy Podcast on Willard and Rebecca Bean.  There are some really neat stories in there -- particularly the ones about Willard being a boxer and Rebecca living in Palmyra NY and facing opposition to her LDS faith and expecting a baby and no one would come and help her deliver the baby!  Neat people.

A Mind for a Mop

LAF/Beautiful Womanhood linked to "Does a full-time homemaker swap her mind for a mop?" by Dennis Prager.

My favorite parts:

To suggest that children benefit from having a full-time parent – which will usually be the mother – is, in the eyes of the dominant intellectual culture, equivalent to advocating suppression of women and "swapping their brains for a mop." . . .Being a full-time homemaker, mother and wife is the left's vision of hell.

Why that is so is not my subject here. Rather, I seek to refute the idea that full-time homemaking is intellectually vapid and a waste of a college education.

Let me first state that I have no argument with those mothers who need to or even just wish to work outside the home. My argument is with those who believe that staying at home is necessarily mind-numbing.

Nor do I wish to romanticize child rearing. As a rule, little children don't contribute much to the intellectual life of a parent (although older children who are intellectually curious can spur a parent to seek answers to challenging questions they may not have considered before). Any intellectually alive woman who is a full-time mother must therefore find intellectual stimulation elsewhere.

The point is that she can find such stimulation without leaving her house. Furthermore, the intellectual input she can find is likely to be greater than most women (or men) find working outside the home. . . . 

Let me give an example of the woman I know best: my wife. She is a non-practicing lawyer with a particular interest in and knowledge of taxation and the economy. She decided to stay home to be a full-time mother to her two boys (one of whom is autistic) and her two nieces (who lost their mother, my wife's sister, to cancer, when they were very young). Between talk radio, History Channel documentaries, BookTV on C-SPAN2, recorded lectures from The Teaching Company/The Great Courses, and constant reading, she has led a first-class intellectual life while shuttling kids, folding laundry and making family dinners.

So it is not only nonsense that full-time homemaking means swapping the mind for a mop. It is also nonsense that the vast majority of paid work outside the home develops the mind. One may prefer to work outside the home for many reasons: a need or desire for extra income; a need to get out of the house; a need to be admired for work beyond making a home; a need for regular interaction with other adults. But the development of the intellect is not necessarily among them.

This makes me kind of feel like some elitist since I do have and take the opportunity to stay home. Well, at least it makes me feel better that I CAN make staying home an intellectual persuit -- and I try -- I guess I just can't get enough of it, though.

Contrast this to caregiver burnout, which does happen when you're caring for everyone else all the time ("Tired mom? You might need more than a nap to combat that fatigue" by Teri Harman, Deseret News).

Teaching Children Gratitude -- a late Thanksgiving post?

I'm really bad at planning to write specific posts like Thanksgiving posts or Christmas posts; I just have to let them come naturally, and sometimes they just don't come.  I have read two great posts recently on how to teach our children gratitude and not entitlement/consumerism -- goes along well with the Thanksgiving topic, don't you think?  I enjoyed this first post from the idea room by Heather Ann:

Good research has found that adults who are grateful report having fewer health problems (like digestion and headaches), more energy, and a greater feeling of well-being than those who complain. Most studies show that the more gratitude we show, the healthier and happier we are.

Can’t we assume findings would be the same for children? Children who express gratitude are kinder, more appreciative, more empathetic, happier and more enthusiastic. Grateful children understand that other people have needs and they look outside themselves. They are more polite, usually better behaved and generally more pleasant to be around.

Kids who are not taught gratitude struggle with feelings of entitlement and are usually disappointed, feeling that nothing is good enough for them. 

In trying to teach our children gratitude, parents have been making the same mistakes for years. Avoid pointing out to our children that they are more blessed than others. That doesn’t teach them to be grateful. When it comes to meals, don’t tell them “you should be grateful for your food, and eat it, kids in other countries are starving”. This won’t work either.

Her major points on how to teach children gratitude:
 
1.  We need to model gratitude ourselves.

2.  Say “No.”

3.  Give your children responsibility.

4.   Teach your children to be grateful for adversity.

5.   Role Play. Practice saying “please” and “thank you” with your children. 

6.   Teach your children to write Thank you Notes.

7.  Point out the simple things.


8.  Provide your family opportunities to serve.

Along these same lines, I also enjoyed Why do ye adorn yourselves with that which hath no life? at Empowering LDS Women by Kels.

Keeping the Flame Alive

A bit back I read Middle Aged Mormon Man's suggestions on maintaining a strong marriage.  I didn't think I'd want to jot them down, but I keep thinking back to them.  I'd better put them here before I forget:

1) Pucker Up. Don't be shy about kissing, hugging and holding hands with your kids present. They act like they hate it -and maybe they do - but it reinforces that your desire to hug your spouse is more important than their discomfort. (Note:  Don't be ridiculous about this - they don't need to think their parents are pervs with no self-control)

A little time after reading this, my husband came home and said how grateful he was that he married me and what a wonderful wife I am.  It made me feel so good.  We had a good, passionate kiss.  I looked over to see my girls looking at us in smiley dismay.  Now, my husband and I nearly always greet or go with a kiss, but the girls really noticed this one!  It was so cute.  A week? or so later, my husband came home from work and we were all in a rush.  My 5 year old came to me and said, "Mom, you and dad forgot to kiss!"  It was just darling.  Even today, after we'd kissed when my husband got home, my daughter found another time when we were parting (for just a minute) that we should kiss.  I think she likes it.

2) Be Inseparable. Sit next to each other in church/movies/etc. I know, there is a natural tendency to sit as far away from each other as possible, with the kids corralled in-between. Resist this impulse. Sit by each other. Hold hands. In years of sitting on the stand, I have seen a strong correlation that the couples with the strongest marriages usually sit next to each other in church.

My parents always did this (still do).  I remember as a child trying to sit between my parents and my dad saying, "No, you cannot sit there. I want to sit by MY wife!"  Once we knew that was the rule, I don't think we ever tried to sit between them.  My husband and I aren't as diligent with this one, but we've been trying more.

3) Date Night!  Go on dates - weekly if you can. I am constantly amazed when I hear someone say "We haven't been on a date in three months" but the couple manages to attend every soccer/baseball game all season long. The marriage is more important that the kids hobbies.  Is it a money issue? Trade babysitting. Exploit the grandparents. Guilt a Beehive into doing it for service. Do cheap things. which leads us to..

We're working on this one.  But I do have to add, we DON'T make it to all sorts of kid activities, we just don't have kid activities, but we also just have a hard time getting on dates.  We've been better at getting/pre-arranging babysitters, though.

4) Temple Time.  Go to the temple together. Let your kids know. Sometimes spouses will trade-off -one will attend, the other will stay home, then they swap. Go together. After all, temple is really all about that very relationship, isn't it? And it is a cheap date.

OK, I appreciate this one, but with the little kids and the potential to pay $18 for a baby-sitter so we can go to the temple just doesn't sit right with me.  It's not like we even talk when we're there.  I'm sure when our oldest can babysit, we'll go together again, but I just have a hard time with it now.  Plus, I do enjoy the individual/personal things I can learn at the temple.  I always wished I could have gone through the temple some time prior to getting married, just so I could experience it as an individual, rather than as a spouse, but that didn't happen.  I guess now's my time to take it in for me.

5) Bedtime. Go to bed at the same time.  I know I'm talking to the blogging world, and some of you might not understand what I am saying, so I will type it again, more slowly:  Go to bed at the same time.  Why? As your kids get older, they start to notice stuff like that, and if dad goes to bed, and mom stays up to clean the kitchen, questions will rightfully arise in their minds. Likewise, if mom goes to bed, and dad stays up to surf the internet, you are just asking for trouble. Kids are aware of these things...

AMEN!!!

Between Parent and Child

If my friend Andrea reads this post, she'll drop her jaw! I borrowed her book, Between Parent and Child, by Haim G. Ginott, a really, really long time ago, and finished it today.  Her new looking book, definitely looks gently used from me carrying it around for the last many, many months.

Anyway, it wasn't my favorite parenting book, but I still got some good things out of it, so I thought I'd jot down a few notes.

The original book came out in 1965, but was updated in 2003, so it was kind of funny reading advice that was given back in the 60s.  For example, there were lots of examples of REALLY MEAN things parents might say to children.  I seriously couldn't even imagine saying things like that to a child!  I couldn't imagine my parents saying things like that to me, either -- and I came over a decade later from the first printing!  I'm sure people do say really mean things to kids, but I also like to hope that overall we've gotten nicer to children.

This book also seemed like the predecessor to Love and Logic, which is still currently my favorite parenting book.  Both books encourage a parent to empathize with a child -- maybe not agree with them, but to try and understand their feelings.  We've tried to do that with our kids, and I think it's a good thing.

I think one reason I had a hard time getting into the book was that the first part focuses on interpreting what your children say and then repeating it back to them.  I thought it was a good idea, so I started trying it.  I can't say it worked even once!  I kept trying to interpret what my kids were saying and they'd say, "No, that's not what I meant."  I finally gave up on that tactic and moved on in the book.

I really liked Appendix A at the end of the book regarding "How Children Can Be Helped."  The author outlines all sorts of problems kids might have, and identifies what is normal developmental behavior and what is over the top -- i.e. where kids may benefit from some therapy.  There's a section regarding "Fearful Children," and let's just say I may seriously consider help in this category for our 5 year old!  Our 8 year old has grown out of his fears, but there was about a 9 month period when he was 3/4 when he would not go to bed without one of us in the room with him, and if he woke up, it was game over.  He also developed a stuttering problem, which we got help for, but now I understand there was probably an underlying problem.  Luckily, so far, our 3rd child seems to be not so fearful as the first two.  Knock on wood.

Kind of along those lines, too, the book had some really good information on jealously between children.  I wonder if our kids' fear problems somewhat stemmed from a new sibling.  Each of our older kids developed some sort of problem about 6 months after having a new baby.  I can't help but wonder if there's a correlation.  The book suggested letting kids draw a picture of the sibling and cut it up or something, rather than hurt the baby.  My kids never indicated they didn't like the new baby, but maybe it was part of their problems.

There was an entire chapter on how to talk to your kids about sex, which I appreciated, but I was also bugged by the common attitude that we should just expect our kids to have sex -- and we shouldn't freak out when we find out they do.  Being a religious person, I still think we need to set the expectation to be chaste, but if our kids mess up, we shouldn't freak out (outwardly!!), but we need to be there to help them get things corrected. 

I also liked (p. 109) that the author said a shy child may be helped by having outgoing friends.  My 5 year old has a group of little friends and they are ALL shy!  I can't help but wonder if they just rub off on one another!  We've put her in a drama class with louder kids, and I do hope they'll influence her to be a little more outgoing.

I really liked, "Efficiency is the enemy of infancy" (p 169).  I am so guilty of pushing efficiency in my kids (more-so as a first-time parent, luckily I've learned a little).  There's a time and a place for efficiency, but kids need time to develop and grow at their own rate.

So I got some good things out of the book, but there were some things I'd just never try, but it was worth the read even if it took me so long.