Supporting Julie Beck
Posted by Matt W. on December 18th, 2007My wife recieved this e-mail today, and asked that I put it out there in support of Julie Beck. Here it is.
Tonight when President Hinckley said, “It’s Christmastime. What can I do to lighten your burden?” I thought of Sister Julie Beck, General President of the Relief Society. I think her responsibilities as General President must be heavy indeed. Especially when recently, there was a lot of unfortunate and unnecessary controversy about Sister Beck’s general conference talk It has bothered me that so many people have been so vocal about their displeasure with her talk. There have been websites and blogs dedicated to tearing her apart as well as her words of guidance and wisdom. It seems that sometimes the liberal voices are the only ones that make themselves heard. We can change that!
Wouldn’t it be great if we could get 2000 women to send their support to Sister Beck this Christmastime? Like the 2000 mothers of the Stripling Warriors - we could stand united and strong and let Sister Beck know we stand beside her! If you would like to let your voice be heard, please send an email (or forward this email) to: motherswhoknow@gmail.com. Put your name and city and state in the subject line. You can include a message to Sister Beck and her counselors if you’d like.
Once we reach 2000 emails - from women or men - I’ll send Sister Beck the password to the email account so she can see all those who support her and read the messages if she’d like. It’s a quiet way to let your voice be heard. Please forward this on to all you know, who know.
President Hinckley’s words will hopefully encourage us to band together and stand strong and immovable for what we know to be right. Sister Beck quoted him saying, ” If [the women of the Church] will be united and speak with one voice, their strength will be incalculable… It is so tremendously important that the women of the Church stand strong and immovable for that which is correct and proper under the plan of the Lord.” Sister Beck said, “As a disciple of Jesus Christ, every woman in this Church is given the responsibility for upholding, nurturing and protecting families. Women find true happiness when they understand and delight in their unique role within the plan of salvation. There is eternal influence and power in motherhood.”
I may not have adored the wording of President Beck’s address, but certainly I like the idea of sending her some words of encouragement during what must have been a rough time (just as I’d try to offer encouragement to those who felt so deeply inadequate after hearing her words). I’ve felt quite bad about how the discussion may have made her feel, and it’s a nice idea to offer support to someone in such a weighty calling. Thanks for setting up the email. (Assuming you don’t mind if one of those nasty liberals believes she can foster discussion and offer support chimes in–do you? I’m not being snotty, honestly. I like the idea of lightening her–and everyone’s–burdens as much as we can during the holidays. And the rest of the year!
Sounds like my baby wants my eternal influence in helping him get back to sleep–Muffin the mini-napper, that’s my boy!
Comment # 1 left by fmhjanet on December 18th, 2007
Matt W,
Thank you (and your wife!) for this. And since this year is almost over, can I also thank you for all your other great blog posts this year– you and everyone here and at the Thang have made a difference in my life.
Comment # 2 left by C Jones on December 18th, 2007
Matt,
I just received this email today as well. Thanks for posting it.
Comment # 3 left by Michelle on December 18th, 2007
Matt W
Sorry to butt in on the conversation, but I thought someone here may be able to help in a problem our class has.
We recently had a Gospel Doctrine lesson on the Book of Revelation. A problem came up in regard the time the Terrestial Kingdom people would be resurrected. Perhaps you could help me with this subject.
D&C 76:64-65 states of Celestial beings, “These are they who shall have part in the first resurrection. These are they who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just.”
D&C 76:85 states of Telestial beings, “These are they who shall not be redeemed from the devil until the last resurrection, until the Lord, even Christ the Lamb, shall have finished his work.”
Terrestials are only mentioned in Corinthians and D&C 76 and 88.
No statement is made of when they are to be resurrected.
When Christ comes there will be two general groups - those in hell and those not. But there is also 3 groups - those who are then resurrected (at least the Celestial), those who die at Christ’s presence (Telestials), and those who will continue to live here upon the earth (a Terrestial earth). Yet someone writing the manual had come to the conclusion that Terrestials would also be resurrected at Christ’s coming.
This concept seems to me to present some problems. Is anyone aware of why the person writing the manual should have come to such a conclusion considering the Scriptures don’t state this?
Comment # 4 left by DougT on December 18th, 2007
I hate to derail a good threadjack … but I object to the letter equating “liberal” with taking issue with something Sister Beck (or anyone else) said in Conference. It reflects this strange Utah idea that the gospel has a direct correspondence with US politics, with “conservative” being gospel-friendly, and the more conservative the politics, the more blessed it is. Thus “liberal” in the political sense gets closely associated with “not acceptable” or even anti-Mormon in the religious sense.
This sort of thinking should be eliminated by the ever-s0-frequent repetition by LDS leaders of LDS political neutrality, but people don’t seem to get the message.
Comment # 5 left by Dave on December 18th, 2007
Dave, I think the reason that word might have been used is in reaction to a recent online document in reaction to Sister Beck’s talk that to many felt more political than anything. The whole purpose of this email, I think, is to extend support to her because there was so much negative and vocal response to her talk.
I agree that we ought to steer away from using labels like liberal vs. conservative, etc. Remember, though, that neither Matt nor his wife created the email. They were just passing on the original, so taking issue with the text seems sort of beyond the scope of the purpose of this post.
Comment # 6 left by Michelle on December 18th, 2007
Hmmm, I skimmed right past the L word. On reading through it again, there is some defensiveness, but it’s hard to argue against the perception that most of the criticism of the Beck talk came from and was then politicized by liberals.
It is too bad though, that that defensiveness takes a little something away from the sweetness of the gesture.
Comment # 7 left by C Jones on December 18th, 2007
What about a “look, there are certain things that I disagree with you on, but I support you and am praying for your leadership to be continually inspired” form of support?
Comment # 8 left by the narrator on December 18th, 2007
Actually, I don’t know of anyplace where Pres. Beck is being “torn apart.” Certainly the What Women Know website is not doing this (http://whatwomenknow.org/whatwomenknow/). Following the bloggernacle, I’ve never been so appalled that SO MANY immediately called for these women’s discipline, including excommunication, without engaging any of the ideas that they posted.
Yet the website itself is simply stating some different ideas, in my opinion. The whole argument has been about whether or not they had the right to do this. But reading the document and its accompanying FAQ, I cannot see a “tearing apart” anywhere. Instead, I read a calm sense of purpose, a suggested corrective, even an attitude of kindness comes through.
Where does discussion happen in the church? Where is a safe place for this? And why label different ideas “liberal?”
Comment # 9 left by lisa downs on December 19th, 2007
Hey Matt!
How did you get in here?
I new there was a reason we left the door open. Thanks for posting this here.
Comment # 10 left by Eric Nielson on December 19th, 2007
All, personally, if I were inclined to write such a thing, I’d have said:
“It seems that sometimes the [negative] voices are the only ones that make themselves heard”
FMHJanet, you are classy. hope your husband appreciates that.
Lisa Downs, please link me to where anyone called for the excomunication of anyone. That’s just silly.
CJones, you are too kind. Thanks.
Eric, funny little world, isn’t it?
Comment # 11 left by Matt W. on December 19th, 2007
We’ll keep the key under the matt.
Comment # 12 left by Eric Nielson on December 19th, 2007
“It’s hard to argue against the perception that most of the criticism of the Beck talk came from and was then politicized by liberals.”
No, it’s not. Just refuse to play that game. Refuse to take part in name-calling. Accept your brothers and sisters in the gospel no matter their political preferences.
One of the reasons that I am a political liberal is because of the time I spent as an RS president and bishop’s wife, and realizing how basically unkind and unsupportive that USAmerican society is. I favor universal health care because I’d spend hours trying to find medical care for a ward member who needed it, and realizing that if I were in Canada, they wouldn’t have that problem.
I loved Julie Beck’s talk. I’m a liberal.
Comment # 13 left by Naismith on December 19th, 2007
I’m not name calling, just trying to understand where the slightly snarky tone in the e-mail was coming from. Those who wrote it are obviously reacting against what they see as a liberal attack on Sister Beck. I think it is unfortunate that they included that sentence, it takes away from the kind intentions of the e-mail as evidenced by the defensiveness of some of the commenters here. It has made some sisters feel excluded.
Comment # 14 left by C Jones on December 19th, 2007
There’s something troubling to me about the fact that Sister Beck’s status and rank make us behave as though it’s more important to lighten her burden than to mourn with the sisters who feel hurt by her words. Sister Beck actually has a great deal of institutional support and validation–self-identified liberals or feminists, women who don’t have children, and mothers of kids with messy hair get a great deal less. Our tendency to want to uphold the powerful rather than tend to the wounded is one of the least attractive (not to mention least Christian) characteristics of Mormon culture. This may be inevitable, given our historical emphasis on obedience and institutional loyalty, but I do think we ought to pay close attention to which brothers and sisters we treat as “more equal”.
Comment # 15 left by Kristine on December 20th, 2007
That form letter reeks of the Mormon persecution complex that rears its ugly head when some sacred cow is slaughtered. I doubt Ms. Beck will have time to read or even scan 2000 e-mails, or more realistically, maybe 10% of that amount that are actually sent.
I have read elsewhere that some DAMU blogs and boards are circulating this also, so I would expect several of the emails to be not so supportive.
Comment # 16 left by Phouchg on December 20th, 2007
Matt W.–Thanks! I’m going to have DH look at your comment ;). I’ve had the flu of late and “classy” probably isn’t the first word he thinks of when he comes home, sees me and the baby still in our jammies, me swigging Pepto from the bottle while the baby shoves gummed teething biscuit into his ears while we watch whatever happens to be on the Discovery channel (unusual quantity of Bigfoot specials!). You just made my week! I send you a very non-contagious cyber-hug.
Comment # 17 left by fmhjanet on December 20th, 2007
Kristine, can’t we do both? Offer President Beck #8 while still seeing the perspective (or even having the perspective) of those who disliked or were hurt by her remarks? I think the talk begged for discussion and would’ve been rather alarmed had it been followed solely by head-nodding while the sobbers kept the sobbing to themselves, but I think a bit of sympathy for the burden of hefty callings is OK provided one doesn’t confuse said sympathy with unquestioning agreement or the odd notion that every GA and AL speaks the personal words of Jesus Christ at all moments, including when they stub their toes.
Comment # 18 left by fmhjanet on December 20th, 2007
On the political question, I agree with Naismith. The reactions to President Beck’s address didn’t cut cleanly across political lines. The women I know who were the most personally devastated by her words (as opposed to annoyed, troubled, or rather happy to dissect) were orthodox conservatives. My mum in particular. On the flip side, I know a reasonable number of political liberals who either liked the talk or reacted with the emotional equivalent of a shoulder shrug.
Comment # 19 left by fmhjanet on December 20th, 2007
There’s something troubling to me about the fact that Sister Beck’s status and rank make us behave as though it’s more important to lighten her burden than to mourn with the sisters who feel hurt by her words.
I also believe we can do both.
And re: the political discussion, I agree with C Jones…those who created this email I think were reacting to the What Women Know document, and it was perceived by many as a liberal document. I think we ought not use such labels (I’d prefer if we didn’t label ourselves, let alone others, since there is so much baggage associated with labels anyway), but I think we can at least try to understand the intent.
I think, however, getting back to Kristine’s point, that a lot of people don’t truly understand the pain behind the words of the people in What Women Know. However, it will make it harder for people to reach out to them because of the way many feel the document was a direct attack on Sister Beck. I know the document creators and signers say it’s not, but, again,there is that perception thing — the same thing that made people react to Sister Beck’s talk with anger or frustration or pain.
Comment # 20 left by Michelle on December 20th, 2007
Kristine, I have to first of all admit I didn’t sign the “WhatWomenKnow” website, (I thought it was stupid) and I also didn’t e-mail anything to Womenwhoknow (ditto). I do love my wife though, and hence the post.
Second, I don’t think, that anything on the whatwomenknow site does anything to “lighten her burden than to mourn with the sisters who feel hurt by her words”, rather I think it only exaccerbates the burden, as it stirs the pot more and creates a greater rift. I think a better option would be the Julie Smith model, where a practical mom puts the words in a practical context and moves forward. If you are the Kristine I think you are, didn’t you do something similar in a post at BCC? That’s just my opinion though.
In any case, I like Julie Beck, she is kindof the “J. Golden Kimball” of the church right now and it’ll be fun to see what she says in GRS meeting this year and in the less formal Institute fireside she is scheduled to give.
Comment # 21 left by Matt W. on December 20th, 2007
Ok Matt, you just have to humor the sick girl and explain why you see Julie Beck and the “J. Golden Kimball” of the current church! Stories, stories, I demand stories….
The Bigfoot specials are getting old. Please entertain me
Comment # 22 left by fmhjanet on December 20th, 2007
You know what? I, too, like Julie Beck. I like her chutzpah even if I don’t always head-bop along with her words. I like her direct approach. I like her sincerity. And I admit to liking the pitch of her voice. She strikes me as a woman fully capable of discussing difficult issues with nuance, and I look forward to seeing what she has to say in the future. I trust that even if the criticism and dissection of her talk has caused her pain (really, how could it not? Public speaking scares most people anyhow) she is still listening and at least trying to understand where a modicum of the reaction comes from.
Once upon a time I was friend with a member of the General Relief Society Presidency and she confided that the entire prospect of pleasing everyone while still actually saying something substantial daunted her. She was not an easily daunted woman. I didn’t love Julie Beck’s talk, but I also support and pray for her. I don’t envy her position. She may have some power, but she’s still a person who can be hurt just as are the scores of women whose hearts ached after hearing the talk. Hopefully the entire kerfuffle will lead to increased empathy for all. (Cheery Christmas voice, idealist Pepto bubble.)
Comment # 23 left by fmhjanet on December 20th, 2007
Janet, I think the characteristics of JGK that are liked are his lack of fear at getting peoples undies in a twist and his ability to say things that were excitingly controversial. It was the way what he wrote or said didn’t seem to have gone past the desk of the PR guys, and even if it had, he didn’t use the copy of the talk they gave back with the red lines through the things he wasn’t supposed to say. Perhaps you already grabbed the word that best sums it up “chutzpah”.
Comment # 24 left by Matt W. on December 20th, 2007
Matt W., it was the swear words, and the funny colloquial delivery. Not at all the same as Julie Beck.
Comment # 25 left by Paula on December 20th, 2007
Interesting post. - Let’s accept truth for what it is though…
The wicked taketh the truth to be hard.
And so Sister Beck’s talk was hard for a lot of people to ingest internally into their souls. Hence the backlash.
The best support we can give her though is to simply assist the sisters of the church in fulfilling their divine callings. Period.
Comment # 26 left by Stan Way on March 29th, 2008