I went to the 1968 general handbook, cuz I wasn't a practicing mormon by the time the other stuff was 'revealed.'
Turns out that I have another strike against me. During my mission I had money coming in from my parents and one aunt, above and beyond what was needed for my support. I was supposed to tithe on that extra money! Damn me!
Here's something I did not know! Regarding fast offerings, at the end of each month, leftover fast offering money is to be turned over to the stake president, who is to hold it in a separate account. If a bishop runs out of money, he can get hit up the stake president who then taps that separate account.
But then at the end of the fiscal quarter, the content of that stake fund is sent to the Presiding Bishopric. At that point, if a need arises, apparently the bishop has to wait until money comes in from ward members or the end of the following month, when the stake might have collected surpluses from other wards.
Nothing is said about getting money back from whatever bank account the presiding bishopric stashed the quarterly proceeds that were received.
SLC taketh, but SLC don't giveth... Just like Jesus E. Christ.
As to the 'petinency' of la iglesia mormona, you know I vote for that ancient invented concept: zero.
What effect, if any, derives from 'hosting' the proscribed content on a server in a country that doesn't give a poop what court orders the church has obtained?
"It is the cold hard fact that our physical appearance attracts them, and our testimonies and personalities keep them."
It's that attitude and the amount of effort it would take to fill out that stupid book that prevent women from developing themselves and meeting good men in school and the professional world. Hope chests and dainty personal journals are so passive, so. . . 1950s.
I'll take comfort where I can get it. The author screwed up the syntax--either "the" should be "a" or "fact" should be "truth" and surely all women don't share a single "appearance"--which indicates the level of intelligence required to produce such trash. The young Mormon girls I know would laugh at the checklist and the journal with its sick focus on "beauty," "porcelain skin (fuck you, non-Caucasians)", and "hourglass figures."
Or did the priesthood manuals likewise chide young men with too many pounds and pimples?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/01/2021 03:14AM by Lot's Wife.
The implication that landing a man is so all-important that it—and how to do it—needs to be a lesson topic is pretty disgusting. And then to suffer the indignity of being “instructed” about beauty by a pageant winner adds insult to injury. Just leave it to the Morg to think that some glamour queen who “has it all ‘together’” should “teach” the rest of the women.
And then the section that’s prefaced with something like “here are a few of my favorite beauty products,” followed by a virtual catalog of brushes and stuff. I’d really be surprised if the author wasn’t selling cosmetics in some form or fashion.
I read the first few pages of worksheets, but could not stomach the following stuff beyond skimming it over.
I would never have let my daughters suffer through something like that.
Even the worksheet sucked. I mean, how healthy is it in the 2020s to compile a list of characteristics in a potential mate based on religious dogma and 1950s values?--not to mention the lack of emphasis on the educational/professional development that are key to a person's social, career, and mental wellbeing.
That worksheet and the journal should be in a space capsule for intelligent life (if that oxymoron extends beyond our humble planet) to study as evidence of how humans lived in the era of bobby socks, soda jerks, and mommy's little helper.
ETA: "Out, damned comma!"
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/01/2021 04:57AM by Lot's Wife.
Do they really want women to "commit" to some combination of physical type, educational accomplishment, income level, character traits and interests? Talk about limiting your options.
Oh, and trick question #14, where the "applicant" can indicate anything else that's important. I'm guessing "holds a TR" and "has a calling" are probably the "correct" responses here.
Skimming the "Put Together" (what an awful title) section a bit more, to be fair, there seems to be an effort to encourage young ladies to be true to themselves and be the best person they can be, but it's then connected to "that's how your 'beauty' will shine through (and you'll be more 'successful' at becoming a Mormon wife)". IOW, you'll "rise" in the young men's complementary checklists of physical attributes and character traits. That's a horrible syllogism, and simply isn't true. And the pages, and Pages, and PAGES of makeup tips and hair style tips, etc, belie that notion anyway. Where are the pages and pages of advise on following your dreams, going to grad/law/medical school yourself? Where's the encouragement to become a truly whole person, rather than vain beauty tips designed to dress up the exterior?
Why not simply encourage young ladies (and young men) to be the most authentic and true selves that they can be? And then life is likely to be better regardless of whether or not someone else "responds" to those actions. Right? But that's not enough, because this is Mormon material, and all Mormon roads lead to Salt Lake City. And Salt Lake City says Mormon women all have the same purpose in life, and obviously then should have the same goal (which apparently is aligned with this material).
I think that the checklists for evaluating what you want in a partner could be useful. The beauty advice is good, standard, (and very thorough) advice that you could get from a book or magazines, but perhaps a bit bizarre coming in such detail from a church.
What gets me is there is no discussion of developing a young woman's academic talents, or other talents and interests, no mention of doing anything that would make her a rounded person. I take it this was written around 2008, when women had been in the workforce and developing careers for decades.
Even Barbie has a career. Why not young Mormon women?