Comments on: Teaching Girls about the Priesthood, 1955: Part One

By: Michelle Glauser

Michelle Glauser — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 20:34:42 +0000

I was also glad to see a mention of Mother in Heaven.

By: HokieKate

HokieKate — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:12:41 +0000

Sigh.

By: Mommie Dearest

Mommie Dearest — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 17:49:24 +0000

Some of this is really good advice for girls anticipating motherhood and some of it is just drivel. It brings to mind an image of something good, like an ice cream cone with something yukky mixed in with it — like a cockroach, perhaps?

All of the good advice, however, would apply 100% equally to boys anticipating fatherhood, so they really haven’t addressed the big questions, only clouded the issue. A lot.

And this: “Why do you think a person…who is so successful in her chosen career, would say that she would rather be a wife and a mother than a great (specify ambition here)?” should be taken out and shot. That notion in our culture is dangerous and damaging when it is invoked and applied without almost any balance.

And the Ruskin quote. Oh my. I’ll leave that for someone else.

But it is a good thing to think about and prepare for the possibility of motherhood. I’ll give them credit for that. Fatherhood too!

By: charlene

charlene — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 17:22:37 +0000

Very progressive, in that they gave equal time to Mother in heaven. However, in this life you are expected to give your whole self to your children (I guess Mother in heaven did too). I was amazed that there was no mention of a marriage.

Thinking contextually, I imagine there may have been a number of girls whose mothers were widowed by WWII. Or, at least these mothers had been employed during the war. While it’s clear that mothers are to give everything to their children, there is no proscription against employment.

By: E. Wallace

E. Wallace — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:39:49 +0000

Maybe they focused on the mothers of men because (according to the lesson’s rubric) male children are the only ones who grow up to have “worldly” accomplishments that reflect well on their mothers? Though that seems awfully antithetical to the point of the lesson.

I thought it was interesting that they refer to motherhood as a career. I don’t think that’s a bad way to look at it, though I don’t think we hear that language much anymore. I also think it’s interesting that they used the Gracchi – the original socialists! – as an example… maybe it’s a more progressive manual than I thought

By: Grant

Grant — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:11:31 +0000

So, there were Trail Blazers and Home Builders? The Trail Blazers were “happy at home or where’er [they] may be.” I can’t speak for the Home Builders.

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 13:08:25 +0000

While not the first point that strikes me about this lesson, one of its peculiarities is that all of the mothers used for examples to inspire the Seagull girls are mothers of *men*.