If anybody fancies it.

[HaggisShuu]

I've been asked to do a talk on fatherhood of all things. This is what I'm working with so far. 
 

Some feedback would be appreciated. This would be my 3rd talk now. Cheers. 
 

(I've altered in certain places to hide personal details, so if that messes with the "flow" I apologise) 

Christ centred fatherhood redacted.docx

Edited April 18 by HaggisShuu

[NeuroTypical]

Nice!   I didn't realize it, but I've been a fan of CRAP parenting for a while. 

I don't really have any feedback on anything to change.  It's the sort of talk I'm happy to experience in sacrament meeting.

[HaggisShuu]

5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Nice!   I didn't realize it, but I've been a fan of CRAP parenting for a while. 

I don't really have any feedback on anything to change.  It's the sort of talk I'm happy to experience in sacrament meeting.

Thanks for reading it. I was worried that the CRAP parenting may be a bit too profane for a sacrament meeting. 

[zil2]

I would scratch the first 2 paragraphs.  (Or somehow tie them more tightly to becoming a father, or something.  If you need the talk to go longer, you can always search the scriptures for fathers to use as examples.)

The first line of the currently 5th paragraph is powerful.

(I'm going to assume your wife knows what you wrote about the birth of your daughter and that she's OK with it. If I'm wrong, make me right!  And I suppose your ward knows, but it left me wondering if the C-Section was needed or not - it was sort of vague at the end.  Whatever the case, glad mom and daughter came through it well.)

I like the D&C 20 paragraph - tying together the priesthood duty and your talk.

CRAP

Quote

By studying this I’ve come to believe that sometimes the revelation prophets receive are perhaps inspired solutions to personal problems, which can in turn go on to bless the general membership of the Church.

This is also how we learn from each other!

Bonus points for adding your wife in at the end - there is no father without a mother.

It's a good talk!

[HaggisShuu]

25 minutes ago, zil2 said:

I would scratch the first 2 paragraphs.  (Or somehow tie them more tightly to becoming a father, or something.  If you need the talk to go longer, you can always search the scriptures for fathers to use as examples.)

I was inspired by Gérald Caussé's conference talk "compensating blessings" and was trying to imply, I have these blessings now, because I will never again have the opportunity to serve a mission (in my youth) But I didn't want to outright say "not serving a mission is a good thing actually". 
 

25 minutes ago, zil2 said:

The first line of the currently 5th paragraph is powerful.

 

Thank you. 
 

 

25 minutes ago, zil2 said:

I'm going to assume your wife knows what you wrote about the birth of your daughter and that she's OK with it. If I'm wrong, make me right!  And I suppose your ward knows, but it left me wondering if the C-Section was needed or not - it was sort of vague at the end.  Whatever the case, glad mom and daughter came through it well.)

Everyone in the Ward knows our situation, and my wife is comfortable with me using it. If you want the full story:

The mrs got the epidural, triggered the reaction which killed her blood pressure, and then as a survival mechanism the baby's heart rate dropped. The hospital staff said that this is actually quite common, and as long as the heart rate recovers in under 5 minutes it's all good. After about 3 minutes they started prepping the theatre and it took 7 minutes to recover, but her heart rate then went too fast. They said this also normal and should come down soon. It didn't and remained high, because the baby was in distress due to having her umbilical cord wrapped around her neck. The C-section was always going to be necessary, the epidural was just what kicked the baby into distress. So it was probably a good thing it happened in hindsight, but doesn't change how I felt in the moment. This story is just too difficult for me to explain clearly so for brevity I just used a simplified version of events. 

25 minutes ago, zil2 said:

It's a good talk!

Thank you for taking time to read it! 

Edited April 18 by HaggisShuu

[zil2]

2 minutes ago, HaggisShuu said:

I was inspired by Gérald Caussé's conference talk "compensating blessings" and was trying to imply, I have these blessings now, because I will never again have the opportunity to serve a mission (in my youth) But I didn't want to outright say "not serving a mission is a good thing actually". 

Ah. I guess it didn't tie those things together tightly enough for me to pick up on it.  Or the delivery might make the difference - you decide.

4 minutes ago, HaggisShuu said:

The mrs got the epidural, triggered the reaction which killed her blood pressure, and then as a survival mechanism the baby's heart rate dropped. The hospital staff said that this is actually quite common, and as long as the heart rate recovers in under 5 minutes it's all good. After about 3 minutes they started prepping the theatre and it took 7 minutes to recover, but her heart rate then went too fast. They said this also normal and should come down soon. It didn't and remained high, because the baby was in distress due to having her umbilical cord wrapped around her neck. The C-section was always going to be necessary, the epidural was just what kicked the baby into distress. So it was probably a good thing it happened in hindsight, but doesn't change how I felt in the moment. This story is just too difficult for me to explain clearly so for brevity I just used a simplified version of events. 

Wow!  Mysterious ways.  So glad everyone survived and hope your little family are all well!  Sharing how you felt was indeed very moving, and something we all feel at times - I think that was a good include.

5 minutes ago, HaggisShuu said:

Thank you for taking time to read it! 

You're welcome!  Good luck when you give your talk (or more importantly, I'll pray for you to have the Spirit - good is guaranteed when the Spirit is there.)

[HaggisShuu]

20 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Ah. I guess it didn't tie those things together tightly enough for me to pick up on it.  Or the delivery might make the difference - you decide.

Thank you, I'll play around with the wording. 

[MrShorty]

A few things stood out to me, in part because I personally find them troubling, and, in part, because I'm not sure the 21st century church agrees with some of the older comments.

The statement you use from Joseph F. Smith about a father being the highest authority in the family is going to fall flat for someone who holds a more egalitarian view of family authority being equally held between father and mother. You could pull out your best Boyd K. Packer and talk about how feminism is one of the greatest threats to the church, but I would encourage you to replace quotes like this with more recent, more egalitarian quotes from church leaders that express the idea that husband and wife are equal in authority in leading the family.

As it relates to fathers providing for the family, I have long found that this discussion at BCC has been one of the most thought provoking for me. In short, the question is basically asked how we would view a scenario where a couple decides that, because mom has better earning potential or something like that, dad will be a stay at home parent while mom goes out into the world to be the primary breadwinner. As one who leans more egalitarian, I have no problem with the SAHD + breadwinner mom scenario, but I'm also fairly confident that there are those who lean more strongly complementarian who would find that scenario problematic. I don't know that it changes anything in your talk, unless you think through that same thought experiment and decide that something needs to change. edit to add link: https://bycommonconsent.com/2019/07/28/a-quick-query-about-the-proclamation-on-the-family/

Overall, my impression as someone who leans egalitarian is that you're coming from a more complementarian angle. My impression from recent years is that the church is struggling a bit to decide which side of the complementarian/egalitarian divide to come down on. Some of that struggle is because there are definitely many within the church who, like me, lean more egalitarian than complementarian. One overall critique I would make of your talk is to consider how those who lean egalitarian are going to respond (internally even if they never say anything to your face) to your talk and see if any of those considerations cause you to change anything.

Edited April 18 by MrShorty

[HaggisShuu]

40 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

A few things stood out to me, in part because I personally find them troubling, and, in part, because I'm not sure the 21st century church agrees with some of the older comments.

The statement you use from Joseph F. Smith about a father being the highest authority in the family is going to fall flat for someone who holds a more egalitarian view of family authority being equally held between father and mother. You could pull out your best Boyd K. Packer and talk about how feminism is one of the greatest threats to the church, but I would encourage you to replace quotes like this with more recent, more egalitarian quotes from church leaders that express the idea that husband and wife are equal in authority in leading the family.

As it relates to fathers providing for the family, I have long found that this discussion at BCC has been one of the most thought provoking for me. In short, the question is basically asked how we would view a scenario where a couple decides that, because mom has better earning potential or something like that, dad will be a stay at home parent while mom goes out into the world to be the primary breadwinner. As one who leans more egalitarian, I have no problem with the SAHD + breadwinner mom scenario, but I'm also fairly confident that there are those who lean more strongly complementarian who would find that scenario problematic. I don't know that it changes anything in your talk, unless you think through that same thought experiment and decide that something needs to change. edit to add link: https://bycommonconsent.com/2019/07/28/a-quick-query-about-the-proclamation-on-the-family/

Overall, my impression as someone who leans egalitarian is that you're coming from a more complementarian angle. My impression from recent years is that the church is struggling a bit to decide which side of the complementarian/egalitarian divide to come down on. Some of that struggle is because there are definitely many within the church who, like me, lean more egalitarian than complementarian. One overall critique I would make of your talk is to consider how those who lean egalitarian are going to respond (internally even if they never say anything to your face) to your talk and see if any of those considerations cause you to change anything.

An interesting perspective, thank you. 
 

Of course I believe husband and wife are equal partners in a marriage. I would never dream of just wildly going off and doing something without consulting her. I feel that the Joseph F. Smith quote evokes a feeling of empowerment for priesthood holders, and encourages leadership skills which in my opinion men should do their best to develop. I'm 22 which likely makes me naive perhaps, but I think alot of young men my age are lost, and need a bit of rhetoric like this to help them find a bit of purpose. This doesn't invalidate the role of the wife. I think I mention somewhere about husband and wife being a partnership of equals. If not, that may have been an earlier draft. 
 

In regards to female breadwinners, I like this section of the family proclomation:

"By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation."

I think a situation where the wife's earnings, dwarf the husbands earnings, and the husband choosing to remain home in order to maximise quality of life comes under "other circumstances" and is permissable, but I think that kind of discussion is probably best had in a lesson, not on the stand. 

40 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

One overall critique I would make of your talk is to consider how those who lean egalitarian are going to respond (internally even if they never say anything to your face) to your talk and see if any of those considerations cause you to change anything. 
 

 

I will give it some thought, thank you for taking the time to read the talk.

Edited April 18 by HaggisShuu