≡ Menu

Martha! Martha! Martha! The Martha Stewart/Brady Bunch Connection

Nikki from Utah, writes:

When I found out that Viacom was canceling the Martha Stewart television program, I was very dismayed. She has inspired me so much over the years and I have thoroughly enjoyed her show and so have my children. Single-handedly she made it acceptable to be a homemaker!

I am sorry that she made a bad choice, but we all make mistakes. Can you please ask all the Mormon Momma readers to join together to support Martha and start a writing campaign to help get her show back on the air?

Alison says:

I suppose it is appropriate to bring this column live just hours after the official Save Martha Day was celebrated on March 13 in support of “America’s number one homemaker.”

In answer to your question, Nikki, no. A great big, pastel-colored, parsley-garnished, elegantly-presented, flambéed, poached, and baked on parchment paper “No.”

It’s not that I hold any malice toward the “kitchen and garden guru.” It’s not even that I think all her convictions were sound. It’s mostly that I cannot throw my limited resources behind someone whose behavior has been less than admirable.

Let me start by saying that I have a number of wonderful, very close friends who love Martha Stewart. (Even one, Robyne, who not only loves, but lives Martha Stewart!) I do not denigrate anyone who enjoys her program, nor anyone who creates everything from scratch or thinks that six hours in the kitchen is “an easy, quick, romantic meal.”

I watched the Martha Stewart program once many years ago in Florida. Once. I only remember a couple of things.

  • She talked about garden tool maintenance, taking us about her acres of gorgeous, lush gardens (tended by an entire team of gardeners) and showed us how “she” winterizes her gardening tools by washing and sharpening and storing them in buckets of carefully sieved sand to keep them in tip-top shape.
  • She made homemade suckers, explaining that just making them wasn’t “personal” enough, unless you also pounded your own sucker molds out of strips of tin.
    That was enough to make me run.

Again, I realize she inspires many, but I simply felt inadequate. I had never even thought sucker-making was a desirable activity. But even my discomfort with her priorities and many of those things she presents as being “good things” would not cause my negative reaction toward the Save the Martha Stewart Program grass-roots movement. But there are a couple of things that do.

First, I would guess that a vast percentage of those who want Martha back are the same people who yelled “Impeach!” at Bill Clinton when he “just lied” about his “personal life.” It is important, I believe, to be consistent in what standard we hold and in the standard we present to our children. If we didn’t want a liar to represent us in the White House, why do we want a liar to represent us in our house?

Granted, Martha isn’t a world leader, but shouldn’t we carefully consider whether we really want to hold a convicted felon as the example of our profession?

Second, Martha did not make it “acceptable to be a homemaker.” She isn’t one. She is a high-powered corporate executive whose husband divorced her and whose only child is often estranged from her. She didn’t make a home, she built an empire. And by the vast majority of accounts, she did it in a rather caustic manner.

The Brady Bunch pretends to be a picture of the blended American Family, where the greatest trouble encountered was Jan’s foolish decision to wear a charm bracelet while building a house of cards in her attempt to win a sewing machine. Where are the missing bio-parents? Where is the dual custody and the court-ordered visitation? Where is the alimony and the child support? Not to mention the tiny problem of putting six unrelated, teenage, step-siblings in one Jack-and-Jill bathroom.

I ask similar questions about Martha’s “homemaking.” Where are the dirty diapers? Where are the legos? Where is the spit up on the shoulder of her silk blouse? Why isn’t she torching the peach flambe whilst simultaneously chauferring child #2 to the week’s fourth soccer game and child #4 to violin lessons? Where are the children at all? And where is the husband? For whom, exactly, is her virtual, fabricated home being “made”? Perhaps for a carefully selected, balanced, and appropriately well-connected set of invitees?

I’d rather (and wouldn’t you?) find a mentor with a fabulous marriage, a bunch of happy, healthy, good, decent kids, and a loving, inviting home to inspire me than someone with a bunch of hired hands standing behind the camera while she makes a perfect crème brûlée in a starched blue oxford.

If you love Martha, please don’t get angry. You can love her all you want. But I get crazy when homemakers especially LDS homemakers actually base their worth or acceptability on some kind of extravagant craft venture! I can only speak for myself, but I am not staying home with my children so that I can make the ideal Risotto Patties Over Greens or to engage in the art of Decorative Painting on Wicker. [Editor's Note: Both were active articles on the MS website when this article was first published.]

As I type this with one hand, I’m holding my sleeping four-month-old, Caleb, with the other. So let me tell you why I am home.

There is no more noble work than that of a good and God-fearing mother.

Ezra Taft Benson

Motherhood is the greatest potential influence either for good or ill in human life.

David O. McKay

She who can paint a masterpiece or write a book [or create Floral Print Drawer Liner] that will influence millions deserves the admiration and the plaudits of mankind; but she who rears successfully a family of healthy, beautiful sons and daughters, whose influence will be felt through generations to come, ?deserves the highest honor that man can give, and the choicest blessings of God.

David O. McKay

You sisters are the real builders of the nation wherever you live, for you have created homes of strength and peace and security. These become the very sinew of any nation.

Gordon B. Hinckley

The greatest job that any mother will ever do will be in nurturing, teaching, lifting, encouraging, and rearing her children in righteousness and truth. None other can adequately take her place.

Gordon B. Hinckley

Contrary to conventional wisdom, a mother’s calling is in the home, not in the marketplace.

Ezra Taft Benson

Women are to take care of the family the Lord has so stated to be an assistant to the husband, to work with him, but not to earn the living, except in unusual circumstances.”

Spencer W. Kimball

The counsel of the church has always been for mothers to spend their full tim in the home in rearing and caring for their children.

Ezra Taft Benson

It is well-nigh impossible to be a full-time homemaker and a full-time employee.

Gordon B. Hinckley

No career approaches in importance that of wife, homemaker, and mother.

Spencer W. Kimball

To the mothers of this Church, every mother who is here today, I want to say that as the years pass, you will become increasingly grateful for that which you did in molding the lives of your children in the direction of righteousness and goodness, integrity and faith. That is most likely to happen if you can spend adequate time with them.

Gordon B. Hinckley

If the direct words of the prophets of God don’t legitimize us, Martha Stewart never will.

Kathy says:

Hi Nikki. Welcome aboard the Circle of Sisters. Thanks for reading and writing.

So Martha S. is “America’s Number One Homemaker?” Zowie!! I’m not saying that sarcastically at all. In fact, this is really fun and interesting to me, because I’m teaching a class on writing direct sales and advertising copy this summer. According to the live interviews I have seen recently with Martha, she sees herself as an iron-tough businesswoman also. In fact, she sees herself as undefeatable. I’m not sure I dislike either of those qualities. But she does not see herself, in any context, as a “homemaker.” It’s her advertisers who have sold her as a homemaker; and millions of us have bought their line. That’s pretty cool ?from the perspective of an advertiser.

Let me jump right to my next point, which I would like to make as fervently as I can: To a righteous Utah Momma who wants to be a homemaker with lots of passion and pizzazz, it’s just another strong case for the truism, “to the pure, all things are pure.” I think that’s you. I don’t see that homemaking is in any way antithetical to crafting, gourmet cooking, or advanced horticulture or micro-agriculture. They are connected if the mom in residence is into crafting, professional-level cooking, or blue-ribbon gardening. The same thing applies to baking, sewing, ice sculpting, or upholstering. Ditto dressage, scuba diving, river dancing, or philosophy. There’s nothing out of line with homemakers who bring their own joi de vivre to the table. If Martha is your thing, you’re definitely not alone. She has built an enviable one-woman empire.

The only thing I would add is that the kids come first. It’s easy to confuse sewing clothes, specialty cooking, music, sports or even, in some cases, maintaining a spotless home, with parenting kids. I think most tots would far rather skip the darling outfits and have the 20 hours of sewing time allocated to one-on-one direct interaction with their mom instead. That probably holds true of most of our other activities during our kids’ first 12 or 15 years. Yup. Even church callings. We might need to skip the elaborate hand-outs and visuals for something more pressing in our child’s development. Most of us learn this the hard way, looking back on times when we would scoop those precious kiddies into our arms and revel in their sweet dependence and unconditional love, and let everything else wait a few years until the kids are gone and busy with their peers.

All of that having been said, you might find many of our readers will want to join you in your campaign. Here’s your forum!! Would you like us to post your email address for that purpose?

Tracy says:

I have to agree with Alison and Kathy. There’s certainly nothing wrong with trying to beautify our homes with handicrafts or using freshly ground whole wheat to make your own pasta and drying it in the sun.

I think the problem is elevating that as the zenith of homemaking and putting someone who does all that on a pedestal. Doing everything by hand the hard way, the long way does not make someone a “homemaker.”

What makes a woman a homemaker, is that she makes that physical structure of wood, metal, or brick a “shelter from the world.” It becomes a place of unconditional love, patience, learning, discipline, compassion, responsibility, etc. That the birthday card a woman gives her child was made from homemade paper pulp colored by the dye of her teenage daughter’s old jeans that Mom cut into shreds, doesn’t make that mother a better “homemaker” than the mother wrote a simple loving note on a piece of paper from a Stuart tablet.

Even before her legal problems, Martha Stewart was a domestic diva without a “home.” I’ve actually known a few people who’ve taken this whole “crafty” thing to the far extreme, much like Martha Stewart apparently did. In the misplaced efforts to be a Stewart-ian type “homemaker,” they seemed to lose the whole concept of what a real homemaker is. Yes, they have a beautiful home. But so what. No one wants to be there. Kids are ignored by their mother who’s too busy touching up the stenciling going around the living room wall to notice that 2 year old Junior has once again walked out the front door and is playing in the street.

Now understand, none of us are saying that everything she did, made, created was useless and pointless. Nor are we saying that if any of our readers watch or enjoy the show or are Martha Stewart fans that they are wrong for it. I enjoy doing crafty things myself. I like decorating my home to look warm and inviting. I also enjoy making “fancy” meals every now and then. But again, it’s not those things that make me a homemaker.

This popular misconception may well be one of the reasons that the title of our own Homemaking Meeting has been changed to Home, Family, & Personal Enrichment. Why would they bother to change the name? They’re just words, right? I would guess that one of the reasons was because they felt that the word “homemaking” was being too connected to crafts, painting, sewing, etc., since the real emphasis was intended to be the home and family. If fact, if I remember correctly someone can correct me if I’m wrong didn’t the general board actually tell us that our homemaking meetings were becoming way too focused on scrapbooking and crafty things instead of strengthening our homes and famililes?

Those are just things that make the house look nicely decorated and the food taste like it came from a fancy restaurant. But honestly, they’re probably two of the least important things on the list of what makes a house a home.

Martha was a glorified chef, a craft queen, an excellent gardener. We can certainly learn some home decor ideas from her, some food preparation ideas, and how to stop the squirrels from eating our tulip bulbs (in as eco-friendly way, of course). But that she was probably the first to make a fortune from it, and made it popular, and chic to be crafty has absolutely nothing to do with real homemaking. That’s evidenced in the fact that her “home” is destroyed and much of the destruction was happening all under a clever guise of floral prints and gingham.

{ 21 comments… add one }

  • Reader Comment October 25, 2009, 6:28 pm

    Jenny from Missouri, writes:

    Nikki,

    If Martha Stewart has influenced you in positive ways, perhaps you could send a letter to her letting her know how she has touched you personally, rather than writing to Viacom to get her show back on the air. Because her crime is not so obviously horrific it is easy to gloss over it; but this crime is a felony for a reason. It is very serious and she has hurt a lot of people by her actions.

    As Latter-day Saints, we know the importance of suffering the consequences of our actions; so I don’t think we, as a group, want to try and spare Martha Stewart the consequences of her actions. However, individuals who have been blessed, in whatever way, by her work could absolutely reach out to her in love and support not condoning or overlooking what she has done, but perhaps with a hope of helping her avoid repeating her mistakes and with encouragement to use her talents for good.

    On a related subject, I am curious to know why they make a point of removing Martha Stewart (for a good reason) while leaving other smut on the air. Viacom owns MTV, BET, and VH1 (all known for smutty content) as well as UPN (home of the ultra-sleazy “reality” dating show Elimi-date). So, they think it’s bad to show Martha, but soft porn is okay? Give me a break! It’s another stupid publicity stunt. She’s an easy target and they think they’ll benefit by giving her the axe. I am not personally a Martha fan (I’m craft-impaired), and I would, if I were in charge, remove her program, but I think it is completely ridiculous that they try to pretend to be on some moral high ground by taking her off the air while continuing to show other programs that are complete filth. Now that is something that, I think, will get me to write a letter to Viacom ?

  • klgreen1 October 25, 2009, 6:29 pm

    Jenny, this is an intelligent angle that was not addressed elsewhere. Thanks for pointing it out. I hope others will take Viacom to task for their programming decisions. If they can’t sell advertising or attract subscribers by airing garbage, they will soon change. I wish every disgusted viewer would write a letter every time she felt offended or frightened for the kids who are being exposed to televised trash day after day.

    It’s easy to switch off the TV or to completely ban commercial TV from our homes. I know of many LDS moms who have taken these steps. But we might need to “lengthen our stride” by notifying the networks that they have lost our families as viewers due to their choices. It could be interesting to see what would happen if all the families or singles who ask themselves what they might do on Monday nights as a worthwhile Family Home Evening would choose that activity as part of the evening’s agenda.

    Have you noticed how many tedious, low-brow, predictable, slapstick sitcoms have tried to incorporate a Christian element in the wake of the spectacular box-office success of Mel Gibson’s R-rated blockbuster movie? These guys are not following any sort of moral compass. They are just trying to make a profit the bigger the better by following their market. That’s us (if we own a TV and buy groceries). Maybe we are underestimating our “leaven” potential.

  • facethemusic October 25, 2009, 6:30 pm

    Duh!!! What a good point! How’d we miss that one? I think we were all focused on the comment that Martha “single handedly made it acceptable to be a homemaker.” I think Someone Else with more authority did that actually, in a Garden about 6,000 years ago. The general consensus of the Circle writers leaned in the direction that Martha might have made it more “stylish” and “popular” (and expensive) to be crafty in how we decorate and cook, which has its merits, but that’s about it.

    Actually, I’ve developed a theory on your question, Jenny, about the seemingly ridiculous “moral high ground” Viacom is suddenly on in removing Ms. Stewart’s show from the air while continually showing and coming up with more “whoredoms ?[and all] manner of lasciviousness” and the similar elements under consideration in rating movies. But my theory would take us into entirely new territory. It would probably make for a great topic for another Circle of Sisters discussion.

  • Reader Comment October 25, 2009, 6:30 pm

    Chris writes:

    Dear Circle,

    I know you are not making a judgment against Martha Stewart or her empire, which she put together by using her creative talents. I know you too are interested in why a cake falls, how to get pink tint out of your garments, how to mend a tear or bad seam in a piece of clothing you just bought, or how to make the yellow leaves on the new bush you planted turn green again. It is just practical knowledge. So is raising chickens.

    It would seem some people are mad at Martha because she found a way to create an income which is far above most of ours. Just because some of us become too involved in having a house full of her brand name does not mean that the brand or Martha herself are bad.

    What is bad is that she made some serious decisions, including failure to follow the law. Let us not forget that we too can fall. None of us knows, for sure, that we won’t. To be sure, the thread count of the sheets on our beds will not get us back to our Father in Heaven. But, we all have to learn the balance in life that comes from time, consequences, and growing in the knowledge of gospel principles and their application.

  • klgreen1 October 25, 2009, 6:31 pm

    Hi Chris. We appreciated your perspective on the Martha Stewart issue. We’ve had a lot of input, and we are (as always) really impressed with the thoughtfulness, good sense, and maturity in the gospel our readers bring to the discussions. Thanks for reading and writing!

  • facethemusic October 25, 2009, 6:31 pm

    Well spoken, Chris. I think we all pointed out that her show, books, etc., were far from spewing useless information. There was certainly much to learn.

    I think the main point of concern upon reading the question sent in, was what seemed to be the connection of a person and/or television show to legitimizing the role of women as homemakers and making the role “acceptable.”

    There’s unfortunately a horrible assumption, even among LDS women, that being a good Mormon wife and mother has to do with how well you sew, whether or not you can toll paint, can 50 quarts of tomatoes each summer, etc. I’ve even felt a sense of competition among the sisters.

    Many LDS women who are converts struggle with the pressure they feel to turn into Mrs. Ingalls from Little House on the Prairie; but in 21st century “Martha Stewart” style.

    Unlike Mrs. Ingalls, Martha is a clever business woman far more than a homemaker, and because of the way the question was phrased, it was that idea that struck such a strong chord. But the show itself was certainly a good, clean, idea-packed show.

    I suppose there are people, as you suggested, who are “mad” at Martha for succeeding, for finding a niche, and marketing it so well. It seems a silly thing to be angry about.

    Jealousy seems to rear its ugly head in just about every situation.

    Thanks for writing!

  • Reader Comment October 25, 2009, 6:32 pm

    Karolyn from Washington State, writes:

    The logic that there must be a better way to punish Martha than to lock her up is no better than saying that there is a better way to punish prostitutes or drug users than to lock them up. It seems to me that these crimes are not best repaired or restituted for by serving jail time either. When you knowingly and purposefully break the law and there are guidelines for punishment which need to be followed as set in the law (my dad was a judge also), and if one does not believe those guidelines are fair, then it is the law which needs to be changed and there are avenues for doing that.

    Why should she be let off on probation/parole instead of a prison term when others who are less known but have been likewise found guilty of the same crime have to serve?

    Twenty years is the maximum sentence allowed by law and it will be 3 months until she is sentenced. It is pure conjecture to say we know how much time the judge will give her. In the meantime, I hope she is reflecting on how to live her life according to the law. Perhaps she thought that she could pull another coup and walk free like OJ. I think it shows arrogance of the rich to act as though the law only applies to the poor and middle classes; a “let them eat cake” mentality.

    I do like the idea that she be sentenced additionally or under probation after she serves her time in “the slammer” in doing little projects for the community. But let her do them and do not allow her to hire it out to underlings hired for minimum wage. She should be thankful that I do not have the power to sentence her!

    Now if we could go after those involved with Hallaron and Enron (but that is not about to happen under this administration), I would be very happy.

  • facethemusic October 25, 2009, 6:32 pm

    Karolyn from Washington State, writes:

    The logic that there must be a better way to punish Martha than to lock her up is no better than saying that there is a better way to punish prostitutes or drug users than to lock them up. It seems to me that these crimes are not best repaired or restituted for by serving jail time either. When you knowingly and purposefully break the law and there are guidelines for punishment which need to be followed as set in the law (my dad was a judge also), and if one does not believe those guidelines are fair, then it is the law which needs to be changed and there are avenues for doing that.

    Why should she be let off on probation/parole instead of a prison term when others who are less known but have been likewise found guilty of the same crime have to serve?

    Twenty years is the maximum sentence allowed by law and it will be 3 months until she is sentenced. It is pure conjecture to say we know how much time the judge will give her. In the meantime, I hope she is reflecting on how to live her life according to the law. Perhaps she thought that she could pull another coup and walk free like OJ. I think it shows arrogance of the rich to act as though the law only applies to the poor and middle classes; a “let them eat cake” mentality.

    I do like the idea that she be sentenced additionally or under probation after she serves her time in “the slammer” in doing little projects for the community. But let her do them and do not allow her to hire it out to underlings hired for minimum wage. She should be thankful that I do not have the power to sentence her!

    Now if we could go after those involved with Hallaron and Enron (but that is not about to happen under this administration), I would be very happy.

  • facethemusic October 25, 2009, 6:35 pm

    Thanks for your input! I whole-heartedly agree. You do the crime, you do the time. My father was a lawyer and served as a judge, my husband is a police officer. So the whole law and order thing is ingrained into my personality.

    Personally, I have no understanding of the stock market exchange. But due to her position on the Board of Directors for the New York Stock Exchange, Stewart knew what she was doing.

    I must agree though with our reader who said that there must be another way for the judicial system to punish her. 20 years in jail seems pretty stupid to me. Jails are great for keeping the violent and murderous out of society. No one wants to have rapists, armed robbers, or those who destroy property roaming around the streets. But Martha? It seems to me that this type of crime isn’t best repaired nor is the requirement to make restitution met by serving jail time. Maybe a year in jail (at her own expense, not the tax payers!) makes sense, but with the requirement that afterwards she has to use her own money to make those cute little crafty things for a purpose higher than earning more money. How about a bunch of quilts to go to homeless shelters? Teddy bears or crocheted sweaters for all the kids who are in state custody waiting for placement into foster homes? Maybe she could use her skills and resources to add a few “homey” touches to those otherwise cold places. She could provide yarn, needles, and other craft supplies to nursing homes, so lonely hands could have something to occupy their time. I do think that sort of thing would be a wiser approach.

  • Alison Moore Smith October 25, 2009, 6:35 pm

    How about having her teach mandatory craft skills training classes at the women’s correction insitution? Oh, wait. That would be cruel and unusual punishment ?

  • Reader Comment October 25, 2009, 6:37 pm

    Karolyn writes:

    Hi again, Tracy. I do not think it is a matter of being a menace to society. It is punishment for what she did which was illegal, such as my ill-thought out examples mentioning drugs and prostitution. How about using shoplifting as an example? Or being drunk in public? People convicted of this type of offense go to jail because they stole something or fell down in public; not because they are a menace to society. Susan McDougal is another example. She refused to answer questions asked of her and spent two years in prison, not because she was a menace to society but because she broke the law in refusing to answer questions and had the courage of her convictions, at whatever the cost to her freedom from incarceration. Perjury is another example, as is contempt of court, either of which can land the perpetrator in prison for quite some time.

    There are many inequities in the law and in sentencing people who are “criminals” under the law but who pose no clear and present danger to anyone. People need to be reminded that the law is equitable for us all. Others have been imprisoned for this sort of offense and I see no reason she should walk away above the rest of those who have committed similar crimes. Do you think God is any respecter of persons or that He will look the other way because of someone’s wealth and social status, or does His law cover all of us?

    As I stated above, I believe that if we do not like the sentencing laws and guidelines as they now stand we have it in our power to petition to have them changed. Until that point in time, Martha Stewart needs to be “a man” and accept the consequences of her deeds just as we all must do. As you pointed out (a statement with which I concur) she knew what she was doing was wrong.

    I am sure her place of incarceration will be more of a “country club” prison (like the one in which Leona Helmsley served her time) than a Turkish or Mexican hole of disease and filth. She will survive. I would venture to guess that she will obey the law from that time forward. But I saw her friends interviewed on Larry King Live and they say that she still does not see that she did anything wrong.

  • facethemusic October 25, 2009, 6:38 pm

    I understand your point, but I think this is simply a matter of the two of us seeing the crimes differently. A drug user generally is nothing but a menace to society, and prostitutes, generally, are drug users. These are the same people who are shoplifting, assaulting, pick-pocketing, being “drunk and disorderly,” causing public disturbances, stealing and reselling the items for cash for more drugs, etc. They’re in the back seat of my husband’s car, and in court over and over, and again and again and again. Not only that, but they’re spreading diseases, drawing others into the same crimes, etc. Drug users get free drugs for bringing new buyers to their dealer. Prostitutes get to keep a few more bucks for themselves instead of handing it over to their pimp for bringing him a “new girl” (the younger the better). They are a threat to society in that sense. I just don’t see Martha Stewart as a threat. She’s not going to corner my child at the corner and try to sell him drugs, entice him to use them, or offer my husband a “good time.” Do you see what I mean? She’s not a threat to me.

    Why should she be let off on probation/parole instead of serving a prison term, when others have to serve who are less known but have been found guilty of the same crime?

    I understand your point that others have served for simlar crimes and she should too, but to that I would say, they shouldn’t have necessarily served time either. To me, it’s not a matter of being known or not, it’s a matter of “does the punishment fit the crime.” Does that person need to be withdrawn from society? Is the crime so harmful, dangerous, or destructive to the general population that the person needs to be held in a small room behind iron bars in order to protect us? Prison is as much a measure of societal protection as it is a punishment for the accused.

    I absolutely with some kind of post-incarceration community service!! I think as little as three months in a cell, with no 350 thread count lace-lined sheets, no perfumed wastebasket, no potpourri simmering in a pretty hand-painted porcelain container, on an original antique Amish nightstand beside her bed will be punishment enough for her! Then let her go and perform hours and hours and hours of community service using the talents and skills she has to help other people, rather than to line her pockets.

  • klgreen1 October 25, 2009, 6:39 pm

    Our faithful follower and favorite curmudgeon and political wonk, Clark Echols, has written us a lengthy response. He isn’t shy and has nothing to hide. We’re going to edit most of his political observations, but you might get a kick out of reading the uncut version. If so, our man of the hour has agreed to hear from you directly. (Don’t worry. He’s a nice, bright, by-the-books LDS grandpa, and very happily married.)

    If you want to take him to task in a one-on-one verbal conflict, utilizing guerilla warfare, you can email him directly at Clarke@verinet.net.

  • Reader Comment October 25, 2009, 6:41 pm

    Clark Echols writes:

    I never did care for Martha Stewart or most others like her. Where are the values that matter? Where is the evidence of personal integrity, loyalty to truth, honesty in business?

    Martha was on the Board of Directors of the New York Stock Exchange, for crying out loud! She knows what the rules are (or certainly should)! She lied to a federal investigator.

    Thomas Edison wisely observed that five percent of the people in this country actually think. Ten percent think they think, and the other eighty-five percent would rather die than think. They are so focused on the hum-drum of daily survival that they don’t bother to take the time to be informed, to know what’s really going on in the world.

    Whether it’s Enron, Martha Stewart, Osama Bin Laden, or careless or devious brokers, it is time for members of the church, and people in general to discover who is really lying, and hold them to account instead of giving them power and position in society.

    There is a major difference between going to war based on intelligence that might have been flawed, and claiming to be a defender of liberty and freedom while aiding and betting the enemy as has been done with the enthusiastic support of one Ms. Martha Stewart.

    It’s time to quit supporting thugs who are plotting the overthrow of our liberties, whether it’s Martha trying to make a buck at somebody else’s expense by fraudulent use of her position in the stock market, or politicians providing political cover for organized criminal activities. Who has bothered to check the FBI files on the web?

    You can support truth, freedom, liberty, and righteousness, or you can support the thugs of popularity. But you are accountable to your creator for whom you choose to support. The Book of Mormon is replete with examples of consequences of poor choices. We have living prophets who warn us today. It’s time to think for a change and quit falling prey to the slick media that “lead away silly women after diverse lusts,” as Paul the Apostle so aptly described our day.

  • Alison Moore Smith October 25, 2009, 6:42 pm

    I’m not sure that 2 Timothy 3:6 is actually referring to those who indulge in excess scherenschnitte, but what do I know?

  • Reader Comment October 25, 2009, 6:43 pm

    Rosemary from Lindon, Utah, writes:

    I just read the letter from Nikki and the comments by the Circle of Sisters, and really liked what all of you said. I have even commented that it (Martha Stewart Living) was like Homemaking Meeting on TV, because even at homemaking most things were beyond me. I have often said that I discovered that I could be Mormon and not sew. It wouldn’t keep me out of the celestial kingdom. Although, when I joined the church I felt I had to sew and make quilts and dinners from freshly ground wheat and have handouts for my lessons and keep the house clean and visit teach and on and on.

    Although I must say, I liked a lot of what Martha did. But, I bought my cards made with homemade paper at a book fair!

    Also, thanks for your insights into the deeper part of my financial frustrations.

    Just thought you’d like to hear what I heard on Dr. Phil the other day, and pass it on. He said studies show that a stay-at-home mom with three children does the equivalent amount of work of someone employed in two full-time 40 hour per week jobs. This is no surprise to me, but it’s nice to hear validation from a respected source.

  • Alison Moore Smith October 25, 2009, 6:44 pm

    Wait just one minute! I’ve been saying such things for years. Why is Dr. Phil the “respected source” and I’m chopped liver! Has he ever been a stay-at-home mom??? Where this topic is concerned, we are the only real source!

  • Reader Comment October 25, 2009, 6:45 pm

    Kjirstin writes:

    Hear, hear to what you said about Martha Stewart! Personally, everything about her has always made me cringe. Once she was making invitations, and after spending twenty minutes on each one, she went on to say how “inexpensive” they were, at just $1.70 each. Each!!! If I can’t get a box of 12 for $1.79, I don’t have the party!!!

    I will give her devotees a “head’s up” they may not know from any other source: The program isn’t going bye-bye anytime soon. It’s being re-labeled “Living” (or something similar ?I can’t trust my 50-year-old mind to be too precise). And the good news? They are scrambling for new “Marthas”! And guess who has been behind-the-scenes all these years at Marth Stewart Living? Eight, count them, eight members of ?Relief Society! My daughter was a roommate with one of them two years ago in New York City. Her ward (Manhattan 8th Singles Ward) has two of the younger women, and the others are spread around New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey. Where do you think Martha came up with all her terrific project ideas? Very inventive Mormon Mommas, that’s where!

    I’m hopeful the producers will see a bright and shinning star in one (or several!) of them and let them carry on realistically this time with children in tow. I don’t feel her show ever touched the common woman. Perhaps now it will.

  • klgreen1 October 25, 2009, 6:45 pm

    Well! This is an interesting development! How about that, Mormon Mommas?

  • Reader Comment October 25, 2009, 6:46 pm

    Holly Chase from St. Louis, Missouri, writes:

    I found Nikki’s comments to be interesting, although I do not agree. I don’t believe at all that Martha Stewart “singlehandedly made it acceptable to be a homemaker”. What I do think is that she made me wonder that if I didn’t cook exquisite creme brulee, make my own brooms, decorate my patio with homemade rattan furniture (I don’t even have a patio), and grow my own berries to make ink for calligraphy on homemade parchment paper, that I just might be inferior as a homemaker. After all, don’t we already torture ourselves if we don’t homeschool our children, have 100% visiting teaching, get to the temple at least once a month, manage to fulfill at least three of our callings, trace our genealogy back to Adam, and have a perpetual supply of home-baked bread and casseroles around just in case someone gets sick or has a baby? Do we really have to make home-made thank you notes too? This is the reason that I, as well as many of my sisters, were secretly happy to see Martha go down. Deep down we smiled as if to say, “Ha! So you’re not perfect after all! You’re just like the rest of us!” While this may seem a little harsh, I think it is the reality that many of us feel in our less Christ-like moments.

  • Alison Moore Smith October 25, 2009, 6:46 pm

    Ah ha!

    Homeschool children? Check!

    100% visiting teaching? Check! OK, so I have a very dedicated companion ?

    Temple once per month? Check!

    Fulfill three calling? Check!

    Trace genealogy back to Adam? Does six generations suffice?

    Supply of home-baked bread and casseroles? Um ?nevermind ?

Leave a Comment

CommentLuv badge

Next post:

Previous post: