AS with most of Jerry Johnston's essays, this is very touching. I can really identify with his perspectives. I look forward to his expressions on Saturday morning--and now in MormonTimes. Does he have a book? If not, I will just have to make a folder on my PC and re-visit his wisdom. Thank you.

Unfortunate that we have to speculate about the mother's feelings in this story. It is unfortunate that the Jewish society of that time, as well as the Roman and (to a lesser degree) Greek societies were all patriarchal, male-dominated societies. Women had very few civil rights and were treated as second-class (or worse) citizens.

The thing we need to learn and celebrate on Mother's Day is that being a Mother is not the ONLY thing that should define any person's identity! Trying to force women into a proscribed role as "mothers" and ONLY as mothers is the tradition and practice of patriarchal churches and societies that exploit women and treat them poorly. There is no reason for that today. We have learned better. Women can be anything they want to be, in addition to being a mother (or not) just as men can be anything they want to be, in addition to being a father (or not). One's paternal status should never be their defining characteristic.

Swallowing a camel again? Mind games of the last two paragraphs aside (it was blasphemous from the start and has no resemblance to the religion you pretend to be a member of - I don't care who you think your validating sources are), this column showed way before that it is not only lacking basic understanding of what scriptures actually say, but is a reprehensible revisionism of another topic you know nothing about. Jerry, there is a saying, supported by scripture, "My sheep will know My voice and a stranger they will not follow." Our Lord was most certainly not an unfocused, spoiled, babbling, mama's boy buffoon at any point in childhood.
Maybe in your lifetime you will never comprehend the depths of the ignorance your columns exude, but in the meantime should should learn to trust what you have admitted in many past columns, and that is you feel inadequate and not fully prepared to write on topics such as religion. Your columns and various comparisons demean, degrade and trash a very serious topic that is apparently like rocket science in comparison to your comprehension.

Spence,

I hear your voice in your comment, and it is NOT the voice of the Master I follow: Jesus Christ.

With some humility (a LOT of it!) and repentance, perhaps you can unplug your ears and hear His voice once again. Until then, you will continue to exude YOUR ignorance because in hearing you do not understand.

Two things, Rich. One of course is the obvious fact that you have no problem with this column, or you would have had some statement qualifying that in your criticism of me. And second, it has nothing to do with the "voice" of my comments, since I am not the one deliberating making vague and insulting analogies, written in way that could be used the weasel escape clause type wordings embedded within this article, should someone challenge what is written here for more clarity on the actual intent. So, while Jerry is clearly to memories of his own boyhood it is the analogies, cleverly woven, implied, veiled or otherwise which should offend anyone who believes the Bible means what it says; based on the tone of this writing we should trash the Bible or Otherwise maybe we should throw the Bible away. Which leads us to another point; your ostensible endorsement of this mushy article means endorsement of the following style thinking:

"If he fell in with thieves, he'd be caught." Why a writer intentionally and frequently denigrates the Savior in a so-called respectable publication is sad.

Spence,

What on earth are you talking about? Jerry's story is about the Prodigal Son, NOT Jesus! He is not denigrating the Savior, he is talking about the type of person who loses their way and then comes back - like himself.

Do you have a clue? Get one, quick!

Put this column in the context of other recent columns by this author.

Criticism of this column can be put in a better context by re-reading the Reverend Wright column of a few weeks ago. The mention of "hyperbole" and "exaggeration" in Bible references to the Savior leaves unanswered questions about the motives of subsequent columns.

I have never commented on a column before but I was so moved by yours on May 10th that I had to write. As a mother who has had the humbling experience of having a "prodigal," I thank you for the frankness and insights you expressed. It's one I will keep and pass along to those who identify with it. Thank you.

I find it so interesting that most of those of you criticizing this column are NOT mothers. You don't have a CLUE! Jerry, as a mother, I absolutely got it and enjoyed the column. Thanks you. And your mother knows!

I am sorry for your life experiences that lead you to believe that to be known as a mother is offensive. I have been called many names (some not nice) but I can honestly say that to me there is no better name to be defined as as Mother.

It is my lifes calling to be a mother. I chose that when I decided to bring a life into this world. I don't believe that it demeans me one bit to be defined as a mother.

I enjoyed this article and think that maybe those of you that are being so harsh in your comments should look at your hearts and lifes and wonder what is wrong with you that you have to find fault with everything.

One must be offensive to find offense where none was meant.

To "Jaded",

Good for you. My beef is not with you as an individual. My beef is with a Church that indoctrinates women into believing that the ONLY thing they should aspire to, or the PRIMARY thing, or the MOST IMPORTANT thing they should aspire to is being a mother. That is wrong, sexist, narrowminded, immoral, and bogus (among other things I would like to call it).

Chances are, however, that you are nothing more than a mindless product of such indoctrination. Call it brainwashing if you want, but ultimately all it means is that you are a pawn living out a life chosen for you and imposed on you by these spiritual frauds.

God bless you in finding the truth.

To Jade: a major part of the feminist movement was that we all had the choice to do what we wanted with our lives. We could do anything, be anything, have it ALL! But yet when someone, "Jaded" tells you that she chose to be a mother, you immediately accuse her of being brainwashed and indoctrinated! It is HER CHOICE! I married in my 30's, served in the military, graduated from college, traveled, had a fairly high power career. Then they put that baby boy in my arms and the earth shifted on it's axis. I was never the same again. I am the mother of 4 exceptional, brilliant, gifted children and I am a stay at home mom. I absolutely adore what I am doing and wouldn't change it for anything in the world. I have the right to make that choice without your clueless condescension. How dare you call this choice brainwashing or being a pawn just because you don't agree with it! Talk about a pompous post! I do more as a mother with my education & experiences than I ever did in the corporate world. I certainly find more joy & satisfaction in my days.

If the intentions were on the level then so be it, but their does seem to be some ambiguity in the comparison of mothers and implications they had the same challenges in their children:
"Like Mary, the mother of....

The story of the Prodigal Son is beautiful; no one would question parents hoping for wayward children humbly returning to their roots.

Were it not for the Reverend Wright column I doubt this column would have been so criticized for scriptural references that were made.

To Mom,

Again, good for you. You claim to have made your own "free choice". The women in the FLDS compound say the exact same thing. Women who are physically and emotionally and sexually abused defend their abusers and say they love them with all their hearts, and they CHOOSE to stay with their abusive husbands and boyfriends. It is THEIR CHOICE. What all these women fail to take into account is how their upbringing and indoctrination has played such a HUGE role in defining the alternatives from which they "choose". Those alternatives are defined by institutionalized dogmas (such as "aren't little baby boys so cute that holding them in your arms "shift the earth on its axis!") that are pounded into the heads of Church members in subtle and pervasive ways. I have three daughters who attended LDS Church for over a decade. Each Sunday they came home telling me about the indoctrination - how they were made to feel guilty and unworthy if they didn't desire to be mothers and homemakers. They were told that men get to hold the priesthood (the power of God) but women get to have babies. The sexism in the Church is pernicious.

What you fail to take into account is that you have been indoctrinated into thinking women should probably forgo the happiness of raising families to go join the worker society and experience abuse in the public sector, by the vicious general public. I feel so sorry for your daughters having been raised in such a mindset. Who gives anyone the right to make women feel bad about themselves if they choose to stay home and give their children the attention and upbringing they need? Would you really have made the choice to be away from your children serving unappreciative people in a "wonderful career"/crappy job(s) if you were not paid to do so? Did you so love your career that you would have worked for free to stay away from your children? Or would you have complained to have a spouse that once made enough for both of you?
Having girls made to feel guilty and feel they have little value if they consider forsaking a career is a shameful form of indoctrination in itself.
In another era other than this current one you may have been called a child abuser.