LDS General Conference Discussion Thread

[Melinda in VT]

I am too slow. Xuzi beat me to it.

[Xuzi]

I'm not Mamasheep, nor do I play her on the internet, but I think I'm a couple of timezones ahead of her, so I'll toss in my two cents.

 

The difference between the LDS view of the afterlife and the Protestant view of the afterlife may be causing confusion here. (I don't know enough to speak to Catholic and EO.)

 

For Protestants, salvation is generally considered binary. Either you are in heaven, or you are in hell. Mormons view the afterlife as a many-layered society. Hell (what Mormons call Outer Darkness) isn't even an option for most people. It's reserved for those who have a sure knowledge of God and defy him anyway.

 

After that, you have different levels of glory. There are three main levels (telestial, terrestial, and celestial) and the highest level has levels within it. Mormon doctrine (unless they've changed it since I left) is that only those with Mormon temple ordinances can go to the highest level of the highest level. That's the level where you live with God and where you get to be with your family forever. But the other levels are supposed to be very nice as well.

 

Also, since Mormons believe that they can do temple ordinances on behalf of people who have died, and the dead people can choose in the afterlife to accept or reject those ordinances . . . it's really impossible to tell if someone is going to end up without temple ordinances in the end, even if they die non-Mormon.

 

So, non-Mormons aren't going to Hell. But you need Mormon ordinances to get to the top of the celestial kingdom.

 

Or at least that's what I was taught and believed for 30 years. :D

 

Hasn't changed a bit. ;)

 

So, just to add a wee bit of clarity: If I make it to that "highest level of the highest level" ( ;) ) I would be highly surprised if it were populated with only people who were LDS while here on earth.

[Xuzi]

I am too slow. Xuzi beat me to it.

 

Nah, the more the merrier! :D

[Xuzi]

Oh, and about LDS.org:

 

Even members of the Church have gripes about it's "search" feature (which, as you noticed, doesn't always give you exactly what you're looking for).

[MamaSheep]

Sometimes I forget to what extent the Mormon church is divided by gender. In the churches I have been part of since leaving, keeping men interested and involved with the church just hasn't been an issue. Some men are, some aren't. Some women are, some aren't. It usually ends up feeling pretty balanced.

 

Of course, the families in those churches tend to have distribute the work of the family (earning an income, caring for kids, taking care of the house) less along traditional gender roles and more according to individual interests and opportunities. That might make it easier for interested men to be involved in church.

 

This is an interesting point of view, and certainly worth considering. I like that in the LDS church I am valued as a woman, and for my feminine characteristics, and not just as a generic human being. I know that's not PC in today's society, but there it is. And I like being able to teach my son that there's something special about his being a man. And I think the distinct, but intertwined roles help a greater percentage of the church population be involved, which I find to be good for the greater community. But I'm glad you've found something that works for you. :)

[Amira]

Bassoonaroo (I love to say your name), you might try reading this address from one of our apostles. He tries to clarify the different meanings the word "salvation" might have. Here's one quote from it:

 

For Latter-day Saints, being “saved” can also mean being saved or delivered from the second death (meaning the final spiritual death) by assurance of a kingdom of glory in the world to come (see 1 Cor. 15:40–42). Just as the Resurrection is universal, we affirm that every person who ever lived upon the face of the earth—except for a very few—is assured of salvation in this sense.

[MamaSheep]

Yeah, I should have kept looking for PFS's article and linked to it too because she does provide a different take. And her article is what the post I linked to is based on. But the reason I think the first link is good is because it makes it easier to see exactly how it was changed, instead of a side-by-side comparison.

 

The whole thing is hardly Orwellian, though. ;)

 

Yes, I thought the blog did a better job of showing where the changes were than the Sunstone article, and I appreciated your posting it. At the very least it was a great jumping off place. :) But yeah, I had to roll my eyes at Orwell.

[Maus]

MamaSheep,

 

Wow the lds.org site is huge and I couldn't find a thing in it about non-LDS salvation or about leaders saying that those outside of LDS could be saved. I found lots on "plan of salvation" and "Mom, are we Christian?" but could not find quotes of leaders saying "those outside LDS can receive salvation" or similar. I guess I don't know the right LDS terms to use in the search. This site is very nice looking and appears to not contain any contraversial quotes which are all over the WWW (ie. not just in one site by a disgruntled exLDS).

 

Okay, on to mormon.org. It's equally beautiful with wonderful artwork and photography. However, nowhere could I find any quotes by LDS leaders saying that salvation is available to those outside LDS church. In fact, this site seems even more sanitized than the lds.org site. In its biography of J Smith, there is nothing about his use of seer-stones or polygamy.

 

So, while I am enjoying the beautiful artwork and photographs and quotes from LDS members, I am not finding quotes of LDS leaders contradicting the quotes (easily found, I might add) that say that the Christian church is NOT of satan and that the LDS does NOT have exclusive claims on salvation. Perhaps it's buried deep on those two sites. Since you know the sites, could you give me specific links -- my half hour of searching this AM has turned up ... well, no answers...

 

I do appreciate how you are persevering with me as I try to reconcile what I read on this thread and what I've read online about your leader's quotes and your holy book passages that seem different than what you say... I'm just trying to put it all together. And it's not quite going yet.

Try using â€degrees of glory†as your search term. I'm on my phone and navigationally challenged by it (and ready to kill autocorrect), but I did find this lovely quote from Dallin H. Oaks:

â€

The theology of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ is comprehensive, universal, merciful, and true. Following the necessary experience of mortal life, all sons and daughters of God will ultimately be resurrected and go to a kingdom of glory. The righteous—regardless of current religious denomination or belief—will ultimately go to a kingdom of glory more wonderful than any of us can comprehend. Even the wicked, or almost all of them, will ultimately go to a marvelous—though lesser—kingdom of glory. All of that will occur because of God’s love for his children and because of the atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ, “who glorifies the Father, and saves all the works of his hands†(D&C 76:43).â€

 

From here: http://www.lds.org/ensign/1995/05/apostasy-and-restoration?lang=eng&query=degrees+glory

[Melinda in VT]

This is an interesting point of view, and certainly worth considering. I like that in the LDS church I am valued as a woman, and for my feminine characteristics, and not just as a generic human being. I know that's not PC in today's society, but there it is. And I like being able to teach my son that there's something special about his being a man. And I think the distinct, but intertwined roles help a greater percentage of the church population be involved, which I find to be good for the greater community. But I'm glad you've found something that works for you. :)

 

And I find your view interesting as well. I don't think of what I see around me as valuing people as generic, but rather as valuing them as individuals, with strengths, weaknesses, needs, and talents in a combination unique to them, without regard to the stereotype for their sex. We obviously aren't going to see eye-to-eye on this, and that's ok. :)

[garddwr]

MamaSheep,

 

Wow the lds.org site is huge and I couldn't find a thing in it about non-LDS salvation or about leaders saying that those outside of LDS could be saved.

 

Not Mamasheep either, but will add what little I can contribute to the discussion. As others have mentioned, the terms saved and salvation are used in multiple ways in the LDS church. Here is a good explanation of the different ways in which we sometimes discuss salvation.

 

As has been mentioned, we believe that for exaltation, which is eternal life in the presence of God, we must not only have faith in Christ and seek to follow His commandments but we must also receive important ordinances administered by proper authority, through which we enter into a covenant relationship with God. We believe that these ordinances were revealed and administered in previous dispensations of the gospel, from the time of Adam onward, and were part of the Christian church in the time of the apostles, but in the centuries after Christ's death the priesthood authority to perform these ordinances (including baptism and eternal marriage) was lost. Because God is both just and merciful, he has provided the means for those who do not in life have access to the necessary ordinances to receive them after death, through the vicarious work performed by those who are living on behalf of those who have died. The person for whom the ordinance is performed is then free to accept or reject those same ordinances and covenants.

 

If you ask the question: can people who are not members of the LDS church be saved or does salvation (if by salvation we mean exaltation and life in the presence of God) require the ordinances that are only available in the LDS church, the answer is yes and yes. Yes they can be saved. And yes the ordinances are necessary.

 

I personally believe that someone like Mother Teresa is more qualified to receive exaltation than I am, because from all I know of her life she in fact lived as Jesus did and had a firm testimony of him. Will she also need the ordinances which God has restored through the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saint? Yes. Eventually those ordinances will be made available to every person who has ever lived on the earth.

 

I hope I haven't just muddied the waters...please remember that those of us who respond as members of the LDS church respond according to our own understanding and not as official representatives of the church or its doctrine.

 

--Sarah

 

ETA: I see Amira posted the same link. We must have been typing our responses at the same time.

Edited April 4, 2012 by thegardener

[LittleIzumi]

MamaSheep,

 

Wow the lds.org site is huge and I couldn't find a thing in it about non-LDS salvation or about leaders saying that those outside of LDS could be saved. I found lots on "plan of salvation" and "Mom, are we Christian?" but could not find quotes of leaders saying "those outside LDS can receive salvation" or similar. I guess I don't know the right LDS terms to use in the search. This site is very nice looking and appears to not contain any contraversial quotes which are all over the WWW (ie. not just in one site by a disgruntled exLDS).

 

Okay, on to mormon.org. It's equally beautiful with wonderful artwork and photography. However, nowhere could I find any quotes by LDS leaders saying that salvation is available to those outside LDS church. In fact, this site seems even more sanitized than the lds.org site. In its biography of J Smith, there is nothing about his use of seer-stones or polygamy.

 

So, while I am enjoying the beautiful artwork and photographs and quotes from LDS members, I am not finding quotes of LDS leaders contradicting the quotes (easily found, I might add) that say that the Christian church is NOT of satan and that the LDS does NOT have exclusive claims on salvation. Perhaps it's buried deep on those two sites. Since you know the sites, could you give me specific links -- my half hour of searching this AM has turned up ... well, no answers...

 

I do appreciate how you are persevering with me as I try to reconcile what I read on this thread and what I've read online about your leader's quotes and your holy book passages that seem different than what you say... I'm just trying to put it all together. And it's not quite going yet.

 

Did you see where MamaSheep already found that quote for you, and it does indeed say they are NOT of Satan? :)

 

So I was looking again at your list of quotes, and one thing that struck me is that most of them are from people who lived at a time when their "Christian" neighbors kept shooting at them, burning their crops, raping the women, and driving them from their homes. And I'm thinking that might affect how they would talk about them.

 

But I noticed one of them was from a 1984 Ensign magazine, which I know would be online. It's kind of a needle in a haystack thing because even narrowing it down to one year, there are still twelve issues worth of articles. But since it was kind of an unusual thing for someone to say I decided to put it in the search thingy and see if anything surfaced. I put in "all that is in it is satanic", and got only one result (out of 30 years worth of magazines and all our teaching manuals, if that makes you feel any better). The one result that came up, though, was from the December 1984 issue of the Ensign, so I'm thinking this is probably where whoever made the list got the quote. I thought you might find it interesting to see the quote in context. The meaning is, I think, somewhat different from what whoever snipped it out of there seems to want us to think. Quite the hatchet-job, really. Here's a link to the whole article, which is about various passages in the New Testament that prophesy apostasy.

 

This is the relevant section, which is commenting on a specific passage in the Bible:

 

 

2 Thessalonians 2:1–12

 

 

 

In the second Thessalonian letter, Paul taught that the day of Christ’s coming would not take place until the “falling away†and the revelation of the “man of sin,†“the son of perdition.†(2 Thes. 2:3.)

 

 

 

The term “falling away†may give the incorrect impression of a process of drifting or gradually losing ground. The original Greek term, apostasía (from which we have the English word “apostasyâ€), means something much more drastic. Ancient sources use the term to describe political rebellion and revolution. 5 In verses 3 and 4, Paul asserted that the rebellion would supplant God from his position in the Church. The chief feature of this time of rebellion would be the triumph of the “man of sin … who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.†(2 Thes. 2:3–4.) 6

 

 

 

The “man of sin,†generally equated with Satan, 7 would exalt himself over all that is divine and assume the place of God in the Church. Of historical and theological significance is the fact that in Paul’s prophecy the church structure survives. But God is not at its head, making that church—following the appearance in it of Satan—no longer the church of God.

 

 

 

To say that Satan sits in the place of God in Christianity after the time of the Apostles

is not to say that all that is in it is satanic

. Indeed, Latter-day Saints should rejoice—as the heavens undoubtedly do—at the great works of righteousness and faith, and the leavening influence on the world, of those whose lives are touched in any degree by Him whose gospel the Saints enjoy in its fulness. Still, “the power of God unto salvation†(Rom. 1:16) is absent from all but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which the Lord himself has proclaimed to be “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth†(D&C 1:30). Satan’s goal of hindering many of God’s children from returning to their Father’s glory is thus realized. How appropriate, therefore, is Paul’s description of him sitting in the place of God in the church of the apostasía.

It makes me want to see if I can locate the other quotes and see if the editor of the list took similar liberties with any of the other quotes. This seems to me like intentional deception rather than just sloppy scholarship.

[MamaSheep]

MamaSheep,

 

Wow the lds.org site is huge and I couldn't find a thing in it about non-LDS salvation or about leaders saying that those outside of LDS could be saved. I found lots on "plan of salvation" and "Mom, are we Christian?" but could not find quotes of leaders saying "those outside LDS can receive salvation" or similar. I guess I don't know the right LDS terms to use in the search. This site is very nice looking and appears to not contain any contraversial quotes which are all over the WWW (ie. not just in one site by a disgruntled exLDS).

 

Okay, on to mormon.org. It's equally beautiful with wonderful artwork and photography. However, nowhere could I find any quotes by LDS leaders saying that salvation is available to those outside LDS church. In fact, this site seems even more sanitized than the lds.org site. In its biography of J Smith, there is nothing about his use of seer-stones or polygamy.

 

So, while I am enjoying the beautiful artwork and photographs and quotes from LDS members, I am not finding quotes of LDS leaders contradicting the quotes (easily found, I might add) that say that the Christian church is NOT of satan and that the LDS does NOT have exclusive claims on salvation. Perhaps it's buried deep on those two sites. Since you know the sites, could you give me specific links -- my half hour of searching this AM has turned up ... well, no answers...

 

I do appreciate how you are persevering with me as I try to reconcile what I read on this thread and what I've read online about your leader's quotes and your holy book passages that seem different than what you say... I'm just trying to put it all together. And it's not quite going yet.

 

 

Yes, as I said before, we don't really spend a lot of time discussing Christians of other faiths one way or the other, and we don't tend to sit around assigning one group to heaven and another to hell. It's just not how we tend to think. I would guess it would be challenging to find such quotes either for or against, because they would represent such a tiny percentage of what we do talk about. As you noticed, we tend to focus much more on "here's the plan, what are YOU as an individual going to do about it" rather than "Joe and Jane are going to heaven, whereas Bob is off to hell".

 

 

Darn...I was going to write more, but I have to run ds to an appointment. I'm not forgetting you though, and will continue after I get back. I'm glad you're at least enjoying the artwork. :)

[LittleIzumi]

MamaSheep,

 

Wow the lds.org site is huge and I couldn't find a thing in it about non-LDS salvation or about leaders saying that those outside of LDS could be saved. I found lots on "plan of salvation" and "Mom, are we Christian?" but could not find quotes of leaders saying "those outside LDS can receive salvation" or similar. I guess I don't know the right LDS terms to use in the search. This site is very nice looking and appears to not contain any contraversial quotes which are all over the WWW (ie. not just in one site by a disgruntled exLDS).

 

Okay, on to mormon.org. It's equally beautiful with wonderful artwork and photography. However, nowhere could I find any quotes by LDS leaders saying that salvation is available to those outside LDS church. In fact, this site seems even more sanitized than the lds.org site. In its biography of J Smith, there is nothing about his use of seer-stones or polygamy.

 

So, while I am enjoying the beautiful artwork and photographs and quotes from LDS members, I am not finding quotes of LDS leaders contradicting the quotes (easily found, I might add) that say that the Christian church is NOT of satan and that the LDS does NOT have exclusive claims on salvation. Perhaps it's buried deep on those two sites. Since you know the sites, could you give me specific links -- my half hour of searching this AM has turned up ... well, no answers...

 

I do appreciate how you are persevering with me as I try to reconcile what I read on this thread and what I've read online about your leader's quotes and your holy book passages that seem different than what you say... I'm just trying to put it all together. And it's not quite going yet.

 

 

"

For Latter-day Saints, being “saved†can also mean being saved or delivered from the second death (meaning the final spiritual death) by assurance of a kingdom of glory in the world to come (see 1 Cor. 15:40–42). Just as the Resurrection is universal, we affirm that every person who ever lived upon the face of the earth—except for a very few—is assured of salvation in this sense. As we read in modern revelation:

“And this is the gospel, the glad tidings …

“That he came into the world, even Jesus, to be crucified for the world, and to bear the sins of the world, and to sanctify the world, and to cleanse it from all unrighteousness;

“That through him all might be saved whom the Father had put into his power and made by him;

“Who glorifies the Father, and saves all the works of his hands, except those sons of perdition who deny the Son after the Father has revealed him†(D&C 76:40–43; emphasis added).

The prophet Brigham Young taught that doctrine when he declared that “every person who does not sin away the day of grace, and become an angel to the Devil, will be brought forth to inherit a kingdom of glory†(Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young [1997], 288). This meaning of saved ennobles the whole human race through the grace of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. In this sense of the word, all should answer: “Yes, I have been saved. Glory to God for the gospel and gift and grace of His Son!â€

...

If we use the word salvation to mean “exaltation,†it is premature for any of us to say that we have been “saved†in mortality. That glorious status can only follow the final judgment of Him who is the Great Judge of the living and the dead."

 

 

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1998/04/have-you-been-saved?lang=eng&query=salvation+other+faiths

[Veritaserum]

This is an interesting point of view, and certainly worth considering. I like that in the LDS church I am valued as a woman, and for my feminine characteristics, and not just as a generic human being. I know that's not PC in today's society, but there it is. And I like being able to teach my son that there's something special about his being a man. And I think the distinct, but intertwined roles help a greater percentage of the church population be involved, which I find to be good for the greater community. But I'm glad you've found something that works for you. :)

 

I'm a female Mormon who decidedly does not feel those things. :tongue_smilie: I really, really wish there were a more balanced and fair approach to the distribution of authority and power. Motherhood = fatherhood. Motherhood =\= priesthood. Women in our church don't currently have anything that is the equivalent of the priesthood (we used to, though). Women are taught more to be soft and kind and and spiritual-for-the-sake-of-their-families and ladylike, etc. so that they can be good wives and mothers. Yes, we are encouraged to educated ourselves, but that is secondary to preparing for motherhood. It makes me uncomfortable because the focus should be on helping both males and females grow spiritually and develop their talents. I'm a person before and after I'm a wife and mother. And I am decidedly NOT a traditional, soft, stereotypical female. I feel very lonely and alienated within our church sometimes (actually, often). I stay because of other things our church offers that no one else does, but it is not at all easy or peaceful to be a socially liberal feminist in Utah.

 

And I find your view interesting as well. I don't think of what I see around me as valuing people as generic, but rather as valuing them as individuals, with strengths, weaknesses, needs, and talents in a combination unique to them, without regard to the stereotype for their sex. We obviously aren't going to see eye-to-eye on this, and that's ok. :)

 

Love this.

[Xuzi]

I'm a female Mormon who decidedly does not feel those things. :tongue_smilie: I really, really wish there were a more balanced and fair approach to the distribution of authority and power. Motherhood = fatherhood. Motherhood =\= priesthood. Women in our church don't currently have anything that is the equivalent of the priesthood (we used to, though). Women are taught more to be soft and kind and and spiritual-for-the-sake-of-their-families and ladylike, etc. so that they can be good wives and mothers. Yes, we are encouraged to educated ourselves, but that is secondary to preparing for motherhood. It makes me uncomfortable because the focus should be on helping both males and females grow spiritually and develop their talents. I'm a person before and after I'm a wife and mother. And I am decidedly NOT a traditional, soft, stereotypical female. I feel very lonely and alienated within our church sometimes (actually, often). I stay because of other things our church offers that no one else does, but it is not at all easy or peaceful to be a socially liberal feminist in Utah.

 

 

 

Love this.

 

Come move to Washington. :D I'm a SAHM, but am by far the minority in my ward. Several of the moms work, some even run their own business separate from their husbands! (or their husbands are in a supportive roll) And just this past February our branch of the LDS Employment Office hosted a 2 day multi-Stake (for non-LDS reading this thread, a Stake is like a Diocese, so several congregations) conference specifically for women trying to get into- or trying to return to- the workforce. They covered resumes, cover letters, interview skills, how to package your "soft skills" (or skills you gained while outside of the workforce, like organizational and time-manage skills developed from years of home schooling :tongue_smilie: ) so that they would appeal to an employer, and a bunch of other stuff. It was great! Saw lots of pant suits. :lol:

[garddwr]

I'm a female Mormon who decidedly does not feel those things. :tongue_smilie: I really, really wish there were a more balanced and fair approach to the distribution of authority and power. Motherhood = fatherhood. Motherhood =\= priesthood. Women in our church don't currently have anything that is the equivalent of the priesthood (we used to, though). Women are taught more to be soft and kind and and spiritual-for-the-sake-of-their-families and ladylike, etc. so that they can be good wives and mothers. Yes, we are encouraged to educated ourselves, but that is secondary to preparing for motherhood. It makes me uncomfortable because the focus should be on helping both males and females grow spiritually and develop their talents. I'm a person before and after I'm a wife and mother. And I am decidedly NOT a traditional, soft, stereotypical female. I feel very lonely and alienated within our church sometimes (actually, often). I stay because of other things our church offers that no one else does, but it is not at all easy or peaceful to be a socially liberal feminist in Utah.

 

 

I very much appreciate the church's support for traditional female roles--and also appreciate their encouragement of the men in traditional male roles such as providing for their family. Maybe because I spent a lot of my formative years in countries where there was not support at all for the roles of at home mother and homemaker--it was almost unheard of for a woman not to work outside the home. Those same countries struggle with extremely low birthrates, low marriage and high divorce rates. In my experience the church was virtually the only voice saying that nurturing was important, that the work of a mother at home is at least as important as the work of a father who brings home money. And I am grateful, in a society where we are told that women and men can do all the same things and where I think many men to end up not knowing what there role should be--and therefor copping out on it (if the woman can provide just as well, who needs me?)--for a voice telling men they are uniquely needed and important.

I've done a lot of things that don't qualify as traditionally female, including serving in the military. But I consider what I am doing now to be the most important and most fulfilling role in my life, and I am extremely grateful for the encouragement and support of church leaders for both me and my husband.

 

--Sarah

[Veritaserum]

Come move to Washington. :D I'm a SAHM, but am by far the minority in my ward. Several of the moms work, some even run their own business separate from their husbands! (or their husbands are in a supportive roll) And just this past February our branch of the LDS Employment Office hosted a 2 day multi-Stake (for non-LDS reading this thread, a Stake is like a Diocese, so several congregations) conference specifically for women trying to get into- or trying to return to- the workforce. They covered resumes, cover letters, interview skills, how to package your "soft skills" (or skills you gained while outside of the workforce, like organizational and time-manage skills developed from years of home schooling :tongue_smilie: ) so that they would appeal to an employer, and a bunch of other stuff. It was great! Saw lots of pant suits. :lol:

 

Awesome. :) I grew up in SoCal. Utah Mormons have been a stumbling block to me. :tongue_smilie: I've been here for 15 years. Dh's industry is very, very healthy here. It has been mercifully easy for him to find lucrative employment and he has many contacts here. That's really why we stay, but every few months we talk about moving to Washington, Oregon, or California.

 

I choose to SAH, but I don't think I would if we didn't homeschool. Homeschooling keeps it interesting. :)

[LittleIzumi]

I'm a female Mormon who decidedly does not feel those things. :tongue_smilie: I really, really wish there were a more balanced and fair approach to the distribution of authority and power. Motherhood = fatherhood. Motherhood =\= priesthood. Women in our church don't currently have anything that is the equivalent of the priesthood (we used to, though). Women are taught more to be soft and kind and and spiritual-for-the-sake-of-their-families and ladylike, etc. so that they can be good wives and mothers. Yes, we are encouraged to educated ourselves, but that is secondary to preparing for motherhood. It makes me uncomfortable because the focus should be on helping both males and females grow spiritually and develop their talents. I'm a person before and after I'm a wife and mother. And I am decidedly NOT a traditional, soft, stereotypical female. I feel very lonely and alienated within our church sometimes (actually, often). I stay because of other things our church offers that no one else does, but it is not at all easy or peaceful to be a socially liberal feminist in Utah.

Love this.

 

I've always heard that 1) the men NEED the accountability of the Priesthood in general, and in general women don't, and that 2) women do exercise some Priesthood powers in parts of the temple, so it's not like we can't or won't ever access it. Just not in everyday life right now. IME/O. (Quite a bit more socially liberal here too, and yes, it's a but weird being liberal in Utah, lol, but I've found several like-minded friends. I'm still new at this SAH thing, having worked for most of my life until this last baby, getting my degree before hubby, etc. The cleaning. I don't like the cleaning thing. :p )

Edited April 4, 2012 by LittleIzumi

[Xuzi]

I've always heard that 1) the men NEED the accountability of the Priesthood in general, and in general women don't, and that 2) women do exercise some Priesthood powers in parts of the temple, so it's not like we can't or won't ever access it. Just not in everyday life right now. IME/O.

 

I've heard the bolded in church meetings before, but never from a General Authority or Prophet of the church, in my memory. It actually kind of irks me a bit. It's like we're trying to read the mind of God as to why he ordained things to be one way or another. Maybe it just "is what it is"? Maybe there's some other reason for it being the way it is that the Lord hasn't seen fit to reveal yet, and when he *does* we'll all have a good chuckle over all the silly things WE tried to come up with, with our finite mortal minds, to explain His Works, that ended up being far from the mark.

[Amira]

... the focus should be on helping both males and females grow spiritually and develop their talents.

 

:iagree: I think there are many women who are happy and comfortable in their traditional roles, and I think that's wonderful, but for those who aren't, it can be hard if they don't feel like they have much support when they do good things that don't fit those roles.

[Veritaserum]

I very much appreciate the church's support for traditional female roles--and also appreciate their encouragement of the men in traditional male roles such as providing for their family. Maybe because I spent a lot of my formative years in countries where there was not support at all for the roles of at home mother and homemaker--it was almost unheard of for a woman not to work outside the home. Those same countries struggle with extremely low birthrates, low marriage and high divorce rates. In my experience the church was virtually the only voice saying that nurturing was important, that the work of a mother at home is at least as important as the work of a father who brings home money. And I am grateful, in a society where we are told that women and men can do all the same things and where I think many men to end up not knowing what there role should be--and therefor copping out on it (if the woman can provide just as well, who needs me?)--for a voice telling men they are uniquely needed and important.

I've done a lot of things that don't qualify as traditionally female, including serving in the military. But I consider what I am doing now to be the most important and most fulfilling role in my life, and I am extremely grateful for the encouragement and support of church leaders for both me and my husband.

 

--Sarah

 

I would much rather see encouragement for men and women to work where their strengths lie. I am a SAHM because I choose it. Between me and dh, I am better suited to be home with the children. His income is enough to support us. Mine (if I worked) would not be enough by itself. I said in another post that I probably wouldn't SAH if not for homeschooling. If we sent our kids to school, I would go to work as soon as the youngest started school. I'd go insane otherwise.

 

I tell my girls that the choice is theirs. I insist on a thorough education for them so that they have options. If they choose careers while raising families because that's what helps them feel fulfilled and happy, great. If they choose to SAH and focus on raising their families because thats what helps them feel fulfilled and happy, great. If my son and his wife decide that he's the better choice to stay home and that is fulfilling to him, great.

 

I'm a fan of agency and considering all of one's options rather than following tradition for tradition's sake.

[LittleIzumi]

I've heard the bolded in church meetings before, but never from a General Authority or Prophet of the church, in my memory. It actually kind of irks me a bit. It's like we're trying to read the mind of God as to why he ordained things to be one way or another. Maybe it just "is what it is"? Maybe there's some other reason for it being the way it is that the Lord hasn't seen fit to reveal yet, and when he *does* we'll all have a good chuckle over all the silly things WE tried to come up with, with our finite mortal minds, to explain His Works, that ended up being far from the mark.

 

Yeah, I don't remember hearing it in Conference, but then relistening to Conference I know I've forgotten 75% of what I've heard, lol. My dad always taught me that, and he was branch president and temple worker, so that's not General Authority or anything :tongue_smilie:, but I've always greatly respected his opinion on Church matters.

[Veritaserum]

I've always heard that 1) the men NEED the accountability of the Priesthood in general, and in general women don't, and that 2) women do exercise some Priesthood powers in parts of the temple, so it's not like we can't or won't ever access it. Just not in everyday life right now. IME/O. (Quite a bit more socially liberal here too, and yes, it's a but weird being liberal in Utah, lol, but I've found several like-minded friends. I'm still new at this SAH thing, having worked for most of my life until this last baby, getting my degree before hubby, etc. The cleaning. I don't like the cleaning thing. :p )

 

Point one is ridiculous, IMO. Women aren't angels and men aren't hopeless deviants. :tongue_smilie: I know that many people in the church believe this, but I do not. It makes no sense and is offensive to both men and and women.

 

Yes, point two is true. However, women used to have the authority to use the priesthood outside of the temple in their roles of ministering to others. Non-whites held the priesthood at that time as well. Then both women and non-whites weren't allowed to have it anymore. Later, non-whites got it back. I hope it's our turn next. ;) I don't think the female priesthood would necessarily have the same role as the male priesthood. For example, I could see the male priesthood being involved with ordinances and female priesthood being involved with blessings.

 

I've heard the bolded in church meetings before, but never from a General Authority or Prophet of the church, in my memory. It actually kind of irks me a bit. It's like we're trying to read the mind of God as to why he ordained things to be one way or another. Maybe it just "is what it is"? Maybe there's some other reason for it being the way it is that the Lord hasn't seen fit to reveal yet, and when he *does* we'll all have a good chuckle over all the silly things WE tried to come up with, with our finite mortal minds, to explain His Works, that ended up being far from the mark.

 

It irks me a lot. :lol:

 

:iagree: I think there are many women who are happy and comfortable in their traditional roles, and I think that's wonderful, but for those who aren't, it can be hard if they don't feel like they have much support when they do good things that don't fit those roles.

 

Yep.

[Amira]

Yes, point two is true. However, women used to have the authority to use the priesthood outside of the temple in their roles of ministering to others. Non-whites held the priesthood at that time as well. Then both women and non-whites weren't allowed to have it anymore. Later, non-whites got it back. I hope it's our turn next. ;) I don't think the female priesthood would necessarily have the same role as the male priesthood. For example, I could see the male priesthood being involved with ordinances and female priesthood being involved with blessings.

 

For me, it's the other way around (although I'd love to participate in a blessing before a woman gave birth). I know women who have no access to ordinances because they are isolated from the church (but not the gospel ;)) and I wish they could at least have the sacrament even if no male priesthood holder was available. I also see that they have no authority in the church in any way, and authority is very clearly connected with the priesthood. However, I don't necessarily think women need to have the priesthood to solve these concerns- there are other ways these problems could be addressed, just as you'd like to participate in blessings like we used to be able to.

[Veritaserum]

For me, it's the other way around (although I'd love to participate in a blessing before a woman gave birth). I know women who have no access to ordinances because they are isolated from the church (but not the gospel ;)) and I wish they could at least have the sacrament even if no male priesthood holder was available. I also see that they have no authority in the church in any way, and authority is very clearly connected with the priesthood. However, I don't necessarily think women need to have the priesthood to solve these concerns- there are other ways these problems could be addressed, just as you'd like to participate in blessings like we used to be able to.

 

Good points. What I think would be fab would be for men and women to be able to do all of it based on who is best suited for the job. :)

 

WRT priesthood, even if there were roles for men and women, it would be good for both to be able to do both roles if an ordained member of the opposite sex were unavailable.

[frugalmama]

Fascinating. Are you Muslim? Might you be able to give me a link to a short summary of the Islamic teachings on this from a Muslim source? I find comparing religious viewpoints intriguing. :)

 

Really I'm just a religion mutt :D but I lean towards Islam in a lot of things.

 

http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/38/ talks about it a little. It's not the best article I've seen, but I couldn't find much online - it tends to be in books mostly.

[MamaSheep]

And I find your view interesting as well. I don't think of what I see around me as valuing people as generic, but rather as valuing them as individuals, with strengths, weaknesses, needs, and talents in a combination unique to them, without regard to the stereotype for their sex. We obviously aren't going to see eye-to-eye on this, and that's ok. :)

 

No, I don't think we'll see eye to eye either, but I'm ok with that too.

 

For the record, though, I view my female-ness not as a "sex-based stereotype", but as a foundational characteristic of my individuality that permeates my unique combination personal strengths, weaknesses, needs, and talents. I don't feel that any point of view that is unwilling to even aknowledge such an important aspect of my being could ever fully understand or appreciate my individual-ness. It's like a person saying they love the daytime because of the warmth and scents and social opportunities that come during the day, while pretending sunlight is irrelevant. Most of my life I've lived in places where I've been told both overtly and more subtly that my being a woman doesn't matter. Well, to me it matters. It matters a lot. It's precious to me. And I love being part of a community that not only acknowledges its importance, but CELEBRATES it as a good thing. I think there is certainly room to explore what it MEANS to be a woman, and absolutely there are some societal stereotypes that need to be shed. But not by shedding womanhood. I'm proud to be a woman.

 

I'm a female Mormon who decidedly does not feel those things. :tongue_smilie: I really, really wish there were a more balanced and fair approach to the distribution of authority and power. Motherhood = fatherhood. Motherhood =\= priesthood. Women in our church don't currently have anything that is the equivalent of the priesthood (we used to, though). Women are taught more to be soft and kind and and spiritual-for-the-sake-of-their-families and ladylike, etc. so that they can be good wives and mothers. Yes, we are encouraged to educated ourselves, but that is secondary to preparing for motherhood. It makes me uncomfortable because the focus should be on helping both males and females grow spiritually and develop their talents. I'm a person before and after I'm a wife and mother. And I am decidedly NOT a traditional, soft, stereotypical female. I feel very lonely and alienated within our church sometimes (actually, often). I stay because of other things our church offers that no one else does, but it is not at all easy or peaceful to be a socially liberal feminist in Utah.

 

 

 

Love this.

 

I'm sure it is a challenge to be a socially liberal feminist in Utah. It's a challenge to be anything else in some places. I've only lived in Utah for the last several years of my adult life, and I can't tell you how refreshing it is not to be regularly scolded, lectured or belittled for my life choices, or how nice it is not to have to explain what I mean by "homemaker" in an "Occupation" slot on a form, and how nice it is to live in a place where there are actually other human beings in the neighborhood during the daytime. Our old neighborhood felt like a ghost town. I've had my own issues with "Utah Mormon" attitudes, and to be honest I didn't exactly do the happy dance when we moved here, but I've decided that there are actually aspects of "the bubble" that feel like an oasis. (There are other aspects that annoy me--some people's complacency makes me want to spit nails...lol.)

 

As far as "equality" issues, I have found it interesting that in order to receive the higher ordinances of the temple a man must be a Melchizedek priesthood holder, but being female (not necessarily a "mother") is viewed as an equivalent qualification for a woman. Both, of course, must meet the same minimum standards of belief and behavior.

 

 

Good points. What I think would be fab would be for men and women to be able to do all of it based on who is best suited for the job. :)

 

WRT priesthood, even if there were roles for men and women, it would be good for both to be able to do both roles if an ordained member of the opposite sex were unavailable.

 

I don't agree with this either. Partly for the same reason I like that ward callings are not primarily based on who is best suited for the job. It makes us reach out more to each other, and interact with each other more, and it helps us develop new skills rather than just stagnating with the ones we already possess.

 

I'm put in mind of a therapy exercise I've seen done (or had described to me) in several of ds's social skills (for autistic kids) classes. In order to develop better social skills, the children were placed at a table with several children near each other, and each was given a set of instructions for how to build something specific out of Legos. Each child was given a pile of Legos to work with. The tricky bit is that the little Lego piles had been carefully arranged so that nobody had all the pieces they needed to complete their project instructions independently, even though all the needed parts were somewhere on the table. In order to complete the projects, the kids had to acknowledge the other people at the table, notice that some other kid had a needed part, ask the other child for the needed pieces, and sometimes negotiate a trade or ask for help getting the parts assembled correctly. All of the kids developed new social skills because of how the pieces were distributed. I think something similar operates with church callings, gender issues, and even spiritual gifts. As the scriptures say, "For all have not every agift given unto them; for there are many gifts, and to every man is given a gift by the Spirit of God. To some is given one, and to some is given another, that all may be profited thereby." (D&C 46:11-12)

 

I will say, though, that my views used to be closer to yours, and have shifted over the years. The older I get, the more convinced I am that there is wisdom in the way things are arranged.

 

And now I'm going to suggest that as interesting as this topic has been, I really would mostly like to keep this thread to a discussion of general conference with only small side-tracks, so if we want to continue on the topic of gender issues, a spin-off thread might be a good idea. :)

[prairiewindmomma]

I really, really wish there were a more balanced and fair approach to the distribution of authority and power. Motherhood = fatherhood. Motherhood =\= priesthood.

 

Hmmm......the culture here is that motherhood=fatherhood.....although when we travel back to Utah to visit extended family I *do* hear a lot more chatter that puts women into a lower position. I call heading west going "back behind the jello curtain" .... I don't think the inferiority of women is being taught at ALL on the general level--but I find that men in Utah who are 60+ are sometimes a bit condescending.

 

I think there was a general conference talk sometime in the last couple of years talking about this very point. I wish I had time to go digging for it for you....it brought out the point that we should be discussing things as sisters/brethren not sisters/priesthood. IMO, sisters who have been through the temple should definitely understand that womanhood = manhood and that priesthood, at the highest level, is exercised by man and woman together. FWIW, to my knowledge, women are not excluded from giving blessings through faith. I know that was practiced more in the past and it's not taught through the manuals today...but there's certainly enough evidence in the scriptures (NT) and in the historical record (pioneer era) of that happening..

 

Of the women in our ward, fully half work outside of the home...we have several with doctorates who are teaching at the university level (including in chemistry!). Of those of us who are home, all of us have at least a BA (or are finishing one up). I have a JD and my good friend was a vet pre-kids. I'm home because I want to be and because we can scrape by on dh's salary. Families are smaller here...having only 4 kids is fairly average and if you only have one or two, no one asks questions....there's much more eyebrow raising when you hit 6+.

[prairiewindmomma]

Sorry--I added the gender thread before I saw the pp's post. I'm not trying to stir the waters.

[MamaSheep]

I would dearly love to steer the discussion on this thread back to the recent General Conference, if you ladies are game. (But by all means feel free to start other threads for other topics, far be it from me to squelch these interesting discussions. I'm having to limit the number of threads I participate in so I don't sit here all day...heh...but I'll jump in if I can. :) )

 

This afternoon I'm intending to re-listen to Elder Koelliker's talk from the Saturday morning session and post favorite snippets (honestly, I can't even remember what it was about off the top of my head, I'm just reviewing the talks in order) if anyone wants to do likewise and discuss. :)

 

Here's a link: http://www.lds.org/general-conference/watch/2012/04?lang=eng&vid=1540529771001&cid=9

 

P.S. Bassooneroo, I haven't forgotten you, I'm just doing a lunch-time drive-by, and only have time to toss out what comes off the top of my head. I will get back to you later this evening when I should have some time to ponder and dig a little more. :) Although...this topic might need its own thread too if we're going into much depth. We'll see. :)

[prairiewindmomma]

From the Saturday am session, Sister Esplin (3rd talk in):

"

Teaching our children to understand is more than just imparting information. It’s helping our children get the doctrine into their hearts in a way that it becomes part of their very being and is reflected in their attitudes and behavior throughout their lives.

Nephi taught that the role of the Holy Ghost is to carry the truth “unto the hearts of the children of men†(2 Nephi 33:1). Our role as parents is to do all we can to create an atmosphere where our children can feel the influence of the Spirit and then help them recognize what they are feeling."

 

 

What do you guys do to provide an atmosphere of learning and to invite the Holy Ghost into your home? Do you keep scripture study as a separate time away from the rest of your school day or is it part of your assignment lists?

[MamaSheep]

Sorry--I added the gender thread before I saw the pp's post. I'm not trying to stir the waters.

 

No worries. That's what I assumed. :)

[Xuzi]

From the Saturday am session, Sister Esplin (3rd talk in):

"

Teaching our children to understand is more than just imparting information. It’s helping our children get the doctrine into their hearts in a way that it becomes part of their very being and is reflected in their attitudes and behavior throughout their lives.

Nephi taught that the role of the Holy Ghost is to carry the truth “unto the hearts of the children of men” (2 Nephi 33:1). Our role as parents is to do all we can to create an atmosphere where our children can feel the influence of the Spirit and then help them recognize what they are feeling."

 

 

What do you guys do to provide an atmosphere of learning and to invite the Holy Ghost into your home? Do you keep scripture study as a separate time away from the rest of your school day or is it part of your assignment lists?

 

Family Home Evening, Family Prayer, Gospel and other peaceful music playing in the background. We also do prayer and scripture study as our first home school "subject", although it's still just me doing the reading, and then we discuss for a bit. There's more we can do, and the things we DO do we could do better, but that's what's we're able to be fairly consistent with right now.

[Live2Ride]

From the Saturday am session, Sister Esplin (3rd talk in):

"

Teaching our children to understand is more than just imparting information. It’s helping our children get the doctrine into their hearts in a way that it becomes part of their very being and is reflected in their attitudes and behavior throughout their lives.

Nephi taught that the role of the Holy Ghost is to carry the truth “unto the hearts of the children of men” (2 Nephi 33:1). Our role as parents is to do all we can to create an atmosphere where our children can feel the influence of the Spirit and then help them recognize what they are feeling."

 

 

What do you guys do to provide an atmosphere of learning and to invite the Holy Ghost into your home? Do you keep scripture study as a separate time away from the rest of your school day or is it part of your assignment lists?

 

Scripture study every morning, family and personal prayers, church on Sundays, discussion of topics from sacrament at dinner, FHE and we discuss topics each day...

Edited April 4, 2012 by CountryGirl2

[Murmer]

:iagree: I think there are many women who are happy and comfortable in their traditional roles, and I think that's wonderful, but for those who aren't, it can be hard if they don't feel like they have much support when they do good things that don't fit those roles.

 

Or can't be in the traditional roles (single, infertile) :( Yep it can be extra hard.

[Xuzi]

Or can't be in the traditional roles (single, infertile) :( Yep it can be extra hard.

 

Do you get the Ensign magazine? There's an article in this month's issue written by a single, infertile woman on "alternative opportunities for motherhood". I thought it was really interesting!

 

ETA: And I agree that the church could improve how it deals with those outside the "ideal". I think it's getting better in some areas, but also a long row to hoe in others. You're fighting against long-standing culture and opinions in some areas.

[Heidi]

I very much appreciate the church's support for traditional female roles--and also appreciate their encouragement of the men in traditional male roles such as providing for their family. Maybe because I spent a lot of my formative years in countries where there was not support at all for the roles of at home mother and homemaker--it was almost unheard of for a woman not to work outside the home. Those same countries struggle with extremely low birthrates, low marriage and high divorce rates. In my experience the church was virtually the only voice saying that nurturing was important, that the work of a mother at home is at least as important as the work of a father who brings home money. And I am grateful, in a society where we are told that women and men can do all the same things and where I think many men to end up not knowing what there role should be--and therefor copping out on it (if the woman can provide just as well, who needs me?)--for a voice telling men they are uniquely needed and important.

I've done a lot of things that don't qualify as traditionally female, including serving in the military. But I consider what I am doing now to be the most important and most fulfilling role in my life, and I am extremely grateful for the encouragement and support of church leaders for both me and my husband.

 

--Sarah

:iagree: I really appreciate your post. This is how I feel as well.

[garddwr]

I'm going to turn on Elder Holland's talk from Saturday Afternoon and listen while I clean the kitchen--if I remember correctly he talked about the parable of the laborers in the vineyard: some were hired early in the morning, some at the last hour, all received the same wages. He brought a perspective to the story that I had never considered: that the laborers who weren't hired until the end of the day had suffered all day because they were not able to find work to support themselves/their families. I think there was more about the need to avoid jealousy...I really need to listen again and will hopefully have more thoughts to share.

[Xuzi]

I'm going to turn on Elder Holland's talk from Saturday Afternoon and listen while I clean the kitchen--if I remember correctly he talked about the parable of the laborers in the vineyard: some were hired early in the morning, some at the last hour, all received the same wages. He brought a perspective to the story that I had never considered: that the laborers who weren't hired until the end of the day had suffered all day because they were not able to find work to support themselves/their families. I think there was more about the need to avoid jealousy...I really need to listen again and will hopefully have more thoughts to share.

 

YES! That was definitely an angle to the story I hadn't considered before! The ones who labored all day got to spend the day free of worry of how they were going to feed their families that day, while the last laborers had likely spent that whole day worrying.

[Veritaserum]

I will say, though, that my views used to be closer to yours, and have shifted over the years. The older I get, the more convinced I am that there is wisdom in the way things are arranged.

 

I'm glad you are content. The older I get, the more frustrated I become. In recent years I've come to accept myself for who I am. Who I am looks very little like the version of womanhood presented as desireable within the Church. My energy and my approach to life are much more "masculine." I denied my true nature for a long time and that was not healthy or happy. I did the Molly Mormon thing just like I was taught to do, but I did not find it to be fulfilling. I am very proud to be a woman, but my womanhood is not a meek, gentle, submissive, or deferential one. I wish I could be myself AND be supported by the Church in doing so. Pretending does not work anymore and I don't think God expects me to be someone I'm not so that I can meet the stereotype.

 

 

And now I'm going to suggest that as interesting as this topic has been, I really would mostly like to keep this thread to a discussion of general conference with only small side-tracks, so if we want to continue on the topic of gender issues, a spin-off thread might be a good idea. :)

 

I enjoyed conference more this time than I have in the past. I heard things I needed hear, which was very comforting to me. Very few members have been at all understanding of the frustrations and doubts in experiencing. It's extremely lonely.

[Heidi]

I'm going to turn on Elder Holland's talk from Saturday Afternoon and listen while I clean the kitchen--if I remember correctly he talked about the parable of the laborers in the vineyard: some were hired early in the morning, some at the last hour, all received the same wages. He brought a perspective to the story that I had never considered: that the laborers who weren't hired until the end of the day had suffered all day because they were not able to find work to support themselves/their families. I think there was more about the need to avoid jealousy...I really need to listen again and will hopefully have more thoughts to share.

 

I remember that talk, however with my kids I didn't get to listen as carefully as I would have liked. He made a few parallels. First was to not envy:

 

"Obviously we suffer a little when some misfortune befalls us, but envy requires us to suffer all good fortune that befalls everyone we know!"

 

"So lesson number one from the Lord’s vineyard: coveting, pouting, or tearing others down does not elevate your standing, nor does demeaning someone else improve your self-image. So be kind, and be grateful that God is kind. It is a happy way to live."

 

Second, to let go of past grieviences:

 

"The formula of faith is to hold on, work on, see it through, and let the distress of earlier hours—real or imagined—fall away in the abundance of the final reward."

 

And lastly, about the grace of God:

 

"I do not know who in this vast audience today may need to hear the message of forgiveness inherent in this parable, but however late you think you are, however many chances you think you have missed, however many mistakes you feel you have made or talents you think you don’t have, or however far from home and family and God you feel you have traveled, I testify that you have not traveled beyond the reach of divine love. It is not possible for you to sink lower than the infinite light of Christ’s Atonement shines."

[Heidi]

I'm glad you are content. The older I get, the more frustrated I become. In recent years I've come to accept myself for who I am. Who I am looks very little like the version of womanhood presented as desireable within the Church. My energy and my approach to life are much more "masculine." I denied my true nature for a long time and that was not healthy or happy. I did the Molly Mormon thing just like I was taught to do, but I did not find it to be fulfilling. I am very proud to be a woman, but my womanhood is not a meek, gentle, submissive, or deferential one. I wish I could be myself AND be supported by the Church in doing so. Pretending does not work anymore and I don't think God expects me to be someone I'm not so that I can meet the stereotype.

 

 

 

I enjoyed conference more this time than I have in the past. I heard things I needed hear, which was very comforting to me. Very few members have been at all understanding of the frustrations and doubts in experiencing. It's extremely lonely.

 

I knew a woman like the one you are describing as yourself. She was more on the masculine side, even though she had 8 kids and was the RS president when I met her. She was blunt, not feminine, not nurturing, just tell-it-as-it-is sort of peronality. Softness was not her.

 

I just moved into the area and knew only the ladies I visit taught. One was expecting a baby, so since I didn't know anyone I suggested in RS that we pass around a sign up sheet to bring her meals. RS president said, "No, we won't do that. She has 9 months to plan for this baby, she should be making and freezing meals for herself. If I (me) wanted her to have meals, ask people myself, but it would not be the RS's responsibility." I was offended and really didn't like her after that. Then I realized that she was right. It was not the RS's job to do silly/fun things for my sisters. If my sister has a NEED, then I would bring it to the president's attention. Oh, how I WISH we had more RS presidents like her!!! She later became one of my really good friends. She was not typical in her feminine role, but she magnified her calling, was true to herself, and did an amazing job as RS president.

 

I do not believe at all that the church is only for people who fit the stereotype. The gospel of Jesus Christ is for everyone and for all personalities. I hope you find your place.

[garddwr]

I'm glad you are content. The older I get, the more frustrated I become. In recent years I've come to accept myself for who I am. Who I am looks very little like the version of womanhood presented as desireable within the Church. My energy and my approach to life are much more "masculine." I denied my true nature for a long time and that was not healthy or happy. I did the Molly Mormon thing just like I was taught to do, but I did not find it to be fulfilling. I am very proud to be a woman, but my womanhood is not a meek, gentle, submissive, or deferential one. I wish I could be myself AND be supported by the Church in doing so. Pretending does not work anymore and I don't think God expects me to be someone I'm not so that I can meet the stereotype.

 

I found this post very interesting because, while I would say that the bolded phrases describe me as well, I have never felt not supported by the church, nor have I felt that I had to pretend to be something other than what I am. For most of my life I have been in situations where I was an outsider or outlier in one way or another, whether as an American in a foreign country, the only member of the LDS church in my school, or one of the 6 female cadets in BYU's Air Force ROTC corps--I feel comfortable having my decisions be between me and God and don't look to society to justify them. But a little support is nice, and since in my experience of society actually staying home and raising my own children is the one role that was not encouraged or supported (a girl could do anything she wanted but THAT), I'm very grateful to the church for affirming the value of that work! And I was and am drawn to motherhood and mothering, and believe that is a part of my intrinsic feminine nature.

There are qualities I need to work on--meekness and humility being among them--but those are qualities we are ALL commanded to cultivate, regardless of gender. I think there are times when all of us need to just focus more on the core of the gospel and what we can do to be better disciples of Christ, and not worry about a lot of other things.

 

--Sarah

[garddwr]

I remember that talk, however with my kids I didn't get to listen as carefully as I would have liked. He made a few parallels. First was to not envy:

 

"Obviously we suffer a little when some misfortune befalls us, but envy requires us to suffer all good fortune that befalls everyone we know!"

 

"So lesson number one from the Lord’s vineyard: coveting, pouting, or tearing others down does not elevate your standing, nor does demeaning someone else improve your self-image. So be kind, and be grateful that God is kind. It is a happy way to live."

 

Second, to let go of past grieviences:

 

"The formula of faith is to hold on, work on, see it through, and let the distress of earlier hours—real or imagined—fall away in the abundance of the final reward."

 

And lastly, about the grace of God:

 

"I do not know who in this vast audience today may need to hear the message of forgiveness inherent in this parable, but however late you think you are, however many chances you think you have missed, however many mistakes you feel you have made or talents you think you don’t have, or however far from home and family and God you feel you have traveled, I testify that you have not traveled beyond the reach of divine love. It is not possible for you to sink lower than the infinite light of Christ’s Atonement shines."

 

I enjoyed re-listening to it, and kept wishing my hands weren't busy so I could take notes. I loved when he said that the sin of envy was like swallowing pickle juice every time something good happened to someone else. And I loved the emphasis on how at the end of the day the reward of the grace of God was all that mattered, and whatever bad things had happened earlier would just not matter.

Sorry to have to paraphrase. I can't wait for the written transcriptions to be available!

 

--Sarah

[Xuzi]

I enjoyed re-listening to it, and kept wishing my hands weren't busy so I could take notes. I loved when he said that the sin of envy was like swallowing pickle juice every time something good happened to someone else. And I loved the emphasis on how at the end of the day the reward of the grace of God was all that mattered, and whatever bad things had happened earlier would just not matter.

Sorry to have to paraphrase. I can't wait for the written transcriptions to be available!

 

--Sarah

 

LDS.org says they'll be up tomorrow! :D I'll probably be able to participate more then, as I prefer to read the talks than watch them over again. :p

[MamaSheep]

I'm glad you are content. The older I get, the more frustrated I become. In recent years I've come to accept myself for who I am. Who I am looks very little like the version of womanhood presented as desireable within the Church. My energy and my approach to life are much more "masculine." I denied my true nature for a long time and that was not healthy or happy. I did the Molly Mormon thing just like I was taught to do, but I did not find it to be fulfilling. I am very proud to be a woman, but my womanhood is not a meek, gentle, submissive, or deferential one. I wish I could be myself AND be supported by the Church in doing so. Pretending does not work anymore and I don't think God expects me to be someone I'm not so that I can meet the stereotype.

 

 

 

I enjoyed conference more this time than I have in the past. I heard things I needed hear, which was very comforting to me. Very few members have been at all understanding of the frustrations and doubts in experiencing. It's extremely lonely.

 

Ok, I know I said I was moving on, but there isn't another thread on this topic (yet?) and I just had to respond to this because it made me think perhaps you and I are talking about different things. When I say things like "femininity" and "womanhood" I'm not talking about the "Molly Mormon" stereotype. There are lots of ways of being a woman, and I think we should all be proud of who we are. And although there certainly are PEOPLE in the church who are not supportive of that for cultural reasons, I find the actual DOCTRINE of the church, and many of the people in it, very open to variety amongst women. I'm sorry you have not found it so.

 

I like to think I'm gentle (but then, I am of the opinion that only strong people can be truly gentle), but I'm certainly not submissive, meek, or deferential (unless you call common courtesy "deferential", which I don't). I am definitely introverted, which is not really the same thing. I have strong opinions and am certainly not shy about spouting them off in church. And other places...lol. I hate cleaning (but have you noticed that it still has to get done whether you SAH or not?), I hate nylons. I do like baking bread and walking around barefoot in long skirts, but that's just a personal preference. Air circulation and all that...heh... And I don't think feminists should look down on me because I enjoy doing handwork. Of COURSE I don't think you should have to "pretend". You should be the kind of woman you are. And you shouldn't have to think of yourself as "masculine" or "genderless" or "unwomanly" to do it. The way you are IS womanly. And I say stand up and be proud of you.

 

And I also think that it's unwise and unfair to paint "masculinity" with the stereotype brush. There are lots of ways to be masculine, just as there are lots of ways to be feminine. A man can be VERY manly and be gentle, meek, nurturing, submissive, etc. Jesus, for example. In fact, the church encourages men to follow His example. A male who is domineering and demands that his wife be deferential toward him isn't a man, he's a bully. "Unrighteous dominion" and all that. (Although, unrighteous dominion can also be exercised by women, IMO.)

 

I think you and I object to the same stereotypes, I just don't think that eliminating gender distinction is the way to deal with them. I don't think the choice should be between the kind of stereotypical manhood and womanhood you're referring to on the one hand, and genderless society on the other. I think there needs to be a third option that includes honoring both sexes as distinctive, while celebrating the individual variations among both. I absolutely believe (as the church teaches!) that men and women are equal. I also agree with the church that equal isn't the same thing as identical. I don't think we should have to give up our sex in order to be "individuals". Stereotypes, sure. But not our sex. Not our pride in our sex. Not our respect for the other sex.

 

Also, although the ordinance of administering to the sick is done by the priesthood, but that in no way prevents a woman from praying for healing for herself or anyone else, and I've certainly seen enough examples of this in church history and in my own life to be firmly convinced that the Lord honors and answers such prayers. It's not as if there is no healing outside the priesthood. The priesthood ordinance is just ONE way of petitioning heaven.

 

And on another point that was raised, I was single a good bit longer than I would have chosen, and I've known about my fertility issues since I was 12. So yes, I know it's hard to be single, and it's hard to be infertile in the church. You know what? It's also hard to be married, and to be a mother. And it's REALLY hard to be a mother of a child with a disability. I would guess it's hard to be divorced or widowed too, though I haven't (yet?) experienced either of those situations. It's ALL hard. It's hard for different reasons, but it's ALL hard. That's why we ALL need to hang together. It doesn't help ANYONE if we sit around envying each other's life situations and pretending life would be "easier" if only we were [insert life situation here] (and believe me, as a married mom, there are days when I look around at the single working gals at church with jealousy and longing).

 

Ok...I think I'm done with my soapboxing. I'm going to go listen to that talk and load up the dishwasher. I don't think I can put it off any longer. Sigh.

[MamaSheep]

I found this post very interesting because, while I would say that the bolded phrases describe me as well, I have never felt not supported by the church, nor have I felt that I had to pretend to be something other than what I am. For most of my life I have been in situations where I was an outsider or outlier in one way or another, whether as an American in a foreign country, the only member of the LDS church in my school, or one of the 6 female cadets in BYU's Air Force ROTC corps--I feel comfortable having my decisions be between me and God and don't look to society to justify them. But a little support is nice, and since in my experience of society actually staying home and raising my own children is the one role that was not encouraged or supported (a girl could do anything she wanted but THAT), I'm very grateful to the church for affirming the value of that work! And I was and am drawn to motherhood and mothering, and believe that is a part of my intrinsic feminine nature.

There are qualities I need to work on--meekness and humility being among them--but those are qualities we are ALL commanded to cultivate, regardless of gender. I think there are times when all of us need to just focus more on the core of the gospel and what we can do to be better disciples of Christ, and not worry about a lot of other things.

 

--Sarah

 

Oh my gosh, you must've had the same high school guidance counselor I did...lol. "But you're so smart and talented and hardworking. You could be ANYTHING!"

 

(Yes. Yes I could. And this is what I CHOOSE to be. It's what I love. It's who I am. It's very freeing and fulfilling for me. Thanks. Not that I don't also value my college degree and work experience, by this is what I want.)

 

I know you weren't at my high school though. I'd have noticed another Mormon. I wasn't the only one, but you could count us on one hand.

 

 

[OKAY, OKAY, I'm going. Quit nagging. Sheesh. Did I mention I consider dishes and laundry to be the twin plagues of my existence? And yes, the kids and dh help. It's my turn. And I am the one who will suffer most if it doesn't get done...lol..]

Edited April 4, 2012 by MamaSheep

[cseitter]

Just wanted to say thanks for this thread. I have started an email group with my RS to do this exact same thing. We are discussing a talk a week and it should take us until the next conference to finish! :tongue_smilie:

 

I am in Primary and aren't able to attend Gospel Doctrine or RS. I feel I miss alot of discussion and learning on gospel subjects. I thought this was a wonderful way to connect with my sisters and get some discussion/learning in, as well.

 

Thanks again!

[MamaSheep]

See, you thought you got rid of me, but now I'm back. Mwahahaha! (Say...have you seen that video,

Not to be totally random...)

 

Ok, I don't know why, but I've had a really hard time getting my mind to focus on Elder Koelliker's talk. I don't know why. I couldn't remember anything about it from conference. I tried listening to it three times yesterday, and every time my brain would zone out after about the first two minutes, and then I'd find myself at the end with no clue what the man had talked about. That happened the first two times I listened today too. But when I finally sat down and made my brain focus, I REALLY LIKED what he had to say. I don't know why my mind kept skimming over it. Weird. Bleh.

 

So anyway, here are some snippets that stood out particularly for me (and again with the home-made transcription; this time I'm sure they'll punctuate the thing differently at the very least...sigh):

 

 

 

Awakening the desire to know enables our spiritual capacities to hear the voice of heaven. Finding a way to awaken and nurture that desire is the quest and responsibility of each of us—missionaries, parents, teachers, leaders, and members. As we feel that desire stirring in our hearts, we are prepared to benefit from the learning of this second scripture that I want to mention. In June of 1831, as calls were being extended to early church leaders, Joseph Smith was told that, “Satan is abroad in the land, and he goeth forth deceiving the nations.†To combat this distracting influence the Lord said that he would give us “a pattern in all things, that we may be not deceived.†Patterns are templates, guides, repeating steps, or a path one follows to stay aligned with God’s purpose. If followed, we will be kept humble, awake, and able to discern the voice of the Holy Spirit from those voices that distract us, and lead us away. The Lord then instructs us, “He that trembleth under my power shall be made strong, and shall bring forth fruits of praise and wisdom according to the revelations and truths I have given you. The blessing of humble prayer offered with real intent allows the Holy Spirit to touch our hearts and helps us remember what we knew before we were born into this mortal experience.

 

…

 

It is when we yield to His will and live His pattern that his Spirit is felt. The Savior taught, “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.†This principle of having love one to another and developing our ability to be Christ-centered in how we think, speak, and act, is fundamental in becoming disciples of Christ, and teachers of His gospel. Awakening this desire prepares us to look for the promised patterns. Seeking for the patterns leads us to the doctrine of Christ as taught by the Savior and His prophet-leaders.

 

…

 

What is the ultimate means by which we can enjoy the gift and power of the Holy Ghost? It is the power that comes by being faithful disciples of Jesus Christ. It is our love for Him and our fellow man. It is the Savior who defined this pattern of love when he taught us, “A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another as I have loved one another, that ye also love one another.â€

 

 

It put me in mind of Elder Holland's comments at a Worldwide Leadership Training Meeting a few years back. The theme of the meeting was families, so that's where he focuses, but I think the general --> specific concept applies to other aspects of what is taught in the church as well.

 

 

 

Let me use a parable that I hope can make this point, whatever your marital or family circumstance. For lack of a better title, I call it “The Parable of the Homemade Shirt.†My mother, bless her, was a marvelous seamstress. In my childhood years, when money was short and new clothing hard to come by, she would sometimes make clothing for us to wear to school. I would see a shirt in a store window or in a mail-order catalogue, and my mother would say, “I think I can make that.†By looking at the shirt as closely as she could, she would then cut cloth and put in seams to a degree that was close to the expensive original.

 

 

 

I pay her the tribute of being both willing and able to do that. But she didn’t like to do it that way. While she could study the commercial product and come close, what she really wanted was a pattern. A pattern helped her anticipate angles and corners and seams and stitches that were otherwise hard to recognize. Furthermore, if she went back for a second or a third shirt, she was always working from a perfect original pattern, not repeating or multiplying the imperfections of a replica.

 

 

 

I think you can see my point and hers. We are bound to be in trouble if a shirt is made from a shirt that was made from a shirt. A mistake or two in the first product—inevitable without a pattern—gets repeated and exaggerated, intensified, more awkward, the more repetitions we make, until finally this thing I’m to wear to school just doesn’t fit. One sleeve’s too long. The other’s too short. One shoulder seam runs down my chest. The other runs down my back. And the front collar button fastens behind my neck. I can tell you right now that such a look is not going to go over well in the seventh grade.

 

Now, I hope this helps you understand why we talk about the pattern, the ideal, of marriage and family when we know full well that not everyone now lives in that ideal circumstance. It is precisely because many don’t have, or perhaps have never even seen, that ideal and because some cultural forces steadily move us away from that ideal, that we speak about what our Father in Heaven wishes for us in His eternal plan for His children.

 

 

 

Individual adaptations have to be made as marital status and family circumstances differ. But all of us can agree on the pattern as it comes from God, and we can strive for its realization the best way we can.

 

 

 

We who are General Authorities and general officers are called to teach His general rules. You and we then lead specific lives and must seek the Lord’s guidance regarding specific circumstances. But there would be mass confusion and loss of gospel promises if no general ideal and no doctrinal standard were established and, in our case today, repeated. We take great strength in knowing the Lord has spoken on these matters, and we accept His counsel even when it might not be popular.

 

 

And also, I was listening to some talk or other on the BYU Speeches web site the other day--sorry I don't remember which one, I was just looking for something to listen to while I faced down the laundry. Anyway, the speaker was....I think some kind of engineer, but I forget...and he talked about how in manufacturing a template is used, and a margin of error is established such that a part that falls within the parameters is considered usable even if it's not perfect, but a part that falls outside the margin of error has to be scrapped because it increases the chance of mechanical failure too much. Then he talked about how you must always use the template as your standard, because if you manufacture parts based on an example that is only within the margin of error, you will get a much larger percentage of defective parts, and the error rate increases even more if you use one of those parts as your template. He also said that companies where the focus is on maintaining standards by focusing on not going outside the margin of error tend to produce more faulty parts than companies that focus on staying as close as possible to the template. And then, of course, he likened that to life, where we would do better to focus on the pattern set by the Savior than to focus on how close to the edge of "good" we can get without going over the line into "sin". That sort of thing. It was interesting to think about.

[Heidi]

MamaSheep,

 

Thanks for sharing the Parable of the Homemade Shirt. That is a perfect explanation of why the ideal family and way of life is upheld in the gospel even when the majority of us don't currently fit into that ideal. Even though that parable is about families, aren't we all commanded by God to be perfect individuals? I love how the gospel of Jesus Christ expects and encourages us to be better and to strive for the ideal.