LDS Moms ~ It's that time of year again!

[Murmer]

I too wish that the concentration on Mormon Mommyhood was toned down a little....as an infertile couple in the LDS world it is very, very, very difficult to have so much of the focus on stay at home mommyhood ect. I know that a lot of that is ward/area based but still hard. There were a couple of wards I was in when the only groups met during the day when I was working...and I was working to afford the opportunity to be a mommy. And I never realized how hard it would be to finally be the mommy and still have to work in order to pay of the process it took to be a mommy when EVERY OTHER young mommy was staying at home playing (ok not really but it felt like that). I know a lot of that is my own struggles but there is so much culturally in the church regarding mommyhood that anything less than Stay at home mommy can be very isolating. And don't get me started on the birthing babies being like the priesthood/closest to God stuff because then why would some very amazing spiritual woman never be given the opportunity even if they have been able to be married. Although I don't know how much of that is doctrine vs. cultural interpretation to doctrine.

 

ETA: Which is why I think the change in age is good because it helps to removes some of the cultural stigmas that have been attached to women. Showing they can CHOOSE which path is best for them rather than the appearance of falling into it by not being married by a certain point in time.

[Heidi]

welovetoread-

 

Im curious, I must have missed it, but what is your story? Are you investigating the church? A new member? I love your enthusiasm. What brought you to the church? Welcome!

[Heidi]

I also think it's important that there are Mormon feminists. I don't just want to think outside the box, I want the box to be bigger. So many of the LDS women I know around the world have a hard time fitting inside the stereotypical Mormon box even though they have a testimony of the gospel and faith in Jesus Christ. Our experiences and concerns are all so very different from each other.

 

:iagree:

[welovetoread]

Im curious, I must have missed it, but what is your story? Are you investigating the church? A new member? I love your enthusiasm. What brought you to the church? Welcome!

 

I am investigating, again. I did the first round of investigation when my now 14 year old was about 1 or 2. I just never took the jump. For years I've sat in a Protestant Church not "buying" all that is taught. I feel like I've been a closet Mormon for years. I can't tell you exactly why all of a sudden its been on my heart again. A week or so ago, I put a thread on WTM, asking LDS ladies to talk to me via pm or email. I've had some of the loveliest conversations and have learned so much. Turns out I hold a lot of the same beliefs that the LDS church does. I'm just trying to wrap my head around, pray and study Joseph Smith, the idea of a prophet in the church and a few other things.

[Veritaserum]

Interesting article. I also think its way cool for feminism women to be in the LDS church, again, another misconception I've held.

 

Oh, we are here, even after being told to be quiet or leave. ;) I love the gospel as presented in my church. I do not love every aspect of how the church is currently run. There is much room for improvement. :)

 

are there any podcasts that can be recommended? I'm always looking for new podcasts ;)

 

My current favorite podcast is this one:

 

http://feministmormonhousewivespodcast.org/

 

These women are smart, sensitive, and tackle the issues that have bothered me in a way that helps me stay in the church.

 

This episode was very moving and uplifting for me ("I Feel Unequal When"):

 

http://feministmormonhousewivespodcast.org/?p=145

[Veritaserum]

What comes across as "anger" or "negativity" is years of frustration and hurt turned into righteous indignation and a highly motivated desire to see things change before my daughters are old enough to be hurt, too.

 

I know that most LDS women accept the role the church has assigned for them cheerfully and peacefully. I was one of those for awhile. I, too, was uncomfortable and confused when anyone would say LDS women don't have equality in the church. However, the more I thought about it, the more inequality I saw. :(

 

I also think it's important that there are Mormon feminists. I don't just want to think outside the box, I want the box to be bigger. So many of the LDS women I know around the world have a hard time fitting inside the stereotypical Mormon box even though they have a testimony of the gospel and faith in Jesus Christ. Our experiences and concerns are all so very different from each other.

 

Yes, thank you. :) Especially as a global church, I find the emphasis on Stay at Home Motherhood to be incredibly insensitive.

 

I too wish that the concentration on Mormon Mommyhood was toned down a little....as an infertile couple in the LDS world it is very, very, very difficult to have so much of the focus on stay at home mommyhood ect. I know that a lot of that is ward/area based but still hard. There were a couple of wards I was in when the only groups met during the day when I was working...and I was working to afford the opportunity to be a mommy. And I never realized how hard it would be to finally be the mommy and still have to work in order to pay of the process it took to be a mommy when EVERY OTHER young mommy was staying at home playing (ok not really but it felt like that). I know a lot of that is my own struggles but there is so much culturally in the church regarding mommyhood that anything less than Stay at home mommy can be very isolating. And don't get me started on the birthing babies being like the priesthood/closest to God stuff because then why would some very amazing spiritual woman never be given the opportunity even if they have been able to be married. Although I don't know how much of that is doctrine vs. cultural interpretation to doctrine.

 

ETA: Which is why I think the change in age is good because it helps to removes some of the cultural stigmas that have been attached to women. Showing they can CHOOSE which path is best for them rather than the appearance of falling into it by not being married by a certain point in time.

 

:grouphug:

[Heidi]

I am investigating, again. I did the first round of investigation when my now 14 year old was about 1 or 2. I just never took the jump. For years I've sat in a Protestant Church not "buying" all that is taught. I feel like I've been a closet Mormon for years. I can't tell you exactly why all of a sudden its been on my heart again. A week or so ago, I put a thread on WTM, asking LDS ladies to talk to me via pm or email. I've had some of the loveliest conversations and have learned so much. Turns out I hold a lot of the same beliefs that the LDS church does. I'm just trying to wrap my head around, pray and study Joseph Smith, the idea of a prophet in the church and a few other things.

 

That's awesome! My best friend is in the exact same spot you are. If you want to know the church is true, if Joseph Smith was a prophet, etc... read the Book of Mormon! :tongue_smilie: My bf loves the church and everything it teaches, is quite involved, comes every Sunday and to all the activities, most people think she is a member... yet she doesn't KNOW it is true because she won't read the Book of Mormon, and won't get baptized because she simply doesn't know everything yet. She's going about it backwards. *sigh* Just read and pray. It is a powerful and true book. My testimony of the church as an organization is built on my testimony of the Book of Mormon. If it is true, then everything else is. I'm still gaining a testimony of the details, but what keeps me anchored is my testimony of the Book of Mormon. It is the best starting point.

Thanks for sharing, and again, welcome!:D

[blondeviolin]

The negative social ramifications of not serving when a young man has no obvious reason not to are clearly there. There is a lot of pressure to go, whether or not a young man feels that it is what is best for him. If he doesn't go, people tend to wonder why and make erroneous assumptions about his worthiness to serve. I've seen it happen. It shouldn't, but it does.

 

 

 

It's nice for you that you have never felt limited. Your experiences are not mine. :) If anyone is curious about why I and many other active LDS women feel unequal in the church, this is a decent summary:

 

http://www.ldswave.org/?p=402

 

The article is indeed interesting. I'll throw my voice in that I'm not one to feel unequal in the church in the slightest. I'm sure many here have worked as auxiliary heads and know what goes on in the "business" portion of a functioning ward...or at least part of it.

 

I believe there is a REASON that men who are not married do not serve in bishoprics. Being married to someone who is dealing as a Primary or Relief Society president gives your spouse a GREAT understanding with the difficulties and issues and importance that lies within that auxiliary and its functioning. Obviously, he has know way of knowing the details, but he is aware of his wife's struggle, concerns, testimony, etc.

 

I'm in a very unique position as primary president in my ward where this is strongly illustrated. The bishopric counselor that I work with is very active in our ward. Unfortunately, though, his wife is very staunchly anti-Mormon. (This is a very, very rare thing indeed.) Because he's never had a wife serve in positions like these he's unaware of struggles, frustrations, victories, etc. For all intents and purposes, I am having to "school" him on some of these things. It takes a lot of patience and delicacy. Whereas, the other counselor in our bishopric has a wife who is very active and has served as many auxiliary heads. His experience watching her serve has definitely colored his experiences and he is a better advocate for those he works for.

 

I actually bristle a bit at the notion that I can only resolve issues through the bishopric counselor that I work with. I've had a few issues where things weren't taken care of. After supplication with the Lord and many concerns, I've met with both my bishop AND my Stake Primary President. Don't discount the influence stake auxiliary heads have with their Stake President.

 

Also, men and women can be sealed to more than one man. Check out this Member's Guide to Temple and Family History Work.

 

Ultimately, while there are a few things that I can't dispute in the article, they still don't give me offense.

 

God's design is that our families are the basic unit of society, in and out of the church. Our experiences in our families will color and change how we handle certain experiences. Ultimately, good marriage and family life can keep things equal. Unfortunately, though, the people that work in wards and stakes are not perfect. For this purpose, as women serve and work in the church, we cannot let ourselves be run over. There are other avenues to correct misstep in those areas.

 

BUT...that's just my personal opinion. I know that there is a faction of the LDS population that align themselves with this article. I respect their right to feel this way and understand that these are sensitive feelings. In many ways, I feel as though there isn't much time either way before the Lord himself corrects any issues with how the church is operated. :grouphug:

[blondeviolin]

That's awesome! My best friend is in the exact same spot you are. If you want to know the church is true, if Joseph Smith was a prophet, etc... read the Book of Mormon! :tongue_smilie: My bf loves the church and everything it teaches, is quite involved, comes every Sunday and to all the activities, most people think she is a member... yet she doesn't KNOW it is true because she won't read the Book of Mormon, and won't get baptized because she simply doesn't know everything yet. She's going about it backwards. *sigh* Just read and pray. It is a powerful and true book. My testimony of the church as an organization is built on my testimony of the Book of Mormon. If it is true, then everything else is. I'm still gaining a testimony of the details, but what keeps me anchored is my testimony of the Book of Mormon. It is the best starting point.

Thanks for sharing, and again, welcome!:D

 

You know, Brigham Young himself took TWO YEARS to get baptized. I don't know that I'd say that he went about it backwards. :tongue_smilie:

 

I agree that if you have a testimony that the Book of Mormon is true, everything else falls upon that. It is truly the keystone of our religion. :D

[Xuzi]

Well, the whole married bishop thing also comes from scripture. ;) (I'm on my way out the door right now, or I'd look up the reference, but I'm about 99.8% sure it's in the NT)

[LittleIzumi]

Interesting article. I also think its way cool for feminism women to be in the LDS church, again, another misconception I've held.

 

I have another dear friend who is a hardcare LDS liberal feminist. She lives in Oakland now and is much happier there, and goes on marches and such for various causes she believes in. I think it's fantastic for her. I'm personally quite happy being an educated liberal head of my household with many years of experience as the top or co-wage earner with zero stigma whatsoever, and with my plans to work as a ND or CPM when the kids are older. I don't particularly want to be a bishop. :lol: But it is fantastic that people of all opinions are here in the church together!

 

I too wish that the concentration on Mormon Mommyhood was toned down a little....as an infertile couple in the LDS world it is very, very, very difficult to have so much of the focus on stay at home mommyhood ect. I know that a lot of that is ward/area based but still hard. There were a couple of wards I was in when the only groups met during the day when I was working...and I was working to afford the opportunity to be a mommy. And I never realized how hard it would be to finally be the mommy and still have to work in order to pay of the process it took to be a mommy when EVERY OTHER young mommy was staying at home playing (ok not really but it felt like that). I know a lot of that is my own struggles but there is so much culturally in the church regarding mommyhood that anything less than Stay at home mommy can be very isolating. And don't get me started on the birthing babies being like the priesthood/closest to God stuff because then why would some very amazing spiritual woman never be given the opportunity even if they have been able to be married. Although I don't know how much of that is doctrine vs. cultural interpretation to doctrine.

 

ETA: Which is why I think the change in age is good because it helps to removes some of the cultural stigmas that have been attached to women. Showing they can CHOOSE which path is best for them rather than the appearance of falling into it by not being married by a certain point in time.

 

:grouphug::grouphug: I know hubby felt awful about not being married at 25 or 26, which seems crazy but it's just the cultural expectation, not a commandment or obligation. He took it hard though, being in Utah at the time. I'm sure it's really hard having the assumption that you'll have lots of children if you can't or choose not to, as well. :grouphug::grouphug: Oddly enough there are a TON of childless, single, and divorced women in our ward now, including in the RS Presidency. In fact, at least half of them. So we have a different dynamic in our ward. :grouphug::grouphug: And I had the opposite problem--the wards kept having activities and girls' nights in the evening when I was working second shift for years and years. We can't win sometimes. :tongue_smilie:

[Xuzi]

Elder Cook's "LDS Women Are Incredible" talk from last year mentions that women are more religious than men. That talk is a prime example of benevolent patriarchy. I'm not a fan. ;)

 

Well, I actually think there have been several studies saying that women, in general, are more spiritual than men. When I disagree is when "...and that's why women don't have the Priesthood" is tacked on. :tongue_smilie:

[Heidi]

You know, Brigham Young himself took TWO YEARS to get baptized. I don't know that I'd say that he went about it backwards. :tongue_smilie:

 

 

Well, sheesh, what was HIS problem??? ;)j/k

[nrg]

While waiting for a prescription to be filled, I read all of Book of Mormon Girl in Target last week. Her journey is much like mine and this book would be a good read for the posters above.

[Veritaserum]

While waiting for a prescription to be filled, I read all of Book of Mormon Girl in Target last week. Her journey is much like mine and this book would be a good read for the posters above.

 

I love Joanna Brooks. :001_wub:

[welovetoread]

Why won't your friend read the book of Mormon?

 

C

 

How does the LDS church see the sabbath? Do any of you have a sabbath day at your house?

[Xuzi]

Why won't your friend read the book of Mormon?

 

C

 

How does the LDS church see the sabbath? Do any of you have a sabbath day at your house?

 

We follow the commandment to "keep the Sabbath Holy". How that looks will vary from family to family, but the general council from the church is: avoid work, if possible (exceptions made of course for hospital and emergency personnel, and others who have careers that require Sunday work, but if it's possible to abstain you should), and try to fill your time with things that will rejuvenate the Spirit for the upcoming week. Things like: scripture study, spending time with family, visiting persons who may be in the hospital or alone at home, abstaining from "wordly" activities like shopping, watching TV, heavy chores, or just treating Sunday like it was just any other day of the week.

 

Some families are more or less strict about it. My family watched TV, because my brother LOVED sports. At my childhood friends' house though they wouldn't even do laundry on the Sabbath. You'll see a lot of variance in the application of "keeping the Sabbath Holy" among the LDS.

[blondeviolin]

We follow the commandment to "keep the Sabbath Holy". How that looks will vary from family to family, but the general council from the church is: avoid work, if possible (exceptions made of course for hospital and emergency personnel, and others who have careers that require Sunday work, but if it's possible to abstain you should), and try to fill your time with things that will rejuvenate the Spirit for the upcoming week. Things like: scripture study, spending time with family, visiting persons who may be in the hospital or alone at home, abstaining from "wordly" activities like shopping, watching TV, heavy chores, or just treating Sunday like it was just any other day of the week.

 

Some families are more or less strict about it. My family watched TV, because my brother LOVED sports. At my childhood friends' house though they wouldn't even do laundry on the Sabbath. You'll see a lot of variance in the application of "keeping the Sabbath Holy" among the LDS.

 

At our house, the Sabbath means we don't frequent businesses, we don't play outside, we spend time together as a family, we introduce the next week's scripture theme, we work on some primary stuff if necessary.

[LittleIzumi]

We follow the commandment to "keep the Sabbath Holy". How that looks will vary from family to family, but the general council from the church is: avoid work, if possible (exceptions made of course for hospital and emergency personnel, and others who have careers that require Sunday work, but if it's possible to abstain you should), and try to fill your time with things that will rejuvenate the Spirit for the upcoming week. Things like: scripture study, spending time with family, visiting persons who may be in the hospital or alone at home, abstaining from "wordly" activities like shopping, watching TV, heavy chores, or just treating Sunday like it was just any other day of the week.

 

Some families are more or less strict about it. My family watched TV, because my brother LOVED sports. At my childhood friends' house though they wouldn't even do laundry on the Sabbath. You'll see a lot of variance in the application of "keeping the Sabbath Holy" among the LDS.

 

:iagree: At our house we only watch either scripture-related shows (scripture stories, VeggieTales) or documentaries about the world God designed for us. We also often go for walks or to a park as a family, and often invite a single friend to join us for dinner. And I try to have hymns or classical music playing in the background to help keep the proper spirit. No visiting businesses unless it's an emergency, like medicine for a sick person. I've had to work on Sundays before and it never felt the same as a focused Sabbath. Also, where I worked then was seriously only open on Sundays due to one large purchase during that day. We would juuuust barely have enough business to justify staying open. Eventually it closed on Sunday, which was a relief. No one who was drafted for Sunday duty wanted to be there, lol.

Edited October 13, 2012 by LittleIzumi

[Heidi]

Why won't your friend read the book of Mormon?

 

 

I don't think she has ever read scriptures before, so the language is difficult for her. She has never been active in any church before now. I don't think she fully realizes the importance of scripture reading. She wants the quick and easy version of the gospel. These are all just my guesses from our conversations.

[garddwr]

Well, I actually think there have been several studies saying that women, in general, are more spiritual than men. When I disagree is when "...and that's why women don't have the Priesthood" is tacked on. :tongue_smilie:

 

Yep, we get into trouble when we decide we know exactly why God has arranged things a certain way when he hasn't actually told us. Human reason isn't perfect.

 

I've been thinking about this discussion over the last couple of days but life has been crazy busy and I haven't had time to jump in. Let's see if I can outline some thoughts before the baby wakes up:D

 

Disclaimer: what follows is not doctrine, it is merely my personal musings and speculations.

 

I'm thinking there are a few things that are core doctrine with eternal ramifications that form the basic foundation of the church--then there are a lot of things that are temporal and sometimes merely cultural. The eternal things I can think of are the basic doctrine of the atonement, the principles of faith, repentance, forgiveness, and love (charity), the ordinances of salvation, the principle of priesthood power (not, I think, limited to men), and family sealing.

Most everything else is I think temporal/temporary/subject to change as needed. The church functions among imperfect people in an imperfect world, and while I find the structures and functions of the church to be exceptionally effective, I do not think or expect them to be perfect. I do believe the church is guided by revelation.

 

I personally find the organization of a universal male lay priesthood to be a very effective way of recruiting and retaining active involment among men in the church. I have lived in six different countries, with wide variations in culture, economics, etc. My own observations have been that, universally in the places I have lived, it is the women who are predominantly drawn to active religious participation--women are more likely to talk to the missionaries, more likely to join the church, and more likely to stay active. I have been in non-LDS churches where services were attended almost exclusively by women--this was particularly true in the more developed nations. LDS services in areas where the church was well established were an interesting contrast--there were still typically more women than men, but the ratios were much closer to equal. It appears to me that by ordaining men to the priesthood and presenting them with a large number of callings and responsibilities which can only be fulfilled by a priesthood holder, men are being called to step up to the plate and become fully engaged--and they are rising to that challenge! Is this the reason that men are given the priesthood and so many responsibilities in the church? I don't know. But the results of such a policy seem overwhelmingly positive to me.

 

I think that as the church has grown internationally it has become harder for a single set of policies to meet the needs of all members and congregations. I believe the trend is towards simpler policies and programs with room for adaptations as needed at the local level. Certainly there has been a streamlining of instructional manuals and materials with a greater focus on core gospel principles. In addition, the underlying principle of revelation will continue to be the guiding compass at every level--revelation for the church as a whole coming from the president of the church, revelation for individual stakes, wards, branches, quorums, primaries, etc. coming through their respective leaders, and revelation for families and individuals coming to those persons.

 

In matters other than core doctrines, advice or counsel from the church may at times be overriden by personal revelation. We have discussed the need for prospective missionaries to seek guidance directly from the Lord regarding serving a mission. That principle applies equally to all areas of our lives. An example might be the church's advice that fathers have the primary responsibility to provide for their families and that mothers have primary resonsibility to nurture their children. I think this is good advice that can be applied to most intact families--but some families may find their circumstances and needs to be different. I had a female friend some years ago who was a career officer in the Air Force and a faithful member of the church. This family had several children, and took the counsel of the church seriously and prayed fervently for guidance to know whether the mother should leave her career to stay home with her children--somewhat to their surprise, both parents received a strong impression that she should stay in the Air Force. They were able to move forward in the direction they felt inspired in all confidence that they were following the Lord's specific guidance for their lives in spite of the fact that it was different from the general guidance of the church.

 

The fact that personal revelation is available and necessary does not, I think, undermine the value of general guidance from church leaders. I remember a quote from a conference talk some years ago (paraphrased since my memory is inexact) "let us first take care of the rule, then we will consider the exception". There are exceptions to most rules, but that does not invalidate the rule. In my own life, I have been very grateful for the church's unwavering support for mothers staying home with their children--grateful because that is very much where I feel called to be, but almost every other voice in my life has ridiculed such a choice. There is immense cultural pressure (except perhaps within fairly homogenous LDS or certain other religious communities) for women to go out and do something more important. Around the same time my friend was facing the decision to stay in or leave the Air Force, I was in a similar situation--expecting my first child and deciding whether I would leave my career to stay home. After careful consideration and prayer, my husband and I decided that I was supposed to be home with our child. My superior officer basically told me I was crazy to drop my career and that I was ruining my life by acting on blind faith. I am immensely grateful to the church for its consistent championing of motherhood in a society that greatly downplays the contributions of a mother at home. I am grateful for the encouragement and validation it offers me and other mothers in what is always a challenging job, and for reminding the men in our lives that this work is significant and important.

 

There is no way for the church to address every individual need and circumstance through a general rule--but this fact does not invalidate the general counsel. I think it is up to us as members to be wise enough seek personal revelation for our individual needs, and to not cast judgment on the choices of others when they appear to conflict with our own or with the general counsel (not basic doctrine) of the church. A tall order, I know!

Edited October 13, 2012 by thegardener

[garddwr]

By the way, since the topic of diversity of opinion within the LDS church has come up, did any of you read this article about Marlin K. Jensen (just released as church historian and recorder)? I thought it was a very nice tribute.

[Xuzi]

By the way, since the topic of diversity of opinion within the LDS church has come up, did any of you read this article about Marlin K. Jensen (just released as church historian and recorder)? I thought it was a very nice tribute.

 

I did! I was excited to see he's a Democrat! :D I knew there was a reason I liked him. ;) I'll miss hearing his talks in General Conference.

[welovetoread]

Family Sealing?

[MamaSheep]

Yep, we get into trouble when we decide we know exactly why God has arranged things a certain way when he hasn't actually told us. Human reason isn't perfect....

Thank you for posting your thoughts. I've been thinking about this discussion too, but have had my hands too full to participate (rainy day at the zoo yesterday--nice and cool and no crowds, just the way I like it).

 

I agree with everything you have said in this post wholeheartedly. (I'd have quoted the whole thing, but am trying to save space. :) )

 

I think I'll try to add a few thoughts to the discussion myself, and hope that I won't be too clumsy in doing so today. And I think I should also include a disclaimer that this is how I, personally, view these things, it's not doctrine, and nobody has to agree with me.

 

It rubs me a little wrong when I hear women say they want this or that to be for them exactly like it is for the men. For one thing, as has been pointed out by others, men and women are different from each other--physiologically, psychologically, and spiritually different. One is not superior to the other, they're just different. Woman is a wondrous, magnificent creation in her own right, as she is. I mean no disrespect to men, but I think it demeans a woman (and distorts manhood) to reduce herself to trailing along after men trying to pick up crumbs of what she thinks men are, or have, or do, so that she can imitate them and be more like the men are. A woman is not just some cheap copy of a man. A woman is a regal thing all her own. A man is a pretty darn cool thing too. They're just not the "same" awesome thing. Similar in many ways, yes. Imminently compatible, yes. But not "the same". Much of our society tries to convince women that in order to be equal in value to men, she must become more identical to men, and that the more like a man she is, the more value she has--as if men were the pinnacle of humankind and the yardstick by which lesser beings like women must measure themselves. I think that's hogwash. Other portions of our society want to convince us that it's the other way around--that men must be convinced, or conditioned, or coerced into becoming more like women, and that women are the ultimate ideal of humankind. I think that's equally hogwash. I love that the church recognizes the unique, intrinsic value of a woman AS a woman. I also love that the church values men as men. I love that in the church it's about cooperation, not competition between the two. (And I'm not talking about cheap 1950s stereotypes of "women's work" and "men's work either. Please nobody go there. The essence of femininity doesn't revolve around housework or handicrafts, and I think we're all grown-up enough not to pretend it does.)

 

I'm not quite sure how to explain my views on this next bit; I'm going to try, but hope for a little patience from readers with my inadequacy at communicating my thoughts.

 

To me, the fact that the power of women is not organized or regulated in the exact same way that the priesthood given to men is organized and regulated, does not in any way mitigate or eliminate the very real power exercised by women in the church. In fact, I think the opposite is true. The thing is, I don't see the women's organizational structures (such as the Relief Society presidencies at the various levels of the church) as being the sole expression of female power in the church. I also don't see their connection with the male priesthood as being the "source" of women's power in the church. Rather, I see the power wielded by women as a very free-form, organic thing that is theirs directly from God. It's not "the female equivalent of the priesthood", it is its own thing, in its own right, with its own qualities that are different in some ways from the power wielded by men through the priesthood, just like women are different in some ways from men. It doesn't derive its value from how nearly identical to priesthood it is any more than a woman derives her value from how nearly identical to a man she is. I view organizational structures like the Relief Society presidency as a pragmatic interface between womanhood and the priesthood. It's how efforts between the masculine power and the feminine power are coordinated. I think that some women in the church are very focused on comparing easily visible external features of feminine and masculine power in the church, such as titles and positions, and don't necessarily see, or exert, the deeper, more substantial aspects of feminine power which are more subtle, less clearly delineated, and harder to attach labels to, but which are nonetheless very, very real. In my opinion, imposing a "priesthood-like" regulatory structure on feminine power in the church would in many ways bind feminine power and make it less than it is. One of the "freedoms" I find as a woman in the church is that my ability to operate is not hampered by hierarchical structures and regulations in the same way a man's is. (Although I think the regulatory structure has a different effect on men's power, and in fact serves to empower and focus them. I just don't think it would work the same for women. Kind of like a string on a kite helps keep it aloft, but a string on a bird imprisons it. Although that analogy has flaws too, so don't look at it too closely. Analogies can be clumsy things.)

 

I have some thoughts to share on motherhood as well, but will have to come back later for that, as I'm out of typing time at present. Thanks for the thought-provoking discussion. :)

[Veritaserum]

For me it comes down to choosing one of the following:

 

1. God is sexist and deliberately puts men over women.

2. God is egalitarian, but puts the men in charge because the men won't follow Him otherwise.

3. God is egalitarian, but humans are fallible. Sexist men subjugate women and say God told them to.

 

I reject number 1 because I'd rather no God than a sexist one.

 

I reject number 2 because it's ridiculous to think that men are that weak. It would be like God inviting men and women to a birthday party, but only letting the men have full slices of cake and telling the women that they should be satisfied with any leftover crumbs because the men wouldn't have come without the promise of full slices.

 

That leaves me with number 3. Knowing that Joseph Smith gave the priesthood to women as well as to people of color confirms this view for me. Leaders after Joseph Smith took the power away. Men of color finally had it returned to them in 1978. Women are still waiting while being placated with varying complimentary reasons why women don't need it and men do.

[Veritaserum]

The Relief Society used to be autonomous. Women had complete control and complete authority over their ministry. Women ministered to women and their children by offering blessings via the laying on of hands. That is how it was under Joseph Smith.

 

Now the Relief Society is subject to priesthood authority (men). While women control the day-to-day operations, the presiding priesthood leader can at any time veto or dictate certain actions of the Relief Society president.

 

I would love to experience the Relief Society as it was originally established.

[garddwr]

Family Sealing?

 

We believe that family relationships are meant to endure beyond the grave, that husbands and wives may be sealed--have their union sanctified not only for their time here on earth but for eternity--and that children may likewise be sealed to their parents in an enduring family relationship. These sealing ordinances are performed in temples, as are the baptisms for the dead discussed earlier.

 

Here is a link with more information (from a Sunday School lesson manual).

[MamaSheep]

For me it comes down to choosing one of the following:

 

1. God is sexist and deliberately puts men over women.

2. God is egalitarian, but puts the men in charge because the men won't follow Him otherwise.

3. God is egalitarian, but humans are fallible. Sexist men subjugate women and say God told them to.

 

I reject number 1 because I'd rather no God than a sexist one.

 

I reject number 2 because it's ridiculous to think that men are that weak. It would be like God inviting men and women to a birthday party, but only letting the men have full slices of cake and telling the women that they should be satisfied with any leftover crumbs because the men wouldn't have come without the promise of full slices.

 

That leaves me with number 3. Knowing that Joseph Smith gave the priesthood to women as well as to people of color confirms this view for me. Leaders after Joseph Smith took the power away. Men of color finally had it returned to them in 1978. Women are still waiting while being placated with varying complimentary reasons why women don't need it and men do.

 

I would like to gently suggest that the fact that you can only think of three options does not mean that there are not other options you have not yet thought to consider.

 

I am not convinced that Joseph Smith ordained any women to the priesthood in the sense that men are ordained to the priesthood. All references I've seen used to justify this assertion seem to me to be talking about other things, such as setting a woman apart for a calling, temple initiations and endowments, eternal marriage, and the joint exercise of priesthood by husband and wife. I do, however, believe that Joseph Smith acknowledged that women have an innate connection with the powers of heaven such as I have referred to.

 

The Relief Society used to be autonomous. Women had complete control and complete authority over their ministry. Women ministered to women and their children by offering blessings via the laying on of hands. That is how it was under Joseph Smith.

 

Now the Relief Society is subject to priesthood authority (men). While women control the day-to-day operations, the presiding priesthood leader can at any time veto or dictate certain actions of the Relief Society president.

 

I would love to experience the Relief Society as it was originally established.

 

Women still "minister" to women regularly in many ways, and still call down the blessings of heaven for women and children (and men). That they do it differently from men, for whom there is a specific priesthood ritual to these things, does not in any way make a woman's prayers any less effective than a priesthood blessing.

 

And I prefer the interdependence of women and men in the church over independent autonomy just as much as I prefer a healthy, respectful interdependence of myself and my husband in marriage over the independent autonomy I experienced before marriage. I think it enlivens and enriches both the men and the women and creates opportunities that otherwise would not exist.

 

I think one aspect of this topic that has been neglected somewhat in this discussion is that priesthood is not considered, in the LDS church, to be power to dominate others, but is rather viewed as power to serve others. In fact, the scriptures specifically forbid men from exercising control, dominion, or compulsion upon ANY of the children of men, explaining that whenever a man does so he is separated from the powers of heaven and his priesthood becomes null. The only power it is appropriate for him to exert on others, should he wish to retain the power and authority of his priesthood, is that of gentle persuasion, kindness, meekness, and love. I've been in Relief Society presidencies several times at both the stake and the ward level and have never known the priesthood leaders to be anything but supportive, cooperative, and helpful with regards to anything the Relief Society wanted to do. Generally speaking (though I do understand that there are individual exceptions) the men seem to regard their role as being that of making sure as much as they are able that the Relief Society has all the resources it needs in order to achieve the women's goals.

 

It seems that this is something that you and I view very differently, and I suspect that an internet discussion will not change either of our minds. :)

[meggie]

In Joseph Smith's day, women were also baptized for men and vice versa (for the dead). Women were sealed to men that were not their husbands (even though their husbands were still living), children were sealed to people not their parents (even though their parents were still living and active members), temple ordinances were performed on the mountain, not many records were kept, so it made quite the mess. Children were whipped to keep them in line. So just because Joseph Smith set it up that way, I don't think everything needs to stay that way. And I know you didn't say that, but to me it seems the church organization was something of a mess and as the time has passed it has acquired more order.

 

The Relief Society being "under the authority" of the men isn't because men need to subjugate everyone under them. Weren't Primary and YM/YW also at one point considered autonomous? I can imagine how having everything follow the chain of command makes for a more organized system. That way if someone does something wonky in your organization, you take it to the one in charge of the whole group (Bishop). If your Bishop is doing something wonky in the ward, you take it to the SP. And so on. I'm thinking it made for a lot less bureaucracy and infighting amongst members.

 

Also, think of how many splinter groups there are. FLDS and RLDS are only the two biggest ones. There were dozens if not hundreds of others. So I personally dislike it when people say, "You need to have a testimony of Joseph Smith and the BOM." It's somewhat inaccurate. Yes you do need that testimony. But you also need a testimony that Brigham Young was a true prophet (there go the RLDS), you need a testimony that all the rest were a true prophet (there go the FLDS), all the way down to President Monson. Right, back to the splinter groups; there were a bunch. The priesthood, IMO, is organized in such a way as to keep people from knowing which group is the one they should be following; the one splintering off or the one who stays with the main body of the church.

 

To me it's also possible that God set it up that way because women were just too busy dealing with their lives. Back then (territorial Utah) I think there were a lot less single Mormon women because of polygamy and because they had fewer options. So most of them had a lot of children, plus the responsibility of feeding and clothing them. And when you had to raise most of your own food, butcher most of your own animals, wash and sew clothes by hand, keep those young children alive (always a hard thing for a mother of any two year old), and stay up on your own spiritual progression and that of your children? I can imagine some women would have exploded if they were also told that they also had to worry about the welfare of their neighbors too. Don't you think it's possible that if they were given that responsibility as well, they might have just screamed about the men were being sexist and lazy and wanting the women to do it all? Especially if her husband did have wives that he lived with other parts of the year and she were on her own for extended periods of time.

 

To me, it's no different than Tim Gunn pulling a name out of the button bag and saying, "You're in charge of this group project. You really have no other qualifications over anyone else, but I'm putting you in charge. You need to make this work and if it goes wrong, the judges will sure want to know why." To me, there is a TON of work that needs to be done in the Church, no one is more special than anyone else, but it needs to be organized in a way that can get it done. In if you've seen the 10 diva designers battling it out as to why they should be in charge, it makes sense why 14.5 million church members don't get an equal say in how things are run. It's just too ineffective.

[PIE!]

I would like to gently suggest that the fact that you can only think of three options does not mean that there are not other options you have not yet thought to consider.

 

I am not convinced that Joseph Smith ordained any women to the priesthood in the sense that men are ordained to the priesthood. All references I've seen used to justify this assertion seem to me to be talking about other things, such as setting a woman apart for a calling, temple initiations and endowments, eternal marriage, and the joint exercise of priesthood by husband and wife. I do, however, believe that Joseph Smith acknowledged that women have an innate connection with the powers of heaven such as I have referred to.

 

 

 

Women still "minister" to women regularly in many ways, and still call down the blessings of heaven for women and children (and men). That they do it differently from men, for whom there is a specific priesthood ritual to these things, does not in any way make a woman's prayers any less effective than a priesthood blessing.

 

And I prefer the interdependence of women and men in the church over independent autonomy just as much as I prefer a healthy, respectful interdependence of myself and my husband in marriage over the independent autonomy I experienced before marriage. I think it enlivens and enriches both the men and the women and creates opportunities that otherwise would not exist.

 

I think one aspect of this topic that has been neglected somewhat in this discussion is that priesthood is not considered, in the LDS church, to be power to dominate others, but is rather viewed as power to serve others. In fact, the scriptures specifically forbid men from exercising control, dominion, or compulsion upon ANY of the children of men, explaining that whenever a man does so he is separated from the powers of heaven and his priesthood becomes null. The only power it is appropriate for him to exert on others, should he wish to retain the power and authority of his priesthood, is that of gentle persuasion, kindness, meekness, and love. I've been in Relief Society presidencies several times at both the stake and the ward level and have never known the priesthood leaders to be anything but supportive, cooperative, and helpful with regards to anything the Relief Society wanted to do. Generally speaking (though I do understand that there are individual exceptions) the men seem to regard their role as being that of making sure as much as they are able that the Relief Society has all the resources it needs in order to achieve the women's goals.

 

It seems that this is something that you and I view very differently, and I suspect that an internet discussion will not change either of our minds. :)

 

:iagree:

 

All this discussion has made me look into things that I otherwise took for granted. I've since read quite a few arguments about women holding the priesthood, and I just don't see it. The arguments just aren't strong enough to convince me.

 

Personally - I don't want the priesthood. That'd just be one more responsibility that I could happily do without. And I've never felt that those with the priesthood are somehow more important or have a greater roll in the church.

 

But I have also realized that there is a lot about church history I don't know, and I think I'm going to start studying it more. Thanks both of you for the interesting discussion!

[Xuzi]

:iagree:

 

All this discussion has made me look into things that I otherwise took for granted. I've since read quite a few arguments about women holding the priesthood, and I just don't see it. The arguments just aren't strong enough to convince me.

 

Personally - I don't want the priesthood. That'd just be one more responsibility that I could happily do without. And I've never felt that those with the priesthood are somehow more important or have a greater roll in the church.

 

But I have also realized that there is a lot about church history I don't know, and I think I'm going to start studying it more. Thanks both of you for the interesting discussion!

I found Rough Stone Rolling to be highly informative about the Joseph Smith years. :) It's a BIG book though, so not a light read!:lol:

[PIE!]

I found Rough Stone Rolling to be highly informative about the Joseph Smith years. :) It's a BIG book though, so not a light read!:lol:

 

I read that one a few years ago, so I thought I was all set on early church history. :001_smile: Excellent book!

 

I've read a couple of others too like Massacre at Mountain Meadows (another great controversial church history book).

 

But it's been a while, and I think I need to re-read some, and find a few new ones too.

[LittleIzumi]

I personally think God knows much more about the organization of His church than I do, and I'm quite full right now with responsibilities I've got. Seriously. Busy busy busy, lol. And I just got another sister to visit/minister to. I would like to volunteer in the temple one day, as that is one of the places where women do exercise Priesthood authority and administer blessings in His name, but I'm fine with not being called to others' houses in the middle of the night to give emergency blessings. I'm up with the kids enough and hubby is welcome to that particular measure of responsibility.

 

With respect, we've had this exact conversation before on here, and while it's educational and always a good thing to ponder our beliefs, we've danced this dance mulitple times here and I don't think it's going to change much in various repeats, as the doctrine remains the same and so does church policy at present. :001_smile:

[Xuzi]

While I agree that likely nobody here is going to be changing their minds, I'm glad for the opportunity to demonstrate to that lurkers who might be reading this can see that Mormons aren't quiet the lock-step "sheeple" many would try to paint us to be. We have our inner disputes and disagreements, both with each other and with the leadership, and sometimes even with doctrine.

[meggie]

Back from making lunch. Had to run for a minute, but I forgot to add that after about the first paragraph of my last post, I wasn't really referring to Veritaserum when I said "you". I was kinda referring to the general you/talking to myself as I worked out these thoughts and feelings in my head.

 

I do appreciate Veritaserum's contributions to this thread. They have given me SO MUCH to think about. And while I was making lunch and thinking about this thread, something...ummm...interesting happened. (A good thing that's not really related to this specific discussion.

 

And I would just like to add that I think ya'll are so cute when you add the little :001_smile:. I think it's so amazing that we can have these peaceful discussions and really work out our opinions without offending or putting others down. You guys rock!

[Amira]

I don't think it's unreasonable for Veritaserum to bring up her concerns when the topic comes up because, as we all know, new people are always joining this board or starting to read it. I can't imagine that those people go back through some of the massive threads about the LDS Church that we've had in the past. And I wouldn't suggest that we should stop the non-concerns parts of this thread just because we've done this before. Many times. ;)

 

Even though I'm not an advocate for women receiving the priesthood (largely because I think there are other methods that can resolve many of the biggest concerns about what some of us see as inequality in the church, and in a way that is a lot more likely to happen), I do think it's important for all of us, and women in particular to talk about these things and what we see as a problem.

 

One of my favorite stories in the Old Testament is the daughters of Zelophehad (check out verses 1-11 if you don't know the story). I come from a family of only five daughters like they did so this story has long been important to me. If they had not voiced their concerns, nothing would have changed. God agreed with the change, but He didn't initiate it.

 

Ah, and I'll have to agree with Xuzi here too. And now Meggie. :)

[LittleIzumi]

It's quite reasonable to discuss it. I just feel like we are approaching the point of running around in circles on the same issue over and over again. But today's discussion has changed that a bit...

 

I honestly cannot fathom the idea that the leaders of the church are sexist and purposely going against God's will en masse somehow as something more believable than the idea that God knows men benefit greatly from the added responsibility. I'm a bit gobsmacked. No one said men need the Priesthood or they would all turn away and never follow God, just like no one is saying women only have value at home. No one is pushing hyperbole as truth. I see no problem in believing men respond even better to a duty than just to knowing they should do something. I've watched my own husband, who is comfortable "coasting" through the basics, rise to the challenge of every Priesthood calling, doing things he wouldn't before because he had a duty and someone to report to. I don't see any willful repression anywhere, and if there WAS willful repression their Priesthood would be taken from them. "Amen to the Priesthood of that man." I cannot see this in the same negative light that has been posited. I simply cannot.

 

 

Wow, I mucked up my tenses and grammar there something fierce. :lol:

Edited October 13, 2012 by LittleIzumi

[Amira]

 

I honestly cannot fathom the idea that the leaders of the church are sexist and purposely going against God's will en masse somehow as something more believable than the idea that God knows men benefit greatly from the added responsibility. I'm a bit gobsmacked. No one said men need the Priesthood or they would all turn away and never follow God, just like no one is saying women only have value at home. No one is pushing hyperbole as truth. I see no problem in believing men respond even better to a duty than just to knowing they should do something. I've watched my own husband, who is comfortable "coasting" through the basics, rise to the challenge of every Priesthood calling, doing things he wouldn't before because he had a duty and someone to report to. I don't see any willful repression anywhere, and if there WAS willful repression their Priesthood would be taken from them. "Amen to the Priesthood of that man." I cannot see this in the same negative light that has been posited. I simply cannot.

 

 

Wow, I mucked up my tenses and grammar there something fierce. :lol:

 

Yeah, if you put it that way, it sounds pretty crazy. But for me, it's actually easier to believe that our tradition is sexist (it's hard for me to argue otherwise, anywhere in the world), than that men need specifically need something like the priesthood, something that is exclusive to them, to help them become better people. It seems that if it would help men, it would help women.

 

But then, I've never really thought it helps much to argue why God or the church does things. I'd rather talk about how those things affect us and figure out ways to support each other in the hard times those things create and rejoice with each other in the good times those things create. And I really hope there are far more good times than hard times.

 

And sometimes I hate grammar too. :)

[Caitilin]

I just want to say that while I am theologically very distant from you LDS ladies, I am always appreciative of your "internal" discussions being posted on the board for all to see. I find the intersection of faith, politics (sorta), feminism, etc. that you discuss interesting, enlightening, and educational. So, thanks--I love it, all of it!:D

[DianeW88]

I was just released after three and a half years of serving in the Relief Society Presidency in my ward (insert happy dancing smilie here). I don't know how your wards work, but my bishop ALWAYS deferred to us when making any decision or being asked his opinion on any woman in our ward, and 90% of the time on issues about anyone else in the ward (unless it was a single man with no children). We were a very active, involved presidency, and we worked closely with not only our bishopric, but our Elders quorum presidency and High Priests group leaders as well. In fact, we had a combined presidency meeting with those two organizations once a month, and more often than not, they adopted our recommendations concerning particular families and individuals.

 

I have always felt appreciated, respected and validated as a woman in the LDS church. It's one of the reasons I left my previous faith and joined this one. The opportunities for service, teaching, ministering to those in need, speaking at the pulpit...all of those have been afforded to me in spades as an LDS woman, and it has truly increased my faith and testimony.

 

I suspect that since we're all human, we're simply doing the best we can in a flawed world. I'm not interested in the priesthood and don't feel as though I'm "less than" without it. I actually never even think about it. What I do know is that the Lord loves and values us as individuals and that we all have a unique contribution we can make in advancing the kingdom of God on earth. I love that we are all different, because I learn so much that way. I love hearing new ideas that make me think. I'm grateful that we are so supportive of each other (here and in our church as a whole). I love how close my ward Relief Society is and how lively, spiritual and thought provoking our Sunday meetings are. We laugh and cry together each week. And that's another reason I don't want the priesthood...have you ever BEEN in a High Priests group meeting on Sunday? BORING!! :lol: We have much more fun in RS.

 

Ok, now altogether let's start singing "As Sisters in Zion". :D

 

Just kidding. :tongue_smilie:

 

Anyway, let's keep discussing stuff...I like to think and be challenged.

[DianeW88]

I just want to say that while I am theologically very distant from you LDS ladies, I am always appreciative of your "internal" discussions being posted on the board for all to see. I find the intersection of faith, politics (sorta), feminism, etc. that you discuss interesting, enlightening, and educational. So, thanks--I love it, all of it!:D

 

Thanks for the kind words! Mormon women aren't usually the shy, retiring types. We're a pretty opinionated bunch. :D

[Heidi]

I honestly cannot fathom the idea that the leaders of the church are sexist and purposely going against God's will en masse somehow as something more believable than the idea that God knows men benefit greatly from the added responsibility. I'm a bit gobsmacked.No one said men need the Priesthood or they would all turn away and never follow God, just like no one is saying women only have value at home. No one is pushing hyperbole as truth. I see no problem in believing men respond even better to a duty than just to knowing they should do something. I've watched my own husband, who is comfortable "coasting" through the basics, rise to the challenge of every Priesthood calling, doing things he wouldn't before because he had a duty and someone to report to. I don't see any willful repression anywhere, and if there WAS willful repression their Priesthood would be taken from them. "Amen to the Priesthood of that man." I cannot see this in the same negative light that has been posited. I simply cannot.

 

 

AMEN!

[MamaSheep]

I was just released after three and a half years of serving in the Relief Society Presidency in my ward (insert happy dancing smilie here). I don't know how your wards work, but my bishop ALWAYS deferred to us when making any decision or being asked his opinion on any woman in our ward, and 90% of the time on issues about anyone else in the ward (unless it was a single man with no children). We were a very active, involved presidency, and we worked closely with not only our bishopric, but our Elders quorum presidency and High Priests group leaders as well. In fact, we had a combined presidency meeting with those two organizations once a month, and more often than not, they adopted our recommendations concerning particular families and individuals.

 

I have always felt appreciated, respected and validated as a woman in the LDS church. It's one of the reasons I left my previous faith and joined this one. The opportunities for service, teaching, ministering to those in need, speaking at the pulpit...all of those have been afforded to me in spades as an LDS woman, and it has truly increased my faith and testimony.

 

I suspect that since we're all human, we're simply doing the best we can in a flawed world. I'm not interested in the priesthood and don't feel as though I'm "less than" without it. I actually never even think about it. What I do know is that the Lord loves and values us as individuals and that we all have a unique contribution we can make in advancing the kingdom of God on earth. I love that we are all different, because I learn so much that way. I love hearing new ideas that make me think. I'm grateful that we are so supportive of each other (here and in our church as a whole). I love how close my ward Relief Society is and how lively, spiritual and thought provoking our Sunday meetings are. We laugh and cry together each week. And that's another reason I don't want the priesthood...have you ever BEEN in a High Priests group meeting on Sunday? BORING!! :lol: We have much more fun in RS.

 

Ok, now altogether let's start singing "As Sisters in Zion". :D

 

Just kidding. :tongue_smilie:

 

Anyway, let's keep discussing stuff...I like to think and be challenged.

 

I don't really have time to be here, I'm between digging up irises in the yard (anyone local want iris starts?) and running to the grocery store, so I'm just sneaking a peek and didn't intend to say anything, but I just had to tell you how hard that bolded bit made me laugh. I HAVE been to a high priests group meeting and you're not kidding. There's a reason people joke about the high priests falling asleep in church. I sometimes feel really bad for dh, who was not even in the church for two whole years before being made a high priest. :lol:

[Veritaserum]

I don't think it's unreasonable for Veritaserum to bring up her concerns when the topic comes up because, as we all know, new people are always joining this board or starting to read it. I can't imagine that those people go back through some of the massive threads about the LDS Church that we've had in the past. And I wouldn't suggest that we should stop the non-concerns parts of this thread just because we've done this before. Many times. ;)

 

Even though I'm not an advocate for women receiving the priesthood (largely because I think there are other methods that can resolve many of the biggest concerns about what some of us see as inequality in the church, and in a way that is a lot more likely to happen), I do think it's important for all of us, and women in particular to talk about these things and what we see as a problem.

 

One of my favorite stories in the Old Testament is the daughters of Zelophehad (check out verses 1-11 if you don't know the story). I come from a family of only five daughters like they did so this story has long been important to me. If they had not voiced their concerns, nothing would have changed. God agreed with the change, but He didn't initiate it.

 

Ah, and I'll have to agree with Xuzi here too. And now Meggie. :)

 

Exactly. President Hinckley said that there was no agitation for women to get the priesthood (or more equality, etc.). Here I am agitating away. :)

 

 

Yeah, if you put it that way, it sounds pretty crazy. But for me, it's actually easier to believe that our tradition is sexist (it's hard for me to argue otherwise, anywhere in the world), than that men need specifically need something like the priesthood, something that is exclusive to them, to help them become better people. It seems that if it would help men, it would help women.

 

But then, I've never really thought it helps much to argue why God or the church does things. I'd rather talk about how those things affect us and figure out ways to support each other in the hard times those things create and rejoice with each other in the good times those things create. And I really hope there are far more good times than hard times.

 

And sometimes I hate grammar too. :)

 

To the bolded: of course our tradition is sexist. It's not surprising due the sexist history of our world. We have yet to experience leadership from a majority group (of men) whose childhood and young adult culture has valued equality between women and men. The leaders of the church fought the ERA and asked members to do the same. With that and other anti-woman history (*cough*polygamy*cough*), I do not automatically assume that an all male leadership understands women's needs and issues. ;)

 

I'm well aware that my frustrations and criticisms are uncommon and even unpopular among more orthodox members, but it is soul-killing to remain silent on such an important issue.

 

And now I need to go review the sharing time lesson for primary tomorrow so that I know how to detox my girls from the topic: "Worthy young men receive the priesthood when they are 12 years old." :glare:

[stansclan89]

I was just released after three and a half years of serving in the Relief Society Presidency in my ward (insert happy dancing smilie here). I don't know how your wards work, but my bishop ALWAYS deferred to us when making any decision or being asked his opinion on any woman in our ward, and 90% of the time on issues about anyone else in the ward (unless it was a single man with no children).

 

This is not the experience I had with our bishop as Primary President. The way I was treated is what led me to investigating more of the things that have been discussed on this thread over the last 4 years. Other women in presidencies in our ward have told me they were treated the same way. But he had the authority and the Stake President supported him.

[stansclan89]

I honestly cannot fathom the idea that the leaders of the church are sexist and purposely going against God's will en masse somehow as something more believable than the idea that God knows men benefit greatly from the added responsibility.

 

I don't believe that the leaders are intentionally sexist and going against God. The culture of our country (and the world) in regards to women has been slowly changing over the last 60 years. As the men that were raised 50-60-70 years ago pass away, a different culture in the church will come forth (and has already started to). Heavenly Father has to work work with us as we are/were, and will adjust to the times as they improve.

[Veritaserum]

This is not the experience I had with our bishop as Primary President. The way I was treated is what led me to investigating more of the things that have been discussed on this thread over the last 4 years. Other women in presidencies in our ward have told me they were treated the same way. But he had the authority and the Stake President supported him.

 

Yep. Think of kings in The Book of Mormon. If your king is Benjamin, life is pretty good despite having to defer to his leadership. If your king is Noah, life is not so good because you have to defer to his leadership.

 

Defending an unequal system by saying that the leaders are mostly good and kind is like saying slavery was fine because not all slave owners beat their slaves. Yes, that is a hyperbolic comparison, but it still applies.

 

These discussions remind me of the tensions between suffragettes and female anti-suffragettes. That Lady Gaga parody about suffrage has lyrics that are particularly appropriate.

 

Anti-suffragette:

"I think you're psycho. I think that it's sick. I'm queen of my home, raise my babies, that's it. Don't need to vote."

 

Men (as they are directing her on what to say/think):

"No, no, she don't want to vote."

 

Gotta go finish getting ready for church.

[DianeW88]

Yep. Think of kings in The Book of Mormon. If your king is Benjamin, life is pretty good despite having to defer to his leadership. If your king is Noah, life is not so good because you have to defer to his leadership.

 

Defending an unequal system by saying that the leaders are mostly good and kind is like saying slavery was fine because not all slave owners beat their slaves. Yes, that is a hyperbolic comparison, but it still applies.

 

These discussions remind me of the tensions between suffragettes and female anti-suffragettes. That Lady Gaga parody about suffrage has lyrics that are particularly appropriate.

 

Anti-suffragette:

"I think you're psycho. I think that it's sick. I'm queen of my home, raise my babies, that's it. Don't need to vote."

 

Men (as they are directing her on what to say/think):

"No, no, she don't want to vote."

 

Gotta go finish getting ready for church.

 

Well just because my own personal experience with the men I've dealt with in church leadership has always been positive, doesn't mean I don't acknowledge or believe that others have had less fortunate experiences. As my dad says, "There are buttheads everywhere." :D

[welovetoread]

Tried to go to the local LDS church today. Yeah...DISASTER!!!! My three year old is a bit rambunctious today.

Also, there are NO KIDS at this ward. Am I able to pick another ward a bit farther from my house? I want my kids to connect etc too.