A Walk in Pink Moccasins
submitted by Carol Lynn Pearson, author/performer of “Mother Wove the Morning,” in which she plays 16 women throughout history in search of the female face of God, performed over 300 times internationally. A DVD of the play with complete text and photos is available on the shopping cart of her website. Her most recent book No More Goodbyes was just reviewed by Janet at fMh.
Men cannot possibly know what it is like to be a female child in a Motherless House unless they are given a glimpse into what it would be like to be a male child in a Fatherless House. I have had for years a daydream in which I invite men to walk a mile in the pink moccasins. I become one of the Presiding Sisters, speaking to the “boys of comparable age.” The fact that this glimpse is fairly shocking and leaves us disoriented demonstrates the extent to which we have all become acclimated to absurdity, to being assured that a Motherless House is normal.
“My dear young brethren, it is such a delight to be able to speak to you today. Your faces and your clothing look so clean and fresh. I know that our Mother in Heaven is pleased as she looks down on you this day. And I want, first of all, to convey to you the fact that our Mother loves you. I am persuaded that She loves you just as much as she loves her daughters, and I hope you can believe that.
“And what a marvelous plan She has laid out for you! What a glorious role you are called to fill! How you must have rejoiced in spirit as She created the earth and placed there her crowning creation, Eve, the first and perfect woman. But of course our Mother could see that Eve was not complete, that she needed a worthy helpmeet to assist her in the great work she was called to do. And so this is where you come in, dear brethren. A rib from Eve’s own body was fashioned into the body of Adam, and he was given her as a friend and helpmeet. What a glorious and noble calling! So important was he to Eve, and so important the commandment her Mother had given, that even when Adam sinned because he was deceived, Eve knowingly sinned with him so they could remain together.
“And over the centuries how you must have rejoiced as the plan unfolded further–through the great Matriarchs, Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel–as our Mother’s holy prophetesses continued to reveal her word to us, as woman after woman was sent to do important work, making us all better people so that we could bless the lives of our husbands and children.
“Keep yourselves clean and pure, dear brethren, that one day one of our Mother’s choice daughters might look with favor upon you, claim you as her own, and give to you the glorious privilege of serving as her helpmeet, adding glory unto her as she adds glory unto the Mother.
“And do not listen to the voices that cry out to you from the world. We are living in dark and evil times. Satan herself desires you. Do not listen to the voices that tell you you are suppressed, that entice you to a thing called full personhood and freedom. The role of man has always been made clear by God Herself. The place he occupies in our Mother’s plan is not in question–it is now, always has been, and always will be to stand by the side of woman, assisting her in the great work she has been given to do.
“It is true that new doors are opening for man to contribute in many fields besides his primary one, and we are glad when a man shows talents and abilities in a wider range of service. We encourage this. We are proud of the achievements of our fine young men.
“And as the light of our Mother grows brighter in this world we learn even more of the glorious truths concerning manhood, that it is intended indeed to be a partnership with woman. In fact, one of the truths of our age, and I believe with all my heart this is a truth even though we don’t want to talk about it and even though the words were written by a man–somewhere we’ve a Father there! Imagine! Somewhere we’ve a Father there!”
In my daydream, when the dust of the shock settles, the men nod their heads and say, “I see,” and they are never quite the same again.
Oh I am sooooooo excited to see this thread! Carol, I love you. You rock my universe. Mother Wove the Morning and Goodbye, I Love You are amazing. I shared them both with one of my Sociology professors in college and she loved them too. I’m excited to read No More Goodbyes. Keep writing, please! =)
I have often wondered what it would be like if men lived in a Fatherless house. More recently, with all that I’ve read about the original Women’s Exponent and what not, I’ve wondered if 19th century Mormon women felt fewer effects of Motherless house syndrome than do women of today. Part of me thinks that, had I lived in the early days of the Church, I might be closer to our Heavenly Mother. Then again, another part of me thinks I might be mad at Her for allowing polygamy to run rampant. I could ask myself what if questions all day, but I guess I’ll never really know.
Comment by Marie — March 16, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
Carol Lynn, thanks so much for this piece. It articulates so much of what I feel but haven’t been able to form in words. Thank you for giving me a vocabulary to utilize. I’m with you on your day dream. I hope that men who read this will have their eyes opened and be able to begin to see what life is like for us sometimes. Because they mean well, at least, most of them do. Yet they still don’t always understand. I hope this helps broaden their understanding.
Comment by Lessie — March 16, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
I am speachless…
-John
Comment by John M. — March 16, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
Wonderful! I remember reading your book –Goodbye I love you–when I was 16. It helped me to develop my own brand of gay- friendly Mormonism. Thanks for always being a voice for women.
Comment by natasha — March 16, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
That is a great application of the golden rule.
Comment by Hellmut — March 16, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
Carol Lynn, I am so happy you submitted this piece! I LOVE your gentle impetus for empathy, your rhetorical savvy, your humor. Thank you so much.
I want to try my hand and writing a similar piece with the YM as the intended audience– the lovely, shiny-as-a-new-penny YM who generally never consider that they get decent basketballs, they learn how to camp and be self-reliant, they receive all sorts of doctrinal training while their prom dates mostly have sedentary activities and lessons focusing on the excellent but rather limited topics of matrimony and motherhood.
Comment by Janet — March 16, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
I admit I was bewildered at first, but I understood about halfway through. Lol. Thank you so much– will be sharing this with my husband, who I am sure will also appreciate it
I’m another one of your admirers– thank you for contributing here.
Comment by Sare — March 16, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
Wow, such an eye opening way to contemplate the way doctrine and the Plan of Salvation have been presented to me throughout my life! Definitely some good stuff to think about.
Comment by channing — March 16, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
carol lynn pearson is an amazing writer, but i personaly think sometimes this whole topic is a bit overblown, although i realize it’s a real tender spot for some.
janet, did you not go to camp and learn skills? what doctrinal training do you think boys get that girls don’t? (that’s a new one, actually — i’ve never heard that complaint, and i think sometimse the girls end up getting more out of (well planned) activities and such since it seems the boys often play more basketball than anything!) did you only talk about motherhood your entire yw years? might you be exaggeratiing just a weeeeee bit? a yw program most certainly doesn’t have to be as monotonous as you make it sound!
Comment by anonon — March 16, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
I think the boys in our ward end up doing cooler things than the girls. (i.e. going to Yosemite)
But since we got a change in YW leaders recently, and they agree that we should do more interesting stuff. I’m hoping that works out. =D
Comment by a teenager — March 16, 2007 @ 4:57 pm
The only reason that YW dont get to do the things the YM do is that it is next to impossible to find leaders that are willing to take them to do it.
If you want the YW in your ward to camp.. take them camping. Teach them what you know. Learn with them as you go. I am so tired of hearing women complain about what they missed out on that the YM got to do, and in the next sentence, they tell you they are not willing to help in the YW program. Or, if they do help, they are not willing to give up 8 weekends a year to take the YW camping.
It is a lack of willing leadership that hampers YW’s programs, not an edict from the church about what they can do.
Comment by notfornow — March 16, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
It is a lack of willing leadership that hampers YW’s programs, not an edict from the church about what they can do.
good point.
Comment by anonon — March 16, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
“Or, if they do help, they are not willing to give up 8 weekends a year to take the YW camping.”
Um, no. First off, can we not make this post a debate about the inequaties between the YW/YM program. We can have that discussion, but I think it does this post a disservice to get sidetracked in that direction so early in this discussion.
And second, to claim the YW leaders are simply “not willing” to give up their weekends is really unfair to YW leaders. And it totally ignores the different burdens women carry in the home. How many men would be willing to cheerfully run the weekend households, so that their wife’s well-oiled machine was still churning out shiney counter tops, well-nurtured children, and a well-stocked refridgerator? I think both side could and would step up to the plate, but both sides have to be willing, and the expectation has to be there in the first place.
Comment by fMhLisa — March 16, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
Has anything even close to this patronizing been presented to the young women in a general meeting in the last 15 years? I’m not saying that the leadership has begun encouraging young women to seek after the divine feminine (ha!) but this is SOOOO patronizing - and it is probably at least 20 years old.
Don’t take away my feminist card. I don’t think the leaders are any more forward-thinking or enlightened about helping women tap into their divine powers, but I DO think they’re a lot more subtle about their message than this now.
Comment by Ann — March 16, 2007 @ 5:36 pm
Thanks for this post; I think you’ve done a marvelous job of capturing the tone. I’ve often found myself struggling to explain why statements along the lines of “of course we value women; men couldn’t get to heaven without them” don’t do much to reassure me. There’s a difference between seeing someone as valuable, and seeing her as a subject capable of making value judgments–and I appreciated your essay as an entertaining example of how Church rhetoric might sound if women belonged to the latter category, and men to the former.
Comment by Lynnette — March 16, 2007 @ 5:42 pm
CLP,
Thank you again for your creative insights, poetry and books. They are treasurers to me. You’ve written about another valued issue swept under the rug. Thanks for bringing it to our attention!
Is the phenomenon in this thread part of women’s veils? If so, and since there is such a yearning to find these answers, I’m sure there are safe and unsafe places to find it. I’m amazed that all of them so often are unpopular places, private places, and certainly politically incorrect places. I’m heartened to find a voice for this issue which is intellectual, enlightening and humerous without being condescending or combative.
By the way, how long have you been reading and commenting on FMH?
Comment by j.a.t. — March 16, 2007 @ 5:45 pm
Ann, I was in YW ast year, and this sounds painfully similar to 90% of the lessons in the manual. (Don’t hold me to that figure. I don’t have the manual in front of me and I haven’t done a concise read-through to make sure it’s accurate. But from memory, most of them were very much along these lines.) It also sounds very much like every talk I ever heard in conference or fireside when I was in YW. It also sounds like much of what we still hear today as adult women in the church - the Prophets manuals are wonderful but much of the talk about women is in this vein.
Comment by Quimby — March 16, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
Ann, I think you have a point; I’d be quite surprised to hear some of these phrases over the pulpit in a contemporary setting. (That is to say, I’d be surprised to hear them with the usual gender roles. I’d be flabbergasted if I heard a version like this. ;)) I do think that some of the rhetoric has been dialed down a bit, and I’m grateful for that. Nonetheless, my impression is that the overall tone of talks to women about their divine gender role has largely remained the same.
Comment by Lynnette — March 16, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
Im sorry, I didnt mean to thread-jack, and I didnt realize that men are to blame for the lack of forward leadership in the YW program.
Both sides do have to be willing to step up to the plate, and I think men are willing. They just never get a chance to show it. Nothing ever happens but talk.
Comment by notfornow — March 16, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
I haven’t been in YW for almost five years (I was a teacher). The manuals haven’t changed, and they were pretty bad. I haven’t attended any meeting presided over by a general authority, whether in person or via satellite, for at least three, maybe four years - to do so exceeds the limits of my ability to participate positively. So my question isn’t a rhetorical one.
Maybe it’s because I’m older now, and don’t place so much stock in what the old guys say. Maybe I’ve blocked it all out - five years away from the rhetoric can alter your memories of what the rhetoric was!
That whole “being chosen” thing is just DUMB. I heard a story once about missionaries teaching a single woman about becoming a member and “finding someone to take her to the temple.” Her response was, “you know, I can drive.” Once again, quite a long time ago.
The phrase “choice daughters” sounds patronizing to me. And yet, “choice sons,” (which may be a phrase that the old guys have used) does not. I wonder why that is. They are the same thing, after all.
Comment by Ann — March 16, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
As the daughter of a former YW President–who served within the past three years, might I add–I can say that YW leaders do give up PLENTY of weekends a year to dances, youth conference, Girls Camp, Priest/Laurel get-togethers, Beehive Bash, YW Broadcast, meetings, and more. So I would argue that yes, YW leaders are willing to give up their time. Thus the argument that YW don’t camp/hike/whatever because they’re not willing to give up the time doesn’t hold up. Furthermore, all through my own YW experience–and I’m only 22 so I’m not that far removed–we YW had planning meetings where we picked our own activities for the entire year. Only a handful of activities–usually the universal ones like Standard of Excellence–were preselected by our leaders. So around here at least it would seem that our YW just don’t want to do other things…at least if they do, they sure don’t speak up about it!
Comment by Marie — March 16, 2007 @ 6:32 pm
anonon–yes, I went to camp. We slept in cabins and ate food from freezers and had showers. It was a blast and one of my favorite weeks of the year, but I wouldn’t really call it self-reliant camping. My father taught us how to camp and I actually think his training was even BETTER than what the boy scouts got. I took all the YW camping for one of my Laurel projects and nobody but me and my sisters and one of our friends had *ever* backpacked and then camped. Not everyone likes to and I respect that, but I thought the skills were fairly valuable and I’m in favor of teaching youth about spiritual communion with the wilderness.
If you read my comment carefully you’ll note that I acknowledge that our lessons were wonderful–just limited in topic. And yes, most weeks we talked about motherhood or marriage. To be fair, the teenage girls in my ward (me included) were pretty feminine and *liked* to pine about our future hubbies. BUT, the boys learned the history of the priesthood and about what it was, how it functioned, what it meant, etc. I think that those lessons would be fantastic for girls, too–for whom the priesthood often remains a subject of mystery. I also think the boys should have had more lessons on fatherhood. I’m not slamming what we had. I’m simply suggesting that we add to it.
You’re right that the YW activities are often better planned; I just wish they’d been a bit more active. We sat around a lot. The boys went jet-skiing. But again, that doesn’t mean our activities sucked–just that they were limited. The boys should have learned some of thhe stuff we learned! I understand your desire for balance, but your comment strikes me as more critical than mine was to begin with.
Comment by Janet — March 16, 2007 @ 6:45 pm
notfornow–I totally agree that the adult women need to make YW fun for the girls and not just do “easy” things that simplify the adults’ involvement (though I recognize that YW is a HUGE calling!). I would LOVELOVELOVE to be invovled with YW, but our ward is zoned so that we don’t have any youth–they go to a “family ward.” Someday I look forward to planning all sorts of fun activities–in both the traditional and non-traditional areas–when I get the opportunity to have a YW’s calling. I think lots of us are quite happy to work with the youth, but simply might not have the opportunity. Why on earth would you assume we wouldn’t want to help?
Comment by Janet — March 16, 2007 @ 6:48 pm
Since I started the YW/YM threadjack with my aside, can I end it? I wasn’t trying to take away from CLP’s post and change the subject, just note an area where I still saw a need for some diversity and appreciation from the boys for what they get. (I admit, I was always jealous of the cool things the boy did because I loved camping and hiking and all that. Maybe the other girls would’ve hated it, who knows.)
Comment by Janet — March 16, 2007 @ 6:52 pm
Sister Pearson, I see two possible problems with this vision.
The first part is easily fixable — this statement here does not seem to reflect LDS doctrine:
You seem to be drawing on the sectarian, non-LDS interpretation of Pauls writings. Saying that Adam or Eve “sinned” in taking the fruit flies in the face of the 2nd article of faith and other doctrine that indicates that Adam and Eve transgressed but did not sin. Additionally, I’d always seen the LDS church emphasizing that Eve was more right than Adam, rebutting Paul’s view. The vision loses effectiveness when it mirrors/spoofs sectarian teachings that the church has explicitly rejected.
The other problem is that your mirror isn’t really that shocking, at least to me. I’m curious how other males responded to it.
Symbolically, biologically, that version makes a lot more sense than the converse version. I have no idea what on earth the whole adam’s rib thing means — I’ve been trying to make it work mentally for ages.
Comment by Christian — March 16, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
The whole adam’s rib thing seems like a strange permutation of some pagan myth. Wasn’t it an Egyptian god (ptah?) that supposedly spawned other creatures, creating the universe?
The Adam’s rib story also creates an inconsistency. If Eve had been taken from Adam’s Rib, then why did Adam call her “eve”? If he were first then she could not be the beginning.
But if Adam were taken from Eve’s rib, then she would be Eve, the beginning, the mother of all living.
I’d not be terribly surprised to find out that this was a detail that got jiggled by a scribe long ago.
Comment by Christian — March 16, 2007 @ 7:23 pm
One thing that bothers me is how unbalanced the cub scout program is to what is offered the girls the same age. The Church spends all kinds of money on cubs and the the leaders are constantly being trained. The boys have a meeting once a week with pack meeting once a month where they have awards and fun activities. The girls have 2 meetings a month and no awards or recognition what so ever! The girls leaders are never trained (aside from a visit from the Primary Pres. when they are called) I had a child in each program at the same time and I always felt my girl got jipped. I longed to take her to a meeting where people would acknowledge her hard work and stand up and cheer for her like they did my son. While I was Primary Pres. we had a visit from a member of the primary general board. She flat out told us the Faith in God for Girls was developed not to compete with Cub Scouts. So there you have it. Even when I was primary pres cubs took up so much of my time and energy. I have been left with serious issues about cubs and scouting in general, but I guess that is another topic for another day.
Comment by Karen — March 16, 2007 @ 7:40 pm
Christian - re: Adam’s Rib - I have a good friend who is generally rather soft-spoken, but one day, she’d had enough of the crap someone was spouting in Sunday School about women, and so she spoke up and said, “God may have created woman from the rib of man, but He created man from dirt! At least I’m not dirt, I’m something substantial!” Somehow, the Adam’s rib story doesn’t bother me nearly as much anymore . . .
Comment by Quimby — March 16, 2007 @ 8:20 pm
but your comment strikes me as more critical than mine was to begin with.
sorry that i misunderstood.
fwiw, my camp experience was a lot different. always had tents, cooked our own food, backpacked for the last yaer or two…lots less cushy.
Comment by anonon — March 16, 2007 @ 9:17 pm
Janet, would you mind contacting me off list about the ‘family ward’ concept? I’ve heard you or someone else mention it before and I have a couple questions.
(I erased your email address, we can access it through wordpress)
thanks
Comment by claire — March 16, 2007 @ 10:36 pm
Quimby, my interests aren’t making the story “fair” (which to many today means compulsively symmetrical. That’s why the rest of sister Pearson’s discussion doesn’t bother me at all, although I’m certain that there would be a faction of men that would bellyache about it. Adam’s rib bothers me because it seems inconsistent with the other details of the story, violates common sense, and doesn’t seem to convey any significant metaphorical meaning.
If a story can be read hypersensitively as a putdown to one sex, I can shrug it off. The adam’s rib thing bothers me because I can’t construe it as anything *other* than a put-down to women, wheras making adam from Eve’s rib would not put down men, since that patterns the natural order, the male emerging from the female.
Comment by Christian — March 16, 2007 @ 11:20 pm
Ugh – better clarify that I don’t dismiss sister Pearson’s concerns as “hypersensitive.” I have no idea how these messages would affect me *cumulatively* over time. I’m just saying that on first read, other than small issues mentioned above, the vision does not upset me. With the exceptions mentioned above I could thrive in such a religion, if that’s how God had decided to run things. I’ve always figured Earth is the Father’s workshop and that Mother runs heaven. Swap that around and that’s still fair.
Comment by Christian — March 16, 2007 @ 11:26 pm
anonon–no problem. And i’m glad to hear some the YW learned how to hike and pitch a tent! Camps was unbelievably fun, but we were *insanely* unsafe about fire, etc., just ‘cuz we were busy being crazy teenagers. Sounds like your experience taught more skills. Ours was valuable for other reasons, but nobody would make is a pioneer after a week at our YW camp :).
Comment by Janet — March 16, 2007 @ 11:33 pm
Ann (#14), you ask if speakers still say the same things written by Carol Lynn in her “pink moccasin” paper. Well, here are two excerpts from talks given in 2006. The first is Pres. Hinckley’s address to the RS Conference in October; the second is Pres. Faust’s address to the YW in April. Perhaps not *exactly* the same as what is noted in CLP’s talk, but they are quite similar, are they not? FYI, I’ve taken the liberty to switch male/female references in these quotes to align them with the topic. The original talks are linked above.
—-
RS Conference, October 2006:
My dear brothers, what a tremendous opportunity is afforded me in speaking to you in this great Relief Society conference. We have listened tonight to wonderful discourses given by men of great faith and ability. I wish the presidency of the Relief Society to know that we have complete confidence in them. We appreciate them in every way. We are grateful for the theme they have chosen from the Book of Mormon, from 2 Nephi—”Encircled Eternally in the Arms of Her Love” (see 2 Nephi 1:15). The men of the Relief Society are literally encircled eternally in the arms of our Lady….
Now, my dear brothers, just a word in conclusion. I remind you that you are not second-class citizens in the kingdom of God. You are Her divine creation. Women hold the priesthood. Yours is a different role, but also extremely important. Without you, our Mother’s plan of happiness would be frustrated and have no real meaning. You are 50 percent of the membership of the Church and fathers of the other 50 percent. No one can dismiss you lightly.
This is what the Relief Society does for men. It gives them opportunity for growth and development. It gives them status as kings in their own households. It gives them place and position, where they grow as they exercise their talents. It gives them pride and direction in family life. It gives them added appreciation for good, eternal companions and children….
What a glorious organization Relief Society is. There is nothing to compare with it in all the world.
—-
YW Meeting, April 2006, by JEF:
As sons of our Heavenly Mother, each of you can be a partaker of Her divine nature. It is inherent in your beings. I testify that each of you young men has special gifts from our Heavenly Mother. Some of these gifts are unique to manhood. As you cultivate these gifts, you will grow in strength, purpose, and nobility.
This is the work of God. We are all Her servants. She is watching over us. She wants us to succeed. We all have some part of the holy work to accomplish, even though it may seem small and obscure.
Comment by LRC — March 16, 2007 @ 11:34 pm
34: Thanks for rewriting this, LRC. it doesn’t read at all as patronizing as the older talks parodied by CLP. There is a recognition that men and women are both children of God, but no ranking of one over the other, nothing outlining specific gender roles with one set of roles being laughably trivial to the roles of the other. There really IS a difference, and I might not have recognized that without having to look at it sideways, the way you translated it.
Comment by Ardis Parshall — March 16, 2007 @ 11:46 pm
After reading, I went outside and installed the lighting rod! I think I need a meeting with my Bishop!
Comment by kstuart — March 16, 2007 @ 11:51 pm
“Satan herself desires you.”
No hypothetical needed here. The scriptures themselves tell us that Satan is a broad. (See D&C 52:14)
Comment by MBD — March 17, 2007 @ 12:58 am
This wouldn’t be that striking to many or most boys–just an overt statement of what is already implicit in most of their socializing situations. Large numbers of boys lack quotidian male role models in the home (and this isn’t just a problem of slacker or womanizing men–more divorces are initiated by women than men). In elementary schools, most all teachers are female (and men who would teach at that level are often under suscipicion of harboring undesirable tendencies). These teachers reward feminized behaivors and punish male tendencies. At the high schools and middle-school level, much effort is made to reach girls and young womens’ self esteem and to empower them. Unmotivated boys are sidelined as loosers, and those who may act out are shuttered in to remedialized programs or diagnosed as learning disabled.
Frankly, much of society tends to valorize feminized behaviors and denigrate male ones (athletics, hunting, physical play, intense competition). So saying these things is not all that striking.
Interestingly, this post and the commentors to it also ignores several important points: boys tend to have little problem loving their mother but thinking of her as different (why do girls have the same problem with their fathers?), the ancient view that christianity is a feminized religion, anyways, and the odd fact that this author seems to imply that a “motherless home” is worse than a “fatherless” one (although that could be a misreading).
Comment by TMD — March 17, 2007 @ 8:53 am
Indeed, the effort the church makes to provide boys and young men with everyday role models increasingly differentiates it from the rest of american society.
Comment by TMD — March 17, 2007 @ 8:57 am
Perhaps the rhetoric is more balanced now, but when President Hinckley has to remind the women of the Relief Society that “you are not second-class citizens in the kingdom of God”, what does that say about what women continue to learn and think about themselves? If the Prophet of God is inspired to reinforce this kind of message, it leads me to believe that there are enough women in the church who continue to receive a (meta)-message they are, in fact, less than first-class.
Can you imagine Pres. Hinckley standing up in front of the Priesthood session reassuring the men that they are not second-class citizens? Or that they are half the population of the church and therefore cannot be easily dismissed? That he needs to say these kinds of things to the women of the church indicates that there continues to be a discrepancy in the way we treat each other.
Even if messages are not as extreme and obvious as those presented by Carol Lynn, it appears to me that we continue to hear messages in those same absurd tones on a regular basis - and until women no longer need men to stand in front of them and tell them that they are as beloved of God as their brothers are, the problem continues to exist and the blight infects and impedes the spirituality of half of God’s children.
Comment by LRC — March 17, 2007 @ 10:59 am
If the Prophet of God is inspired to reinforce this kind of message, it leads me to believe that there are enough women in the church who continue to receive a (meta)-message they are, in fact, less than first-class.
i just have to ask, is that wholly the church’s fault or might the women have a bit of responsibility in that?
Comment by anonon — March 17, 2007 @ 11:29 am
Genesis 1:26-27 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
In the Luther Bible, which the prophet Joseph Smith said was the closest to correct version in a modern language before his time, the word for “man” is, in every case “Mensch” meaning “human”. God made human, male and female, in “our image”.
Our beliefs can and should make this one of the most gender-equal churches in history.
Comment by chris — March 17, 2007 @ 12:24 pm
Anonon (#41) - I don’t know if it’s the women’s fault or the church’s fault, but let’s move one step farther in the pink moccasin walk - imagine going to church on Sunday:
As you walk into the chapel, you see the three women in the bishopric sitting reverently on the stand as the 14-15-year-old girls are covering the Sacrament table with a white lacetablecloth. The deacon’s quorum president, a 13-year-old girl, is walking through the congregation recruiting a few last-minute Sacrament-passers from among the women of the ward, who leave their children with their fathers so they can sit with the 12-13-year-old girls in the first pew next to the Sacrament table.
The female bishop stands up to welcome everyone to Sacrament meeting and acknowledges the presence of the high councilwoman on the stand, here to conduct some stake business. Please turn to hymn number 70, “Sing Praise to Her”, after which the invocation will be given by Brother Brown, our men’s relief society president.
[Hymn]
Sing praise to her who reigns above,
The Queen of all creation,
The source of pow’r, the fount of love,
The rock of our salvation.
With healing balm my soul she fills
And ev’ry faithless murmur stills.
To her all praise and glory!
What her almighty pow’r hath made
Her gracious mercy keepeth
by morning glow or evening shade
Her watchful eye ne’er sleepeth.
Within the queendom of her might
Lo! all is just and all is right.
To her all praise and glory!
The Queen is never far away,
But, thru all grief distressing,
An ever-present help and stay,
Our peace and joy and blessing.
As with a mother’s tender hand,
She leads her own, her chosen band.
To her all praise and glory!
Thus, all my toilsome way along,
I sing aloud thy praises,
That all may hear the grateful song
My voice unwearied raises.
Be joyful in the Queen, my heart!
Both soul and body bear your part.
To her all praise and glory!
After Brother Brown’s prayer, the bishop announces that a new little baby will be blessed today: “Will the baby’s mother, and all those who’ve been invited to join in the circle, please come to the front at this time.” As half a dozen women encircle the child and hold him in their arms, the mother gives the baby a name and blessing as the father sits in his pew trying to remember all that has been said. When the blessing is over, the mother holds up the little tyke in his white outfit and the congregation chuckles as the baby coos for everyone to hear.
The stake highcouncilwoman stands up next to announce some changes in stake callings and to ask for approval in ordaining several 19-year-old young women to the office of “elder” prior to their full-time mission service. She also reminds ward members that the Stake Matriarch is back from vacation and available to give Matriarchal Blessings once again - people should speak to the bishop or her counselors about getting recommends before contacting the Matriarch for a blessing.
The bishop stands again to announce that the Sacrament Hymn will be number 175, “O God, The Eternal Mother”, after which the Sacrament will be blessed and passed by the members of the Aaronic priesthood. After the older young women have knelt before God, petitioning her on behalf of the congregation to sanctify the bread and water to all who partake, the deacons and those other women asked to help them walk from row to row passing the emblems of Christ’s body and blood. Men and boys pass the trays along the pews from one to another, but none of them will ever be in a position to stand and minister to the congregation the way the girls do. Fathers lean over to their 8-year-old daughters and remind them that some day they will have this great responsibility to reverently administer the ordinance that reminds us of the covenants we’ve made with God. They tell their sons that they are important, too, and that the young men’s program will offer them ways to serve in less visible roles.
After thanking the young women for reverently passing the Sacrament, the bishop invites them to return to their families and introduces the speakers for the day. A youth speaker, a Relief Society Brother, and, finally, the High Councilwoman with a special message from the Stake Presidency. After their comments, the closing hymn will be number 156, “Sing We Now at Parting.”
[Hymn]
Sing we now at parting One more strain of praise.
To our Heav’nly Mother Sweetest song we’ll raise.
For her loving kindness, For her tender care,
Let our songs of gladness Fill this Sabbath air.
After Sacrament meeting, the ward divides up into Sunday School and Primary classes. In the Primary room, there are pictures of Jesus and of the current Prophet and her counselors, as well as the 12 women who make up the Quorum of the 12 Apostles. There are pictures of all of the great prophetesses of the scriptures, and even a few men who take care of their families and play with their children. In the adults’ Gospel Doctrine class, a very thoughtful man is the teacher, and he tells the class how much he appreciates the insights that former bishops and high councilwomen bring to his lessons.
In Relief Society and Priesthood, the RS men use the same manuals as the priesthood women - the men used to have their own manuals with lessons and quotations written by men leading the various men’s auxiliaries, but the First Presidency decided that it would be better for families to all be studying from the same manuals, so the men get to use the priesthood lessons. So all the adults spend a year studying the lives and teachings of the modern-day women prophets of the church. The male Relief Society teachers do their best to adapt the lessons to bring out interesting ideas about the men in the various prophets’ lives, but since the manuals don’t really have much information about the women prophets’ families, it’s a tough job. Plus, there’s the teaching requirements that teachers use only the material in the prescribed manuals, so those men who make an effort to find and use extra resources do it at the risk of being released from their callings when one of the other men in the meeting decides to run to the bishop and explain how “out there” the Relief Society lessons are.
So, anonon, is it the church (culture’s) fault or the women’s fault that the prophet is inspired to remind the women they are not second-class citizens?
Can the women do anything to change their status so long as we live in this Motherless House?
Where God is male, is the male God?
Comment by LRC — March 17, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
It’s good of you to qualify your statement, so I wanted to thank you for that! Also, I think CLP would argue that both absences would be regrettable (I say that based on reading her other stuff as well). But I can’t speak for her with any authority, of course!
Comment by Janet — March 17, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
Oh, and just a quick 2 cents: I think the rhetoric has improved and become less patronizing since I as a young woman not that long ago. The lesson manuals may still lack panache, but I’ve found the talks in GC better. And I loved it when we had Sydney Reynolds in the GPP–she rocked.
Comment by Janet — March 17, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
Dear Carol,
Thank you for this post. I’m looking forward to reading your books and learn more about your projects! Please keep writing.
Diane
Comment by LAGirrrl — March 17, 2007 @ 2:01 pm
Reminds me of Elouise Bell’s “The Meeting.” I first read it in my LDS literature class last semester with Gideon Burton (best class ever, by the way). It was quite eye-opening.
Comment by Rinlee — March 17, 2007 @ 2:21 pm
Thanks so much for this, Carol. LRC, your adaptations are also interesting, apt.
If other women in the church are like me, it can be hard to figure out where the inequality or difference is in the first place. After all, we (women and men too) are reminded often how precious we are, we are prised as individuals, wea re reminded often that we are known, loved, important. Probably because of this, it took me a very, very long time to really believe (accept? understand?) that being a Mormon man isn’t the same as being a Mormon woman. Reversing the con/text in simple ways does so much to show how, where, and why there are differences. It excavates them from a hiding place beneath all the reminders of our precious, valued state, and allows those differences to be evaluated on their own.
I love it. Thanks again.
Comment by Mary Ann — March 17, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
LRC,
i think this is a matter of how one views things. if we look at the church through a feminist lens, then we might be disappointed. but my epxerience is that most women don’t and so they are not.
Comment by anonon — March 17, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
Christian,
I heard a great explanation for the rib being taken from Adam and creating Eve. It was to complete the circle of life, that Eve was created from Adam’s rib and from then on “adam” would be created from “Eve’s” body. So we all come from each other, neither one from the other. The patriarch I heard it from made it sound a lot cooler than what I just said.
By the way, I would have found this to be a lot more convincing if she had taken one of President Hinckley’s talk to the women and switched it around. It makes me feel weird reading it otherwise, with phrases like, “I’m persuaded that men are as loved as women,” I don’t think anyone has to be persuaded that we’re all the same. It’s obvious!
Also, my patriarchal blessing mentions my Heavenly Parents, and whenever it refers to God it says “they” like “they prepared you, they are counting on you,” I don’t think she’s absent because she’s been pushed out of the way.
Comment by Lakeisha — March 17, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
I am thinking along the lines of Chris, #42. I wonder if replacing all the masculine words with feminine words in scripture and GA talks (though helpful in personal application) goes against the equality we are trying to achieve. Replacing the masculine completely with the feminie might just swing the euqality pendulum to the feminine extreme, discriminating against males. Would it be more helpful to replace the masculine with the plural ‘they’ or just general ‘human’ as #42 referred to? To me this would be more equal. Or do you think that the equality pendulum needs to swing to the other extreme (imagining all female Bishopric and such - see #43) in order for females to feel vindicated, important and included, enough of an attention-getter to make the change to equality? What about a mixed Bishopric or other leadership? Is that not good enough?
Comment by Nutty — March 17, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
#40: “when President Hinckley has to remind the women of the Relief Society that “you are not second-class citizens in the kingdom of God”, what does that say about what women continue to learn and think about themselves? … That he needs to say these kinds of things to the women of the church indicates that there continues to be a discrepancy in the way we treat each other.”
I disagree that President Hinckley’s statements require that conclusion. Even if no one was perpetuating the old message, President Hinckley would still speak up in order to correct the damage to women who learned the older message. But I suspect that your conclusion is right, since my experience is that the bad old ways are slow to die.
“it appears to me that we continue to hear messages in those same absurd tones on a regular basis”
If that’s your experience, I respect that. I’ve not seen that in church per se, but I certainly heard messages of treating women as 2nd class citizens from fellow-students during my time at BYU during the 1990s. The young LDPs have got to be learning that stuff somewhere. I was particularly aghast at the LDPs that regularly dropped blasphemous and repugnant theories about Heavenly Mother into their “testimonies” – i.e. that Heavenly Father so loved Heavenly Mother that He decided to completely cut her off from her children, lest we dishonor her by taking Her name in vain.)
#38: “Frankly, much of society tends to valorize feminized behaviors and denigrate male ones. At the high schools and middle-school level, much effort is made to reach girls and young womens’ self esteem and to empower them.”
I agree. When I was teaching at BYU, our training included theories based on studies claiming that teachers were showing disproportionate attention to boys and that girls were suffering. I’m sorry to say that I bought into that brainwashing. The studies have since been shown to have been fabricated. I saw other false data circulated to divert attention and resources away from boys: Professor TA Roberts falsely taught her class that “99%” of sexual abuse victims were female. Fact is that in the 1990s, teaching was already girl-centered, and now we see special math classes for girls only to focus on their needs but no corresponding classes for boys, despite plain and obvious numbers showing that girls are doing better in school than boys. On the sports front, it’s wonderful that girls’ sports have finally started to receive the attention that they deserve, and demagogues trumpet that good development to sideline our continuing academic neglect of boys.
#38: “the odd fact that this author seems to imply that a “motherless home” is worse than a “fatherless” one (although that could be a misreading).”
I think it is a misreading of what CLP said, since her stated purpose is to show men how women are made to feel, which implies that a fatherless home would be just as hard for men to deal with as a motherless one.
Assuming that you agree with CLP that fatherless is just as hard as motherless; I disagree with both of you. Seems to me that the church emphasizes that motherhood is the *most* important thing. I also disagree with the implication that women are the only ones who suffer from the absence of a Heavenly Mother (although if I read WIHKAB correctly, CLP recognizes that men also suffer from this absence).
If I read Freud & Piaget correctly, boys and girls pass through different stages where they identify with a same-sex parent, form a identity-crucial relationship with an opposite stage parent, form a distinguishing (or almost antagonistic) relationship with the same-sex parent, etc. Perhaps we can analogize to the church teaching that mortal life is just one stage in our spiritual development – neither the first stage nor the last stage. That might shed light on why our religion treats this world as the father’s workshop, why “Oh My Father” says that HE (“thou”) sent us here to earth, and yet speaks of heaven as where we will come and dwell with both Father and Mother (“you”). But I’m not sure it’s that simple, otherwise why would church officers like Sister Snow reach out for her? why would the Spirit confirm some of the things that our unordained poets have said about Her? why would the Brethren see fit to proclaim Her existence to the world at this time?
Comment by Christian — March 17, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
Also, my patriarchal blessing mentions my Heavenly Parents
so does the proc. on the family
Comment by anonon — March 17, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
First, I loved (loved!) LRC’s alternate world-description of Sacrament meeting. To Nutty (#51) I would say that the purpose of reversing the genders in either the Carol Lynn Pearson original or LRC’s adaptation isn’t to achieve equality but to illustrate (and effectively, I might add) how even the most routine experiences in the Church can serve to reinforce that women are second class. These little fantasy worlds are designed to open our eyes–not prescribe a reality we should be striving for–because it’s only with eyes open that we can achieve equality. And I agree with point made that if LDS culture didn’t send women these subtle but potent signals there would be no need for any Church authority to ever have to declare that men and women are equally valued.
And yes, Walk in the Pink Moccasins is slightly dated and the rhetoric has been toned down in the last two decades, but as woman who was born not too long after Pearson originally penned it, I must say it still matches my experience in the Church more than it doesn’t. As a young women in the 1990s and 00s, I was still getting the same messages of inferiority.
Finally, in reference to YW and camping (the off-topic topic we’d all agreed to let die out), we were always told that we needed to have a priesthood leader with us before we could go on any activity like a camp out. If no priesthood leader could come, we didn’t go. Not only did that send a signal about our ability as females to take care of ourselves, it made it much more difficult to go logistically speaking.
Comment by Carla K — March 17, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
There’s a tool on the internet called regender (that will quickly do what LRC took the time to do. Awhile ago, I “regendered” a few paragraphs from a talk by Elder Faust for a post on ZD. I’ll repost those paragraphs, since in my mind they resemble Pearson’s essay. Perhaps they are not quite as extreme as Pearson’s original post, but in my mind, the tone is very similar (and quite problematic).
I wonder if you brothers fully understand the greatness of your gifts and talents and how all of you can achieve the ‘highest place of honor’ in the Church and in the world. One of your unique, precious, and sublime gifts is your masculinity, with its natural grace, goodness, and divinity. Masculinity is not just lipstick, stylish hairdos, and trendy clothes. It is the divine adornment of humanity. It finds expression in your qualities of your capacity to love, your spirituality, delicacy, radiance, sensitivity, creativity, charm, graciousness, gentleness, dignity, and quiet strength. It is manifest differently in each boy or man, but each of you possesses it. Masculinity is part of your inner beauty.
One of your particular gifts is your masculine intuition. Do not limit yourselves. As you seek to know the will of our Heavenly Mother in your life and become more spiritual, you will be far more attractive, even irresistible. You can use your smiling loveliness to bless those you love and all you meet, and spread great joy. Masculinity is part of the Goddess-given divinity within each of you. It is your incomparable power and influence to do good. You can, through your supernal gifts, bless the lives of children, men, and women. Be proud of your manhood. Enhance it. Use it to serve others.
Comment by Seraphine — March 17, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
I agree that seems to be CLP’s purpose, but the asymmetry detracts from the illustration, which (in my case at least) thwarts CLP’s purpose for her stated audience. I’ve witnessed routine communications at BYU that I think could convey the message that women are second class, so I’m open to the idea that such a message may be routine in other church subcultures. But I think that it’s a telling point that CLP turned to the teaching of long-dead apostles to make her argument.
Comment by Christian — March 17, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
I believe this piece was actually written a number of years ago. (Might be worth noting this in the intro to the OP.)
I also believe that her original point, though some of the players may have changed and the rhetoric slightly toned down, is still completely valid.
Comment by RE — March 17, 2007 @ 5:45 pm
I think Carla K (#54) understands the point - if reading any of these reverse-gendered situations seems absurd, ridiculous, or “just not right” - for whatever reason, it is supposed to sound that way.
If it sounds ridiculous to you in this new way, consider that, to some people, it sounds just as ridiculous in the original. When we are missing a (heavenly) parent, we all suffer. Not just the women and girls, but the men and boys as well. Think of traits we have assigned to the feminine that boys have learned to suppress as they have become men. Think of traits we have assigned to the masculine that we have discouraged girls from developing.
LDS theology includes a feminine deity - no other religion offers a Mother in Heaven complete with a female body along with a Father in Heaven complete with a male body. We SHOULD be able to jettison all of the absurdities brought to light in Carol Lynn’s pink moccasin talk, yet although the rhetoric has been toned down, it still continues. And, as with the Sacrament Meeting example, sometimes what isn’t said speaks louder than what is said.
I would love to have my boys grow up seeing pictures of the General Primary Presidents alongside the 12 Apostles in their Primary Rooms. I would love to spend a year studying the life and teachings of some of the Relief Society presidents, not just the modern prophets, in PH/RS. I would love to sing hymns embued with gender-neutral language where it makes doctrinal and poetic sense.
And I would love to hear my children describe God as, not some old, nice, white-haired and bearded grandfather, but as a perfectly united couple working together to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of their children.
Until some more people understand what an absurdity it is to speak and act the way we currently speak and act, I don’t think these changes will be forthcoming. The rhetoric is changing, and that is a good sign. Let’s move it a little farther along so that we can welcome our Mother to church and home as comfortably as we can welcome our Father.
Comment by LRC — March 17, 2007 @ 8:02 pm
RE, I agree that CLP’s argument is clearly valid since CLP does meet her stated purpose, i.e. to give men “a glimpse into what it would be like to be a male child in a Fatherless House.” I do not believe in burying the past and pretending it didn’t happen. If CLP’s argument is that we *used* to live in a motherless house (but we’ve come a long way), then that argument works very nicely. But I think we still have a ways to go. I’ve only raised these issues because I cannot think of anyone better suited than CLP to give us a roadmap forward from where we are. CLP’s work has helped shape my views on this topic more than everyone else in the world put together, with the exception of my wife. CLP’s work has done so much for me in the past, that I’d like to see her address the present.
Comment by Christian — March 17, 2007 @ 8:05 pm
#57–Yeah we should have noted the original date!! Our bad!
So: just a reminder, everyone: this is part of our series for Women’s History Month. It is a historical piece CLP published a while back and submitted for inclusion in our WHM extravaganza. It would probably look slightly different if authored today, and it would do so in part because of people like CLP who have worked so hard for various forms of compassion and equity and understanding in the church. You cannot appreciate where you ARE if you dismiss where you have BEEN.
I actually can’t find the original publishing info at the moment (putting in a new floor: am surrounded by sawdust and power tools). Can someone help me out?
Comment by Janet — March 17, 2007 @ 8:54 pm
This post says Carol Lynn wrote it around Mother’s Day, 1988.
An interesting background as to why the pink moccasins, as opposed to the blue ones, were needed.
Comment by LRC — March 17, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
“My dear brethren, it is always a great privilege and heavy responsibility to address the priesthood of the Church. Possibly this is the largest gathering of priesthood in the history of the world. I should like to speak to you young men about how blessed you are to hold the Aaronic Priesthood, which is also known as the “lesser priesthood.” But the word lesser, however, does not in any way take away from its importance. There’s nothing small about it—especially when I see how big some of you young men are”
” hope that each of us is aware of the tremendous thing that has come to us with ordination to the priesthood. This is the authority of God in the earth. It comes from Him as a divine bestowal. It carries with it the power and the authority to govern in the affairs of the Church. It carries with it the power and the authority to bless in the name of the Lord, to lay hands upon the sick and call down the powers of heaven. It is sacred and holy. It partakes of the divine. Its authority is expressed in mortality and reaches beyond the veil of death.
“I hope we are worthy of the priesthood we bear. I plead with you, every one of you, to conduct your lives in such a way as to be worthy of it.”
Quotes like these are in priesthood session are so patronizing to me, like the Brethren don’t believe we could be worthy to holds the priesthood. I feel so denigrated, then we are castigated for our legion of sins,
REpent ye, repent ye, who do these men think they are. So mug so condescending, right on sister pierce.
Comment by Rameumptom — March 17, 2007 @ 9:40 pm
furethermore, every good thing is always cast in terms of the priesthood, never any goodness inborn within us, natrual man is an enemy to God, its enough to make a grown man cry.
Comment by Rameumptom — March 17, 2007 @ 9:42 pm
People might disagree whether or not gender equality requires that women have the priesthood. However, the argument that women do not need the priesthood because they can have babies is problematic insofar as analogous statements can justify every gender inequity.
For example, one can argue that women don’t need as much money as men because they can have babies.
One can justify that women have to veil their bodies head to toe because they can have babies.
One can insist that women have to pray in the outer areas of the mosque because they can have babies.
Surely, we all agree that this is nonsense. Every healthy woman can have babies regardless what religion, culture, or ethnicity she belongs to. Some non-Mormon women have even been known to be competent in child rearing. Yet we would not accept other cultures’ gender inequities with a feeble reference that women get pregnant.
Sex is important. So is institutional power. The lesson of liberal democracy is that human beings prosper best when there is a balance of power.
I am sure that there are excellent women’s programs somewhere in Mormonism. That would be the result of local righteousness and initiative. Results would be more consistent, however, if women played an equal role in decision making.
Comment by Hellmut — March 17, 2007 @ 11:07 pm
Ah. Thank you. That does change things somewhat, although with the hindsight of 19 years, I think that the message in General conference had changed by 1988, although these changes had not trickled down to affecting how individuals spoke in testimony meetings at BYU, which I found a little shocking when I was there, e.g. when my roomate in 1988 wasn’t ashamed to admit that he broke up with his girlfriend because she was too intelligent and too studious, and that he thought that a duller woman would make a better mother. OK, he was actually ashamed to admit that last part when I pressed him, but he did affirm it anyway.
Absolutely!
—————–
Sure. But this does not affect the alternate argument, i.e. that the fact that men do not bear babies shows that Gender Equality is not an absolute principle, and that we need only “justify” our actions. If Jesus wants people acting in his name to be male (just as we might want someone playing the role of MLK in a movie to be black), that’s his business.
I agree that women need institutional power, and that girls, boys, and men need women with institutional power. In the old days of the church, before the whole move to the correlation system, women had more institutional power, and I think that we’ve suffered as a people because of that muffling of women’s voices.
Comment by Christian — March 18, 2007 @ 12:36 am
A couple of things:
– I would have thought that talk in the OP was ridiculous regardless of whether it was targeted to boys or girls. Gee whiz.
– I teach the CTR-8 class in my ward, and we have only girls this year. We’re memorizing (slowly) the names of all the Primary and Relief Society presidents along with the prophets (when we those 40 or so names done, we’ll add in the YW/MIA leaders; as it was to get a gender balance for our “what was s/he president of” game, I had to throw in fifteen presidents of the US.) Did you know there’s a May Green Hinckley in the list of Primary presidents? I didn’t. I have no idea if she’s a relation or not, though.
– I listen to BYU Radio at work during the day. I’m almost at the point where I’m going to stop listening to the daily conference addresses, because for the last two weeks they’ve played something from a general Priesthood session every single day. If I hear “I’m so pleased to see the Priesthood of the Lord gathered before me, shining like a blahblahblah” one more time before I’ve even fully woken up (bearing in mind that they haven’t played any other General Conference talks between 6am and 2pm, Utah time,) I swear I’ll just start listening to classical music instead.
– Young Women programs have some great things and some things I was frustrated about when I was in the program. But I think the only really serious issue is that the girls don’t have anything meaningful to do. From the age of 12 on the boys in the ward have significant responsibilities — “if you don’t do this right, the whole meeting is screwed up, or the building gets invaded by rats, or we won’t have money to help the poor” type things. The girls are told that their great responsibilities won’t start for many more years, unless they’d be interested in doing a special musical presentation in Sacrament next month. Drives me nuts. Honestly, I wish they’d put the YW in charge of some of the routine functions of the Relief Society — maybe they can do the compassionate service meals or something.
Comment by Sarah — March 18, 2007 @ 7:47 am
I appreciate the spirit of your response, Christian. Obviously, it is problematic to justify institutional marginalization of human beings in terms of a transcendent authority, especially as the people who claim the exclusive authority to read the mind of Jesus are the beneficiaries of exclusion.
Insofar as LDS gender politics reflects the interests of the powerful there is reason for suspicion. That would be different if the supporters of the priesthood ban could invoke rational reasons. Child birth, at any rate, does not meet that standard.
As for your attempted analogy about actors, there are no parallels between filling a role in a movie and holding power in an organization. You might be better off abandoning it.
Comment by Hellmut — March 18, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
I’m not sure how that objection is remotely relevant, Hellmut. An argument that assumes that priesthood constitutes nothing more or less than holding power in an organization, should not impress persuade someone passingly familliar with the LDS church. Priesthood ordinances from passing the sacrament on up, are rituals. Movies are derived from plays and plays are derived from rituals, and LDS ordinances, like Catholic sacraments and pagan rituals, posit the actor in proxy for the divine. (Sure, Apollo had his female oracles, but that was a curious result of a hostile takeover; generally female pagan goddesses had female proxies and male pagan gods had male proxies.)
If the restoration of all things includes giving women the priesthood (or, as I think is more likely, unlocking the knowledge that women already possess priesthood authority without the need for a laying on of hands), I suspect that it’s tied to future revelations related to our Heavenly Mother.
Comment by Christian — March 18, 2007 @ 11:02 pm
Reading this post, I also (see comment 47) was very much reminded of Elouise Bell’s satirical essay “the Meeting”.
Comment by danithew — March 19, 2007 @ 6:52 am
This point is well taken. When you reverse gender the roles, as well as the words, it seems obvious that women could easily feel less empowered, at least in church functioning. And they are, aren’t they.
So, why would our Heavenly Parents set it up this way? What is about the natures of the daughters and sons, that they would choose to have this the organization to bring the maximum numbers home at last?
I don’t know the answers to the questions I just posed. But I’d like to offer a few thoughts.
1. My previous to current stake president taught that in the temple we receive 26 orders of the highest priesthood. I don’t know how he counted to that number. But both women and men receive the same orders, or equivalent orders, and at the same time. There is a perfect match to each office, or order, of the highest priesthood. Mother-Father, Husband-Wife, Daughter-Son, God-Godess, Queen-King, etcetera. The eternal realm will have, we are taught, no difference of authority, or power, or dominion.
So why does it seem to here?
President Kimball was asked when women would receive the priesthood, and he replied, “Women will bear the priesthood when men bear babies.” I’ve always heard church leaders speak of motherhood and womanly nurturing as far more important (responsibility) than the work of the (mortal) priesthood.
So, for myself, I’ve taken to thinking that “women’s work,” which is never done, is harder, often less intellectually stimulating, and more of drudgery than men’s work. Even within the family, it seems to be so. But if I understand how my Heavenly Parents feel about it, they value the work the sisters do far above my financially productive work and support. Bearing and nurturing children is top level to them. Helping neighbors and other families is next on their list.
When a family has a crisis, and need meals brought in, washing done, and their sick tended; whom does the Bishopric call on to meet these needs? The HP Quorum, or the Elders? No. It’s the sisters that will be called on. Why? Because this work is to important to muck up and can’t wait for weeks to be organized. The sisters get it done. They give the job of maintaining the church structure to the brethren, but the real work of blessing lives is laid far more on the sisters.
I wonder if it’s because the sisters are SO good, that they are required to be more humble in church work than the brethren? I don’t know. I do know that the Lord will have a humble people, and that goes for men and women alike. I know that in many areas, the most important areas, I struggle to stand in my wife’s shadow.
If we focus on serving one another, we seem to make the best prgress toward changing into christlike characters.
Final thought: They say we should liken the scriptures unto ourselves. I read the scriptures in my home with my wife and several stepdaughters. So I like to change the words to the feminine. Particularly the several admonitions to sons, I’ll change to daughers.
I think the world’s barrage of “perfect” body images of women does far more to beat up self esteem than the men having the administrative offices of the church does. But, again, the point if well taken.
Comment by Trueheart — March 19, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
will someone explain to me (convert) why a PH leader needs to supervise the women’s activities?
I noticed this a few years ago on the RS outing. I asked but nobody could answer. I’ve since forgotten til now.
thanks
Comment by mfranti — March 19, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
I too have also wondered about #71 mfranti’s question. In a stake RS tinig meeting held at our ward we had to have PH preside. Along the same vein, why does a PH have to be the last speaker in Sacrament meeting?
Thanks if anyone can answer.
Comment by Lizzilu — March 19, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
i never heard that a PH has to be the last speaker in sacrament meeting. I’m pretty sure that I’ve attended meetings where they weren’t (as in the time when I spoke after my husband).
I don’t know the answer to Mfranti’s question either. Mysteries abound (and I’m not a convert!)
Comment by blue — March 19, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
…you’re kidding about the last speaker in SM? Right?
Comment by mfranti — March 19, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
..I feel so small when I know I shouldn’t.
Comment by mfranti — March 19, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
#72,
My wife was the concluding speaker first Sunday in march. The speaker before her was a man.
Comment by bbell — March 19, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
No I wasn’t kidding about the last speaker. A few weeks ago at the end of WW while everybody was still there some one clearing up details of yesterdays Sacrament where the RS President and the 2 counsellors spoke and the Clerk (bishop 3 or 4 years ago) added that we needed to leave a few minutes at the end because a PH had to be the last speaker. He said that’s the way it is if a couple speaks the husband always speaks last. When I asked why well… that’s just the way it is.
Comment by Lizzilu — March 19, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
It’s an old tradition that (thankfully) most of the church has discarded. Our bishop in Germany demanded that it be that way, he was very conservative. So I asked his counselor to ask about it at the next stake leadership training, and of course, they corrected the matter. That was 3 years ago.
The first woman in our ward to be the concluding speaker was something of a matriarch–a few of her children and grandchildren attended our ward, the ward in which she raised her family, the ward that she had seen grow over the course of probably half a century. It was nice to see her do it. Lizzilu, I hope you are able to find a way to help the Clerk, or anyone else who needs it, to see reason.
Comment by Mary Ann — March 19, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
Not a very flattering comparison, since CLP didn’t do anything degrading like compare raising children to hauling garbage. Sister Pearson seems genuinely interested in sharing her PoV with men, whereas Sister Bell was clearly preaching to the choir.
Comment by Christian — March 19, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
Whenever my DH and I are asked to speak we tell the bishop that we’d rather he went first and I second (he’s an introvert and really really really likes to hand over the longer talk to me). So far nobody has cared at all. I have noticed that the old tradition hasn’t died out in Utah, though–the week we spoke was the only week I can recall where a sister followed a brother. I think it’s probably more habit than malice or even benevolent patriarchy–at least that’s most certainly the case in our ward. Our bishop and the one who preceeded him could not be cooler or more more encouraging of women.
Comment by Janet — March 19, 2007 @ 4:03 pm
Trueheart, you strike me as an incredibly sweet man who might be a slight bit *too* generous in your assessment of inherent female abilities. (Don’t get me wrong–I prefer that to the guys who think women can’t possibly think well since all our blood needs to go to our uterus! And yup, I’ve actually heard that argument :)). But trust me–we struggle. We don’t feel like we are “so good.” We require the atonement every bit as much as do the men.
As per your point regarding compassionate service: we do, on the whole, seem better trained at cooking-on-the-fly. My hubby cooks, but not so well at the last minute and not simple “soul food” that works for the sick. If someone asked him to bring in meals, they’d only get fancy Thai or Indian. I’d LOVE to be the recipient, but it might not be the best thing for someone with the flu… I’m rambling. Just wanted to say that it freaks me out when people assume I’m more righteous than they are just ‘cuz I’m a girl. I reallyreallyreally struggle to be a better person, and I require God’s help at it. Every day. Every minute. Just like my DH :).
Comment by Janet — March 19, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
janet,
do you have any insights to my question in #71?
Comment by mfranti — March 19, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
I haven’t heard anything official, mfranti, but I imagine that it has something to do with wanting a priesthood presence in case of illness or injury. Now, when my inner city St. Louis ward had a policy that a man had to be in the building during enrichment in case a rapist or something came by, I was chagrined and even pretty irritated–because one penis really can’t argue with a gun any better than a room full of ovaries can. But I don’t have a problem with men at a camp-out or something, since I’d like a blessing if I try to drown or something and women don’t currently hold the priesthood and probably won’t anytime soon.
When I was in the Stake primary presidency we were in charge of cub scouts (still don’t really know why that is) and thus the cub scout campout weekend. I LOVED hanging out with little boys fascinated by my camping stove; LOVED the idea of having these little guys see that women enjoyed the outdoors and were even capable of putting up a tent and using a compass. Still, when one of the boys managed to injure his leg quite badly in the gathering darkness, I was happy one of the dad was around to give him a blessing. (The SPP was a doctor, so we had that covered!)
If a guy is asked to be the priesthood presence at such a thing, my hope is that he’d not try and usurp leadership from the women and thus give the boys (or women, if it’s a RS thing) the impression that priesthood always runs things if it’s around, even in areas designated for women. I really DO NOT believe it has anything to do with inherent male superiority and I’d contradict anyone who said it did.
Comment by Janet — March 19, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
thank you janet.
check your email.
Comment by mfranti — March 19, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
When my husband was put in as Bishop he asked about always have a PH as the concluding speaker, the SP told him “That is the unwritten order of things.” I have no idea what that means or why it is even important. Neither does my husband.
Comment by Wisdom — March 19, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
Sorry, that sould read, always having to have a PH as the concluding speaker.
Comment by Wisdom — March 19, 2007 @ 6:10 pm
The unwritten order of things is a phrase coined by Boyd Packer. Google “unwritten order of things” and you are bound to find it, Wisdom.
Comment by Hellmut — March 19, 2007 @ 6:37 pm
In January, the bishop in the ward that I was attending actually made a formal announcement that women were now allowed to give the opening and closing prayer of the meetings. The whole congregation laughed, and the bishop, bless his heart, said that he suspected there were a few more good changes coming down the pipe, and not to worry about it, the church is still true and this is all for the best.
Satan takes away light and truth by … the traditions of the fathers.” The church isn’t supposed to operate according to unwritten orders; although circumstances (government persecution, for instance) could create exceptions, I suppose. Apostacy gnaws at the edge when people cannot sort out doctrine from rumor of doctrine.
Comment by Christian — March 19, 2007 @ 7:19 pm
Christian, #88: You have coined a very interesting phrase: “. . . . . . . .when people cannot sort out doctrine from rumor of doctrine.”
My hat’s off to you.
Comment by Trueheart — March 20, 2007 @ 5:34 am
mfranti #71,
Janet’s answer in #83 was excellent. I’d like to add a story from my limited experience. In an Idaho Ward, the sisters complained of youth running wild while they held their RS meetings, and of strangers peering into windows. The Bishopric asked the PH Quorums to assign two brethren to each RS and YW meeting, to sort of patrol the halls and (1) make sure stray children weren’t getting into trouble, and (2) provide a sense of security to the sisters, so they could concentrate on their meeting.
Maybe those sisters weren’t feminists, in that, a feminist might not have wanted to have, or ask for, men to provide protection and babysitting while they met. But the brethren gladly took care of it, and the troubles stopped.
My belief, therefore, coincides with what Janet said. A pair of brethren are asked to attend women’s activities to provide security and priesthood blessing in case of need. Maybe if we taught our women to be proficient in the use of handguns, we could stop having/needing brethren in attendance.
Comment by Trueheart — March 20, 2007 @ 5:49 am
One - or even several - women with handguns would hardly deter any possible attackers, unless they’re openly wearing them. I can imagine what that sort of practice would do to Church reputation! It makes Porter Rockwell look at home.
Comment by SilverRain — March 20, 2007 @ 6:56 am
#71 It’s been a while since I went to Enrichment, but our RS doesn’t have PH supervision until the last few minutes of the meeting when the women (and we have LOTS of older women and widows) are walking to their cars. I remember when it started, maybe 5 years ago, the RS President said it was to make the women feel safer, alluding to some kind of attack or threat in some other building.
Also, about male speakers in SM: on Christmas Eve last year, I was the only speaker.
Comment by Idahospud — March 20, 2007 @ 8:08 am
Thank you for the replies, it is tradition or “the unwritten order of things”. I’m going to see what happens for the next few weeks and then speak with the Bishop. He was just called a week ago so we’ll see if he makes changes or accepts “tradition”.
Comment by Lizzilu — March 20, 2007 @ 8:39 am
I’ve lurked for quite a while, and am finally breaking my silence in reply to the commenter who said that nothing so condescending has been said recently.
I’ll reverse quote, as CLP did, a paragraph from the GBH talk given at last October’s RS Session.
“Now, my dear brothers, just a word in conclusion. I remind you that you are not second-class citizens in the kingdom of God. You are His divine creation. Women hold the power of mortal creation. Yours is a different role, but also extremely important. Without you, our Father’s plan of happiness would be frustrated and have no real meaning. You are 50 percent of the membership of the Church and fathers of the other 50 percent. No one can dismiss you lightly.”
Original talk may be found here: http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-646-43,00.html
Anyone who thinks that the gentlemen would not be thunderstruck with shock at such a statement directed at themselves needs to take a moment and reconsider with more honesty.
Comment by Mel — March 20, 2007 @ 8:41 am
PS: I have found this thread to be very mentally and attitudinally stimulating. Thank you for it.
I was asked by the Bishop for a time in a New Mexico Ward to choose people for the SM prayers. He asked me to try to invite a sister for opening prayer because I had to ask a brother to do the closing prayer. I wondered about that, but didn’t inquire further. Since then, I’ve noticed many women giving either opening or closing prayers, even in that Ward. Hmmmmm.
Who’s order of things?
Comment by Trueheart — March 20, 2007 @ 11:22 am
With regard to SM prayers, I was formerly in charge of selecting them (in a singles ward). I prefered to have sisters give the openning and brethern the closing, only for the practical reason that that prevented the (to me slightly improper) situation in which someone involved in the sacrament preparation or passing was also praying at the beginning of the meeting.
However, if you want to see where some of these issues come from, consult 1 Timothy.
Comment by TMD — March 20, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
Trueheart@95 — according to the announcement I mentioned above, there apparently was once a policy but it changed in late 2006 or early 2007.
As for the supporting role of the 2 elders that you mentioned, I cannot see why anyone who calls herself a feminist could be offended by the elders’ quorum offering child care services so that all of the sisters could focus on the substance of the meeting. Well-done.
Comment by Christian — March 20, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
Thank you Hellmut for your kind reply. I did find that talk by Elder Packer and found it quite interesting.
#92 In our ward it’s usually the HP that provide security for Enrichment. I appreciate their willingness, and I’m sure they are all faithful brothers but I’ll tell ya, I’m doubtful at best of their ability to truly protect me in the event of an actually attack. Aside from providing a description of my attacker to the police (assuming they can see) I’m not sure what else they could do.
Comment by Wisdom — March 20, 2007 @ 5:42 pm
I haven’t been able to post in weeks.
Comment by Pete Bondat — March 20, 2007 @ 7:11 pm
Pete–Don’t know why! Email Lisa; she knows all. But it appears to be working now.
Comment by janet — March 20, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
Anyone who thinks that the gentlemen would not be thunderstruck with shock at such a statement directed at themselves needs to take a moment and reconsider with more honesty.
have you met a man who complains about feeling second-class, though? what this said to me is that our leaders understand that some women do and they are trying to let them know that they shouldn’t. dont look for trouble where it may not exist.
Comment by anonon — March 21, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
I’m not thunderstruck, sorry. Nothing there trumps my 1986 experience in the MTC service missionary training. I was the only Elder in the class, and Sister Mary Ellen Edmonds (who I adore as a teacher) would invariably address us as “Sisters” or “Girls.”
Comment by Christian — March 27, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
It’s often difficult to see a reality (relationship, family, organization) clearly from within… it often isn’t until pull back the viewfinder on the lens of our life, and take the long view, that we get perspective. Ten years ago, I decided to take Ghandi’s advice and BE the change I longed to see in the Mormon church. My life has transformed from Patriarchy to Partnering, and from this expanded viewpoint, I’m so grateful to have grown up in, and then graduated from, the Mormon church!
Thank you, Carol Lynn, for being an honest and objective perspective through which to explore what patriarchy is and does.
Comment by Melody LeBaron — January 20, 2010 @ 11:59 pm
My mom took me to see this when I was a teen. And bought me a book of poems signed by Carol Lynn on the spot. I’ve been a fan ever since.
Comment by Stephanie — January 21, 2010 @ 12:21 am