474 Comments »

1. Obviously the biggest point is that the church has a patriarchal structure. Only men can hold the Priesthood, only men can be prophets, or Presidents of the Church, or members of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles or Quorums of the 70, or Stake Presidents, or Bishops. So pretty much the entire structure of the church (excepting only Auxiliary Organizations) is set up so that men, and only men, can run it.

   Personally, my biggest problem is with the difference in wording of vows made by women and men in the temple ceremony. Men covenant with God, while women covenant with their husbands. I can deal with inequality in this life, but the idea that it might continue on for eternity is what upsets me the most.

   I also hate the gender stereotyping that goes on a lot in the church. I think just about every talk that is addressed to mothers or fathers should be addressed to parents. I don’t think women are naturally more virtuous, or whatever else. I love talk about equal partnership and don’t like discussions of presiding. I don’t think anyone needs to (or should) preside in a home or family (well, I guess parents together should). I don’t think women need to stay home and men need to provide (though this is certainly a valid choice) — I think every family should work out for itself what will work best for them.

   That’s just a few things off the top of my head.

   Comment by Vada — December 12, 2009 @ 6:13 pm

2. Home teachers. When I married dh and moved into his home a number of years ago the home teachers would come to visit. We were both inactive but dh knew them from having lived in the neighborhood for many years. Although I was in the room the entire time I felt like (as stated in the other thread) an invisible ghost. Even when it came time to leave and pray they only mentioned Bro. Numi and blessed his home in the prayer. After two years of this I finally refused to participate. Funny thing, dh didn’t even notice the obvious non-inclusion until I pointed it out.

   We have since moved. Our current home teachers are a couple, again a person that hubby has known for years. They occasionally come over but no mention of “home teaching” or prayer.

   I couldn’t even tell you what ward we are in yet a few months ago I received a call from someone telling me they needed a photo of us for a ward directory so everyone would recognize us. I politely told him no, not interested. The guy wouldn’t give up and said he would call back. It was obvious that he intended to override my decision by asking hubby. I finally got a little snippy and said NO! And by the way, those photo directories? Anyone checked into copyright issues with all of those images? (Sorry, another pet peeve.)

   Comment by numi — December 12, 2009 @ 6:38 pm

3. oh, and it just occurred to me, I’d be really interested in hearing peoples awakening stories (if you have one), like when and how and under what circumstances did you realize that you had (feminist)concerns?

   Comment by fMhLisa — December 12, 2009 @ 6:46 pm

4. Vada articulated my concerns better than I could have, so I’ll just second what she said.

   My feminist awakening came on my mission. I had graduated from college before serving a mission, and although I had to take a women’s studies class as part of my general ed, I thought feminists were in general a bunch of whiners with a victim mentality. I had been raised to believe that I could be anything I want to be, and I had encountered no gender-based barriers to success, so I didn’t believe that they existed. (I grew up in the SF Bay Area.)

   When I went on my mission (to the southern U.S.), I came to see that no matter how good a missionary I was, I would always have to answer to 19 year old boys simply because I lack a Y-chromosome. The real turning point was one day when my companion and I had an investigator with a serious illness. We taught her about the priesthood and about priesthood blessings. She said she wanted one and asked my companion if she would do it. We had to explain to her that we didn’t hold the priesthood, but that we could call some missionaries who did. We called the elders over, and they gave her a blessing. It was an amazing spiritual experience, but all I could do was cry because there I stood, wanting to be able to give this service, being morally worthy to, but being unable to because of my gender.

   At first I felt guilty for wanting the priesthood, because in the church as a teenager, I had absorbed the idea that it was wrong for me to want it. However, the Spirit confirmed to me that it was a righteous desire. Knowing that God knows my concerns and doesn’t condemn me for them made all the difference.

   Comment by Keri Brooks — December 12, 2009 @ 7:02 pm

5. The fact that women are seen as inherently different from men is the overriding concern for me.

   I do not appreciate the way that men are encouraged to go out and provide, making family life secondary whereas women are expected, without exception, to have their entire existence based on taking care of those men’s children. And yet, after the men have dumped child rearing on the women, it is the men who are supposed to “preside”, whatever that’s supposed to mean. The rationales for this, that women are inherently more “nurturing” and “virtuous” are silly and reductionist.

   Also, I’m irked by the fact that we give men this mystical priesthood without ever really explaining why or what that is. By extension, it bothers me when, in RS, we’re all supposed to discuss what a blessing it is to have the priesthood in our homes. What’s that all about?

   As far as the temple and eternal goals are concerned, there’s something hurtful about knowing that your husband is destined to be a god who rules his universes and has a personal relationship with his children and his Heavenly Father. Meanwhile, all you’ve got to look forward to is making spirit babies that won’t know you and being your husband’s “helpmeet”.

   Comment by AllieKay — December 12, 2009 @ 7:02 pm

6. Veda…it’s like we are twins…I thought I was the only one pissed off by the wording of vows…and why do women veil when we pray in the temple?

   Comment by Reta — December 12, 2009 @ 7:09 pm

7. Re Vada’s concern in #1. I was just at the temple last week (and I’m admittedly not there a lot), but I believe we covenant with God regarding our relationship with/to our husbands, rather than covenanting with our husbands.
   I do not have a problem with the patriarchal structure of the church as a whole- in general, I feel like God made it that way for a reason, giving each of us unique roles/responsibilities in this life (is that a terribly non-feminist thing to say?) To me it seems that the whole point between the new and everlasting covenant of temple marriage being so critical to our eternal progression is that it actually allows us to share in the priesthood with our husbands.
   My beef is actually only with individual men who tend to be sexist pigs (and they exist inside the church and out). When I was VT coordinator, I had to enter all of the stats every month on the computer in the clerk’s office. I often chose to do this during the second hour of church, when my husband was available to take care of my then nursing baby and my other four children were either in Nursery or Primary. I actually had one of the counselors in the bishopric (a man old enough to be my father) come in and tell me that I should really leave the computer free for the men to use on Sundays because they “had jobs during the week” (somehow implying that I had nothing else to do?) Several of the ward’s clerks/male auxiliary leaders happened to overhear the comment, and I was gratified that they were all equally appalled that this man had made such a sexist remark.

   Comment by meggle — December 12, 2009 @ 7:13 pm

8. My feminist concerns started when I was a beehive. I overheard my leaders talking about the camp food budget and one of them mentioned that she was frustrated that the boys got nearly twice as much money per child per meal on their camping trips. I was stunned and wondered why. Teenage boys do not nned to eat twice as much as teenage girls. The YM leaders are certainly capable of using their resources wisely… I went through as many scenarios as I could to explain it, but then I started noticing other things. Like how women were expected to take children along when they went Visiting Teaching and how I never knew of a man that brought his kids along to Home Teach. I realized that there were lots and lots of women that would still cook dinner for their families even though dinner was provided at homemaking every month. These are cultural, but they opened my eyes to the patriarchal system that exists in the church.
   A woman should NEVER be made to feel less than she is in the name of the priesthood. Not that we shouldn’t be chided at times, none of us are perfect, but a man should not use his priesthood as an excuse to belittle or control and when that happens, I really believe that the man is acting in ways that are not consistent with the God that I feel I have a relationship with.

   Comment by queenlucy — December 12, 2009 @ 7:14 pm

9. 1. Women are excluded from administering almost all ordinances in the LDS church. They are also barred from serving as official witnesses to ordinances.

   2. Women are barred from almost all of the leadership positions which involve exercising stewardship over the spirituality of both adult men and women. They are primarily limited to exercising leadership over other women and children.

   3. Women don’t get honorific titles. No, I don’t want to hear about your amazing egalitarian-minded ward that always addresses the RS president “President Whats-her-face.” Until SLC starts referring to the General Auxiliary Presidents and their counselors as “President Lastname,” women don’t have honorific titles in my book.

   4. Women are discouraged from serving missions. No, I don’t want to hear about how many women serve missions in your amazing egalitarian-minded ward. President Hinckley stated that the age is held up to 21 to discourage young women from going and that’s that.

   5. Women are discouraged from working outside the home. The church does little to publicly encourage or acknowledge married women in careers.

   6. The church utilizes archaic translations and English versions of its Scriptures that make heavy use of gender-exclusive language. Culturally Mormons are quite bad about using gender-inclusive language.

   7. Living women cannot be sealed to more than one man, in contrast to living men who can theoretically have unlimited sealings.

   8. There are very few female characters in the LDS canon and the temple ceremony drama. The few powerful female figures are found in the Bible and these are often ignored.

   9. The temple ceremony and the Family Proclamation subordinate women to men, wives to husbands.

   10. Women leaders are rarely cited in official teaching materials, even on issues for which they ought to be cited.

   11. Women are discouraged from exercising the spiritual gifts of healing and prophecy.

   12. Almost all of the ecclesiastical offices mentioned in the Bible (prophet, apostle, elder/bishop, deacon, seventy[-two]) are restricted from women, even in the face of strong evidence from the Bible and the early church that these offices were available to women in at least some capacity. The only possible exceptions are teacher and evangelist (if we interpret “evangelist” to mean “missionary,” which seems reasonable).

   13. Women are restricted from offering prayers at general sessions of General Conference. There is a high amount of anecdotal evidence in the Bloggernacle that a significant number of wards are restricting women from offering the opening prayer in sacrament meeting and only allowing them to offer the closing prayer.

   14. Women are never invited as speakers in the priesthood session of General Conference, even though men are invited as speakers in the Relief Society and Young Women sessions.

   Those are my concerns with the LDS church’s treatment of women.

   I can back up every single one of these issues with specific examples from the CHI, current teaching manuals, biblical & early church scholarship, and recent statements from General Authorities, so please be very, VERY sure of yourself before you challenge the accuracy of the issues I’ve listed.

   I’m in the middle of finals (including writing a 20-page paper on the issue I listed in #12), so I may be slow in returning to this thread for further discussion.

   Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — December 12, 2009 @ 7:19 pm

10. That my mother in law was not enough of a person to sign as the witness to our temple marriage (DH’s husband is not a member). Instead my father and uncle signed it. It just seemed silly to me that a woman cannot even act as witness to an ordinance. Not being an official witness to my children’s blessings was another pebble in my shoe.

    Comment by StepfordWife — December 12, 2009 @ 7:22 pm

11. And you can add:

    15. Women are restricted from serving in callings that involve oversight and management of ward finances.

    16. Women are restricted from involvement with church discipline. No, I don’t want to hear how this is such a terrible burden and why should women want to do it. That’s a gilded cage argument. Women should want to do it because they may have gifts of discernment, compassion and mercy which would make them good people for the job.

    Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — December 12, 2009 @ 7:23 pm

12. My “awakening” came with my divorce. Having gone through the conversion of a husband, temple sealing and unexpected singlehood I was suddenly sent back to square one. I had to examine each aspect of my life and determine which direction to go. That included personal religious beliefs and the feeling of having no real place in the church. It was a gradual letting-go, but eventually was complete. Being a regular reader of fMh has enabled me to look back at those reformative years and understand more fully what happened.

    Comment by numi — December 12, 2009 @ 8:01 pm

13. Wow, Ms. Jack Meyers, it would be hard to think of something you have not mentioned. Good list!

    My “feminist awakening” was very gradual, but started at a young age watching my brothers in the cub scouts and seeing what a big deal that was for the family and the ward, and wondering why I couldn’t do anything like that. Then, hearing my stepmother tell me with tears in her eyes that she was never allowed to go to the temple when she was married to her first husband because he was not a member, and (at least in her ward) women were not allowed to get their endowments out until they were ready to get married in the temple, even though men could get them out as teenagers. Then later, in seeing how my parents were quite possibly the two most incompatible people to ever get married, wonder if the only reason she wanted to marry him was because she was simply desperate to have the priesthood in her home and that was the only way. Then, of course, the icing on the cake was my own first trip to the temple -something I had looked forward to my entire life, mostly because of the love my stepmother always had for it. The wording of the covenants where I was to be submissive to my husband was the only thing that bothered me about that special day, but it has been the thorn in my side ever since, even when I try to ignore it and concentrate only on the good that comes from that holy place.

    And now what scares me most is that I find myself saying things to my own daughters that I don’t fully believe myself - because although in all other areas I am trying to raise them to think for themselves and be indepenant, strong women, I am afraid of this someday turning them away from a church that I love. I want them to believe they can be anything and everything they work for, but find myself giving the same old ‘acceptable’ answers to my 6-year old when she tearily asks why she can’t be a prophet someday.

    Comment by POM — December 12, 2009 @ 8:04 pm

14. My daughter just became a Beehive, and her group was named “Domestic Goddesses in Training.” As the daughter of someone who is much better at home renovations and budgeting than, well, keeping house, even at 12 she sees the humor in that title. I didn’t need to say a word!

    Comment by Sherri — December 12, 2009 @ 8:20 pm

15. My beef is summed up by something Lynnette said a long time ago:

    Men’s existence is described an end in itself, whereas women’s existence is explained in terms of what women can provide for men.
    I hear an assumption that the primary purpose of the plan of salvation is to get men exalted, and women’s value lies in what they can contribute to that primary purpose.

    Most all of the other problems I have with the church I’m willing to chalk up to incomplete understanding on my part, or limitation of mortality or whatever. But just about everything the scriptures, prophets, temple, manuals etc have ever said confirms (or at least doesn’t contradict) the idea that women only exist for men.

    Comment by Starfoxy — December 12, 2009 @ 8:21 pm

16. @13 “And now what scares me most is that I find myself saying things to my own daughters that I don’t fully believe myself”

    i left over this. i simply could not do it. Teaching the YW was hard enough. Imagining teach my daughter, who was then 2, was unbearable. i wasn’t happy as a member however and felt i was basically relegating her to the same fate. If she finds it as an adult and converts of her own free will i’ll deal with that although watching my grand daughters be taught the same things would probably be equally as painful.

    Comment by StepfordWife — December 12, 2009 @ 8:22 pm

17. Great job Jack.

    My frustration is the expectation that I will be expected to put aside my career (or never start one!) to be home with children. My ward has women with great careers (one’s a lawyer, one’s a surgeon, and others are impressive as well) but they are silent in Relief Society, which is all about the SAHMs with young children.

    Comment by kew — December 12, 2009 @ 8:39 pm

18. I have never felt inferior or less valued because I am a woman. I believe the gospel to be true; I’ve had powerful testimony building experiences that I can’t deny, and because of that, I can brush aside certain aspects of the church that bother me. I know God knows better than me, and things are they way they are for a reason.

    Except for… polygamy. The very idea makes me feel literally sick to my stomach. I wouldn’t care if it was just a historical footnote, but everything points to the fact that it will be most likely be restored. I’m supposed to share my dear husband with some other woman? For eternity? For forever? Just typing out these words are making my hands shake. This is a subject I struggle greatly with. Fervent prayer has helped comfort me somewhat, but I suspect my troubles with polygamy will never completely go away.

    Comment by skippy — December 12, 2009 @ 8:40 pm

19. *women, not woman. (For all I know, he’ll get a harem of hundreds.)

    Comment by skippy — December 12, 2009 @ 8:52 pm

20. The polygamy one is troubling to me, as is the fact that living women can’t be sealed to more than one man, but living men can be sealed to more than one woman.

    Most of my issues are cultural in nature, though… more to do with the perception that all LDS women should fit in some austere homemaker mold. Ha! I even laughed as I typed it!

    Comment by Liz — December 12, 2009 @ 9:03 pm

21. I want to be the clerk. I am good at finding and correcting information. So I just send it to the clerk, and bug him till he fixes things! They do thank me for doing this. ( I have actually heard of an instance of a sister being a clerk where there were too few bodies to fill the callings! )

    Comment by Melissa P. — December 12, 2009 @ 9:20 pm

22. 1. Women who are abused by their bishop/stake president husband have absolutely no recourse on the Church.

    2. Women who assist their friends in leaving an abusive marriage may be threatened with excommunication if their husband is the stake president or a GA (I was.)

    3. Bishops sometimes counsel women to stay in abusive marriages, especially if the abuser in a friend of the bishop.

    4. Women are sometimes expected to fulfill a demanding Church calling, sustain their husband in his demanding calling, and raise their children without the husband’s help–and yet the Church professes to strengthen families.

    5. Auxiliary leaders, ie. RS, Primary, and YW Presidents, perform a huge amount of service in their wards and yet seldom have much autonomy or serious priesthood support in fulfilling their callings.

    6. The Church seems geared towards women who are married in the temple and have children, yet those women are in the minority in the Church.

    7. The training of young women is definitely less important in the Church than the training of young men (and this begins in Primary with Activity Days, which are poorly funded and organized in comparison to the Scouting program.)

    8. The emphasis by Church leaders, includings GA’s, on virtue and chastity, seems to disreguard the fact that one-quarter of women in the Church have been sexually abused, often by a close relative or male holding a position of authority in the Church.

    Comment by Chris — December 12, 2009 @ 9:24 pm

23. Re: Polygamy (Jacob 2),

    26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
    27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be bone wife; and concubines he shall have none;
    28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
    29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
    30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

    Based, in particular, on verses 26 and 30, what do we make of polygamy being either a footnote or a future eventuality? I, for one, am satisfied that it was a footnote. After all, the scriptures are the “standard” by which all other comments/references must be evaluated.

    Comment by WJ — December 12, 2009 @ 9:39 pm

24. Chris,
    What is the source of the stat you cite in your point #8? I’ve never heard the like.

    Comment by John C. — December 12, 2009 @ 9:40 pm

25. This sounds small, but I wanted a part in my daughter’s baby blessing. I saw that they used a deacon to hold the microphone for the blessing, so I asked the bishop if I could do that. I didn’t think having the priesthood mattered for holding the microphone, but apparently it does since my request was turned down. I almost cried.

    Comment by Heather — December 12, 2009 @ 9:52 pm

26. I would say that it is not the male dominated management of the church that bothers me. THe various ordinances don’t even bother me that much.

    What bothers me is more of the attitudes that occur within the ranks. I find that LDS men treat me different professionally. When I was closing a very major transaction, opposing counsel asked me who was cooking dinner for my children that night. I had a managing partner (LDS) who would not sit next to me because I was a female. I had other male LDS colleagues who would not carpool with me to a meeting because I was a woman. The fact that I have a doctorate and absolutely no interest in them apparently did not counteract the fact that I have boobies.

    I have met many LDS women who feel unable to make their own decisions and destinies. Sometimes it is so extreme that they don’t even know how to feel.

    Comment by StillConfused — December 12, 2009 @ 10:18 pm

27. I first noticed I had feminist concerns with the church relatively recently (within the year) when I madw a friend who is still in her 20’s, has a son, and is a widow. I realized that having women not be able to be sealed to more than one man had not just eternal, but current effects on women like this. Finding a willing mate when you have a child is hard enough, but what if that man is not sealed to anyone? She wants to stay sealed to her deceased husband. So does the “new guy” have to settle with a life without those blessings simply because his love happens to no one to throw away her sealing to her dead husband? I would think many LDS men in this situation may be turned away, making her more likely to remain a single parent to a wonderful little boy who would probably benefit from having another parent figure around. let alone help her sanity level with having another adult to turn to with concerns about her son.

    After having this bug me, many other things started coming to the forefront. Culturally mainly. For instance, just last week we had an Elders Quorum President come to our home to give my husband a Home Teaching list. He brought cookies and was generally agreable. We talked for a while at which point the man asked if we could close with a prayer. Both of us agreed and then… get this…. the man stated “well, Bro Soandso, since you are the boss of the house I will leave this to you”. HELLO? He was in MY house. If anyone is the boss it would be the person making sure everyone gets where they need to be and makes sure there is enough money to go around (I do the finances) I am the bossiest person in this house. Yes, my wonderful spouse does his part and is awesome. We are partners, one is not better than the other. We both make it work. I was shocked that someone would come into my home and say such a thing, though I truly believe it was done in ignorance.

    I worry very much about my daughter being only taught to be a follower at church and not a leader. Someone who can make things happen like I want her to be able to be.

    I have slowly stopped going to church over the last year, even though I do believe many integral things in the church aka that God is a person and not a nebulous blob that I cannot comprehend and more.

    I’m currently in limbo.

    Comment by April — December 12, 2009 @ 10:37 pm

28. I think something I read earlier this week (fMh? Segullah? Sorry - Google reader) really hit a chord with me: Am I a feminist because I’m discontent, or am I discontent because I’m a feminist. I think it has really come down to me being discontent first.

    I’m with StillConfused. I’ve had LDS colleagues who won’t drive with me to a client site, who won’t collaborate on research with me (without others), and who are visibly uncomfortable talking about work with me (because we work in similar industries). SC: you’ve given me my new favorite quote: “The fact that I have a doctorate and absolutely no interest in them apparently did not counteract the fact that I have boobies”.

    It it so obvious to others that it has become a running joke with some of my non-LDS colleagues when we chat at annual meetings. (”You want to grab lunch? Oh wait - we might end up doing it.”) And I don’t search out male friends; I have a PhD in a predominantly male profession. They all just can’t figure out how to talk to me without making it feel like we’re doing something wrong. /ramble

    Comment by that1girl — December 12, 2009 @ 10:45 pm

29. Re #25
    I also witnessed a similar occurance to the girls budget being smaller than the boys.
    My own mother was the YW President when I was a YW. She had to fight, FIGHT! To get funding for things. The boys were allowed to do fundraisers for scouts but the girls were banned from it, because the Church doesn’t to fundraisers, but Scouts do. Nice loophole there. Can the girls get a loophole too please?
    My mother also fought to get any kind of an okay for a girls “trip” for the laurels in the ward, because she did not think it fair that the boys got something as cool as high adventure while the girls where left with what? Crafts? The girls were not encouraged to learn anything in the “male territory” aka mechanics, home maintenance etc, though if they choose to it wasn’t banned completely though it was questioned strongly.

    Comment by April — December 12, 2009 @ 10:51 pm

30. I believe widows can now be sealed again while retaining the previous sealing. It may not be automatic, but it is possible.

    Comment by sister blah 2 — December 12, 2009 @ 11:00 pm

31. My mom is a widow and was married for time only to her current husband in the temple. She can only be sealed to him after she dies, which is a shame, because he’s a great man.

    Comment by that1girl — December 12, 2009 @ 11:02 pm

32. Hello all!
    I am also a non-member, but in the midst of researching the LDS church and reading the BoM. I came across this wonderful and insightful blog in search of the answer to the very question posed in this post. As a woman, I am concerned with feminist issues and know the church receives flack for their patriarchal structure, etc. Now, I have only read through to #9, so my question may already be addressed, but I was wondering — for you who are feminist and active members of the church — along with discussing what issues you have and when you became aware of feminist sympathies and thought, what inspires you to remain members of the church? What keeps you faithful, despite your frustrations? I hope I don’t sound accusatory; I’m not asking “why in the world could you be a member if you think THAT?!” but rather, I am curious to hear what you as feminist or non-feminist women find to be positive things for women?

    Comment by grizz — December 12, 2009 @ 11:09 pm

33. Grizz,

    Great question. I’m early in my journey, but I still attend church for a few reasons.
    1. It is easier on my husband. He needs it for social and possibly professional reasons.
    2. We don’t have children yet, so I do not have the immediate concerns that some of the mothers here have mentioned.
    3. I sit with a woman whose husband in in the bishopric and has four adorable children 6 and under, and it greatly makes her life easier when I play with a kid or two during sacrament meeting.
    4. I feel lazy and grumpy when I stay home on Sundays and I haven’t found anything better to do.

    Hope that helps!

    Comment by kew — December 12, 2009 @ 11:24 pm

34. Grizz - it is a good question. For me, it comes down to my testimony and the fact that I do see some progress. I am in the YW presidency and have been pleasantly surprised to see my Bishopric ask me to speak to the youth about higher education. They strive to not minimize the roles that women do have and I feel they truly value the things that women contribute to the ward. They haven’t once said anything sideways about my nonmember DH, my career, or my lack of little ones. (Sadly, those comments have all come from the ladies.) I am moving soon and hope I’m lucky enough to have another great bishopric.

    Comment by that1girl — December 12, 2009 @ 11:35 pm

35. #23 So, Mr. Evans, are you going to explain to all the women here how they are wrong or merely attempt to embarrass or intimidate them because they’ve addressed what, obviously, are problems and cause them pain or doubt and embarrass you?

    Comment by Withheld — December 12, 2009 @ 11:35 pm

36. I’d really like to respond to your question, grizz- I’m an active (if somewhat unconventional) member of the church, but I’m not sure that people here would necessarily call me a feminist- although I strongly believe that men and women should have equal rights, and be treated equally. I guess I just feel that “equal” doesn’t necessarily mean “exactly the same” (I tell my kids that constantly).
    So what do I find in the church that is positive for women? I find that the gospel in general is positive for people. I am happy when I live the principles I am taught at church. Am I ever frustrated with people in the church that I feel are ignorant, sexist, or just plain mean? You bet. See my earlier comment. I still fume over that. But by and large, I find that the message taught by the church is one of empowerment for women and families- although yes, we embrace a very traditional role for women in general, you will find that education is encouraged, leadership is encouraged, and seeking your own spiritual connection to God is not only encouraged but an integral part in obtaining a testimony of the truth of the gospel. (Whew! run-on sentence, sorry!)
    There are many people out there who have had negative experiences within the church, and in saying these things, I don’t mean in any way to invalidate their pain or experiences, but you seem to be asking for responses from all kinds of women, so I’m sharing mine.
    You know what? I’m bugged by the fact that women can’t be sealed to more than one man, too- I admit, on the face of it it seems very unjust. I just know that God is loving and ultimately very, very just, and I figure He’ll work it all out in the end. There’s a lot in this world that seems unfair and unjust, but one of the greatest things the gospel has given me is a knowledge that this life is just one tiny little sliver of eternity, and without being able to see the whole, I may not currently be able to understand all of the parts. Just my two cents.

    Comment by meggle — December 12, 2009 @ 11:44 pm

37. Grizz,
    

    I’m not asking “why in the world could you be a member if you think THAT?!” but rather, I am curious to hear what you as feminist or non-feminist women find to be positive things for women?

    One thing that I find to be very positive is the Relief society.
    One of the goals of the RS is to promote sisterhood- to foster love and support between women. Actual practice often falls short of the ideal and I have other issues with the overall structure of the whole organization, but promoting that sort of unquestioned loyalty and love for other women is something rarely seen anywhere else. Especially in a world where girls are taught to see each other first as competition.
    Another thing that I like about the church, as a feminist, is that fathers are strongly encouraged to be active participants in their children’s life, and that the church is (generally) not kind at all to deadbeat dads. Divorced parents aren’t allowed temple recommends if they are behind in child support payments. (Again, practice often falls short of the ideal, but there it is.)

    Comment by Starfoxy — December 12, 2009 @ 11:50 pm

38. #21 Melissa P. ~ I believe women used to technically be allowed to serve as ward clerks and executive secretaries. It was unusual but the CHI did not designate the callings to priesthood holders. IIRC, it was the 1999 CHI that first designated the callings to priesthood holders.

    A bit silly given that the clerical and secretarial work in almost every other denomination is carried on primarily by women.

    #33 grizz ~ For the record I’m not LDS myself. I care about the status of women in the LDS church for a lot of reasons, but one of the primary ones is that I’m married to a Mormon and my daughter attends her father’s church half the time.

    I am curious to hear what you as feminist or non-feminist women find to be positive things for women?

    The LDS church is very good about allowing women to speak in its primary Sunday meeting. They don’t give 1 Corinthians 14:34 the time of day. You’re much more likely to hear a woman preaching in the average LDS Sunday meeting than in the average Sunday meeting of Protestants and other Christians.

    I also think that the LDS church puts better emphasis into the idea that male headship is about service to others than other Christian denominations do. My experiences are primarily with LDS men and evangelical men, and I’ve found that LDS men are usually pretty reluctant and hesitant about the whole “presiding” thing. Complementarian evangelical men are like, “Go Ephesians 5, God put us in charge, so there!” Horribly irritating attitude to have.

    I think patriarchy sucks no matter how you slice it, but nice patriarchs are certainly preferable to dickish ones.

    Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — December 12, 2009 @ 11:56 pm

39. my awakening came when I had a baby. suddenly, I realized: my husband still had *choices* and I . . . didn’t.

    Comment by Isis — December 13, 2009 @ 12:02 am

40. I’m confused. That’s why I stay. I don’t want to burn bridges that don’t need burning. I want to be absolutely sure before I decide to leave because it will not only effect me, but my husband, my children, my friends, my extended family, and my in laws.

    I’ve been praying, and when I know the right course for me and know that in the long run it won’t be ultimately harming my children and husband, then will I act and leave, or I will act and stay.

    As stated above I have a testimony (even if it is small at this point) that God loves me and is comprehensible, that families are supposed to be together forever, and that Jesus died for my sins.

    I believe in parts of the church that are unique. I believe that even those that came before the church should have the opportunity to be baptized, that a committee of very human people should not be able to decided what God is or isn’t. He/she just is. I believe in both a Heavenly Mother and a Heavenly Father. I believe in personal revelation. If I were to leave the church I do not believe I would ever find another. I believe it is as close as organized religion gets to appeasing my confusion in this life.

    While I haven’t been active for several months my husband has voiced his wish to go back, so I will (most likely tomorrow). With as open a mind as I can accomplish, searching for the Spirit and the assurance of a course of action one way or another. I hope that it can help me reconcile these things and sooth my heart.

    Comment by April — December 13, 2009 @ 12:05 am

41. Great list, Jack! I totally agree with everything except numbers 3 and 6. Those are true, they just don’t bother me. I try to get everyone to call me by my first name anyway, and for some reason gender inclusive language (either way) has just never been very important to me. But I definitely understand why they’d be issues for someone else.

    Meggle, I suppose it would actually be more accurate to say that men covenant directly with God, while women only covenant with God through their husbands. I want to covenant with God myself as a whole and complete person, just like my husband and any other man can do. (Or, conversely, if it’s because only a woman and a man together can be complete in God’s eyes, I want my husband to covenant with God through me just as I covenant with God through him.)

    Grizz, I mostly stay because I have had wonderful spiritual experiences that have nearly all been in the context of this church. It causes me pain sometimes, but it gives me hope, comfort and joy other times. I also want my children to grow up knowing about God and Christ. Also, my entire family and my husband’s entire family are members, so it would be hard to leave (especially hard on my husband, who’s a really great guy). I do continue to have hope that some of the things that bother me will change, which allows me some peace in staying.

    Comment by Vada — December 13, 2009 @ 12:12 am

42. #9 Mrs. Jack Meyers - I was just talking to my husband — who also leans a bit feminist — and he stated that he has seen a woman speak in the Priesthood Session of conference. He said he acknowledges that is is very, very rare, and in all the time he has been going he has only seen it once. (I will try to look up when though that may be hard to do) I was wondering if this was a rule you found in the CHI or if it was a conclusion come to because of general acceptance of it being fact by most LDS members. I would love to know! Thanks in advance!

    Comment by April — December 13, 2009 @ 12:28 am

43. OK, husbands memory was wrong… thought it might be. Tricky memories those! I check and all the way back to his 12th birthday there was no female speaker…. wish there was though.

    Comment by April — December 13, 2009 @ 12:59 am

44. The Church is home to me. I stay because I love it. I also believe that God is good, and fair, and therefore aspects of the Church which are not good and fair are obviously not of God. In earlier years I agonized over this, trying to make things that are obviously wrong right and rationalizing the injustices I observed. Since deciding that I would no longer give my conscience a hernia by trying to believe things to be their opposite, I have (perhaps paradoxically) become more at peace in church, more faithful to the gospel of Jesus, and more charitable toward my fellow church members. The Church can be difficult for women (and others) and may be even slower to change than most western institutions because of its post-19th century conservatism. This doesn’t mean I don’t try to change things, but I don’t try as hard as I should. (I told a gay Mormon patient of mine about an anti-gay tirade in Relief Society during the Prop 8 fiasco, for example, and he rebuked me for my silence–since then I’ve tried to speak up more, but I’m uncomfortable in the face of others’ discomfort).

    The polygamy thing bothered me until a sociologist friend pointed out that since more male babies are conceived and born than female babies (a slight but significant difference–and not due to selective abortion, but just one of those biological flukes), AND that more male than female children die before age 8, if we are basing estimations of celestial polygamy on how many worthy spirits will actually need partners in heaven, then righteous, celestial marriage-worthy females are going to be significantly outnumbered.

    With that I gave up and decided not to worry about it anymore. You can find evidence to justify anything if you start with your conclusions. Which I guess is a pretty good brief definition of the patriarchy.

    Comment by Karla — December 13, 2009 @ 1:08 am

45. meggle 7, POM 13 and Starfoxy 15 basically gave my main concerns (but I’ll sum them anyways )

    I feel torn between two ideas. Either 1 - God views men and women as perfectly equal, and we mere mortals are the ones who have screwed up. (It must have happened pretty quickly because the OT is just about as sexist as anything. Then again, Cain slew Abel, so murder was introduced pretty quickly. Not a far stretch that sexism essentially happened in the same generation). To me, this can explain patriarchy in the church (we are evolving as we go) and a lot of the rotten things that happen in wards (it’s not patriarchy - it’s just a bunch of rotten jerks using patriarchy as an excuse to be rotten jerks).

    This is what I have been fighting against my whole life: men who use their “positions” in church or marriage to abuse or take advantage of or otherwise mistreat women. I know for sure that these things happen. It’s a (relatively) easy problem to identify and try to correct.

    However, somewhere deep in my heart, I am very scared of idea 2: that the patriarchy that exists in the church is really the way God wants it, and that women exist to serve men. That never, ever occurred to me as a child, teen or young adult. It first occurred to me when I went to the temple the first time. All growing up, I truly thought that I was special and unique and God loved me just for being me, and I was going to do great things and serve the world, etc. etc. Then, I went to the temple, and it suddenly occurred to me that I am an accessory to my husband. Together “we” will do great things and serve the world - but it isn’t really me. It’s him who will do great things, and I will support and obey him (okay, “hearken”, but doesn’t it really mean obey?)

    The really hard thing for me has been that I seem to find more evidence of idea 2. I can go along pretending that I’m an important and valued individual, and then I go to the temple and am reminded again that I am an accessory. I really, really would love to find concrete evidence that I am wrong, but in the past 11 years, it just seems to be confirmed with each additional step. Know what happens when you’re really faithful and do everything the Lord asks at great sacrifice and support your husband? He gets a calling that takes him away from home a bit more, and you get more home responsibilities. Know what happen when you stay faithful and sacrifice a bit more and do everything the Lord asks and continue to support your husband? Bingo! He gets an even bigger calling that takes him from hom a bit more, and you get a few more home responsibilities. It seems to be a pattern, and I’m not sure I really like it or the end result (that yes, all along, your husband has done great things while you have been his accessory). As I mentioned in another thread, Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother seem to model this behaviour as well (as far as we can tell).

    I would LOVE concrete evidence that idea 2 is wrong. I suspect I might not ever get it because I suspect that this is one of my personal trials in life. I have a rock solid testimony that God lives and loves His children. I have a rock solid testimony of Christ and His Atonement. I have a diamond testimony (meaning super solid) of the BofM. I even have a rock solid testimony of Joseph Smith and a living prophet. I know the core doctrines of salvation are true.

    I know that God speaks the truth when he says that His work is to “bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man”. What I don’t know is whether “man” really includes me or if I am just an accessory to man. And it hurts A LOT. It hurts more than I can say. I know that God loves me, but I don’t know if he loves me as much as DH. I honestly don’t know. And I wish I did. I really do.

    Comment by Stephanie — December 13, 2009 @ 1:57 am

46. Also, thank you for the shout out, Lisa. And DH wonders why I am so addicted to this site. In addition to my daily fix of intellect, I also get my ego boosted! Can’t beat that!

    Comment by Stephanie — December 13, 2009 @ 2:03 am

47. I don’t know Steve (23), I don’t know. I’m sitting here trying to use my brain and it’s not getting me anywhere. The OP question really caught me, it seemed so obvious a question and yet so complex to answer, and I couldn’t think how to answer it. But it seemed like it deserved an answer, or an attempt at one.

    This exercise might not be a good idea, I was worried about it, as you can probably tell from my overly cautious (pointless?) mumblings above.

    One part of me is thinking about the city club I was just listening to, full of all these financial experts talking about all the changes (oh so many) that need to be made so we don’t have another economic melt-down, and they all agreed, despite all the complex difficult unknowable controversial challenges, that the first biggest most important change that has to take place is transparency. “Sunlight is the Best Disinfectant.” and all that. That would be valuing honesty and openness, or something. “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

    All this bottled up discontent can’t be good, let’s air it out, right? I have a hard time seeing the downside of people being honest. But then, another part of me knows that there certainly can be one. Taking the financial metaphor further, sometimes unmeasured honesty can cause illogical panic spiraling unnecessarily into whole other kinds of equally appalling meltdowns. Timing, packaging, intent, random luck, so many factors play into the resulting effect of honesty, every person here could share their own personal truths with the best of intentions (and that assuming a lot already), and yet the whole could easily be incomplete, deficient. Easily.

    We can’t we shouldn’t say every thought that crosses our minds. Honesty is an important value, but we use filters, we have rules, and sometimes (but not always) that’s good too.

    There are (sometimes, perhaps competing) values that are legitimate considerations. Obviously, your concern about gripe-festing represents a different value emphasis. Perhaps valuing respect, or reverence, balance, or maybe even privacy. All important things, and each packed with all kinds of valid concerns. And I too am concerned, obviously or I wouldn’t be dithering like this.

    I really don’t know what’s best. Now that I’ve asked the question . . . would it be right to withdraw it, it doesn’t feel right to me. Yet, the whole piling effect does feel (perhaps unfairly) negative, but I don’t even know what that means, not every type of discomfort is bad. And there is still the part of me that really does want to know. Just for instance, I feel like I just learned such an interesting new insight into stillconfused, I really value that.

    So that solved nothing I guess.

    But I do have a request of you Steve, I really respect you, you’re my friend and I value that so much, please be a little more careful about the way you talk about me and my precious baby blog. Especially in public (again). I know being all insulty is the way you roll, and often it’s really funny, but sometimes the underlying implications of the way you say things, so hurtful. It’s so unfairly reductionist to classify our concerns a “gripe-fest”, the implication being incessant annoying complaints from which we derive pleasure. I know you respect me, but sometimes your words don’t reflect that very well.

    And no, I’m not mad at you, we are still friends. Lucky us! Just don’t be a jerk, brother.

    Comment by fMhLisa — December 13, 2009 @ 2:11 am

48. I find it completely silly that so many men are concerned, even appalled, that a woman might show up to church in something other than a dress/skirt. Now, this is not true in quite a few areas, but it’s a huge deal in many more places. And it’s a bigger deal than white shirts and ties. Man shows up with a colored shirt or no tie and he probably has company in the audience. Woman shows up in slacks and she’s the lone ranger.

    Changing the hymn text to be more gender inclusive would make a huge difference to me, for sure.

    Thankfully the official policy about wives requiring permission from husbands prior to receiving any calling in the church has changed. Now if we could only get some of the Old Guard to catch up with the new policy…..

    While most Sacrament Meetings have at least one female speaker, take a look at the front of the church/assembly hall and you’ll see: three men presiding; 2-3 young men blessing the Sacrament; 5-12 young men passing the Sacrament; one man walking up/down the aisle counting those in attendance; probably one man speaking; perhaps one man visiting with news/business from the Stake. If there are baby blessings or confirmations to be done, the people who walk up to the front to do them are all men. Most likely one or both of the prayers will be given by men. When young men turn 12 or 14 or 16 or 18 they’re asked to stand up and be recognized by the congregation as they move from one quorum to the next - and the congregation votes on the ordination. There is no equivalent recognition for the young women.

    In all this “out front” priesthood responsibility-ness, men regularly talk about how (a) draining/time-consuming/stressful it is to always be the Ones in Charge - and how they get burned out in their jobs; or (b) how blessed they are to be able to influence/bless the lives of their fellow saints because they’ve been endowed with the power to act in Jesus’ stead. To which I would presume to respond: (a) If it’s so burdensome, wouldn’t you like to ease your load by opening up the pool of potential leaders; and (b) what makes you think God doesn’t want righteous women to act in His name just as much as He wants righteous men to so act.

    And the fall-back position so often heard, that if women held the PH then they’d be required to spend significant hours with men to whom they are not married which would automatically result in massive adulterous scandals throughout the general church population. If that’s truly what will happen, there’s a huge problem with objectification of women - if women were thought of as something other than wives/mothers (i.e., sex objects there to fulfill the sexual desires of men and to give/sustain life that results from those sexual encounters), perhaps we could get past this fearmongering and worry about the poor and the needy.

    If a woman commits a sin that requires formal church discipline, she must face an all-male tribunal. Considering the short list of things that require formal church discipline, most of them deal with sex (or the results thereof). After all, there’s really no chance for women to be called in for embezzling church funds and not much more likelihood that they’re murdering people. And it’s a rare case where women have enough access to teaching/leadership positions that would give them the opportunity to lead a congregation (or even a Sunday School class) into apostasy.

    Comment by LRC — December 13, 2009 @ 2:16 am

49. You know, fMhLisa, I think that it’s important for people to know what bothers feminists about the church right now.

    Someone, somewhere has to turn the lightbulb on. That’s how we’ve gotten to the place we are right now
    - where women are praying (albeit limitedly) in Sacrament and other meetings;
    - where callings are issued with a request of support afterward than with a request of permission before;
    - where women can receive endowments without an LDS spouse;
    - where women covenanting with the Lord is not explicitly covenanting with a husband
    - where female returned missionaries are asked to accompany High Councilmen in speaking assignments;
    - where physical facilities are more set up to meet the needs of mothers/infants/young children/families than they were in the past;
    - where instructions for preventing/handling and reporting abuse of all kinds are taught and put into motion; etc.

    If nobody stood up and said, “You know, it really irritates me that the bishop feels the need to ask my husband if it’s okay for me to be a visiting teaching supervisor. There’s no other organization, be it work or volunteer, that requires spousal permission to serve.” If nobody stood up and pointed out just how condescending that kind of a conversation is/can be, improvements would not be made.

    If nobody sees a problem, if nobody sees the unclothed emperor, nobody knows to find a bathrobe or tell him there’s an issue, and the embarrassment will only be lengthened.

    Comment by LRC — December 13, 2009 @ 2:29 am

50. It bothers me that the church encourages “families first”, yet requires so much time away from families. Especially for the men. Why is it such a good idea to leave the woman home with all the kids and no spouse for support or help or relief?! I watch families stretched too thin due to callings. A man is taking numerous evenings each week away from his family, yet his wife thinks if she speaks up, she is not being a faithful member of the church. So instead, she is depressed and isolated from her own husband.

    Another thing that bothers me, although it isn’t so much a man vs woman thing. Dh and I felt NOTHING in the Temple. We have felt NOTHING from prayer. NOTHING. People make it sound so easy, but it isn’t. We are/were converts and we did everything “right”. We gave it 110% for 2 years of our lives, and we felt nothing in return. Talk about a disappointment and let down. It leaves us wondering if people truly get the feelings they describe or if they get the feelings because its expected or commonly talked about among members.

    Comment by lostandconfused — December 13, 2009 @ 2:42 am

51. Hmmm…. Steve, I like the posts you author, and your Sunday School lessons are interesting, but I have to say that any comment I’ve ever seen of yours on another person’s article has been A) mean. Funny in the 6th grader on the playground sense, but mostly just mean. And B) completely lacking in any sort of meaningful contribution. Rather than tsk-ing us all for being unhappy feminists, you should probably just do something like Grizz did, and ask a question to elicit the positive comments you (I think?) want to see. As for what you said (”maybe I’m missing something”), I think that something would be the last TEN paragraphs of the OP.

    ANYWAY.

    My awakening came when I went through the temple. My first time through was like being hit by a bus. But I denied my awakening for some time. It finally forced itself out with a vengeance when I was called as YW President. And my second (and last) time through was pretty much almost suicidal.

    To the extensive list Jack and others have already provided, I will just add a few:

    1) Men have more meetings in which to influence the course of the ward. Women are very frequently affected by these meetings, but not invited to them. One example: In a Priesthood meeting on a non-ward council Sunday, the YM President complained to the Bishopric that he felt our mutual activities were too rowdy, and that his boys were hard to control, and that it was the YW’s fault. I won’t go into details, but that was NOT a fair assessment of the situation, and it pretty much enraged me that a problem was tacked onto MY GIRLS without me there to advocate for them.

    2) Reference has been made to the “gilded cage”, but I am basically nauseated by the condescending tone taken in regards to women’s issues in the church. Oh, look at us. We are so sweet, loving, humble, and good, that we are willing to surrender our voice, give up our influence, and be led around by those who are apparently inferior to us. Aren’t we great. Oh, and smart.

    3) Church curriculum. I want to (almost did?) burn YW Manual 1. We can “update” our doctrine all we want in General Conference, but until we change the horrible, horrible messages we distribute every Sunday, we shouldn’t expect to see much change in attitudes on the ground.

    4) Random, but could we PUH-LEASE have a garment design that is more women-friendly? By that I mean principally, one that is more menstruation-friendly? K, thanks.

    Comment by Natalie K. — December 13, 2009 @ 3:09 am

52. On the skirt issue….. YES! I loved my Philly ward where a good number of the people were in jeans and t-shirts, half the crowd were in beautiful African robes, and a good number of the women would probably say something akin to “speak to the hand” if told they should wear a dress instead of their dress pants. My Seattle ward seems pretty hip and progressive, but so far, I’ve yet to see a woman besides myself in pants. I also haven’t gotten any comments on it, so it’s not a big deal….. but I feel like there are certain “middle class” expectations making it more of an issue.

    Oh, and can the thermostat in church buildings please not be controlled only by the men in thick suits? We are freezing out there in our righteous little skirts.

    Comment by Natalie K. — December 13, 2009 @ 3:15 am

53. #52… your 4th point… HELL -FREAKING- YES!!!

    Comment by Bee — December 13, 2009 @ 3:34 am

54. On 5th Sundays we have joint PH/RS meetings - which means that the YM can attend, but the YW don`t - like they are not good enough? grown up enough? whatever… to take part in the “adults`” stuff but the YM are

    Comment by namakemono — December 13, 2009 @ 4:55 am

55. #53
    In my YSA ward, i’ll regularly change the thermostat if one of those suited, many-layer wearing men tries to make the room freezing. Maybe it’s because I’m known as quite outspoken, but thusfar nobody’s ever told me not to!

    Comment by Jessica — December 13, 2009 @ 6:29 am

56. Grizz - It’s really hard to leave. If you were raised in it there is a strong likelihood there will be many negative consequences. my mother in law believes me responsible for ruining her son’s chances of eternal progression and exaltation, for severing her eternal family. It strains relationships with believing family and friends, many to the point they are simply never the same again. At family reunions the only safe topics seem to be what’s the latest PDA we’re all using or the weather. If my children get out of line well… it’s because we aren’t raising them in the church. If we break any of the commandments then we must have left in order to sin.

    i don’t want to be a downer but ultimately i could not reconcile my feminism with my religion. i did not leave until i had a daughter and had to contemplate raising her the same way i was raised. Leaving has been extremely difficult. Everything is called into question once you no longer have that foundation on which your entire life was built.

    From a personal standpoint i have suffered in ways i never imagined. my sanity, for starters, is sometimes questionable. i still have to live with the life choices i made as a believer; that i made because i believed, because i thought i was following God’s plan. Those choices don’t disappear when you stop going to church and that can be very frightening to contemplate and examine. i used to be able to at least tell myself there was a good reason i was sacrificing so much personal autonomy. Now there isn’t and yet the BYU husband, children and minivan do not suddenly dissolve and neither does the angry feminism that called it all into question. In a sense i sacrificed my own peace of mind so that my daughters would have more than one positive choice.

    i want them to define their own best selves. Not have it defined for them for by the patriarchy but the cost has been very high and now… well there is no safety net. There is no YW to indoctrinate them into not having sex before marriage (do i even agree with this anymore?) or do drugs or make any other number of self destructive choices. This was a real concern for my husband and i. Could we raise them virtually alone? Ultimately we decided the institution was more limiting than the safety was worth and we do our best to raise them without an institutional partner. We found a very tiny waldorf style school for them and have become part of that community with the other parents who are by and large also educated professionals. We had the means to do this. Many others do not.

    i am confident we made the right decision for us. Every family’s circumstances are different however. In many places, like the third world, i see the church as a stabilizing force for good. It provides a structure and a belief system which supports those families in developing a strong work ethic and a powerful partner with parents to keep their kids off the streets and in school. my husband, who is from such a country, has seen this first hand. Although his family was well off he lived in an area where the church did a lot of good. i lived in the states, in an area where the church honestly didn’t do that much service because there just weren’t many members to do it for and for whatever reason focusing on the needy outside the church was just not an emphasis. To be honest we get more service opportunities through the school we have enrolled our kids in than we ever did as members simply because that is a value of that community of parents and teachers.

    i will say the one thing we keep from our mormon experience is the sense that our family is something more than just our mortal existence together. i have no doubt that although things sometimes get hard the commitment my husband and i have to each other, to make it work, is because of the eternal nature upon which it was founded. i am less sure we can pass this on to our children. i think we can simply because divorce rates are lower in children of parents who never divorced. my parents have only ever been married to each other and are still married. my husband’s parents have only ever been married and are still married. This IS something i want my children to inherit. i want them to embrace that level of commitment, to form lasting, lifetime relationships and i do understand how important a connection to ancestors is in making that happen. i find i have more appreciation for eastern religions now and their focus on those who went before. Having been a part of an eternal family i get it and understand it to a level i believe many Americans really no longer do.

    i hope i can pass that appreciation on to my children but it remains to be seen doesn’t it. That is up to them. It is their choice to make.

    i do appreciate this forum and the candor of the believing sisters who’s voices i never heard as a member. i also appreciate that my voice here is probably neither helpful nor welcome. Its a fine line to walk. Mormonism is and will always be a part of my identity and yet in many ways i am cut off from those very sisters i used to sit next to every Sunday. i was frustrated as a member and i am frustrated as a former member. i can only deduce that perhaps i am simply an angsty, frustrated person. i’m okay with that. Simone, Virginia and i would likely have much to talk about. i’m pretty sure we could empty a couple bottles of wine commiserating during the course of an evening.

    Comment by StepfordWife — December 13, 2009 @ 7:22 am

57. I stay because church on Sunday is full of blessings and bothers me not at all. My real problem is with the temple, for the reasons mentioned above. That’s why I never had a problem until I went to the temple, and I don’t have concerns when I stay away from it. That works fine.

    I don’t like the lack of leadership opportunities for women in general, but to me, it means that the church shouldn’t be the only thing in the world one is involved in. There are professional opportunities to lead, and community organizations to serve and lead. I can go elsewhere for my chance to be in charge. I can’t go elsewhere to find modern day revelation, or the Book of Mormon (not really), or my testimony. I suppose if I really tried I could fool myself into abandoning the answers I’ve received, but there is no reason to lie to myself. What matters is that church is where the gospel is, and the rest of the good things in life (and there are many) I can find outside church.

    Comment by Katie P. — December 13, 2009 @ 7:42 am

58. The churches treatment of Lavina Fielding Anderson and Margaret Toscano. Those women love the Church so much and are denied it’s blessings. That is a brick wall for me every time I start to see the Church more positively.
    I think the most gob smacking statement I’ve come across re the Church and it’s stance on women was this last week on ZD. I can’t find the post right now but what it said was, there could be no LDS ward of only women, but there could exist a ward of only men.
    Holy crap.

    Comment by crazywomancreek — December 13, 2009 @ 10:24 am

59. A lot has been mentioned above that I agree with. What I am going to mention seems Trite compared to the spiritual issues already mentioned, but it bothers the heck out of me that we, including some of the men, is that we have no say about our local building’s design, decor, and KITCHEN. We don’t get to say what goes in the kitchen, it doesn’t come equipped with what we need or want, we don’t get a dishwasher so we just about have to use paper plates, etc., which is not very green; Periodically someone from FM removes anything left behind that is not authorized…like a cutting board or nice serving dish. A bit non-feminist, but I would like in put on the nursery location (next to the restroom and RS), more bathrooms on both ends of the building, real handicap accessibility,
    a child sized toilet and sink in the bathroom and/or a family bathroom; changing tables in the mens room.

    The orange walls and teal carpet is not pleasant to look at.especially with the pink cushions in the chapel. I know be grateful we don’t have to do building fund, but then our chapels and buildings aren’t “ours” it the church’s building. Landscapping is poorly done. And now I hate member responsibility for cleaning everything including the toilets. And we can’t afford a part-time custodian as we had before July to do that kind of deep cleaning? Missionary says to family they are teaching: “And three times a year you get to come with another family and clean your church and swish the toilets out because we don’t pay anyone to preach or serve in the church…Well, yeah, sometimes no one shows up to do their cleaning week…it’s can’t be too bad after five or six hunder people used the building during the past week. Diapers do smell bad if they aren’t removed from the mother’s room. The bishop will catch themwhen he leaves at the end of his 8 hour shift day on Sunday and checks the building as everyone else is gone.” In our ward they have a sign up sheet for the women in RS to check the ladies’ room and remove trash, flush toilets, and refill paper supplies on Sundays at the end of the block plan..yea, fun, and makes the day even longer.

    Our youth program budget barely allows for anything anymore, so the boys get priority. Oh we give the kids plenty of exciting “talks” and speakers they get to listen to…but no overnight trips. And don’t ask for gas money if you’re driving the youth anywhere in your big van…if you can afford the van, you can afford the gas…it’s part of your blessings to give.

    Comment by GatoraideMomma — December 13, 2009 @ 10:26 am

60. I do have more spiritual issues than my above tirade, sorry if this was a highjack. Please feel free to remove it and maybe start a thread about what we like and don’t like about our buildings. I was making the point, though that women have no input on the building we get and are made to feel we should be grateful and not complain because it’s “free.”

    Comment by GatoraideMomma — December 13, 2009 @ 10:30 am

61. Pretty much everything that concerns me has been mentioned. It is a little frightening to really look at all of it written down instead of the occasional thought in my head. The thing that has really, really bothered me over the last two years has been the disparity between how ‘full active’ families are treated in regard to part member families. Several times over the last five years, members from other wards would come to my house after coming to my ward one Sunday and explain to my husband that his family would be treated better if he attended church. He has always countered with the idea that if our church is based on Christ and Christ-like behavior, then any one who comes to church regardless of disability, part member marriage status, etc… should be treated the same as everyone else. In every instance, it was nicely pointed out to him that his thoughts were the ideal, but not the real way that it works. I have seen that over my lifetime in several different areas and even before it was me, I thought it was terrible. Although I will admit that when I was a teenager, I just felt sorry for/ smug satisfaction for those people who made the wrong choice and married outside the temple or got divorced or even never got married. I was the first to notice the irony when I started dating and realized I have very few options besides Mormon gang members or really self righteous patriarchal controlling Mormon males – if I stayed in the church membership.

    My feminist awakening was actually a few different experiences that I had during the first year that I started dating my husband. We would discuss the church and he did some reading on t and we had great discussions. In the end I felt very silly when he would tell me something that he had read and I would insist it could not be true and then go to Institute and get told that it was by the teacher. I realized how little I knew after twenty active years. So I started studying and I got married and I decided to actually take some classes that were not English or medicine based. I was so ‘beaten up’ in my first Women’s studies class for all of my beliefs and the fact that I was an active Mormon. But the teacher was so kind and pointed out that instead of ridiculing me, maybe we could constructively look at my opinions and their opinions and find real justifications for both. I ended up with a minor in Women’s studies and lots of friends from the classes. During that time I really studied Church history in depth to and really gained a strong testimony of the gospel even though I saw so many flaws. And I am so grateful for my ‘Feminist’ testimony… because otherwise I would have left the church a long time ago!

    Grizz- what keeps me faithful are two issues. One is that I pray a lot and so even when I am discontent, my faith and testimony are really buoyed and kept afloat by my personal relationship with my Heavenly Father. (that makes it sound easy- it is not) I also am a history freak and have been since I was twelve. While I only recently have come to study church history, I have noticed parallels in the church and other modern and ancient history. I firmly believe that some things that the church practices are ‘cultural’ and not ‘doctrinal’. Is that a disappointment? Yes of course. But if I lose sight of what the gospel is to me and how much comfort and happiness that it gives to me, I will lose soooo much… and for what? Without active people who genuinely care and work towards equality for all of us, the church will take even longer to change. Over time the church has overcome many of its set cultural boundaries, but the church is always very behind the times in regard to secular mores. So the preisthood for blacks came much later that ‘legal’ equality and other changes. While many of us are disappointed that it took so long, we rejoice that the time came! So I struggle and I get angry and I just work as hard as I can to remember the important stuff and pray for guidance and patience on the other stuff. LRC put it best I think in comment #50.

    And I am not sure if I need to say this, but sorry for dropping of the face of the earth for the last two months. Absolutely crazy with my new church calling. I have missed this adult time A LOT!

    Comment by Sonia — December 13, 2009 @ 11:03 am

62. #51 it used to really bother me that I didn’t get those feelings that everyone talks about. The temple to me felt like part of a creepy cult and I have never been comfortable praying out loud. My great foster brother pointed out to me that I get my warm fuzzies from doing service to others rather than engaging in church ordinances. This is very true in my case. Maybe you should look at where you get those feelings of being close to God. Is it in service to your fellow man? Is it in attending meetings? There is no right or wrong answer.

    Comment by StillConfused — December 13, 2009 @ 11:18 am

63. For me, I found that the problem wasn’t so much all of the male dominance as much as it was that I did not fit the mold that was needed to be comfortable in the church. The long monotonous meeting are torture for me. I am logic based rather than emotion based so the cutesy stories irritated me. When I was married and would ask for callings, I was only given couple callings even though my then spouse said he did not want any callings; once I was single, I was completely ignored and not permitted to serve. I was expected to have negative feelings about the fact that I have been a professional woman my entire adult life. But I think the deal breaker for me was when I asked for home teachers so that my son could have some male influence in his life. After 4 years of asking, my son turned 18 and I gave up.

    For me, I don’t do well with negative energy so a church that uses a lot of sticks rather than carrots is hard on my system. Being told how we all fall short all of the time is disturbing to me. Being told that we are supposed to fit a certain mold is hard on me too.

    I look forward to serving on charitable missions in foreign countries as I get older. However, I don’t want to have to do it the Church’s way where I have to go for a fixed period of time and turn my back on my family during that time. Instead, I will do a private volunteer mission where I can teach skills in developing countries in a timing that works well for me and the citizens. I guess what I am saying is that I will continue to do the things that the church stresses, just in my own way. I have no hard feelings for the LDS church; it is a great church for the people that fit its mold.

    Comment by StillConfused — December 13, 2009 @ 11:34 am

64. I think it’s very useful. People go through their days noticing these things one at a time and trying not to let it get them too depressed, but it’s important to look at the full picture and face up to the full extent and pervasiveness of the problem, unpleasant though it may be. It also has educational value for readers who are less familiar with Mormonism.

    The fact that some question the propriety of this discussion is all the more reason to have it. If women’s satisfaction and well-being can’t be openly discussed at any length, that suggests that women don’t inherently matter. They’re just means to others’ ends.

    I think this has been a very enlightening thread and I don’t know why you think it’s inappropriate, Steve.

    Comment by z — December 13, 2009 @ 12:15 pm

65. Grizz, One of the things that keeps me active is one a testimony in Christ and the other is the knowledge that our church is not perfect just like I am not perfect. On days when I get frustrated with the inequalities toward women or just recently a stake division along economic lines that leaves my new formed stake without many leaders or money–I realize that the majority of the people who made this decision are human and are fallible just like me. Also since we are a lay ministry based on volunteers the chances of mistakes are higher for a variety of reasons. I believe in the core principles of this gospel, but I have had to separate many of the day to day things from those principles–just like I believe in my imaginary perfect self, but also love and appreciate my flawed imperfect self.

    Comment by Kellie — December 13, 2009 @ 12:16 pm

66. Steve, I’ve never met you, nor seen your comments elsewhere, but honestly I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. I think your question was valid and not meant to be insulting. And though I see many feminist issues at church and I know they are there it does not change the fact that many people take offense because they are looking to be offended. That and often people (including myself) assume things that simply are not there.

    Comment by April — December 13, 2009 @ 12:23 pm

67. Look at it this way: we spend a lot of time looking at individual pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. This thread is an effort to put them all together even though the picture isn’t pretty. Somehow that’s a horrible violation of ‘propriety’. Oh no! And it displeases a man! Oh no! What a terrible price to have to pay for the privilege of thinking and talking about our lives.

    The lived experience of the women on this board is real and true. Women shouldn’t have to pretend it it’s just them, keep pushing these ideas and experiences away, denying what they are going through and how it affects them, because it might upset someone or create change. If reading about it causes some to question their faith, maybe it should. It’s ok for people (even women!) to read things that make them confront hard questions. Life’s like that sometimes, and dealing with existential questions is just a normal part of being an adult.

    Comment by z — December 13, 2009 @ 12:32 pm

68. I do not believe that a woman’s temple covenants are affected by her husband at all. They are made directly between the woman and the officiator (who is standing in representing the Lord–not as his representative, but as if God were there physically. I did sealings yesterday and I cannot recall any wording there either that involves a woman’s spouse in her covenant. What is it that you are all thinking of?

    The lack of Priesthood for women doesn’t bother me. As society *and* the church progresses, women have slowly come to more equality and recieved greater appreciation. I think that there is plenty we don’t understand about ourselves and the nature of God, and that there is untapped power in the resource of women. We are a powerful group for implementing change and truly providing sustanance for our families and communities.

    What does bother me is the condescending tone and manner of so many men in the Church (and the women who either don’t notice it, or don’t have a problem with it. I don’t get that much where I am, but I sure have elsewhere and while growing up.

    Comment by ErinAnn — December 13, 2009 @ 12:35 pm

69. I was a convert, and didn’t really identify as feminist (although I definitely was) until I was engaged to be married in the temple. At one point my then-fiancée said he had something really important to ask me.

    Him: “I can’t tell you everything that will happen in the temple, but I have to know, are you ready to give yourself to me?”

    Me: “Well, sure. You’re giving yourself to me, too. Right?”

    Him: “Um…no.”

    We argued about that issue for weeks. Our relationship very nearly ruptured as a result. At that point, all the pieces fell together, all the little ways that I didn’t fit in.

    I was in a family ward by myself at the time. During one RS meeting, the women went around the room and shared what they had learned in college, before they had dropped out (that was actually said), that had helped them as a mother. I wasn’t married yet, had no intention to have kids for several years, and fully intended to have a fulfilling career. I realized that I would never be that model Mormon mother, and immediately wondered what was wrong with me, or the system, or both (but mostly me).

    Since it was mostly me, I did attempt to chop off parts of myself to fit in that mold. I had kids right away, more or less dropped out of school, stayed home with the kids while supporting my partner in his career goals - by all accounts becoming the model Mormon mother. But inside I was angry, depressed, and increasingly aware of the repercussions of inequality between classes, races, sexes, and sexuality. I wondered why I was supporting the patriarchy that obviously lay at the foundation of all injustice. (So grandiose! But true.)

    Ultimately I felt that the Church was continually asking me to violate my ethics. If that’s what God wanted, I wanted no part of him. So I left.

    Comment by Chandelle — December 13, 2009 @ 12:48 pm

70. So, Steve, you focus on my name and I’ll focus on the fact that you’re unable or unwilling to challenge the factual basis of the serious issues the women are raising. OR to make an actual contribution.

    No doubt some will remember that in the context of the comments you have to make in the future.

    No respect in, no respect out. It comes down to a simple math equation.

    Comment by Withheld — December 13, 2009 @ 1:13 pm

71. #72: I am fairly certain that both husband and wife give themselves and receive the other in the temple ceremony. They are then joint heirs for receiving blessings to follow.

    Comment by ErinAnn — December 13, 2009 @ 1:26 pm

72. Stephanie #47

    I felt the exact same way when I went to the temple. It was a clash between the feeling that “This can’t be right. This doesn’t sound like something my Father would say” and “What if this is it? What if the real reason why I am so valuable to God is because I brought my husband into the Church?”

    I felt afraid and betrayed.

    Comment by AllieKay — December 13, 2009 @ 1:29 pm

73. ErinAnn…. A woman must promise to “hearken” unto her husband, and makes that covenant directly with her husband, not with the Lord. The man, on the other hand, makes no such promise to his wife. He promises to obey the Lord, and covenants to him directly. This is so because Eve partook of the fruit first.

    Also, in any ordinances portrayed, Adam officiates alone, while Eve is either absent or watches from the side. She is very dependent on him for her salvation, while he could pretty much carry on alone if he so desired.

    As others have pointed out adequately above, it is another example of how men are an end unto themselves, existing autonomously, but women’s lives only have meaning in relation to the men they are connected to.

    Comment by Natalie K. — December 13, 2009 @ 1:30 pm

74. As a corollary to the issues raised by Steve, I wonder– is there anything in the experience of being a male Mormon that can’t be discussed openly? Or is it only the treatment of women that is too upsetting to confront?

    Comment by z — December 13, 2009 @ 1:36 pm

75. #74 Erin Ann- Listen again. In sealings women give themselves, men receive. The wording is not reciprocal.

    Comment by Starfoxy — December 13, 2009 @ 1:37 pm

76. I am fairly certain that both husband and wife give themselves and receive the other in the temple ceremony.

    Nope. I gave myself to him. He received me. That is the wording.

    Comment by Chandelle — December 13, 2009 @ 1:42 pm

77. The thing that has bothered me for quite a while is that I’ve never ever heard in conference or elsewhere that men ‘are greatly loved’ or are ‘of great worth to the Lord’. It’s kind of a given that the men are greatly valued, but it’s so unclear for us that it has to be spelled out. Seems vastly condescending.

    Comment by Becca — December 13, 2009 @ 1:42 pm

78. Whoa, I somehow missed #47 when i read through the comments.

    Stephanie, your insight and eloquence is breathtaking.

    I GET that uncertainty. One thing that maybe you’ll find helpful: I was talking to a SP counselor in my former stake about these issues while renewing my temple recommend recently. Rather than giving me the answers about the temple that ignore my feelings and try to make me love what I detest, he acknowledged that my feelings were okay. What he said, much more beautifully than I can echo it here, is that I should remember that the temple is only one data point in my testimony. You grew up feeling that God valued you as a woman, independently of anyone else. What were the sources of that feeling? Until you went to the temple, there were many “data points” that sustained your belief in this egalitarian God. The scriptures are full of data points that illustrate women’s high standing in God’s eyes (Mary Magdalene at the tomb!)

    So yes, the temple is a big thing, and important (they tell me), but it is still only one data point. Don’t disregard the hundreds of others just because we seem to give disproportionate weight to this one.

    I’m in a spot now where that doesn’t give me as much comfort as it once did. (If the only reason I believe in this all-loving God is because I was raised in the church that told me that’s how he was, but then I find the church is wrong on these points, what basis do I have for accepting the God they told me to believe in, but who is not evidenced by their full teachings? Ugh. My head spins often.) But hopefully it can add positively to your thoughts.

    Comment by Natalie K. — December 13, 2009 @ 1:43 pm

79. #77 - great question. I’d love to hear discussion on that point.

    Comment by Natalie K. — December 13, 2009 @ 1:45 pm

80. I too think that the male perspective would be of value. I know when I was reading Ann Eliza YOung’s book, she commiserated on how damaging the patriarchal grip was on the men as well as the women.

    Comment by StillConfused — December 13, 2009 @ 2:09 pm

81. I recently looked into the giving/receiving thing with the sealing covenant. This was reported to me through an anonymous source who blogs at a major Bloggernacle site:

    > the man receives the woman unto himself only. the
    > woman gives herself
    > and receives the man. the woman receiving the man is
    > a recent
    > addition. it used to be receive for the husband and
    > give for the
    > wife. now, the man receives without giving and the
    > woman does both.
    > 100 percent certain about this.

    Personally, I trust my source. If anyone who has recently witnessed a sealing has further information, please share it.

    Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — December 13, 2009 @ 2:10 pm

82. Steve Evans first says: ” I meant to question the propriety and usefulness of the exercise you’re engaging in here.” and then states “I see that this sort of inquiry is not the point, and so I will bow out.”

    What? Way to simultaneously insult us all and shift the goal posts all in a couple well-phrased sentences. Well done. “This sort of inquiry” is apparently beyond us wimmens even enough to arouse proper outrage amongst out betters (those with the magical “y” chromosome”) amongst us.

    Comment by djinn — December 13, 2009 @ 2:17 pm

83. I’ll add that some of my awakening is recent - I’ve been thinking about DH joining the church, and I hesitate. A lot. He’s not seriously considering it right now, but I’ve told him that the idea concerns me, because I don’t want him absorbing any of the patriarchal culture bs. I love our marriage and our relationship as-is, and I worry that by joining and rubbing shoulders with members on a regular basis, he’ll change (and not in a good way).

    That’s just sad.

    Comment by that1girl — December 13, 2009 @ 2:20 pm

84. I’d like to add to the list Racial Hierarchy as according to the documents in support of racial segregation, a premortal existence that determined earthly ethnicity, and difference in nation/culture/race as God’s way of assigning spirits to their deserved places.
    Certainly most members in the Church today would have a hard time taking these points as valid even though these docs were written by such men of authority as Bruce R McConkie, Mark E Petersen, and Joseph Fielding Smith. But where is the formal acknowledgment and withdrawal of these statements?

    I’m full-fledged Mormon, but this issue strikes a chord. It seems to me there is basis for saying that the Mormon God values white people more and that proselyting to all corners of the world is a necessary part of growing the church, ensuring its survival, and ensuring the survival of the Mormon Culture Region.

    Comment by fmoc — December 13, 2009 @ 2:31 pm

85. #78 Natalie, your SP counselor said that the actual content of the temple ceremony didn’t matter? Wow. He acknowledged its inherent sexism and said, move along, there’s nothing to see here? But within that context, what’s the point, and, more importantly, what’s the next step?

    I’m not going to get into the inherent difficulties in suggesting that a single verse in John–Mary Magdalene being the first to see the resurrected Jesus–somehow trumps the temple ceremony, but, gee whiz. Just gee whiz.

    I suspect this is what Steve Evans was worried about. There are no good answers; better to just keep quiet, if you don’t have that oh-so-useful banning stick.

    Comment by djinn — December 13, 2009 @ 2:34 pm

86. Dovetail #84 - Here’s a great article from a Mormon guy on this subject:

    http://somemormonstuff.blogspot.com/2008/08/premortal-life.html

    Comment by fmoc — December 13, 2009 @ 2:35 pm

87. Jack, I got married in 2004. At that time the wording was definitely as I mentioned. My sister-in-law got married in ‘06 and the terminology was the same. Has it really changed in three years?

    Comment by Chandelle — December 13, 2009 @ 2:43 pm

88. I was just thinking, and this is NOT to make people mad, but after reading #73 is that if someone is not a mouthpiece, are they really less important?

    The reason I ask this is because the First Vision popped into my mind, as well as many scriptures. God himself rarely talks. Jesus is the speaker almost 99% of the time — be that as Hehovah, or the God of the Old Testement. Does this make anyone think that God the Father is any less important than Jesus?

    Personally, the temple ordinances don’t bother me that much. Why? Because I look at it like this … and please hear me out.

    The classic Scriptures are very male based. Probably in large part due to male influence and misunderstanding over the millenia. Many things were probably weeded out because the scribes were all men and as most people will admit, in past centuries women were looked at as offspring producing being and nothing more. If something in the scripture was pro woman, likely it would have been taken out by at LEAST one of the scribes.

    The temple needs to coincide with scripture in large part. If it didn’t many would accuse the Church of rewriting scripture rather than adding to it. I believe this would upset both men and women within the Church in large part because the foundation of the church is Jesus Christ and his teachings through the Scriptures — BoM, New Testament, and the Bible.

    I believe that if the Temple Ordinances are going to change, the translation of the Bible also needs to change. Conversely if the Bible changes, so would the temple ceremony. One cannot happen without the other. And IMO less people are confused and have a crisis of their faith as it is now.

    I’m not saying this makes it right, I’m just putting forth a possibility.

    Comment by April — December 13, 2009 @ 2:46 pm

89. djinn, it’s not that he said it didn’t matter. Nothing that direct. He just acknowledged that its something that has changed drastically over time, usually in accordance with societal changes. He took quite a bit of time telling me about how David O. McKay (I think? Or was it Grant?) was deeply troubled by the temple ceremony his first time through and through most of his life, and then changed it pretty radically when he became president.

    I don’t think he was personally disavowing (or avowing) the temple ceremony himself….. maybe just letting me know that I was perfectly free to do so if that’s what the Spirit of the Lord lead me to.

    Comment by Natalie K. — December 13, 2009 @ 2:52 pm

90. April, I absolutely agree that the male-centric nature of the scriptures is a culltural/historical, and not a divine, thing. However, as an institution claiming to be the repository of the fullness of God’s truth, I would expect us to be more willing to make progress, even at the expense of some people’s sensibilities.

    And honestly, the church is going to be too far off culturally for one or another group no matter which direction it goes. It wasn’t afraid of not coinciding with society in terms of gay marriage or the ERA. Why is it okay to offend progressive members of the church, but offending conservative members is “moving ahead of what the people are ready for”? Shouldn’t an all-righteous God just stand for truth and right, whoever it offends? It seems a little dishonest to do otherwise.

    Oh great. So now either God is dishonest, or all of my values are actually evil. The corners I talk myself into…..

    Comment by Natalie K. — December 13, 2009 @ 2:57 pm

91. Thank you, Natalie K.

    April 88 - that makes sense as a plausible explanation.

    Someone above asked what it is about the temple ceremony that is hard. For me, it’s a couple of lines right at the beginning of the endowment that talk about our eternal potential. I don’t feel comfortable explaining it beyond that.

    I do love the initiatories, though.

    Comment by Stephanie — December 13, 2009 @ 2:59 pm

92. I don’t think we CAN have the fullness of the Gospel (if by fullness you mean all of God’s truth) without being God.

    I think we may live in the “Fullness of Time”. There is always more to be revealed. Hence the belief in ongoing revelation. Why would there be a need for that if we already had it all? Why would I think to hope that change might happen?

    I do agree that in some aspects most people would think that the Church should be ahead of the curve on equality issues and the like, especially if it is God led. I do think that some of this is effected by the age of our highest leadership. Why would they think to pray about women having an equal say in the church when the generation that they come from is so different in respect to the relationship between male and female from the one we now live? And I believe that very rarely does God tell the leadership to do something that they haven’t prayed about. I can’t know if they have prayed about feminist issues. I like to think they haven’t, simply because it’s easier for me to write off the fact that things haven’t changed yet in that manner. I like to tell myself that hopefully soon God will get tired of them not asking and hopefully bring these things to the forefront . Hopefully. That is what having faith is about ….hope… isn’t it?

    Comment by April — December 13, 2009 @ 3:10 pm

93. #82 Jack,

    You are right about the current wording of the sealing–the woman gives and receives, the man receives only. I attended a sealing six weeks ago and was surprised because I hadn’t remembered hearing that verbiage before (the last sealing I had attended before that was five years ago, and at that point it was woman gives, man receives). I don’t know how recent the change is, but it is encouraging.

    Comment by Idahospud — December 13, 2009 @ 3:11 pm

94. I am deeply bothered by the fact that the ward I attend only lists one name on the contact information for a family. When I received my Visiting Teaching list and saw the phone numbers and emails for the husbands of the women I was supposed to visit teach, I wanted to scream! Having the contact information on file for every member of the ward would be a simple way to show women we are in fact equals, something the men always claim to be true.

    Comment by nibs — December 13, 2009 @ 3:11 pm

95. #87 Chandelle ~ See Idahospud’s #93. I was told that this was a very recent change. I’m guessing this year or last year, but I’m not certain of the exact time.

    It’s still not completely egalitarian wording—I don’t see what the woman is receiving if the man isn’t giving—but it’s a step in the right direction.

    Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — December 13, 2009 @ 3:44 pm

96. It’s easy to assume that any male who comes along with a criticism in a conversation like this is sexist. But silencing women is not on Steve’s agenda. Apparently he was concerned that a friend was inviting pointed public criticism of the institutional church–behavior he deems potentially dangerous for any member, feminist or not. He’d voice the same concern in the same way to a male friend–in fact, I’ve seen him do it more than once, and I admire him for it.

    Comment by Kathryn Soper — December 13, 2009 @ 4:01 pm

97. Not having been through the temple, I can’t comment on that side of things.

    For me, my gripes are less with how the Church institutionally treats me as a woman (although I’ll be honest, I’m not crazy about most of the points raised by other posts) and more by how other members treat me. I come from a small ward, and we’re very closely knit. I graduated from university last year, spent four months travelling, and am now embarking on a career. Whilst the women in RS aren’t unsupportive as such, I just don’t feel like I’m treated as part of the ward. The girls I was in YW with are either now inactive or SAHMs, and it’s as if I make people uncomfortable because they can’t put me in one of those boxes! I put everything into the assignments I’m given, but the ‘real’ callings go to the SAHMs who have enough on their plate. Sorry that I’m not ready to become a child bride yet so that you can comfortably slot me in! Not that I have any problem with people who marry young, but there are other options out there, right?

    Comment by Isobel — December 13, 2009 @ 4:05 pm

98. I stay active in the Church because I believe it teaches me more about my divine potential, God’s infinite love for me and for every other person on earth, and about Jesus Christ’s atonement and His pure love for me than any other “institution.”

    I stay because even though its leaders are fallible and human, I know that God is perfect and that He will some day heal all broken hearts–even those caused by the abusive actions of Church leaders.

    I stay because I see changes being made that comfort me: blacks receiving the priesthood, women speaking in General Conference, women praying in Sacrament Meeting, the temple ceremony changes to reflect more religious tolerance, the Church’s recent statement about respecting the rights of our gay brothers and sisters.

    Many problems in the Church are more cultural and sociological than theological. I like the concepts of a pre-existence, that we are all literally divine children of our Heavenly Father and Mother. I love the idea that no one (except those few who are cast into outer darkness) will roast in hell forever, but that most of God’s children will receive a degree of glory.

    I like the home teaching and visiting teaching programs–which affords us the opportunity to nurture and serve one another in a profound and personal way.

    Comment by Chris — December 13, 2009 @ 4:06 pm

99. Steve certainly could have been clearer. Or could speak for himself.

    I’d love to believe that Steve doesn’t want to silence women and isn’t sexist, but if these issues of great importance to women cannot be discussed for fear of engaging in public criticism, then they cannot be discussed at all, and where does that leave women? It amounts to “sit down and shut up.” What does Steve’s worldview have to offer to women who are experiencing crises in this area? Is avoiding public criticism of such paramount importance that women’s well-being can’t be discussed at all? Steve’s attitude diminishes women and, as has been mentioned by many, reduces their existence and well-being to a means rather than an end in itself.

    Comment by z — December 13, 2009 @ 4:06 pm

100. Actually, “sit down and shut up” is what you told him, not the other way around. Quit projecting and scapegoating.

     Comment by Kathryn Soper — December 13, 2009 @ 4:13 pm

101. It wouldn’t need to be discussed publicly if it could be discussed freely within the church community. Anyone ready to start the discussion in RS? Or suggest that it be discussed openly with the men and authorities who need to understand how corrosive an effect it has?

     Comment by Withheld — December 13, 2009 @ 4:15 pm

102. I’d love to know how Steve thinks the widespread discontent among women should be addressed without anyone engaging in any public criticism. Is everyone to whisper about it while hiding in the kitchen? Repressing it isn’t working out very well for an awful lot of people, as evidenced by this thread. Shall they all just be made to feel terribly alone for their entire lives? Maybe you can fill us in on Steve’s views.

     Comment by z — December 13, 2009 @ 4:19 pm

103. Well, it would be better if Steve explained in his own words, but he’s probably too occupied with oppressive patriarchal duties. But yes, I’m pretty sure he wants all women to suffer. His mother didn’t breastfeed him and he’s been bitter ever since.

     Comment by Kathryn Soper — December 13, 2009 @ 4:29 pm

104. Re #24:

     Around the world at least 1 in 3 women has been beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused in her lifetime. Most often the abuser is a member of her own family. (John Hopkins School of Public Health 2000)
     77% of rapes are committed by someone known to the person raped. (Bureau of Justice Statistics 1997)
     According to the National Victim Center, 683,000 women are raped each year. (1992)
     Only 2% of rapists are convicted and imprisoned. (US Senate Judiciary Committee 1993)
     6 out of 10 rapes are reported by victims to have occurred in their own home or home of a friend, relative or neighbor. (US Dept. of Justice 1997

     Comment by Chris — December 13, 2009 @ 4:29 pm

105. Funny! But I really do mean it, I’d love to know why he thinks avoiding public criticism on this issue is so important that open discussion of it should be verboten, notwithstanding the potential benefits of airing it out.

     Comment by z — December 13, 2009 @ 4:33 pm

106. I guess one thing that made me so annoyed at Steve is that Lisa had written a thoughtful introduction that weighted various costs and benefits of having this discussion at all. Rather than engage Lisa’s introduction to the issue in any substantive way, Steve just swooped in to call it a “gripe-fest.” It was unnecessarily dismissive and didn’t add anything to the conversation– until you stepped in to clarify on his behalf, Kathryn, I had no idea that concern over public criticism in particular was motivating his comment. To me, it gave the impression that Steve wished the entire discussion would just go away, and that it wasn’t even important enough for him to bother explaining his reasons. Being treated in a dismissive and bossy manner by men is an issue often raised on FMH, and Steve’s post reflected a lack of sensitivity to that context. It was as if he hadn’t even read the post or comments, which already addressed the issue you say he was raising, but was just marching in to shut it down.

     Comment by z — December 13, 2009 @ 4:48 pm

107. You’re missing the point. The concern isn’t that women are airing their grievances, but rather, that members are dogpiling the church. As a true egalitarian, Steve does not discriminate in his dismay regarding such behavior. Whether he’ll feel inclined to elaborate on the topic after being flogged is anyone’s guess.

     Comment by Kathryn Soper — December 13, 2009 @ 4:52 pm

108. The honest truth is that I DO want to hear Steve’s thoughts on this and other topics, because from the little I have seen of him IRL, he is very interesting and insightful. But I have honestly just been taken aback by his overtly antagonistic tone in the vast majority of comments of his that I’ve seen on this and other blogs.

     Steve, my comment really wasn’t aiming to drive you away or manipulate you into “bowing out”. I just think you are hiding behind witticisms instead of thoughtfully contributing. if you’re still reading, I really would like to hear your honest thoughts (heaven knows I could stand to get to know a few more people in our ward better).

     For the record, I think talking about perceived problems is very important. Each one of us is as much a member of this church as President Monson is, and we are obligated to take ownership of our theology. A community is shaped by the people in it, and if we don’t take an active role in the shaping, there’s a good chance we won’t be happy with the outcome.

     We just have to not get excommunicated in the meantime.

     Comment by Natalie K. — December 13, 2009 @ 4:55 pm

109. No one said “sit down and shut up” to Steve. People asked him to address the issue and not attempt to silence dissent without elaborating on why it was the better approach.

     Unfortunately, his remarks have been pulled so it’s no longer possible to reflect on exactly what he said or put responses to it in context.

     Comment by Withheld — December 13, 2009 @ 4:56 pm

110. Re Grizz: one of my non-member friends asked me this same question a while back–Basically: “you seem like a feminist. How do you reconcile the church’s patriarchy?” To which, at the time, I replied that although it was a bit tricky, I knew for sure that God was not a misogynist and let everything else rest on that.

     Enter my brutal “feminist awakening.” I’ve definitely had concerns, but the real crisis happened last year when I REALLY got thinking about polygamy. People love to excuse it by saying “we don’t understand everything now” and “YOU don’t have to practice it. Why worry about it?” But it wasn’t necessarily ME I was worried about. I worried about its implications for women.

     As a missionary, I was taught to give the reasoning that if the BoM is true, then JS was a prophet, then the church is true. But with that line of reasoning, all I got was: If the church is true, then JS was a prophet, then polygamy is from God, then God cares less about women than He does men. Eesh. Not cool.

     Didn’t help that I was pregnant at the time. I started questioning my statement to my friend: WAS God a misogynist?? Did he even care about me and my unborn daughter? Or were we just means to a multiply-and-replenish-the-earth end?

     Anyway, long story short, a measure of peace came to me when I decided to reject polygamy (and the absolutist if-then reasoning so popular in the church). Polygamy is a mistake. God is still real. He is NOT a misogynist. And the human race is really fallible.

     I’ve basically spent the last few months re-evaluating my beliefs. Picking and choosing instead of swallowing the whole pill. I love this church. Some parts of it are really messed up, though. Fortunately, I believe in our capacity for evolution–case in point (or is it point in case–I always confuse the two), the recent rewording of the sealing ceremony.

     p.s. #58 I’ve come to compare Lavina Fielding Anderson to Eve. She’s my hero.

     Comment by Lacy — December 13, 2009 @ 4:56 pm

111. I get it– you’re trying to say he’s not sexist. Ok. I feel that his original post was insensitive to gender, and unconstructively failed to engage the issue, but I don’t need you to agree.

     But not all problems are the same, and not all public criticism is the same. Some problems are more important than others, and some can be more effectively addressed through public discussion and information-sharing. I’m not satisfied with just banning all public criticism and pretending that’s treating everyone equally. The problem of gender is subtle, broad-based, cultural, and localized, and therefore public discussion and pooling of information and experience are very helpful in enhancing our understanding and identifying widespread patterns and problems. Thus is my defense of public criticism on this issue. And I don’t really see the distinction you draw between ‘airing grievances’ and ‘dogpiling.’ I think this has been a very enlightening and constructive thread.

     Comment by z — December 13, 2009 @ 5:00 pm

112. Dear Kathryn Soper,

     Are you attempting to speak your own thoughts behind the convenient veil of patriarchy, or are you trying to stand up for a friend who is strangely unable to speak for himself despite a gajillion (number may be an estimate) posts that suggest otherwise?

     Comment by djinn — December 13, 2009 @ 5:13 pm

113. Steve bowed out aka isn’t commenting anymore. I think she is trying to stand up for a friend.

     Comment by April — December 13, 2009 @ 5:17 pm

114. Dear djinn,

     I can’t answer until Steve tells me what he wants me to say.

     Comment by Kathryn Soper — December 13, 2009 @ 5:22 pm

115. This is stupid. Women have actual problems with certain aspects of the church. Both men and women are thrilled to shut down such conversations. Good luck.

     Comment by djinn — December 13, 2009 @ 5:30 pm

116. Yes, Mrs. Soper, I’m not all as perfect as you. In fact, I’m so lame I’m sure I wouldn’t even make it to your “vaguely female beings I dislike” list. As such, thanks for the recognition.

     Comment by djinn — December 13, 2009 @ 5:33 pm

117. re #58 - yup, had that happen once in a branch we were in “out in the mission field” - there were no priesthood holders one Sunday so church “had to” be cancelled!

     Comment by namakemono — December 13, 2009 @ 6:03 pm

118. I’ve often wondered how men and women who were heartbroken by the practice of polygamy felt when the Manifestos were released. Do you think they felt all better about the Church and their place in it and what they’d sacrificed to it? Or do you think they were a bit pissed-off that they’d done all that sacrificing and struggling to find their place just for the Church to say, “Ah, never mind, back to your lives, citizens”?

     I wonder about black men, previously barred from the priesthood, if they thought the change made institutionalized racism all fine and dandy because the Church caught up with social justice twenty years after the fact. I doubt it.

     It’s not nearly as heavy a situation, but it doesn’t make me feel better about the obviously intentional divided wording in the sealing ceremony, and that I submitted myself to it and ignored my conscience, just because the GAs rolled their eyes and made a tiny change, a slight nod to the radical notion of equality which is still several decades behind the times, and still marginalizes women.

     Jack and Spud, I don’t think you’re really trying to say, “Now now, it’s not like that anymore, dear heart, chin up!” But I just can’t forget about all those late-night arguments with my partner, wondering why I wasn’t worthy of reciprocity. I don’t think that struggle should be rendered meaningless because of the Church’s minuscule concession.

     Comment by Chandelle — December 13, 2009 @ 6:12 pm

119. Many of the points made here by so many of you resonate with me and you’ve expressed those concerns much more eloquently than I ever could.

     One way I try to deal with these feelings is to think of the church itself as a means to an end rather than the end itself. The goal is to be closer to God. In some ways, the church helps with that goal and in others, it doesn’t. The ways in which it helps will be different to different people, and that’s fine. Many of my gripes result when the church’s policies some how interfere or fall completely out of line with what I understand about God.

     I’m very sure that God wants all his children, men and women alike, to be happy. I don’t like that the church presumes to tell us under what circumstances we should be happy. Apparently, women should happily surrender their careers and education to look after the children, and support their husbands no matter the cost. Those are the circumstances which the church will “allow” or “accept” a woman’s happiness. Any happiness gained from living differently should be accompanied by an equal amount of guilt.

     And this isn’t just women. It’s as though you can’t be happy unless you’re attending church all the time and you’re either married in the temple or plan on being married in the temple just as soon as you can. From fully inactive members to slightly inactive members to full-blown apostates, the church tends to perceive these people as being deeply troubled somehow. As though full church membership is the only thing that could enable feelings of joy in someone’s life. For young men, i’ve seen that you can’t be perceived as truly happy unless you’re a returned missionary or planning on going on a mission.

     I truly believe that God wants us all to be happy and he wants us all to draw closer to Him. When something in church makes it seem that I shouldn’t actually be happy or draws me further away from God, I feel pretty safe acknowledging to myself that those things are not from Him. Not that I can then logically explain the error away, but I can accept the idea that the church is imperfect. So, rather than listening intently to all the things the church tells me I must do if I want to be happy, I will instead ask myself if the things I do day by day bring me closer to God.

     Comment by Jessica — December 13, 2009 @ 6:16 pm

120. I’d like to ditto basically what everyone has said, especially Jack, but I think the thing that bothered me the most is when I got married, my home ward transferred my church records to the new ward and automatically changed my last name to my husband’s. I was actually planning on keeping my maiden name, and here they made this assumption without even asking me. My name on official church records is not my legal name. My sister did not change her last name on her church records and when they moved back to Utah several years after they were married, their new ward was so confused. They thought her husband and her son were both her sons and couldn’t for the life of them figure out how or why she doesn’t have the same last name as her husband or her children when she is married. This bugs the hell out of me. I’ve been married for over a decade, and still to this day when someone calls me Sister “my husband’s last name” I look around for my mother-in-law.

     I wish I knew what Steve said originally in #23, but I guess it’s been deleted.

     Comment by Risa — December 13, 2009 @ 6:26 pm

121. I was talking about this discussion with my Mister. His first response was that there are a lot of things that we can’t change, so why complain about them.

     I pointed out that people have concerns, and just because we can’t think of a good solution right this second, doesn’t mean there is no value in talking about concerns.

     Talking about them, and acknowledging them give those of us with concerns a place in the church. Holding concerns in, and letting them stew is a quick path to leaving.

     He apologized for his first response.

     I have concerns about the temple, though none that keep me from going, and I have concerns about the roles of men and women in the church, but the thing that helps me deal with them is that I KNOW (and I know there are issues with I KNOW, I don’t care) KNOW KNOW KNOW that Heavenly Father loves me, and that eventually the human weaknesses currently in the church will be fixed.

     Comment by Alliegator — December 13, 2009 @ 6:31 pm

122. Risa- the 2nd counselor in our bishopric has a different last name than his wife, she kept her name, because HIS mother is difficult and she didn’t want to share the name with her. HE asked his wife if he could take her name. She said no.

     The kids have hyphenated names.

     I love them.

     The church is coming out with new computer systems that allow contact information for both spouses, which should fix the problem of calling husbands cell phones looking for the wife to visit teach.

     Comment by Alliegator — December 13, 2009 @ 6:33 pm

123. Chandelle (118), I have an ancestor, who after the manifesto, rather than have her husband go to jail, left him with the younger wife, and took her children and lived alone the rest of her life. I can’t imagine doing that. I don’t know what the point of polygamy was or if there was one, but that story makes me sad, and angry.

     Comment by Alliegator — December 13, 2009 @ 6:36 pm

124. #118 Chandelle ~ I’m not saying things are all better now at all. I’m a non-member with an intellectual interest in Mormonism and I’m always on the lookout for changes in the church’s doctrine, policy and ritual. That’s why I make an effort to keep track of things like this. I do believe that this is a step (albeit a tiny one) in the egalitarian direction. I also believe that the church still has a long way to go.

     I’m very sorry to hear about your pain and struggles with this. Struggling with these issues is painful enough, but doing it with a dispassionate or antagonistic spouse only makes it worse. My own husband doesn’t often understand why these things bother me, although we’ve made progress recently.

     Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — December 13, 2009 @ 6:38 pm

125. My seminary teacher told me that the prophet said that those that limit the number of children they bring into the world would reap disappointment. Fortunately, by the time I got married, the handbook said the number of children a couple has is between the couple and the Lord.

     Women were instructed to get married, have children…and then go to school. That just doesn’t work. Women become dependent on their husbands often and delay the growing up process. (the one useful thing I learned from Dr. Laura.)

     Before that, the blacks and the priesthood. Now it’s gays. This is a pattern of abuse that we are told is the Lord’s way. It’s becoming difficult to swallow, and for me takes away from the beauty of the actual gospel of Jesus Christ goodness.

     Comment by venus — December 13, 2009 @ 6:41 pm

126. My feminist awakening has come from my engagement in the Bloggernacle and more specifically this site. Lisa and others have done a great job to create this forum in which we can talk about these issues. However, as someone who just got here and read all 125 comments it appears that Steve’s fear has come to pass, this has become a gripe-fest. It is essentially a list of grievances (aka “gripes”), and it sounds like many of you find value in this type of exercise. Fine. But I find it a tad ironic that it’s okay to devote an entire post to listing out everything you dislike about the Church, but when Steve uses the word “gripe” he’s being mean and asked to play nice.

     When I read this forum I often have the following thought: “I wish women could be in positions of leadership (if for no other reason) so they could see how complex, nuanced and difficult it is to be in those positions.” If that sounds condescending I don’t mean it that way at all, I sincerely wish women could be in those positions and have that perspective. In threads like this I find myself thinking, “it’s much more complex than that” but rarely do I attempt to explain my thoughts, mostly because I’m inarticulate but also because I fear being dismissed as “a man.”

     Regarding the list of grievances, I have a few, but I’ll keep them to myself. The only value I have found in airing them (either on my blog or face-to-face) is that I’ve learned others have similar feelings. Great to know, for sure, but it does little for my personal development.

     Comment by Rusty — December 13, 2009 @ 6:51 pm

127. It is interesting to me the contrast in reactions that different individuals have to the same circumstances. For example attending the Temple resolved my concerns about women and the priesthood, yet seems to have heightened concerns for others. Each priesthood quorum has very specific duties, responsibility and authority. In the Temple I see women with the authority to perform specific ordinances. The priesthood is the authority to perform ordinances, therefore I see women performing ordinances as women exercising the priesthood. Ordinance workers do not have authority based on their husbands, you don’t have to be married to be an ordinance worker. The specificity of the authority does not bother me… deacons have specific responsibilities too.
     I’m frustrated this conversation is reducing to the trading of insults. Resolving concerns, sharing experiences and opinions is really important. It seems to me that the line upon line, precept upon precept pattern applies to changes in church practices. Without dialogue, how can we demonstrate we are ready for the next refinement?

     Comment by Chibbylick — December 13, 2009 @ 6:52 pm

128. You’re right, Rusty, the opportunity to gain that kind of insight is denied to women. It’s an example of how patriarchy hurts us all, by creating unnecessary division and a lack of shared experience between men and women. I for one am genuinely interested in hearing the ways in which you think things are so much more complex than some women believe. Since you, as a man, have access to information and experience that women do not, I’m sure you would have valuable information to add.

     I would point out to you that there are men who do participate on this blog quite frequently, and who do succeed in explaining themselves without being dismissed because of their gender. Sometimes they even write guest posts. Maybe if you read their contributions, you would discover a way of writing that is sensitive to feminist concerns and does not lead to giving offense or being dismissed. I assure you, it can be done if one is willing to make the effort, and it’s ok if it takes you a few tries to succeed.

     Steve was asked to add something constructive to the discussion rather than trying to shut it down, but he declined to do so. The post itself attempted to address his concern before he even raised it, but he didn’t bother to address that or make any significant contribution. That’s why he was called out for inappropriate behavior.

     Comment by z — December 13, 2009 @ 7:04 pm

129. rarely do I attempt to explain my thoughts, mostly because I’m inarticulate but also because I fear being dismissed as “a man.”

     When has being inarticulate or being concerned about perfunctory dismissal ever stopped you before from blogging?

     Comment by ECS — December 13, 2009 @ 7:05 pm

130. re #120 about last names - maybe that is a cultural/American problem? I have a different last name to my (non-member) husband (in his culture, women keep their last names on marriage) and my children have their father`s last name. We don`t live in the US either. New missionaries always get it mixed up, but are fine after one explanation. The one that does crack me up is new missionaries calling my husband “Brother *my last name*”!!

     Comment by namakemono — December 13, 2009 @ 7:09 pm

131. Someone mentioned before (sorry - not sure where it is) about women veiling their faces to pray in the temple - I actually like that because it makes a private little space, just me and God

     Comment by namakemono — December 13, 2009 @ 7:12 pm

132. By not recognising womens talents beyond the homemaking sphere means that the church says “no thank you” to 50% of the talent available. Now, what thriving organisation/corporation would be so silly to do that?! Well, we do in our church.
     I have a calling as “national media startegist” with PA for the church in the country where I live. I have professional experience of this. In my career I am an External Relations & Communications Manager for a global company (and yes married with 3 kids). I work with some of the best PR-agencies in the world and I do lobbying work at governmental levels. So I do feel I have adequate skills in the area of my calling.
     Well, still I have to report to someone who doesn’t have the faintest idea about PA. I am not saying I want his role, but it is not an effective way of operating. He only has the role because he is a man. I do all of the work. He basically does cut and pastes from my work for his reports to AO. We could be taking PA to great hights, but I just feel, why bother? It is very discouraging when you feel that there is so much that you can give, but it is not wanted or accknowledged becasue their is prestige and priesthood shileds in the way. I am seriously contemplating offering my services to another charitable organisation that would need and WANT my services and talent.

     Comment by Cilla — December 13, 2009 @ 7:22 pm

133. You can find evidence to justify anything if you start with your conclusions. Which I guess is a pretty good brief definition of the patriarchy.

     I like this a lot, Karla.

     Comment by Kimberly — December 13, 2009 @ 7:25 pm

134. I have had my own last name since I got married over 40 years ago. My children have my husband’s last name as I have my father’s. We did not choose to hyphenate. I just didn’t see any reason to change the name I had had for 20 years.

     Altho there are people who refuse to understand I always say I am proud to be a member of the Husband’s Surname family just as I am equally proud to have come from the Father’s Surname family and my name is simply my name as theirs belongs to them. We had an accountant who said it was not possible to file a tax return that way and steadfastly refused to file with my name. I knew he was lying because I’d worked in accountancy. I whited out and made the correction — both to my name on the return we signed and filed and to our association with an accountant who would represent us accurately and responsively.

     My children went to school with a different surname. We were all well known in the school because of my volunteer activities and it never created a problem. When they marry they will decide how they want to do their names. They have grown up in a world where a variety of naming customs are observed. No prob; no sweat.

     Comment by Withheld — December 13, 2009 @ 7:26 pm

135. ECS,
     You write the truth. Touché.

     Comment by Rusty — December 13, 2009 @ 7:31 pm

136. I thought of one issue about patriarchy in the church that has set up an odd situation for men:

     That so many continue to teach/speak of themselves as spiritually lacking dogs who are only civilized and sanctified by the ever-so-spiritual women in their lives (usually wives, sometimes mothers, occasionally daughters). That because the men are so broken they must have the priesthood to make up for the lack of innate spirituality they possess. And since women are so spiritually gifted, they need no spiritual crutches or prosthetics.

     Unfortunately, this gives men an excuse/acceptable reason to be clods while at the same time it creates a sometimes unapproachable ideal for women who are looked down upon when they do not act/speak like quiet spiritually pedastaled angel-women.

     Comment by LRC — December 13, 2009 @ 7:37 pm

137. Men decide which callings women should have often without the imput of female leaders, yet women carry some of the heaviest workloads in the ward. This is grossly unfair.

     Comment by Jan — December 13, 2009 @ 7:43 pm

138. My husband has been a branch president and a bishop. I think I have a fairly good idea about the rigors of Church leadership, but as a woman, I also know how some leaders can be very sexist and–unfortunately, sometimes racist. When these issues are politely raised, the offenders/leaders can misuse and abuse their positions. Some threaten to excommunicate of disfellowship members. Please note the case of Lavina Fielding Anderson.

     Sadly, a forum like this is the only place that these issues can be addressed since GA’s, ward and stake leaders consider it heresy if anyone suggests that a Church leader is doing something offensive/immoral/dangerous.

     Comment by Chris — December 13, 2009 @ 7:49 pm

139. In addition to the things listed above by Ms.Jack Meyers (quite a comprehensive list), it really bothers me the almost total gender separation there is at church. It’s almost scandalous for a woman to be friends with men at church. Since I’ve always hung out with guys my whole life (except for 4th through 8th grade, the absolute lowest most miserable years of my entire existence), I feel really odd with the segregated setup. In no other sphere of my life since 8th grade have I been asked to associate only with women. It’s not that I don’t like women, but women in groups seem always to dislike me. In mixed groups or in groups of guys (or with some individual women) I’m much more comfortable. Though I love the feeling of sisterhood, I rarely feel accepted in RS. It’s like an uphill battle. Once some sister missionaries and I made real friends, and they came to eat with me a lot before that companionship was discontinued in our area. Otherwise I feel socially not very well accepted at church. It’s okay, because I’m not at church for social reasons, but it does feel wrong to me that we are split up according to gender instead of interests.

     Comment by Tatiana — December 13, 2009 @ 7:52 pm

140. @59 my great great grandfather helped build the chapel in their small community. In fact in the nursing home he apparently went on and on saying “i built this church single handedly.” Apparently he had a bit of a grudge about the level of effort of other members but that is really beside the point isn’t it.

     In that small Idaho farm town everyone shared equipment. You didn’t buy the same piece of equipment someone else in the ward already owned because you could use theirs and maybe the community as a whole was in need of some other equipment. i get that. i understand that way of thinking. It resonates on a very fundamental level.

     Is that really what we have now though? We left 4 years ago. People still bring us meals when there is a reason to do so and we do the same for others in our little community who’s foundation is a school rather than a church. We all pitch in and help where needed. i bought my daughter a semi professional karaoke\PA system this year for Christmas instead of a cheaper version because i knew it would come in handy for school parties and functions.

     People always talked about all the good the church did but i guess i never felt like i really saw that side of things. Making center pieces for the ward christmas party just wasn’t the same as adopting a park long left fallow behind the old folks home where my children sing and make friends with the residents monthly. We drag shopping cars out of the canal and plant native plants, haul rock and dig up weeds. It’s “our” park and those are our special elderly residents to cheer up and learn from.

     i just never did that stuff as a member. Maybe others do. i know my husband did in his home country but even he will say once he came to the states the real service opportunities were hard to find. When we were dating at BYU we had to sign up to be big brothers and sisters through the state in order to really even have a chance of helping and coming in contact with the less fortunate.

     It isn’t just that though. i wanted to be a chef but culinary school requires wine courses. i couldn’t feel right enrolling. The avenues open to me felt so constrained and limiting. i didn’t follow my dream because to do so meant i would have to concede so much in order for it to be “acceptable.” my relationship to cooking since has been highly conflicted and emotionally charged. i’ve started up again and i see it as an indicator i am doing better.

     Comment by StepfordWife — December 13, 2009 @ 8:05 pm

141. It’s funny Rusty, that you would be so sensitive to complexity on one hand . . . “it’s just not that simple” (and I do completely agree with you, I thought the same thing any number of times reading this thread),

     But then turn around with no acknowledgment of the complexity, to unilaterally reduce our (heartfelt, heartbreaking, painful, personal) concerns to a simple list of gripes. Do you truly truly believe “it is just that simple”? That we did nothing here but constant annoying complaining (gripe)?

     I honestly don’t believe that you do believe that. I simply refuse.

     Nor do I believe that Steve intended any kind of sexist shut down. He’s a really good person, he just tends to default to the flippant thing, but he quips without prejudice.

     Comment by fMhLisa — December 13, 2009 @ 8:11 pm

142. I’ve been around here off and on for the past few years, and it has been a great source toward helping me as an older man / lifelong member better understand and relate to feminist concerns. Those of you who have seen my comments know that I can gripe along with the best of you, and sometimes it’s good to air our frustrations and fears — that’s how we learn from each other. One of the things I love and value about the church is the sharing of perspective that can and should take place.

     A couple of thoughts:
     1) I have a woman friend who has been sealed to two men. It happens (however rarely). Her first husband died a few months after they were married/sealed. Husband 2 was an abusive jerk: divorce. Husband 3 (current hubby) is also sealed to her.

     2) I’m old enough to remember women like Elaine Cannon, very popular among the young adults of the church. At the height of her popularity (she unfortunately died relatively young) my dad was a Stake Pres. He told me that she pretty much could have her way when it came to speaking tours, she was that sought after and valued by church leadership. Like having Truman Madsen or Paul Dunn come and speak with her, even if, say, Truman was across the country and presiding over a mission at the time. Some women have enjoyed power and privilege in the church, but I’ll admit it’s probably rare. There was a mission pres. in our stake some years ago whose wife was called into the general RS presidency, and he was released early. Not all of you are mere accessories to your male mates

     3) I also remember the time when women NEVER prayed in Sac. meeting. It was once verboten. Puzzled and disappointed it still is in Gen. Conference.

     4) I have 3 children, all daughters. I’ve seen firsthand the discrepancy between YW and YM/Scout budgets. I’m really bugged every year being asked to donate to FOS. Last year I went to my cousin’s sons Eagle ceremony, and found myself extremely, uncomfortably aware of the incredible sexism of the whole deal. Here are men and boys being praised to the high heavens for their achievements and honors (all the older men who had their Eagles were herded into a silly “Eagle’s Nest” where they were acknowledged. Famous “heroes” of the nation were highlighted and recognized, etc.), and all I could do was sit there in stunned realization of all the women in the room going unrecognized and unacknowledged and never having that opportunity for similar recognition. I don’t have a problem with Scouting’s aims per se, but the glaring fact that all these merit badges are designed to help foster knowledge and career achivement and are ONLY for boys was really disturbing to me as the realization dawned on me just how sexist the whole deal was.

     Change happens in the church, however glacially. Why in part I’m still here. I love the gospel and its principles. I love my ward, however flawed each of us are and can be. I try to live Christlike, and hope that good changes continue to come along. I very much value this blog and the purpose it serves.

     Comment by Rich — December 13, 2009 @ 8:43 pm

143. Thanks for this “opportunity” posting and for your discussion. I have enjoyed reading it and considering all of your points of view. As a male PH holder I often wait longingly for the women of the Church to rise up en masse and assert concerns like this. I want to stand with you. However, I must admit that while I find most of the well-articulated concerns valid, it seems few of the participating women of the church feel the same way. Or am I missing something? If most women share these concerns, why are they so silent? Is it out of fear? Is it that the only option is to leave?

     Some time ago, when I expressed difference on a political issue with the Church’s to my Bishop, he told me to be certain to keep it to myself and not talk to anyone about it. That disappointed me, and I expressed so. I made no commitment to remain silent. I would not. He went on to explain how I wasn’t sustaining the Prophet and the Leaders of the Church in so doing. I said that he was right; I didn’t sustain them on that point, but I did on most everything else (although I do agree with most of the concerns expressed herein, but such haven’t risen to the public/political level other issues have either within the Church or politically). He suggested I couldn’t be selective and still say I was sustaining the Brethren. Hence, no more TR, etc. Thence, all the implications of that.

     I, too, hearken to the example of Lavina Fielding Anderson. I can think of no person who, as far as I know, has seemed to display such courage in standing up to the male hierarchy yet seemingly following the Savior. (I use the language I do — the as-far-as-I-know and seemed and seemingly —because I don’t personally know Lavina, only know of her.)

     Comment by wreddyornot — December 13, 2009 @ 8:56 pm

144. I agree with SO MANY of the posts on this thread. My feminist awakening started pretty early–in Young Womens. Week after week I was taught about how my role in life was to get married in the temple and be a stay at home mom, how I was supposed to honor the priesthood that I was not allowed to have, and how the only fun I was allowed to have was doing crafts while the boys actually did interesting activities. My next big step came when I took a Psychology of Gender class here at BYU. I was appalled with just how sexist many people in our church really are. Finally, the ultimate hit came when I went through the temple. I could handle the other things, but that one caught me off guard and reaffirmed my discontent with the other things. I think marriage is wonderful and I am so excited to have kids, but it bothers me like none other to be told by other people (not my husband, he is great) that I should hearken unto my husband and that he presides over the family. Ummmm. . . .no.

     My problem with all of these problems that we all share is what can we do about them? Seriously, what ARE we going to do about them, because something needs to be done. Personally, I think we should start with our families by teaching our children true equality. The next big step is to start speaking our minds at church!!! I’m not saying start some big argument, but little by little we can let our voices be heard. What do you think?

     Comment by Livi — December 13, 2009 @ 9:15 pm

145. Rich (142)

     I went to an Eagle court of honor a couple of months ago, for a son of my Mister’s cousin. I found in ironic that they call it a “nest” and then proceed to leave all the children with the moms for the rest of the program. I thought the men ought to take the kids in the “nest” with them.

     One other thing, that I sort of said before, but would like to make more clear, sometimes we read all these “gripes” and feel defensive, perhaps of a church we love. Sometimes expressing complaints does lead us to focus on them more, but I think it is more harmful to hold them in, or to tell someone that they shouldn’t feel the way they do. Telling a person that their concern is not valid, or silly, or a “gripe” just makes them feel like there is no place in the church for someone with concerns. We need to be able to talk about concerns, without getting defensive or judgmental. There’s room in the church for anyone who wants to be here, no matter how many concerns they may have.

     Comment by Alliegator — December 13, 2009 @ 9:51 pm

146. I don’t know if grizz (#32) is still reading, but I responded on my personal blog because it’s lengthy and I didn’t want to threadjack.

     Comment by Keri Brooks — December 13, 2009 @ 10:00 pm

147. I agree that we should bring up gripes when they happen. Last week I complained to the bishop because we were having a fast sunday potluck dinner, even though the Christmas party was coming up shortly. That seemed like I lot of cooking for people (face it, women!). I noted that the decision to have the potluck had been made at a PEC, at which women were not by definition invited.

     He told me that while the decision was made at PEC, he takes the ability to invite others seriously, and that in fact the female chair of the activities committee and I think RS had been invited. So while it was made at PEC, women’s input was there. And the female activities chair was a very enthusiastic supporter that was the deciding factor.

     The bishop was not overly upset at me raising the issue. But if I hadn’t, I could still cling to my anger at the injustice. Instead, it turned out to be not that simple.

     Comment by Naismith — December 13, 2009 @ 10:13 pm

148. A note about my participation on this thread.

     I’m Protestant. My entire religious tradition (which Mormonism is arguably indebted to on many levels) got started when one man made a list of grievances against his church and posted it in a public forum. Evangelical Christianity is different from Mormonism. It thrives on ground-up criticism. We are constantly reforming and re-inventing ourselves due to ground-up complaints. If you don’t think I criticize my own leaders, feel free to search my blog for “Grudem” or “Driscoll,” or I can link you to several recent public discussions where I’ve criticized the Manhattan Declaration, which was endorsed by 118 evangelical leaders including my own seminary president and one of my history professors. (Google the Manhattan Declaration if you need to know what that is—it will probably get your feminist blood boiling.)

     The OP called for a comprehensive list of feminist concerns with the LDS church. I complied, and I tried to be as simple and no-nonsense as possible.

     When I hear my LDS friends object to the practice of public airing of grievances, I tend to shrug. I’m stumped as to what would be a better venue for discussing these issues. Besides, it seems to have done us plenty of good.

     Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — December 13, 2009 @ 10:22 pm

149. Alliegator (#146),

     There’s room in the church for anyone who wants to be here, no matter how many concerns they may have.

     I agree with this general sentiment, that there is a lot of room for different viewpoints/opinions in the church, but at the same time, it seems to me there are certain things that are simply decided already, and there is nothing that can be done to change them. At some point, we need to try to accept those things as they are, try to better understand them, or simply decide to reject them (which I would note, is not an “either way is equally okay” decision).

     For instance, the Savior, the one whose existence is more important for us than all others, was stubbornly and irrefutably male. Try as we might, we can’t change that. Does that mean, therefore, that males in general are more important, of course not, and I think the Savior would be highly displeased to here someone say that. But the fact of his gender remains.

     Likewise, a lot of people in this thread have voiced frustration with the fact that only males hold the priesthood. Here again, we run into a problem. Even when the Savior roamed the earth he called leaders … whom were male. One could accuse the Savior of being a sexist anti-feminist, or one could accept his decision as the order of things, for what reason(s) we aren’t quite sure and hope to better understand someday.

     Some might counter that its just a matter of time, however, and that the Savior only gave the priesthood to males because he was working within the context of his sexist times. But in modern times we are more progressive, and things will undoubtedly change. However, in order for this to happen, it would require a not insubstantial overhaul of the canon. This is not simply a Sunday morning conference announcement that oh, by the way, the priesthood will now be extended to everyone. A change of this sort would be more significant, even, than the changes on polygamy and race in the church, both of which were consistent with doctrine (though not necessarily the pop culture interpretations of doctrine used to justify some of these practices).

     There are some things we can make great strides in with regard to the treatment of different genders, but my guess is there are certain things that just are, and are not subject to change.

     Comment by WJ — December 13, 2009 @ 10:30 pm

150. Vada’s comment in #1 perfectly summarizes my concerns. Although the fact that women can’t be in leadership roles has had the most practical consequences in my life, the language of the temple ceremony is deeply troubling to me to the point where it interfered with my ability to enjoy my temple wedding.

     Comment by Natalie — December 13, 2009 @ 10:34 pm

151. Going through the LDS Church museum not too long ago, I went intending to see it with new eyes as I had been there so many times in the past. Upstairs I went through the exhibit on the Prophets and then went over to the Relief Society exhibit. I began noticing that the RS exhibit had a lot of men and children in it and hardly any content that had women without one or the other. Then I thought, were there any women in the Prophet’s exhibit? I didn’t remember any. In disbelief I went back and scoured each exhibit and each placard. There was only one picture of a woman and child–Emma holding young David Hyrum after the death of Joseph. Surely, I thought, there would be something about Marjorie Hinckley, the most beloved woman in the Church in recent times. Nothing, just her name at the end of the introductory placard and the date of their marriage. Other placards had the same–a name and a date and that was all, and no mention of children or home. I don’t remember what they did for BY and others who married plurally.

     The message was clear, though I had never picked it up after dozens of visits: women’s lives are bound up with men and children. Important men in the Church are bound to work and calling with family in the background. I was really surprised at that.

     Comment by ustudent — December 13, 2009 @ 10:37 pm

152. WJ- I’m not sure you understood my point- having room in the church to not feel 100% comfortable with every detail of its operation doesn’t have anything to do with whether we can fix our concerns or not.

     I’m just saying that we shouldn’t try to keep people from talking about their concerns, that makes them feel there’s no place for them in the church. It’s okay to have concerns and still be a “good mormon”.

     Perhaps I’m just misunderstanding your point.

     Comment by Alliegator — December 13, 2009 @ 11:03 pm

153. WJ
     And the relevance of Jesus being male is…? Does that also mean that only people who have the same eye color, or hair color or height as Jesus are qualified to…?

     If anyone is interested, a book I enjoyed was –When Women were Priests: Women’s leadership in the Early Church & the Scandal of their Subordination in the Rise of Christianity by Karen Jo Torjesen.

     Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — December 13, 2009 @ 11:10 pm

154. Risa (#120)

     I think the thing that bothered me the most is when I got married, my home ward transferred my church records to the new ward and automatically changed my last name to my husband’s. I was actually planning on keeping my maiden name, and here they made this assumption without even asking me.

     I had to blink hard and remind myself that I hadn’t posted on this thread yet when I saw this because it looks exactly like what I would write about my experience! My feminist awakening began before I got married, so when this happened just after my wedding, my husband accompanied me to the clerk’s office where I explained that I wanted to keep my maiden name and would they please make the appropriate changes. (This was done.)

     Since then, hubby makes sure to introduce me to new people at church by my first and last name. We had a wonderful bishop when we went to a new ward together who introduced us by each of our individual first and last names. But one time in the temple, we were asked to be the witness couple and the brother there was SO confused when we told him our last names. He wouldn’t leave us alone until I gave up the issue of having my own last name.

     I really relate to a lot of the concerns raised in this thread.

     Whenever I can, I’m trying to be the change I want to see in the world. Some of these things I can’t change, but things like the “dress” code for women at church? Easy. I wear nice dress pants to church. I think I look neat and tidy and respectful. Nobody’s ever said anything (one woman stares, but she stared at me when I wore dresses, too). It may have been a small thing, but I loooove putting on my pants, shirt and blazer on a cold winter day.

     Comment by xenologue — December 13, 2009 @ 11:17 pm

155. Alliegator (#153), I didn’t mean to impute anything to you that you didn’t say, I was merely using that one line from your comment as a springboard for the rest of my comments, though I know it probably looked like my entire comment was in response to yours. My apologies for not clarifying that point.

     Suzanne (#154), I thought my point was pretty clear, but I’ll say it again: certain things just are the way they are. The Savior was a male, not a female. God made it so, and there is nothing we can do about it. It is simply one example of how some things in the gospel are unalterable.

     Comment by WJ — December 13, 2009 @ 11:20 pm

156. #134 - I’m glad you’ve never had problems with not taking your husband’s last night. I have, however, had a lot of problems. Just people asking me why annoys me. I chose to hyphenate my last name as a sort of concession. This has been a big problem for me. I’ve had several church leaders refuse to change my name on the records of the church, refuse to call me Sister “Maiden name-Married name.” And now that I work for the church, they basically chopped off my maiden name and my name plate on my office is just my first name and married name. The other day I basically insisted that the secretary change my name back to my real name because of legal and licensing reasons.

     As for women and leadership, I’ve had many opportunities to be a leader. None that I can think of in church besides the Primary Presidency. At work, I am a leader. I’m not the boss, but I have no desire to be at this time (although I do have ambitions to be a supervisor one day after I get my Masters). In other jobs I’ve been a manager and lead my employees. I was a leader in my sorority. I understand the nuances and difficulties of leadership, and women are more than capable of handling them. I ask are men capable of handling being lead by women? I don’t think a lot of Mormon men are.

     However, I think that’s changing with my generation and the younger generation. I heard all the time in my old ward from senior women about how they just couldn’t believe that men took their kids to priesthood with them or changed diapers in the bathrooms.

     Comment by Risa — December 13, 2009 @ 11:26 pm

157. WJ
     If anyone is interested, Popular Mechanics ran a cover story in Dec, 2002 –Real face of Jesus.

     So, WJ I thought my point was pretty clear, but I’ll say it again: certain things just are the way they are. The Savior was brown haired, not blond. God made it so, and there is nothing we can do about it. It is simply one example of how some things in the gospel are unalterable.

     Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — December 13, 2009 @ 11:51 pm

158. Why is it that Girl Guides haven’t been incorporated into YW activities in the same way that Scouts have for YM?

     Does anybody know of any history with this suggestion; are there any reasons why YW are not encouraged to do Guiding?

     Comment by Zongle — December 14, 2009 @ 12:00 am

159. WJ #150 - so your argument is that because some things are unalterable (Jesus is a man), then other things are unalterable (like men are the only ones who will ever hold the priesthood)?

     I guess the same argument could have been used in 1977 but add the word “white” to both sentences.

     Comment by Stephanie — December 14, 2009 @ 12:10 am

160. Jesus wasn’t Caucasian though. He was Jewish. And every single apostle He selected was Jewish. Literally, racially Jewish, not adopted-into-the-tribe-via-patriarchal-blessing Jewish.

     The idea that the sex of Jesus and his apostles is a binding and eternal indicator of who can hold the priesthood while the race is irrelevant is pretty inconsistent.

     Beyond that, the Bible names women as prophets (Judges 4:4 among many others), deacons (Romans 16:1-2) and possibly an apostle (Romans 16:7). Early Christian inscriptions named women as bishops, elders, deacons, and priests. Women were performing baptisms and administering the Eucharist in the Western church in the 3rd century.

     Is it possible that these examples were unauthorized behaviors or special non-priesthood-holding exceptions of some sort? Sure. But in the LDS paradigm, the possibility that women did have the priesthood in the early church needs to at least be considered.

     Perhaps there’s something plainer and more precious that Mormonism has yet to restore.

     Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — December 14, 2009 @ 12:24 am

161. I know, Jack (that Jesus was Jewish). I just wanted to write a short, snarky comment. (Yeah, I admit those usually don’t go over well for me . . . )

     Comment by Stephanie — December 14, 2009 @ 12:28 am

162. I still ♥ you Stephanie.

     Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — December 14, 2009 @ 12:29 am

163. Thanks, Jack. I *heart* you, too. (But I don’t know how to make the cute little heart)

     Comment by Stephanie — December 14, 2009 @ 12:30 am

164. interesting reading, I (a male who’s wife got me reading this blog now) tend to side with those who believe that someday we’ll have a broder look into eternity and a more complete understanding then. I think when that veil is lifted, our eyes will be opened to a lot of things. Until then, there’s no “I” in couplehood. (you see there actually is in the word marriage so that doesn’t work for my analogy)

     on a side note, I’ve been in YM for almost 3 years and the yw budget has ours almost 3 to 1 in dollars. It seems there’s always budget for them throughout the year and for us nothing b/c it all goes to scoutcamp.

     Comment by nwmember — December 14, 2009 @ 12:33 am

165. #158 “Why is it that Girl Guides haven’t been incorporated into YW activities in the same way that Scouts have for YM?”

     My understanding is that Girl Scouts (which is the US organization of the World Assoc. of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts) is not encouraged within the LDS because the emphasis in Guiding/Scouting is that girls form goals, develop leadership and become self-reliant. For whatever reason, these are things that the LDS prefers to shape according to their own agenda in preference to the WAGGGS’ programs.

     Comment by Withheld — December 14, 2009 @ 12:36 am

166. in SS today, we were talking about presiding righteously and the responsiblity of mothers and fathers… it was asked, what about single mothers without the priesthood? who’s the head of their home? A very well educated single mother said thank you for including us in the conversation and as I live righteously, Christ is the head of my home. -very well put I thought.

     Comment by b — December 14, 2009 @ 12:40 am

167. That is well put, b. We have one of those signs in our home that says, “Christ is the Head of this Home”. It’s universal.

     Comment by Stephanie — December 14, 2009 @ 12:46 am

168. ahhhhh I like this conversation. It’s refreshing to see a good intelligent back and forth between women who think for themselves, be they active, inactive, or nonmember.

     Comment by April — December 14, 2009 @ 12:51 am

169. Thanks, Witheld.
     But surely it’s possible to incorporate Scouting AND moral instruction into one program?
     After all, the YM consists of more than just Scouting, doesn’t it?
     Has nobody ever done any complaining about this discrepancy?

     Comment by Zongle — December 14, 2009 @ 1:09 am

170. “4. Women are discouraged from serving missions. No, I don’t want to hear about how many women serve missions in your amazing egalitarian-minded ward. President Hinckley stated that the age is held up to 21 to discourage young women from going and that’s that.”

     This is not my experience, nor that of my oh-so-many amazing, strong, valiant, women family members who have served missions They have all been free to choose, and encouraged to prayerfully decide their course of action. And that’s that.

     But it IS true, that once there, usually, a younger man was their zone or district leader.

     Comment by Melissa P. — December 14, 2009 @ 1:11 am

171. Oh, and our ward always has a fund raiser for YW camp.

     Comment by Melissa P. — December 14, 2009 @ 1:13 am

172. WHERE IS YOUR BABY???? Every week during RS people can’t help but ask, “Where is your baby?” “Are you burdening your Husband” “Oh your Husband has the baby again” Oh if they only knew! They would be appalled at how much my Husband is “Burdened!” My Husband tell me people say, “You are going to let your wife do that?”. Most the time it is HIM inspiring me to so the things that will make me happy, like going to GRAD school. No matter how hard my Husband and I try to have our egalitarian marriage, as soon as we step in the church we are reminded that we are different.I think there are many ways to have an egalitarian marriage, it is just dependent on the needs and wants of each couple. My Husband needs to have a lot of time with the kids. His dream is to be a stay at home dad. I like a lot of alone time. Even though I get a lot of alone time during the week my Husband makes sure I can have time in RS to ponder.People get upset that I am going to school with small children. It’s almost as though they are angry at my Husband for facilitating my needs and desires.

     Comment by cz — December 14, 2009 @ 1:16 am

173. “We do not ask the young women to consider a mission as an essential part of their life’s program. Over a period of many years, we have held the age level higher for them in an effort to keep the number going relatively small.” ~ Gordon B. Hinckley

     See the post at Zelophehad’s Daughters here for the source of the quote and discussion of the issue.

     Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — December 14, 2009 @ 1:16 am

174. #73 and #75 One year at Sunstone what I heard still comforts me. I can’t remember who said this. But…. the wording was changed after Joseph Smith died. It was so strange because I always thought that wording felt wrong to me. I now just pretend it says unto God, not Husband. I don’t want to get too exact so I hope you know what I am talking about. It was the Sunstone 3 years ago.

     Comment by cz — December 14, 2009 @ 1:21 am

175. Lisa,
     I wasn’t suggesting that the concerns on this thread are less real or complex than they are. I have been reading them for over five years now, they are certainly real, deep and important not only to the women who comment here but all women in the Church. I hope I haven’t given the impression otherwise.

     I just question the exercise (like Steve) in the first place. We’ve been having this same discussion for five years now, are you still doing this for yourself, looking for some insight or closure that you didn’t have before? Or is it purely for others’ benefit at this point? Like I said before, I understand how nice it feels to know there are others out there with similar thoughts and struggles, I really do, especially when they are such a foundational part of your life. But beyond that what is the additional upside? I mean, I can see the upside if there were more stories and explanations of how to effectively work with leaders to enact change (like Naismith’s last comment), which is a very different thing than making a long list of everyone’s “beef.”

     Lisa, I think you would be pleasantly surprised to know that my engagements with you (and ECS, Kristine, etc.) have been very educational. I guess I’m just a little disappointed when I see you initiate something like this.

     Comment by Rusty — December 14, 2009 @ 1:43 am

176. Stepford Wife #57
     I feel like you just told my story. Even if you think not many people here wanted to hear it, I sure did. Thanks.

     My awakening was those verses in Jacob that someone posted earlier, which led me to D&C 132, which led me pretty much nowhere initially as all my Mormon textbooks ignore that lovely topic of Polygamy. Then DH found fMh, yay. Plus many other helpful sites. Finally (about one year after reading in Jacob) I read Mormon Enigma. Done, done and done.

     Comment by Maureen — December 14, 2009 @ 1:46 am

177. B J-M: Ditto.

     I hate the Boy Scout/YW discrepancies. They exist. I have two young girls who are constantly told how great the scouts are, but they never hear from the YW. We go to scout fundraisers and participate in FOS, but no one pushes any prep for YW. Why? I had to start my own GS troop to give them something to do.

     FYI, I have understood that the reason Girl Scouts and the Church are not buddies is that the GS won’t allow the Church to call leadership for troops the way BS will.

     Finally, my son will turn 12 this year and my daughter will turn 8. At both of these events, as with baby blessings, I will sit in the congregation and spectate while Mr. Eris and all his male relatives who hold the priesthood actively participate. This is very painful for me.

     I am willing to concede that there are things I don’t understand, but that doesn’t make it any less difficult.

     Comment by Eris — December 14, 2009 @ 2:05 am

178. Rust #175 Where does change come from? Why don’t you elaborate on how one does enact change without being excommunicated, shunned and or humiliated? No really ideas please..
     By EXAMPLE?
     If it is by example I would say these comments help others to set examples in their own surroundings and to encourage other women and men to keep dialogue going which is paramount to any change.
     By WRITING? Oh I wonder how well my Husbands book would do at Deseret Books, Titled “A guide for the Modern LDS man” Or maybe he would just be excommunicated for challenging the eternal roles.
     Perhaps in ones own WARD? Even when small changes happen in a ward they are not publicized. Making websites such as this VITAL, and thus invoking change. How? By Bringing other women and men the information and courage to demand the same equality.
     SO I think you want to see a list of adequate ways in which these Feminists are going to get together to implement change? Ya have it!!!

     Comment by cz — December 14, 2009 @ 2:16 am

179. #68 ErinAnn

     In the sealing ceremony the woman covenants to give herself unto her husband. The husband does no give himself unto his wife. The wording is different for each sex, why??

     Comment by Maureen — December 14, 2009 @ 3:01 am

180. The reason the Church does not support the the Girl Scouts has nothing to do with teaching young women anything. It has to do with the control the GSA demands.

     If you sponsor a Boy Scout Troop, the sponsoring organization gets to pick its leaders. If you sponsor a Girl Scout Troop, the GSA dictates who will be the leaders. That methodology does not fit within the way the Church calls its leaders.

     Comment by Debbie — December 14, 2009 @ 3:07 am

181. I should have read further before posting that. Chandelle addresses it. And she is dead right. I sat through a sealing session for the dead (and participated) and every time the woman gave herself unto her husband, no such wording for the man. I asked the sealer about it. He was taken aback and said “well, isn’t that what a woman does, gives herself to a man”, like I was #@! property! A bigwig from Stake was in the session and tried to placate me by quoting from ‘The Family: A Proclamation to the World’. My MIL nearly died of embarrassment, my BIL tried to use humour to diffuse the tension, he shouldn’t have labelled me a feminist like it was a dirty word though! hush the freaky feminist everyone. oooh, mad.

     Comment by Maureen — December 14, 2009 @ 3:11 am

182. #93

     Can someone please update the temple workers in Perth, Australia then because, around 6 mths ago it was man receives, woman gives (no receiving on womans part) and I know for sure because I discussed it immediately and then questioned my Bishop later, and then a counsellor from the Stake Presidency.

     It’s still piss-weak because it should clearly be man gives and receives, woman gives and receives.

     Comment by Maureen — December 14, 2009 @ 3:24 am

183. About why I still stay:

     The restored gospel, with all its plain and precious truths, has taught me more about who I am and who I can be than anything I’ve encountered in my life. It’s taught me my own worth, and from that understanding has flowed the ability to better love and strengthen my family and all those with whom I come in contact. The restored gospel and the personal partnership with a living God that I found in the church overhauled and transformed my life vastly for the better. The community of Saints has introduced me to some of the strongest, kindest, best, and most courageous people I’ve ever met. The opportunities for service are wonderful. For whatever the difficulties, the benefits of membership are overwhelmingly greater to me.

     Rich in 142 put it well that the church changes glacially. I feel it’s my job to generate just a little bit of heat under my part of the glacier in order to facilitate in some small way its progress. When enough of us do that, the glacier will become the spring flood that enables a flowering of new life and vitality into the church. Please don’t think that women only will benefit from this, or that men will suffer. All people in the church, and in the world at large, will be strengthened and blessed by the changes.

     Comment by Tatiana — December 14, 2009 @ 7:33 am

184. #182 Maureen ~ I don’t know what to tell you. Being a non-member myself I am completely dependent on the testimonies of others on this matter. My husband is LDS and has a temple recommend, but I’m not sure he’s allowed to do sealing proxy work when he doesn’t have a sealing of his own, so I can’t even send him to check it out for me. It’s possible that the change was made in the last six months.

     Perhaps someone at fMh who’s going to a sealing soon or planning on doing a proxy sealing soon could check it out and report back.

     I completely agree that the wording of the sealing should be mutual, but I’ll take change where I can get it.

     Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — December 14, 2009 @ 8:49 am

185. The talk of scouts and the youth programs is interesting, in Tasmania the church has no association with scouts. When I was in the YW program, my parents felt that the program for me was more fully developed than the YM program for my brothers. We wondered at the time if this was because the YM program in America relied so much on scouting. The Personal Progress material for YW was miles ahead of the YM’s stuff.

     Comment by Chibbylick — December 14, 2009 @ 9:50 am

186. “The fact that women are seen as inherently different from men is the overriding concern for me. ”

     They’re not “seen as” men and women are in fact “inherently different” from each other, if the words “inherently” and “different” are to have any meaning at all.

     That’s a peeve of mine with feminists who ignore that point.

     If on the other hand, you meant to say that “men and women are treated differently as a result of our inherent differences, even though we have more in common than we have in difference,” I would understand your peeve.

     But we are different. In a lot of ways. And we are similar. In probably more ways.

     I always try to be cautious about how I approach sensitive issues regarding potential gender inequalities because I recognize that for whatever reason I’m “at the top of the food chain” so to speak (white, american, male, born into upper middle class family, etc).

     Ultimately I see two sides to the debate.

     1. We should strive for equal outcomes between the sexes in spite of our inherent differences.

     2. We should strive for both sexes to be treated equally as they fulfill complementary roles (which often overlap at the margins).

     I’m actually ok with either, but as a mostly-contented man I guess I would likely say that.

     One thing that should be considered of every feminist, is that there are various roles that need to be fulfilled. Demanding women have 100% equality in fulfilling all potential roles, by necessity changes the role of men.

     But I’ve always thought I’d be a good relief society president, so I’m looking forward to the day both sexes can be liberated

     Comment by sam — December 14, 2009 @ 9:52 am

187. 173. Ms. Jack….I went to your link, but my experience with women and missions is still amazingly positive, as were some of the women in that discussion. A lot will depend on who you trust for your information about the church, on how you view it.

     Women are not discouraged, in my experience. When I turned 21, my Bishop asked if I would like to go. He wasn’t pressuring me at all, he just wanted me to know he would be supportive if I wanted to do it. I know women who re 75 and 90 who served missions. When I read Pres. Hinkley’s remarks I do not see anything negative…I believe it was made to Priesthood in order to recalibrate them to not pressure young women to go, just to let them choose, and decide on their own

     Probably many young men wish they had that same privilege. I think more young men should consider that they have until age 25 to go and some should not rush off so soon, if they are not ready!

     Aside from leaving later, and only going 18 months, women have much more freedom in missionary work, to serve multiple missions, etc. He was just saying that women are not duty-bound ( as in, Every Worthy Young Woman of 21 SHOULD serve a mission.) I actually think waiting till 21 for women is awesome as they get to get in a lot of college before they go, and come back with so much confidence and power and purpose, having experiences that show them how the Lord can work in their lives and helping bring truth to others. What an amazing opportunity. I never pressure anyone to go, because I feel it is such an individual decision. ( I also never pressure anyone to date or marry or choose a certain profession, for the same reason) I like that the women do not have to feel pressure to go ,but are free to do so. ( if someone wants to interpret that as discouragement that is their choice. I see the wisdom in the age discrepancy. I would like to see women be able to have the choice to serve for 2 years, though. )

     I read an article in a magazine from another church, which did a comparison of religions. When reading down the list of what Mormons believe, everything on their list had some kernel of truth, but was twisted to the negative view. They knew some facts but they didn’t know much context. They weren’t truly trying to understand.

     Grizz- I know the church is true. I feel lucky everyday to have it in my life. It helps me in my marriage,and other relationships and helps me raise my children. It helps me have peace and comfort and joy and hope. It helps me change and grow and be a better me. It tells me there IS a better me! I have a testimony of the restoration of the Priesthood, and I don’t have a beef with the idea that I will not hold it. I am so thankful for a Prophet, and thankful to understand roles of men and women. I love the proclamation on the family. In my experience, I believe women are treasured and respected and urged to ‘find their wings and fly’ in the church and in the world.
     I do understand that we are often conflicted about how to do that individually-how to navigate timing of many things. I am thankful I can be a mom, which is most frustrating and most fulfilling for me, but also to be able to use my talents and education. I love knowing the true nature of the Godhead and that we have a Heavenly Mother. I believe this is the best place to learn truth about Jesus Christ and His mission and His will for our lives I am thankful we do not have a paid clergy, and that we are all encouraged to learn the scriptures and receive revelation for our own circumstance. I serve in leadership callings in the church. I am respected and listened to, and asked for my opinion, and thanked for it. ( for the MOST part! There are always people who bug me, men, and women alike. As a volunteer organization, I think we do pretty well, overall. )

     n my years working for my son with special needs I found out there are ways to work with people that work better than others.

     And I know that what this post wants is beef. So I apologize for not being beefier. But here is one for you…older buildings seriously need to retrofit their bathrooms so that at least one is easy to navigate in a wheelchair. A simple family use bathroom would work. The double door plan is just NOT working! While I am very happy we no longer have all those fund raisers for our buildings, I do have issues with the FM group. It complicates some things a great deal, because I , as an individual , don’t really have access to them. I think I will have to find a way to get this message to the right folks. Somehow. Thanks.

     Comment by Melissa P. — December 14, 2009 @ 10:16 am

188. #158, Girl Scout/Girl Guide organization is set up in a vastly different way than the Boy Scout program is. I believe that ECS hit the nail on the head in that GS allows churches to sponsor a troop, by providing space, and I believe the financial support structure is different, but I believe that they are not allowed to limit membership to only those that are members of that religion and they are also not allowed to “appoint” leaders.
     They allow people that are gay to be members, where as the BSA doesn’t.
     All the structural/political things aside, most of the badges, etc. are not geared towards the girls growing up to be wives and mothers or increasing their spirituality, as it seems the Personal Progress program is.
     As a side note, you can wear the Young Women medallions as part of your Girl Scout uniform.

     Comment by queenlucy — December 14, 2009 @ 10:21 am

189. No worries Ms. Jack Meyers

     I figure the change must have occurred since I went to that session. I can’t imagine they’d actually use old terminology/scripts here.

     What bugs me though is that since there has then been a recent change (thanks for educating me about it) then that means that the point has been considered and all that the people in charge have come up with is this token change in wording. So that says to me that there is some significant reason to leave out wording for the man to give himself to his wife. That is what bothers me very deeply. Now more-so than before because the argument that it was just an outdated way of doing things no longer applies. Modern-day leaders have thought about it and this is the result.

     Btw, I still have a current temple recommend, but I have left the church so… I probably shouldn’t go there just to check out the wording, eh? that would be a bit wrong I imagine.

     Comment by Maureen — December 14, 2009 @ 10:36 am

190. My daughter was actively discouraged from serving a mission at 21 because, as was bluntly stated to her, she was too attractive and would be a distraction. SHe met resistance every step of the way. SHe ended up not finishing the paperwork because she was very concerned that she would be sent somewhere local which, for a gal who craves diversity, would have been a death knell.

     Comment by StillConfused — December 14, 2009 @ 10:47 am

191. #26 - That kind of thing fills me with rage. I would never treat a female business associate like that, whether she was in the church or not.

     My wife has also experienced this kind of behavior from male LDS colleagues, and it’s especially infuriating because her line of work is so difficult that you’d think the members would stick together rather than find ways to oppress or ignore each other.

     Comment by Bro. Jones — December 14, 2009 @ 10:53 am

192. 190. That is so crazy! Although if sending her stateside would have been a death knell to her, its probably for the best, because that well could have happened. I can’t imagine anyone being too attractive for a mission. My nieces are gorgeous and I happen to think my daughter is beautiful! We have had some very glamorous looking women missionaries in our area. I guess it comes down to local craziness though, for the most part. That would be SOOOOO frustrating!

     Comment by Melissa P. — December 14, 2009 @ 11:11 am

193. 190 - That seems really odd. Who said it to her? Were they confronted on it?

     Although if ugliness is a pre-requisite for going on a mission it explains why I’ve always thought missionaries had this gangling awkward look.

     Comment by sam — December 14, 2009 @ 11:16 am

194. #190 I had a major crush on one of the sister missionaries that taught me because she looked like Sharon Stone. Not that I would’ve refused to accept the Gospel if she weren’t as cute, but it sure made the discussions a lot more fun.

     Comment by Bro. Jones — December 14, 2009 @ 11:21 am

195. Ms. Jack Meyers, he can do proxy work without being sealed himself. I am going with my husband on Thursday (our anniversary) so we will check out he wording change).

     There seem to be a few main divisions in beefs…

     1-actual doctrine

     2-practices that people think are based on doctrine

     3-idiot attitudes that people justify based on practices that people think are based on doctrine

     There could be discussion on what goes where. Does the priesthood fit into 1 or 2? How about temple? How about the specific wording in the temple? (I think it’s in 2 because of the changes that have been made-that indicates some of the wording issues may be based on old societal norms, not actual doctrine)

     I do think men and women are different-in many ways. In how our brains function, in how we digest and metabolise, in our muscle structure, and in a variety of ways. That is not to excuse idiocy, but it is silly to not admit men and women are different. The problem comes from discrimination that is not based on the actual differences, but the fact that there are differences.

     I think we need to focus backwards up the list. Idiocy is best met with calmness. You can camly ask where it is in the handbook of instructions that such and such a policy must occur. You can ask nicely and gently and persistantly about getting your name right, or whatever. There is a place and a time for this…it’s generally better without an audience so it can be a search for truth and not a save face defensive manuever.

     Sometimes it helps to have a simple, funny answer. My husband carries our babies in slings throughout church. If I get a comment I usually say something about tag team parenting or how with the number of children we have it takes 150% from both of us, or how we are marsupials (that usually distracts them enough that they’ve forgotten what they were saying). I have found you are seldom addressing the person who attacked..in this case you are addressing the audience (the stray YW walking in the hallway, the young mother or father behind you). Humor diffuses the tension AND corrects at the same time. This is especially good for the “Dad’s plan to babysit that night” nonsense, or “are you burdening your husband junk” - a simple comment about it being called parenting when it’s your own children helps. Even a simple “isn’t it funny how traditions sneak in….” helps a person think about what is tradition and what isn’t.

     We do need to DO what is possible. There is no reason the YM budget should be different than the YW. A good YW leader will have plans in mind when she turns in her budget and be able to specify where it will go. My mom and her friend planned amazing high adventures for us growing up. It became the norm for the YW to back pack in the sierras, or go canoeing for a week.

     We can take advantage of things like Activity days. They do discourage specific awards, but that doesn’t mean parental attention has to be lacking. Father daughter days, mother daughter days, day hikes, practical life skills, a dinner to honor the girls-all well within the realm of AD and no reason why it can’t be done. Memories and individual specific activities can outweigh the lack of badges.

     We can expand the realm of womanhood ourselves by talking and referencing the dynamic women in the church. Sheri Dew, Cheiko Okasaki (pretend I can spell), Julie Beck (say what you will, she’s no doormat) and a host of other women more accurately represent the diversity in the church. We can teach the power of motherhood without implying cleaning toilets is the end all. We need to include our hobbies, the sisterhood that helps us and our continuing education in our discussion of womanhood. We can talk about how a meaningful life makes our motherhood more meaningful.

     When it comes down to a an actual doctrine, or what is in the grey area between 1 and 2-we do need to shelve some things. Just put them on the back burner and choose not to stress about them. Sometimes time will change our perspective, or the faulty practices will melt away that will clarify the doctrine in a much less offensive way.

     It is better to focus on the Savior than on the same ten things that bug us. It’s better to spend a brief time clarifying our problem, choose to shelve it or take on a planned, calm form of action..then move on. Studying and fixating on a problem when there is so much goodness to focus on in the gospel doesn’t change the gospel and changes us for the worse.

     ANY ism or archy can change our way of seeing the world and help us interpret EVERY thing in support of our previously formed concept-whether that is patriarchy or feminism.

     Comment by britt — December 14, 2009 @ 11:27 am

196. I like your 1-2-3 structure, britt. I think it is important to distinguish between them.

     Comment by kew — December 14, 2009 @ 11:34 am

197. #187 Melissa P. ~ I don’t think you understand my complaint. President Hinckley said that the age for women is held up to 21 specifically to reduce the number of women who go. That is discouraging women from serving missions.

     It’s nice that there are individual wards that encourage women after they’ve hit 21, but I think that’s a bit like cheering someone on in a race after busting in their kneecaps.

     I understand that there are other considerations as far as missions and gender goes. I understand that the fact that they are optional for women and that women can serve them as many times as they want do, in some ways, work to women’s advantage. But that doesn’t change the fact that the church has stated that it keeps the minimum age at 21 to reduce the number of women who do it.

     Every time I get into one of these conversations where I list examples of institutionalized discrimination against women in the LDS church, there is always someone who tries to respond to me with an argument to the effect of “not in my ward!” While I’m genuinely glad that there are wards which encourage women in missions in spite of the institutionalized policies meant to discourage them from going, the policy is still there. I see no reason why the minimum age can’t be set to 19 for everyone.

     I’ve had 17 different female LDS roommates and many, many female friends in this age range in my time at BYU. My experience was that many of them would have liked to have served missions and would have signed up for them at age 19 if they’d been able to, but by age 21 they had other things going on and did not go. Only two of my former roommates went on missions (one of whom was sent home early for medical reasons).

     Specifically, my best friend at BYU was a real firecracker. Grew up in the church in the Provo-Orem area, got her temple recommend as a single woman at age 18. She argued that it wasn’t fair that men get them at age 18 if they’re going on a mission and women get them at age 18 if they’re getting married, but a devout single woman can’t have one at age 18. Someone listened to her and she was given a recommend. She would have really loved to have served a mission, but she met a great guy (he was also one of my best friends there) and wound up getting married when she was 20 or 21. She decided it wasn’t worth it to make him wait for her to serve a mission. If she’d been allowed to serve a mission at age 19, it’s entirely possible she’d have been able to do both.

     As I’ve said before, I’m a Protestant and a historian in training. The larger Christian tradition is absolutely rich with the amazing work done by female Christian missionaries, and historically, evangelism is a field that has always been open to Christian women in spite of repressive policies in other places. The first person in the Gospels to ever speak to a crowd of people about Jesus was Anna the prophet in Luke 2. The woman at the well in John 4 was the first person during Jesus’s ministry to spread the word about Him. And of course it was women who first carried the message from the empty tomb that Christ is risen.

     So my mind simply boggles that any church would want to depress this resource and consider preaching the Gospel “primarily a priesthood (i.e. male) responsibility.” This should definitely be a concern for Mormon feminists.

     Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — December 14, 2009 @ 11:43 am

198. Tatiana (#183) said:

     I feel it’s my job to generate just a little bit of heat under my part of the glacier in order to facilitate in some small way its progress.

     This is my quote of the day. I have really struggled with the Church the last couple of years. I have three strikes against me: I am a woman, I am disabled and I am old. But I have been able to make a difference in my own stake when it comes to accomodations for the disabled. So I think there is hope for women too. This kind of a forum is so important. I would never know that other women in the Church feel the way I do were it not for fMh and similar blogs, because I have NEVER heard anyone talk like this openly in a church meeting. Thank you all. You give me courage and hope.

     [Slight thread jack] Melissa P. (#187): It is LDS Church policy to retrofit older buildings to accomodate those with disabilities “as the need arises.” Your stake president can request building modifications to meet the needs of just one person. We have done it here in Montana. It takes persistence and time, but has made a big difference here for me and several other members. I think I have developed a reputation for being a pushy old lady, but so be it. Once I got the stake president on my side, others quit arguing with me about it.

     Comment by CatherineWO — December 14, 2009 @ 11:52 am

199. Oh I forgot to add (no I’m not getting paid by the word) that many of our problems with local leaders are intricately tied with something i LOVE-the fact that our church doesn’t have paid local leadership. I love that. I really do. To add money and greed and a more permanent leadership to some of the problems would complicate them horribly. It changes so much about our church…but it also means that frequently people with little training are stumbling along doing their best-and their best at times is shockingly bad. That can be very painful. That makes it extremely difficult to see through to the head of the church. It changes our relationship with future leaders, but it doesn’t have to change our relationship with Christ.

     I was discouraged to go on a mission-both by a “helpful group of youngmen” (You’re already intimidating-you’re an athlete, you’re graduating, if you go on a mission you’ll never get married because you’ll be extra intimidating-answer-well then I guess I won’t be marrying any of you, I’ll just find a guy who’s good enough to not be intimidated by a woman who’s got a life) and an idiot SP member who worried that because my sister came home from her mission to immediate hospitalization to deal with her annorexia, that I shouldn’t go on a msision becuase I might do the same (um no-I don’t have her will power and I’m hypoglycemic-meaning if I don’t eat I faint) his ignorance of the disease and women in general (”promise you won’t want to loose more than 5 pounds at any point during your mission” answer-go home and ask your wife if she’s had a lot of 18 month periods of time when she has not had a desire to loose 5 pounds.I told him I’d make his promise, and keep it, but I thought it was ignorant.) drove me nuts- But that was an idiot leader-not Christ-not the gospel. I also had a non member idiot dr at the time who’s great and innappropriate, salacious interest in my sexual life (and disbelief in my lack of one)made for an interesting pre mission time -add to that that I had already met and dated my husband (” It’s totally honorable for a woman to leave the MTC if she has a marriage prospect”).

     I shared those things to say it’s not always been roses. My testimony has been challenged by my experiences in the church and by church members.

     The reason I served a mission is because I prayed and knew that’s what God wanted me to do. I could focus on those things, or focus on the great leaders I have had, the great things my mom did for me and taught me, the answers to prayer and the multitude of ways i was prepared for a mission by friends, family and teachers.

     Comment by britt — December 14, 2009 @ 11:56 am

200. As I said, I see the wisdom in women going at 21, and I support it. I do understand that that means some will no go. I know there are plenty of men that wait on their missionary till she gets back, and while she is gone, he gets more schooling in. I know older sisters who have also gone on multiple missions.

     There is a big difference in my view and yours, really, because I probably am not a feminist in the way you view it.

     Comment by Melissa P. — December 14, 2009 @ 11:59 am

201. I think there would be wisdom in asking boys to wait until they are 21 to serve missions. Maybe fewer would go, but I think they would be better.

     Comment by kew — December 14, 2009 @ 12:04 pm

202. “Another thing that bothers me, although it isn’t so much a man vs woman thing. Dh and I felt NOTHING in the Temple. We have felt NOTHING from prayer. NOTHING. People make it sound so easy, but it isn’t. We are/were converts and we did everything “right”. We gave it 110% for 2 years of our lives, and we felt nothing in return. Talk about a disappointment and let down. It leaves us wondering if people truly get the feelings they describe or if they get the feelings because its expected or commonly talked about among members.”

     lostandconfused, #50 (sorry, I have never commented before reading all of the comments until today, but I wanted to add something and will have a hard time catching up since I am at work), I 100% identify with this. You stated the beginning and end of my spiritual journey with these words. I just wanted you to know that others feel this way too, and I am sorry for your disappointment.

     Comment by Lawyer Lady — December 14, 2009 @ 12:15 pm

203. about the change in wording in the temple - I did sealings in Denver about 3 months ago…no change in wording as of September 2009.

     Comment by Amanda — December 14, 2009 @ 12:17 pm

204. Thanks Tatiana! We have at least 6 members in wheelchairs or scooters who could use some better access! And we have a great stake president…

     Comment by Melissa P. — December 14, 2009 @ 12:22 pm

205. oh, and StepfordWife - yes, yes, yes and yes.

     I’ll bring the wine…

     Comment by Lawyer Lady — December 14, 2009 @ 12:25 pm

206. yes on #56, that is.

     Comment by Lawyer Lady — December 14, 2009 @ 12:25 pm

207. Re 104
     Good. I thought you were extrapolating from those stats, which may or may not be enlightening, since they aren’t specifically about LDS folk. Which isn’t to say that I think we are necessarily anomalous, but we could be and I’d certainly like us to be.

     Comment by John C. — December 14, 2009 @ 12:34 pm

208. britt, I really enjoyed your comments, particularly your 1-2-3 structure.

     Comment by Stephanie — December 14, 2009 @ 12:55 pm

209. About the age of missionaries. I wish it was the same for both genders. By having it different indicates a belief that one gender is A) less capable at a younger age (girls), or B) Less capable of waiting till they are a little older and still being able/willing to go (boys). Either way, I think that defining who is and is not capable of whatever by gender is inherently unequal. (btw same goes for banning women from serving in certain stations in the military because “most” women would not be able to meet the physical/mental criteria. Why can’t the minority who CAN meet those criteria still full those positions?)

     That being said. I would have served a mission if I had been allowed when I was 19 and been home in time to not miss the chance meeting I had with my now husband and soul mate. The reason my papers were never turned in when I was 21, was because I had a “feeling” I should wait a couple of months… within those months I met my husband and the rest is history. So the age difference DID prevent me from going.

     Comment by April — December 14, 2009 @ 1:24 pm

210. Speaking of women serving missions, here is an explanation of why the rules are different for women than for men in re age, length of service, etc., at lightplanet.com. It strikes me as incredibly sexist and limiting of women’s choices:

     http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/missionary/women.htm

     Comment by Lorian — December 14, 2009 @ 1:36 pm

211. #210 Lorian ~ Have you seen the “Why can’t women be ordained to the priesthood?” article on that same site? It’s equally paternalistic and terrible.

     FAIR links to these articles as apologetics for these issues. It just leaves me shaking my head that even the apologists can’t do better than to shrug and point out that women can make babies.

     Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — December 14, 2009 @ 2:02 pm

212. 184: As far as I know there has not been a change in the sealing ceremony. I’ve been doing sealings since the early 80s and as far as I remember, the woman has always both given and received, while the man receives. I’m not aware of any time now or in the past when the woman gave only.

     You don’t need to be sealed yourself to do sealings for the dead. I did them often when I was single.

     188: LDS Boy Scout troops do not limit membership or even leaders to church members. However, in BSA, the leaders are still appointed by the sponsoring organization. I’ve always heard that the main reason Girl Scout troops are not sponsored by the church is because the sponsoring organization has no say in the appointment of leaders.

     Comment by Left Field — December 14, 2009 @ 2:05 pm

213. Oh man. That one about women and priesthood is horrific. Who do they think their audience is? I especially like the complete cop-out at the end. “Our wimmens are happy, so don’t mention this to them, because we have them all fooled into not thinking to think about it. You just wish you were as happy as we are.”

     Comment by Natalie K. — December 14, 2009 @ 2:07 pm

214. I want to thank you all for posting these things. I stopped participating in the LDS church about 4 years ago. I dwindled down to almost no activity and finally stopped kidding myself. These things that are mentioned here, even some things about the temples (even though I was never endowed) were things that tickled my mind for a long time but I never quite had a name for it all.

     In addition to some larger, more major things, I decided that I couldn’t be part of it any more. Since I left I have blossomed in ways I never could have had I remained an active member. As I feel more confident in talking about it, I may post more and in more detail. I just wanted to thank you all for contributing - especially the current members. I had no idea that there were others like me out there. Even though it is well after the fact, it helps me now to know that I surely wasn’t alone back then.

     Comment by former mormon — December 14, 2009 @ 2:09 pm

215. 202, Lawyer Lady, I also was like that for years. Not a convert, but born in the church. I grew up seeing the church was good, that it taught many things that were right and good, but never really cared much for some of the more spiritual and especially miraculous aspects of the gospel and the church.

     It was not until I started really leaving the gospel and exercising faith that the seed which was planted in my by my parents and church leaders started to grow.

     So it took about 18 years for me to really gain a strong testimony, and it’s not finished growing.

     I’m not saying this to refute or argue with you, but to add to what you said and tell you that for many of us (Brigham Young included I believe) it can take years before we are truly converted, and from there the process never ends.

     Comment by sam — December 14, 2009 @ 2:22 pm

216. leaving = living… changes the meaning a bit

     Comment by sam — December 14, 2009 @ 2:22 pm

217. @John C #204 -

     Some anecdotal evidence for you re LDS women and sexual abuse: In a YSA ward I attended 10-15 years ago, this came up as part of a special RS lesson. Of the women in the room (about 90 women), 42 raised their hands to admit publicly that they’d been the targets of sexual abuse at some point in their lives. I remember being surprised because the incidence was higher than the 30% rate in the general population.

     Comment by LRC — December 14, 2009 @ 2:26 pm

218. 201-kew: hear hear!

     I felt an underlying current of “are you SURE you want to serve a mission?” once I actually started the process. Part of this only deepened my resolve to go. Of course, plenty of people were encouraging, but I remember thinking–especially when I got out in the field–how anyone who had served (male or female) couldn’t NOT encourage me…

     Comment by Lacy — December 14, 2009 @ 2:47 pm

219. sam - You had me really confused there for a minute.

     Comment by Lorian — December 14, 2009 @ 2:47 pm

220. Jack #211 - Yikes. I was twitching before I was halfway through. Here’s a really special excerpt:

     As noted above, a husband has no power or authority to compel his wife to do anything. Yes, he presides, but only as long as it is accordance with her wishes. If a wife chooses not to follow her husband’s counsel, then there is absolutely nothing he can do about it. A Husband only governs a wife as far as she chooses to be governed.

     It’s okay to be always the governed one and never the one who makes the decisions, because at least if you don’t like what your governor tells you to do, you can act like a stubborn child about it. Sweet.

     Comment by Lorian — December 14, 2009 @ 2:56 pm

221. Wow, what a thread. I don’t know if I want to even look through these “beefs.” Last year I overwhelmed myself by constantly thinking about all the things that irk me about the church. I finally had to take a step back with my membership and it has been very helpful for me, although my ward is contacting me like crazy. Reading all of this may get me too worked up.

     Maybe the next step to this post could be how to deal with the issues and still remain active? I know I would love to hear from all of the wonderful bloggers and the followers on this topic.

     Comment by shannonj — December 14, 2009 @ 3:52 pm

222. Oh and I hope my use of quotations isn’t misinterpreted. I really didn’t mean anything by using those.

     Comment by shannonj — December 14, 2009 @ 3:54 pm

223. Sam-

     Forgive me for not being careful in how I worded my comment. You cleared up my meaning.

     Comment by AllieKay — December 14, 2009 @ 3:55 pm

224. Well, actually, that’s not exactly what I mean.

     What I meant was more along the lines of this. I don’t appreciate when people assume across-the-board differences where they do not exist or, at best, only exist because the culture has made it so. I don’t like truisms like “Women don’t have the priesthood because they are fundamentally better nurturers than men.” or “Women are more compassionate than men.” or “Men are problem-solvers and women are feelers.” Those things, while they may be trends you’ve observed in many of the people you know, are oversimplified and reductionist.

     All people have different degrees of all traits. Do not assume that I have a certain personality or a certain set of capabilities because I have an eternal vagina.

     Comment by AllieKay — December 14, 2009 @ 4:15 pm

225. I especially like that part in Lorian’s link where Hinckley washes his hands of his granddaughter’s missions. They didn’t tell him they wanted to go until they’d turned in their papers. He had nothing to do with it. Well isn’t that supportive.

     Comment by Chandelle — December 14, 2009 @ 4:20 pm

226. Quite frankly, I think men need the priesthood a helluva lot more than women. Without the priesthood most of us probably would not show up to do anything. And most men would rather not have the callings you all seek for. We are much more excited and thrilled when we are released than when we are called. But, when the time does come, remember D&C 121…. it seems like a lot of you are really itching for the “higher call”, which isn’t necessarily a good thing.

     Comment by ajax — December 14, 2009 @ 4:56 pm

227. I don’t think men need the priesthood. I think they need vaginas. Maybe that would give them more compassion and empathy so they wouldn’t need that pesky priesthood.

     Comment by that1girl — December 14, 2009 @ 5:12 pm

228. So, ajax, let me make sure I understood what you are saying: are you saying that everyone would be much happier if women received the Priesthood and men didn’t?

     In all seriousness, I doubt that extending the Priesthood to all worthy members would actually solve many of the problems that have been discussed (and, it should be noted, that Priesthood is only one of many other concerns that have been discussed here). While I hope for the day when an OD3 may be received, most of the concerns and problems here are more deeply rooted in particular cultural and doctrinal worldviews that divide men from women far more than they have to.

     Comment by NoCoolName_Tom — December 14, 2009 @ 5:15 pm

229. Britt, “Studying and fixating on a problem when there is so much goodness to focus on in the gospel doesn’t change the gospel and changes us for the worse.”
     Maybe for you, but for me it has made me a better person with a stronger testimony. One instance is finding out that the wording in the temple was actually unto God and NOT Husband.Thus I found things are sometimes cultural. That one piece of knowledge came from focusing on a “problem”. I think that is why I still belong to the church. So in my experience it is the opposite. Just thought you would want to know that attention to theology and doctrine actually inspires people.Yes even the Problems and inequalities!

     Comment by cz — December 14, 2009 @ 5:21 pm

230. “I don’t think men need the priesthood. I think they need vaginas. Maybe that would give them more compassion and empathy so they wouldn’t need that pesky priesthood.”

     Well, we tried that with polygamy and then you gals got all ruffled over that.

     “So, ajax, let me make sure I understood what you are saying: are you saying that everyone would be much happier if women received the Priesthood and men didn’t?”

     Probably…… men would be freed up to do the things they really want to do(watch NFL, golf, hunt, ski etc.) and women could preside over and teach each other. ;-)

     Comment by ajax — December 14, 2009 @ 5:30 pm

231. #227 that1girl ~ Have I told you lately how wonderful you are?

     Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — December 14, 2009 @ 5:36 pm

232. Thanks, Jack! You’re not so bad yourself.

     Comment by that1girl — December 14, 2009 @ 5:38 pm

233. If men suck at spirituality so much that women have to be forcibly restrained from church leadership in order for men to succeed, I say that’s their problem. They can stay home and watch football for all I care.

     However, other denominations which ordain women have not seen a significant decline in male participation nor a take-over of female clergy, so I think this fear is unfounded. Point in fact, the LDS church already has one of the worst male-female ratios for Christian traditions in America (44% male - 56% female). Perhaps men are already staying away from church due to the huge burden priesthood puts on them and sharing that burden with women would actually help the male-female ratio.

     Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — December 14, 2009 @ 5:41 pm

234. Lighten up Ms Jack, its all in fun.

     Comment by ajax — December 14, 2009 @ 5:44 pm

235. Okay ajax. Talk to that1girl, I hear she’s handing out free vaginas.

     Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — December 14, 2009 @ 5:45 pm

236. H-mmm I am wondering which is worse: to be a YW and not encouraged to plan to serve a mission or be a YM and expected to serve a mission. This tradition casts the young men into playing roles for the members/families and church as whole, fulfilling actually the missionary role for all of us. It’s a very co-dependent approact. The YM are not treated as a person and what would you like to do with your life at this junction? Instead they are treated as a role: when are you going/where do you hope to do go? How much have you saved? It will be the greatest experience of your life? What not planning to serve a mission how dare you?

     Comment by GatoraideMomma — December 14, 2009 @ 5:54 pm

237. Ajax when my husband has free time he does none of those things. Why do you have to belittle men into being selfish, jocks who just want to stracth themselves? In my opinion and experience your comments about men seem incredibly sexist.

     Comment by Cz — December 14, 2009 @ 5:55 pm

238. Ajax, it’s not all about itching for a calling either! It’s about being able to hold your baby and bless it or help your sick children by giving them a blessing. I think you are unaware of the reasons why women wish to hold the priesthood and believe me it’s not to have a calling. It’s to better serve the callings we have and nurture and care for our families

     Comment by Cz — December 14, 2009 @ 6:01 pm

239. Suzanne (#158),

     If anyone is interested, Popular Mechanics ran a cover story in Dec, 2002 –Real face of Jesus.

     So, WJ I thought my point was pretty clear, but I’ll say it again: certain things just are the way they are. The Savior was brown haired, not blond. God made it so, and there is nothing we can do about it. It is simply one example of how some things in the gospel are unalterable.

     Assuming Popular Mechanics’ description of the face of Jesus is accurate, it simply affirms my point, that certain things are unalterable. You are agreeing with me, though I doubt you intended to.

     Stephanie (#160),

     WJ #150 - so your argument is that because some things are unalterable (Jesus is a man), then other things are unalterable (like men are the only ones who will ever hold the priesthood)?

     I guess the same argument could have been used in 1977 but add the word “white” to both sentences.

     Nope, thats not what I’m saying, that was a non-sequitor of your own creation (e.g. “Jesus is a man, therefore men are the only ones who will ever hold the priesthood”). What I’m saying is that certain aspects of the gospel are unalterable, and the Savior’s gender is simply one iteration of that fact. My comments on the (likely) unalterable nature of the priesthood has nothing to do with the Savior’s gender, but is based solely on the fact that this position is heavily doctrinally based. Not culturally based, but doctrinally based. It would require more than an OD3, it would require excising significant portions of the canon in order to pull it off. Thus, another example of a likely unalterable facet of the gospel.

     Comment by WJ — December 14, 2009 @ 6:11 pm

240. WJ, even President Hinckley himself left the window open when asked about it. (Does someone else remember the exact phrase he used?)

     Comment by Stephanie — December 14, 2009 @ 6:18 pm

241. Rusty (#175) :

     I guess I’m just a little disappointed when I see you initiate something like this.

     Obviously I’m not Lisa and can’t speak for her, but I can say why I think an exercise like this can hold worth, even while I hold the same reservations Lisa expressed in her initial OP and subsequent economic metaphor.

     Sure, a list of grievances can freak people out and perhaps sway someone whose already alienated towards inactivity etc. Just as easily, however, it can help them feel a sense of community and recognition that their sadness does not exist in a vacuum and that if others navigate the difficulties, so might they. Repressing frustration neither strengthens testimonies nor individuals; it certainly does not eradicate the frustrations nor the inequities from whence they come. Really, Lisa’s economic metaphor says this better than I am, trying to type while a naked toddler leaps repeatedly from my head (I think I’m risking electroction!) but hey, I agree with her, so I’m gonna say so. Just haven’t been around until now in order to do so.

     Yes, we have had the conversation to varying degrees for five years. But–B-U-T–but: We rarely-if-ever have had it in such an in-your-face fashion. Such an activity runs risks, as does anything worth doing. Would this activity hold worth in all communities? Nope. Does it in this particular one? Yep. Rule one of rhetoric: know thy audience. I’d suggest that Lisa knows her audience very well and that she’s wise enough to judge that voicing your pain can help.

     I especially like shannonj’s suggestion of 221:

     Maybe the next step to this post could be how to deal with the issues and still remain active?

     That very useful thread cannot exist in a vacuum. We need this one first. It took some serious guts for Lisa to post this, and I’m betting posting these tales took bravery for many women. We do not live in a culture which encourages us to note and then comment upon these things, even when silence = deleterious for all.

     Perhaps because I’ve lost the church sisterhood of almost all my college girlfriends to these sorts of experiences/situations, I’m especially conscious of the idea that “shutting up” solves anything. My friends shut up, shut in, and all, one by one, walked away because they felt no sub-community existed within their broader Mormon experience wherein they could hash out their concerns (except, briefly, VOICE during our BYU years). Lisa created just such a subaltern space that via technology can span the globe.

     You know those photos you take in the MTC of missionaries pointing at their destinations? I picture Lisa as some sort of multi-armed faithful feminist missionary to the subaltern, arms akimbo and pointing at every single destination on that map. Had this thread and others like it been around for my friends 15 years ago, I don’t know what would’ve happened. But you know what? We do know of people who’ve stayed (heck, even joined) the church because we acknowledge this stuff. It’s discomfy, I grant you. But what’s that aphorism about afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted?

     Every thread/blog does not meet every need. As it should be. But that’s no reason to be disappointed, in FMH or in Lisa. That’s just the reality of rhetoric and the complexity of the human psyche.

     Comment by Janet — December 14, 2009 @ 6:34 pm

242. Whoa, it’s as though I made up for my absence up until now with length in one comment :).

     Just sayin’, I think we should offer everyone on this thread the benefit of the doubt Lisa asked for in her OP–including Lisa.

     Comment by Janet — December 14, 2009 @ 6:36 pm

243. Jack (#161),

     The idea that the sex of Jesus and his apostles is a binding and eternal indicator of who can hold the priesthood while the race is irrelevant is pretty inconsistent.

     Well first its important to avoid conflating race and gender as though the two are the same. They may in fact be quite different, and doctrinally speaking, seem to be. Similarly both before and after the gospel was exclusively provided to the house of Israel (or the Jews after Israeli captivity), we see that priesthood was still reserved for the males. Again, this drew a different distinction between genders than was drawn between race.

     Beyond that, the Bible names women as prophets (Judges 4:4 among many others), deacons (Romans 16:1-2) and possibly an apostle (Romans 16:7). Early Christian inscriptions named women as bishops, elders, deacons, and priests. Women were performing baptisms and administering the Eucharist in the Western church in the 3rd century.

     Or it might be a translation or word choice issue. Where your copy says deacon, mine says servant, where yours says apostle, mine also says apostle, though its in reference to two “kinsmen,” and not a female. And where yours says prophet, mine says prophetess, which might indicate position, but could also indicate a gift of prophecy (priesthood not required).

     Is it possible that these examples were unauthorized behaviors or special non-priesthood-holding exceptions of some sort? Sure. But in the LDS paradigm, the possibility that women did have the priesthood in the early church needs to at least be considered.

     Perhaps there’s something plainer and more precious that Mormonism has yet to restore.

     However, I would argue that your strongest argument, e.g. women performing baptisms, occurred in the 3rd century, otherwise known to Mormons as a period of widespread apostasy. I don’t think the Church is in the business of restoring principles that were developed during a period widely believed to be without divine leadership, or priesthood.

     Comment by WJ — December 14, 2009 @ 6:45 pm

244. Sorry, I’m block quote challenged. Mixed up the last two series. Stupid block quotes…

     Comment by WJ — December 14, 2009 @ 6:48 pm

245. Second half should read:

     Beyond that, the Bible names women as prophets (Judges 4:4 among many others), deacons (Romans 16:1-2) and possibly an apostle (Romans 16:7). Early Christian inscriptions named women as bishops, elders, deacons, and priests. Women were performing baptisms and administering the Eucharist in the Western church in the 3rd century.

     Or it might be a translation or word choice issue. Where your copy says deacon, mine says servant, where yours says apostle, mine also says apostle, though its in reference to two “kinsmen,” and not a female. And where yours says prophet, mine says prophetess, which might indicate position, but could also indicate a gift of prophecy (priesthood not required).

     Is it possible that these examples were unauthorized behaviors or special non-priesthood-holding exceptions of some sort? Sure. But in the LDS paradigm, the possibility that women did have the priesthood in the early church needs to at least be considered.

     Perhaps there’s something plainer and more precious that Mormonism has yet to restore.

     However, I would argue that your strongest argument, e.g. women performing baptisms, occurred in the 3rd century, otherwise known to Mormons as a period of widespread apostasy. I don’t think the Church is in the business of restoring principles that were developed during a period widely believed to be without divine leadership, or priesthood.

     Comment by WJ — December 14, 2009 @ 6:49 pm

246. #243/245 WJ ~ Similarly both before and after the gospel was exclusively provided to the house of Israel (or the Jews after Israeli captivity), we see that priesthood was still reserved for the males.

     Please explain to me where “we” see that the priesthood was reserved exclusively for males after Christ’s coming. I can’t find it in my Bible. Point in fact, the word “priesthood” barely shows up in the New Testament at all, and it certainly never shows up as something that only males can have.

     Or it might be a translation or word choice issue. Where your copy says deacon, mine says servant, where yours says apostle, mine also says apostle, though its in reference to two “kinsmen,” and not a female.

     Yes, it’s a translation issue alright. “Servant” is a mistranslation and “Junia” is a female. You might want to consult a version other than the King James once in a while. See the following links if you really want to read up on the debate:

     Phoebe: A Deacon of the Early Church

     Junia: The Apostle

     And where yours says prophet, mine says prophetess, which might indicate position, but could also indicate a gift of prophecy (priesthood not required).

     Have you even read Judges chapter 4? You honestly believe that a woman who was serving as the judge over Israel with the power to command the entire Israelite army using “thus saith the Lord” formulas was just a congregant with the gift of prophecy? If that’s the case, please, install some of these non-priesthood-holding prophetesses into the LDS church ASAP, because that’s plenty of authority for me.

     However, I would argue that your strongest argument, e.g. women performing baptisms, occurred in the 3rd century, otherwise known to Mormons as a period of widespread apostasy. I don’t think the Church is in the business of restoring principles that were developed during a period widely believed to be without divine leadership, or priesthood.

     If you’re not willing to consider the data from later centuries of the early church as possible indicators of authentic practices from the first century Christian church, do me a favor: write to the Maxwell Institute and the Foundation of Apologetic Information and Research and tell them to stop combing through early church fathers for quotes on baptism for the dead and deification and claiming that’s what the early Christians really believed. They need to know that material that comes from the era of “widespread apostasy” isn’t admissible as evidence of what the first century church believed. I’m sure there’s better things they can be doing with their time.

     Thanks in advance.

     Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — December 14, 2009 @ 7:08 pm

247. WJ
     I guess I need to simplify things for you. If Brown hair is unalterable, so what? That’s my point.
     And I think that Lorena Bobbitt proved that the almighty penis is alterable.
     And the gene FOXL2 when switched off in adults,causes ovaries to turn into testes. (yikes) How’s that for unalterable.

     However, if you bother to look, the New Testament shows women in leadership and priesthood positions. So if the priesthood is unalterable, then women should have it now.

     Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — December 14, 2009 @ 7:18 pm

248. Jack, you amaze me. That is all.

     Comment by Chandelle — December 14, 2009 @ 7:33 pm

249. Cz - that’s why I ended the list with etc. Add what you wish. The funny things is, I don’t do any of those things either, but I do a lot of etc. Oh, comment 234….234!

     Comment by ajax — December 14, 2009 @ 7:42 pm

250. Fan of Jack, here. Big, big fan.

     Comment by Lorian — December 14, 2009 @ 8:06 pm

251. I heart Jack.

     Comment by that1girl — December 14, 2009 @ 8:09 pm

252. Thanks ladies.

     To be clear, I don’t think there’s an airtight case that women held what Mormons see as priesthood and priesthood offices in the Bible and the early church. I just think that the data is compelling and the possibility that the priesthood has not always been exclusively reserved for men needs to be on the table.

     Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — December 14, 2009 @ 8:20 pm

253. janet, you amaze me. that is all.

     Comment by mfranti — December 14, 2009 @ 8:24 pm

254. And any references you’ve got, I think we’d all adore! [edit: your links suddenly started working for me when before they didn’t appear. Don’t know what that’s about, but thanks for the links!] I know there’s some stuff coming out in the Spring . . . .

     My library is in hibernation since our rental forbids “libraries”; apparently the weight threatens the floor?

     Anyhow, I second (sixth? fourteenth?) the heart.

     Comment by Janet — December 14, 2009 @ 8:28 pm

255. mfranti, don’t know how I earned that, but right back atcha! I miss you. I even miss Utah snow at the moment–I got rained on putting out the Christmas lights. But I really miss my FMH Utah friends.

     Comment by Janet — December 14, 2009 @ 8:31 pm

256. janet, your comment in 241 earned that.

     Comment by mfranti — December 14, 2009 @ 8:52 pm

257. Janet’s comment in 241 earned a whole post. So I made one for her.

     Comment by Reese Dixon — December 14, 2009 @ 8:56 pm

258. Stephanie (#241),

     WJ, even President Hinckley himself left the window open when asked about it. (Does someone else remember the exact phrase he used?)

     I believe this is the statement you might be looking for:

     A few Latter-day Saint women are asking why they are not entitled to hold the priesthood. To that I can say that only the Lord, through revelation, could alter that situation. He has not done so, so it is profitless for us to speculate and worry about it.

     I think President Hinckley gave this statement because he is a very wise person who learned a lot from history. Knowing the trouble that definitive statements foreclosing future opportunities previously caused for the church, he was smart to avoid making a definitive stand. Similar stands were made by, for instance, Elder Maxwell:

     We know so little, brothers and sisters, about the reasons for the division of duties between womanhood and manhood as well as between motherhood and priesthood. These were divinely determined in another time and another place.

     So it is an essentially “we aren’t sure” approach, it avoids future possible embarrassment, and it precludes opportunities for criticism. However, it may cause some women to place false hopes for something that might never come to pass.

     Jack (#247/253), and I agree that there is not an airtight case that women will never hold the priesthood, and have previously caveated my statements to this effect (and your #247 was a pretty dynamite response, by the way). However, while a possibility, a change of this nature is magnitudes larger than anything the church has ever seen, and would contradict, not just expand, canon (D&C 20 being a readily available case in point), and is thus fairly unlikely, I believe.

     Yes, it’s a translation issue alright. “Servant” is a mistranslation and “Junia” is a female. You might want to consult a version other than the King James once in a while.

     Based on my reading of your source, “servant” would more accurately have been translated as “deacon/minister.” While this lends itself more to your argument, there is still the problem of what would have been meant by these terms, that is, whether these are, specifically, references to offices in the “priesthood.” Even in our church, it has not been wholly uncommon for women to be ordained ministers to the people. However, John Taylor clarified the meaning of these ordinations:

     when members of the Relief Society presidency in Nauvoo were ‘ordained,’ they were not ordained to priesthood offices, but received blessings that set them apart for their sacred callings.

     But ordained nonetheless. (and it is worth noting that the temple drops some of these honorific titles on women, though again, this is not clearly a priesthood ordination). Likewise, re: Junia, I cede your point that the predominant view is that she was a female, while noting that there is unresolved debate regarding the Greek meaning of Iounian, which by some is interpreted as the male “Junianus,” of which “Junias” is merely a contraction (and I take this from the scholarship). However, as noted, this is not the preferred view. But more relevant is the meaning of “Apostle” in this verse, which is more commonly understood not as a priesthood ordination per se, but a description of those who had seen the risen Lord, or a church missionary involved in the labor of the church and concomitant suffering that came with such membership. This fact would give her authority and cachet, but not in the same way given to the twelve.

     If you’re not willing to consider the data from later centuries of the early church as possible indicators of authentic practices from the first century Christian church, do me a favor: write to the Maxwell Institute and the Foundation of Apologetic Information and Research and tell them to stop combing through early church fathers for quotes on baptism for the dead and deification and claiming that’s what the early Christians really believed.

     I’m sure they would appreciate your heartfelt concern for their misspent use of time. But you pose an either/or fallacy here. Either the MI or FAIR researchers must accept all of the early Christian practices as authentic, or they must accept none of them. In actual fact, some of those practices will be genuine holdovers from the true church, whereas others will be fabrications. You might not like the pick-and-choose method employed, but that’s irrelevant to the falsity or truthfulness of those individual claims, particularly when they also have some scriptural support, and in the case of the two examples you cited, are further bolstered by modern revelation.

     Comment by WJ — December 14, 2009 @ 9:13 pm

259. No, WJ. Not even close. It was something about picking bananas, I think.

     Comment by Stephanie — December 14, 2009 @ 9:25 pm

260. blushing.

     Comment by Janet — December 14, 2009 @ 9:26 pm

261. stink! steph, i remember that talk. now i’m gonna be nuts trying to figure it out.

     Comment by mfranti — December 14, 2009 @ 9:42 pm

262. Jack, great arguments. The more time goes by, the more I’m bothered by the concept that men have been given the priesthood (or more specifically, the hierarchy and authority over others which we associate with the priesthood in the LDS faith) because they need the opportunity to grow. I call any and all variations of that paradigm in life the “Homer Simpson” model of masculinity. It just doesn’t fly for me.

     Janet, beautiful and profound point. I’m more and more convinced that not acknowledging and openly addressing the various legitimate concerns people have with various aspects of Church doctrine and history causes many people to fall away as they feel isolated and alone. You put it beautifully.

     I just can’t fathom the certainty some express regarding the gendered nature of the priesthood. Our thoughts are not His thoughts, nor our ways His ways. We might be doubtful about this or that change in Church policy, but can we really be so absolutely sure? Can we really be positive that, when the fulness of the Gospel is revealed, we find that women have more to do with the priesthood than we now think?

     Comment by Derek — December 14, 2009 @ 9:49 pm

263. #54. Our young men don’t stay for our joint Priesthood/RS meetings. I have never even heard of that! The Aaronic priesthood go to their own quorum meetings, and the YW are in…YW. A lot of what I am reading is just so surprising. I think I am luckier than I thought I was already! I do tend to think the women work harder in our ward than the men, but I don’t think that is necessarily the way it is in every ward, and I don’t necessarily even think I always felt this way about our ward, under every Bishop. Our VT is amazing, and our HT…not so much. They need a REVIVAL! I asked my husband if they don’t maybe need to organize a HT Convention!? Practices evidently vary from place to place, but I have appreciated that wherever we travel I can feel at home in any ward. Update: I spoke to my daughter and asked her if she would have preferred to have been able to go on a mission at 19, and she said no, she thought it was better that there was that age difference. For all the practical reasons of how it could be otherwise. Of course, there are some older young men out. I remember several age 24 at the time I was investigating the church.

     Comment by Melissa P. — December 14, 2009 @ 9:54 pm

264. #25 WJ ~ You may be interested to know that the ECFs all took Ἰουνιᾶν to be feminine except for Epiphanius of Salamis. However, his testimony is problematic because he also said that Priscilla (repeatedly identified as the wife of Aquila) was a male and he had a fairly harsh, dismissive view of women, even for the time period. There’s more evidence I could cite, but I’m gonna give it a rest.

     It is a better argument to say that perhaps the offices of deacon and apostle were not, in these cases, authoritative priesthood offices. However, that creates a situation where Paul cannot name women as deacons and apostles because it’s a foregone conclusion that women can’t be the normal type of deacons and apostles. Cart before the horse.

     My problem with the “pick and choose” method of examining the church fathers employed by MI and FAIR is that it puts the cart before the horse (again). If we cite examples that agree with modern-day LDS doctrine as evidence of true first-century Christianity and dismiss examples that disagree with it as the work of the apostasy, we aren’t honestly examining the ECFs for evidence of early church practices; we’re just searching for proof-texts to support Mormonism’s already foregone conclusions. Might as well just ignore antiquity altogether at that rate.

     As far as D&C 20 goes, my understanding is that LDS scriptures are not inerrant nor are LDS leaders infallible. Prophets can and do make mistakes, and D&C 20 came around in a patriarchal time and culture where the only denomination in all of America that was ordaining women was the Quakers. LDS leaders would later pick up on the racism of the surrounding culture and teach it as the word of God. Is it such a stretch to believe that they may have done the same with the sexism of the surrounding culture?

     BTW, I am not implying that racism and sexism are equivalent. However, I find it interesting that Paul declared in Galatians 3:28 that “[t]here is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” At different points in history, Christian groups have practiced slavery, racism and sexism, and they have always claimed that these practices were ordained by God. Mormons stayed aloof of the slavery issue, but they did indeed claim that their racist policies were commanded by God. Now everyone seems to think that God has gotten over His racism and affection for slavery.

     Is the sexism really from God? Given how history has played out on the other parts of Galatians 3:28, I’m a cynic.

     Anyways, I am probably going to bow out of this thread for good at this point. Thanks everyone for hearing me out.

     Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — December 14, 2009 @ 9:56 pm

265. “I don’t buy green banana’s”

     meaning I’m not planning on anything be set in stone. It was a interview with President Hinckley that has been linked on FMH before. It was in response to a question about women not ever being able to hold the Priesthood.

     Comment by April — December 14, 2009 @ 10:00 pm

266. Found it. This is what President Hinckley said:

     Q: Will the rules on the priesthood change to admit women?

     A: No . . . . I don’t think they will in my time. I can’t speak much beyond the next year. I’m careful about buying bananas! (Laughter.)

     That’s leaving open a pretty wide door. Besides, WJ, why are you here trying to convince us all not “to place false hopes for something that might never come to pass”? If I wanted that, I could just go to church.

     Comment by Stephanie — December 14, 2009 @ 10:03 pm

267. On the “mirror” to this thread, I posted 1 Corinthians 13:9-10. That which is perfect has not come yet! And, Article of Faith #9:Much more to come.

     Jack: I saw many people of various religions practice “white flight” around Atlanta on a Mission in that area in 1978-1980.

     namakemono #54: That’s REALLY strange, when our Ward has a joint Meeting, if the YM are to attend it, so are the YW!

     Comment by Mike H. — December 14, 2009 @ 10:06 pm

268. Both our YM and YW sometimes attend the 5th Sunday meetings, too. The last one they attended was on work/careers.

     Comment by Stephanie — December 14, 2009 @ 10:07 pm

269. Derek said (hi Derek!):

     Can we really be positive that, when the fulness of the Gospel is revealed, we find that women have more to do with the priesthood than we now think?

     My answer: Ah-hah! In fact, I once had a priesthood blessing that went off in great detail about how when we all died we’d find out about how women were entrenched–even at that very minute!–in the priesthood in ways neither I nor anyone else in the room or current world understood. I was in the MTC at the time. The MTC bishop and counselors looked rather confused after the blessing; the bishop went so far as to look vaguely nervous about what he’d just said, but he certainly didn’t try to backpedal. And it actually started something of a friendship between us–he said it made him think.

     And yes, I see the irony in drawing such a conclusion from a priesthood blessing administered to me by men. Don’t care–they clearly didn’t come up with the idea on their own .

     Comment by Janet — December 14, 2009 @ 10:20 pm

270. as far as D&C 20 goes (i just read it to be sure)… I don’t see anything saying a female can’t hold these callings. Of course all of the references to people are “He” and “him” and “man/men” as they are in all LDS scripture unless pointing out a specific female or a group of only females. At that time the way these are worded did/does not designate gender. I would think it did if it said specifically that women could not hold these positions. But it does not.

     Comment by April — December 14, 2009 @ 10:21 pm

271. WJ
     When I was a young kid, I read Stewarts and Lunds books on why Black males don’t hold the priesthood , being taught what the scriptures said and pronouncements of the First Presidency– My times have changed.
     Modern revelation may guide the modern Mormon church, but it is not a valid historical source. And looking at the actual history helped lead to revelation on black males again receiving the priesthood.

     Picking and choosing by ripping out of context and jamming it into a predefined determination is not good historical research.(no matter who does it)
     However relevant for our time, modern revelation does not boost the historicity of events that never happened.
     I think we all need to take off our cultural blinders as best we can and actually look.

     And because I am a heretic and like to have fun, who do you think Yeshu ben Pantera was?

     Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — December 14, 2009 @ 10:33 pm

272. WJ, aside from the particularly mysogynist verses from Paul in the New Testament, I’d LOVE to see what “chunks of canon” you think we’d have to do away with to open the Priesthood to women.

     I don’t recall ever having seen scriptural justification for the difference. I think it’s always just been a cultural assumption.

     Comment by Natalie K. — December 14, 2009 @ 10:34 pm

273. By the way, women, its ‘per se’ not per say!

     ‘persay’ sells voice biometric speaker verification products

     Comment by Charlie — December 14, 2009 @ 10:36 pm

274. Whoops, that was a nasty error on my part! I meant to say “Can we really be positive that, when the fulness of the Gospel is revealed, we won’t find that women have more to do with the priesthood than we now think?” Many seem positive that it (women receiving the priesthood) could never happen, but I’m far from convinced. One can reasonably believe, based on many of the past statements of the leaders of the Church, that it is likely that the priesthood is eternally linked to the masculine gender. But, given that our understanding of the Big Picture is limited by our finite, mortal minds, and given that there have been a number of unforeseen and surprising developments in the history of the Church, can we really be positive?

     And so Janet’s statement fits perfectly with what I was trying to say. One can’t really take her experience as proof that women will receive the priesthood, but it seems yet another small bit of evidence to challenge our surety that the priesthood is an exclusively masculine domain.

     Comment by Derek — December 14, 2009 @ 10:42 pm

275. *rolls eyes @ Charlie*

     Comment by April — December 14, 2009 @ 10:42 pm

276. Reading through some of the comments I find myself agreeing with most. Women are left out of church admin and there aren’t any ‘Emeritus’ general women presidents and so on.

     But one needs to remember that this is mostly because of mortality & only for this life. The Temple does give insights into this because we are ordained there to become one day Kings and Queens, Priests and Priestesses etc. that is there is equality in exaltation. But because of this mortal world, which Eve entrered into first, the ceremony is different for us here in mortality. Thats the point, Adam and Eve represent us in a mortal world, the way we actually live in this world where even in church the women is subjected to a mans presiding authority, but exaltation will be different.

     Comment by Charlie — December 14, 2009 @ 10:53 pm

277. April,

     I’ll catch you if you get dizzy from rolling your eyes -as any decent macho man would!

     Comment by Charlie — December 14, 2009 @ 10:55 pm

278. Oh, and also remember from the Temple that the man or husband calls his wife and passes her through the veil (ie what separates God from mortality), but going into a celestial kingdom where all are the same. There is no difference between men and women once in the celestial room (except for the neccessary clothing off course)

     This to me shows more evidance that things will be very different in exaltation for those who make it there, and the unequality between the sexes here is a consequence of mortality more than anything else.

     Comment by Charlie — December 14, 2009 @ 11:00 pm

279. The Temple does give insights into this because we are ordained there to become one day Kings and Queens, Priests and Priestesses etc. that is there is equality in exaltation.

     This is actually the part where I don’t see equality because the wording is different for men and women.

     Comment by Stephanie — December 14, 2009 @ 11:05 pm

280. Good point about the celestial room, though.

     Comment by Stephanie — December 14, 2009 @ 11:06 pm

281. re #267, 268 - thanks, that is good to hear. So, now , who do I raise the issue with in our ward? The Bishop? YW President??

     Comment by namakemono — December 14, 2009 @ 11:30 pm

282. re #263 - thanks too for another point of view (sorry, I am reading the comments from the bottom up, so didn`t see this till I`d posted in response to the other 2 comments)

     Comment by namakemono — December 14, 2009 @ 11:32 pm

283. Stephanie,

     Well…one could see it that way or see it as just vocabulary to show different sexes, so men become priests while women are called priestessess.

     Comment by Charlie — December 14, 2009 @ 11:36 pm

284. No, Charlie. Men are ordained period. Women are ordained “to your husband”.

     Comment by Stephanie — December 14, 2009 @ 11:42 pm

285. Charlie, that isn’t her “beef” with the temple stuff read back a ways if you can find 5 hours or so and you will find what the issues about the temple ordinances are for women. We don’t mind be called “girls/women/females” etc… I think Priestesses s is included in that.

     Comment by April — December 14, 2009 @ 11:44 pm

286. i have only just recently discovered this blog site, so it has been a long evening of reading (mostly) thru all these comments. However, the one thing that bothers me most has not been listed, I don’t think. I have a problem with not being allowed to pray to my Heavenly Mother in public or in private. Sorry, but I do it anyway. Otherwise, Ifeel that I would be committing sin.

     Comment by Joan Gray — December 14, 2009 @ 11:58 pm

287. Well, I heart Janet _and_ Jack. In fact, I heart them so much that I have combined their names and now I refer to them, collectively, as “Jacket.” This seems appropriate because their words keep me spiritually warm and cozy when the cold winds of patriarchy are blowing.

     Comment by Kaimi — December 15, 2009 @ 12:07 am

288. I was pondering this topic while driving the other day when suddenly I realized that a 12 year old boy has more power and authority in this church than I do. Me, a 31 year old woman, who is college educated, has been in many positions of leadership, has a wonderful career, who is a mother to three children, and is quite a capable person. My son will have more value than me in about 6 years. He will be worth more than his own mother who has contributed a lot to this church. I’m going to try to rectify this in my mind so that I can still stay active. I don’t know if that’s possible as I already feel that my body is at church, but not my heart.

     Comment by Anon4this — December 15, 2009 @ 12:26 am

289. Judge the following two points as you will: it’s just how I feel, and may have not much basis beyond a longing in the heart:

     - I would love to be able to lay hands on my husband’s head and give him a blessing of comfort and counsel. I am glad I can ask him to give me a blessing because he knows my struggles intimately. I wish I could do the same for him.

     - I would love to participate jointly with my husband in the priesthood in a more tangible way with respect to our family (rather than the somewhat amorphous-seeming ‘joint holding of the priesthood’ I’ve heard described before). I’d like to help him bless our children and give them their names.

     I don’t know if I’d call these beefs, but I’ve thought of these things many times.

     Comment by xenologue — December 15, 2009 @ 12:39 am

290. #286, Joan Gray.

     I definitely agree. Actually, I have gone through a really weird phase with my prayers and only feel comfortable praying to my “Heavenly Parents” rather than just one or the other. I decided today that this was going to be my policy for public and private prayers. Which should make for an interesting conversation should I ever be asked to pray in Sacrament Meeting….

     #287, Kaimi.
     You are awesome. That is all.

     Comment by Natalie K. — December 15, 2009 @ 1:31 am

291. Charlie:

     There is no difference between men and women once in the celestial room (except for the neccessary clothing off course)

     The clothing, while clearly necessary in the temple, is also clearly symbolic, for God cannot possibly bear the slightest resemblance to Chef Boyardee. May I suggest that in the Celestial world, there might be another option .

     Kaimi:
     I’d be honored at a conjuction with Jack, albeit such a bold move runs the risk of violating church policy regarding gay semiotic marriage. You’ll be our lawyer, right ?

     Comment by Janet — December 15, 2009 @ 2:33 am

292. Joan Gray:

     No, I’ve felt that way before. I don’t pray to Heavenly Mother, but I have had candid chats with Heavenly father during my newfound loneliness as a SAHM. I adore my kid–he was rather hard to come by, and so the identity loss that came when I gave up teaching to stay at home truly surprised me. I vividly recall falling on my knees and asking God how come He expected me to be a SAHM when my Heavenly Mother clearly hadn’t made that choice.

     Cheeky I guess, and not a huge issue for me on a daily basis in part because I’m close to my earthy dad so the daddy-daughter thing isn’t pre-loaded with pain for me. Nonetheless, I’d love a sanctioned chat with a Heavenly Mama.

     Comment by Janet — December 15, 2009 @ 2:39 am

293. Stephanie:

     I think there’s one wording difference in the temple where the women come out clearly “ahead” of the men. It’s during the initiatories so I’ve not, of course, witnessed their portion of the ritual. I can’t recall the exact spot, but there’s a bit where they’re forgiveness is dependent upon something and ours is not?

     Help me out, folks. I know you know. I already took the nightly dose of 20 mg of valium that keeps me from peeing every 20 minutes, so you know my brain is turning to mush as I type this . . . banananbanananananana.

     Comment by Janet — December 15, 2009 @ 2:44 am

294. (Janet! I miss you! Send me an email when you get a minute. I want to hear all about your life!)

     Comment by ZD Eve — December 15, 2009 @ 2:53 am

295. Can we really be positive that, when the fulness of the Gospel is revealed, we find that women have more to do with the priesthood than we now think?

     I personally think that some of the problem is that often what we “now think” is often far too limiting. Part of the reason the beefs listed here don’t bother me like they do some is because I believe power, authority, influence, and such concepts include a lot more than who gets to preside over a church meeting or perform an ordinance. God’s plan and His power and work is, in my view, a lot bigger than just what we see in church administration. Not that those things aren’t important, but they aren’t everything. I believe and have felt very, very strongly that women have a huge part of that bigger picture, including power, authority, influence (which are not all tied to being ordained to a priesthood office), and tremendous (essential) value and worth.

     And I’m not just talking about making babies, either.

     Comment by m&m — December 15, 2009 @ 3:23 am

296. And I’m not just talking about making babies, either.

     Even though, imo, sometimes I feel we really miss how important that is, too, in God’s plan. In the Bible, we are first introduced to God as a Creator. And we know Him best as a parent who cares most about His children — we are everything to Him, His work and glory, His focus and energy.

     I marvel at the fact that our bodies include the power to create human life, the crowning creation of our God. And the body of a woman carries the bulk of that power.

     But still, I believe women bring more than just that ability to the table. But wow. That is no small thing.

     Comment by m&m — December 15, 2009 @ 3:29 am

297. 288,
     I think you are really mistaken, which is good, because you’re not happy with the thoughts you have.
     “I realized that a 12 year old boy has more power and authority in this church than I do.”

     He does not necessarily have more power in the priesthood because he is male. The powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness, so your righteousness will determine the amount of power in the priesthood you have available to you. In saying that I would ask you to remember experiences in the temple with power in the priesthood.

     You do have power in the priesthood. You may not have the authority to exercise that power in certain ways, but please realize that in many many other ways which can be very meaningful you can.

     From John Taylor: “There is no authority associated with the Holy Priesthood except on the principle of persuasion”

     This is a great reminder for every priesthood holder and every church member (And non-member even) who benefits from priesthood authority and power.

     That all worth males in the church have been granted authority to do certain things using the priesthood does not diminish the amount of priesthood power that has been promised to you and all of your posterity.

     I know it’s easy for the natural man in all of us to start poking holes in my statements and looking for inequalities. I think that really is natural, as I find my mind wandering there sometimes during conference talks, etc. (ie. finding contradictions to what is said). And all I can offer there, is what I have told myself, If it is not uplifting, inspiring or faith building, I should shun those thoughts — sometimes questions can build our faith, sometimes they can destroy it if we fester on the questions and disregard the answers uncharitably.

     Having said all of that, I recognize that no amount of preaching at you or anyone can do the least bit of good. We all have to figure these things out for ourselves, but we can also all benefit from the perspective and examples of each other as it informs our own.

     Comment by chris — December 15, 2009 @ 3:36 am

298. Part of the reason the beefs listed here don’t bother me…

     One more thing — when I say they don’t bother me, it’s not that I don’t wonder about some of these things, because I do. But in my heart, in my spirit, I have felt the Spirit testify that we as women are not second-class accessories. And I have felt that truth unfold and verified *within* the sometimes seemingly counterintuitive structure, teachings, etc.

     It’s hard to explain, and some call that mental gymnastics, but for me there is something more going on than just an intellectual exercise. My spirit is growing as I continue to engage these issues with the unchanging belief that women are not less valued, and that equality is here, now…with gender roles, proclamation, temple, priesthood, patriarchy, etc. I just believe equality it’s not measured in the way we measure it in our world, just like success in God’s eyes is not measures as the world measures it. I believe equality involves and includes a larger whole, including the eternal end result of being able to receive all that God has, not just the ‘who does what’ facets of this existence. What we see and measure here, imo, is means to an end, not the end measure of worth, potential, or importance.

     Comment by m&m — December 15, 2009 @ 3:54 am

299. Janet #293.

     I had my initiatory in December 2005. I was told I was “clean, every whit”. Apparently the men only have the potential to become clean. And, I haven’t been in a while, but I think the proxy women’s initiatories might have different words than the live initiatories. The first time I went back, about a month later, I seem to recall the proxy being different.

     Comment by kew — December 15, 2009 @ 8:34 am

300. Number 276 says “But one needs to remember that this is mostly because of mortality & only for this life.” I find that statement to be extremely lame. So God wants women to suffer in this life but it will be okay later? Sounds like a cop-out to me. I have no problem saying “and this part here really sucks” rather than saying “oh, just wait until after you are dead and it will all be okay - really”

     Does anyone else find those kinds of statements annoying?

     Comment by StillConfused — December 15, 2009 @ 11:15 am

301. #300 yes in some ways. How can we be expected to endure till the end if the only thing we remember is pain caused by enduring? There has to be joy in some part, otherwise the willpower is not “willpower” but a giving up, or surrender of our dreams.

     Comment by April — December 15, 2009 @ 11:45 am

302. 288, anon4this, I have had the same problem. My son is turning 12 in four months and I am trying to find ways to deal with the basic fact that this kid (who I love terribly) who only showers or changes his underwear and socks when reminded is going to be able to participate and officiate in spiritual things that I will never experience - at least as things look now.

     People can throw terms like “worldly” and “prideful” at me all they want - but think about the fact that my son will have the “authority to exercise that power” as Chris put it. And I will not. That is very difficult for a woman who wants to be fully involved in the gospel, both as a member of the church and as a loving member of her family.

     Comment by Eris — December 15, 2009 @ 12:13 pm

303. Chris, when I said value and worth, I didn’t necessarily mean value and worth as far as an eternal perspective. I’m thinking about how the church functions today. Clearly, if I can’t even participate in an ordinance as simple as passing the sacrament because I am a woman, and a 12 year old boy can, then my “worth” isn’t that great in the eyes of the church.

     I’ve heard so many times the cop-out, women can’t hold the priesthood because they can make babies. Well, what about infertile women who’s bodies can’t make babies. What then? Oh and by the way, we don’t make babies on our own. Men are very much involved in the creation process. So what now?

     Another “beef” I have is the old joke that when the Stake President is calling a new bishop and he just seeks out the most capable, the most spiritual, the most worthy person in the ward, and then calls her husband to be the bishop. Yeah, a lot of people laugh at this, but really it’s a slap in the face. Ha ha, you’re wonderful and you have the spiritual and emotional capacity to lead a congregation, but since you’re a woman, the one with the penis in the relationship will do that job while you sit alone taking care of his children during Sacrament meeting and spend many days and nights alone taking care of those kids while he leads the ward. Ha ha, isn’t that funny?

     Comment by Anon4this — December 15, 2009 @ 1:53 pm

304. Most men and women don’t understand the priesthood or priesthood power. Reading this I think it’s also clear most men and women don’t understand the power of faith.

     I commend the righteous desire to have the priesthood to bless and serve others. But you do not need the priesthood to serve others and you do not need the priesthood to bless the lives of others.

     Did the diseased woman receive a priesthood blessing? She had faith that if she could just touch Jesus’ garment she could be healed ant the savior responded that her faith hath made her whole. Her faith gave her power to be healed.

     Now this is obviously not the same as you having the same power to lay your hands on someone’s head and give them a priesthood blessing, or the same power to bless the sacrament for your ward.

     But I would ask one thing, how good are any of us doing with what power we have through our own faith and righteousness and the authority God has granted us to serve others?

     I think when all is said and done, the excuse “I didn’t have the Priesthood” will not add up, because there is so much women can do through power in the priesthood, just as there is a lot more men need to be doing. Men and Women are expected to do more in meaningful, loving ways, and that is not a call for doing more in time-wasting ways.

     These are obviously all my opinions, and I apologize in advance if I sound preachy. I’m mostly just preaching at myself and reminding myself of my own beliefs as I don’t pretend to have any authority to tell you what to do (and even if I did, the authority would only be to persuade not to command)

     Comment by chris — December 15, 2009 @ 1:55 pm

305. 303,
     If I could use your same unequivocal language, clearly you have your worth wrong.

     Your ability to bless or pass the sacrament or even perform a temple sealing has nothing to do with your worth toward men and women in this life, nothing to do with your worth in the church or God in the eternities.

     I don’t think it’s helpful for either of us for me to go line by line and try to “refute” what you said. I don’t want to refute you, as your feelings are sincere, painful, and genuine and feelings like that can not be refuted, even if the truths your feelings are supposed to support are not actually truths at all.

     I am sorry how you feel. I know that everything you are saying has some truth to it, from a certain perspective. I think if you took of the pair of glasses you were wearing and put on a different set you’d see the world from a whole different viewpoint.

     I think your suffering is certainly a trial and I think the only way you can overcome it is not from me or anyone else preaching at you, but you exercising faith and doing all the things you know you need to. I sincerely pray you have the strength to do so and that you find the uplifting support you need from those close to you.

     Comment by chris — December 15, 2009 @ 2:04 pm

306. Chris, actually I spend my life serving others and this church. I’m not talking about power, I’m talking about “worth.” On a spiritual context, my faith (yes, I do have some) tells me that my Heavenly Father values me very highly. I can’t say the same thing about “the church.” You see, in my mind Heavenly Father and Jesus, are two very different things from “the church.” And the leadership of “the church” values me very little more than a servant to build up the church without giving me any power at all. Except the power to pass out chalk in the library, lead music, or organize craft nights.

     Comment by Anon4this — December 15, 2009 @ 2:04 pm

307. I had a thought related to something someone said earlier about the temple. I wonder if the fact that we sit separated by sex in the endowment room and then move to the celestial room with no restrictions is symbolic for how we are separated/divided in our temporal existence but completely equal in our eternal existence.

     Comment by Stephanie — December 15, 2009 @ 2:06 pm

308. I think if you took of the pair of glasses you were wearing and put on a different set you’d see the world from a whole different viewpoint.

     Chris, I suspect that if you borrowed her glasses for a bit, you might see things a lot like how she is seeing them.

     Comment by Stephanie — December 15, 2009 @ 2:09 pm

309. I love it when the ones with all the power and authority tell the ones without any power and authority to just look at things from a different perspective. It’s very easy to preach from an Ivory tower. Maybe if those in power put themselves in the shoes of those without power, instead of trying to pacify them with over-simplistic platitudes and a call to just “pray harder about it” then there wouldn’t be a blog like this because none of us would have any beef in the first place.

     Comment by Anon4this — December 15, 2009 @ 2:10 pm

310. Thank you Stephanie!

     Comment by Anon4this — December 15, 2009 @ 2:11 pm

311. Stephanie, I don’t disagree. In fact, I plainly stated there is some truth to what she is saying, as evidenced by the fact that I said,

     “I know that everything you are saying has some truth to it, from a certain perspective.”

     I’m not trying to win here…

     Comment by chris — December 15, 2009 @ 2:13 pm

312. Well, you know, Anon4this, this is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about in another post. Because the set-up is male-dominated, men understand everything from their perspective, and it looks fine. If you as a woman have a problem with something, it means there must be something wrong with YOU. That drives me crazy.

     Comment by Stephanie — December 15, 2009 @ 2:14 pm

313. That is so true, Stephanie. And I think it’s true of any group that it’s a position of power. Sometimes it’s good to get off our high horses and try to see the world from the smallest and more marginalized perspectives.

     Comment by Anon4this — December 15, 2009 @ 2:21 pm

314. chris, it is clear that you care about Anon4this’s feelings and are doing what you can, so I don’t want to dump on you. Just re-read your comments and see if you don’t see the littlest hint of condescension. Sometimes it’s best to just listen and allow others their pain.

     Comment by Stephanie — December 15, 2009 @ 2:22 pm

315. I can’t speak for others, but I would not suggest there is only something wrong with YOU, I’m pretty certain there is a lot wrong with the both of US. I’m not perfect and don’t proclaim to have all knowledge. To reiterate what I said above, if I sound preachy. I’m mostly just preaching at myself and reminding myself of my own beliefs and thought process. I don’t pretend to have any authority to tell you what to do (and even if I did, the authority would only be to persuade not to command)

     Comment by chris — December 15, 2009 @ 2:22 pm

316. I don’t pretend to have any authority to tell you what to do (and even if I did, the authority would only be to persuade not to command)

     I find this to be a curious statement, particularly now that you’ve said it twice. Why would anyone pretend to have the authority to tell someone else to do when they express an opinion? And why remind us that your “authority” is to persuade?

     chris, I am going to leave you alone now. You sound like a sweet guy. You attempting to answer these questions reminds me of DH early in our marriage. Maybe our days were better back then when we talked about it more, but at least I don’t yell at him now.

     Comment by Stephanie — December 15, 2009 @ 2:28 pm

317. Chris, thank you for saying that there is “some truth” to what I have said. As a social worker I know how much the little tiniest crumb of validation means to the disenfranchised.

     I’m not trying to be snarky, what I’m trying to say is I don’t need pity and sympathy, with a pat on the head and a frown. What we all need is a church leaders to listen to us and to say that our perspectives are valid. Not to be condescended to, not to be told to have more faith.

     Comment by Anon4this — December 15, 2009 @ 2:31 pm

318. re: 312

     Because the set-up is male-dominated, men understand everything from their perspective, and it looks fine. If you as a woman have a problem with something, it means there must be something wrong with YOU. That drives me crazy.

     So very true, and this is so much of what drives me nuts when my male brethren summarily and casually dismiss the frustrations expressed in feminism. We (men) really have no clue about what it is to be a woman, because our experience is totally different and much more privileged in so many fundamental ways. Like I’ve said before, no matter how much I read, listen, and study, I won’t really understand what it’s like to be a woman in a world dominated by a masculine perspective. As sensitive as I try to be, I’m sure I’ve many very subtle and subconscious preconceptions and other baggage which I don’t recognize. It is so patronizing (pun intended, but not in a funny way) for men to just tell the woman she just needs to look at things differently, to see things “right” (ie, how the men see it).

     Comment by Derek — December 15, 2009 @ 2:43 pm

319. I’m thinking I’m going to be jumping on the Derek fan club bandwagon. Well said!

     Comment by Risa — December 15, 2009 @ 2:48 pm

320. I love it when the ones with all the power and authority tell the ones without any power and authority to just look at things from a different perspective.

     Actually, I’m a woman and I feel that way, and so do many women in the Church, so please don’t assume it’s only men who might say or feel something like that.

     One of the things that is hard, imo, about discussions like this is that there often is a backlash against those who aren’t as upset, or who try to share their point of view that may not include as much pain (or any pain at all). If you are in pain, that is real and should be acknowledged. But I think the reality that many in the Church see and feel differently about gender issues than just what this thread reflects should also be acknowledged.

     I think Lisa’s statement goes both ways: “just because something doesn’t reflect your personal experience, oddly enough your personal experience is not core of all universal truth.”

     But please don’t assume that sharing different perspectives, especially those that don’t agree with your perspective, equates to not caring about your pain.

     Comment by m&m — December 15, 2009 @ 2:58 pm

321. Wow, m&m, I don’t know when I ever said that all men feel that way and all women feel another way. My words that you quoted specifically didn’t pit men against women, that is your assumption.

     And I never said Chris didn’t care about my pain. Please point out to me where I said that. All I said is I don’t want sympathy, I want understanding. I can only speak to my experience, and I was only speaking about my experience.

     I don’t expect for everyone to agree with me or share my perspective. What I don’t want is people to preach to me. And that includes all men and all women.

     Comment by Anon4this — December 15, 2009 @ 3:03 pm

322. Thanks so much for doing this post and allowing this thread fmhLisa. This has been very helpful for me to see many of my concerns voiced through my fellow sisters (regardless of belief/faith/religious preference etc); and also to hear others’ experiences and how many have handled it or hope to in the future.

     Comment by moksha — December 15, 2009 @ 3:12 pm

323. 317, If I have said anything offensive I apologize. I am a man and I can’t apologize for that, but I can say that I’m not asking you to put on my glasses, but rather calling for both of us to talk off our glasses. I’m trying to understand things as they are, not from my position, but to use what has been revealed and what I’ve learned to increase my view of the gospel and the lessons we learn in life.

     I’m pretty sure snarky posts, with the disclaimer that it’s not snarky, doesn’t really uplift or edify faith.

     All that being said I did point out there was some real pain, and some real truth to feelings shared. There is no truth whatsoever to the belief that a women has no worth in this church, although I will again acknowledge the real truth and feelings that cause that viewpoint to be adopted. That was what my “some truth” was referencing. The feelings are real and that’s really what matters.

     If you want to go through and re-read the last few posts all I’d say is let’s look at them all and pick out the bits we thing are uplifting and faith promoting and toss out the bits that aren’t.

     I’m not shouting at anyone to pray about it and you’ll see things my way. I constantly try to pray about it to see things the Lord’s way, knowing full well that my natural inclination which is to rush to defend, insinuate, mock, etc. is usually the wrong one for me.

     Comment by chris — December 15, 2009 @ 3:19 pm

324. I’m the one who mentioned pain. I was thinking about this as I (finally) took a shower today. I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with what chris said (he had a lot of good points) or with sharing different viewpoints that contradict each other. The idea is to respect each other’s viewpoint. But, in reading chris’ comments, what I hear is, “You are wrong. I know better. You don’t have enough faith.” Granted, that might be true (sorry Anon4this), but it’s not really his place to declare it so.

     There is a time and a place to call to repentance or whatever. I don’t think this is it. In fact, I have to be candid and say that the priesthood is not actually one of my issues. It doesn’t bother me that DH has it and I don’t because I’ve reached an understanding that brings me peace. Same with polygamy. However, there are other issues that do bother me that others have found peace with. So, I’m not about to pounce on those who are struggling over the priesthood and polygamy - we’ve each got our own crosses to bear.

     I’m of the mind that you can say just about anything - it just depends on how you said it. I found the way chris was saying it to be a bit too condescending for my tastes. But, I recognize that I am not the ultimate opinion decided either (just someone with a keyboard and a loud mouth )

     Comment by Stephanie — December 15, 2009 @ 3:21 pm

325. Anon4this, I didn’t say that you said all men feel that way, nor did I suggest that you think everyone should agree with you, nor did I say that you said that Chris doesn’t care about your pain. Please re-read my comment.

     My thoughts are more general than just responding to you. I’m trying to say that in discussions like this, in general, it’s often hard for someone who disagrees or has a different take on this to share his or her perspective without being dismissed in some way. I think there can be room for both venting of feelings and pain and the sharing of perspectives that may differ.

     That’s all I was trying to say. Maybe I should have done so w/o using your quote as a springboard…because I wasn’t trying to single you out.

     Comment by m&m — December 15, 2009 @ 3:26 pm

326. Okay, and after reading 323, I’ll acknowledge that I am hearing chris a lot better now. Thank you for clarifying, chris.

     There is no truth whatsoever to the belief that a women has no worth in this church, although I will again acknowledge the real truth and feelings that cause that viewpoint to be adopted.

     You said this beautifully. I feel comforted.

     Comment by Stephanie — December 15, 2009 @ 3:27 pm

327. I think there can be room for both venting of feelings and pain and the sharing of perspectives that may differ.

     Very true. And it often takes a lot of work to carefully think through what you are saying and how it will be perceived. When I do that, I find things go well. When I smart-off, it doesn’t go so well (as evidenced multiple times on this thread alone).

     Comment by Stephanie — December 15, 2009 @ 3:33 pm

328. But, in reading chris’ comments, what I hear is, “You are wrong. I know better. You don’t have enough faith.” Granted, that might be true (sorry Anon4this), but it’s not really his place to declare it so.

     Argh. This didn’t come out well either. Anon4this, I wasn’t saying that you are wrong and chris knows better and you don’t have enough faith. Just leaving room for the possibility that some of what chris said is right. My “sorry Anon4this” was meant to convey the opposite of how it came out. Does that make sense?

     Okay, time to walk away. I’m just too tired to be doing this right now.

     Comment by Stephanie — December 15, 2009 @ 3:40 pm

329. This medium is so limited, all the more so on charged topics like this.

     Comment by m&m — December 15, 2009 @ 3:41 pm

330. I have to agree with you Stephanie that what Chris wrote in several threads responding to my original post sounded very condescending to me. I don’t take well to condescension.

     I’m sorry, Chris, I didn’t know I wasn’t allowed to write anything that didn’t uplift of edify faith. That’s not the point of any of my posts. The point of all my posts is to share my beef, which is what Lisa asked for in the first place. You obviously disagree. That’s fine. Disagree all you want. I’m just telling you my perspective from the cheap seats. Thats’ right, MY perspective. Not the perspective of every Mormon woman that has ever or will ever live.

     You think that I am wrong when I say that women in the church have no value, or that 12 year old boys have more value than adult women. Please tell me what women are worth in this church? I’m very interested to know. From my perspective, the church only values us as caretakers of women and children, helpmeets to our husbands, and baby makers. All of them noble things, but not good enough to lead, participate in ordinances, or have more authority than leading women and children. The day I hear from a GA that men should equally be helpmeets to their wives is the day I die from literal shock.

     Stephanie, I never had a problem with the priesthood thing either until I really started to contemplate everything Jack wrote in #9. I thought I had made peace with it years ago knowing that priesthood is only used to bless the lives of others, and when I started thinking about it I became really pissed off.

     Comment by Anon4this — December 15, 2009 @ 3:43 pm

331. Stephanie, I knew what you were saying and I took no offense.

     Comment by Anon4this — December 15, 2009 @ 3:45 pm

332. Chris, I’m sounding more combative than I’m meaning to be. I’d really like to know from a Mormon man’s perspective how women are valued in this church.

     Comment by Anon4this — December 15, 2009 @ 3:47 pm

333. Anon4this, I completely understand. Like I said, I’ve got my own “beefs”. I’ll allow anyone else theirs.

     Comment by Stephanie — December 15, 2009 @ 3:47 pm

334. Chris #323 -
     

     I’m not shouting at anyone to pray about it and you’ll see things my way. I constantly try to pray about it to see things the Lord’s way

     I’m not convinced, though, that when one prays about it and comes to see it the Lord’s way, one will actually end up agreeing that the status quo constitutes reasonable, fair, or Godly treatment of women. I’m not convinced that when one sees it the Lord’s way, one will not still believe that the church is devaluing its female members and treating them as simply baby-making-machines, however much it may claim to “honor” or “respect” or even “glorify” those baby-making machines.

     The argument that I’ve heard from a number of men that men, having experienced holding the priesthood, are in a better position to know that it really just amounts to so much extra responsibility, work, drudgery, or what-have-you, and that women are actually, though they don’t know it, being relieved of something they wouldn’t really want in the first place if they truly understood it — that argument rings really false for me. It comes off as the corollary to “sour grapes.”

     Comment by Lorian — December 15, 2009 @ 5:27 pm

335. I really see a lot of offense being taken to what I wrote. All I can say, is there was no intent to offend, and I don’t think what I said was inherently offensive, although I do understand how it could be interpreted that way (in a somewhat uncharitable way I suppose that assumes the worse of me). I am not assuming the worst of you or anyone, so I hope it doesn’t seem that way, if so I’m sorry.

     Sometimes the truth hurts. Which is why it probably stings me to be told I’m condescending, when I wasn’t explicitly trying to do so, but seem to have done so anyway. Maybe you can concede some truth to my words if they stung a little bit and try to learn from it like I am yours.

     Like I said before I don’t think getting into a battle of words is going to help. I get the impression for your posts (correct me if I’m wrong) that you’re ready to jump on whatever I say. So running off a list of how a woman is valued in the church seems like it would just be used against me to expose some chinks in my armor. I’m not trying to write a complete dissertation here, complete with qualifications and anticipatory rebuttals…

     I was really just trying to share my view and explain the other side of it, because some part of me didn’t think it right to just let a statement stand that I paraphrase as “women have no power, authority or worth in the church”. I suggested, and still suggest that if you feel that way, there is a lot that you need to do, and I say it with the best of intentions. There is nothing I or anyone else can do or say to you to really prove otherwise, which is something I said before.

     That may sound completely unfair again to say the impetus is on you, but to say otherwise would be to say that the only way things can be right in the world would be for the church to change to your will. I think in someways that might be good, but generally I try to avoid bending the church to my will, but adapting my will to the Lords. And more often than not (I’m leaving wiggle room for any “gotchas”, the Prophet who leads the church is following the Lord’s will).

     I would just like to say one thing about helpmeet. Meet means equal. This is from a Priesthood session talk by Pres. Hunter. I know someone could pick holes in it and find some beefs with the language, but if read charitably I think it explains things nicely for me at least.

     A man who holds the priesthood accepts his wife as a partner in the leadership of the home and family with full knowledge of and full participation in all decisions relating thereto. Of necessity there must be in the Church and in the home a presiding officer (see D&C 107:21). By divine appointment, the responsibility to preside in the home rests upon the priesthood holder (see Moses 4:22). The Lord intended that the wife be a helpmeet for man (meet means equal)—that is, a companion equal and necessary in full partnership. Presiding in righteousness necessitates a shared responsibility between husband and wife; together you act with knowledge and participation in all family matters. For a man to operate independent of or without regard to the feelings and counsel of his wife in governing the family is to exercise unrighteous dominion.

     We could go tit-for-tat about other things, but I think we’d both just end up feeling more annoyed.

     I guess the hard thing about this for me is I don’t like the idea of just walking away from a Sister who really feels like she is neglected and seen as worthless by men in the church, while at the same time knowing everything I say is condescending. On the other hand, I’m guessing you have a lot of strong feelings as well and some random guy on the internet isn’t going to change you (and what nerve of him to suppose you need changing) simply because he throws up some quotes and platitudes.

     Comment by chris — December 15, 2009 @ 6:02 pm

336. Ah, chris. You are a nice guy. I like you. (Okay, so seriously, are you my husband?)

     Comment by Stephanie — December 15, 2009 @ 6:10 pm

337. Nah, he should be driving home right now. But, seriously, he says a lot of the same things. And when he says them in kindness just like you are doing now, and I am actually humble enough to listen and take a self-inventory, I often find that he is right.

     Comment by Stephanie — December 15, 2009 @ 6:14 pm

338. Aren’t ipones with voice typing great? I’ll be home soon. What’s for dinner?

     j/k, especially on the wife waiting at home with dinner part…

     Comment by chris — December 15, 2009 @ 6:20 pm

339. Ha ha. If you were DH, you would know there’s no dinner waiting at home tonight! (we’re going to a party)

     Comment by Stephanie — December 15, 2009 @ 6:27 pm

340. One thing that might help PH-holders to understand the plight of non-PH holders is to imagine what would happen if they were to walk into church one day and find themselves put on a special no-PH probation where they were no longer able to use the PH or to participate in any callings which required ordination. And consider living with this status the rest of your lives. Once you get done breathing a sigh of relief that you no longer need worry about the SP calling you to join a bishopric or high council, consider the rest of the story:

     Consider what it would mean to you if you wanted to pass the Sacrament or bless your child or be an official witness to a convert’s baptism and you were told you were unable to do it. And if you were to ask why, imagine being told - by those who still held and used their PH - that you had other innate blessings and abilities and that the desire to use priesthood was really not much more than aspiring to leadership callings (which basically suck, so why would you want them anyway?) and a sign of your ignorance of the true meaning of PH service and a signal that you were not yet ready to use your PH again.

     And then, perhaps the advice would continue, you should consider that things really are fine the way they are in the here and now and after you die, you (and the rest of us) will have a better understanding which will answer all the reasons why you were not allowed to use your PH, despite being a temple-worthy, faithful Latter-day Saint who had dedicated your life and resources to the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth. And if you’d just pray about it some more, you would come to this same knowledge and testimony and would recognize that what you thought were righteous desires were merely hormonal surges.

     Comment by LRC — December 15, 2009 @ 6:48 pm

341. Chris, we see things differently. What does “Preside” mean to you? Is it the final say in matters? Is it a supervisory role? … in any case it seems to indicate that this role is NOT equal to the “helpmeets” role. That is where the problem lay for many women. Why can’t she “preside”? Well, because she doesn’t have a peni$… what more reason could there be?

     I don’t agree that there needs to be one person that presides. Both my husband and I have equal say in all things. And if we don’t agree? We talk it out until we find a good compromise. And if one isn’t home? The other takes full leadership of the family that is at home.

     Comment by April — December 15, 2009 @ 6:51 pm

342. BTW Chris I think you have the best of intentions. I just think it isn’t flying so well here.

     Comment by April — December 15, 2009 @ 6:53 pm

343. The Vice President presides over the Senate, even though the Senate does whatever it wants to without the VP having much of a say.
     The Stake President presides over a sacrament when he’s on the stand with the Bishop, even though the Bishop never cleared the speakers that Sunday, hymns, etc..
     The Prophet presides over the General Relief Society meeting when he’s there (always I think?) even though he never says a word and the RSP is running the show for all intents and purposes.

     I am in complete agreement with probably everyone here that the word preside does seem to have a dictatorial “I’m in charge” connotation to it. And I think all of the serious culture issues that men and women foisted on each other over (not to mention themselves, but more often than not the women seem to lose out) have corrupted all of our way of viewing the word preside. I am a man, and the word to me causes a tinge if reserve, so it must be more so for most women I’d assume.

     But when we look at the above examples I listed, which are pretty much the most frequent use of the word preside I’ve seen in real life, it’s clear the “presider” is not necessarily the one running the show and calling all the shots. In fact, what we see in reality of the above presider cases is often the opposite.

     Looking up preside on dictionary.cc (my favorite because it pulls the original definitions, not the new-fangled stuff that has been corrupted by the philosophies of men as I’d put it) we see that preside is to sit in authority. I think that’s a pretty decent definition.

     I’ve always felt that about the word preside, but I’ve never put it into words before being asked. Thanks!

     Comment by chris — December 15, 2009 @ 7:17 pm

344. A man who holds the priesthood accepts his wife as a partner in the leadership of the home and family with full knowledge of and full participation in all decisions relating thereto. Of necessity there must be in the Church and in the home a presiding officer (see D&C 107:21). By divine appointment, the responsibility to preside in the home rests upon the priesthood holder (see Moses 4:22).

     Ah, you’ve so nicely outlined one of the most major beefs I have that I neglected to mention above.

     Comment by Natalie K. — December 15, 2009 @ 7:56 pm

345. Seriously. The P-word is and I think always will be a dirty word for me when in context of families and adult relationships. Icky icky icky. Bleh.

     Comment by Natalie K. — December 15, 2009 @ 7:57 pm

346. Chris, the fact that the VP doesn’t often interfere or intervene in matters of the Senate or that the SP doesn’t often feel the need to interfere or intervene in the affairs of the RS does not by any means equate to the idea that the VP has no authority or power or “final say” over the Senate, or that the SP has no authority or power or “final say” over the Relief Society. They absolutely do, whether they choose (or see the need at any give time) to use it, or not.

     Let’s look at POTUS, for instance. Clearly he IS the one who “presides,” because his very title is “president.” He has ultimate authority. Does the fact that he may sometimes consult with the Vice President, Secretary of State, or Secretary of Defense before making a decision mean that the VP, Sec-State and Sec-Def are his absolute equals? That he has no authority over them? That he does not ultimately make the decisions? No. The one who presides is not the “equal” of those over whom he presides. He is their president — the one who presides over them. Even if he allows them to make some of the decisions on their own, they are only doing so because he has allowed it. Even if he consults them before making a decision, and only makes decisions with which they concur, he is still the only one who has the authority to make those decisions.

     Can you not see the ultimate power differential involved? Does the wife ever get to make decisions? Sure, if her husband permits it. Do husbands ever permit their wives to make decisions? Sure, all the time. Does that change the fact that it is perpetually the HUSBAND who has (according to the church) the sole right to give permission for his wife to make a decision, and never the wife who has the right to give permission to her husband to make a decision? Yes, she has the power to refuse cooperation, but the church expects her to give her cooperation (to submit to her husband’s presiding) unless he stands in egregious violation of her or the family’s well-being. \

     Can you imagine going through life only being allowed to make a decision in your home IF your spouse permitted it? Always being the one to submit yourself to your spouse’s will, if you were in disagreement? Always being the one presided over, expected to be a “willing helpmeet” to your spouse and never them to you?

     I wonder how many men would have a problem with it if the Prophet suddenly announced that henceforth wives are to preside in the home, and that ultimate authority in families rests with the wife, not with her husband? Certainly, some families already do it this way, regardless of church teaching. I think, though, that there are many husbands who would find this idea untenable.

     Comment by Lorian — December 15, 2009 @ 8:12 pm

347. Chris, I agree with you that it would be untrue to claim that women have no value within the Church. However, there is an enormous body of evidence that the women are undervalued within the Church. Despite your defense of the language used within the Church, it largely reinforces the conception that women are low man on the totem pole. Yes, meet in helpmeet means “equal.” However, that phoneme must be taken in the context of the other phoneme: help. Help was and is a synonym for aid and assistant–a term which clearly implies subservience or a secondary role. “An equal helper,” the definition you are implying, is somewhat illogical: if the helper is equal, they aren’t a helper, but instead a colleague, or a partner. No, meet refers not to the person being helped, but to the task at hand. In other words the real, historical definition of helpmeet is “aid (help) equal to (or suitable for) the task.” In other words, despite the efforts of the leadership of the Church to alter the definition, it is a word which at root makes the woman secondary. Yes, we could try to look at it “charitably” and ignore the original definition of the word in favor of the newer adaptation. But Perhaps the traditionalists could look charitably upon those hurt by the implications of the original meaning.

     Preside is a word which I’ve dissected many times before on this blog. It comes from Latin, and has always historically implied leadership or the top of the hierarchy. That is not some modern “corruption” or recent, “new-fangled” connotation; it is the essential meaning of the word. The very definition you’ve pointed to (”to sit in authority”) very directly points to authority and hierarchy. All of the examples to which you’ve pointed–with the exception of the US Vice-President, whom the Constitution very deliberately gave only nominal power–are situations in which the one who presides holds authority. They all routinely delegate their power in those examples, but if push came to shove, they have the right and authority to stand up and take the reigns.

     The Church leadership has definitely moved to adopt less hierarchical language than it has in the past when the husband was to rule the house, and it is trying to redefine the word “Preside” to conform to more modern, egalitarian sensibilities. But fighting the age-old meaning of these words is a losing proposition. The older definitions are too well-established. Strictly from a linguistic perspective, as long as the Church continues to use that sort of hierarchical language, many women are going to feel secondary and undervalued.

     Yes, we do all need to try to look beyond our own filters and glasses. I’m sure feminists (among which I include myself) would grow from a broader perspective. But I’m sure that the traditionalists in the Church, leadership and all, could also stand to grow beyond the very traditional and hierarchical filters which doubtlessly colors their perceptions and their leadership and perpetuates some of these conditions which frustrate feminists.

     Comment by Derek — December 15, 2009 @ 8:14 pm

348. Ah. I have a childish, visceral response, and can count on my trusty Lorian and Derek to come in and intelligently (and patiently!) explain the things that I just cannot stand to write anymore.

     Wedded bliss, I tell you, wedded bliss.

     Comment by Natalie K. — December 15, 2009 @ 8:53 pm

349. Wait…. are we virtually married, or just permanently betrothed? Can’t keep track of such things……

     

     Comment by Natalie K. — December 15, 2009 @ 9:10 pm

350. “#

     No, Charlie. Men are ordained period. Women are ordained “to your husband”.

     Comment by Stephanie — December 14, 2009 @ 11:42 pm
     #

     Charlie, that isn’t her “beef” with the temple stuff read back a ways if you can find 5 hours or so and you will find what the issues about the temple ordinances are for women. We don’t mind be called “girls/women/females” etc… I think Priestesses s is included in that.

     Comment by April —”

     Laddies! you are misreading the Temple ceremony. When you covenant to ‘obey your husbands…etc’ its at the beginning of the telestial world ie our current world, or in other words ‘mortality’.

     But at the end of it all we pass the veil and we are all the same in the celestial world ie the celestial room in the Temple. Its a different life over there compared to what it is here today.

     But anyways you ought not to be upset now because you can make babies while us men can’t!! See that’s something you can do that we can’t do….

     Comment by Charlie — December 15, 2009 @ 9:37 pm

351. Natalie - :giggle:

     Comment by Lorian — December 15, 2009 @ 9:43 pm

352. Charlie #350 - Being required to vow to “obey” one’s spouse, whether in the here-and-now or for eternity, neither is palatable, nor does either one qualify as “equality” with one’s spouse. Only one who is less-than her spouse must vow obedience to him. And the ability to make babies, while certainly miraculous, in no way serves as compensation for perpetual subservience.

     Comment by Lorian — December 15, 2009 @ 9:48 pm

353. But at the end of it all we pass the veil and we are all the same in the celestial world ie the celestial room in the Temple. Its a different life over there compared to what it is here today.

     Yeah, that’s why we’re priestesses to our husbands, who are priests to God, and why we gave ourselves to our husbands, and why our husbands fill in for the Lord in bringing us through the veil–with no indication this structure that’s in effect throughout the entire ceremony suddenly becomes null and void as we pass through that veil. It’s all because we’re so “equal” to them! Just not as equal as they are. In the eternities, we get to be as important as Heavenly Mother (which is to say: basically insignificant).

     Comment by Kiskilili — December 15, 2009 @ 9:52 pm

354. “we’re priestesses to our husbands,”

     Again, you are not! You’re misreading the entire Temple ceremony.

     Maybe if you go back there and rethink it as telestial world, terrestial world and celestial world you can then see the difference.

     “And the ability to make babies, ” …it was a joke! that’s why the little is there. Cheer up babes, we still like you!

     Comment by Charlie — December 15, 2009 @ 9:57 pm

355. Why are we told that we’re priestesses to our husbands then? That’s the part I’m having trouble understanding in your explanation.

     Yeah, I got that the baby thing was a joke.

     Comment by Kiskilili — December 15, 2009 @ 10:02 pm

356. Specifically, we’re anointed queens and priestesses to our husbands hereafter. Are you really going to try to argue that “hereafter” has nothing to do with the afterlife?

     Comment by Kiskilili — December 15, 2009 @ 10:07 pm

357. While you’re at it, I’d love to know why men rule and reign in the house of Israel forever but women don’t, if women are equal to men in this “forever.”

     Comment by Kiskilili — December 15, 2009 @ 10:10 pm

358. I really only have issues with the mormon “culture.”

     I don’t think that women (especially young women) have enough expected out of them spiritually. When we generally picture the “good” mormon 21 yr old boy, we see him as being a returned missionary, endowed in the temple, having a developed testimony, having a knowledge of the scriptures and the principles therein, able to articulate spiritual ideas, etc. When we picture a “good” mormon 21 yr old girl…we are usually satisfied if she has kept her legs together.

     I feel as though it isn’t possible for a woman to be liberated in her religion until she has truly claimed it as her own, and I don’t think young mormon women are often are encouraged to do this by their culture.

     Comment by Juliet — December 15, 2009 @ 10:11 pm

359. Yes, Charlie, you can make a good case that in Celestial Kingdom there will be complete equality. And I also see how women can very legitimately wonder why obtaining that equality is, according to LDS doctrine as presented in the temple and the words of many prophets, predicated upon their willingness to be subordinate to men in this life.

     Comment by Derek — December 15, 2009 @ 10:12 pm

360. “Why are we told that we’re priestesses to our husbands then? ”

     Its part of this telestial world….ie what that situation is now here in this telestial world. History of this world is full of proof that this subjection of women to their husband happened (in this world) but it changes later in the ‘other worlds’ of the ceremony.

     The ceremony is split up between the different stages of our existence, from pre-existence where God , Jehova and Michael were the active participants, through to the Celestial world where everyone who passes the veil are active participants. And the conditions of that last stage is represented by the celestial room, where we start resting in bright light etc but there is no “you must site there, or you need to do this now” etc. those instructions belong in the telestial and terrestial worlds (in our case). We are all free in that celestial world and a couple, married couple, will usually sit together holding hands in love and nothing else. They are equal there in that stage.

     But this should be self evident to anyone who goes through the Temple and is prepared to receive the guidance and revelations in there (I do say this in a critical tone!)

     Comment by Charlie — December 15, 2009 @ 10:12 pm

361. When we picture a “good” mormon 21 yr old girl…we are usually satisfied if she has kept her legs together

     Oh dear

     Comment by Charlie — December 15, 2009 @ 10:15 pm

362. I guess I’m not understanding what the indication is that the covenants women have made and the promises they’ve been made are no longer in force in the Celestial Kingdom. What is the indication of equality, besides that women’s subordination doesn’t get explicit mention in the Celestial Room? And are there other covenants and promises that are annulled on the other side of the veil, or just women’s subordination?

     (It should be self evident to anyone who goes through the Temple that women are not the equals of men. And yes, I do say this in a critical tone.)

     Comment by Kiskilili — December 15, 2009 @ 10:16 pm

363. predicated upon their willingness to be subordinate to men in this life

     Good! how it should be ….

     Anyway, we can’t see the entire ceremony here so I’d recommend people go back to the Temple with an open mind and ask these questions there. After all its the Spirit that explains what’s going on there, not me.

     Comment by Charlie — December 15, 2009 @ 10:18 pm

364. (It should be self evident to anyone who goes through the Temple that women are not the equals of men. And yes, I do say this in a critical tone.)

     

     I’m starting to like you Kiskilili . Can you send me your number? I’m looking for wife number 2

     Comment by Charlie — December 15, 2009 @ 10:20 pm

365. Actually, the language explains perfectly well what’s going on.

     Comment by Kiskilili — December 15, 2009 @ 10:21 pm

366. This all sounds so crazy….having left the church exactly for this priestess and queen business and the polygamy thing..he can have multiple wives..nope..not for me! it is hard to believe I spent most of my life with this belief..and please dont take offense… to those of you who believe this nonsense..do you ever stop and just think about the whole scenario…I did…dad is a stake president and he could not convince me this is all just made up to benefit the male gender…

     Comment by M — December 15, 2009 @ 10:23 pm

367. I like you too–how would you like to be husband #7? Are you good with domestic chores? I’m in the market for a househusband.

     Comment by Kiskilili — December 15, 2009 @ 10:24 pm

368. Comment by M

     Seriously now, you’ll probably find that the majority of people in the church are uncomfortable with polygamy.

     Comment by Charlie — December 15, 2009 @ 10:25 pm

369. I like you too–how would you like to be husband #7? Are you good with domestic chores? I’m in the market for a househusband.

     Kiskilili YES YES; you’re getting hotter by the minute! I love being run over by women, it turns me on.

     Just don’t tell my wife No1 …..please?

     Comment by Charlie — December 15, 2009 @ 10:27 pm

370. I support polygamy if all of the men I get to marry are hot.

     Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — December 15, 2009 @ 10:36 pm

371. Okaaayy . . . I’m going to take that as a concession of the point.

     Anyway, we can’t see the entire ceremony here . . .

     Speak for yourself.

     Comment by Kiskilili — December 15, 2009 @ 10:53 pm

372. Charlie
     We haven’t met and I have absolutely no interest in having any sort of husband. However, I’m am willing to test your domestic ability.

     And as your presiding authority, I will come in while you’re scrubbing the toilet, or picking up the dog excrement, and tell you I consider you my equal and give you more tasks to complete.

     I will run you over and you will not love it. I may even back up. I do expect your gratitude at the marvelous privilege I am offering you.
     Let me know when you want your servitude to start.

     Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — December 15, 2009 @ 10:55 pm

373. The “willingness to be subordinate to men in this life.” to obtain equality in the next is a bunch of crap! The wording used to say UNTO GOD!!! I believe cultural…. Yes a way to use religion to subject women unto their Husbands power. Why should I be subordinate in this world? So I will be rewarded with equality in the next? Ummm nonononooonono no! like my 2 year old says. I should be rewarded with glory unto God! Not a Husband, Regardless of how he treats me. Though mine treats me as an equal. Anyways thanks Lorian for making my night so much better with your great comments.

     Comment by CZ — December 15, 2009 @ 10:56 pm

374. I support polygamy if all of the men I get to marry are hot.

     All us mormon men are hot!!!

     Speak for yourself.

     the one online isn’t accurate.

     Comment by Charlie — December 15, 2009 @ 10:57 pm

375. Thanks, CZ.

     Comment by Lorian — December 15, 2009 @ 10:59 pm

376. It’s accurate in reporting the statements we’re discussung here.

     Comment by Kiskilili — December 15, 2009 @ 11:00 pm

377. Umm….. didn’t Charlie get banned on another thread for trolling?

     Just sayin…..

     Comment by Natalie K. — December 15, 2009 @ 11:00 pm

378. Suzanne Neilsen

     Yes off course; I just love serving women.

     Wow, there are now two hot women here on this thread after me!

     Does that me a polygamist?

     ——
     Seriously, CZ, God is also male! Also I suggest you are misreading the ceremony too. Reconsidering it in its entirety, based on what kingdom each part of the ceremony belongs to, should clear things up.

     Comment by Charlie — December 15, 2009 @ 11:02 pm

379. Natalie K.

     What???

     Comment by Charlie — December 15, 2009 @ 11:03 pm

380. All us mormon men are hot!!!

     That ain’t true. There were plenty of Shortie McShortN’Uglies in my wards at BYU. I first noticed my husband because he was the only guy in the ward who wasn’t short and ugly.

     Not that all short men are automatically ugly. But these ones were.

     Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — December 15, 2009 @ 11:07 pm

381. Yeah, it cleared things up great. It’s just not clear women are people.

     Comment by Kiskilili — December 15, 2009 @ 11:09 pm

382. charlie,

     this is your official warning. if you don’t tone it down, i’m putting you in the sin bin.

     Comment by mfranti — December 15, 2009 @ 11:12 pm

383. It’s just not clear women are people.

     Kiskilili , relax, it aint that bad….

     Cheers, I gotta go

     Comment by Charlie — December 15, 2009 @ 11:13 pm

384. Charlie
     Well since you love to serve, the first task I need you to complete is to temporarily step away from your keyboard and go hand scrub your floors. Don’t forget to whistle while you work.

     Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — December 15, 2009 @ 11:13 pm

385. Bridges to sit under, Billy Goats to torment, huh, Charlie?

     Comment by Lorian — December 15, 2009 @ 11:14 pm

386. mfranti

     Why? it was joking.

     anyway, gotta go. I read up tomorrow

     Comment by Charlie — December 15, 2009 @ 11:15 pm

387. #278, #353:

     I’ve discussed this extensively before (see here and here and here and here ), but it’s always the Lord behind the veil, not any mortal. Any other interpretation makes hash of the ritual, which from the beginning has Adam and Eve, and their daughters and sons being prepared to personally meet the Lord at the veil and enter His presence.

     I guess you can pretty much count on me to point this out every time the subject comes up.

     Comment by Left Field — December 15, 2009 @ 11:15 pm

388. your joking is getting out of control.

     Comment by mfranti — December 15, 2009 @ 11:16 pm

389. I might have to spend a little time in the sin bin myself. Just as long as there’s gender segregation there–maybe a ladies’ section, with veils?

     Comment by Kiskilili — December 15, 2009 @ 11:19 pm

390. Why would you want access to the men’s section, Kiskilili? It just means lots of cumbersome work. Honorific titles and authority and administering ordinances and having a wide range of callings available to accommodate one’s gifts and talents is all overrated anyhow. You’re better off where you are.

     Now make me sammich.

     Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — December 15, 2009 @ 11:25 pm

391. Or a baby.

     Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — December 15, 2009 @ 11:27 pm

392. Kiskilili - your subtle mockery, which was not even kinda being picked up on, really brightened what has been a rather grayish day. Thanks.

     Comment by Natalie K. — December 15, 2009 @ 11:27 pm

393. Charlie, if you come back to read this again, please go to the temple and listen right at the very beginning of the endowment. It is referring to “hereafter” just as kiskilli has said multiple times in this thread - not to our temporal existence. Better yet, say to yourself, “I am a woman” as you listen and see if applying those promises makes you feel any different. It ought to be a required exercise, I think.

     Comment by Stephanie — December 15, 2009 @ 11:30 pm

394. I propose we all convene in the ladies’ section of the sin bin, to commiserate with Kiskilili over a cup of djinn’s most admirable tea. I understand djinn has refurbished the ladies’ section so that it not only contains veils, but a variety of beautiful sequined satin cushions, draperies and soft persian rugs, a la djinn’s bottle. No burqas required.

     Comment by Lorian — December 15, 2009 @ 11:31 pm

395. What happens in the sin bin stays in the sin bin?

     Comment by Natalie K. — December 15, 2009 @ 11:33 pm

396. #335 - Chris, actually I very sincerely would like to know how women are valued by the church. Not by God, not by Jesus, but by this actual church structure and leadership. It was sincere question. I had no plans to tear up your argument bit by bit to prove you wrong. It was a sincere question coming from a sincere place. It looks like I’m not the only one assuming the worst of the other.

     And please, tell me how lecturing, calling to repentance, telling someone to see things from their point of view, saying “the truth hurts,” and telling someone how they feel is wrong, is not condescension? Perception is reality and if I perceive something it is my reality. I come on this blog to expand my mind and my thoughts, not to be told what I think and feel is wrong. I honestly believe you’re a nice person who wants to understand, but telling someone they’re wrong is not understanding.

     And with that, I’m done. I’m not arguing with you anymore. It’s obvious to me that I’m not articulate enough to be understood, so I better quit. Lorian in #346 and Derek in #347 much better explained how I feel.

     Comment by Anon4this — December 15, 2009 @ 11:33 pm

397. Natalie, yeah, something like that. :chuckle:

     Comment by Lorian — December 15, 2009 @ 11:34 pm

398. If he does come back, I really hope he just reads and doesn’t comment. It’s not like we all haven’t heard it before. By trying to help he was doing more harm than good. Simply reiterating the things that burn and saying they are okay does not help anyone.

     Comment by April — December 15, 2009 @ 11:37 pm

399. This sin bin: ladies’ edition is looking better all the time! I’ll bring the devil’s food cake and the chicken patriarch soup and let’s have a regular sin bin shindig!

     Comment by Kiskilili — December 15, 2009 @ 11:45 pm

400. you are cracking me up.

     you know the sin bin is the penalty box in hockey, right?

     Comment by mfranti — December 16, 2009 @ 12:03 am

401. With all you ladies in the penalty box– I want in too. Derek, how do you feel about being the token male?

     Now is this sin bin just for the here and now or the hereafter?

     Comment by moksha — December 16, 2009 @ 12:17 am

402. Wiping my drink off my screen, here, moksha…

     Yeah, m, but we thought we could improve on it if we “femmed” it up a bit. :giggle:

     Comment by Lorian — December 16, 2009 @ 12:24 am

403. Well if it’s here, Derek would have to sit in the best seat. But if it’s the hereafter, we could all share it equally. Do you think the best seat would be comfortable with all of us sitting on it?

     

     Comment by Natalie K. — December 16, 2009 @ 12:24 am

404. If it’s a really, really big seat. Maybe a sectional corner-style sofa with built-in recliners? :stroking-chin-thoughtfully:

     Anyway, Derek can sit on my lap if he wants to. We ARE married, after all.

     Comment by Lorian — December 16, 2009 @ 12:40 am

405. Sorry, but my wife just informed me that I am categorically not allowed to spend time in anything called a “sin bin” with a bunch of women who have repeatedly proposed…

     Looks like Kiskilili did a fantastic job dueling with the troll. I salute you!

     re: 400

     Derek, how do you feel about being the token male?

     I’ll tell you after the forthcoming announcement…

     

     Comment by Derek — December 16, 2009 @ 12:42 am

406. lorian, i got that too…

     Comment by mfranti — December 16, 2009 @ 12:54 am

407. Awww. Tell your 1st wife that’s a big ol’ bummer.

     Comment by Lorian — December 16, 2009 @ 12:59 am

408. It should be self evident to anyone who goes through the Temple that women are not the equals of men.

     Whoa there. Here is the kind of thing where I will push back. It’s understandable why some feel that way, and I think it’s important for the struggles with the doctrine to be acknowledged, but you know that not everyone shares this conclusion. If we are going to let people have space to air their personal beefs, please let people come to different conclusions without insulting their intelligence or their own beliefs on these topics. Declaring something like that as ’self-evident’ sets it up so that anyone who disagrees is an idiot.

     Comment by m&m — December 16, 2009 @ 1:11 am

409. m&m, I think Kiskilili was only half-serious…. I’m pretty sure she was subtley mocking Charlie’s very absolutist, black-n-white tone, just saying the opposite thing. The fact that what you say is very true, that people can come away with vastly different interpretations, is, I think, her point.

     That was Charlie’s exact language, she just added a word.

     Comment by Natalie K. — December 16, 2009 @ 1:16 am

410. Thanks Natalie. (I’ve been meaning to tell you for a while that you’re one of my favorite commenters!)

     They are equal there in that stage. . . . But this should be self evident to anyone who goes through the Temple and is prepared to receive the revelations in there (I do say this in a critical tone!)

     m&m, is it fair to say you object equally vehemently to this statement, since it also closes off space for legitimate disagreement?

     Comment by Kiskilili — December 16, 2009 @ 1:37 am

411. Aw man, I am majorly feeling the love tonight. Also, I have had one the slowest nights on the job imaginable, and really might have lost my mind if not for the entertainment you’ve all so kindly provided.

     Comment by Natalie K. — December 16, 2009 @ 1:42 am

412. Kiskilili, yes. Obviously, I missed the play on his words. Still, you and I have both seen that such problems exist on both sides of discussions like this. It’s my beef with discussions like these. Sometimes the pain expands its reach to try to define absolute reality. (That was what I was saying to anon4this earlier…I’m just sorta repeating myself, now that I think about it. So, maybe sorry again, huh?)

     To Charlie: I’m one who feels very strongly about the equality of men and women in the whole of our doctrine. But I think it’s important to acknowledge that isn’t altogether obvious as some parts are considered. It’s those parts, I believe, that can sometimes make it hard to sort through these things.

     Comment by m&m — December 16, 2009 @ 1:53 am

413. I’LL BE BACK!

     I’ll go to a session tomorrow so maybe you can all pray for me (except Natalie) so I can see all the terrible things the Temple ceremony does to females? Up to now I haven’t seen any (and I do go almost every week)

     m&m But I think it’s important to acknowledge that isn’t altogether obvious as some parts are considered. It’s those parts, I believe, that can sometimes make it hard to sort through these things

     I believe this is the mistake people are making here. That is they are seeing the parts and not the entire ceremony for what it is and where it leads one too. Maybe I didn’t write clearly enough but thats my Beef with this Beef post: people are picking and chopping bits and peaces to reach mistaken conclusions about the church and its doctrine.

     Comment by Charlie — December 16, 2009 @ 2:23 am

414. Kiskilili

     I’d still want your number though, you’re OK (i hope)

     Comment by Charlie — December 16, 2009 @ 2:25 am

415. 385 #Bridges to sit under, Billy Goats to torment, huh, Charlie?:lol:Comment by Lorian — December 15, 2009 @ 11:14 pm

     Honestly….I don’t get that one.

     What are you on about?

     Comment by Charlie — December 16, 2009 @ 2:32 am

416. My husband is LDS and has a temple recommend, but I’m not sure he’s allowed to do sealing proxy work when he doesn’t have a sealing of his own

     No, you don’t have to be sealed to do sealing proxy work. In fact, you don’t have to be married either. It is a little strange though, if you have never been married yourself.

     Comment by Mark D. — December 16, 2009 @ 2:46 am

417. Charlie
     I take it then that have not met the Gruff family.
     I’m sure you’ll meet their acquaintance soon.

     Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — December 16, 2009 @ 2:55 am

418. Oh, and Charlie, have you scrubbed the floors yet?

     Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — December 16, 2009 @ 2:59 am

419. Holy cow there are a lot of posts…..

     Derek, I saw your interesting post, and didn’t read much else…

     I’m actually not quibbling with much of the foundation of what you say, but rather some of the extrapolations of that -could- come out of it. (I think the same could be said of my words, or even the Prophets’ as well)

     When you say in regards to presiding, “They all routinely delegate their power in those examples, but if push came to shove, they have the right and authority to stand up and take the reigns.”

     When you said that were you taking the rest of my words, which are not my words, but from the prophet and the lord in mind when you made that statement:

     “There is no authority associated with the Holy Priesthood except on the principle of persuasion”

     And

     “For a man to operate independent of or without regard to the feelings and counsel of his wife in governing the family is to exercise unrighteous dominion.”

     The word preside, as I’m using it, and as I believe the church uses it, can not be viewed without those two important statements.

     So how does that fit inline with your view of the word preside meaning ~push comes to shove, men take the reigns~.

     There is no figurative push or shove or men taking anything…. If that happens the priesthood authority is gone, the man (be it bishop, husband, GA, missionary, deacon, etc) needs some serious repenting.

     There is no doubt in my mind the feminist critique (a feminine word in itself) approach there must be unfairness to any presiding that is not done in roughly equal proportions by women.

     I think the feminist critique has many eternal truths, just like I think Adam Smith/capitalism has some eternal truths, but that does not mean it is the approach we should look at everything in the gospel. Sometimes we all have to take off our favorite hat (or glasses) and put on another one. And I fully realize, again, the apparent sexism of a guy coming in and telling you to put on a different hat. But all I can say is I’m not telling you… just saying what I believe and you can take it or leave it.

     Back to my point, I strong believe in democratic principles, and yet I go to and pledged my life to a church that could be characterized, in worldly (and seemingly uncharitable) terms as dictatorial. Did I elect God? The prophet? The bishop? So why do they speak for me? The LDS theolgian could point to the pre-existance, sustaining etc, and say I did voice my support for each of them. But really it bares no semblance to what we call and praise as democracy on earth.

     So for some strange reason, I, as do most of us, set aside my strong belief in democracy, when it comes to looking at churchly things.

     The same could be said of service vs. capitalism, etc.

     Now I understand these things are not entirely the same. The simple fact is the feminist critique points to the unfairness of the fact that a women, because she is a women, is not the one told to preside and a man is not the one told to be the helpmeet.

     All I can say is, to me I am not so much concerned what words we use (as a man maybe I’d say that), but rather what benefit we as a family/church/humanity get out of it.

     There is truth behind most of what is being said here (and I mean not just by me). I think sometimes we all just have to scrap past the layers to see what it is and rebuild appropriately on top if it.

     Queue someone telling me that I’m callously telling someone to just look at it like a man… And I’d go back and re-read what I said about me just jabbering away for my own, and possibly someone else’s enlightenment if that be the case, and not trying to tell or teach anyone (perhaps other than myself) anything.

     Comment by chris — December 16, 2009 @ 3:24 am

420. re. 413 -

     ? I’m excluded from praying? Don’t get me wrong, I sense the disrespect in your post(s), and am not dying to fall to my knees on your behalf, but I just don’t understand why I am the only one who shouldn’t be praying for you…… Did you think I was the one being meanest?

     Or does this have something to do with me saying earlier (in this or another thread, I’ve lost track) that I only pray to my Heavenly Parents, not just one or the other?

     Comment by Natalie K. — December 16, 2009 @ 3:38 am

421. Charlie….I just went yesterday and think the “entire thing” is worded with a cultural bias towards women. But I just try to feel it. But no I don’t take it literally. Especially knowing the wording has changed and in my opinion NOT for the better. I believe to it is a step process, but it still begs the freaken question why the wording is the way it is. IF the wording is symbolic for specific steps of progression then WHY didn’t the changing of the words change the ceremony? Well it didn’t because the wording is subject to mens interpretation. And of coarse MEN are the ones changing the wording. Like the little part priestess unto Husband when it used to be GOD……THank Brigham Young for that little change….

     Comment by cz — December 16, 2009 @ 3:49 am

422. Charlie, I hope it goes well at the temple. Maybe, with feminist glasses on, you could offer a bit of insight.

     Comment by Stephanie — December 16, 2009 @ 9:10 am

423. After all this…Beef - it’s what’s for dinner

     Comment by after all — December 16, 2009 @ 12:38 pm

424. I am not sure if this will show up right but here is how many women feel:

     http://www.theonion.com/content/news/woman_domesticated

     Comment by StillConfused — December 16, 2009 @ 2:09 pm

425. My feminist concerns started when I was a beehive. I overheard my leaders talking about the camp food budget and one of them mentioned that she was frustrated that the boys got nearly twice as much money per child per meal on their camping trips. I was stunned and wondered why. Teenage boys do not nned to eat twice as much as teenage girls. The YM leaders are certainly capable of using their resources wisely…

     Must have been your ward. Where I live the boys BRING their own food. They eat a lot of canned blech. The girls, on the other hand, spend so much money on girls camp it is stunning to me. The food is like a veritable candy store. They eat better on camp then my kids do at my house, that’s for sure.

     Comment by Dawn — December 16, 2009 @ 2:34 pm

426. i am a feminist. i am a women that stands up for women. i am a woman that knows how it feels to be stressed or discouraged about roles in life. i am a member of the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints. and when i found this blog, i was hoping to find a place that stood up for women. that celebrates the differences between men and women, not try to destroy them. i think perspective is the key to this situation. to know and understand that we have a loving Heavenly Father, who created a plan for us to be happy, means that while maybe we don’t understand why things are the way they are, we are willing to focus on the good and trust that this truly is a plan of happiness. i hope that anyone struggling about this issue can find peace, knowing that Heavenly Father loves us all.

     Comment by jess — December 16, 2009 @ 3:37 pm

427. Charlie babe..you are right most people are uncomfortable with our past actions regarding this matter, but am not talking about this life..I am talking the great hereafter….why can I not have many eternal husbands? As indicated by this blog…there is a lot of sexist crap that goes on..but if you want to be with your “eternal family” you better do everything just right…..I believe a lot of people stay with Mormonism for exactly this reason..guilt and fear….and again no offense to anyone..I just had a moment of sanity in my life and realized just couldnt do it anymore and believe me this was a major life changing decision…but for me…the benefits far outweigh the ramications….

     Comment by M — December 16, 2009 @ 4:23 pm

428. Jess, thank you for your words. I don’t struggle with knowing my Heavenly Father (and Mother) loves me. I don’t struggle with knowing Jesus loves me and is my Savior. What I struggle with is the church and it’s attitude toward women. In my mind “the church” and “Heavenly Father” are two separate things. I know a lot of people don’t view it this way. Growing up in a family that is multi-religious has helped me to separate in my mind the different between policies and procedures of a church and what Heavenly Father actually wants for his church. Do I believe this church is true? Absolutely. Do I believe that all churches who worship Christ are true? Yes. I am still gaining knowledge line upon line, as it were. I’ve seen the church grow and change so much in just my short 30 years on church that I have a hard time believing what is now is how it will always be. That’s just me. I speak for no one else.

     Comment by Risa — December 16, 2009 @ 4:54 pm

429. I’ve seen the church grow and change so much in just my short 30 years on church

     I meant “on earth”

     Comment by Risa — December 16, 2009 @ 4:56 pm

430. M, #427, I hear ya. I really hear ya…

     Comment by Lawyer Lady — December 16, 2009 @ 6:39 pm

431. Maybe it was mentioned in a previous post on the site or even in a comment, but has anyone ever read a book called, “Eve and the Choice Made in Eden” by Beverly Campbell? If not, I highly recommend it!

     The author, who is LDS, has devoted years of research on how the event in the Garden of Eden has been misunderstood for centuries and that with this misinterpretation came the birth of much of the sexism prevalent in the world today.

     Personally, I view certain aspects of feminism as part of the restoration of all things. I have a firm testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ and that testimony is still growing in depth and breadth. I have never felt less for being a woman in or out of the church. This life is about progress and is ultimately about our own personal relationships with the Savior and our Father in Heaven.

     Comment by emily — December 16, 2009 @ 8:53 pm

432. DH bought that book for me, emily. It is very good.

     Comment by Stephanie — December 16, 2009 @ 8:54 pm

433. Oh. My. Heck. I vow never to wait until there are 430 comments to read a post and it’s adjoining 430 comments. Whew. My two cents:

     1. In a new church building (Oregon 2007) the mother’s lounge is only accessible through the women’s bathroom. Where are the men supposed to rock a crying baby/change a diaper?

     2. While there’s no discounting the patriarchy in the structure of the church, I find more in the members/culture/whatever you want to call it. I have found that the members tend to be more sexist/conservative/extreme/etc. than the official church stance.

     Thank you to everyone for sharing btw.

     Comment by lache — December 16, 2009 @ 9:36 pm

434. Wow, I really fell behind on this post! Such a good discussion! Well, minus those few rough spots where Charlie was being helpful.

     Can I add a couple things this late?

     Stephanie (in 45), I don’t know if this counts as concrete evidence. Well, actually, it doesn’t, but maybe it will help. Some people have the gift of believing in other’s words after all. As a single woman in the church (and attending the temple), I often often often feel like I have no worth because I have no husband to support and serve. Especially in the temple when I can’t make covenants to God and have to make them with some pretend husband that doesn’t exist. It’s been a big struggle and I often feel like your #2 - women were created to serve men and exist to serve men, is what is real. But I will add a testimony that in spite of the struggle, when I’m in the celestial room, and pray and receive answers to those prayers, I know that I have worth to God. Not as a future-wife, but as me. He values me single or married. I forget it when I return to the real world because the real world seems to operate in #2. But when I’m in the celestial room, I believe that God operates in #1.

     Also, I loved your comment in 307. I’ve never really gotten why we do the gender segregation, but in that light, I kind of like the symbolism of us leaving an imperfect inequality to a more perfect equality on the other side of the veil.

     Janet/kew (293), not sure if this was answered but women are pronounced clean in the initiatory. Men only have the potential to become so. I’ve not heard a satisfying explanation for the difference…

     I know Chris got a lot of flak (sp??), but he had a comment I really liked:

     how good are any of us doing with what power we have through our own faith and righteousness and the authority God has granted us to serve others?

     There seems to be a priniciple that we can not receive more light until we are good stewards of the light we’ve been given. The whole, no more new scripture until we learn to really appreciate the scripture we’ve got. I wonder if we (as the collective of LDS women) served our little hearts out and collectively went to the Lord being able to honestly say, we are doing what you’ve asked of us, we’re ready for more, if that wouldn’t move things along… Apparently Heavenly Father waited to be asked about the Priesthood OD, so maybe this also requires more on our part. He’s not going to just pop President Monson with a revelation about it. Just thinking out loud…

     Derek (347) LOVE your explanation of the semantics. Thanks for being so good at this!

     Comment by Enna — December 17, 2009 @ 1:39 pm

435. Apparently Heavenly Father waited to be asked about the Priesthood OD,

     No, he was asked about it ages before OD2 was announced. The policy almost changed in the 50s (right? with Hugh B. Brown?). Despite God having been asked decades earlier, the mortals leading the church chose not to change anything until 1978.

     I don’t think we’re just waiting on a revelation here.

     Comment by Natalie K. — December 17, 2009 @ 2:17 pm

436. Natalie,

     My understanding is that it had been prayed about before by the GAs, but there was not consensus prior to 79.

     I don’t think we’re waiting on revelation, either. Just like they weren’t in 79. Otherwise HF could’ve just said, hey guys, you’re screwing up here! Or maybe he does/is, and no one is hearing it yet.

     Comment by Enna — December 17, 2009 @ 4:42 pm

437. Enna, good points to think on. The capacity to believe the words of those who testify of Jesus Christ is one of the spiritual gifts outlined in D&C.

     Comment by Stephanie — December 17, 2009 @ 6:15 pm

438. Wow..Charlie must love all this attention…think he is real?

     Comment by M — December 17, 2009 @ 6:40 pm

439. 436 1978. I can’t remember where I put my ipod, but I remember the year the priesthood ban was lifted. Oy.

     Comment by crazywomancreek — December 17, 2009 @ 7:00 pm

440. Risa #428..I also separate the church from my Heavenly Father…but..no longer believe that there is just one “true” church…what constitutes “true”? I have come to the conclusion if I live a goodly life. obey the commandments, love and give service to my fellow man and have a line of communication with my Heavenly Father..I will get to Heaven without all the made up regulations of the church, which is, do it all or you are no longer worthy..what a crock…for me that is!

     Comment by M — December 17, 2009 @ 7:03 pm

441. #440..I remember too..when it became a public relation nightmare…uhmmm..somebody had a vision..voila…we now allow blacks to hold the PH…basically it is the same with the gay issue right now..the whole Prop 8 campaign so backfired it was pathetic…just live and let live…there is only one judge and he is not in Salt Lake City..sometimes I feel so bad that I let Mormonism dictate my life for so long….again my stock comment..no offense meant to anyone…

     Comment by M — December 17, 2009 @ 7:17 pm

442. M, I agree. Like I said, I come from a multi-religious family and I find it arrogant to believe that we Mormons have the market cornered on the one and only true church. I believe there is truth in all churches. It would be really sad for me to believe that even though the family members I love live exemplary lives, but because they joined one church instead of another, they weren’t worthy of all of God’s blessings. But that’s just me.

     Comment by Risa — December 17, 2009 @ 8:14 pm

443. M, #438,

     Yes, I’m real but apparently been sin binned, so I can’t update you on my Temple visit today.

     If they lift the ban then I can share what I heard there with you and others to show that I was right and all you were wrong

     Comment by Yoko ono — December 17, 2009 @ 8:47 pm

444. Um… Yoko? I can see you. Maybe you’re out?

     Comment by Lorian — December 17, 2009 @ 8:54 pm

445. Different email address, main one still doesn’t work, message disappears.

     Hey, there’s no one here in this sin bin so I you were all lying about that. You should all repent of this terrible sin,
     Charlie

     Comment by Yoko ono — December 17, 2009 @ 9:02 pm

446. Oh. THAT Yoko Ono. No, sorry, we were in the LADIES’ side of the bin. That’s where the tea parties are held. The men’s side smells of old gym socks and moldy towels. Not conducive. Not at all.

     Comment by Lorian — December 17, 2009 @ 9:25 pm

447. Just remember: the sin bin is gender segregated. It might be as hard to find us eternal females behind our delicate veils as it is to find Heavenly Mother.

     Comment by Kiskilili's Disembodied Voice — December 17, 2009 @ 9:30 pm

448. Sounds like Yoko ono/Charlie needs to stay in the sin bin a little longer . . .

     Comment by Stephanie — December 17, 2009 @ 11:18 pm

449. Hey Charlie, if your message disappears it’s because you’re being moderated. Be polite and play nice because it wasn’t an accidental thing.

     Comment by Reese Dixon — December 17, 2009 @ 11:21 pm

450. #442 Risa… the really sad thing is..if you told your Bishop you didnt believe this was not the true church and gave credibility to any other church….he would not be a happy camper….even the 4 year olds who bear their “testimonies” know this is the “true” church and Monson is a “true” prophet of God..silly girl…but your post was so right…Mother Teresa, Billy Graham not seeing our Heavenly Father because they have not the criteria of the church..I think not!!

     Comment by M — December 17, 2009 @ 11:58 pm

451. Charlie..go away and just let us ladies vent…your opinion is from a males point of view..and what is this blog about..male dominance in the church….it is very hard to defend it..just admit it…

     Comment by kari — December 18, 2009 @ 12:04 am

452. Re #433. Eww. I would never EVER nurse in a mother’s lounge that you have to go through a bathroom to get to. Is the entrance to the kitchen/food prep room through a bathroom?

     All too often the plight of breastfeeding mothers in the Church is ignored. I’ve spoken to many women who feel that the mother’s lounge, instead of being a nice option for those that desire it, has become an expectation if you nurse. They feel separated and segregated from their families. I heard one woman use the word “banished.”

     Personally, I breastfeed wherever I am, and without a cover. My daughter will not stand being covered. And I will not segregate myself or her just because our culture has a breast fetish and can’t separate sex from functionality.

     Comment by Heather — December 18, 2009 @ 10:58 am

453. Heather #452 - AMEN!!! HEAR, HEAR!!!!! High five, Sister!

     Comment by Lorian — December 18, 2009 @ 11:53 am

454. I second the AMEN to 452. The mother’s lounge is for those who want the privacy or quiet; it should not be an expectation. And only newborn diapers should be changed there — take your toddlers somewhere else! Nobody should have to nurse in a room that smells like a diaper pail.

     I have never been able to understand a) the expectation that someone has to get up and leave a meeting (especially RS) to go nurse (unless their baby is highly distractible and needs to be in a place with less going on) or b) the assumption that mothers should always put a blanket over their babies when nursing. I have gone visiting teaching and seen mothers cover their babies with a blanket while nursing IN THEIR OWN HOME. I’ve also had my visiting teacher ask for permission to nurse her baby in my home. WTH!?!?! Why are you asking me if you can feed your baby? Of course she covered up.

     When breastfeeding is considered obscene there’s something very wrong. That’s about prevailing culture, not just the church, but I don’t think the church’s modesty standards make it any easier for LDS women.

     Comment by Mytha — December 18, 2009 @ 1:09 pm

455. Re 454: This is definitely a culture issue, but in some places, members and local leaders have warped it into a “gospel” issue.
     I know women personally who have been confronted by local leaders about breastfeeding in church. One friend of mine was told to use the mother’s lounge or find a new ward. My own bishop asked my husband and I to “pray about using a cover or using the lounge.” So we did. And I continue to breastfeed without either. I’ve even been confronted on the street by another ward member and accused of not keeping my covenants because of the way I breastfeed. I’m sure he’s never seen anything when I’ve breastfed: They sit rows behind us!
     Right after that “confrontation” I seriously considered changing wards, but through personal revelation, I know God is on my side of this issue, so I keep going despite the awful things I’ve heard said about me.

     And while the Church has stated, “The scriptures often refer respectfully but plainly to the body and its parts. There is no embarrassment and often there is sacred symbolism. It is the world that makes the divinely created body an object of carnal lust. For example, it makes the female breasts primarily into sexual enticements, while the truth is that they were intended to nourish and comfort children. It promotes male sexual aggression in contrast to Christ’s example of tenderness, long-suffering, kindness, and steadfastness in the home.” (A Parent’s Guide) for some reason that hasn’t gotten into the Church culture yet.

     Comment by Heather — December 18, 2009 @ 2:15 pm

456. Mytha #454 -
     

     When breastfeeding is considered obscene there’s something very wrong.

     Sing it, Sister.

     And Heather, you go, girl. You keep doing what you’re doing and fighting the good fight to take good care of your babies. Bless you for standing up for your babies’ rights to have the best possible meal without having to sit on a toilet or have their heads buried in blankets while they eat it.

     Comment by Lorian — December 18, 2009 @ 7:48 pm

457. This has to be a cultural thing. I’m Australian, and have never been confronted about feeding my babies when/where ever they are hungry. I never cover up. I also never expose more than what is necessary. I’d almost like someone to say something, because boy howdy would they get an earful!

     When I reflect a bit further about this issue, I wonder if others DO feel pressure about feeding. Certainly the ward I am in now is dominated by women who bottle feed, and who bolt for the mothers room if their babies so much as make a sound. Maybe I’m just slow to pick up on the social pressure? I refuse to conform then, and I’ll persist in trailblazing if that’s what I’m doing!

     Comment by Chibbylick — December 18, 2009 @ 9:34 pm

458. I never knew of a man that brought his kids along to Home Teach.

     My dad often took me along at age 9 when he went to Home Teach, and my last home teaching partner usually brought his 3 year old daughter. It happens.

     Derek’s given an excellent analysis of the problem with the “help meet” term, but Derek’s analysis of “preside” cannot withstand a reading of D&C 121, which states outright that no inherent power or authority comes by virtue of the priesthood itself.

     Comment by Christian — December 19, 2009 @ 3:42 pm

459. Charlie..go away and just let us ladies vent…your opinion is from a males point of view..and what is this blog about..male dominance in the church….it is very hard to defend it..just admit it..Comment by kari

     Ok I will go away -before that I’ll say again that many here are misunderstanding the ceremony in its full and correct context.

     Now, after having sat through a session while specifically keeping in mind what happened here, I still stand by those first comments ,#276 and #278. (Only exception being that the joking did get a bit out of hand)

     But I will “admit” that men will also misinterpret the ceremony and things like “presiding” . But that’s been covered here before.

     Comment by Charlie — December 20, 2009 @ 7:17 am

460. I loved the nursing room when I was nursing twins. I never did figure out even a slightly modest way to do that. Oh and then I didn’t have a hand to adjust or help or anything. loved that comfy rocking chair.

     It depends on my child where I nurse. I do always use a blanket, because I feel more comfortable that way. Breasts are for nursing, but it is impossible to say there isn’t a sexual aspect to them. I had one extremely wiggly baby-seriously the most wiggly in the womb, the most wiggly from the moment born-I warned people before they held him-I nursed him in private-or in select company. He had this talent for opening my shirt further and exposing the most possible skin. I’ve also had a few noisy nursers-which I felt was distracting to those trying to worship…

     Other than that I nursed in a sling and people seldom know the difference.

     I will always love the relief society president who announced (when my sister came back with her twins) “We’re so glad Lisa is here and her babies are doing so well! We are so glad she is back we want her to be here, and feel comfortable nursing here, or she would miss too much of the meeting. If any of you sisters have any concerns please talk to me.” HA the end. loved that.

     Comment by britt — December 20, 2009 @ 8:35 am

461. Charlie, there is not one proper “understanding” of the ceremony. For you to claim that you have the “full and correct” understanding of the ceremony is incredibly arrogant. With the vast number of people who have had and do have very different ideas about what it means, it is very condescending of you to just write it all off.

     For you to say that it means something different to you personally is one thing. But for you to come here and tell us all we’re just wrong is unacceptable. I’m not going to be polite in telling you so.

     Comment by Natalie K. — December 20, 2009 @ 12:59 pm

462. Natalie K.

     A comment that disappeared before was that you can now pray for me too!

     Anyways, there is not one proper “understanding” of the ceremony hmmm…shouldn’t it be that revelation can come to all in different ways during the ceremony? but the covenants entered into are fairly standard and clear. As with the chastity ones, we can’t make them say what it doesn’t say nor understand them differently according to each ones personal ‘understanding’. Its means one thing to both men and women… and that’s it.

     But for you to come here and tell us all we’re just wrong is unacceptable Well, actually you are all wrong and I’m right!

     But you can be impolite when telling me that I’m wrong, I don’t mind that much. In fact as a good mormon man I thoroughly encourage and invite intellectual opposition, even disagreement, so we can then all move forwards finding the ‘right’ in all this. But I don’t know if this moderator will be OK with it -well maybe its only with me? so give it a try.

     Comment by Charlie — December 20, 2009 @ 5:20 pm

463. #

     Natalie K.

     A comment that disappeared before was that you can now pray for me too!

     Anyways, there is not one proper “understanding” of the ceremony hmmm…shouldn’t it be that revelation can come to all in different ways during the ceremony? but the covenants entered into are fairly standard and clear. As with the chastity ones, we can’t make them say what it doesn’t say nor understand them differently according to each ones personal ‘understanding’. Its means one thing to both men and women… and that’s it.

     But for you to come here and tell us all we’re just wrong is unacceptable Well, actually you are all wrong and I’m right!

     But you can be impolite when telling me that I’m wrong, I don’t mind that much. In fact as a good mormon man I thoroughly encourage and invite intellectual opposition, even disagreement, so we can then all move forwards finding the ‘right’ in all this. But I don’t know if this moderator will be OK with it -well maybe its only with me? so give it a try.

     Comment by Charlie — December 20, 2009 @ 5:21 pm

464. I am not reading all the comments ahead of mine. I don’t know if this has been mentioned or will get read.

     Every photo and painting hanging on the walls at my building is of males. Most likely done by male photographers and artists as well.

     Comment by venus — December 26, 2009 @ 5:09 pm

465. I never knew of a man that brought his kids along to Home Teach.

     I also went with my father several times, even before I was a Deacon.

     Comment by Mike H. — December 26, 2009 @ 5:38 pm

466. #464…Lots of our paintings in the church are the women ones. Why don’t you ask your Bishop to get some! Also in the RS room we have several cross stitch pictures of the women’s statues in Nauvoo. ASK him ASAP! They might have money leftover in the budget and put that order in now! You only have a few days!

     #465…pretty sure my husband sometimes took a kid along with him home teaching. He didn’t always have a companion that regularly went, until our boys were turning 12, and then regularly did go with him.

     Comment by Melissa P. — December 28, 2009 @ 10:23 pm

467. Brit #460…I am going to write those words down and use them!

     Comment by Melissa P. — December 28, 2009 @ 10:24 pm

468. Chris . post 22:
     Re: “22.1. Women who are abused by their bishop/stake president husband have absolutely no recourse on the Church.”
     I would like to see the Church adopt a policy of giving credit to women for their tithing payments. I was refused when I requested that my tithing be credited under my own name as I paid tithing from my own account, under my name, from my earnings from my job.
     I was told by my Bishop that “That is not how we do it here.”
     I and my contributions are not given credit and I was treated as we once treated slaves in this country, with no individual rights, no due process and no due diligence.
     Sexism is like racism, in my humble experience.

     Comment by Jo — January 1, 2010 @ 11:13 pm

469. I can’t read through everything right now but I agree with pretty much all of these, #358, I think your point is really interesting and something that bothered me as well.

     I think it demeans women when 19 year old boys are pretty much expected to go to the temple because they are going on missions but women are often not encouraged to go until they are getting married or going on missions three years later.

     If anything, I feel this should be reversed. I remember sitting in a youth conference meeting hearing that teen girls are something like three years older than boys their age in terms of maturity. If that’s true, why can’t they go on missions when they are 19 and boys can? What you said reminded me of that beef of mine.

     Comment by Theolina — January 2, 2010 @ 8:49 pm

470. I first tried to go through the temple when I was 20. My sister had been given permission to go early, and I had heard from bishops and stake presidents that special cases could be made if the individual was mature enough and seemed ready; and I already knew that a mission was not in my future. I felt ready, my bishop agreed. Unfortunately, the stake president disagreed. I was living in Provo at the time, his worry was that if I went early, I’d talk to all my girlfriends about it, and they’d all start demanding to go early too just because others were…..which showed he didn’t know me at all to think I’d talk about it, and showed a pretty poor opinion on his part of the mentality and maturity of college age women.

     Comment by de Pizan — January 3, 2010 @ 3:45 pm

471. #466 Good point. It is not only what we value in our church, it is who we value. I wish we could value women equally. It would be a better place for us if our religion could see us as equal souls.

     Comment by Jo — January 3, 2010 @ 11:10 pm

472. All of you are a bunch of UNHAPPY WOMEN.

     What if all the pictures in the church are about males?…
     What is the first prayer in the sacrament meting is giving just for males?
     What if we need to wear the veil in the temple?.
     What if the males going on a mission when they are 19 and we’re going on 21?
     What if the males going to the temple and we need to wait?.

     Fetch! All of you need to STUDY THE SCRIPTURES.

     Comment by Me — January 21, 2010 @ 6:15 pm

473. Me, you think that WE are the unhappy ones? Um. You don’t exactly sound like a bundle of joy yourself.

     Do you want to talk about why that might be? We’re all really good listeners.

     Comment by Natalie K. — January 21, 2010 @ 6:24 pm

474. Tee hee. I think that’s the first fetch I’ve seen here. I think there’s an inherent “flip” implied as well.

     Comment by Moniker Challenged — January 21, 2010 @ 6:24 pm

Leave a comment

RSS feed for comments on this post.
TrackBack URI

• Information
  • Introduction & Contact Info
  • Comment Policy
  • Newbie? Introduce Yourself
  • fMh bloggers
  • Submit a Guest Post
  • Need Advice? "Ask fMh"
  • T-shirts Cafepress or Zazzle
  • fMh Facebook group            
  • Help us pay our server fees:
  
• Search
  • 
    

• Recent Comments (IE click link twice)
  • queuno: Religious Multiple Personality Disorder
  • Ray: God in the gaps.
  • Ray: God in the gaps.
  • Ray: God in the gaps.
  • JNR: Religious Multiple Personality Disorder
  • djinn: God in the gaps.
  • LindseyM: Religious Multiple Personality Disorder
  • IdahoG-ma: Religious Multiple Personality Disorder
  • IdahoG-ma: Religious Multiple Personality Disorder
  • IdahoG-ma: Jane Austen Fight Club:
  • Ray: Religious Multiple Personality Disorder
  • IdahoG-ma: God in the gaps.
  • Rob Osborn: God in the gaps.
  • IdahoG-ma: God in the gaps.
  • Rob Osborn: God in the gaps.
  • Coffinberry: Jane Austen Fight Club:
  • nat kelly: Religious Multiple Personality Disorder
  • James McOmber: Religious Multiple Personality Disorder
  • Ray: Our Blue-Eyed Savior
  • Mommie Dearest: Jane Austen Fight Club:
• Do Good
  • Join fMh's Kiva microloan team
  • Join Team fMh at Kiva
• Sideblog
  • - Ms: Obama Signs Act To Empower Native Americans to Fight Rape
  • - What’s Hard to Look At
  • - BCC: A mother’s heart, A father’s heart
  • - The Fifty Deadliest Things
  • - I Enjoy Crushing Bastards
  • - Latter-Day Saints and Modern-Day Pioneers
  • - From Untouchable to Businesswoman
  • - Ms. Mag: Women’s Rights Quiz
  • - The Stigma of Being a Housewife
  • - One Bride for Two Brothers: A Custom Fades in India
  
  
  • more » | feed »
• Facebook Blog Network
  Blog Networks

  Blog:

  feminist Mormon housewives

  Topics:

  feminism, Mormon, LDS

  Join my network
• FMH Book Group
  "Well Behaved Women Seldom Make History" by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich -----Sep 1st-----
  
• Special Guest Discussion
  
  • Women & Authority:
  • Re-emerging Mormon Feminism
  • Discussion Lead By: Lula and Stephanieeeeeee
  • Now Reading:
  • Chapter Three
  • Discussion Date: Wednesday (usually)
  • Discussion Archives:
  • Introductory Material (2006)
  • Introductory Material (2010)
  • Ch. 1 (2006)
  • Ch. 1 (2010)
  • Ch. 2 (2006)
  • Ch. 2 (2010)
  • Ch. 3 (2006)
  • Ch. 3 (2010)
  • Ch. 4 (2006)
  • UP NEXT Ch. 4 (2010)
  • Ch. 5 (2006)
  • Ch. 6 (2006)
• Feminist Mormon Blogs

  A Liberal Mormon
  Beginnings New progressive site for YW leaders!
  By Common Consent
  Dave's Mormon Inquiry
  Doctors & Covenants
  Erin's LDS Women's History Blog
  Exponent II blog Am I not a woman and a sister?
  Hieing to Kolob
  Letters from a Broad
  Mama Nirvana
  Mind on Fire
  On Our Own
  PilgrimGirl
  Sunstone Blog
  The Faithful Dissident
  Zelophehad's Daughters
  




• Blogs by Mormon Women

  • Groups
  Mormon Mommy Wars
  Segullah Blog
  
  • Individuals
  Almost, But Not Entirely
  But I digress . . .
  Cchrissy's Tender Cargo Blog
  Dandelion Mama
  Enduring to the End
  Excelling at Mediocrity
  Gay Blanchard
  good times, noodle salad
  How I deal Faithful Gay Woman's Blog
  I hope you dance
  Keepapitchinin
  law blawg of theres petrey
  Lollygaggering
  Miss Jill in NYC
  Mom on a Wire
  Mrs. Everything
  Navel Gazing at it's Finest
  Neddy Palaver
  Posts of My House
  Reese Dixon
  Selo's Mini
  Tater Tot Casserole
  Tickle the Pear
  Watch out For Mama
  

• Official LDS sites
  LDS.org
  Mormon.org
  
• Random Links
  • (Because we're nice like that.)
  11 D
  Advice for New Feminists
  Black LDS.org
  Danithew
  Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought
  EMSA
  Ethesis
  FHA site (Geoff's)
  Gospel Cougar
  Holla Back NYC
  Invisible Green Photography
  Kulturblog
  Latter-day Main Street
  Liberal Oasis
  Life On Gold Plates
  Morman Mentality
  Mormon Chic
  Mormon Matters
  Mormon Stories
  Mormon Women's Forum
  Mormons for the Environment
  New Cool Thang
  Our Thoughts
  Segullah
  Sunstone Magazine
  Tender Cargo Baby Store
  The Good Democrat
  The Red Brick Store
  Times & Seasons
  
• 
> > Archives
• July 2010
• June 2010
• May 2010
• April 2010
• March 2010
• February 2010
• January 2010
• December 2009
• November 2009
• October 2009
• September 2009
• August 2009
• July 2009
• June 2009
• May 2009
• April 2009
• March 2009
• February 2009
• January 2009
• December 2008
• November 2008
• October 2008
• September 2008
• August 2008
• July 2008
• June 2008
• May 2008
• April 2008
• March 2008
• February 2008
• January 2008
• December 2007
• November 2007
• October 2007
• September 2007
• August 2007
• July 2007
• June 2007
• May 2007
• April 2007
• March 2007
• February 2007
• January 2007
• December 2006
• November 2006
• October 2006
• September 2006
• August 2006
• July 2006
• June 2006
• May 2006
• April 2006
• March 2006
• February 2006
• January 2006
• December 2005
• November 2005
• October 2005
• September 2005
• August 2005
• July 2005
• June 2005
• May 2005
• April 2005
• March 2005
• February 2005
• January 2005
• December 2004
• November 2004
• October 2004
• September 2004
• August 2004

• July 2010

  M	T	W	T	F	S	S
  « Jun
  			1	2	3	4
  5	6	7	8	9	10	11
  12	13	14	15	16	17	18
  19	20	21	22	23	24	25
  26	27	28	29	30	31

• Categories
  • Abortion/Contraception
  • Abuse
  • Best Posts
  • Body
  • Book Club
  • Career
  • Conversion
  • Day in the Life
  • Education
  • Environment
  • Faith
  • Father in Heaven
  • Feminism
  • Food
  • Jesus Christ
  • Just Life
  • Humor
  • Marriage
  • Mormon Culture
  • Mormon History
  • Mother in Heaven
  • Motherhood
  • Parenting
  • Patriarcy
  • Politics
  • Polygamy
  • Pop Culture
  • Prayer
  • Priesthood
  • Reconciling Questions
  • Sexuality
  • Social Issues
  • Spirituality
  • Temple
  • Womens History
  • Young Women
• Meta:
  • RSS 2.0
  • Comments RSS 2.0
  • WordPress
  • JS Quicktags
  • 
  • 

•