Feminist Mormon Housewives » Dear FMH: What am I Supposed to Tell my Daughter?

Dear FMH: What am I Supposed to Tell my Daughter?

By: Guest - March 5, 2010

Today’s guest post comes from our long time lurker and newish commenter Zaissa.

By: Zaissa

I have noticed a lot of talk lately about how we as feminists are supposed to rationalize certain parts of LDS doctrine and culture that seem to contradict feminism. It’s a dilemma I am facing on a new level as a mother.

Since the birth of my daughter, I have tried to make the church part of her life. Sometimes I have done so because I simply feel family pressure to “do the right thing” for her, and sometimes I have done so because I believe it can really be a source of peace and joy in her life. But most often, and the core reason I is that I want her to have the understanding of the LDS church and its culture from within. If she should reject the church one day, I can live with that. I just don’t want her to do it out of ignorance or apathy. I want her to know the church the way I do.

My daughter just turned 8. For the last year or so I have been trying to kick into gear and make up for the inactive spells where I didn’t have her in Primary. She has some gaps in her knowledge of church doctrine and history that most other LDS eight year olds have mastered. But she is eager to learn though. She eats every new Joseph Smith story or Book of Mormon story up as she hears them—and she retains them too. When I summarized Lehi’s dream for her for the first time, she gave me a sturdy and accurate analysis of the meaning of each symbol in the dream before I even told her what they meant. She wears her CTR ring proudly—she cherishes it. I am very proud of her—not her quick learning, or her even her eagerness, but her total sincerity for wanting to understand all this.

A few months ago, on an fMh post about women and the priesthood, I commented that to my 7 year old girl, who is like a child convert since she was so behind in her teaching, had asked to have her aunt baptize her. At that time, it was just amusing to me to observe her innocence, and interesting to see her amazed wonder at the idea when I told her that it must be a man. In the course of her “lessons” this year, we have had lots of talks about what the priesthood is and it has come up more than once that we have had to explain it’s something boys and men get, not girls. She has asked why, and I have not known how to answer. So I have given her the best “for now” answer I could muster. “That’s what Heavenly Father has says.”

One recent night, somehow the United States presidency came up in family discussion. My husband asked my daughter if she would like to be president when she grows up. “I can’t, I am girl!” she said, as if this should have been obvious to him. “Well crap!” I thought, because this came about a night after a lesson on the priesthood, where we had to explain (again) that as a girl she is ineligible.
My husband told her that being a girl has to do with being president and she can ALWAYS do hatever she put her mind to. But the words felt thin—considering.

She is too young, I think, to complicate the business of learning basic church history and doctrine by adding feminist theory to the mix. Isn’t she? I can’t say, “Follow the prophet, he speaks to us for the Lord” and also say, while still having her understand the first thing, “But maybe some of this stuff isn’t direct from Lord to us.” It’s a bit more complicated than that two-sentence summary when it comes to Mormon feminism, I know, which is why I think this is a good forum for discussion—for adult discussion. But kids?

My mother was the feminist liberal type, and when I was sixteen, she and I had conversations that rocked my world regarding the church status-quo. But by then, already knew the church. I understood the basics. I already understood the status-quo from inside. I was taught how to be good Mormon girl and THEN I noticed it from a feminist perspective. But my daughter is eight, and I think she’s doing it backwards. Somehow in her short existence she has noticed the world needs a feminist reading. I am proud of that too. But where does that leave me in teaching her? I feel like the task before me is a weird paradox-weirder than being a feminist Mormon. On some level I have to teach my daughter to accept a status-quo so she will understand it, and only then can I teach her it’s OK to reject it. What is my alternative?

How do I bring her into this church, I mean really bring her in? How do I ask her to love it, and ask her to identify with it, and ask her to believe the God the members talk about and teach her is the God that she must cling to, without asking her to let go of the idea that she is equal to the boys, that she is just as loved as they are? Can I teach her she has a shot of mattering in the fullness of time as much as the boys, and teach her “proper” doctrine, and do it without subjugating her to the same stigmas that drive us nuts?

I would like to hear from other if their VERY young daughters (and sons) are asking questions yet, and what are they saying to them?

Permanent Link

142 Comments »

I’ve had a similar conversation with my 7-year-old recently. I told her frankly, when she asked me why only the boys had the priesthood (I have two older sons), that men needed the priesthood, which I believe is true. I also told her that if they didn’t have it, we women might learn to live without them, which I also believe is true. But I also told her that these things were my opinions, and that she would learn more about the subject as she got older. I am looking forward to the convo about how women do, in the temple, use the priesthood, and about what a time-suck it has been for her father to be in priesthood leadership. I always try to give my kids the best information I have at the time, and make sure they know that it is not ALL the information that is out there.

Comment by Jessica — March 5, 2010 @ 8:16 pm
i know it’s said all the time, but only girls get to have babies. that was my major consolation as a kid (raised in a different church that doesn’t ordain girls). being pregnant for me was wonderful and amazing (even with complications, pain, and its major annoyances). i know everyone doesn’t feel the same way, but that’s how i feel. it is definitely ‘unequal’, but i feel like the benefits are equal as far as how wonderful they are.

if i got to choose my own sex right now, i know i would choose to be a woman, even if it meant i would never have the priesthood on earth (outside of the temple).

Comment by pdig — March 5, 2010 @ 8:36 pm
I’ve been a lurker here for a while. I was raised in the Church and have since left. I’m not the right person advise you on what to tell your daughter, but I admire you for wanting to instill in her a sense of equality. If I’d had a mother like you who had validated my feminist objections to the status quo instead of telling me I should fall into line, honor the priesthood (from which I was forever barred), follow the prophet, I believe I would have grown up with a much greater sense of self-worth. If I had known women like the fMh posters ten or twelve years ago, I may still be Mormon today. As it is, I have no desire to return to the Church, but I always enjoy the discussion that takes place here. I so admire and respect the women (and men) who post here for not following blindly, as I was so often told I should.

Comment by Leah — March 5, 2010 @ 8:36 pm
my post was double that length, but got eaten by the internet monster. i hope none of my explaining that got lost was something that could help me avoid a fight lol

Comment by pdig — March 5, 2010 @ 8:44 pm
oh jessica, i love your response. i totally believe this

if they didn’t have it, we women might learn to live without them

because the whole earth lived without it for long periods, and besides ordinances, there is no needed blessing HF would withhold from a righteous woman who asked in faith.

Comment by pdig — March 5, 2010 @ 8:46 pm
In many ways I was very similar to your daughter. I “found” feminism almost institutionally from a young age, and I’ve been grappling with the church ever since.

I remember constantly feeling like the adults in my life were clumsily trying to redirect my questions about women and the church with the rhetorical equivalent of “look over there!” Just telling me that things are the way they are (a way that seems unfair) because God says so made me think that God must not like women, or that the adults were just making stuff up (and if so what else wasn’t actually true?) As I’ve gotten older its been very hard for me to not want to throw everything out. I wish I had learned how to reconcile or at least live with things when I was still learning, as opposed to having my foundation constantly shaking.

I would suggest being absolutely honest with your daughter. Tell her that we don’t know why things are the way the are. Give her permission and support to believe in what she thinks is right and to question the rest. And yes, give her a foundation in all the good of the Gospel. I hope she can grow up figuring out how to accept all the good things out there and not feel like she has to 100% accept or reject either the gospel or her own deeply held beliefs regarding equality.

Comment by Genavee — March 5, 2010 @ 8:48 pm
Don’t know, but I’m glad this discussion is happening. This is my worst fear about raising my children in the church. Sons as well as daughters… I want OUR beliefs to shape his attitude toward women, but how do I bring him to church without the third party influence coming into play?

Comment by Alyssa — March 5, 2010 @ 8:52 pm
I’m trying to dredge up the quote, but I can’t find it so far…

In either last General Conference or my Stake Conference someone spoke about how the general membership wasn’t ready for the black membership to receive the Priesthood until the time that it was granted. It was not a matter of worthiness on the part of the black male members, but the lack of acceptance from other members.

Has this come up here before?? The idea that I got was that a couple of apostles had to die off before it would get approved. Something akin to that Benson quote at the first comment of cjane’s anti-feminism post. Perhaps it will take a few of the “old traditionalists” to pass away before men aquainted and supportive of women’s equality make up the apostleship entirely.

But that’s just a random theory. Mostly, this is my being sympathetic to my sisters here who are aching and puzzled. I’m comfortable with the Priesthood belonging to the brothers, buy I think there is something missing from the sisters.

Comment by ErinAnn — March 5, 2010 @ 9:01 pm
(”but”, not “buy”)

Comment by ErinAnn — March 5, 2010 @ 9:01 pm
erinann, i know! i cant find it either but i LOVED hearing that said out loud. it had to have been a churchwide thing… but was it conference? could it have been a random BYU fireside on BYUTV?

Comment by pdig — March 5, 2010 @ 9:05 pm
My answer to her would be “Maybe someday women/girls will have the Priesthood… we will have to wait and see.”

This is what I plan on telling my daughter if she asks such questions. That is the stance I hold and I don’t think anyone can logically refute that one day it MIGHT happen.

It is most definitely a hard thing to navigate.

Comment by April — March 5, 2010 @ 9:06 pm
This topic is one that’s close to my heart. My daughter is only 1 1/2, so I haven’t taught her much of anything church-related yet. On one hand, how can I teach her to be part of something that has caused me so much pain and cognitive dissonance? On the other hand, I know if she is not raised LDS, her relationship with all of her extended family will be severely affected. That seems like a lame reason to stay in a church that requires so much of its members, but there you go.

Having been in Primary for many years, I’m uncomfortable with the way a lot of doctrine is presented to children who so innocently just want to please their parents and teachers. I feel manipulative a lot of the time there, and I’m sure that feeling will be multiplied when it comes to my own child. I focus in my lessons mostly on teaching kids that God loves them, that they are special, and really basic stuff like that. But there is a lot of focus on family roles and following the prophet and other things that make me squirm a bit.

For example, for 20 years I was taught that the temple was the pinnacle of my relationship to God, like going there would be the most amazing spiritual experience of my life, like it was totally worth the mind-boggling sacrifices so many members make to go there. I prepared as much as I could, read all the GA books about the temple, took a temple prep class at BYU, etc. Instead, it has turned out to be an agonizing, uncomfortable, icky experience for me pretty much every time I’ve ever gone. And I went a LOT for a long time, trying to force myself to understand what all the hype was about, and believing that if I was obedient enough to keep going, at some point I would be rewarded with a spiritual experience there. I’ve since stopped going to the temple for anything except family ordinances because it makes me feel so awful inside that sometimes I can’t make it through a session without sobbing. I think it’s so emotional for me because it represents how so many of my expectations and efforts at doing what I thought Heavenly Father wanted me to do have left me feeling empty. How can I put my daughter through that? How can I perpetuate teachings that I don’t really believe in anymore?

Comment by Sofia — March 5, 2010 @ 9:13 pm
Personally, I’m seriously considering not giving permission for baptism for my children until I feel they truly can make an informed decision and not just do it because it is what the rest of the primary kids are doing…. I’ve even mentioned this to my husband (though he isn’t stoked about the idea.)

Next year my oldest son turns 8… I need to make up my mind really soon.

Comment by April — March 5, 2010 @ 9:23 pm
In either last General Conference or my Stake Conference someone spoke about how the general membership wasn’t ready for the black membership to receive the Priesthood until the time that it was granted. It was not a matter of worthiness on the part of the black male members, but the lack of acceptance from other members.

Perhaps it will take a few of the “old traditionalists” to pass away before men aquainted and supportive of women’s equality make up the apostleship entirely.

ErinAnn–I’m glad you find this comforting. I find it absolutely unacceptable–testimony-shattering, in fact. First of all, since when does the LDS church base its doctrines–which are presented to members as eternal–on what members are “ready” for? Were Emma Smith and the thousands of other women “ready” for polygamy? The idea that God would have to wait for certain apostles to die before He could reveal the way things really should be completely goes against the concept of revelation and Christ as the head of the church.

Maybe I just don’t understand how revelation works. But we generally place our prophets on par with Old Testament prophets, and we teach investigators that, just like God revealed the 10 commandments to Moses or warned Noah about the flood, He speaks to our prophet today about the most important things we need to know. How could He withhold that revelation–revelation which affects more than half the church membership–simply because of a particular apostle’s own prejudice?

Some people find change in the church to be comforting and hopeful. I find it to be a huge challenge to my faith, especially since the church never, ever admits that it made a mistake. The changes are presented as “new revelation” that God, for unknown reasons, has chosen to reveal–interestingly enough–about 15-50 years (sometimes more) after a social movement in the U.S. drew attention to the issue.

Comment by Sofia — March 5, 2010 @ 9:27 pm
Prophets are human. They just are. And I don’t think God would tell a prophet something that he won’t accept or tell others. I also don’t think he will give certain things to us when the leadership isn’t asking for it… or at least seeing it as a potential issue.

This is the only way, I have found, to retain my testimony. Prophets are in contact with God… but so are we through personal revelation, and they too are human. Sometimes big HUGE human… and just because their choices at times hurt people, it doesn’t mean they aren’t prophets. It just means they are human too. God doesn’t take away our agency and choice or our personal opinions and flaws either… any of us, this includes prophets.

Comment by April — March 5, 2010 @ 9:35 pm
sofia, we just talked about that a lot regarding this post in this post

Comment by pdig — March 5, 2010 @ 9:38 pm
Something i heard today and why the Church might not admit fault…. there are sometimes legal ramifications for doing so. Not that I think that makes it okay or morally right, just that it could be a huge deterrent for an organized religion to actually admit wrong. The Pope is similar, probably for similar reasons.

So you see it as a problem that Prophets might make big mistakes, yet you want the Church to own up to mistakes they have made? Maybe I’m reading it wrong… but that kind of seems to be wanting it both ways.

Comment by April — March 5, 2010 @ 9:39 pm
#14 Sofia,

I’m with you that it’s disturbing the church won’t admit a mistake after the fact, but I tend to see it not as God withholding revelation from man but that man, in all his imperfection, can be blinded enough by tradition, cultural and social prejudices, and the inertia of the status quo. It seems that once the number of people uncomfortable with the status quo reaches some sort of threshold there’s enough motivation and raise of consciousness for those prophets to start to think, “well, maybe we’re not right about this and we need to really ask the Lord”. Before that moment, it may be that those in the position to receive revelation for the church have other factors barring them from receiving that revelation (i.e. not a pure heart or real intent).

Hard to square it with the idea that God speaks to them in the same way as the Old Testament, since it seemed His voice was likely to boom truth onto those prophets regardless of how “ready” those prophets were. Could be my misreading or misunderstanding.

Comment by LDesque — March 5, 2010 @ 9:42 pm
Oy. Remove the “enough” from the first sentence in the first paragraph since I failed to remove it on my own.

Comment by LDesque — March 5, 2010 @ 9:44 pm
april, i like how you think

Comment by pdig — March 5, 2010 @ 9:53 pm
I get that prophets are human and that they understand things based on their own existing paradigms. But if you believe that God would reveal certain things if not for the prophet’s own bias, or that the prophet has misunderstood/refused to share/neglected to ask about certain issues, then doesn’t that raise a lot of questions about the legitimacy of prophets? Do we really need one, or could church policy simply be set by voting (who knows, maybe a lot of it already is)?

And you’re all right that I’m asking too much for the church to apologize for past mistakes. What I’m saying is this: I get it that we’re supposed to accept that the prophet is human and makes mistakes. But when changes to doctrine or policy or ordinances are billed as “new revelation,” it makes it seem like God has changed, and it leads people to make up their own justifications for why the change happened. Hence we have people who say blacks weren’t ready for the priesthood before 1978, or the general church membership wasn’t ready for it, or other equally absurd rationalizations. I just don’t buy the logic that God waits to reveal changes until we’re “ready” for it. There are too many radical aspects of Mormonism to believe that, and we’re too often told that we’re a peculiar people, separate from the world and all of tat.

Comment by Sofia — March 5, 2010 @ 9:53 pm
I’m not a mom but I do know a little about the brain of an 8 year old vs. a teenager. As children age, they begin to understand more about how the world is not so black and white. I’m not saying an 8 year old couldn’t grasp the complexity of the your issues with the church, but she might understand more as she gets older. Plus that could explain why she applied the concept of women and the priesthood to being the president. If you want to know more about that look up Piaget’s theory cognitive development and the stages.

When my issues with the church became more apparent I felt I had been lied to all along by my parents and church leaders. So it would probably be worth bring up at some point. It’s a very complicated issue and one I will have to address someday when I have children.

Comment by shannonj — March 5, 2010 @ 10:09 pm
why would it be absurd that God would allow the church to postpone giving the priesthood to blacks if the the people weren’t ready for it? would it have been better for the restoration to wait until we were less racist? are we good enough now? how good is good enough for the gospel? we sure aren’t perfect, but God is still trusting us with the gospel, and i am soooo glad about that. JS said that even people that sacrificed everything for the church could break apart like glass when asked to face new doctrine. it is hard to change, but i don’t blame the gospel, i blame individuals for not being ‘like children, easy to be entreated’. God told us the gospel won’t be lost again, and so it makes sense to me that we will get the truth as we are ready… am I misunderstanding your point sofia?

Comment by pdig — March 5, 2010 @ 10:10 pm
We have clear examples in teh OT (Moses is one) in which the prophet wanted to receive revelation, was ready to receive, but the people weren’t ready to live it…so they never heard it. Sad stuff. When Christ came and the Law of Moses was completed, it wasn’t because God changed..

I have a few daughters. The oldest being 13. I don’t have the same problems others do with the priesthood. I’ve never wanted it. I’ve always felt that God would give me whatever power was necessary for me to fulfill all he wanted me to do. It’s not really about what I want to become-it’s more of a hybrid of what the Lord wants me to become and what my unique talents and personality can bring to that…I teach my girls that sort of thing.

It’s never too early to teach children to pray about what they hear from the prophet or any church leader-you can easily explain it with nephi praying to know more about he tree of life dream his father had…or praying to know if they shoudl leave Jerusalem. Praying to understand what the prophet said is part of following God. The old missionary pray pattern included god choosing prophets and we can pray ourselves to know if what they say is true.

We can teach our daughters that God loves them…

We can teach our children what behavior is people being stupid-how some people treat women.

Comment by britt — March 5, 2010 @ 10:17 pm
My daughter was about four when she started asking these questions, fwiw.

I think ultimately our children need a solid foundation on which to build. When my children have these questions, I point them to the things on which a testimony is built. If they know God is there, that the BoM is true, the plan of salvation is real, the atonement is real, etc. and if they understand that mortality and walking by faith means that we won’t understand everything, then I think we can help equip them to face the many unknowns and questions that will come up in life.

I believe the more our children have experiences with the Spirit, the more they will be able to face whatever life throws at them. I think we all have to learn to let go of things that can stop our progress and the more our children see that that is possible, the better, imo.

So, my advice is whatever brings the Spirit, I would say help them focus on that. Share scriptures and words of the prophets that inspire you. Testify of what you DO know and feel and believe in. Read and pray together. Encourage them to establish their own personal spiritual habits. Build on whatever foundation you have, and don’t be afraid to admit that you don’t understand it all. But imo, the more we focus on faith rather than doubt, the more equipped they will be to sort through questions they may have. None of us has all the answers, but we can build on what we do know and help our children do the same.

I like this talk by Elder Holland. FWIW.

Comment by m&m — March 5, 2010 @ 10:20 pm
I have worried about some of the same things about my daughter. She has learned the gospel as taught in primary and now YW (as well at home) but we’ve always talked about the gray areas. Every sunday we ask all our kids what they learned and we turn it into a discussion looking at it from different angles. My daughter is 12 and she seems pretty opened minded to a lot of things and knows there are contradictions in what GA’s say. She also knows that when she hears different things taught to her that she questions, to pray about it. We have taught all our kids ( son included) to question and that it’s ok to question. Maybe the church doesn’t like that but that’s just how we are. I think she is strong and doesn’t buy into everything taught to her by her leaders and she’s open minded. I think it’s a day to day processes though.
Plus being married to a scientist, a lot of things are questioned.

Comment by Rink — March 5, 2010 @ 10:28 pm
another thought…and I know some may disagree… I think it’s potentially very dangerous to talk about what *might* happen and to build hopes in something that may never actually come to pass — you can’t gain a testimony of what might be, and if something doesn’t happen according to wishes and hopes, I think that could be really damaging to their faith.

Comment by m&m — March 5, 2010 @ 10:28 pm
Some of these comments have been very helpful. As I read through them I reaized that I have been strangely black and white about this–as if I have to come down on one side or the other with her.

It occured to me that I have never had a problem answering her regular life and school questions with “I don’t know” when I don’t. But on church issues I have felt (I suddenly see this about myself) like I HAVE to have AN answer and I have been looking for the right one rather than considering being honest enough to just tell her I dont have them all. It’s probably ot going to confuse her if I admit to not being all knowing. Right?

I appreciate hearing other people talk about the tortured memory of their own ex being children/young women in the church and trying to “deal” with some of it as they grew. I guess I was lucky my mother was they type she was (incidentally, she is the one who sent me the first link I ever followed to fMh).

Comment by Zaissa — March 5, 2010 @ 10:29 pm
It’s probably ot going to confuse her if I admit to not being all knowing. Right?

I think it’s empowering for them to see that we don’t have all the answers, because they can then be ok that they don’t, too. Faith is not about perfect knowledge and that is important for them to know.

p.s. What I meant by not being able to have a testimony of what might be, I mean things that aren’t taught by prophets - so we can have a testimony of the resurrection or the possibility of eternal life, but building a testimony on something like ‘women might get the priesthood someday’ to me can be very problematic.

Comment by m&m — March 5, 2010 @ 10:39 pm
As a side note, I have to admit, the mere discussion of women getting the priesthood seemed VERY radical to me, off the wall almost, until I started really paying attention this blog. (I have been reading Sunstone since I was a teenager, I have a million gay friends, but yes, for some reason, I thought talking abount women getting the priesthood was the a little on the extreme side. Go figure.)

That’s never been the make or break for me with the church, and I can echo some of the comments of people who said, “I am fine with not having it. It’s not that big of a deal for the guys to have.” But some of the more recent discussions have made me think it’s not about having it or not, but more about what not women having it implies about our roles in the church-worship-spirituality-even eternity.

But as far as my kid goes, it’s not all down to why women do or don’t get the priesthood but more the whole cuture that I wonder how to expose her to and get her to love while at the same time I feel a certain need to protect her from it.

Comment by Zaissa — March 5, 2010 @ 10:39 pm
Sofia, I think that the questions you directed at me were answered well by Britt and pdig.

As to your #12, I can relate with that. It bothers me to no end when people try to “simplify” or “distort” the gospel when teaching children. (Anytime, really, but particularly in Primary.) The basic Gospel of Jesus Christ IS simple and beautiful and easy to understand. If you’re still in Primary, or any other teaching capacity, the focus of your lesson should be “How will this help my class grow closer to Christ? How can I show that this testifies of Christ and His love for us?” That was always my approach in Gospel Doctrine and I really miss teaching that now.

When people start teaching cultural things in classes, that’s where I get annoyed. Mother/Father? How about thinking through basics like, “Does this child have an abusive father? Is she neglected by her mother? Is he being raised by his grandmother?” The hard truth is, you can neverknow for sure the kind of difficulties and suffering a member of your class may be in. Skip the culture discussions and just preach the gospel.

This is the same for teaching in our homes. What do you have a testimony of? Testify of that.

Comment by ErinAnn — March 5, 2010 @ 10:39 pm
Zaissa, “we don’t know why” has been a reasonably satisfactory answer for my daughter (now 11) who stood up on the pew during a baby blessing when she was about 4 and said (yelled, really) “hey, where are the mommies?” We’ve generally followed up lessons where the question of women and priesthood comes up with discussions of Adam’s “I know not why, save that the Lord has commanded…” and the 9th Article of Faith. I think kids are generally far more tolerant of ambiguity and uncertainty than we adults are. So much of life is still essentially mysterious to them.

Comment by Kristine — March 5, 2010 @ 10:43 pm
My daughter just got baptized a couple months ago. I was against it and still feel it was a bad idea. She really wanted to, so I let it go. We have been very open with our kids. We don’t preach a lot, but we talk about love, kindness and respect. We talk about our religion and other religions.
We took our kids to see part of the local gay pride parade and had a long talk before about how mom and dad disagreed with the church’s stance on homosexuality. We explained this was a day for local gay individuals to celebrate, even though they were still fighting lots of discrimination. The kids were fine with it. Kids understand a lot.

At my daughter’s baptism I told her we and her Heavenly Father and Mother love her. She said she didn’t believe in a Heavenly Mother or if she did she wasn’t very important because we would talk about her if she was. It killed me, but I said I believe and my daughter was like “I know, Mom.”

We present things to our children and allow them to figure it out, right now my son (almost 7) believes in reincarnation. Not sure why or how that came to be, but he is very direct about it. We try not to fix every “wrong” or “unMormon” idea and let them work through why they are attached to different ideas.

This works for us. I will try to explain the priesthood and other things as they come up, and I will not lie to my daughter and tell her something that makes me uncomfortable or I don’t believe. Most of these things I struggle with and I will let her know that. I will tell her what works for me and what doesn’t and then ask her what she thinks. As long as she is continually looking at her spirituality and trying to understand it I don’t worry too much about the nit picky stories and such.

Comment by miles — March 5, 2010 @ 10:45 pm
My daughters are grown. Here’s what worked for us.

Teach her how to recognize the Holy Ghost and it’s ability to testify of truth. Her ability to use that tool in her life will be essential as she sorts truth from error. Teach her how to love people who are imperfect and make mistakes. Teach her what you know and also be honest about what we don’t know. Help her understand black, white and gray in theology and when she’s old enough to think along those lines (usually doesn’t develop until a child is at least 10 years old) peacefully discuss those issues with her. Help her to have more and realistic confidence in the Lord. When she encounters the foibles of her leaders and peers teach her how to see them with both clearly and with compassion while peacefully maintaining her clarity of thought.

The grown women I know who navigate wisely the challenges you outline are women who learned these skills as children and teens.

Teach the skills. Give her the tools. Listen to her and counsel her wisely and she will create her own peaceful place with God amidst the different voices she hears in church.

Comment by mb — March 5, 2010 @ 11:02 pm
Miles,

In general I feel like I can be very open and honest with my daughter and let her choose her way. If I had been more on the ball (yes, big parenting fail here) and been exposing her/teaching her from the beginning she would have gotten a lot of this more slowly and naturally and I would not fee like opposing views/other things might be so cluttering or so likely to keep her from understanding church basics.

It’s the playing catch up AND trying to put all her questions together while teaching her what (shouldn’t be but are) new principles.

Comment by Zaissa — March 5, 2010 @ 11:06 pm
mb- thank you, that is very helpful. And it’s familiar somehow.

Comment by Zaissa — March 5, 2010 @ 11:08 pm
re 27 I guess the “what might happen” is what is a big part of what is keeping me in the Church sometimes because I truly do not believe that God loves me any less than my husband, or sees me as any less capable with regards to blessing my children. Right now I feel that if my husband can’t (or won’t) give my children a blessing that an honest prayer by me, in faith, asking for his blessing upon them will do just as well, especially when there are no other priesthood leaders available. I do not feel that I, nor my children, would be punished for this.

That being said, I guess probably the best course of action as far as the OP’s daughter is concerned is to tell her “I don’t know” and then to suggest she pray about it.

Comment by April — March 5, 2010 @ 11:10 pm
With my own eldest daughter turning 7 this year, I’m also thinking a lot about these types of questions coming up. Just yesterday, my 4 year old said that she wanted to marry my youngest daughter (baby) when she grows up. We all laughed, but then I asked her why? Her response was to think about her statement some more and then ask “Can girls marry girls?” I was completely caught off guard by the question and didn’t want to confuse her with a two-edged answer, so instead I asked her why she would want to. Her reply brought us back the issue of the fact that she loved her baby sister so much that she wanted to marry her.

Not the same topic, I know, but it made me realize that these questions are just around the corner. As far as women and the priesthood, if they are old enough to understand by the time they ask, I will give them my perspective of how it must have seemed impossibly unlikely that the Blacks would receive it, but they did - so to me, women and the priesthood seems like a possibility. It doesn’t mean that I am angry because I don’t currently have it, or that I am telling my daughters that it is a *someday* guarantee. I hope they will be old enough to understand it.

I recently shared my doctrinal understanding of these issues with a younger sister, and it helped me to put more thoughts and words into place about what I DO believe. Hopefully the more that I share and discuss, the more prepared I will be to share with my daughters.

Incidentally, it does help me to reconcile my testimony of the prophet to think that it isn’t that he CAN”T receive such a revelation, but that he has to be willing and prepared to ASK for it. That’s a perspective I hadn’t considered.

Comment by corktree — March 5, 2010 @ 11:16 pm
Sofia–

“How can I put my daughter through that? How can I perpetuate teachings that I don’t really believe in anymore?”

If you change this to “I don’t really KNOW what I believe anymore” and that is exactly what I was saying.

Comment by Zaissa — March 5, 2010 @ 11:19 pm
Like Jessica, I too believe that men truly need the priesthood. I had an interesting experience when I went to my stake president for my interview to get married in the temple. He also happened to be one of my most beloved English professors at BYU. I had not mentioned any concerns or even thoughts about women and the priesthood didnt really have any doubts about that and was happily focused on getting married to a man I loved. At one point however, he stopped the interview and became emotional as he told me that he wanted me to understand something special about women. He said that men were required to be ordained to the Melchezidec priesthood before they could enter it to recieve the temple covenants, while women could enter the temple and do the ordinances simply by being worthy. He found that to be very profoundly confirming of our inherent spiritual gifts and power. So in that way men do need the priesthood just to be able to do something we can already do without it.
While I felt sometimes left out as a young girl particularly of all the fun adventure and scouting things the boys did, many of my feelings on this issue have been re-formed by the experience of raising only boys. I have found that our children will pick up on our attitudes about things and not just the words we say. My boys occasionally ask me if boys or girls are better. It is inherent in our human natures to try to rank things as better or worse. I try to teach them that being equal does not mean being the same. I think the idea that our not having the priesthood makes us in any way inferior, less powerful, or influential is risky thinking and undermines our own ability to do, to bless and to achieve in a unique way.
I have struggled at times how to teach my boys about their opportunities to be righteous men and fathers. I see the great need for them to have a unique responsibility, a sense of purpose, divine identity, and an opportunity to serve. The priesthood is a beautiful gift to them and truly makes them better. I have been nothing but blessed to be married to a righteous priesthood holder. I see him become better every time he has the chance to use it to give a blessing, and I am blessed as he honors it.

Comment by Annie Cash — March 5, 2010 @ 11:32 pm
I also don’t think he will give certain things to us when the leadership isn’t asking for it… or at least seeing it as a potential issue.

This is a good point. Maybe no prophet has asked. In one of President Hinckley’s interviews, I remember him saying that the women of our church are happy with things the way they are. That’s not to knock President Hinckley. Maybe that’s how he saw things.

I like m&m’s comment 25, too. Those are the same things I hold to: the Book of Mormon, plan of salvation, eternal family, Holy Ghost. The gospel offers so many wonderful things. For me, the BofM is really the rock of my testimony, though. I just finished it again this week and read Elder Holland’s talk from this last conference afterward. Powerful stuff.

I also loved mb’s advice.

Overall, relating to the priesthood, I am starting to think that the afterlife looks very different from a lot of what we know on earth. I suspect that after we die, we’ll laugh at ourselves for how seriously we took that little bit of authority. Not “we” as in feminists, but “we” as in everyone, and particularly men who use priesthood to exercise other authority. I almost expect Heavenly Father to say, “I give you this tiny, tiny bit of my authority to perform a few key functions, and look what you do. Blow it up into this huge mess to gain power”. And that’s not just now at the restoration. I am thinking from Adam and Eve. Anyways, those are just some of my thoughts lately.

Comment by Stephanie — March 5, 2010 @ 11:32 pm
corktree-

I don’t think your example was off point at all. That’s just it, sometimes they ask bigger questions than can be answered in kid words, esp when it will confuse the REAL point of whatever it is they are trying to learn.

On other things, I am pretty good at having pretty open conversations but when it comes to this one, I feel like I might be leading her astray imposing my own docterinal interpretations on her.

And like I said in a comment earlier, talking about women and the priesthood is an area I am new to. And this is, to me, a valid dialogue when done responsibly with bigger, badder concepts and hisorical insights in mind but to me it seems shaky ground to conquer with a kid, since there is the danger of sending the message that we get to pick and choose what we like about what the prophets have preached.

I am leaning on the side of “I don’t know the answer” answer for her right now I think. With some additional things that people have suggested on this thread (really guys…gals..thankyou. I can’t respond to them all but I have gotten a good idea from nearly every comment on here about how to work with her.)

Ahhhh…if I had known how hard this was ganna be I would have just gotten a puppy.

Comment by Zaissa — March 5, 2010 @ 11:33 pm
“Ahhhh…if I had known how hard this was ganna be I would have just gotten a puppy.”

ME TOO!!!!

Comment by April — March 5, 2010 @ 11:40 pm
Nah, the rewards of a puppy don’t compare to the rewards of a kid.

Comment by Stephanie — March 5, 2010 @ 11:46 pm
Yes, but puppies can be potty trained within weeks. And my puppy is adorable.

Comment by that1girl — March 5, 2010 @ 11:49 pm
Stephanie-
“Overall, relating to the priesthood, I am starting to think that the afterlife looks very different from a lot of what we know on earth. I suspect that after we die, we’ll laugh at ourselves for how seriously we took that little bit of authority.”

No doubt. I totally agree. And I really didn’t mean the whole thing to be specific to women and the priesthood because overall I think your point is so dead on.

When I was in kindergarten, there were kids who were designated the “Ewoks” for the week–which meant they got to pass out the scissors and glue. Gosh we fought and fought over who got to be the ewok and now looking back…someone just needed to get the glue. NO BIG DEAL. Seems like such a stupid fight now, and I am sure in heaven it wil be like “we needed the blessings, why were we so worried about who gave them?”

But if my Kindergarten teach Mr. Livingston (yes I had a male kindergarten teacher in the 80s) were to say only white kids could be Ewoks, it wouldn’t be really about who could deliver the glue but the message sent to the class would be kind of a big deal.

I used to only see the priesthood and men only as just a “someone needs to do it, doesn’t matter who” kind of a thing. But I am now thinking more about the message it sends rather than the justness of it. I mean it’s not that I mind NOT having it. I just wonder about what the means to members and what it should mean.

Comment by Zaissa — March 5, 2010 @ 11:51 pm
but puppies don’t backtalk!!!

Comment by April — March 5, 2010 @ 11:52 pm
Re 45 - I hope so. Because we are getting a puppy from Lawyer Lady in a couple of weeks. Now, if I could just interest my 3 year old in the potty at all . . .

Comment by Stephanie — March 6, 2010 @ 12:01 am
Zaissa, yeah, but I think it’s more than that, too. To extend your analogy, I think it would be like the Ewok then saying, “Well, since I am the Ewok, I also decide what you eat for lunch and when you eat it, and you need to ask me for permission before you use the restroom”. Those things are totally not under the stewardship of an Ewok, but because he/she has some semblance of authority, if he/she exerted it and everyone else said, “Well, okay, the teacher made you the Ewok. Maybe that means you should tell us what to do about everything else”. Then a whole power system is set up when your teacher is really just saying, “Hey, kid, I need someone to pass out scissors and glue”.

Am I taking it too far? I am tired and need to get to bed.

Comment by Stephanie — March 6, 2010 @ 12:09 am
I think what you have to keep in mind is that you want a trusting relationship with your daughter. When she’s a teen and it really counts what you’ll draw on is the trust you build now.

So my advice would be don’t tell her anything you don’t really believe in your heart and soul. She’s your daughter and the future. Don’t turn yourself into a pretzel to deliver any “right” answers. If the answer is “I don’t know” or “I’m trying to understand that too” then don’t give her doctrine. Give her the truth.

She’ll learn that she can trust you and she’ll learn that life has ambivalent situations. But, mostly, she’ll learn to trust her own curiosity and resources to figure things out. Hopefully, your church will be where she finds her answers. But if the only answers your church has make her compromise her own intelligence and spirit it seems like a betrayal to cut her knees out from under her at this early stage in her becoming a person.

Comment by Withheld — March 6, 2010 @ 12:10 am
Yeah, that’s why I prefer trees to people. If the tree doesn’t do what you wanted it to, despite your best efforts at fertilization, pest control, and pruning- you just cut it down and have a niiiice bonfire

Comment by Jessica — March 6, 2010 @ 12:14 am
Here is what makes sense in my mind right now. I will state baldly that I have NO backup from scriptures, general authorities, nada. It’s just my own little mind. But to me it is interesting.

*In general* a male mode of thinking is hierarchical, linear, with emphasis on authority. To give men *in general* a mode of accessing the power of righteousness, the power of God, “in their own language,” so to speak, it therefore makes sense for them to be given a hierarchical structure for that power, complete with ordinations and lineages and offices. Look in myth and literature. When a male hero finds his power, it’s very often in a sword handed down from a previous hero, or learning who his father is, or something like that.

Conversely, a feminine mode of thinking is *in general* more group-oriented, non-linear, and egalitarian. For women *in general* to grasp the same idea of the power of righteousness, it may not be necessary or even useful to have the same structure. Female heroes (more in modern books than in myth and old lit, but that’s cool in my way of thinking … I tend to read through a really Jungian lens, so it all comes from the same place, perhaps, whether it’s 1000 years old or 1) tend to find their power from where? Within, or something they had all along.

I won’t beat that over the head any more

Comment by Ana — March 6, 2010 @ 12:47 am
Ana #52 - What you said is absolutely awesome! Thank you!

Comment by Kajabada — March 6, 2010 @ 1:43 am
My twin daughters are 8. One is autistic, the other is not. The one who is not is a very deep thinker with an intuitive grasp of the underlying issues involved in almost any discussion we get into. As a non-Mormon, I’ve picked a church in which the equality of women is a given and has been for decades, now. But even so, my daughter recognizes the inequalities she sees in society around her. She readily picks up on things like the fact that we’ve yet to have a woman President of the United States, and that men still hold the majority of major roles in society. I see the wounded look come into her eyes when she questions why it is different for girls than for boys, and why women seem to have to work harder to get to the same place.

We’ve watched movies together about the Women’s Suffrage Movement, and she’s been appalled to see how bad things were back then, but glad to know how far we’ve come in such a short amount of time.

I would not try to hide any of this stuff from her, because, whenever she encounters it (and it WILL be sooner than later), she will suffer. And she will suffer more if I’ve not prepared her for how things are and bolstered her to believe in how things can be and should be and will be as we progress into the future.

But I cannot imagine having to explain to her that somehow the very God we believe in might possibly think less of her than of her male cousins. That would be a tough one to get through, and I’m really, really glad I don’t have to go there.

Whatever you do, though, I’d recommend placing the blame for inequality squarely on the shoulders of the human beings who perpetuate it, lest she develop the idea that, either women are ACTUALLY inferior in some way to men, or that GOD truly does value women less than men.

I realize there are some gray areas between those ideas, but children are very literal, and are apt to personalize the things they encounter as being about them, about who they are and about their own personal worth. It’s really important to make sure they understand that, while everything may not be as it should be at the present time, that this fact is due to human fallibility, and not to an uncaring God or some insufficiency in your daughter.

Comment by Lorian — March 6, 2010 @ 1:43 am
Regarding these issues of civil and religious equity, I have observed that during Christ’s ministry (or the portion that we have recorded), he seemed to work within the context of the existing society and their norms. He didn’t advocate for freeing the slaves, destroying the class system or ‘liberating’ women from their traditional roles. Twenty years ago, I asked a black sister missionary about the priesthood issue. She said she had gone to the Lord and He told her that the current membership wasn’t ready for it yet.

Perhaps someone else who better understands this issue has insight?

Comment by Wyoming — March 6, 2010 @ 3:19 am
#10 - pdig, It must have been conference. I haven’t watched any other broadcasts that I can think of. I don’t have cable.

I will look for it.

Comment by ErinAnn — March 6, 2010 @ 3:42 am
The conversation my mother remembers having with me, years ago, involved her trying to explain that men and women were different and, as such, often had different responsibilities. My response (apparently) was to point out, “girlish is not less”. And it isn’t. As adults, a lot of our discussions of church doctrine are, I think, overshadowed by the political cloud of segregation. It’s hard to talk about “separate but equal” without feeling disingenuous.

It’s tough, talking to kids, because on one hand they’re highly perceptive, but on the other hand they’re also highly literal. The trick, I think, is to explain concepts in terms they can readily understand–that aren’t confusing and, therefore, scary. The fact is, anti-feminist messages are all around us–just watch Disney’s “Beauty and the Beast”. The underlying theme behind this “romantic” story is that if you love an abusive creep enough, he’ll change! Hundreds of thousands of women have certainly internalized this message.

The answer, though, isn’t to ban Disney (at least, I don’t think so), but to be an active parent. Don’t ruin your child’s movie watching experience by giving a blow-by-blow account of why its plot is drivel; DO lead by example. I may be naive, but I think the biggest influence on kids is their own parents’ words and deeds. If you raise your child in an environment where she sees that women can be and do whatever they want, and are treated with respect, regardless of their opinions, or the choices she makes, as she gets older, she’ll learn to filter all the BS she sees and hears through that lens.

Comment by CJ — March 6, 2010 @ 7:30 am
A woman’s ability to create life is a divine attribute. Man may have the priesthood but for me, being able to give life trumps that. A man will never be able to do the things that I can - for a reason, I think.

Just because I can’t baptize someone doesn’t mean that I can’t play an equally important role in their salvation. Just because I can’t have the same callings that a man can doesn’t make mine any less important. Different does not always mean unfair or unequal.

Comment by Nonanon — March 6, 2010 @ 7:43 am
Ana #52 and Wyoming #55 - interesting thoughts.

Comment by Stephanie — March 6, 2010 @ 8:45 am
Maybe LDS culture opposes equality of the sexes, but LDS doctrine is deeply in line with it.
We associate power with authority over others and a George Bush-like ‘I’m the decider’ role. But the priesthood does not give you power to control others, it only gives you opportunities to serve. It’s like those ‘important’ callings of bishop or relief society president- you don’t get to boss people around, you only look after their needs.
While men and women may perform different roles, their goals and expectations are exactly the same, and I know of no other place where that is true.

Comment by jane — March 6, 2010 @ 9:02 am
I’d take her to the Unitarian church.

Comment by Nonanestonite — March 6, 2010 @ 9:43 am
My oldest was baptized last year, and I’ve thought a lot about helping him develop his own testimony, while at the same time preparing him to deal with the things I’ve struggled with.

I try to be honest with him about how I feel. I make sure he knows that I love the gospel, and how strongly I feel about the plan of salvation, and the other things that I have a firm testimony of. I also talk to him about the things I am not sure about, and make sure he knows that it’s okay to not have all the answers.

Looking at your concerns from the other side, I’m trying really hard to show and teach my boys that having the priesthood doesn’t make them better than girls, or mean that Heavenly Father loves them more. I’ve also told them that we don’t know why only boys have the priesthood right now.

I had a really hard time when I first realized things were not as simple as church culture makes it out to be. I think it’s good to teach kids that we don’t have all the answers, and that it’s okay not to, helps prepare them for dealing with difficult things they face later. It just does feel hard to do it without damaging testimonies at a time when they’re just developing.

Comment by Alliegator — March 6, 2010 @ 11:03 am
Lots of interesting comments have been posted since I ran out last night to pick my husband up from the airport.

Withheld (50), I think you give very sound advice.

Stephanie (49), your ewok analogy was spot on, in my mind. It really isn’t so much that I personally want the priesthood, it’s that it symbolizes so much for me about my role within what we’re taught is “God’s restored church.” Most of the justifications I’ve heard about women and the priesthood just don’t hold water, in my opinion. They usually fall into one of the following categories:

1) Men get the priesthood; women get to have babies. So it’s even or, if anything, a better deal for women. Well, there are many, many women who never have babies. Having a baby is not predicated on your personal righteousness. And, as someone who had a horrendous pregnancy and childbirth experience, I do not feel it was at all a privilege to go through it. I’m really glad I have my daughter now, but my husband has just as close a relationship with her as I do–and he has the priesthood on top of that.

2) Men need the priesthood; women don’t. Besides insulting men’s spirituality, this theory is messed up. If priesthood is some sort of spiritual rehab for men that women don’t need because we’re already so good without it, then why not put us in charge of things? Or, if you say “men need the priesthood” not because they’re spiritually deficient but because they naturally need hierarchy and linear order, that still doesn’t make sense to me. Why should the male way of thinking dominate a church with a majority female membership?

3) It’s really not that big a deal; sort of like with the ewoks passing out the glue, someone just needs to run things. This to me cheapens the priesthood. On one hand, we say it’s the power by which the universe was created. We tell stories about miraculous healings through priesthood blessings. On the other hand, we say it’s not really that big a deal, that a prayer works just as well as a blessing, etc. Well, I don’t think you can have it both ways. Either the priesthood is an amazing power that God recognizes as authorized to seal families together, invoke healings, and conduct saving ordinances, or it’s not that big a deal and it shouldn’t bother us that 12-year-old boys have it and we don’t.

4) Some women feel they have always been listened to by ward and stake leaders, that they have plenty of leadership opportunities through the auxiliaries in which they serve, etc. I’m really glad for you, but it’s not just culture that places men above women, it’s actual church doctrine (as evidenced by the fact that all the non-priesthood groups are called “auxiliaries” and the requirement for a certain number of MALE members in order to organize a new ward or stake). All women’s callings in the church are to be performed “under the direction of a priesthood (male) leader.” This is made very clear in all church manuals.

Comment by Sofia — March 6, 2010 @ 11:06 am
Sophia in #12 wrote:

On the other hand, I know if she is not raised LDS, her relationship with all of her extended family will be severely affected. That seems like a lame reason to stay in a church that requires so much of its members, but there you go.

From my nonMormon perspective…

The thread about wearing pants to church highlighted to me the degree of social and familiar pressure that exists within the LDS church to conform. I found that thread shocking.

If the simple act of wearing pants is met with such disapproval and the social pressures are such that women find the act of wearing pants difficult to do, then I can only imagine the social pressures to conform in terms of how you raise your children.

I don’t think your reason is lame; it is, unfortunately, a significant consideration when there is pressure to conform and consequences if you choose not to. IMO, it is that pressure to conform that is what’s lame.

Comment by barmy stoat — March 6, 2010 @ 11:11 am
You say it’s not fair and give exames where people had faith in unfair circumstances. Blacks ect

Comment by Cz — March 6, 2010 @ 11:22 am
In 58, Nonanon wrote:

A woman’s ability to create life is a divine attribute.

Or maybe it’s just a biological thing… like how females of all the other thousands of species (that reproduce sexually) that can have babies.

Comment by barmy stoat — March 6, 2010 @ 11:24 am
Stephanie-

No I don’t think your addition to the Ewok analogy takes it too far. I would say it’s about right.

So I guess maybe the problem of some kids not getting to be Ewoks would not be such a big issue if the class culture understood that the cutting and gluing was the important part and we all got to do that.

So- focus my daughter on the cutting and gluing and tell her being an Ewok isn’t as important as all that? AS long as we all get the supplies we need to do the work together?

Comment by Zaissa — March 6, 2010 @ 11:42 am
When I said “All women’s callings in the church are to be performed ‘under the direction of a priesthood (male) leader,’” I forgot to add that this includes the calling of mother, which numerous GAs have called “the highest, noblest calling” in the world. The Proclamation on the Family states that fathers preside in the home. Also, true story: on my wedding day, during the temple ceremony, the sealer (a family friend who I had always respected and whose marriage I had always thought a good one to emulate) said, “Today a new quorum is being formed, with you (my husband) as president and you (me) as first counselor.” [My roommates looked at me in horror when he said that]. So much for marriage being an equal partnership.

Comment by Sofia — March 6, 2010 @ 11:51 am
Wow, Sofia. Some sealers say weird things. My first one could *not* get my name right. I should have taken that as a sign…

Comment by ErinAnn — March 6, 2010 @ 12:19 pm
Sofia, your post #63 is excellent!

Comment by Daniel — March 6, 2010 @ 12:33 pm
Sofia-

You made some good points in number 63 about the whole discussion and the meaning of women NOT having the priesthood. It’s not that we have priesthood envey. I think the case of the Ewok analogy is true, that it’s OK for men to be the ones who perform the tasks so long as it’s not used to say they are the “rulers” and that our particiapation is equal to thiers. (agreed the analogy cheapens it, but it is just an analogy for the dispensing of something, not the importance of the thing being dispensed). It’s not that they have it and we don’t, it’s what it implies that they have it and we don’t, and how the culture has evolved around this. I sometimes wonder if women not having the priesthood is a symptom of the gender biases that prevail in the church, or if women not having it is the reason for those biases.

As I said, my whole concern with my daughter was not just explaining the priesthood but dealing with the whole culture–esp where docterine and culture are so meshed it is hard to seperate without treading on telling her it’s ok to pick and choose which parts of doctrine she likes. Because I think there is a difference between trying to determine which things are actual doctrine, and which things are not and picking and choosing from doctrine that is doctrine what we like and don’t like. I think for the most part, as feminists, we are not searching for what we want to hear but we are trying to find the truth and we feel deeply that the truth is we are equally loved and valued by the Lord and deserve equal happiness and respect and the dialogue is about how not to let church doctrine or culture be interpreted to tell us differently. But again, HOLY BIG CONCEPTS for 8 year olds, who, as someone pointed out are just growing testimonies and trying to learn the value of all of this, before it should be diminished for them by “well there is some bad/no so right stuff here too” being thrown at them.

Comment by Zaissa — March 6, 2010 @ 12:47 pm
Barmy Stoat (#64)– You know, although you have ruffled a few tail feathers in the past, I can actually see where you are coming from. From a non-member perspective, the trouser conversation and all that must make you want to bash your head against the wall. It must make you wonder why why why we grapple with this intead of just see the light and walk away from and institution that sometimes treats us like second class and sometimes makes us feel this way. Sometimes I see a story about a plygamist family and hear about young girls getting forced into marriage and I think “How could her stupid mother LET that happen???????” I think you must hear us talk about how scary it would be to wear pants to church and think “you must be kidding. DONT GO THERE THEN!”

But that’s just it, this stuff here is not ALL the church is to us.We are all smart, strong women who (I think I can speak for every woman I have met here) COULD walk away if we choose, could thumb our noses, we aren’t scared to. We are not forced to be here. We are not struggling to get any shackles off. We are here because we believe the no pants at church thing, and some of the other things we are talking about, are parts of the culture that have gone wrong and we are calling foul but not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Because we (most of we I think) also believe that we have learned real enternal truths here that do mean we are valued by our Father in Heaven, and do give our lives meaning, purpose..etc. We believe there is something very precious for us here and we are not willing to walk away from it because of some of the people who are messing up some parts of the culture. So we have a forum to vent about, and talk about improving the culture. I assure you, most of us are “real” feminists and you don’t have to beat your heads wishing we would see the light. We see it.

and someone in (#61)– (Read comment above) If only it were that easy. Actually, I welcome her exposure to other religions. Her step mother takes her to her church often, and I myself joke that I am “half-Methodist” considering I spent many Sunday for 18 years in Methodist Bible school. But ultimately a total change in religious philosophy is not the answer here, because this gender stuff is only a small part of what I feel I have been entrusted to teach her about her existence in the universe.

Lorian in (#54) — I am so with you on everything. When dealing with the rest of the world, it sounds like our daughters’ minds are pretty similar and our way of instructing them too.

And I don’t feel compelled to ever say that it is even possible that God values her less than her male cousins. I feel quite confident in saying “no way” to that. It’s just all those tricky grey areas.

Overall, I guess my problem is that I goofed and didn’t teach my daughter well enough from the get - go. So now, talking to her about this stuff, it’s like tryin to get a non-member feminist to undertand why feminist members would bother to deal with this. I am looking for a way (and I think I have gotten some good guidance here on that way) to help her to understand all those reasons I just listed for us girls sticking around this here church, despite all the reasons some people think we should run screaming from it.

Comment by Zaissa — March 6, 2010 @ 1:18 pm
I can’t help but think that at least part of the problem with the “sexism” inherent in discussions of the priesthood is due to a misperception of the priesthood itself as some magical, mystical power such as one might see emanating from the fingers of Yoda.

What if “the priesthood” really has always simply meant what most (secular) dictionaries say it means: “a priest’s position: the official role, position, or office of a priest”, or “priests as a group”?

What if there is nothing magical about it. A person does not “hold” the priesthood anymore than you can “hold” your neighborhood or a brotherhood. Rather, the “hood holds you” insofar as you are a recognized member of the group.

Anciently, when someone (anyone) was needed to set up and take down the tabernacle, sweep out the sand, slit the throats of the animals, burn incense so it didn’t stink too bad, wipe up the yuck, refill the oil lamps, move the heavy Ark of the Covenant when the head guy wanted to redecorate, etc. – well, a simple solution was a division of labor: different tribes got different assignments, arbitrarily (by casing lots). Levi’s kids pulled the short straw and got the assignment to help with the tabernacle.

And because the mechanization described in Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle had not yet been invented, and it took a muscular physique to heft even a young bullock carcass, men rather than women were “called” (not to mention the obvious sexism and patriarchalism of the ancients).

Today, the assignment to clean the Church building and the Temples is rotated among Wards and Stakes. Both men and women participate, using mechanized tools that make it easier. If we want, we could call the assigned Ward or Stake a brotherhood of cleaners (“the Cleanerhood”) without invoking any supernatural, electro-magnetico-radioactive-like power they must magically possess in order to clean the buildings.

Perhaps as we back off of the metaphysical embellishments and magical accoutrements that have adhered like barnacles to the idea of “priesthood,” we can stop focusing on the people involved and instead see the true power in the ordinances themselves.

After all, it was the blood of the sacrifice itself that had the cleansing power, not the person killing the sacrifice. That is why priests had to offer a sin offering for themselves first of all! And when Moses and Aaron forgot that the ordinances were not about WHO performed them, but about the meaning of the ordinances per se, God was not pleased – he denied Moses from going into the promised land, and he took Aaron’s life (see Numbers 20:12 & 22-29).

And if this is so, why withhold the opportunity/responsibility/honor/challenge of performing ordinances from any willing person on the basis of their gender?

Comment by Daniel — March 6, 2010 @ 1:37 pm
That was great, Daniel! Thank you. I hadn’t quite thought of it in those terms.

Comment by ErinAnn — March 6, 2010 @ 1:45 pm
Thank you Daniel.

I know there are grey areas, there is no harm in saying “I don’t know”, or “I don’t understand that but I know God loves all of his children”…I’m hoping in all your teaching there is a HUGE healthy dose of faith, repentance, Baptism, Holy ghost…Jesus.

When we really look at the life of Christ, there is nothing there that we would need the priesthood to follow and do-to try to be like. We have no record of Christ baptizing people himself. Healing doesn’t have to be solely a priesthood function-prayer and faith and nurturing go a long way there.

How did Jesus lead and preside? His example, his teachings and
He washed the disciples feet.

He did suffer and die for us, but the priesthood wouldn’t help a man do that-only His sinless, perfect life. His Godhood allowed that…not his maleness, not his priesthood…

I don’t want to dismiss the real feelings some have and real experiences with “leaders” who have not read Doctrine and Covenants 121 recently and mistake power for control. It’s not like priesthood gives a man power to do whatever he wants-it’s a very small sphere. I don’t know ANY good men who seek positions of WANT to be Bishop or anything of the sort.

It just reminds me of one of the stories my mom told me about the San diego temple open house..The stake president had not signed himself up for any particular volunteer asig
nment…but he would show up frequently and my mom remembers one day when it was raining he spent hours giving each of the people helping with parking a break and a chance to come in and warm up (it was almost 50-San Diego horror!). That is servant leadership. We can all do that…

Comment by britt — March 6, 2010 @ 2:15 pm
I have noticed a lot of talk lately about how we as feminists are supposed to rationalize certain parts of LDS doctrine and culture that seem to contradict feminism.

Thats an interesting way to frame the issue, i.e. that LDS doctrine and culture needs to be rationalized to fit feminism, rather than feminism being rationalized to fit LDS doctrine and culture. If the two conflict, which wins out (speaking of doctrine, since I’m pretty sure I know what the answer will be if we are talking about culture)?

Comment by WJ — March 6, 2010 @ 2:28 pm
WJ, for me, the gospel wins out. But, I agree with what jane said:

Maybe LDS culture opposes equality of the sexes, but LDS doctrine is deeply in line with it.

I think the core doctrine and Christ’s teachings are egalitarian. I hold to those things.

Re Zaissa 67 - This is how I feel and what I plan to teach my kids (spoken to their level): God (who includes both Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother, but sometimes we refer to them collectively as God, or Elohim, which is plural) has a lot of power and authority. While we are on the earth, He (again referring to both) will give us a little bit of authority here and there to accomplish the work we need to accomplish. The word we use for that authority on this earth is the priesthood. Deacons have enough priesthood to do the work assigned to them. The prophet holds all the keys that are currently given on the earth. But, he does not have all of God’s authority. Only what he needs to run the church. In the temple, some women are given the priesthood to perform the works that need to be done there.

Outside of the temple, why does the Lord give the priesthood to men and not to women? I don’t know. Why did he decide to assign it that way? I don’t know.

But, I do believe that it doesn’t mean anything more than He is doing what is expedient for the work to be done. I do think that men on the earth have made it a bigger deal than it is as a way to control women and gain power. Don’t you dare ever think that. Women will become Gods the same as you and will have all the same authority in heaven, so don’t go thinking that you’re something special because of the work the Lord has given you to do.

/Lecture to kids

No, it doesn’t answer why men have the priesthood and not women, but I feel it puts the priesthood into a more proper perspective.

Comment by Stephanie — March 6, 2010 @ 3:29 pm
Dear Daughter,

There’s a lot of stuff in this church of ours that doesn’t make any sense. There’s also lots of stuff in this great big world of ours that doesn’t make any sense. Most explanations are just people trying to understand and make some sense of things, but none of those explanations are complete or very satisfying to me, so I’ve just decided to recognize that things don’t make any sense and leave it at that.

Love, Mama

Comment by Amy Lindsay — March 6, 2010 @ 3:31 pm
I’ve said this before, but the hardest thing for me is the temple. However, the temple has made changes, so I assume that more changes are coming. In the meantime, I hold fast to the things I know to be true.

Comment by Stephanie — March 6, 2010 @ 3:31 pm
Daniel #73 - The “it’s all about practical service and who is best-suited to performing that service” explanation only works if you can actually point to priesthood duties that only men are capable of performing, and which women would be notably unable to perform to the same standards.

Your point about hefting heavy bullocks is well-taken, but there are two problems with it, so far as I can see.

One is that women of the Levitical period of Judaism were not spared heavy-lifting chores in other parts of their day-to-day lives. They helped with farm work and slaughter and with the butchering and cooking of large animals. Nor were they spared the dirty work of cleaning up after they helped slaughter animals. The fact that they weren’t permitted to perform these chores in the Temple did not mean that the men were being chivalrous and assigning tasks involving back-breaking labor only to men because men’s backs are strong, but that women were considered ritually unclean for one week out of every four and again for weeks or even months surrounding the birth of a child. They weren’t allowed to come near the Temple during those periods of ritual “uncleanness.”

We know better now. Women are not unclean simply because we bleed.

The other point is that, even if it WERE all about the heavy-lifting, there is nothing in the duties of the priesthood today which involves work which is physically (or psychologically) beyond the capabilities of women. There are no heavy bullocks being slaughtered or lifted or dragged about in the Temple ceremonies in LDS Temples.

When people talk about (a la the “Ewok” analogy) how the priesthood is simply a way of serving the needs of others, and not something to be “grasped at” by women who misperceive it as “power,” it sounds disingenuous to me, because this explanation completely bypasses the fact that the men aren’t just carrying glue to the cutters and pasters. They are deciding who is to do the cutting, who is to do the pasting, when and where the cutting and pasting is to be done, and exactly what is to be cut out and pasted together in what order. The Ewoks, in this case, are more than just glue carriers. They are the decision-makers who control the entire process from start to finish.

There IS a difference.

Comment by Lorian — March 6, 2010 @ 5:13 pm
And, IMO, there is nothing wrong with women WANTING the priesthood. It doesn’t mean you are selfish or disobedient or unwilling to submit to the will of God. It is nothing to be ashamed of. When one group of people has, essentially, complete control over how another group lives its life — when one group is assigned the role of making all decisions for the other group, there is a power differential akin at the very least to that of parent and child, and, at worst, to slave vs. owner.

Women have broken through the barriers which formerly kept them out of the decision-making processes in our society (and most other societies on the face of the planet). The fact that women are still kept out of the decision-making bodies of large religious bodies, such as the LDS Church, the Roman Catholic Church and a few other conservative religious bodies, is counterintuitive for women in today’s society. We KNOW now that we ARE capable, intelligent, and very well able to see to the running and directing of large organizations. We know, too, that we are as beloved of God and have as much relationship to God as our brothers. So it would appear, not that GOD has a reason for keeping us in a position of subservience to our brothers, but rather, our brothers, themselves, who do not choose to share the control with us or allow us to take the reins.

Comment by Lorian — March 6, 2010 @ 5:25 pm
#81 yep, that’s why you say “it’s not fair and not right”, but along with that there is faith. IS it worth it to wait for justice? Each person must make the choice.Children are smart. Trying to make girls think that there is another reason, just causes them way more problems when they grow up.

Comment by cz — March 6, 2010 @ 6:17 pm
Maybe its’ me but the argument that women can give birth and men can’t as a source of comfort and reason as to why woman should be grateful for not having the priesthood simply does not resonate with me. Simarially, the fact that woman can go to temple to receive their own endownment without having to be ordained a priesthood leader is really not a valid argument for or against women having priesthood either.

I think I have a problem with this issue and the arguments that have followed , because no matter how you look at it Priesthood means authority. Authority to rule in the home, Authority to rule in the church. Authority which is some cases means that people and not just men can justify abusing that authority simply by quoting the Bible, BOM, pearl of great price, and D&C as a means to justify what they are doing and saying. because scripture tells them they are right.

I’m not sure what or how I would respond to my daughters with respect to this issue. I feel badly for parents who have children and need to reconcile the facts without having to sound hypocritical to their own sense of what is right vrs the church doctrine. This has been an interesting post

Comment by Diane — March 6, 2010 @ 6:23 pm
I don’t think authority has the same connotation in and out of the lds church. I think it’s a first-shall-be-last-and-the-last-shall-be first situation, where positions of leadership mean duty and responsibility without conferring any power. I think a woman can be the primary decision maker in a home, while her spouse ‘presides,’ because presiding doesn’t have much to do with giving orders.

Comment by jane — March 6, 2010 @ 9:09 pm
Always assure her of your love and concern but I would tell her that it’s not up to you or me or her how Christ runs his church.

Comment by winifred — March 6, 2010 @ 9:52 pm
Which, winifred, will imply to her that Christ is sexist and doesn’t value female members as much as male. That’s not a Christ that I, as a woman, would want to devote my life to serving. I hope that zaissa’s daughter will grow up with a concept of Christ that is much more loving and much more concerned for the well-being of both the men and the women in his care.

If Christ is the one making the racist and sexist decisions in the church, then I’m way, way, wayyyyyy off the mark and had better convert to Buddhism. Because that’s just not the kind of God I serve.

Comment by Lorian — March 7, 2010 @ 12:16 am
They are deciding who is to do the cutting, who is to do the pasting, when and where the cutting and pasting is to be done, and exactly what is to be cut out and pasted together in what order. The Ewoks, in this case, are more than just glue carriers. They are the decision-makers who control the entire process from start to finish.

You’ve got a point there, Lorian.

So it would appear, not that GOD has a reason for keeping us in a position of subservience to our brothers, but rather, our brothers, themselves, who do not choose to share the control with us or allow us to take the reins.

And here.

Priesthood means authority. Authority to rule in the home, Authority to rule in the church.

I don’t think priesthood means authority to rule. I think it means authority to officiate. Officiate means act in an official capacity in a ceremony or religious ritual, such as a wedding; perform duties attached to a particular office or place or function

Ruling implies that the person with the priesthood calls the shots. Officiating implies that the person who granted the priesthood calls the shots.

I agree that the way priesthood authority is used in the church is often in a ruling manner - and that this seems to be the “norm”. I don’t think this is God’s will at all.

However, is it possible for the Lord to have introduced the priesthood under certain conditions, and man to have warped that? I think so.

Comment by Stephanie — March 7, 2010 @ 12:43 am
I just want to know what FMH thinks of the CJane kerfuffle this weekend. Not CJane’s post itself, but the comments, and about the fact that many non-members now think this is what mormon’s believe.

Comment by Marilee — March 7, 2010 @ 1:12 am
I just wish the people who like to play the “men need the priesthood or they would be developmentally stunted jerks” card would explain why in other denominations that embrace gender equality (Quakerism for example) the men seem to be behaving pretty well. Any takers?

Comment by z — March 7, 2010 @ 11:21 am
There’s some CJane chat at the bottom of the Sticking Up For Feminism post a few entries down. But I really think it’s just another boring round of “I don’t know anything about feminism except that it’s wrong for reasons I can’t explain.” If non-members think that’s what Mormons believe, well, clearly a lot of Mormons do believe that. But anyone who bothers to google “mormon feminist” will see the staggeringly popular FMH right at the top of the hit list, so I’m not too concerned about it.

Comment by z — March 7, 2010 @ 11:59 am
“I just want to know what FMH thinks of the CJane kerfuffle this weekend. Not CJane’s post itself, but the comments, and about the fact that many non-members now think this is what mormon’s believe.”

Gotta say, for what it’s worth, that that’s pretty much what I think (if a gun where put to my head and I had to generalize) the attitude of Mormon women outside this community is.

1) I was a young adult during the ERA era. I saw with my own eyes and heard with my own little ears that busloads of LDS women dutifully fanned out and sunk the ERA. I saw Sonia Johnson publicly pilloried week by week for taking an alternate point of view and (gasp) expressing it as was her right as an American woman. I saw her, ultimately, excommunicated as a warning to other Mormon women.

2) Not for one minute dismissing how you guys struggle to maintain your identities and individual ways of life, I am constantly stunned by how you will parse and bend and contort yourselves to justify the church’s authoritarian patriarchal structure. Not suggesting you don’t sincerely value your religion. Just that, sometimes, the logic is strained to say the least.

3) The fact that you need to identify yourselves as feminists and give your blog that character announces that it isn’t really a free choice that arises spontaneously or coexists easily with Mormon life.

Now, before this causes anger or defensiveness, 1) I recognize that this is an impression from the outside of Mormon culture and could be entirely wrong and 2) I genuinely applaud your efforts to be individuals and to forge ways for your daughters to bloom into it rather than to have to fight for it. I think you’re courageous and principled to want to reconcile the various incongruous things you sincerely believe and for having loyalty to the culture from which you come. It looks, from reading from many sources on LDS beliefs and society, as though this is a difficult and constant struggle.

Just thought, since the issue had been put on the table, I’d respond with one outsider’s perspective. It’s an observation. I hope you understand that it’s equally sincere and indicates absolutely no hostility or judgment.

Comment by Withheld — March 7, 2010 @ 1:10 pm
I just want to know what FMH thinks of the CJane kerfuffle this weekend. Not CJane’s post itself, but the comments, and about the fact that many non-members now think this is what mormon’s believe.

I found the post and most of the comments incredibly disheartening, but not at all surprising. It’s the same rhetoric I hear among church members all the time whenever the subject of feminism comes up.

Comment by Chelsea — March 7, 2010 @ 1:21 pm
I just got home from church, and I have to tell you how awesome it was. I’m starting to think that Mormon Feminism is no longer as fringe as I thought it was. My husband informed me that in ward priesthood meeting, our church leaders recognized that:

* Women used to be ordained to the priesthood
* Women are currently given the priesthood in the temple
* The church’s current policy against women using this priesthood seems to be a temporary cultural practice.

All things that no scholar of church history could deny. All things I thought would take eons for the general church public to recognize (and you don’t get more general church public than our family ward in South Provo). They discussed ways that their spouses could participate in healing the children; they said there is no reason the wife could not dedicate the family home; and beyond that, discussed how to be more helpful in the family home.

Amazing. I’m talking the Elder’s Quorum Presidency and the reliable guys that show up to every activity and stay late to help clean up ACTUALLY shared my liberal viewpoint on women and the priesthood. I’m absolutely thrilled.

This has renewed my desire to be an active member. I feel like I can be an influence for good in helping people understand what most inherently (on some level) feel uncomfortable with.

All I can say is, it’s getting better. It’s starting to happen, and hopefully we’ll be there in your little girl’s lifetime. Best of luck to you and her.

Comment by motion de smiths — March 7, 2010 @ 3:07 pm
stephanie #87 - The first two quotes you respond to are mine, but the third, I think, belongs to Diane, in post #83. I would like to agree with you that priesthood doesn’t (or rather, shouldn’t) mean “the authority to rule,” but I’d have to agree with Diane that “the authority to rule” is, in fact, the net effect of holding the priesthood in the LDS church.

The same is true, by the way, in the Roman Catholic church and other patriarchal religious groups. Those who receive ordination make the rules, and the unordained live by them. The ONLY way to be eligible to become one with the authority to govern in the LDS Church is to become a member of the priesthood. It is the most basic element which defines eligibility to govern. Therefore it can well be defined as “the authority to rule.” Without the priesthood, one has no real authority.

Comment by Lorian — March 7, 2010 @ 5:27 pm
Dedicate the home? What what how?!

Comment by pdig — March 7, 2010 @ 6:07 pm
Lorian, I think I get what you mean about not having authority w/o the priesthood as far as the governing of the church, but Id like to clarify that in houses and families, it is absolutely not meant to be that way, and as I see in most newer families, it is not at all that way (and may I say phew on that)

Comment by pdig — March 7, 2010 @ 6:13 pm
I understand, pdig, that individual homes vary widely in how they practice the principle of “presiding,” and that many men share the decision-making authority in their homes equally with their wives. I think this is very much as it should be.

What disturbs me is two-fold:

1. The authority to make decisions at every level above that of the individual household is held solely by men, because every position of significant authority requires that the occupant of that position be a “priesthood holder.” While a woman may make decisions in her own home, she does not, cannot and will not be permitted to make decisions at the level of the ward, stake, or higher. And she will certainly never gain access to the highest eschelons of authority, power, or decision-making capability (depending upon how you’d like to define it) in the church.

2. Even within the home, the authority to “preside” is given by the church to the “priesthood holder.” The fact that some men choose to share the authority with their wives (probably because modern culture has raised them (as you point out when you speak of “newer families” being the leaders in shared authority within the home) to assume that men and women are to share authority equally — NOT because the church has (in general) encouraged them to share authority equally with their wives.

As long as the basic authority belongs to the man, his to exercise or to share at his will, there is no real equality. I’m not negating the very real equality which exists on a functional level within egalitarian households, but I’m referring to the church’s assumption of male (”priesthood”) authority within the home and the church.

Comment by Lorian — March 7, 2010 @ 7:44 pm
Yeah I got you there, and I agree mostly. I say mostly because IF sharing the ‘power’ is how it is supposed to be, I can only assume HF and HM have that kind of ‘modern’ (to us) relationship, and that we are just now grown up enough as a planet to start to understand and implement it. I don’t know, though, but I’m happy to be thinking anyway

Comment by pdig — March 7, 2010 @ 7:57 pm
Priesthood does not give one the right to rule willy nilly. It is not the power of God to do with what you will. It is the power to act in God’s name in a certain sphere…

I don’t believe the church is lead by the prophet, I believe it’s led by Christ-yes the conduit for His word to the membership in general is a man. I do think that, as well as the prophet’s personality, personal interests, culture, upbringing…all of that affect how he presents God’s message-the words he chooses and how he says it.

A good Bishop would be similar-it’s not a man just pushing names around based on personal preference and whim…it’s a responsibility to determine the will of the Lord.

That doesn’t change the gender involved…and that is still problematic in many circumstances. Yes the priesthood is also misused..but that is covered well and clearly identified as wrong-by God if not by man.

Women dont’ have the priesthood right now. We don’t know why. We don’t know that we ever will. There is nothing wrong with not knowing. It says clearly in the scriptures that God loves us all-black or white, male or female…so we can let the current discrepency rest…knowing that God loves us. That doesn’t mean we can’t pray about it, or wonder… We can refuse to listen to people’s guesses about why it is the way it is right now: men need it, it evens out for child birth, men are physically stronger…guesses.

Assigning the priesthood to men right now isn’t God saying men are better, so we can disbelieve any statement that such is the case.

The point is Christ. Church is supposed to teach us about Christ. Ordinances help us come to Christ and be more prepared to receive His love. That should always be the focus.

That’s why the Nephi statement is such a good one. If we don’t know why something is the case we can say simply “I don’t know, nevertheless I know God loves all His children”. It’s not easy to always come to terms with that statement and reality, but we can shelf some of our concerns knowing that God loves us-so it will work out.

That doesnt’ mean we let bad behvaior stand, or comments implying our relative worth is something or other…it doesn’t mean we can’t wish we could do something. Men have those same feelings-Alma and amulek wanted to use their priesthood differently than the were allowed, Jonah didn’t want his assigned mission so much, Christ begged to let this cup pass from him…we have been offered the cup of womanhood. I really think our attitudes and the attitudes of others can make that as bitter or beautiful as we want it to be.

We can change somethings, but we must develop the habit of focusing on what God wants us to do and be individually and know that we will have the power we need to do that.

way too long..try hard not to be surprised

Comment by britt--the brat — March 7, 2010 @ 9:04 pm
britt #99.

Priesthood does not give one the right to rule willy nilly. It is not the power of God to do with what you will. It is the power to act in God’s name in a certain sphere…

Yes, I recognize that the priesthood is not supposed to be about people having the right to rule “willy nilly.” I understand that a priesthood leader, at least ideally, doesn’t make decisions based upon selfish motivations or personal preferences (well, I recognize that he isn’t supposed to, anyway, but I have no real confidence that this doesn’t happen on a fairly regular basis).

Fact is, if women were running the show there would be decisions made based upon selfish motivations and personal preferences, as well. We are, after all, ALL of us human beings.

The problem is that ONLY men are in a position to make these decisions, whether wisely and guided by God or, at times, willy-nilly, selfishly and through personal prejudice and human blindness. At least if there were an equal number of women involved in the decision-making process, there would be less chance of women bearing the brunt of all-male leadership and the selfish decisions which arise from espousing a solely male viewpoint.

On example is the way nursing women are treated in many wards. If there were women involved in the decision-making process, there would very likely be much nicer nursing and childcare facilities available, and procedures in place which are more accommodating of nursing moms and parents of toddlers.

Another example is the very fact of women NOT having the priesthood. The only way that such a decision can possibly be made to deny over 1/2 the membership access to an ordination which is supposed to be “the priesthood of all believers,” is by allowing only (less than) one half of those believers to make all decisions and declarations about and on behalf of the remainder.

We can change somethings, but we must develop the habit of focusing on what God wants us to do and be individually and know that we will have the power we need to do that.

Exactly so. I do not believe that God wants women denied equal access to leadership in the church (ANY church). I think that women need to stop looking for reasons to justify the status quo and start looking for ways to change it.

Comment by Lorian — March 7, 2010 @ 9:49 pm
Statements from the church very much encourage a husband and wife be an equal partnership. They just also slip that “preside” in, which becomes problematic.

Comment by Alliegator — March 7, 2010 @ 10:10 pm
I can understand that there are ordinances that women would like to perform but cannot, but it’s genuinely unclear to me which decisions are men making, that women would like to be a part of?

I vote at every level of government because they make decisions that have a real impact on my life and I need to be part of that process. But when I think of choosing people to fill callings, or writing a list of qualifications for temple worthiness, or who has to give a talk in sacrament, or what the Relief Society manuals contain, I am quite blind as to how my non-participation negatively affects my life.

Comment by jane — March 7, 2010 @ 10:22 pm
Yes, I realize that there are statements from church leadership which seem to indicate that husbands and wives should be equal partners, but it would appear that on the whole what is intended by this is that they be “equal partners” in each fulfilling their gender-based roles. And that “presiding” thing just ruins any appearance of true egalitarianism.

Comment by Lorian — March 7, 2010 @ 10:23 pm
My # 103 is addressed to Alliegator’s # 101.

Comment by Lorian — March 7, 2010 @ 10:24 pm
jane #102 -

I can understand that there are ordinances that women would like to perform but cannot, but it’s genuinely unclear to me which decisions are men making, that women would like to be a part of?

All priesthood decisions made at the ward level, the stake level, the Quorum of the 70 level, Quorum of the Twelve level, and by the Prophet him or herself.

All decisions made by these various groups affect female members as much as they affect male members, and there is no good reason why women should not be a part of making these decisions.

Comment by Lorian — March 7, 2010 @ 10:29 pm
Wow. I quickly have to say that all of you are INCREDIBLE!! This is the most fascinating thing I have ever read. Every single comment was astonishingly insightful, and you wouldn’t believe how much it helped me sort out my own personal cognitive dissonance. Thank you thank you thank you, I love you all!

Comment by Juliahelen — March 7, 2010 @ 10:53 pm
I think it’s really about the concept of representation, or representativeness. Men, generally speaking, or at least non-impoverished married heterosexual men (of which there are many) may or may not be in important functional or decisionmaking roles. However, they at least have confidence that important decisions are being made by those with a similar background and set of experiences. This makes it more likely that the men making important decisions are well-informed and familiar with the needs, values and interests of the larger group of men, and that they any decisions made will be manageable and acceptable to the larger group of men. Women, generally speaking, may not have this same confidence, because the men making important decisions do not have the experience of being a woman: being a stay-at-home parent, being pregnant, being raised in a certain way, being taught certain things about gender, experiencing sexual harassment or exploitation, etc., etc. And the interests of men and women in marriage and in society generally are not always well-aligned, and can be in direct competition. So I think it’s reasonable to believe that due to lack of experience or insight, or because of a bias towards their own interests, an entirely male group may not be able to respond as effectively to the needs or values of women as well as it is able to do so for men, and would inevitably serve the interests of men to a greater extent. Especially with men of an older generation, and in a culture that so strongly discourages cross-gender friendships, so that many men know only the women in their families, which is not a representative sample.

So it’s not really about wanting to actually personally be making decisions, but to feel that the decisions are being made by a group of people who are fully informed and sympathetic to what one’s life is really like.

I think much the same arguments could be made about income/socioeconomic class, or location in the developing or developed world.

Comment by z — March 7, 2010 @ 10:57 pm
Ok, I want to respond to earlier in the thread when the conversation was about how God wouldn’t reveal things until the prophets, or people, were ready for it. (Sorry, I know it’s jarring when someone comments on something so far in the past.) I formed an idea (perhaps juvenile, but I might as well put it out there) about this when my dad asked my uncle, “So how do you feel about women and the priesthood?” and my uncle responded, “If women ever get the priesthood, I’ll leave the church.”
My thought was: God is concerned for everyone’s salvation. Even old misogynistic tight-wads. I think it’s likely that if God allowed the policy to be changed now, he’d lose more of his children than he’d gain. Until there are more members who can’t withstand the current policy than members who can’t withstand change, the structure will remain unchanged. Because our souls are more important than all of this to him. Perhaps this is why it took so long for black people to get the priesthood… there were still too many tight-wads who’s souls would have been sacrificed due to the change. He will do his best to save people like my tight-wad uncle. I guess this is kinda like soul-economics. Hahaha…. just an idea

Comment by Juliahelen — March 7, 2010 @ 11:45 pm
[…] Jump to Comments Readers, from the traffic in my inbox this week and other regions of the bloggernacle, the universe seems to be signalling that it’s time to talk about […]

Pingback by We’re struggling to give our kids the best of Mormonism: Help? « Ask Mormon Girl — March 8, 2010 @ 1:36 am
Juliahelen
In the matter of retention, the church isn’t going so great. So when it comes to soul-economics, it seems the people with value are men like your uncle.
Is that what we’re suppose to tell our daughters?

Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — March 8, 2010 @ 2:20 am
What Suzanne said.

Juliahelen, your theory is an interesting one, but let’s think of it in terms of your example about the priesthood (and Temple access) being withheld from black people. Okay, I’ll go along with you that there may have been a goodly number of saints at the time (and I’m using the term “saints” quite loosely in this particular application, since I don’t consider the attitude I’m describing very “saintly”) who were racist enough that they would have left the church had they been forced to share the priesthood and the Temple with black persons. So, had the priesthood been restored to black people sooner rather than later, perhaps there would have been a large exodus from the church. Fair enough.

But, how many black people do you suppose might have actually JOINED the church during the first 3/4 of the 20th century (and prior), had the church welcomed them as full members with all the rights and privileges pertaining thereto? And if the church had never begun denying the priesthood to blacks (after the initial decision to grant it to blacks at the church’s beginnings), then those racists who were unwilling to share the priesthood and Temple with blacks either might not have joined the church in the first place, or might have joined and come to realize that black people are just as human as whites, and avoided the entire issue.

So, I take issue with the idea that God would directly endorse discriminatory policies (as is implied by your idea that God didn’t direct the repeal of the priesthood ban until 1978 — that the priesthood ban was God’s will and not human prejudice and hatred of our fellow human beings). Why would God put the salvation of the souls of racists who want to continue to discriminate against black people ahead of the salvation of the black people, themselves? And, is a person really “saved” if s/he continues to act out of hatred and prejudice toward his/her fellow human being, seeking to deny them access to the same religious belief and comfort s/he enjoys? Doesn’t sound like something a follower of Christ should be engaging in.

I don’t think we can really consider ourselves followers of Christ when we practice discrimination towards our fellow human beings, and I can’t see God putting a stamp of approval on such behavior — bending over backwards and hurting those people we hate in order to keep us in God’s church. I don’t see it at all.

Comment by Lorian — March 8, 2010 @ 11:54 am
I have to stick with the “people aren’t perfect but God is” philosophy on this one. I don’t know what I would tell a little girl… but I remind myself over and over that a male-run organization just isn’t ready to share.

Maybe you can tell your daughter to prepare for the priesthood to come to women someday?

I don’t know, I’m so horrid with kids, don’t listen to me.

Comment by Bobby Pin Natalie — March 8, 2010 @ 1:41 pm
“I don’t know, I’m so horrid with kids, don’t listen to me.” BP Natalie– this made me laugh.

Seriously, while I can off and on understand the “God is perfect, people aren’t stance” it’s hard because as a struggling teenager I used to think “then stop telling me this is the ‘true church’ if it is so off base from perfection.” i think I have moved a little past that now.

I used to think I was good at kids–till I had some.

Comment by zaissa — March 8, 2010 @ 3:23 pm
Excellent insights, Lorian.

Staphanie, you wrote

I don’t think priesthood means authority to rule. I think it means authority to officiate. Officiate means act in an official capacity in a ceremony or religious ritual, such as a wedding; perform duties attached to a particular office or place or function

Ruling implies that the person with the priesthood calls the shots. Officiating implies that the person who granted the priesthood calls the shots.

I agree that the way priesthood authority is used in the church is often in a ruling manner - and that this seems to be the “norm”. I don’t think this is God’s will at all.

“Officiate” just doesn’t have the scriptural support.

How do you deal with Gen. 3:16?

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

The words translated “desire” and “rule” here are identical to the words used in Gen. 4:7 refering to Cain and Satan:

7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Comment by Daniel — March 8, 2010 @ 6:59 pm
How do you know that strong belief/feeling that the Church is overly patriarchal and needs to change - allow women to “officiate” in the priesthood - is not the Spirit and Revelation from God working in you (and many, many others) to bring about God’s will in regards to His kingdom?

Perhaps when you rationalize away the status quo and refuse to follow your feelings in this regard, you are actually ignoring direct revelation from God as to a personal and significant “calling” he has for you to influence the Church for good?

Comment by Daniel — March 8, 2010 @ 7:03 pm
Daniel, who are you? Have you posted an introduction on the “Getting to Know You” thread? It is a the top corner of the page.

Comment by Stephanie — March 8, 2010 @ 7:26 pm
Yes, I have posted an introduction.

Comment by Daniel — March 8, 2010 @ 8:02 pm
ooo very good points Suzanne and Lorian! In that case soul-economics makes no sense whatsoever. It is so great to have my logical fallacies brought to my attention, I’m learning so much!

And Daniel-
“Perhaps when you rationalize away the status quo and refuse to follow your feelings in this regard, you are actually ignoring direct revelation from God as to a personal and significant “calling” he has for you to influence the Church for good?”

AMEN. I think it would be wrong to ignore our powerful feelings in this matter. I am so infinitely fascinated by/drawn to the subject of women’s place in our church, sometimes I wonder, perhaps helping change come about IS some sort of “calling” I might have.

Comment by Juliahelen — March 8, 2010 @ 11:11 pm
I still fail to see how my life would be different if church leadership were more representative of its membership, or if a more diverse set of people were involved in its organization.
I think this is important at a federal, provincial (I’m Canadian), and municipal level, because government determines taxes, services, and laws that will govern our lives, and these need to fairly treat minority groups.
But priesthood holders can make a bunch of decisions that you can take or leave. I don’t have to accept a calling, or have a food storage, or to teach a lesson word for word from the manual. The few laws I have to obey or face excommunication are pretty fundamental and I doubt they would change depending on the leadership. Maybe I don’t see because I’ve internalized the ideologies of the ruling class, but I’d like to hear some concrete examples of changes that would come with a female president of the church.

Comment by jane — March 9, 2010 @ 11:48 am
Someone said we’d have a nicer mothers room and childcare. I have seen very nice versions of those in my big, wealthy (per capita) east coast ward. Is that a men-in-charge problem or a tight budget/small membership problem?

Comment by pdig — March 9, 2010 @ 12:16 pm
pdig, I was referring to the many women who have noted that large amounts of money were spent on other programs/facilities in their ward while mothers were told to go nurse their babies in the toilet stall, or in a “mother’s room” that was unheated in the dead of winter, or smelled of garbage or other unsanitary/uncomfortable situations. It’s not an uncommon phenomenon, unfortunately.

IMO, babies should be nursed wherever their mothers are comfortable nursing them, including in Sacrament Meeting, Relief Society, the front entryway, or wherever there is a comfortable chair to sit in and a comfortable space to relax.

But I don’t want to turn this into a breastfeeding thread. I’m just pointing out that decisions about facilities often could benefit from a woman’s perspective, though certainly some men do present their wives perspectives effectively. It’s just sad that women should have to turn to their husbands as their “elected representatives” to the decision-making-powers-that-be (who are, themselves, all men).

Comment by Lorian — March 9, 2010 @ 12:44 pm
In my experience, the Relief society president had much more say in those matters than any husband. The budget was in her hands as well as the manpower. Granted, I have been in some really good wards compared to what you are saying, but I think there IS a certain amount of autonomy the RS pres gets on ‘womens issues’

Comment by pdig — March 9, 2010 @ 1:01 pm
Really? RS Presidents can designate funding to build a mother’s room and make all decisions about where and how it is laid out? I wonder if the poor women knew that who were in the unheated closet and bathroom stall. I didn’t get the impression that those decisions came from the women of the Ward. I could be wrong, though.

Comment by Lorian — March 9, 2010 @ 1:07 pm
The rooms in a chapel are there, and then the ward decides which room is for what. It would be up to her to advocate for a better room (in the case of an unheated closet, chances are someone apppropriated the mothers room, which is a problem with an individual). The mothers room generally should have a sink, and the nursery it’s own bathroom, in the newest buildings. Granted if you live in Utah or arizona and your ward building is 100 years old, the mothers room won’t be the only one with problems. Ps I have nursed in sacrament, in meetings, at events, and never had a complaint from anyone but my husband (because some babies like to crap like it’s their first in a week when they b-feed lol)

IMO the mothers room is there for changing diapers, for especially noisy eaters, or especially modest mamas. No one ever asked me to go use it. If more moms were like me and b fed everywhere, would mothers rooms get even worse? I don’t know but I hope not because I love feeding where I’m at

Comment by pdig — March 9, 2010 @ 1:23 pm
I just scanned the index of the bishops handbook, and it looks like he gets no guidance whatsoever regarding mothers, breastfeeding, babies, or diapers. All mo fMh ladies, it’s up to us to make sure he knows how we feel!

Comment by pdig — March 9, 2010 @ 1:26 pm
Lorian, I’ve only ever been an RS pres in a singles ward but three other times-when I’ve had minor callings I have fixed the mother’s rooms or been a part of getting them fixed. In our current ward there were no nursing mothers. Once I got pregnant i let him know I’d need a place (too distracting to nurse in primary IMO) They have been working on it, i’ve talked with other women..one is donating rocking chairs. They were moving on it-we have avery small buidling with not a lot of extra space- Last week a new family moved in with a nursing baby-this week they combined to classes to make a room available and it should be ready in two weeks (next week is a stake something.)

I’ve found men very receptive. our stake president didn’t realize how small the room was for our stake for stake conference and when i mentioned it and what I wanted, he assigned a couple of men to listen to me and they moved all the furniture I wanted (the comfy high counsel room chairs) and designated a room.

Comment by britt--the brat — March 9, 2010 @ 1:35 pm
What we keep talking around and basically proving is that same old thing, that there are good listeners and bad ones, people who try to be good and ones that don’t care so much, and i don’t think it’s a man/ woman thing. I’m sure plenty of people have had crappy RS presidents at some time or another, too.
I’m not saying I LIKE women not having more leadership roles, I’m just saying it wouldn’t be some kind of instand wonderful fix for all that ails us

Comment by pdig — March 9, 2010 @ 1:45 pm
I kind of figured the improvements made in the design of new buildings had to do with women who worked for the church in that department. Mothers rooms with a sink and changing table, and a little bathroom in the nursery. Ingenious.

Oh, also the changing table in the family bathroom. I LOVE that I am not the only one who can change a diaper at church now.

Comment by Alliegator — March 9, 2010 @ 2:01 pm
I just had to add this to the discussion about what to tell our daughters. Tonight during dinner, my eldest daughter asked, completely out of the blue, why daddy didn’t clean the toilets. She was baffled that mommy was the only one that did dirty housework (which isn’t really true, but when it comes to sanitizing I have an abnormally crazy standard, so I insist on doing it myself). I found it fascinating that to her, toilets were a man’s job. I jokingly looked at my husband while claiming that I hadn’t said a thing to provoke such a question, and that we simply had a natural feminist on our hands. We both laughed, but it really got my thinking. Is she picking up on stuff from me already? Or should we be paying more attention to how kids view the roles of family members? I honestly don’t care that I clean the toilets, and I delegate the stuff I don’t want to do to my husband, who gladly does whatever I politely ask in addition to the other chores that have just become *his*. But how much do these things teach by example?

I used to be the one that did yard work because I enjoyed it, but a few years of pregnancy at the wrong times of the year have made it necessary for me to pass that one off. Yes, my husband does the more “manly” chores (garbage, mowing, fixing) but he also does a lot of the more traditionally female chores lately (dishes, vacuuming, making beds) so I wonder how my daughter views things and if it truly matters. ( I realize how stereotypical I am being in these distinctions, but the stereotypes DO exist, and I’m just questioning when they start and if they should be avoided early on). I figure, if she sees the best examples of equality and the unimportance of *traditional* roles at home, will it be easier for her to navigate these issues and stick up for herself as she grows and thinks about these issues on her own, without me having to tell her what I *believe* necessarily, but allowing her to deduce that on her own based on how I live my life and what I do with my beliefs?

Comment by corktree — March 9, 2010 @ 11:13 pm
Yes, pdig, I agree that egalitarian leadership will not be an instantaneous cure-all. But I still maintain that egalitarian leadership would likely be highly beneficial, probably for BOTH male and female members.

Comment by Lorian — March 9, 2010 @ 11:20 pm
You’re not very good at being a man hater

Comment by pdig — March 10, 2010 @ 12:21 am
One recent night, somehow the United States presidency came up in family discussion. My husband asked my daughter if she would like to be president when she grows up. “I can’t, I am girl!” she said, as if this should have been obvious to him. “Well crap!” I thought, because this came about a night after a lesson on the priesthood, where we had to explain (again) that as a girl she is ineligible.
My husband told her that being a girl has to do with being president and she can ALWAYS do hatever she put her mind to. But the words felt thin—considering.

Your point is well taken. The words felt thin, because they are not really true. She cannot always do whatever she puts her mind to, because, she is not evaluated by her mind, but by her anatomy.
She is learning that leadership roles are assigned to a person based upon gender. She is learning that roles in society are assigned not by competency or intelligence, but by gender. She is learning that her gender determines what opportunities will be allowed to her or denied to her. She is learning this, as all women do, because this is what is taught to women, starting at a young age.

Comment by Wonderment — March 10, 2010 @ 3:22 am
pdig #131 -

You’re not very good at being a man hater

Thank you…

Comment by Lorian — March 10, 2010 @ 12:17 pm
“Oh, also the changing table in the family bathroom. I LOVE that I am not the only one who can change a diaper at church now.”

I am trying to get a family bathroom/handicapped accessible one converted from one of our two men’s rooms. I can see it might take a while.

But decades ago, I bought changing tables for each of the men’s restrooms at church. We had many men who were taking care of their babies, anyway, while their wives were carrying on with Sunday responsibilities. This was an easy solution.

Comment by Melissa P. — March 10, 2010 @ 12:41 pm
I don’t remember if the mens restroom in our building has a changing table. They should.

One restaurant we like to go to only has changing tables in the women’s restrooms which bugs me. What if my Mister happens to be there without me?

Comment by Alliegator — March 10, 2010 @ 1:27 pm
Ha ha Alliegator. As if your husband would take a baby somewhere without you.

Comment by Stephanie — March 10, 2010 @ 3:53 pm
Well, he’d certainly better not go to that particular restaurant without me, baby or no.

Comment by Alliegator — March 10, 2010 @ 4:10 pm
Corktree,

that cracks me up. If my daughter is picking up ideas about gender roles watching my husband and me…she will think men diaper babies at night, and women do it in the morning (it seems to work out that way, with work schedules etc. my hands are more free in the am, his in the pm.)

Wonderment,

EXACTLY.
When she get s that out in the world, I can say, “well that’s cause there are stupid people out there and they are just plum wrong.” But while I don’t think that “the church” is wrong, I do think that there is a distinction between culture and doctrine, and cultural understanding of doctrine, etc. But it’s hard to explain this distinction to a young child without indication to that child that it is a pick and choose thing when it comes to doctrine.

Example:

My daughter told me that her stepmother, who is religious but not LDS, drinks a little alcohol so that it must be OK to do, and it’s not fair that we “can’t” if we are members of the Mormon church. So I have explained that her stepmother is not a bad person for drinking but she does not know to follow the prophet, and the prophet has told us that Heavenly Father absolutely does not want us to drink alcohol. So even though some people outside the church drink it and are good people, and even though it probably would not harm us much to drink in small doses, we will abstain from it because through revelation to the prophet, the Lord has said we should abstain. Easy enough.

The complication comes with immersing her in a culture that has (I think) more widely accepted gender biases than the main stream world has rejected (generally-not all the way). I have to work a little harder to counteract the effects of that on her opinion of herself, her qualifications, and her opportunities. But I can’t say on one had “the prophet says this, end of story” when it comes to the Word of Wisdom and then say, “Well darling, the prophet says only men get the priesthood, BUT maybe this or that could mean that is not what God says.” So I am left with the “I don’t know why” answer and the “but it does not mean you are less important/valuable/worthy/responsible/able” which I will teach her but that opens doors for others to teach her “well you are important mostly because your role in this church is to procreate and make more members” etc line of thinking.

So when she comes home and Bro. So-and- so, or Sister so-and-so has taught a lesson in which they said the Proc of the Fam says that in a family a mom does this and a dad does that, so therefore… and working around other ingrained concepts that are the norm, and trying to deal with the implications of a man- only leadership, leads me to sometimes have to jump through interesting hoops to teach her what I believe without contradicting what I also believe. I don’t think my feminism and Mormonism are necessarily contradictions. (I am actually trying to figure it out, I mean polygamy and the history, and even the non-questioning of Abraham sleeping with maids cause his wife couldn’t make babies…well don’t get me started.) I am still searching, and generally you don’t let the lost guy lead, but here I am at the helm of her little mind, just trying to give her some tools to use later, without messing her up.

Comment by zaissa — March 10, 2010 @ 4:46 pm
Lot and his daughters is a fun one too, zaissa.

Comment by Kimberly — March 10, 2010 @ 5:42 pm
Thank you, Zaissa ! I thought that your article was very well written and brought up very important points for discussion. I really think that the topic of how to answer our children’s questions is very timely. Thanks again, from Wonderment

Comment by Wonderment — March 10, 2010 @ 6:42 pm
Thanks wonderment!

And Kimberly, you mean the best alternative for homosexuality is NOT worse that handing your daughters over to be raped? Hu…go figure.

Lot’s wife too…(although that is not directly counter-feminist, one of my favorite poems is “Lot’s Wife” by Wasawa Zymborska. Glad I have an excuse (a thin, thin excuse, but I will take it) to share it:

Lot’s Wife

They say I looked back out of curiosity.
But I could have had other reasons.
I looked back mourning my silver bowl.
Carelessly, while tying my sandal strap.
So I wouldn’t have to keep staring at the righteous nape
of my husband Lot’s neck.
From the sudden conviction that if I dropped dead
he wouldn’t so much as hesitate.
From the disobedience of the meek.
Checking for pursuers.
Struck by the silence, hoping God had changed his mind.
Our two daughters were already vanishing over the hilltop.
I felt age within me. Distance.
The futility of wandering. Torpor.
I looked back setting my bundle down.
I looked back not knowing where to set my foot.
Serpents appeared on my path,
spiders, field mice
, baby vultures.
They were neither good nor evil now–every living thing
was simply creeping or hopping along in the mass panic.
I looked back in desolation.
In shame because we had stolen away.
Wanting to cry out, to go home.
Or only when a sudden gust of wind
unbound my hair and lifted up my robe.
It seemed to me that they were watching from the walls of Sodom
and bursting into thunderous laughter again and again.
I looked back in anger.
To savor their terrible fate.
I looked back for all the reasons given above.
I looked back involuntarily.
It was only a rock that turned underfoot, growling at me.
It was a sudden crack that stopped me in my tracks.
A hamster on its hind paws tottered on the edge.
It was then we both glanced back.
No, no. I ran on,
I crept, I flew upward
until darkness fell from the heavens
and with it scorching gravel and dead birds.
I couldn’t breathe and spun around and around.
Anyone who saw me must have thought I was dancing.
It’s not inconceivable that my eyes were open.
It’s possible I fell facing the city.

Comment by zaissa — March 10, 2010 @ 7:11 pm
If your buildings don’t have ‘family restrooms’, go on and check your men’s restrooms and just bring on in a changing table. They show up at yard sales all the time. Why not? I didn’t even ask, I just brought them in, and my husband started using them. First run in and see where there is room. You might have to ask for that kind that goes on the wall. The FM groups has those available, I hear.

Comment by Melissa P. — March 11, 2010 @ 2:02 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.
TrackBack URI

Dear FMH: What am I Supposed to Tell my Daughter?

142 Comments »

Leave a comment