New Beginnings or Echoes from the Past?
By hkobeal
It was with great sadness and disappointment and, I’ll admit, more than a bit of anger that I read Elder Pace’s BYU Devotional talk regarding women’s divine purpose Wednesday morning. I read it with an eye on tonight, when I would attend New Beginnings with my headstrong, smart, articulate 13-year-old daughter. I’ll be honest: when I first saw it, I thought it was a parody, like The Onion for Mormons. But alas, I read about it in several other places, including the Church News, so now I know it was for real.
I go to church every Sunday. I’m the ward organist and the Primary chorister (the world’s greatest calling, hands down). I went to BYU and got married in the temple at age 19 (gasp—what was I thinking?). I have three kids who are so great that I know better than to take credit for anything they are or do. I’m an assistant professor of education. And I wear pants to church. Yep, that’s me in a nutshell.
I’m also a feminist. I want both my girls and my son to grow up believing that men and women can do anything and be anything they want to be. I worry about my girls getting that message because they will not be able to participate in priesthood ordinances (unless you count watching). I worry at least as much about my son understanding that message as well because he will be able to participate in those things. I worry about my daughters because they will have to defer to men while they’re at church. They’ll have to worry about finding a man to babysit a group of adult women at the church building. They’ll have to get approval for their ideas from male leaders.
So here I am, ten minutes after getting home from work, hoping my kids feed themselves dinner in time for us to get to New Beginnings, wondering why today feels more like a continuation of a cycle of uncomfortable messages I’ve received throughout my life about the “divine role of womanhood” (cringe) than like a new beginning. I remember coming home from YW one day when I was about 15 after a lesson on careers. I had volunteered that I wanted to be a concert pianist when I grew up (I was never good enough for that!). One of my friends said she wanted to be a doctor and our YW teacher smiled and said: “That’s great! You’ll be able to administer first aid to your children!” We had a little talk about that over dinner. My dad—wise, diplomatic, un-exciteable, and patient—told me to “rise above the occasion.” And so I laughed it off and carried on.
Then there was the General Conference Sunday when we heard the “Mothers Come Home” talk. I was too young to have paid attention, but I remember the family drama that ensued after one of my sisters at BYU called home in tears. Again, my dad listened patiently and reminded her to rise above the occasion.
Years later, it was my turn to make a tearful phone call home from BYU. One of my religion professors had told us in class that if women worked, they shouldn’t pay tithing on their earnings because it was like gambling proceeds. He actually called it “blood money.” Again, my dad smiled and told me to rise above foolish advice.
Another time, that same professor told us that when we died, Christ himself would personally escort working women to the gates of hell for going against their divine nature. I guess this comment was ridiculous enough that my dad forewent his previous mantras and laughed out loud. Then he told me that if that were true, we’d have to rent a 15-passenger van and the whole family would ride to hell together because all the women in my family are professional women. Another religion professor told us that we didn’t have to listen to what Chieko Okazaki said because “last time I checked, she didn’t have the priesthood.” Sigh.
I could go on. My poor dad has listened to a lot of stories like these. My husband has probably heard even more. Since I don’t see these attitudes towards women enacted in my own family, I am mostly able to rise above the occasion and blow it off as old school. But every once in a while, I see something like this devotional talk and wonder: How do I rise above this occasion? How do I shelve my hopes and dreams for my children and tell them to follow this counsel? How do I tell them that they will be broken or deficient if they don’t marry? I don’t want my daughters to wonder why Heavenly Father has such a limited vision of their potential. Surely Heavenly Father wants women to do more than complete men. I’m a wife. I like my husband. But being a wife doesn’t complete me. My husband doesn’t complete or sanctify or purify me. And I don’t do those things for him, either. It’s just the five of us—my husband, my two girls, my son, and me—and we’re just doing this life thing.
I’m also a mother. Motherhood brings me plenty of joy (and heartache). But it doesn’t complete me. I’m lots of other things, too. I’m a friend, a daughter, a sister, a teacher, a primary chorister, a pianist, a professor, a book aficionado, and I just started guitar lessons! I like to think all those things together complete me.
I want my girls to be strong and of good courage—just like we heard tonight at New Beginnings. I want them to think, like the closing song we sang tonight: “How vast is our purpose, how broad is our mission . . .” I want them to figure out what completes them and go do it—whether that includes marriage or motherhood or not. And I long for the day when the church—and that includes BYU Devotionals, the Church News, General Conference, General Relief Society meetings, General YW Meeting, the Ensign, the New Era, the Friend, and our Sunday lesson manuals and weekly activities—can get on board and join the new beginning that’s happening over here at my house.
P.S. My son is coming along for the ride, too.
Thank you, hkobeal. I will need a bit of time to read the devotional and process your post entirely, but I think that this has been the most impactful post I’ve read since I starting on fMh a year and a half ago.
Thank you.
Comment by ErinAnn — March 11, 2010 @ 12:10 am
fyi — It’s not there yet, but if they get a transcript, the info will be here.
Comment by ErinAnn — March 11, 2010 @ 12:14 am
Thanks for the link, Erin. I am still hopeful that perhaps the three synopses that I read of the devotional distorted it somehow and so maybe it’s not as big of a bummer as it looks like today.
Comment by hkobeal — March 11, 2010 @ 12:20 am
someone sent me a link to the video of it…
lemee see if i can find it.
Comment by mfranti — March 11, 2010 @ 12:21 am
It’s interesting how Elder Pace talked about women sanctifying and purifying men, but said nothing about men doing the same for women. I literally became physically ill while reading that devotional. When do I as an individual have worth on my own? Thank you for the last few paragraphs. They were actually very comforting.
Comment by Risa — March 11, 2010 @ 12:25 am
well, her link is to byu tv. maybe someone with more interweb savvy could figure it out.
Comment by mfranti — March 11, 2010 @ 12:26 am
Your dad sounds like a cool guy.
The talk is gaggingly male centric, as if my choices affect my husbands salvation.
Pace quotes at the end, when you meet your “heavenly parents” and “look into Her eyes” (as noted in the church news)
………………..interesting language there.
Comment by joule — March 11, 2010 @ 12:29 am
I hated the way older brothers were stereotyped too. Blech. I only could listen for the first few minutes, and turned it off in tears.
Comment by Susan — March 11, 2010 @ 12:36 am
“Elder Pace encouraged women to enjoy opportunities and experiences that are available to them, but warned them to avoid anything that would keep them from or harden their divine nature.”
______________
Thank you, Hkobeal. Outstanding essay — eloquently written. Any time that church officials start lecturing about “women’s divine nature” — be very alert. A warning is forthcoming that women are “the other”, and must be restricted in order to please someone else. I start to cringe now, whenever I hear the term “divine nature”, because I know that in a moment, the other shoe is going to drop. — Wonderment
Comment by Wonderment — March 11, 2010 @ 12:39 am
I just read the articles and see the reference to the Onion, and also think “Yikes!”
Comment by Susan — March 11, 2010 @ 12:52 am
“Sisters, I testify that when you stand in front of your heavenly parents in those royal courts on high and you look into Her eyes and behold Her countenance, any question you ever had about the role of women in the kingdom will evaporate into the rich celestial air, because at that moment you will see standing directly in front of you, your divine nature and destiny.”
I kind of like that.
My question is that is it just marriage that bothers you? Because you seem to equally object to men completing women or women completing men in marriage.
In my marriage, marriage is #1 and parenting is #2. We pretty much believe in that and those are the priorities in our lives. Obviously, being a good person is also there but since we believe in marriage and parenting being a good person necessitates being a good spouse and being a good parent.
I just don’t get the angst about it.
Do people really want marriage and having children to NOT be a priority for people. And if someone doesn’t have a spouse or children aren’t we scared for their feelings BECAUSE it is such a big deal. Do childless people really want us to stop being good parents just to make them feel better?
The fact is that once you are a parent you have to dedicate much of your life to parenting. It is a huge responsibility.
I think GAs should preach marriage and parenting.
I never call home in tears because of what a leader says in church or in a religion class. Maybe I’m too traditional, but mostly I believe in the gospel. Its not like I’m perfect or anything, so if some leader talks about going to the temple regularly or member missionary work or something and its not currently on my to do list it doesn’t make me cry.
Comment by jks — March 11, 2010 @ 12:52 am
jks, i think there is a huge difference between “go to the temple” and “share the gospel” than “women shouldn’t pay tithing on the money they earn because it’s just like gambling” or “don’t listen to sister okazaki because she doesn’t have the priesthood”.
i had a member of a bishopbric tell me we couldn’t use the building for our exercise group that we had a few times a week because we wouldn’t be able to protect ourselves, and that we wouldn’t be able to make a good decision if there was a stranger outside or near our building. he told me this in ward council while i was the RS pres. my eyes were shooting fire. i also called my dad, who is on the high council, and asked what the manual said. the manual said all activities held at the church are a priesthood activity, so a member of the priesthood should be there. do you see the difference? (i called the bishop that night and he gave me permission to continue. he thought what the counselor said was a bunch of hooey too.)
Comment by terina — March 11, 2010 @ 1:16 am
jks,
The 1st sentence is what bothers me. That a role I must fill is purifying my husband, To me emphasizes that men are weak and that we women get to save them because we are women.
The parts about completing each other and cleaving to each I agree with, but to say that men need us to be purified, well what do I need him for then, don’t I need to be purified?
Comment by StarieNite — March 11, 2010 @ 1:17 am
JKS, I also liked that quote at the end.
And you are completely right–if you get married and have children, then of course those things should be a priority. I also think GAs should teach about the importance of family and parenting and would LOVE it if this whole talk could have been about that. IMO, it was very one-sided. Sure, talk about the importance of strengthening a marriage. Talk about the importance of being good parents–but not what a woman’s “divine purpose” is. What is everyone’s “divine purpose”?
I don’t call home in tears anymore, either, but I sure did many times and I know I’m not alone on that one.
Comment by hkobeal — March 11, 2010 @ 1:17 am
I feel that when Chieko Okazaki was called to serve in the General Relief Society presidency, working women in the Church were not only vindicated, but they were celebrated!
Comment by Carol — March 11, 2010 @ 1:23 am
After I converted I came home in tears most Sundays after hearing many similar messages delivered from the various pulpits by men and women alike. The answer my family (not LDS) gave me was to just quit going if I didn’t like what I heard. The same answer was given to me by my LDS friends and acquaintences. Funny, but I didn’t convert because of what I heard but because of what I felt.
Ten years, two kids and countless similar Sundays later, I quit going. Somewhere along the line that feeling got fed up with the weekly choking. Now this just doesn’t seem to be the totally right thing to do either.
Is there a middle ground?
Comment by Sinclair — March 11, 2010 @ 3:04 am
I was at this devotional, and I found plenty to be troubled about– but I guess I have also just come to expect annoying stereotyping and hyper gender polarization from the older generation.
But I have to say, reading a summary of the speech leaves me with a much bitterer taste in my mouth than the actual speech did. I left the speech feeling completely bowled over by how open and direct he was in his references to Heavenly Mother and I guess I was too pleased with that to remember anything else. His closing comments (the ones quoted above) were very nice and did not shy away from the doctrine of the female Divine. I thought that was very cool.
Now looking back, I can see how some of the wording was unfortunate. It is also unfortunate that he chose to skew the focus so much and say things about “women purifying men” rather than using more balanced language. But…despite his seeming one-sidedness, as an audience member I still got the distinct impression that he MEANT it both ways. and if asked he would certainly clarify. I would be very interested to review the transcript when it comes out, to see his exact words. But he did quote that scripture that says “neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman, in the Lord.”
In the end I try to be very understanding of the generation gap and the cultural background and upbringing of many of these men. I know their hearts are in the right place and much of the underlying doctrine is correct but at the same time these dated gender ideas are coloring every word and that’s the stuff that makes me cringe…
Comment by Brooke — March 11, 2010 @ 3:07 am
I watched the devotional, and for me it was a mixed bag.
On one hand, he did use a lot of old-fashioned phrases and wordings, and threw out those archaic ideas you rightfully took offense at. At one point, to illustrate how kind and comforting women are, he joked about how, as a child, he would go to his sister with his problems, because his brother would just bully him and make him cry (ha ha?). That was pretty offensive to men and women.
On the other hand, he made more explicit references to heavenly parents and Heavenly Mother than I think I’ve ever heard in one talk. I thought it was cool when he talked about how the women in Christ’s life could have helped him. Anyone who tries to learn from and empathize the women in our scriptures, despite the fact that so little is said about them in the text, should be applauded.
I think the devotional is worth watching/reading in full when it becomes available. It’s given me some things to think about, and I think it shows signs of progress.
Comment by jenni — March 11, 2010 @ 3:52 am
Sinclair, I am hopeful that there is middle ground. That’s what I was trying to get at (although perhaps ineloquently). I’m trying to do just that and most of the time, I feel good about it. I know that some people get to where they just can’t do that anymore and I respect that. I’m just not there.
Brooke, thank you for sharing this! It’s great to hear. And I totally agree that the open mentioning/discussion of Heavenly Mother was great. Yep. I’ll have to watch it.
As for “meaning” something more equal but not saying it . . . that’s tough for me to swallow. Or at least little old me could use some more direct communication about equality!
Comment by hkobeal — March 11, 2010 @ 8:06 am
If there is any silver lining to Elder Pace’s talk, it is that it has provoked some exceptional posts around the ‘naccle. hkobeal — this is wonderful.
Comment by Randy B. — March 11, 2010 @ 9:17 am
So did Brother Pace actually contribute any revelation on Heavenly Mother’s nature and role? Did he tell us what she does in relation to HF? Whether or not she has a body? Whether or not there’s just one of her or many HMs? Whether or not she was involved in creating the world?
Because from what I’m hearing, he did none of the above. In fact, I’ve always regarded that whole “just go with it in this life and you will understand the reason for it in the next life” as a pretty dangerous dangling carrot that is best not chased after.
And while it’s extremely unusual for an LDS leader to actually mention HM in a talk, don’t let the condiments fool you. A crap sandwich is still a crap sandwich, even if it has condiments.
Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — March 11, 2010 @ 9:23 am
AWESOME POST!!!!!
Thank you so much for this.
Comment by pinkpatent — March 11, 2010 @ 9:23 am
Elder Pace’s talk about my mission in life is in direct contradiction to my patriarchal blessing. Blessing trumps.
Comment by Katie P. — March 11, 2010 @ 9:24 am
Will someone let us know when the video is up or the transcript is available? Thanks.
Comment by Stephanie — March 11, 2010 @ 9:28 am
http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2010/03/10/through-the-looking-glass-the-worth-of-men/
Gender-reversal of a report on the talk. I wonder if hearing things from the other side would make our churchleaders realize how condescending the Church’s rhetoric on gender is.
Comment by ChrisKay — March 11, 2010 @ 9:40 am
If you got to byu.tv, click on conferences and addresses, you can pick BYU devotionals, and the talk is there in video format. Unfortunately, BYU runs an applet, so I can’t post a URL to get you directly there.
Comment by queenlucy — March 11, 2010 @ 9:42 am
Ms. Jack Meyers, I feel you. I was both happy to see any mention of Heavenly Mother and bummed that that’s all it was–a nod.
And I also get that eating crap sandwiches in this life while waiting for the celestial buffet might not be a good strategy, but that’s not how I feel about it. I can’t change big institutions like the church, the government, or public schools, but I can surely change things in my own family, which is what I’m trying to do.
Clearly my parents changed things for me. They made me see a broader vision of what my world could be.
Comment by hkobeal — March 11, 2010 @ 9:46 am
Ms. Jack Meyers, one more thing: I no longer think that I’ll just do this here/now because I’ll understand it later. I am actively trying to focus on HERE/NOW because that’s all I know.
Comment by hkobeal — March 11, 2010 @ 9:48 am
When I hear talks like this, I really wish that someone would give a talk about the divine nature of women as it applies independent of men.
I get that families are the most important thing, but I’d love to hear, just once, that I am of value as an individual and not just because I am useful to my husband.
Comment by AllieKay — March 11, 2010 @ 10:06 am
Love this, AllieKay.
Last night at YW, one of the leaders said that she knew the YW program would help the girls become independent, reliant, and contributing adults. Too bad we don’t applaud during church meetings because my heart expanded when I heard that!
And yes, if our divine role is to complete a man, then what of women who don’t marry? Or what about those who do, but then get divorced? or what if their husbands die? I think that’s when we have to start talking about Ms. Jack Myers’s crap sandwiches.
And I’m not divorced or widowed, but that still tastes bad to me.
Comment by hkobeal — March 11, 2010 @ 10:12 am
“One of my religion professors had told us in class that if women worked, they shouldn’t pay tithing on their earnings because it was like gambling proceeds. He actually called it “blood money.”” Now that is awesome. Made my day. Actually, that could come in handy if a woman didn’t want to pay tithing on her earnings. Someone should try that at their next tithing settlement or temple recommend interview. “Well Bishop, I did not pay a full tithe because I am exempt as a working woman.”
I personally don’t tithe to the LDS church because I give directly into my community but since I am a single mom, if I get any grief about it, I can use this line.
Funny stuff.
Comment by StillConfused — March 11, 2010 @ 10:42 am
Thank you SO much for writing this post! I had actually submitted one of those “Dear fMh” posts about this exact talk, because after reading the synopsis of it, I went away feeling extremely disturbed. I really want to read it myself to see if Elder Pace’s words really do imply that women are only valuable as complements of men.
The whole role of women in the gospel and the entire Plan of Salvation has been on my mind a lot lately, and I’m finding it increasingly difficult to hold on to my testimony as I see some of the basic tenets of it slowly eroding away. I’m having trouble feeling valued as a daughter of God. I yearn to feel worth as an individual, not just as a wife and mother. I feel alienated at Church because I work full-time instead of being home with my son–maybe that will change once we no longer live in Happy Valley (I hope–hurry up and graduate, DH!).
Basically, I’m not satisfied anymore to just trust that it will all be worked out in the hereafter. If women are in the state that we are because of Eve’s decision, doesn’t that reek of original sin? I thought we were punished for our own sins, not Adam’s transgression–oh, wait, it doesn’t say anything about Eve there. Maybe it’s okay for women to be punished because Eve saw the wisdom first in taking the fruit, and we should all live under the thumb of our husbands. Please, tell me it isn’t so…
I don’t mean to sound bitter. It’s just that, the more I think about this, the more it disturbs me. At least I’m finally giving voice to my feelings. I hope that’s a step in the right direction.
Comment by Cordelia — March 11, 2010 @ 10:43 am
hkobeal — awesome, well-written post!
Your dad sounds a lot like my mom.
And, I was able to rise above so many times because these incidents are often so small by themselves. Viewed separately, the archaic language in conference talks, offensive statements in Sunday School, needing a priesthood holder to babysit us during meetings, inequities in the temple and the garments, the modesty teachings, infantalizing both men and women, marginalizing women who are divorced, single, not mothers or gay etc. can be often be ignored. But, taken together, I find the list oppressive, death by a thousand paper cuts.
Comment by Heidi BB — March 11, 2010 @ 10:54 am
Cordelia, good questions, all. I have felt all these things as well. But at some point (a Zen moment?), I just had to figure out that I do have a divine nature and it doesn’t have anything to do with my husband. Again, I’m not bitter about marriage–I’m grateful to say I’m happily married (although the last 18 months have been quite the ride, thanks, honey!!), but trying to derive my self-worth as an extension of my husband’s . . . nope. Didn’t work. Shouldn’t work. I’m just me and that’s gotta be good enough. No, it is good enough.
I’m also not satisfied that it will just all work out in the end. After a talk about “why men get to do everything in our church” (initiated by my young daughter), she actually said: “After I die, Heavenly Father’s got some explaining to do.”
Man, I love that kid.
But I’ve stopped thinking about getting these things answered and I’m trying to just worry about working them out for myself, right now, in my own little family. Maybe I’m doing the wrong thing?? I’m happier, though . . .
Comment by hkobeal — March 11, 2010 @ 11:04 am
Yeah, a couple of quotes were barfy, but the one about Mother in Heaven is fantastic.
Here’s the problem: the Daily Universe (BYU student newspaper) you linked is just an all-around terrible publication. They’ll make anything sound like an onion article, except without being clever. Their typos are so numerous, it stopped being a fun game when I found them. It’s really just dreck. The lowest of the lowest of printed material.
Having said that, I hope the text of the talk was better in full text.
Comment by motion de smiths — March 11, 2010 @ 11:05 am
I don’t know. I don’t think I’d call it a crap sandwich. More like a little piece of slightly wilted lettuce. I haven’t read the whole talk, but I don’t think he was saying this was “the” role of women, but “a” role of women, which I think is true. I also think it is a a role of men, to help purify and sanctify their wives. He definitely could have phrased it better, especially since it was a devotional for men and women, but I think he did make the point that women and men need each other, not just that women need to complete men.
But, yes the talk was condescending and even upsetting. It would be so lovely to hear more about the contributions that women can make as they fill their divine roles as leaders and teachers. I’ve always loved my patriarchal blessing because it has one little paragraph about being a wife and mother and then the rest of the two pages are about my education and work I will do and the impact I will have on the church. It’s so feminist.
Comment by jen — March 11, 2010 @ 11:15 am
One thing to keep in mind is that the Daily Universe isn’t exactly known for it’s stellar reporting.
And I would think that it would be thought provoking — as opposed to merely gender-offensive — to hear someone do a devotional on woman’s importance in relation to a man instead of the other way around.
For all the talking that goes on here about equality of the genders, I personally do believe that there is something there in regards to women having an unrevealed quality and purpose.
In a previous post (sorry, perhaps someone else will recall) a commenter told us how in her Temple Recommend interview with her SP prior to getting endowed, he stopped and pointed out to her that a man must be ordained as in the Melchizadec Priesthood before he can enter the temple, while a woman gets in by merely being righteous enough.
I believe that women do have some innate quality/power/whatever you want to call it that can bring them closer to God. It’s certainly not bearing a child. (How many good women do we know that will never do that in this life? And how many of us have had “unpleasant” experiences with childbearing?) But my mind tells me that there is something there, I just can’t see it yet. I feel it when I do initiatory and have women administering to me. And sometimes I feel it when I administer to my family. But like anything, I need to learn and grow more to fully understand it.
And it is this “quality” that I think Bro. Pace is talking about. Can men and women die un-married, righteous, and happy? Of course. But I think that we can be better together.
Anyhow, I’m looking forward to watching the devotional.
Comment by ErinAnn — March 11, 2010 @ 11:24 am
Thanks, hkobeal. I need one of those Zen moments. I like that you had such a conversation with your daughter–and I agree, there will be some explaining to do, I think! I’m already dreading how I’ll handle it when my 2-year-old son receives the priesthood in 10 years. I’m sure I’ll be excited for him, but the more I think about it, the more I’ll feel like he’ll then be more valuable and have more responsibility in the Church than I will. And I hate thinking I might feel that way.
Again, I look forward to being able to read the talk itself. I hope the various synopses I’ve read aren’t real reflections of the actual talk.
I haven’t spoken about any of this to my husband yet. He’s so “let’s not rock the boat,” though, so I’m not sure how he’ll react when I reveal some of my misgivings. I just wish I had someone to talk to about all of this…guess this blog is a good place to start! =)
Comment by Cordelia — March 11, 2010 @ 11:26 am
Re: the quality of the Daily Universe. That doesn’t really help me with this because the Church News published the same thing. So unfortunately, we can’t just blame this on bad reporting from the Daily Universe . . .
Comment by hkobeal — March 11, 2010 @ 11:35 am
I like Jack’s point. It’s nice that HM was mentioned, but why don’t we ever know more? I mean, if our divine purpose is to sanctify our husbands and our greatest role in the universe is being a mother… then where is *our* Mother? Is She out working and making the money, leaving HF home to watch after us and just reassure us that She’s there?
Comment by that1girl — March 11, 2010 @ 11:38 am
ErinAnn, don’t get me wrong. I definitely think I’m a better person because of my husband’s influence and I hope maybe he likewise derives some benefits from being married to me. But I’m looking for a bigger tent, so to speak, in which I’m better because of my relationships with my children, my co-workers, my siblings, other primary workers, my visiting teachers, my students . . . it’s all those people together that help complete me.
I’m not suggesting that I can get through life on my own or that I don’t need other people. I’m not that arrogant! Just thinking that I am uplifted and yes, maybe even sanctified, by all those people–not just my husband (sorry, honey, even though I know you wouldn’t have it any other way!).
Comment by hkobeal — March 11, 2010 @ 11:40 am
Cordelia, I think blogs are a great starting point. It can feel very lonely when you don’t feel like you have anyone to talk to. I stopped counting the number of times I tried to explain some of my “issues”/concerns/doubts and had another church member look at me like I was from Mars . . . it can get tiresome.
Comment by hkobeal — March 11, 2010 @ 11:42 am
Great post. I haven’t heard/read the devotional yet, will do later–and I’ll be sure to keep you all posted if this sort of thing goes down on my watch at BYU-I.
Reminds me–does anyone else go here?
Comment by Amanda C — March 11, 2010 @ 12:29 pm
Here’s my “middle ground”; Whenever I get aggravated by a talk or comment, I remind myself that I attend my church meetings and the temple for the Spirit, not for the persona interaction. I choose what talks and comments I let influence me, and instead, let myself just feel the Spirit. I had a woman in Relief Society say to me, after learning that I was a working mother, “you must not have enough faith if you work outside the home”. I was deeply offended by that comment and that judgement. I chose to busy myself with callings in Primary and other activities and do not attend Relief Society, knowing my weakness for letting these kinds of things get to me. I love the church and this faith. I will never let one person’s comments divert me from my spiritual goals.
Comment by MiddleGroundMormon — March 11, 2010 @ 12:30 pm
Great post, h.
Without having read or heard the talk (why would I do such a thing?), I wonder if the purification isn’t piggybacking on that Mormon folk doctrine that women are more spiritual than men, and thus a man needs that more pure form of spirituality in his life to purify himself? If so, I still don’t agree with him, because its both patronizing to women and it seems to excuse men from real effort at spirituality. But also, even if that’s the point he’s making, how is that the *only* or *primary* purpose for women?
Comment by Clay Whipkey — March 11, 2010 @ 12:32 pm
MiddleGroundMormon, I like youur “middle ground” but do see one sticking point (for ME). It’s easy for me to blow off people at church that say stuff like that to me, but when it comes from one of the apostles or when we hear it in General Conference, then it’s not so easy to blow off. Is it for you?
Comment by hkobeal — March 11, 2010 @ 12:37 pm
I have to say that talks and counsel like this that I’ve seen my entire life in the church was one of the most motivating factors in me bucking it. I’m a tad (lot?) rebellious by nature and the more my dad and brothers told me that my true role in life was to be a SAHM, the more I decided I’d do something far different. Today I earn more than both my brothers combined and they don’t try to give me that condescending crap counsel anymore.
For me, I just try and stay focused on Christ, being a good person. I am raising my daughters in a way that they will make their own decisions on what is best for them. I haven’t had one of them ask me any questions about what they hear in church yet but when/if they do, I’ll tell them exactly what I think.
Comment by Lulubelle — March 11, 2010 @ 12:37 pm
Clay, I agree that of course it’s not the *only* or *primary* purpose for women–not should it be for men. That’s the one part I feel like I can change in my own little family. I can’t change Elder Pace’s mind, but I’m hellbent on changing my kids’ minds and helping them see that their mission in life is vast.
Comment by hkobeal — March 11, 2010 @ 12:40 pm
Great post - in regards to how I felt when reading the content though “ugh. how backwards things still are!”
It truly is hard to look forward and say “things will get better, someday” when it is constantly being shown that things just aren’t.
I don’t know what there is left to do but “just keep swimming, just keep swimming” — and make a difference in our own homes. That’s where it starts.
Comment by Bobby Pin Natalie — March 11, 2010 @ 12:49 pm
I need to be as whole as possible myself, but I also understand the idea of being ONE with God and ONE with my husband. I can’t say I am that good at any of them, or that I completely understand the concept. I hold back. Sometimes I just don’t let it happen. I keep some walls up. I keep my pet sins. Pride is always there, at some level, doing its destruction. It is asking a lot of anyone to even try to complete me, but I do know that I am not complete without my Savior. Until I understood the atonement better and recognized I needed that to even begin to be whole, I was not as much ME, on my own. Finding the gospel helped me know the eternal “me” on a whole new level, and gave me a better vision about that.
I know marriage and motherhood has changed me and definitely made me more complete . I had no idea what family could be like and how it does polish the rough stone of my individuality. Nothing exposed my weaknesses like being a wife, and then a mother. Grrrrr!
I think there is much we don’t know now that we will learn later. That IS faith. We know that many will blessed with things in the hereafter they do not have here. We count on it.
I don’t expect my son with CP will marry or have children in this life, though I could be wrong. I hope I am wrong but if not I have hope in the bigger picture. What I am not wrong about is that every blessing will come to him, that he lives worthy of, and he is definitely as complete as possible NOW, because of the atonement. He is happy, and faithful, and works hard at what he does, with what he has NOW. Amazing. NO matter how others view him, he is positive about himself, because of the gospel plan of hope .
I have dear friends who have not married, and they live extraordinary lives, some in an ordinary way, because of their faith in both what Heavenly Father is teaching them now, in their trials, and what is yet to come. They don’t sit around waiting for life to sooth them, they go and learn and explore and do and serve. My life is boring compared to some of theirs, for sure. I see some great things about being single.
I have divorced friends who are figuring out how it all works to be alone in that way, but they have a faithful view of the big picture, which gives them hope and peace. Sometimes a good divorce is much preferred to a bad marriage where there is putrifying going on, not purifying. They carry on and improve themselves NOW. They grieve. They despair. They find peace again, and move forward in FAITH. I am humbled by them. I also have strong women friends who do the church thing alone. The good influence of everyone can help complete and sanctify us…but the opposite is also true…we can go backwards as well. Others can influence for bad…and we fall and fail. Hence, the atonement, again.
I used to worry in primary about the children whose families were broken, or just so dysfunctional, as we talk and focus so much about the ‘ideal’ family. “We are a happy family! ” No, some of us are decidedly NOT. Some really are lacking in some of the basics we talk and preach about. Sometimes I was not all that happy myself, on any particular Sunday! But we still all belong here to learn and let the gospel principles improve our situation, even if it is just the one in our own soul.
I finally had to just come to grips with the fact, we will always teach the ideal. We will teach eternal marriage to those in terrible marriages, or no marriage, or who will never marry through no fault of their own. We will teach the joy of procreation in the presence of those who cannot do so, for whatever reason. We will teach financial management and tithing to those who have no money. We will teach productivity and self-reliance to those without arms or vision or other vital capacity. I changed the way I taught. I began to include in my teaching , that if they are not in the exact circumstance in their family, they are also learning the principles for their own FUTURE family. That this life is not perfect. No marriage, no person, no circumstance is really perfect. That this life is a blip in a big eternity, and we have eternity to work eternal things out, and a Savior to mediate, bind our wounds, and a Heavenly Father to continue to bless and care individually for His children. All blessings will eventually come! It is frustrating that everyone can’t have everything now, and some…so little, or so it seems, from my limited perspective.
Then I look at it differently. The gospel principles are true, our reality may not be in sinc at the moment or at any moment in our lives. We will still talk about mothers on mothers day, even though some are not mothers or have no memory of their mother….or have a terrible mother with THOSE memories.
We do all we can, and then we let God make up the difference, in whatever circumstance. Some people have very little reality that fits with the ideal.
Most people of any religion who believe in an afterlife walk down their path by faith in symbolically future “gold streets, new shoes”, and being welcomed to a place and time of peace, rest, joy and things FINALLY made…right. In our religion that includes eternal love, marriage, and families to those who have had none. It is quite extraordinary to me!
For my son that means all that, plus a new body fit and agile…his new fancy fashionable shoes finally without unwieldy leg braces!. Dangling carrot, it may be, but he doesn’t sit and wait in the meantime. He does his part the best he can. I hope I do too. We appreciate we lives in a place and time when leg braces are available and he has SO MUCH opportunity . His glass is so full, according to him, even though many view it as so empty. We have choice in the way we view things. He chooses so well. He helps sanctify me.
We often, in marriage literature, hear that marriage is a place where partners are able to HEAL one another of their past pains in some way. I believe I can see in my marriage that we have actually healed and improved one another…my strengths benefit him and his do the same for me. We are very different. We can REALLY bug one another. Best case scenario, husband and wife, in all their interactions, striving together, teaching by example and word, hopefully in kindness and respect - would actually help each other move forward in their individual work towards being more like Heavenly Father- towards sanctification, purity, and whatever perfection they could achieve in this life. Sometimes marriage is messy and we are not at all healing or purifying, but in that messiness, we hopefully come around, repent, forgive, learn from it, and move on and UPWARD,. We repent, take the sacrament, and the atonement does it’s work, too. I think there is definitely purification in the mix, if we are at all doing it right, after we have done it wrong. And then we do it all again, usually. Mess up, patch up, repent, learn, and try to love and do better.
When I hear or read a talk, I really try to find the gems in them…find the things that feed my soul. Sometimes I think we can become actually addicted to negative thinking and critical analysis. We can become skewed in our views. It wasn’t a perfect talk, IMHO, and I can always hear things that bug me, but I think I understood his intent. I read both of the links.
hkobeal said :” I don’t want my daughters to wonder why Heavenly Father has such a limited vision of their potential.
Surely Heavenly Father wants women to do more than complete men. I’m a wife. I like my husband. But being a wife doesn’t complete me. My husband doesn’t complete or sanctify or purify me. And I don’t do those things for him, either.”
Of course. Heavenly Father, by definition, does NOT have a limited vision of our potential. We have a limited vision- of His vision. We see so dimly. Brother Pace was talking about when we will see FACE TO FACE, clearly.
Of course, we all are taught we individually have much more to do than JUST help our spouses in their progression. This talk had a narrow purpose. Isn’t that ever ok? Can every talk cover everything? Can every talk satisfy every need or question or definition?
And still.. really…you don’t think you have helped your husband AT ALL to become better or more pure? That your marriage has provided nothing of good for him, which good would help in his ultimate sanctification? That your life has not touched his for good? Being married to you has not enriched and bettered him as a person? I find that hard to imagine. You sound like a great person.
OK, then.
We have been invited to prepare and to come to the feast of the Bridegroom, to celebrate with Him. All He can do is invite. We bring what oil we have to it. Everyone has agency. Choice and Accountability.
and Divine Nature! I really loved that he spoke of Heavenly Mother and spoke of that eventual moment in time. I visualized it, and it was AWESOME! I joyed at that very concrete idea of seeing Her in her divinity, and recognizing mine more completely. To me that is so exciting! That is a good view of the pearly gate experience, to me, and one I had not heard spoken about in that way.
Comment by Melissa P. — March 11, 2010 @ 12:57 pm
I converted to the church at an age where I was about to make my course choices at university.The only member in my family, from being an ambitious, focussed Bernstein and Woodward wannabe, overnight the goal in my life became to marry and be a SAHM, nothing else. With no-one to counteract the incessant emphasis on marriage and motherhood and implied subordination, my ambition was buried and conformity awaited. Many years later, a divorced single parent, I am so grateful for my now adult children- but bitterly regret the ‘what if’ that increasingly gnaws away at me.
I too wish blogs had been around back then. It would have been good to know that the desires of my heart were not as unrighteous, or as unusual, as I was led to believe.My children have been taught otherwise.
Comment by Lala — March 11, 2010 @ 12:57 pm
i apologize again. ridiculous. long. too much. I know i have said it before, evidently I am a slow slow learner.
but one more thing- I can’t ignore-Cordelia said ” ….we should all live under the thumb of our husbands. Please, tell me it isn’t so…” under the thumb?????????? NO.
CORDELIA! NO, IT ISN’T SO! If that is how you really feel about your situation, you will have to get started on a big , conversation. In bits, I imagine. Prayerfully, too.
That is NOT your role , and ESPECIALLY not HIS towards you. Marriage is a big hairy work. Sometimes a big part of purifying in marriage is removing/altering old ideas of those roles ( husbands and wives) we do have, that we have absorbed in one way or another.
I don’t think we are fully aware of how we think about many things until we face them in marriage. You can marry someone who you think you understand how they feel about things, but then it is only in marriage that much is revealed. We don’t even know certain things about ourselves.
But frankly, I still can really only change myself, and that with much difficulty. As we improve and see ourselves more clearly, and act up to our potential, usually those around us see and act UP to it too. Do not let your husband or anyone else squash your good opinion of WHO YOU ARE all by yourself.
Don’t get rattled, get started! Take a big breath, PRAY and ask for the Holy Ghost to help you continually FEEL and be aware of your ultimate possibilities, divinity and worth…individually , on YOUR OWN MERITS. You have to start there, knowing your own person and power. Feeling it. Owning it.
I don’t know that most wives haven’t felt what you are feeling on some day or other. I have talked with lots of wives. Blogs and email ( and cell phones! )would definitely have been a help to me during very difficult times.
But I have realized that still, Heavenly Father is the only one who truly understands every feeling we have. The atonement of Jesus Christ covers all sorts of pain and anguish and frustration, not just sin. I need to reboot my prayer life sometimes.
I like that this blog gives us a lot to think through about our own situation and beliefs, and re-adjust and recommit.
Comment by Melissa P. — March 11, 2010 @ 1:24 pm
I started to read the article but quit after about the third paragraph. I didn’t see anything new or unusual there. Maybe I should read it. I probably won’t. When people say things like this I just ignore it as their opinion and let it go. I figure my opinion is as good as anyone elses. What matters to me is my personal relationship with the Savior. I’ve never fully understood the yearning for a relationship with Heavenly Mother.
Sometimes I take a notebook with me to meetings and use it to talk back to the speakers. When it is full I put it away somewhere. Years later when I come upon it I can read it. It is often entertaining to see what kinds of things people were saying and what my reactions were. Sometimes when the emotion has gone out of my system it can be a springboard to something useful.
When local people say insensitive things I take that a little harder. I try to remind myself that what they are saying tells more about them than it does me: and what do I care what a crazy person says anyway.
Comment by Claudia — March 11, 2010 @ 1:31 pm
Melissa P. I know this has been said before but…how will you know who your HM is? Which one will she be? The one with the biggest house or one of the ones who will be sharing a house with her sister wives? The church does not repudiate polygamy in the hereafter, so there will be millions of HM’s. The happy HF/HM couple holding hands with their billion kids around them just does not reflect church teachings.
I’m so glad I no longer believe all that. I don’t have to twist my mind or ignore the “older” church’s teachings to make today’s little picture of heaven fit into last century’s church teachings. I’m still in church every week but those teachings no longer affects me. Thank God!
But I understand many people believe that and that’s ok if it works for them and brings them happiness and hope.
Comment by Martie — March 11, 2010 @ 1:36 pm
joule wrote:
Several years ago, I was asked to meet with my Stake President. When I entered his office, he informed me that they were looking to replace the bishop in our ward, and my name had been recommended. We spent the rest of the “interview” with him asking questions about my wife - does she work outside the home? Is she a good, faithful woman who fulfills her callings, does her visiting teaching, serves in the Relief Society, and so forth. Apparently, because my wife does have a profession, and does not match the stereotypical profile they seem to have in mind, the Stake President thanked me for my time, told me that many callings are given or withheld to men based on their wives. I was not called.
Comment by Daniel — March 11, 2010 @ 2:03 pm
I never really thought much about Heavenly Mother before I went through the temple (and my whole world shattered before my eyes).
I always remember being told by people that the reason why we don’t tralk about her is because she is too sacred. Too sacred? More sacred than Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ? So sacred that she is denied any sort of relationship from her own children??
This floors me. If the family unit is the most important part of existance, and if a woman’s divine role is to nurture her children to grow in love and happiness, why do we, her children, have no realtionship with her whatsoever?
This leads me to wonder if it is becuase she is not exalted to the same degree that God the Father is–if she, instead, is only a consort to the Father so that he can create souls. We call her a goddess, but what if that’s only meant to signify that she is married to a god? What if the reason why we don’t talk about her is to prevent us from worshipping a being that is less than a god?
And that’s why I’m in therapy right now.
Comment by AllieKay — March 11, 2010 @ 2:22 pm
Salvation > callings
Comment by pdig — March 11, 2010 @ 2:23 pm
Martie…I don’t know the answer, really, but I would imagine the Holy Ghost can testify to that if it is important.
Comment by Melissa P. — March 11, 2010 @ 2:25 pm
Really Allie? you are in therapy for those reasons?
Comment by Melissa P. — March 11, 2010 @ 2:27 pm
I’m in therapy for many reasons. One of them is because I had a spiritual crisis after I went to the temple because I suddenly felt like I was being told that my entire existence was to merely be useful to a man, to create souls for him and make him complete. Suddenly, I felt like I was not a complete person on my own. It was like all of my ambitions and talents that I had developed up to that point didn’t matter because, if it didn’t have anything to do with motherhood or wifehood, it didn’t make any difference in the end.
Comment by AllieKay — March 11, 2010 @ 2:31 pm
I feel for you, AllieKay. I had a similar reaction to the temple, and I considered therapy, too. It was very harmful to my soul. I hope the therapy is helpful for you.
This talk is offensive to my sensibilities, as many of you have mentioned. Sometimes I think our only hope is to educate our sons so that one day when they are leaders (assuming our daughters will still not have that opportunity,) they will be able to change things or at the very least approach things with a better educated viewpoint.
Comment by the milk (of the gospel) — March 11, 2010 @ 2:46 pm
Wow, went to lunch and look what I found!
Melissa P., I certainly hope that I have helped my husband become a better person and enriched his life. And he has certainly done so for me (and continues to do so). But so do a lot of things . . .
And no, of course every talk cannot address every issue. But it seems VERY strange and, like the post says, disappointing to me that this talk was given to a mixed gender group, yet it had such a narrow focus. How about a talk on discovering your divine potential?? Something with a broader theme that will allow everyone to glean something valuable from it?
Lastly, I of course agree that Heavenly Father does not have a limited vision of our potential. That’s why I yearn for ecclesiastical leaders to not put out messages that suggest otherwise. That’s why I long to hear a message, from the pulpit, that I can relate to, that speaks to me. It’s been far too long . . .
Comment by hkobeal — March 11, 2010 @ 2:48 pm
@11
I find your argument confusing at best. Childless couples do not want you to abdicate your responsibilities to your children. I think just the opposite is true. While childless or single people for that matter can with a whole heart support families for their efforts, more often than not they, meaning single and childless couples are made to feel less than because for whatever reason they have not or cannot have a child or find a mate.
Aside from that I don’t think the point of the post was about parenting per se but the condenscending (sorry about the spelling) tone that leadership often takes towards women and women’s issue.
I find it odd that while men in the church are allowed to have a successful career, family and a life full of activities women are often made to guilty to want anything out side of marriage and babies.
Its’ a bit of a paradox because I was reading the young womans manual yesterday and it stated that one of the goals as a young woman was to be and get as much education as she can. She goes out and get the education and career and is then penalized for it by the very system she is suppose to follow and obey
Comment by Diane — March 11, 2010 @ 2:49 pm
Claudia, I love your notebook idea. If I ever get booted out of primary (hoping that never happens), I’ll definitely have to try that!
Martie & AllieKay–I’ve never bought the line that HM is so sacred that we can’t even talk about her. That just doesn’t seem right. She’s so special that we . . . ignore her? No, that’s what I do when my kids are behaving badly. I ignore them and hope they go away. (Just kidding . . . sort of.)
Comment by hkobeal — March 11, 2010 @ 2:51 pm
Men say stupid things sometimes. Even though they hold the priesthood.
Having said that.. I went and read through this talk and found nothing that really blatantly made me wince. I thought it was nice. I can see how it might ruffle some feathers… I guess. There was the discussion of marriage as necessary to fulfulillment (though I’d argue he was talking about men AND women, though his talk was directed at women) and the discussion of women’s “roles” that seems to always stir up trouble.
The thing is… I do think women have certain roles that men don’t have, and vice versa. That might not jive with modern feminist theory, but dang. Modern feminist theory is a product of the world. There’s good and bad in it. I’d be just as worried about someone holding up modern feminist theory and theoreticians as above reproach as I’d be about them holding up a priesthood leader as such.
Comment by sare — March 11, 2010 @ 3:00 pm
(Hey AllieKay–just wanted to say I’m also in therapy, partly because I suffered a huge personal crisis after going through the temple. Maybe we need a group! In my experience it’s hard to find a therapist who gets it.)
Comment by Kiskilili — March 11, 2010 @ 3:01 pm
Sometimes I feel like I’m on an elevator with a snapped cable, careening toward death. Then, most of the time, those little emergency elevator break claws pop out and catch me. The emergency break I use when contemplating gender role insanity is this:
Either A:
God really does value females as much as males, and all of the BS we have to put up with was invented, perpetuated, and cherished by human beings who are either ignorant or have a malicious agenda, or
B- God really does consider females as an accessory to be used by his chosen creation, the human male. In which case, if he had any shred of decency or kindness, he would have given us subhuman intelligence. Enough that we could birth and work as a domestic beast successfully (maybe around IQ 50?), but not enough for us to feel any pain or dissatisfaction in our role. Since we aren’t all IQ impaired, and we feel plenty of pain, I conclude that either Option A is the correct explanation, or Option B is true, and God likes to watch us writhe in discomfort. If He’s not a good god, I’m not much interested in Him and what he thinks anyway- it’s not like trying to please him will bring me any pleasure in the afterlife. That would be reserved solely for males.
Comment by Moniker Challenged — March 11, 2010 @ 3:02 pm
Daniel, that story (#55) gets my blood boiling.
I hope I can read the text of the talk. Or maybe I won’t. I’m sick of being mad at stuff people at church said.
I think I just want to go have a picnic instead.
Comment by Hammie — March 11, 2010 @ 3:06 pm
Moniker Challenged-
That’s the kicker, isn’t it? It’s like most of what we hear is trying to make us believe that we somehow rank below men, but the fact that I am talented and smart suggests otherwise.
But then, one might argue, it becomes an issue of agency. Yes, He could have made us less capable, but that would take away the agency to choose the role that he has chosen for us, right? This is a big trouble point for me–the possibility that women like me might just be lying to ourselves as to what is best for us.
And this is why, I think, there’s a pretty big push against women even wanting anything different than what has been perscribed for them.
Comment by AllieKay — March 11, 2010 @ 3:10 pm
Hammie- Yes! Picnics are great! Maybe if it stays sunny this weekend…
I’m sure a picnic would do most of us a lot of good.
Come to think of it, when’s the last time we’ve had a snacker in the SLC/Utah Valley area?
Comment by AllieKay — March 11, 2010 @ 3:12 pm
#67: I was just thinking something along those lines today–it’s my emergency brake too! I also have my “GA’s are not infalliable” mantra.
Comment by Amanda C — March 11, 2010 @ 3:13 pm
#69: If women were not as important to God as men, and if we were only tools for their salvation, I don’t see why He would give us agency in the first place.
Comment by Amanda C — March 11, 2010 @ 3:18 pm
#69 Believe me, I understand the disease of second guessing myself, and self-flagellating. Still, I don’t much enjoy that theory. All of the misery and confusion is just a test? God wants us to chose to act like we’re sub-human to show our obedience? And the test for man’s agency is… to not beat their women and their donkeys even though they can? That’s still sick. At least that’s how I’m seeing it currently.
Comment by Moniker Challenged — March 11, 2010 @ 3:23 pm
Kiskilili-
I know what you mean. I was extremely fortunate to find a therapist that specializes in (among other things) LDS issues. I wonder what I’m going to do when i move out of Utah Valley.
I have heard that many therapists are moving toward accommodating religious issues rather than simply dismissing them. (i.e. “Well, you wouldn’t have these problems if you stopped going to church.”) Religion, for many people, is not just something that can be dismissed. It’s often a huge part of ones personal identity and how one perceived their life quest. While it may be hard to find a therapist who deals with LDS issues, it should be becoming easier to find one who is sympathetic to religious concerns, if generally. It’s encouraging, anyway.
Comment by AllieKay — March 11, 2010 @ 3:26 pm
#70–Don’t know how to get the ball rolling on this one. What’s the protocol?
Comment by Moniker Challenged — March 11, 2010 @ 3:27 pm
PS- AllieKay, were you the one who took one for the team and sat through that awful presentation on Dressing for Success advertised with the mudflap girls? If so, I think you’re in my stake. If no, please disregard this notice.
Comment by Moniker Challenged — March 11, 2010 @ 3:30 pm
Sare, although this may be foolish and naive, I’m too stubborn to admit that the world can so easily be divided up into two big categories–women, who have a unique divine purpose, and men–who have a different unique divine purpose. Sure, there’s plenty of research that shows that there are biological differences between men and women. But IMO, the world is so diverse–full of all different kinds of people, all of whom have unique strengths, challenges, limitations, talents, perspectives, etc. If that’s not evidence of the divine, what is? So let’s embrace those differences. Let’s say their names out loud and recognize them, rather than try to squeeze everyone into one of two possible boxes.
FWIW, I agree that modern feminist theory is not above reproach. Any feminist worth his/her salt should be able to admit that. My post didn’t suggest that I thought modern feminist theory was above reproach, did it? If I did, that was an unintended message.
Comment by hkobeal — March 11, 2010 @ 3:30 pm
To the understandably frustrated women on this blog, I’m curious as to what many of you expect? What I mean is: Mormonism is a patriarchy… do you really expect to be treated as an equal?
Seriously, it’s like expecting honey from lemons (to me).
Comment by barmy stoat — March 11, 2010 @ 3:41 pm
#70 - oh can we? Please? It would be so nice to talk to real women face to face who feel the same way I do….
*crosses fingers hopefully*
Comment by Abbie — March 11, 2010 @ 3:42 pm
No, that wasn’t me. I’m in a BYU married student stake.
Comment by AllieKay — March 11, 2010 @ 3:42 pm
#80 My condolences
Comment by Moniker Challenged — March 11, 2010 @ 3:44 pm
Isn’t there just one “divine” purpose for everyone? The details about how we get there might be different for everyone-and I really think the details get fuzzy with cultural stuff quite a bit. I think about the kind of life women before me lived, and can’t imagine that that is the end all of what God intended for them (not to mention all the other people who have been treated as less than throughout history).
I remind myself that this life is a testing period, and that no test is really an accurate representation of real life. We’re not supposed to fully reach our divine potential here. It’s not possible to with all the limits we have as humans. The point of life is to do the best we can with what we have.
So I’m okay with not agreeing with everything I hear and read, even from church leaders. We see through the glass darkly and all that. I mostly go off of how I feel, and I feel strongly about the plan of salvation, families and the atonement, so I think about those things when I’m feeling frustrated with (what I see as) limitation of our current culture.
Comment by Alliegator — March 11, 2010 @ 3:52 pm
I’m the YW prez and neither I nor my counselors participated in YW as teens due to inactivity to adult conversion. Maybe I came to the church with different gender ideas so I don’t have years of bad feelings that seem to permeate many of these comments. Whenever we have lessons about “Divine Roles” of women from the manuel, we always tie it to our destiny as goddesses. Lessons on education and careers are never about applying those skills in the home but applying them in the cosmos. A goddess better know the laws of physics and how to use them if she intends to work with her companion to organize galaxies. A goodess better understand the human body to create them and provide the necesary envirnment to sustain them. A goddess better be good at corporate management becaues managing a cosmos is tricky work. A goddess needs to know home work life balance because our existance will only get busier when we engage with the universe and its inhabitants on a bigger level. Am I heretical? I don’t think so. I’ve had lovely feedback from the stake president and bishopric about what we discuss. I looked for link to the entire devotional and couldn’t find it. Am I living in a church anomoly? I never found the amount of liberation and empowerment in any faith system I investigated which included the major monotheistic brands and several polytheistic ones as well. This comment might not fit in well here with the comments I just read but I am sharing my experience in my found church. As a side, BYU sounds like it has some very odd religion profs.
Comment by higgledypiggledy — March 11, 2010 @ 3:54 pm
Barmy stoat: For me, I guess I feel like I didn’t really “choose” to be a member of the church. But since I’m choosing to stay, I look for honey in lemon trees sometimes. And believe it or not, I find it enough times to persuade me to keep squeezing.
Alliegator–nice approach.
Comment by hkobeal — March 11, 2010 @ 3:55 pm
FWIW, it took some looking, but I’ve been able to find someone in Tennessee and Texas that had a deep enough understanding of LDS theology to not have to feel like they didn’t “get it”. But my options would probably open up if I went to a counselor that was actually LDS…
Comment by Enna — March 11, 2010 @ 3:58 pm
Yes, Barmy, I expect to be treated as an equal.
I expect that the culture and teachings to evolve as we gain a greater understanding of God’s plan for us.
Comment by Alliegator — March 11, 2010 @ 4:01 pm
(delete the “that” in my above comment- that’s what I get for changing my wording mid-sentence…)
Comment by Alliegator — March 11, 2010 @ 4:03 pm
We’re planning a real fmh snacker. it’s our annual spring snacker.
details forthcoming.
Comment by mfranti — March 11, 2010 @ 4:05 pm
#41 - hkobeal, I’m just confused, then, by the complaints and worries I’m seeing here. What am I missing? Here’s my big three:
1 - I’ve never gotten the sense that my relationships with those around me isn’t important and influential. Quite the opposite. The relationships that we build with our spouses, children, friends, neighbors, relatives, co-workers, etc. are ALL important in defining ourselves, developing our skills, and enriching our lives spiritually. Bro. Pace is discussing one of those relationships that isn’t usually emphasized in quite that way.
2 - The idea of this specific topic being given to a mix-gender group… Who should he be giving it to? Just the men? Just the women? I think that there would still be complaining. As you know, there are new topics every week at the BYU devotionals. What’s the big deal with a very narrow, specific topic?
3 - The temple being such a terrifying experience. Can you guys please give some specifics? Because I just don’t feel that way. When I attend, I get a great sense of my boundless potential — and not as a vessel for replenishing the earth.
Can I get some help here? (And sorry, it will probably be a long while until I get on here — later tonight.)
Comment by ErinAnn — March 11, 2010 @ 4:20 pm
I think in some ways it would have made more sense to have given the talk just to men. Not that that would have made it less offensive. But it wasn’t some kind of general perspective on gender; it was, through and through, an explicitly male perspective. It could have been a talk to the priesthood session called, “what women can do for you.”
It seems like there’s something inherently contradictory about talks to women which don’t actually treat women as subjects.
Comment by Lynnette — March 11, 2010 @ 4:30 pm
“Seriously, it’s like expecting honey from lemons (to me).” (Barmy # 78)
I think we see it more like someone put lemon in the honey pots. We could shop at another store, but this one sells the best honey. I just want them to fix the mistakes.
#40– I was told years ago the answer was “She is too delicate. HF protects her, by not advertising she is there.”
Comment by zaissa — March 11, 2010 @ 4:43 pm
#88 Apparently the protocol for getting a snacker is to wait patiently, and the permabloggers will provide. If not in this life, than the life to come
Comment by Moniker Challenged — March 11, 2010 @ 4:56 pm
Ha! Moni FTW!
Comment by Reese Dixon — March 11, 2010 @ 5:08 pm
Melissa P. (#52): Sorry, tone doesn’t translate very well in blogs. I don’t believe that women really are under the thumb of their husbands–I meant it kind of tongue-in-cheek. I do know that I need to pray about this, but I’m finding it increasingly difficult to pray when I am feeling more and more like I’m not understood, like I’m not as valuable as His sons are
ErinAnn (#89): For me initially, the temple was a beautiful experience. I went through before leaving on a mission, and I went as often as I could and even served as a temple worker when I got home. I felt such peace there, such love. I went there for solace after a break-up, I sat in the celestial room praying for advice about grad school…it was my refuge from the world.
After I got married, though, the wording of some of the covenants changed for me. I had an actual person to plug in place of the word “husband,” and I suddenly felt like I was being told that, now that I was married, my husband was suddenly in between me and God, and I needed to go through him when I needed a blessing. That’s actually what I was referring to when I made my remark that Melissa P. commented on. I’m now required to hearken to my husband, while he hearkens to God. Why is it required like that? I do feel like we’re being punished for something Eve did–something that we’re taught in the Church was a good thing! It just doesn’t feel right inside.
I really miss how I used to feel about the temple.
Comment by Cordelia — March 11, 2010 @ 5:12 pm
zaissa- To me, this is just ridiculous. A goddess needs protection from her own children (who, I might add, are mere mortals)?
Comment by AllieKay — March 11, 2010 @ 5:22 pm
AllieKay–I agree with you. I think that position is ludicrous. It’s my opinion that we don’t know about her because all the people that are “high-ranking” enough to inquire about Her and get such revelation are male, and it’s just not enough of a priority for them. Maybe that’s a pessimistic viewpoint, but it makes sense.
Comment by Cordelia — March 11, 2010 @ 5:25 pm
The goddess argument doesn’t resonate with me because it doesn’t help me at all with the here and the now . . .
Comment by hkobeal — March 11, 2010 @ 5:30 pm
@AllieKay–I think so, too. Whenever I hear someone say we were created in Heavenly Father’s image, I think: “Hmmm . . . well now what does that mean?”
Comment by hkobeal — March 11, 2010 @ 5:31 pm
#21 Jack
I’m glad somebody actually said it. In the back of my mind, for a long time, I have wondered if the real reason we don’t talk about her is because the deep doctrine (that isn’t shared with the majority of us who just aren’t spiritual enough to understand) involves a harem of Heavenly Mothers. I realize no one has said this and it could just be my paranoia kicking in. But it sure would make a lot of sense as to why we aren’t supposed to pray to her or talk to her because there could be a lot of goddess mothers under that system… It definitely makes a lot more sense than saying she’s too precious and cannot be insulted (please…I think a goddess could take it)…I think it’s a lot more insulting to be ignored, personally.
Still, I’m glad she was mentioned in a talk, even if I’m not so thrilled with my divine potential being limited to a tiny little boxed in sort of view.
Comment by Kimberly — March 11, 2010 @ 5:42 pm
I watched the whole thing through (twice). When I read the articles linked to in the OP, I thought that surely they were exaggerations of the talk, but I find them to be pretty accurate. I actually had a much more difficult time with the talk itself. This may be because I just finished FW and am working on my post about it. My biggest problem with FW is that the premise is that this is a man’s world, and women are responsible to support men in their world. This talk sounds like it supports that premise. A quote:
Unless the divine nature and destiny of men is the sacred role they play in the sanctification and purification of women, it kind of sounds to me like this is a man’s world, and women are responsible to support men.
He does a good job of supporting his focus. He uses personal examples to show how the (very “feminine”) women in his life (mother, sister, daughters) have caused a “spiritual metamorphosis” in him.
He recounts the story of the creation from the time Adam was placed on the earth and asks us to pay particular attention to the sequence of events leading up to the introduction of Eve.
1. The Gods created man.
2. The Gods planted a garden and put the man in the garden.
3. The Gods grew the trees of knowledge and good and evil.
4. God created every animal and commanded that they come unto Adam to see what he would call them. God commanded that whatever Adam called each creature, that would be their names. Adam named every animal.
5. But there was no helpmeet for Adam.
Here’s the next quote:
Then he talks about Milton’s account of the creation - how Adam spent his time watching all the animals and tried to communicate with them the best he could. However, Adam concludes that something is drastically not right and something is missing. Milton concludes that “God delayed the introduction of Eve so that Adam could fully appreciate her. Seeing that Adam is now ready for the introduction for Eve, God describes what will happen next: What next I will bring will please thee, be assured. Thy likeness, thy fit help, thy other self, thy wish exactly to thy heart’s desire”.
Then he talks about how sweet, etc. Eve was and the feelings Adam had for her. Another quote:
Then he talks about how married couples are one, how they can’t get to the celestial kingdom without each other, how they need each other. I don’t have a problem with that (except that he never mentions they are equal). He talks about the divine nature of women and to not let things in the world chip away at our divine nature. He says this:
(In light of my FW post, I am feeling a bit conspicuous on that one.)
He then talks about his wife as “an example of one who has retained her eternal nature”. “Wearing that eternal nature well, she has supported me as a general authority for 25 years. I could not have served, nor would I have qualified to serve without her love and support. She has been the crucial key to the metamorphosis I desperately needed to be worthy and able to serve”.
Please, can someone tell me that I am mistaken in thinking this talk is about how this is a man’s world, and women serve to support the man?
Comment by Stephanie — March 11, 2010 @ 5:48 pm
Kimberly #99 - I’ve had that thought, too. Scary thought.
Lynnette, #90 - and that thought. I did notice that the further into the talk it goes, the less laughter and applause at the “funny” parts. I don’t know if that’s because people were falling asleep or not interested or what, but I also wondered if it is because it just got less funny the longer it got.
And Moniker Challenged, I’ve been pondering over this talk all day and finally reached pretty much the same conclusion as you. My basic premise is that the gospel is true. So, if the gospel is true, I have to draw one of two conclusions from this talk. Either
1 - This world/gospel really is about men and their purposes, and our role as women is to support them. I need to embrace that (and die inside in the process)
or
2 - This talk is an expression of opinion by a member of the 70, not canonized doctrine.
With all respect to Elder Pace (and remembering my covenant to not speak evil of the Lord’s annointed), I choose 2.
Comment by Stephanie — March 11, 2010 @ 5:55 pm
Very true. And for me, if being a goddess in the afterlife is merely a perpetuation of this limited kind of divine potential as outlined…well, being a goddess may not be all it’s cracked up to be. If it is, I could see myself being on an antidepressant eternally…or maybe just volunteering for eternal servitude as an angel. At least it’s honest work.
I’m not saying this as a person who’s terribly upset, because like your father, I just don’t buy it. It’s a new way of saying the same old thing, as Jack so aptly put it…a crap sandwich with condiments. That one’s going in my book, Jack…thanks for the laugh. (I keep a journal with sayings that amuse, challenge or touch me in some way.)
Comment by Kimberly — March 11, 2010 @ 5:56 pm
For the record, I was not defending the “delicate Goddess” theory. I think it’s a load–I was thowing it out there though, because it was what I was fed.
Anyway I don’t think we consciously don’t talk about her because she may be one of many (although probably there is ‘deep’ theology that would suggest she is one of many) because I think we could just assume that we are all from the same one, as opposed to being all half siblings on the Earth. Right?
Again not that I think we are children of divine polygamy, just that we could work with the issue of God having multiple wives and us not knowing which one to pray to easily enough by assuming WE all come from one. So I dont think the reason we don’t mention her is in the multiple thing.
I think it’s more likely because there have been Greek/Roman “gods” and there has been the Judeo-Christian “God” but is there a precedence for a couple being the God? I mean maybe the language and culture just never got comfortable with that, so even though LDS theology leads you to conclude a HM is necessary…it just still feels taboo to say. Possible?
Comment by zaissa — March 11, 2010 @ 5:57 pm
Then there’s what Orson Pratt allegedly said. (I say “allegedly” because I found the citation on wikipedia and I’m having a tough time locating the original source, so take it for what it’s worth.)
So, by that rationale, we can’t pray to Heavenly Mother because she has no power to interfere in our affairs, because that’s clearly a god’s work and a goddess belongs in the heavenly home making heavenly babies.
Man, is heaven gonna suck, or what!?
Comment by AllieKay — March 11, 2010 @ 6:13 pm
Stephanie - thanks for the outline of the talk. Wow. I think I’ll agree with your #2 as well, although I see hints of this kind of viewpoint in a lot of actual doctrine. I hope it doesn’t do as much damage as I fear it will.
Comment by Cordelia — March 11, 2010 @ 6:17 pm
AllieKay-
“Man, is heaven gonna suck, or what!?”
Well on the upside, it’l be pretty. I mean, there is a godess up there with nothing to do for eternity but decorate.
Comment by zaissa — March 11, 2010 @ 6:20 pm
AllieKay - I don’t want that kind of heaven. No way, no how. And if that’s why we don’t have knowledge of Heavenly Mother, then the entire doctrine sounds to me like heresy.
Comment by Cordelia — March 11, 2010 @ 6:23 pm
Snort. (Choking on my supper!) Aww, geez. Fu-get-about-it. I’m gonna be roasting in hell.
Comment by Kimberly — March 11, 2010 @ 6:25 pm
AllieKay- Just peeked at your blog, and wedding pics, you are a babe!
And I thought you would want to know (on your post that describes the oddness of Provo) there are actually a couple of bars. NOT THAT I GO TO THEM!
But I do know they have Jello-o wrestling in them. (seriously) Green Jell-o, I would assume, cause hey, it’s still Utah.
Comment by zaissa — March 11, 2010 @ 6:25 pm
That is definitely a major negative for people who are interested in hearing about the church, from my experience. I’d never really thought about the fact that we are not monotheist from that point of view though.
One thing that I’ve always considered is that there have been very few times in the scriptures that Heavenly Father actually spoke and those times were in sort of introduction to Christ. And most everything we do and learn is through and about Christ. And so maybe it isn’t so much that Heavenly Mother is being kept from us, but that he is the one with whom we have everything to do regardless of whether it is Heavenly Father or Heavenly Mother who is listening to and answering our prayers. And that distance between our Heavenly Parents and ourselves tells me that it is Christ that I should really be focusing on as far as spiritual matters go.
Comment by jen — March 11, 2010 @ 6:25 pm
I have seriously never entertained the idea that there would be multiple Heavenly Mothers. Polygamy is one of those things that I have just put out of my head and something that doesn’t affect me and won’t affect me.
But wow, is that interesting, guys!
Comment by hkobeal — March 11, 2010 @ 6:26 pm
Stephanie, that’s great that you listened to the whole thing. I’ll try it tonight after the kids are in bed.
Re: whether something is “just a GA speaking” or “canonized doctrine.” I know the norm exists that unless it’s spoken over the pulpit in General Conference, then it’s not official doctrine. But in reality, don’t MOST church members take as prophetic anything that’s said by a GA? That’s how it feels to me. If a GA (read = representative of God/Jesus Christ) says it, then we are to believe it. “Follow the prophet . . . don’t go astray . . .”
???
Comment by hkobeal — March 11, 2010 @ 6:28 pm
Don’t get me wrong. I’m comfortable picking and choosing, but I think most members would think that was pretty bold (and wrong) of me to do . . .
Comment by hkobeal — March 11, 2010 @ 6:30 pm
Steph (in 100), great outline of the talk, and really great thoughts. I feel like I’m taking Derek’s job by saying this, but so much of the problem with his talk could’ve been ameliorated by simply applying it to both men and women - not letting the world chip away at our divine nature, struggling to be strong but not becoming hard, being a spouse that seeks the others’ exaltation, etc…
Comment by Enna — March 11, 2010 @ 6:34 pm
zaissa- Aww, shucks!
Comment by AllieKay — March 11, 2010 @ 6:35 pm
hkobeal, yes, I usually do. I inhale general conference. I think that’s why I have been in so much turmoil over this today: Am I out of line here? Are my spiritual eyes blind? Why do I disagree with a general authority? Has FMH colored my glasses? I want to ask all the non-feminist women I know to listen to this talk and tell me what they think. DH is going to listen to it tonight.
I think this is where personal revelation comes in. But, if my testimony can withstand the floor falling out underneath me at the temple, then my testimony can withstand an opinion expressed by a member of the 70. Like someone above said: keep swimming.
Comment by Stephanie — March 11, 2010 @ 6:40 pm
Enna, I agree! I had the same thoughts as I listened to the talk.
Comment by Stephanie — March 11, 2010 @ 6:42 pm
hkobeal #111-
Well I have not given much thought to her being a multiple.
What I have given thought to is whether or not “the church”, since they emphasize the dire importance of marriage in our mortal lives and our exaltation, will ever define as a doctrine that marriage is genuinely and eternally an equal, monogamous partnership or melding of 2 into 1, OR if, to be a Mormon, I have to accept that someday the prophet/God may tell me that the higher order of things is one man and X # of women and I better fall in line.
Short answer, if I were convinced I had to believe the latter to truly believe the “church is true” then I simply don’t. Not that I think you can pick or choose, or fight with God, but it opposes everything in my natural and deeply emotional and spiritual understanding of my personhood, my sexuality, and my relationships with DH (I used it, Stephanie look, I used it!) So I just can’t believe that God as ordained polygamy as the highest form of spiritual interraction. NOPE NOPE NOPE. And if it comes down to it, I could not believe this church has ALL of the truth or ONLY truth if it were to say polygamy in the eternities is an absolute.
I see HM being a multiple as an extention of that hkobeal. So I don’t REALLY think she is one of HF’s many wives. I just think that that theory does not explain why she would be a taboo topic because and easy work around would be that she is OUR mother even if there are others.
Comment by zaissa — March 11, 2010 @ 6:44 pm
hkobeal (112) - But aren’t we supposed to take what the GAs say and then pray about them and see if they are true? I know a lot of the general church membership doesn’t do that, though. They just take whatever GAs say and consider it doctrine….I seem to remember someone once said (can’t remember who…sorry, it’s the end of a long workday) something about their biggest fear being that members of the church would take whatever a prophet said as doctrine instead of praying about it and receiving their own testimony.
I’m just glad this talk wasn’t given by an Apostle or one of the FP. Then I would have a VERY real problem.
Comment by Cordelia — March 11, 2010 @ 6:44 pm
One thing that is hard for me is that my friend who thinks that FW represents the gospel can use this talk as “proof” that she is right.
Comment by Stephanie — March 11, 2010 @ 6:48 pm
Stephanie- Is that how it went down in your book club? Did they fall in love with FW?
Comment by AllieKay — March 11, 2010 @ 6:56 pm
I feel really dumb asking this question, but can someone please explain what FW is? I’m kinda new to this site, so I’m not sure if it should be obvious or not…Thanks!
Comment by Cordelia — March 11, 2010 @ 6:58 pm
Cordilia-
I would tell you but I don’t know either. Glad you asked.
Comment by zaissa — March 11, 2010 @ 6:59 pm
#120 I’m really sorry, Stephanie. I don’t think there’s any winning that one. Hopefully you’re able to peacefully co-exist.
Comment by Moniker Challenged — March 11, 2010 @ 6:59 pm
http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/?p=2934
Fascinating Womanhood (FW) is a book popular in Mormon circles about how to be a perfect submissive wife. The link is to a recent discussion of it on this site.
Comment by ChrisKay — March 11, 2010 @ 7:01 pm
FW = Fascinating Womanhood, a book by Helen Andelin. It’s basically a book telling women to be sweet and accommodating (a la Stepford Wives) in order to make their husbands happy. It’s very anti-feminist. It was written by a Mormon, so many LDS women take it to be a voice of authority.
Comment by AllieKay — March 11, 2010 @ 7:01 pm
Regarding multiple Heavenly Mothers, Bear’s patriarchal blessings says
Granted, that’s coming from a patriarch and we all know some anecdotes that are totally bananas on that front, but still. I always found that distinction interesting.
Comment by Reese Dixon — March 11, 2010 @ 7:01 pm
Stephanie did a post on the book Fascinating Woman http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/?p=2934
Comment by Moniker Challenged — March 11, 2010 @ 7:02 pm
Zaissa- I loved this sentence.
Comment by Alliegator — March 11, 2010 @ 7:02 pm
Hey, Chris, we cross-posted!
Comment by AllieKay — March 11, 2010 @ 7:03 pm
112- About the norm being “if it’s spoken in GC, it’s doctrine” I always wonder where people put the cut off. Like if it’s spoken in the last 20 years? 50? Because I’m pretty sure some of the Journal of Discourses were spoken at General Conferences. I once put a Brigham Young quote on my blog as a “check out this fun quote!” and got all kinds of “but it’s not doctrine so NYAH!” responses. I KNOW it wasn’t doctrine and I was just posting it because it was fun, but it was spoken by a prophet at GC.
Comment by TopHat — March 11, 2010 @ 7:04 pm
Guys, FW = Fascinating Womanhood, a cr-cr-cr-crazy book that was published many years ago, but I guess has been updated numerous times (??) and seems, unbelievably, to be gaining in popularity again. Google it and see what you find.
And I agree with Moniker that yes, you are unlikely to win that debate.
Comment by hkobeal — March 11, 2010 @ 7:06 pm
Regarding the divine feminine, I think there is a lovely and powerful presence of the feminine divine in Eliza Gilkyson’s Requiem. While a prayer to Mother Mary, this song speaks to me of the hope and comfort and very powerful strength a divine mother gives - we are so missing the boat here. We look for scraps in talks like Elder Pace’s, when I truly believe there is a table set for us that is a feast - not hidden in patriarchy, but in the open, in the sunlight.
Here’s links to a choir (not professionally done) and to Gilkyson herself singing, and to the words. I first heard this last Sunday at a Haiti benefit, and the program notes said that Gilkyson was not using Mother Mary in the traditional Catholic sense, but in the sense of the universal feminine divine.
See what you think:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6PoHCLtjko&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57lrc1HrL-M&feature=related
Words here:
http://www.lyricszoo.com/craig-hella-johnson/eliza-gilkyson-requiem/
Comment by Cherylem — March 11, 2010 @ 7:06 pm
My difficulty with the “pray for confirmation” issue is that, in practice, we aren’t expected to pray and find out if something is true, but pray and find out that it’s true. If we don’t receive confirmation, it’s expected that this is because we aren’t in a righteous position enough to accept it, not because it’s false.
But that’s a threadjack. Sorry.
Comment by ChrisKay — March 11, 2010 @ 7:07 pm
#119 (Cordelia): Here’s the quote I think you’re referring to:
Brigham Young: “I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inqure for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. (Brigham Young, 9:150)”
Amazing stuff.
Comment by hkobeal — March 11, 2010 @ 7:08 pm
#127–Reese, that makes me want to go re-read my patriarchal blessing. Thanks for sharing.
Comment by hkobeal — March 11, 2010 @ 7:09 pm
Hkobeal, great quote. Brigham Young said that we should pray to make sure things are true, but that’s not how seeking confirmation seems to be treated most of the time.
Comment by ChrisKay — March 11, 2010 @ 7:09 pm
ChrisKay, I dont think it’s a threadjack. It’s a valid and pertinent point for this discussion I think.
Comment by zaissa — March 11, 2010 @ 7:10 pm
#131: Tophat, great question. I always wonder that, too. There are a LOT of things that have been spoken by prophets (ancient and latter-day) that I think the majority of active members wouldn’t actually agree with. So yeah, how far back does that norm extend??
Comment by hkobeal — March 11, 2010 @ 7:11 pm
Thanks. I always feel like after 100 comments, the threads have gone on so long that they’re a bit hard to keep control of, and I worry that I’ll only make things more unwieldy.
Not that I don’t like unwieldy.
Comment by ChrisKay — March 11, 2010 @ 7:11 pm
Pitching in again and a little late perhaps…
Joseph Smith said something along the lines of “a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting in that capacity”.
Then shouldn’t talks like Pace’s come with some sort of preface disclaimer like we see in books published by various church leaders? Or worse, does he really feel that he is acting in his calling as a Seventy by telling us what our divine roles are and should be?
But maybe that’s too much to ask…or is it?
Comment by Sinclair — March 11, 2010 @ 7:15 pm
#133–Cherylem. Just listened the song. Very cool! Thanks for sharing.
This is a keeper: “We look for scraps in talks like Elder Pace’s, when I truly believe there is a table set for us that is a feast - not hidden in patriarchy, but in the open, in the sunlight.”
Write that one down somewhere before it disappears into the bloggernacle foxhole.
Comment by hkobeal — March 11, 2010 @ 7:17 pm
#134, ChrisKay:
I think you are so right. I feel like we are encouraged to pray for confirmation that something is true. But we start with the assumption that it is indeed true and so all we need is a “yeah, that’s right.” That’s very different from starting from an open place and honestly seeking to know IF something is indeed true.
So what do you do if you pray for confirmation and disagree? What if you genuinely seek, but don’t arrive at the same conclusion? That’s taboo, it seems . . .
Comment by hkobeal — March 11, 2010 @ 7:19 pm
Yeah, ChirsKay, we’re a bunch of digressers.
Still your comment was one of the more linear and to the point comments.
Thought one: I thought the church was evolved, but *sigh* can you believe what Elder P had to say?
Thought two: Yeah but does that mean that you have to accept every word said by a GA as doctrine you can pray to see it it’s true
Thought three: (your point) No, you can pray to see that it IS true, there are not if’s about it. In fact, if your prayer does not confirm the matter, you prayed wrong.
Conclusion: We thought the church was evolving but *sigh*
Comment by zaissa — March 11, 2010 @ 7:22 pm
#141, Sinclair: I don’t see us getting any disclaimers like those you suggest, although the idea seems like a good one. We have scripture that says “what I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken . . .,” right? It doesn’t say “What I have spoken after first vetting the speech/fireside/article, I have spoken . . .”
I’m not trying to be funny or flippant.
Comment by hkobeal — March 11, 2010 @ 7:22 pm
There was a recent conversation about personal revelation on the thread:
P.C. LOAD LETTER and we need more toner
http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/?p=2960
It’s a great conversation if you take the time to read it
Comment by April — March 11, 2010 @ 7:28 pm
#145 - I see what you mean and no worries, I didn’t read it as funny or flippant.
The Lord doesn’t really need a preface or disclaimer but, for me anyway, the line of man/church leader/prophet speaking in the Lord’s stead get fuzzy at times. Talks like Elder Pace’s make me feel a queasiness that I don’t recognize as a spiritual confirmation of truth and it really didn’t bring me to feel that familiar peace at all. I just can’t imagine the Lord saying those things of his daughters, sons or of marriage.
Along the lines of what is to be read in the scriptures (and I think that’s an OT reference), we only believe them as far as they have been translated correctly. That, as I take it, isn’t just limited to the language translations but also personal inferences and some of our “reading in between the lines”.
Comment by Sinclair — March 11, 2010 @ 7:37 pm
#145–Sinclair, yes! For me, queasy doesn’t equal “spiritual confirmation.” It equals “something’s not right here.” I like to think that my own spiritual compass is worth something.
Unfortunately, that scripture comes from D & C, 1:38, I believe.
Comment by hkobeal — March 11, 2010 @ 7:46 pm
My Mister and I had a conversation about spiritual confirmation awhile back.
Sometimes you can hear something and instantly know it is right. Sometimes it takes a little while/effort. Sometimes you get the queasy feeling, and no spiritual confirmation.
I figure the queasy feeling very well could just mean that whatever it is isn’t right FOR ME. Not necessarily that it’s totally wrong.
I think the gospel in some ways is very personal- we each have to develop our own personal relationships with God, so I have no problem with the idea that certain ideas in the church can be right for some and not for others.
Comment by Alliegator — March 11, 2010 @ 7:50 pm
#149–definitely. I didn’t mean to imply that I could get the feeling that something was wrong for SOMEONE ELSE. Just wrong (or not quite right, to use nicer terms) for me. Thanks for helping me clarify.
Comment by hkobeal — March 11, 2010 @ 7:59 pm
#149 - “I figure the queasy feeling very well could just mean that whatever it is isn’t right FOR ME. Not necessarily that it’s totally wrong.”
So true and that’s more than applicable to a lot of things I’ve heard and read but here’s what I see is so off base with Elder Pace’s talk.
As far as I understand the atonement and the whole working out my own salvation gig, it’s a personal deal. While advice is welcome when sought, Elder Pace’s talk seems to be a bit too narrow, too packaged and seems to promote a codependent attitude toward marriage and men. It’s hard to pin down exactly what I mean by that here but what I’m getting at is that I can’t focus on my dependence on the atonement and the working out of my salvation if my focus, energies and perception of marriage is trying to drag my husband to heaven.
Sorry….I hope that reads correctly and doesn’t sound rude.
Comment by Sinclair — March 11, 2010 @ 8:00 pm
About HM being a multiple: my mom swears that she heard a GA say at some point that polygamy gave us many HMs, hence the many different races on the earth (i.e., one HM for each race).
Yikes.
Comment by that1girl — March 11, 2010 @ 8:21 pm
Boy have you missed the mark…by miles.
You know the scripture seek and ye shall find…you are finding exactly what you are looking for.
Don’t bother leaving a response.
I won’t be coming back to a site that tells me that to aspire to create and teach and love children to become whoever or whatever they desire to be is below me. Male or female
Two questions: Are you happy? Sincerely answer it because it sounds to me like you are extremely disappointed and I’m not talking about being disappointed in other people. And two, if it really matters to you and you are really concerned about it, seek to offer something positive, not so negative and bitter.
Comment by LittleMissmormon — March 11, 2010 @ 8:26 pm
LittleMissmormon, back up and try again. Put the reading glasses on this time. There isn’t a single post that even suggests raising children is beneath us…only that for some women, being wives and mothers isn’t our only divine purpose in life, just aspects of who we are and ultimately become . That’s a very hopeful thought and it doesn’t evoke any bitterness in me whatsoever.
Comment by Kimberly — March 11, 2010 @ 8:38 pm
And if you are new to the board, I am curious. What is it about this topic that makes you feel so threatened? I’m not being snarky. I’d really like to know.
Comment by Kimberly — March 11, 2010 @ 8:40 pm
It sounds as though LittleMissmormon is responding to some other conversation going on inside of her, rather than actually reading and responding to the very thoughtful and loving comments on this thread.
I’m continually amazed by the level of love and devotion to the Mormon Gospel that I find on this board, particularly coming from women who see so clearly and honestly the hurt that Mormon culture often does to the women who choose to remain a part of the church and its life. There are many, many loving, faithful Mormon women who post at this site and who have the courage and honesty to confront the faith in the areas where it fails them as women, while still upholding the doctrine that they love and believe in.
I respect that enormously.
Comment by Lorian — March 11, 2010 @ 8:44 pm
…And, they are great mommies who love their kids more than life itself, and treasure the opportunity to raise them (as I do mine), even when it’s the hardest job in the whole world…
Comment by Lorian — March 11, 2010 @ 8:46 pm
What I seriously don’t get about this talk, is- how am I supposed to purify my dh or sanctify him when I am just a human sinner myself? I just haven’t achieved that level of greatness, personally. I’m trying, but I’m way short of the mark. Even if I thought I was some spiritual giant in comparison to him (which I don’t), I could only drag him as far as I have come, which on many levels, just isn’t very far. He’d have done better with Mother Theresa or geez, frankly, he should have married my brother.
Comment by Kimberly — March 11, 2010 @ 9:03 pm
LittleMissMormon,.thank you for eloquently illustrating something that has been bothering me. Why is it that wanting to be an equal to your husband instead of his accessory or neck or what-have-you means that you don’t want to love and care for your children? Or even for your husband? I love DH and cook his dinners and care for his kids. But it is not because I view my whole life purpose to serve him. We serve each other as equal partners who chose to split up our day jobs this way. At the end of Elder Pace’s talk, he says that he saw his wife in the temple as a goddess, priestess for raising her children. I thought, “Well, I’m doing all that and supporting my husband and caring for my children. I just don’t think that it means my sole purpose on this earth is to be the shadow behind him”.
Why are these two ideas contradictory? Why does having children threaten feminism? Why does wanting equality threaten children and families? I don’t get it.
Comment by Stephanie — March 11, 2010 @ 9:07 pm
[edited snarky comment to Kimberly to put on a housedress out of respect for my leaders]
Comment by Stephanie — March 11, 2010 @ 9:09 pm
Some thoughts about HM. I wonder if She has been de-emphasized to set us apart from the Catholic church and Mary worship. In my experience as a missionary, Mary worship is something very hard for people to give up. They pray to her, erect special churches to her, etc. Maybe in our church’s history, there has been a fear of placing too much emphasis on Her and causing a sort of division like that which exists in the Catholic church. Thoughts?
Comment by Dayna — March 11, 2010 @ 9:20 pm
Oh, you should have left it there, Stephanie. I think it demonstrates a lot about a person’s capacity to present her own position if that’s the best she can do. Besides, I’d be glad to put on a housedress- just not the pantyhose…nope. Not for the prophet himself. I have my limits.
Comment by Kimberly — March 11, 2010 @ 9:22 pm
#156-7 Thanks, Lorian. Beautiful.
Comment by Dayna — March 11, 2010 @ 9:25 pm
Dayna- I grew up Catholic (Episcopalian and Congregational too)- multifaith family members believed in teaching us all of it and letting us choose for ourselves. I never experienced any division within the Catholic faith in relation to prayers to Mary. That is to say, Catholics do not consider her a goddess, but a saint…different. God is God. Mary is particularly beloved and singled out for a very high purpose by God himself, therefore, praying to her is kind of like asking one of the boss’ close friends to put in a good word for you and that is the purpose of calling on any of the saints’ help. Something nice about Mary being given such status in the Catholic church is that her sacrifice is acknowledged- her faith, trust and wisdom is sought to be emulated and her strong example as a woman who met incredible challenges is tapped into by women of faith in Catholicism. What kind of division do you think it would create in our own faith to tap into Heavenly Mother’s strength and wisdom?
I do it all the time, and it does not lessen my love, respect and gratitude for Heavenly Father.
Comment by Kimberly — March 11, 2010 @ 9:34 pm
#161: Dayna, interesting question. I didn’t serve a mission and so I don’t have personal experience with that. We have attended two Spanish branches for a long time and so we’ve heard prayers to Mary offered in Sunday School, Relief Society, and Sacrament Meeting, though, so I guess it’s a hard habit to break. [All you need to keep it real is attend a branch like that. So many great experiences. But I digress . . .]
By “division,” do you mean praying to Mary vs. praying to Heavenly Father? Are there people who only pray to one or the other? Or can you just choose? Or is it situation-specific? I don’t know anything about this!
Comment by hkobeal — March 11, 2010 @ 9:34 pm
Pantyhose? They still sell those? Wow. You learn something new every day.
Comment by hkobeal — March 11, 2010 @ 9:36 pm
Also, although in our LDS tradition, we refer to everyone collectively as saints, it isn’t so in the Catholic faith. A saint must be canonized through an arduous process of examination of their demonstrated faith and works. A Catholic saint is a seriously out-of-the-ordinary human being who serves as an example of the human potential to rise to greatness through selfless service to God…many times to the point of martyrdom.
Comment by Kimberly — March 11, 2010 @ 9:45 pm
Pantyhose…hmmmm nope… but dress slacks with 3 inch heels… SURE!
Comment by April — March 11, 2010 @ 9:45 pm
By division, I was thinking that if we knew more about Heavenly Mother, Mormons wouldn’t be able to resist praying to Her. By keeping Her sort of anonymous, our prayers are directed only to Heavenly Father, therefore avoiding confusion. We don’t even pray to Jesus Christ, or to any sort of saint. Only Heavenly Father. Is HM’s anonymity part of this? I would like to think that has more to do with it than a possible plurality of HMs. That idea gives me the heebeejeebees (sp?)
Kimberly, I didn’t mean to slight Catholics in any way. I have enormous respect for them and have several close friends that are Catholic (I lived in Ireland for awhile). I just wonder if maybe the early leaders of the church were trying to emphasize the difference between Mormonism and Catholicism by directing our prayers to Heavenly Father only.
Comment by Dayna — March 11, 2010 @ 9:57 pm
I love how adamant many of you are that gender-equality be the norm in your homes. It’s the most beautiful place to start and its effects will ripple out for sure, in time. The compassionate, patient, EVOLVED method of “rising above” when faced with discouraging, appalling attitudes toward women as a lesser creature (unless there’s a man with whom to be paired, thus, enhancing him and bringing him to eternal fruition), is remarkable. But by taking the “high road” (being silent, brushing it off), aren’t we in danger of perpetuating this ill in our wards, i.e., letting the traffic on the “low road” gain momentum? I’m tender-hearted, loving and earnest. Why would I seem otherwise (cos I would) if I expressed, publicly, my yearning for there to be a wider view? That’s what kills me. Am I a feminist? Why do I have to have that label when all I want is what is True and Right? (I love feminism, just not labels).
Comment by Thoroughly Modern Molly — March 11, 2010 @ 10:11 pm
So, motherhood… It’s the name for the part of parenting that a mom does, right? And although for little babies and kids parenting requires a lot of feeding, cuddling, and various other hands-on work, as kids grow they grow out of needing that and approach running parallel to you. What’s that called, an inverse tangent approaching an asymptote? Sorry if not I haven’t done real math in years… Not running parallel like you are twins, but like your kids become equally capable and SO MUCH less demanding. So parenting is a little bit taking-care-of and a lot of being a good example, in my eyes. If I’m right, being a good mother, and having your main priority beinG motherhood, would not mean catering to and coddling you children, but being a good example. In fact, coddling is being a BAD example… So if our ‘divine purpose’ is motherhood, and motherhood is being a good example, there MUST be much more to it than the watered down baking cookies van driver. If you are becoming your best self you will be the best mother you can be, won’t you? So some women would be a good example of an artist-mother, some would be a good example of a scientist-mother, and on and on. I don’t fault the people who try to warn us about losing sight of the fact that you won’t ever be truly happy if you feel you did wrong by your kids, but doing right by them is not being their slave.
Like above talking about teaching the YW principles from an eternal perspective, every true thing we learn about here will be useful to and benefit us later. A goal, a primary purpose, a divine role… I have never heard and will never believe that is my ONLY role. Our children need us to be us.
I hope this makes sense as I wrote it while thinking
Comment by pdig — March 11, 2010 @ 10:20 pm
And why do some of us think that Elder Pace’s talk would be “okay” if he were speaking to men only? That’s where WE’VE got it wrong still! Gender inequality is ubiquitous ether! Watch out!
Comment by Thoroughly Modern Molly — March 11, 2010 @ 10:22 pm
Dayna- I didn’t take it as a slight in any way. Coming from an LDS perspective, it is understandable that the Catholic tradition of praying to Mary and other saints could be mistaken for Catholics believing that any of them could actually answer their prayers. They are approached as intercessors in the way that the person praying hopes they’ll put in a good word for them with God, who is actually the deity capable of fulfilling their requests. Catholics who choose particular patron saints are usually homing in on a quality of that saint, as demonstrated in the way they lived their lives.
Now, if Heavenly Mother has the full status of goddess and a co-ruler of heaven, that would actually accord her higher status and power than Mary has within the Catholic faith. Is that something you are wondering would affect a division within our LDS faith?
Comment by Kimberly — March 11, 2010 @ 10:26 pm
From what I’ve read of Elder Pace’s talk (which is mostly just the role-reversal version), I’m choosing to interpret it as one of the roles of women can be to purify her husband. I think about how much both my Mister and I have changed each other, and our desires to make each other happy, how that makes us try to be a little better- we purify each other. It’s not about either of us being perfect and lifting the other up- it’s about bringing out the best in each other.
I’m choosing to ignore that he left out the idea that husbands can purify their wives as one of their roles….
(and if I die, and find out there are plural HM’s, I’m outta there. That gives me queasy feelings.)
Comment by Alliegator — March 11, 2010 @ 10:29 pm
Ah, so a BYU Religion Teacher tells working women not to pay tithing. Sounds almost Apostate to me.
I’m half serious about that last one.
Comment by Mike H. — March 11, 2010 @ 10:31 pm
Stephanie 160
ah…
editing powers. aren’t they wonderful?
Comment by mfranti — March 11, 2010 @ 10:36 pm
#174 - Alliegator: “(and if I die, and find out there are plural HM’s, I’m outta there. That gives me queasy feelings.)”
Hilarious.
Comment by hkobeal — March 11, 2010 @ 10:37 pm
#170 - Thoroughly Modern Molly:
Great questions. If you knew me in real life, then you would know that I’m not being silent or brushing these things off. I am quite outspoken about these things in my ward, but I try to do it in a way that I hope makes people see that I am, in fact, reasonable and not some “left-wing feminist nut job” (cringe).
The reason I said I’m trying to change these things in my home is because it is, after all, the place where I have the most influence and the most potential for actually making inroads. I’m guessing everyone out here in my rural ward cringed the first few times I wore a pantsuit to church, but they’re used to it now. I worried about what the primary president would say when I told her I couldn’t teach the 2nd & 3rd verses of “The Family is of God” last year because of their explicit focus on very rigid gender roles. She said that was perfectly fine and we worked around it. I take every opportunity I can to try to push those boundaries so that, as you so eloquently stated, the “low road” doesn’t gain momentum.
Comment by hkobeal — March 11, 2010 @ 10:44 pm
I think wtih all we hear and read, we should question. We should ask God. We should listen to how we feel about what we have heard. Yes, there is a “middle ground.” Those of us like-minded people who happen to feel differently about things than what is preached at the pulpit are just what the whole church, the body of Christ needs. This is how progress is made. If we each curl up in the fetal position in self-pity and sadness, and don’t contribute to our Church, then both we and our Church are at a loss. That said, the Church is the vehicle through which I practice my faith and my religion. But I still think I’m the driver of the car.
I sympathize with those who have dissenting ideas. I am one. But I think I have a voice to contribute at church and that I can help others to see where I am coming from. I liked this post and so related, having had similar experiences myself. Thank you.
Comment by RunnerMom — March 11, 2010 @ 10:47 pm
RunnerMom, wow. I love this so much. Thanks for sharing. I feel the same way, but am not so eloquent.
Comment by hkobeal — March 11, 2010 @ 10:51 pm
It’s really sad that a church that wants to grow beyond the birthrate would say such things. When young women in the church reach an age where their parents can’t force them to go to church, 80% of them leave (between 18 and 30 years old). Four out of every five young women in the church will leave, many of them before they have children. It’s Pace’s rhetoric that are driving them away by making church incompatible with their hopes, dreams, and life.
On the other hand, I like the idea of not paying tithing on women’s earnings.
Comment by Mel — March 11, 2010 @ 11:01 pm
#181-wow, Mel. 80% is bigger than I would’ve expected. Mind sharing the data source?
Comment by hkobeal — March 11, 2010 @ 11:03 pm
I had it referenced from a question asked by a SL Tribune reporter in April 2008 of Elaine Dalton (lds young women president). I don’t have access to the paper’s archives to get the full article for you, and google is only turning up the “please go to the archives” page.
80% was bigger than I expected, too, but no one in authority seems to be contradicting it.
Comment by Mel — March 11, 2010 @ 11:15 pm
In answer to the question on my book club, it was cancelled with no explanation.
DH watched the whole talk with me tonight and didn’t see what I was so riled up about. The message he got from it is that husbands and wives need each other. But, he still doesn’t get my issues with the temple either. So . . .
He also pointed out that the parts of the talk that bugged me the most (talking about Adam and Eve) were quoted from other speakers and not doctrine. He didn’t seem too threatened with my conclusion that I don’t agree with some of the opinions expressed in the talk.
Comment by Stephanie — March 11, 2010 @ 11:52 pm
I have also heard from other sources that the activity rate for both YM/YW moving to the “Young Singles” category is only around 20% here in the US. This goes along with the 80% quoted above. I can’t give you an exact written source, but several people I know have been in regional leadership meetings here along the Wasatch as a part of their stake callings working with Young Singles and those were the numbers given.
The goals of the meetings were trying to figure out a “program” to “reach” the young singles in the inactive category. My response was that it wasn’t a “program” that was needed, but a change in the “crust” of the Church that has grown up around the beautiful core gospel of Christ. My responses weren’t appreciated very much, so I shut up.
Comment by Mike S — March 12, 2010 @ 12:13 am
I also feel like women are defined as much more than simply a wife and a mother. Clearly only those two these do not complete us. Everyone has strengths and interests and it is a compilation, as hkobeal said, that completes us. However, I still firmly believe that my marriage with my husband is the #1 priority and that we must work for each other. I don’t feel as though I am any less (or capable of less) of a person with or without him and yet I feel he is necessary in my life. We complement each other so well and we lift each other up. I know I could survive with out him but only because I know that I would be with him after this life has passed on. So, basically it’s a paradox but it makes so much sense to me. He doesn’t complete me and still he completes me. Does that make any sense to you?
Comment by Emily — March 12, 2010 @ 12:21 am
I found your website quite by accident and was immediately interested in watching the devotional. My perspective was quite a bit differant from what I’ve read here.
I had a co-worker once who wanted to be a stay-at-home mom but felt that she couldn’t because her husband didn’t value her as a stay-at- home mom. He felt that if some women could do it all, that his wife should be able to as well. To me it sounds like a guy still telling her what she could or could not do.
When I hear people church leaders talk about the divine role of women (especially when I hear them talk to a group that includes a high number of men), I hear them saying that women are of great worth even without worldly accomplishment. If we as women accomplish nothing else in life other than raising our children well, we have accomplished something amazing that should be valued and respected by the men around us. If in pursuit of develping our talents or perhaps in developing a sense of self-reliance we also have careers, then that is wonderful too.
Feminism backfires when women feel that they are nothing unless they have something outside the home, and I personally appreciate every effort church leaders make to teach men and women that every little thing women do is of value (not that we can’t do great things as well)- even if it is just another batch of cookies.
Comment by chance — March 12, 2010 @ 1:58 am
Emily #186 - I love this. “He doesn’t complete me and still he completes me.” That totally makes sense to me.
Chance #187- I also see that many church leaders are trying to say that women who have done “traditional” female things (which have gone unappreciated in the world) have actually done amazing wonderful things. I appreciate the effort to acknowledge the often invisible roles of women.
The issue I see is that every single GA and every single good SP they have talked to ever had thinks that they are a better person because of their wives. You can’t get away from that. Every good church priesthood leader believes that their wife has been a major spiritual influence on their life. How can Elder Pace NOT think that wives and daughters and sisters tend to influence the men in their life for good since that is what he sees over and over again? So, apparently what it comes down to is that many people on this site want GAs and SP to learn that there are a bunch of feminist women who do NOT want to hear about it. However, there are a bunch of traditional women who DO want to hear about it. So, that is the problem.
Comment by jks — March 12, 2010 @ 2:37 am
chance, I think if you spend a little time here, you’ll find that this is a place where most people support the rights of women to make their own choices about their own lives. I don’t think anyone was denigrating SAHMs (I happen to be one, and love it). What is concerning is not that some women choose to be SAHMs or that some women choose to work. What’s concerning is that the church seems to feel it has a role in telling women that one of those options isn’t (or shouldn’t be) open to them.
I doubt that there are many on this site who would “feel that they are nothing unless they have something outside the home.”
Comment by Lorian — March 12, 2010 @ 2:38 am
Chance, I really love this quote of yours — “Feminism backfires when women feel that they are nothing unless they have something outside the home.” I wholeheartedly agree — it is the Linda Hirshman’s of the world who really mess it up for those of us who think feminism is about human equality, pure and simple.
Comment by L. — March 12, 2010 @ 6:24 am
For those who struggle with the label feminism, remember, remember what life was like before this movement, which can be dated as an idea, if not a name, to the 14th century, when it was called “the woman question”. Women struggled their whole lives within systems that limited them, boxed them in, refused them wholeness (education, property rights, rights over their children, medical rights, the right to choose one’s life partner, rights over one’s own body, etc.) Even to have the choice to stay at home with one’s children was not a right for many many women (women of color, women in poverty, women who were of the serving class, women of the upper class who were more or less required to farm their infants out to surrogate mothers). Feminism has done more for women and for humanity than practically any other movement in history. Feminists historically have also supported the rights of others - minorities generally, for instance.
Three good books to read are: The essential feminist reader (Freedman), When everything changed (Collins) and Half the Sky (for the continued need to press for the rights of women) by Kristof and WuDunn.
Sure there are people within this movement with whom one might disagree, but . . . there are so many women and men who stood forward for the rights of women and paid a terrible cost - do not forget them! Even the conversation on this list would not be occurring without these great people. Do not think unfeminine or unmotherly or unwifely or unChristlike to be a feminist. It is truly a badge of honor.
Comment by Cherylem — March 12, 2010 @ 7:08 am
Meant to say: Do not think IT unfeminine or unmotherly or unwifely or unChristlike to be a feminist.
Comment by Cherylem — March 12, 2010 @ 7:09 am
#187, Chance: I don’t think anything in my post reflects an attitude of disdain or disrespect towards stay-at-home-moms. I certainly hope it doesn’t!
And I agree with jks that there are a bunch of feminist women who DON’T want to hear this message, but a bunch of traditional women who DO. Again, I’m all about diversity of thought and life experiences. That’s why I’d like to hear some diversity of MESSAGE as well. All we EVER hear about is the traditional message about women being good helpmeets, wives, and mothers.
Comment by hkobeal — March 12, 2010 @ 8:05 am
#189–Lorian, I agree that it’s all about choices. I don’t like to see SAHMs’ efforts denigrated. But I also don’t like to see women who make different life choices have those choices denigrated–either by other women or by church leaders.
& #191-192–Cherylem: Good stuff all around. I should’ve just shut it and let the thread end right there.
Comment by hkobeal — March 12, 2010 @ 8:07 am
No no no way, jks. I am honestly surprised that you summed it up this way. Saying that the problem is that feminists don’t want to hear that they can be a positive spiritual influence on their husbands is the same as saying that feminists don’t care about their families or kids, IMO. Of course I want to be a positive spiritual influence on my husband, but is that my “job”? Is that the purpose why I was created? DH is so spiritually inept that he needs me to correct that? It infantilizes him. I am not responsible for his eternal welfare. He works out his own salvation, and then we work out exaltation together.
If the whole message of the talk is that husbands and wives are complementary to each other (as DH perceived), I agree with that. But, this is what the purpose of the talk was:
If the sacred role of women is to sanctify and purify men, what is the sacred role of men?
Comment by Stephanie — March 12, 2010 @ 9:07 am
jks, I’m probably just repeating what Stephanie said, but I see a significant difference between saying–wow, I really appreciate all these great women in my life, who’ve played a big role in making me who I am!–and saying, women’s purpose in life is to support/purify men, and here are some examples of women who have fulfilled this divine role to do this. The former is simply an expression of gratitude; the latter is a theological assertion about women. And in this particular talk, I think there’s no question that he was saying the latter.
Comment by Lynnette — March 12, 2010 @ 10:18 am
I am trying to answer my own question. lds.org’s search engine is not particularly great, but I see a consistent pattern of “divine nature” or “divine role” turning up articles about women and young women. I’ve seen the divine nature of women defined several times, but I am having a hard time finding the divine nature of men actually defined, other than saying that men and women complement each other. Still, I I found a good article that relate to marriage and parenthood if anyone is interested:
Fathers, Mothers, Marriage by President Faust. I found these quotes particularly interesting:
That quote came from The Women’s Exponent. I love it.
Comment by Stephanie — March 12, 2010 @ 10:28 am
I think I figured out why I have such a hard time with this talk and talks like it. It’s also (one of) the reasons I have a hard time with FW. I get that our divine natures and divine roles are related to parentage - fatherhood and motherhood. I don’t get how that extends outside the family or outside the parent relationship. Our “divine nature” as women has been used as an excuse to keep women out of “male occupations” like law, business, medicine. The vulnerability that comes from pregnancy has been used as an excuse to claim women are weak. The “softness” of women has been used by men as an excuse to be “hard”.
I guess I just don’t see how the divine role of women (in general) to be mothers extends to the divine role of women to sanctify and purify their husbands (unless it is reciprocal that the divine role of men is to sanctify and purify their wives. If that is the case, I think the topic would have been “the sacred role husbands and wives play in the sanctification and purification of each other”). I think this talk is an opinion - not doctrine. I can be a spiritual strength to my husband and a capable, equal spouse without feeling that I have a divine responsibility for his eternal welfare or for “making him into a man”.
Comment by Stephanie — March 12, 2010 @ 11:03 am
Men would be nothing without women. I believe in his talk 100 perent! I think we should be honored that we have the kind of nature that could purify a man. I am pround to be a dauther of God, I do not look at this talk in a negative way. I think we all need to start focus on building our testimonies in the gospel rather than picking apart talks by the general authories. Women are amazing, and are the other half the church. Men have the prieshood because they need it, women dont. Thats how I feel anyway. Just a background of who I am… I am a working woman (2 jobs), have been married for 6 years, no kids by choice (yet), and am very much a feminist and believe women have the ablility to do anything they want to do.
Comment by Emily — March 12, 2010 @ 11:05 am
Can you elaborate on this?
Comment by Stephanie — March 12, 2010 @ 11:11 am
Re: 44, 46 - I feel free to ignore comments from church leaders - even GAs - that don’t feel true to me. The person’s standing, be it home teacher, bishop, seventy, or apostle doesn’t make any difference. I’d feel obligated to take the prophet’s words at face value, but that’s about it. The idea of getting my own look at the “original copy” (see ECS’s recent post here) is a big reason for that; the idea of personal revelation makes being in this church possible for me.
Re: 56 - I had much the same reaction to the temple. An almost physical feeling of revulsion. It was two weeks before my wedding, so I swallowed hard and went through with the whole temple ceremony (and cried about it). It’s why I don’t go anymore. I’m active in church, but haven’t gone to the temple for years.
Re: 99 - this is one of my greatest fears - that the Celestial Kingdom really is this way. I couldn’t stand to be there if it is, and if that’s true, why bother with all of this????
Re: 104 - Hell is starting to sound not so bad!
Comment by Emily U — March 12, 2010 @ 11:12 am
Oh, and I meant to comment on the OP as well. It’s the casting of women as objects and men as subjects that I find intolerable. In Pace’s talk, men are the actors, women are in only a supporting role. The comment “I think we should be honored that we have the kind of nature that could purify a man” is sad, sad, sad. I think we should be honored that we have a nature of our own that is important and worthy of our own purification! Good Lord! I wasn’t put on this earth just to be something for another person! There aren’t two classes of humans!
Comment by Emily U — March 12, 2010 @ 11:18 am
Wait. So the OP didn’t even read or hear the complete devotional herself? You’re basing your post on a watered down version found in some college newspaper. My experience with college newspapers is that they aren’t the best examples of journalism. I’m all for discussing this topic but not unless it’s based on a legitimate source. I’d rather not tear down someone’s talk without hearing the original first.
Comment by Susan — March 12, 2010 @ 11:20 am
In 199, Emily wrote,
Rubbish.
Comment by barmy stoat — March 12, 2010 @ 11:25 am
Susan, start at my comment #100. I have now listened to the entire talk three times. Listen to it and come back and talk about it - please! I want to hear the opinions of others. DH and I just talked about it again, and he still thinks I’m being silly.
Comment by Stephanie — March 12, 2010 @ 11:26 am
Wow…so many comments since I last logged on! Got a little busy last night, so I wasn’t able to catch up until today.
First of all, thanks for clarifying what FW is. I’ll have to read that other thread to learn more about it.
I talked to DH last night about my reaction. He did the same thing that Stephanie’s husband did–he didn’t really get what I was upset about. Even when I told him, “Think how that sounds to a woman,” he made it seem like I didn’t fully understand it, or I was misinterpreting what Elder Pace said. Sigh. I think it really scared him that I was bringing up some questions, though…I reassured him I’m not losing my testimony over this, so I hope he’s not too worried about me. I don’t know that I’ll feel comfortable discussing this with him in the future, though, and that makes me sad.
At least I can come here to this blog now and know that many of you understand where I’m coming from =)
Comment by Cordelia — March 12, 2010 @ 11:38 am
I know what you mean.
Comment by Stephanie — March 12, 2010 @ 11:40 am
I’m also interested in hearing Emily explain what she means when she says, “Men have the priesthood because they need it, women don’t.” I don’t think that’s doctrinal. It sounds like saying, pre-1978, “White men have the priesthood because they need it, black men don’t.” Obviously, that changed.
I’m not saying that the priesthood will or even should be given to women someday–that would require a whole slew of changes, not least of which would be to the temple ceremony–but I just don’t think it’s right to say men need it while women don’t.
Comment by Cordelia — March 12, 2010 @ 11:50 am
206 and 207. Me too. I no longer discuss any feminist/mormon issues with DH, not because he disagrees, but because his reaction is “Fine, if it’s such a problem, let’s just leave the church.” Sigh. Not helpful.
Comment by Emily U — March 12, 2010 @ 11:52 am
Oops, meant to add something to my #208:
I think priesthood is limited to men for now because either 1) God wants it that way or 2) because our world and culture, and maybe even our church leaders, aren’t ready for something different. If it’s the first, I struggle with why but know I can handle it if I have faith and trust God. If it’s the second, then I hope and pray that my children will live in a world that’s more prepared. Or that the Second Coming happens and the world will be infinitely better anyway. =P
Comment by Cordelia — March 12, 2010 @ 11:58 am
Re #203–I listened to the talk, and honestly, if anything it was worse than the newspaper article made it sound. I think Stephanie’s summary above is pretty accurate. I’m used to hearing this kind of thing–I imagine that we all are–but it’s been a while since I heard something that so blatantly placed women in a supporting role to men. In a way, the thing that kills me is that I think he genuinely had no idea he was doing it; listening to him, I totally believed that his intentions were good, that he was trying to be encouraging. That’s part of what makes the situation so crazy.
The thing is–as Kiskilili said elsewhere–it’s not really a talk about the importance of women. It’s a talk about the importance of men. Because what’s so amazing about women is what they can do for men. Women may be valuable, true–but men are the actors, the ones who have the ability confer value. It’s their exaltation that matters; women aren’t described as people who might have their own interest in achieving exaltation, but rather as those who are valued for their ability to bring about male exaltation.
Comment by Lynnette — March 12, 2010 @ 12:05 pm
Emily U (209) - My husband’s reaction was more like I-won’t-let-you-go-inactive, “I’ll drag you to heaven kicking and screaming” (actual quote!). I know he meant it in a loving way, but it still kinda made me wonder what would happen if I ever did seriously start to question anything…
Comment by Cordelia — March 12, 2010 @ 12:11 pm
Re #99
I would be much more honored to get to be a person in my own right. Really, I don’t want to be told that I’m angelic, amazing, wonderful, etc. Because the truth is that I’m not. I’m not all that selfless or nurturing or gentle or any of the other attributes I so often hear are characteristic of women. I don’t want flattery. I just want to be seen as a moral agent, as a person rather than a role.
Comment by Lynnette — March 12, 2010 @ 12:13 pm
Yes, Lynnette #211, exactly.
Comment by Stephanie — March 12, 2010 @ 12:18 pm
Amen, Lynnette.
Comment by Emily U — March 12, 2010 @ 12:19 pm
re 214 this statement: “I’ll drag you to heaven kicking and screaming” sounds a lot to me like what Lucifer wanted in the preexistence. While I’m sure you r husband meant no harm, maybe if he says that again you might gently draw the parallel. We all have to find our own way in this life, no one can be FORCED to do anything… in fact, people trying to “force” others is decidedly un Christlike… even if it is done with love as the intent.
Comment by April — March 12, 2010 @ 12:20 pm
I agree with you, April. I appreciate your concern. I do know where he’s coming from–he kept reminding me that I served a mission (he thinks it’s amazing that I did that) and that I’ve had so many answers to prayer (which is true), and he thinks I would be untrue to myself if I ever turned back on those experiences. I don’t think he would literally ever try to force me to do anything–he’s not like that. I think he was being silly. If he ever did try to force me to go to church or something when I truly didn’t want to…oh, boy, there would be hell to pay.
Comment by Cordelia — March 12, 2010 @ 12:26 pm
lol understood. My husband is the same way…
and he knows I don’t respond well to feeling forced to do ANYTHING.
When the missionaries found out I went to another congregation (not just within our Church, but to a Nondenominational Christian Church) they voiced concern… my husband then outlined for them why this was okay with him in regards to me… boy, do I love that man.
Comment by April — March 12, 2010 @ 12:32 pm
re: 206 and 207
my husband was the same a few years ago when I was having trouble adjusting to the expectations of mormon motherhood. he just didn’t understand what I was saying or what my problem was.
the good news is that even though I let it drop at the time–feeling completely disheartened that someone who had always understood me before couldn’t understand *this*–he thought about what I said (and what I *kept* saying) and a few years later, he’s prettymuch come around and understands now.
sometimes it just takes awhile to sink in, I think. old habits and all that.
Comment by Kerry — March 12, 2010 @ 12:51 pm
Kerry (219) - Thanks so much for that! It gives me hope. I think it just came as a complete surprise to my husband–he had no idea that I’ve been having these struggles for a few months. I think it completely blindsided him. Which is funny, because he’s a convert and wasn’t raised with the whole traditional Mormon family roles (though he did grow up in Utah, so I’m sure he saw it around him). But anyway…we’ll see what happens…
Comment by Cordelia — March 12, 2010 @ 1:12 pm
Steph, you are on a role…
exactly.
Comment by Enna — March 12, 2010 @ 1:30 pm
Excellent comments. It was ultimately my disagreement over what my “divine nature” is as a female that sent me to greener pastures outside of the church. I always figured if my only worth was to be an oversized uterus, God should have been kind enough to just chop off my head so I wouldn’t have the cognitive ability to be aware I was only an oversized uterus.
Big green hugs,
Froggie
Comment by Froggie — March 12, 2010 @ 2:12 pm
Oh, man! I didn’t know people were still commenting. I’ve been missing out on all the fun!
#199–”Men would be nothing without women” and “Men need the priesthood–women don’t.” I don’t swallow this. My husband would definitely be something without me. In fact, he would be great without me. He’s great on his own. Not because of me or because of his own mother. He just is. Just him. And I feel the same way about myself (well, I might call myself just “good”–not great).
#203–the whole text transcript wasn’t out yesterday, so yes, I read two summaries: one from The Daily Universe and one from The Church News. If you read one of the earliest comments, I said that I HOPED the full text would show me that the summaries were wrong, although that argument doesn’t seem to be holding up under pressure.
#213 Lynnea–I felt like I heard the Hallelujah chorus in the background as I read this.
Comment by hkobeal — March 12, 2010 @ 5:38 pm
#68, Hammie–
I think that’s how I feel. I’m tired of this.I’m tired of getting a sick angry feeling whenever someone says “divine calling”, “priesthood”, or any number of other terms because I immediately think of the baggage associated with it. My own husband says he doesn’t believe anymore, though I’m not sure if either of us know what he means by that. Many of my friends are unhappy, and some have left, and things like this talk are top on the list when it comes to reasons why. I just want it to stop so I can, well, go on a picnic. I recently got a blessing that said God made me curious for a reason. I’m pretty darn sure it wasn’t so I would be all tormented because I have so many questions. But I must be doing something wrong, because that’s what I’m getting out of it right now.
Comment by ifrit — March 12, 2010 @ 6:26 pm
I haven’t found the whole transcript of the talk but I do agree with you generally about the vibes it gives out. I cringe whenever church members want to put women on a pedestal. We’re subject to the same trails and temptations but somehow we’re supposed to be above that? I think that’s unfair. However, I believe Elder Pace’s intention was to try to counteract the shallow value the world places on women by reminding us that we are precious to our heavenly parents. I think we should cut him some slack. We should be as forgiving to other church members who are limited by their traditional views instead of leaving the church because we don’t agree with them. This church is NOT perfect. The gospel is perfect, our heavenly parents are perfect, the plan of salvation is perfect. The church, however, is made up of imperfect people. It changes and progresses when member are ready for it. If it were perfect, then the church would have been established in its entirety in 1830. Heavenly Father gives us more when we are ready. That’s what I try to remember when I come across members who seem stuck in the 1950’s.
Comment by Susan — March 12, 2010 @ 10:21 pm
I have only made it about 100 comments in so forgive me if the conversation has taken a turn.
I spent a weekend with LDS friends. Late one night I admitted going to church is hard, listening to the focus on family is discouraging. After being married in the temple my husband left the church. I am not angry about this, I am glad he is doing what is right for him. Pretending to believe things he doesn’t won’t save me any pain, but it does make hope for the afterlife more dismal. The bishops wife comforted me, “Christine, you will be OK, you will just be someones second or third wife, there are plenty of good men for you to share” WHOA baby hold that thought, that is supposed to make me feel better. This is the best you got. That is the day I had to start looking hard at the way I thought and felt about this kind of doctrine. Do I really need someone else to get me to heaven? Is some man I have never (or even worse my, neighbors husband, which they said they would want to share so I could make to the highest level of glory??????) what I need to make it to heaven. How is having this other half more important than my relationship with the Savior, and what I do on this earth? How can my salvation be tied to someone who I can not (and do not want to) control? IF I can only make it to heaven with a man, what happens when the man I love decides that is not the path he wants to take? I don’t go, or I get assigned as a second place to someone else. Polygamy is one thing when you are first wife in line, but think about being third or fourth down the line and my divine worth is starting to be quickly divided. The temple ceremony was no longer comforting it is confusing.
Comment by mybaggagenotyours — March 12, 2010 @ 11:40 pm
So I’m kind of giving up hope that anyone wants to directly answer questions. I know that it’s easy to look past one comment (#89), but this is turning into the biggest whine-fest ever.
What about constructive conversation? Where are the alternative viewpoints? Have you tried looking at this from another angle?
Basically I’m asking the same questions again. But, hey. Blow past this one too. Although this one is tired and snarky, so perhaps it will annoy someone enough to get told off. I’ll check tomorrow. Maybe then it will be past comment 350 and on the 5th tangent topic.
Comment by ErinAnn — March 13, 2010 @ 12:22 am
Hi ErinAnn,
I can answer one of your questions for you, but I don’t think the answer will end the “whine fest.” The temple made me physically sick- literally. To me it brought a horrible feeling, a repulsion. I can name specifics that were tough for me about the temple, but none of them alone would cause the feelings I felt. Basically, imagine the wonderful feeling you get when the spirit whispers the truth of something to you. Then imagine the exact opposite of that feeling. That’s how I felt every time I went to the temple, until I finally decided that it wasn’t a healthy thing for me to continue to do.
I am very happy for you that you don’t feel that way in the temple. I wish no one (myself included) ever felt that way.
Maybe Elder Pace has heard stories like mine, or other situations in which women aren’t feeling God’s love in the church the way they are supposed to, and he’s trying (however unsuccessfully) to help. I salute him for trying. And I make it my goal to try to teach my husband and my son so that they will never accidentally cause so much grief.
Comment by the milk (of the gospel) — March 13, 2010 @ 12:39 am
#225: “We should be as forgiving to other church members who are limited by their traditional views instead of leaving the church because we don’t agree with them.”
Oh yeah. I have no intention of leaving. And yes, Elder Pace is at least one (two?) generations removed from me, so I think I get what you’re saying.
Comment by hkobeal — March 13, 2010 @ 1:21 am
#226–words fail me.
Comment by hkobeal — March 13, 2010 @ 1:22 am
#227–whoa, ErinAnn. That was kind of a nasty post.
Comment by hkobeal — March 13, 2010 @ 1:24 am
ErinAnn - sorry, I thought my comments indirectly answered your 1 and 2 questions. I’ve answered question #3 a million times already on this site, so I didn’t want to bore anyone. But, here it is: There are two things I struggle with in the endowment ceremony. The first is that women are sealed up to become priestesses, etc. “to their husbands” (while men are just sealed up). And the second is that Adam covenants with God, and Eve covenants with Adam. Oh, and then the hearken thing.
Comment by Stephanie — March 13, 2010 @ 9:59 am
Those things have bothered me since I first went through the temple 12 years ago. I debated going back the next day to be sealed to DH because I wasn’t sure if I could handle that. But, I did, and I keep going. I cried for hours each time for the first year or so, then I went numb for several years. Then I progressed to trying to understand it. That’s where I am now. I feel like I’m slapped in the face during those parts, but I keep going and trying to understand. I guess where I am at now is that I believe God views DH and I the same, so anything that indicates differently must be a construct of man. So, I’ll keep going and waiting for further light and knowledge.
Comment by Stephanie — March 13, 2010 @ 10:03 am
#233: Stephanie, thanks for your honesty. I’m no longer bitter or confused about those things; I just don’t go anymore. Life is challenging enough at times without forcing myself to do something that totally bums me out.
How’s that for some honesty?
Comment by hkobeal — March 13, 2010 @ 10:36 am
228- I limit my visits to the temple to baptisms only. The endowment causes all the same feelings for me that you describe. I’ll try it again when prompted to do so, but for now, I keep it simple.
Comment by Kimberly — March 13, 2010 @ 10:43 am
Thank you. Sorry for the grumpy approach. I knew that I would get that kind of startled reaction, but my experience on here has been that you don’t get attention as a “newby” if you don’t either (a) agree with a major point, or (b) set off a bomb. Milk OTG knows I’m not a mean, nasty person and that I truly just want some specifics so that I can understand others’ perspective.
I can understand those specifics of the Endowment being disturbing. I keep attending so that I can understand it better. I really love the Initiatory, though.
Comment by ErinAnn — March 13, 2010 @ 11:16 am
Thanks, ErinAnn. This is my first time blogging anywhere, so I’m just finding my way. Sometimes you lose a lot with internet communication.
Comment by hkobeal — March 13, 2010 @ 11:35 am
Wow. I’m baffled. I finally listened to the whole talk. I was expecting SO much worse. i was expecting some of the things you all have talked about.
The first part of the talk he did talk about his mother and sister and daughter changed his life. I didn’t appreciate his negative remark about what a brother would do. It may have been funny and true for his particular brother, but I would have rather he given a perspective on how a brother could also love, but it may be different than a sister.
I liked the part about identifying that somethings make us strong and other things make us hard-then he clarified that some things help us develop spiritually and other things don’t-that’s the hard he’s talking about.
He also talked about a moment in the temple when he saw his wife how she really was as a priestess and goddess. It sounded like it was clearer in his mind than he could express.
Then the marriage part-the scriptures he based it on were 1 Cor 11:11 “neither is man without the woman neither the woman without the man, in the Lord” and Doctrine and covenants–uggh I can’t remember-very similar to the Paul scripture and very recipricol.
I was waiting and waiting for him to imply or suggest that only women support men, but though he focused on the female side of the equation (very rarely in the marriage part I might add)…it was very clear that both spouses were to inspire each other to greatness.
From his own life he talked about the support of his wife, but I wouldn’t like to hear him talk about how he has supported her-it would be better to hear her talk about that. that’s just my preference, but I don’t like hearing people brag about how great their influence has been on others.
so I completely don’t get it. not at all. don’t get the hulabaloo.
I was surprised that this would even be posted on without the transcript available and with the OP and so many others not even having heard the actual talk. I don’t think irresponsible covers that enough.
There has been numerous awful individual stories shared how some man has been completely sexist, pontificating the gospel according to him as the truth. Things like 226 that are so undoctrinal and hurtful really. they are absolutely unrelated to the Pace talk. They are very sad and have perhaps colored peoples’ perceptions when they hear a talk like this.
He didn’t say the WHOLE of a woman’s divine nature was to sanctify her husband. He didn’t say or even imply that women sanctify men but not the other way around…all of the marriage part was very much inclusive of a woman being sanctified by her husband.
Comment by britt — March 13, 2010 @ 11:45 am
Whoa- I missed 226…and I love your handle (mybaggagenotyours). That was a horrible thing to say- even worse if it ends up being true. That’s exactly why I say I’d volunteer for angel duty. Personally, I believe Heavenly Father loves both you and your dh way too much to do that to either of you.
Comment by Kimberly — March 13, 2010 @ 12:07 pm
ErinAnn, I love the initiatory, too. It’s my favorite part.
Comment by Stephanie — March 13, 2010 @ 12:13 pm
Thanks, I’m glad to hear someone else say this.
First, he gave this talk about women during Women’s History Month. Something this blog has been adamant about honoring. He did it, but that wasn’t good enough.
Second, he talked about Heavenly Mother. That wasn’t good enough, either.
Third, he was clear that he was talking about women. Can’t solve all the world’s problems in 26 minutes. That wasn’t good enough.
The homage he gave to his mother, sisters, wife, daughter was very sweet. It was all about honoring the often-unrecognized contributions that women make. But that wasn’t good enough?
Whinefest is a good description.
(But then, I may be influenced because I am currently reading ZOE’S TALE by John Scalzi. An amazing young woman, who is powerful in a different way than her male counterparts.)
Comment by Naismith — March 13, 2010 @ 12:30 pm
#241–what’s wrong with a good whinefest every once in a while??
I promise to publicly repent–if necessary–once I’ve listened to the whole 26 minutes.
Naismith–is Zoe’s Tale a memoir? fiction?
Comment by hkobeal — March 13, 2010 @ 12:32 pm
I don’t necessarily want to accuse you of promoting feminist theory as above reproach. I guess what I’m saying is, I see this a lot: any discussion of the “roles” of men and women is immediately countered by some modern theoretician or piece of “scientific evidence,” etc. Oh, yes, people are so different and diverse. And each different society provides stereotypical roles for men and, and some for women, that are unique to culture and geography and perhaps socioeconomic status.
I think, though, that there are certain, spiritual roles that men and women are primarily responsible for (ie proc on the family) and it makes sense to me, and I don’t see how that’s degrading or anti-feminist. It just is. My stewardship and my husbands are different. You could argue that this mirrors the “seperate but equal” way of thinking that was debunked with the Civil Rights movement, but I don’t think the two situations are all that similar. Biologically, men and women ARE different. Biologically, our drives and processes are different, especially in the face of such things as sexuality and parenting. Why would we be biologically given different purposes and functions, and not spiritually? I think Heavenly Father has beautiful way of mirroring his spiritual creations in the physical. I feel that, as a woman, I have certain roles and stewardships that are primarily my responsibility, and so does my husband (though that doesn’t mean there’s never any crossover.)
Anyway.
Comment by sare — March 13, 2010 @ 12:44 pm
How about promising to never defame a man and publicly denounce his speech without having heard it?
Comment by britt — March 13, 2010 @ 12:58 pm
It’s a bit hyperbolic to elevate a critical discussion to the level of defamation. It never occurred to me that Elder Pace was lacking character or that elements of his talk aren’t perfectly lovely.
Comment by Kimberly — March 13, 2010 @ 1:20 pm
Response from a friend when I told her I was probably going to hell……
Well now, look at the bright side… I’m going to be right there with you, so you’ll have company.
Let’s think about “hell” for a moment, shall we?
Hell is defined, as I understand it, as the worst thing you can possibly imagine. Since most people live in urban areas, in fact fled from rural areas as quickly as they possibly could, Hell is probably quite rural. Since tending sheep, chickens, goats, and perish the thought, a cow, is most people’s idea of hell on earth.. I am assuming there will be sheep, chickens, goats, and cows. I can buttress this argument with the argument theologians have that animals don’t have souls. If animals don’t have souls they obviously won’t be admitted to heaven, and it seems kind of unfair to send them to purgatory when there is all this nice countryside down in Hell, so I think they’ll probably end up as extras in Hell.
While you might find my house charming, I suspect most fundamentalist Christians would find it too cold, too dusty, too small, too cheap, and too filled with Books They Shouldn’t Read. I expect to live in a similar house in Hell.
You can have the bedroom of your choice.
Comment by fuzzy — March 13, 2010 @ 1:34 pm
So, what about Men that take up vocations & practices that harden them? It’s OK for them? I see that often in LDS Men.
I agree. When my daughter was 17 she started making so much of a fuss in YW &Sunday School we let her stop going. She felt too much was autocratic “My way or the highway”. I know some members thought we should have forced her to go to Church, but by that age I think she should be able to make up her mind.
I do think she will have a price to pay for overlooking the good things at Church. I felt she was too quick to bolt.
Comment by Mike H. — March 13, 2010 @ 1:40 pm
I almost forgot to say I really liked the rest of the OP. All the stories about issues she found difficult and how her dad helped her through it. I see how that could develop into other people sharing issues or statements they found difficult. That’s normal and a fine thread.
Kimberly, I can see why you’d say defaming was hyperbolic. What word would you choose? Many people on the thread have said things against the talk without hearing the actual talk. Many assumptions were made about the talk, despite the actual talk being available. It is only 26 minutes long.
Comment by britt — March 13, 2010 @ 1:50 pm
britt, what did you think about the depiction of Adam and Eve?
I did not defame Elder Pace. I said that I believe this talk expressed his opinions, and I don’t agree with all of them.
Comment by Stephanie — March 13, 2010 @ 2:13 pm
I can’t say the adam and eve part were my favorite-that was the only time in the marriage part in which it seemed the woman was made to complete the man…but then he immediately said the reverse was also true-so there you are.
I wonder if with the Adam thing..was he also going from his own perspective, as a man.
If you apply the adam and eve part more generally and say we can do great things before we are married-then what marriage can add to our progression- it works well.
i didn’t say you did defame him. You did listen to the whole talk and I really appretiate that.
Comment by britt — March 13, 2010 @ 2:31 pm
britt- I think it’s fair to call it a critical discussion…from multiple perspectives. If his talk was delivered from the perspective of a man, then my reception of it is based on that of a woman- one of many. Usually, when it comes to talks/opinions/essays/posts…I take what I like and leave the rest. Nobody can know for sure what Elder Pace thinks in totality of women and our various roles from one talk.
In this case it’s kind of like the subjective response to a compliment. One woman may think it’s great to be called beautiful and is waiting to hear it said, while another might take umbrage and want to know if that’s the only thing about her that matters.
For me, I just want it on the record that there is more to my divine purpose than completing a man and I accord every man I know the same respect. I also don’t care for someone else defining what my divine purpose is…how does anyone know that it specifically involves being a wife or mother- something that is not in every woman’s future…does that mean she has no purpose? We are not merely who we are in relation to any one person. I hope I add a lot of things to my husband’s world, including my support and affection; but I do not complete him. He’s already whole.
Comment by Kimberly — March 13, 2010 @ 2:46 pm
Naismith (#241)
But Women’s History Month focuses on women as people—what women have done as agents in history. There’s a big difference between talking about women’s accomplishments, and praising women for their ability to enable men’s accomplishments. It seems to me that this talk might have actually been more fitting for a hypothetical Men’s History Month, as part of a discussion about what ingredients make men successful.
sare (#243)
I’m not opposed to the idea that there might be inherent gender differences. The problem I see with this kind of discourse is that it suggests that men’s divine role and mission is to get to heaven; women’s divine role and mission is to help the men get there.
britt (#250)
I didn’t hear that. He quoted Paul on neither the man being without the woman or the woman being without the man. But this was after describing a situation in which Adam needed someone to help him fulfill his mission, and so someone was given to him to help him do that. There was no hint of anything in the other direction. To say that men and women need each other isn’t necessarily to say that there’s reciprocity in the relationship.
Honestly, if this were an isolated instance, a talk which didn’t really connect to more general ideas on gender in LDS teachings, I probably would have found it less troubling. But a framework in which women are described primarily in terms of their ability to enable male progress and exaltation is found in scriptures, liturgy, and lots of talks on the subject. He’s not coming up with this independently; he’s drawing on ideas that are already there.
I don’t see objecting to this framework as defaming him personally, though. As I listened to the talk, I actually felt affection for him. I have a soft spot in my heart for doting fathers. I could imagine him as a sweet grandfather. I could hear that he really appreciated and admired the women in his life. Some of the stuff he said was pretty moving. Despite everything, I thought the bit at the end about coming into the presence of Heavenly Mother was pretty cool.
But I still have serious problems with the framework he was using. He didn’t say, this is one thing that women do. He said he was talking about the divine nature and destiny of women.
Comment by Lynnette — March 13, 2010 @ 4:00 pm
ErinAnn, I wanted to tackle your first question from #89:
I totally agree with this. I think building relationships with others is what the gospel is all about, and that these relationships make us who we are.
But that wasn’t really what I heard in this talk. What I heard is that we are posed with a theological problem: men don’t have the ability to be who they need to be, and get where they need to go. And then a solution to that problem: create women to be a good influence on them. That’s a very different model than talking about the importance of relationships in our lives.
Also, I’d actually disagree that this relationship isn’t usually emphasized in quite this way; my objection to the talk, as I said above, is that I think it’s a model (women’s righteous influence on men) that’s all too common in church discourse.
Comment by Lynnette — March 13, 2010 @ 4:10 pm
fuzzy (#246), lol about your depiction of hell. I have to admit that I might be a bit overwhelmed by the sheep, chickens, goats, and cows. Though I’d be on board if there were cats, and for sure if there were books. Especially if they were the books that were too heretical to get into heaven.
Comment by Lynnette — March 13, 2010 @ 4:15 pm
Kimberly I could call it a critical discussion if people had heard the actual talk. But since the OP and a majority of the posters haven’t even bothered to listen to the talk it’s difficult to have a critical discussion of the actual talk. Instead we are having a discussion about out of context sound bites.
Lynette he never said this was the whole of the divine nature of women.
Right after quoting milton he says Adam’s awe was because he was standing in the presence of a daughter of God, it was her wellspring, as he put it, not her physical beauty that amazed Adam. Then he quotes Paul and the doctrine and covenants and says there is a limit to a spiritual development as long as we are single. Just as for conception it takes a man and a woman, for perfection it takes a man and a woman. melding our divine natures is an necessary element in bringing about perfection, we must gaurd against any deterioration of those natures (doesn’t that directly imply both male and female natures? and then he gets specific since he said he would talk about women). Sisters keep in mind anything that detracts…
It goes both ways.
The John A Widstoe say those who are truely unified in marriage will have greater divine power to do what they need to do (much better than I said) then he quotes a quaker proverb “Thee lift me and I’ll lift thee and we’ll both ascend together”-again very much both are lifting there right? men and women? he’s not saying only women lift their husband up.
Comment by britt — March 13, 2010 @ 4:47 pm
sorry about the muddling…it’s a john A widstoe quote at the end…the truly unified part. It’s really a beautiful quote of the blessing to both parties.
Comment by britt — March 13, 2010 @ 4:48 pm
Who said that WHM was only about what women did on their own? So being a mom and wife doesn’t matter? What happened to that mantra about how feminists respect all of women’s choices and contributions.
Really, I thought that we were over that kind of attitude when Wellsley women protested Barbara Bush’s invitation to speak at commencement.
Such a shame that Michelle Obama is only “enabling men’s accomplishments” nowadays. What a poor role model she is to our daughters!
Comment by Naismith — March 13, 2010 @ 5:51 pm
Britt, I see nothing wrong with the concept of having to be as one in order to become perfect. What I do find harmful is the stricti for that perfection. I have a Husband and two children, I am a women, and I fulfill my define purpose. What is my divine purpose? Listening to God. Does that imply I should be a stay at home Mom to fulfill my divine purpose? NO. Others believe that is the essential ingredient. I think for me that is the constant struggle. So sure I can’t wait to see Mother in Heaven in all her glory. Does divine purpose imply stay at home Mom? Personally I don’t think so. I may nurture in a different way than my Husband but I do not have to be at home making dinner to do that.
Comment by CZ — March 13, 2010 @ 5:58 pm
Correction Sorry… the strict recipe for that perfection.
Comment by CZ — March 13, 2010 @ 6:00 pm
Naismith I think choice is the KEY word. I know many instances where women would love to go to school but put their Husbands accomplishments first. Sometimes without even questioning it because that’s what they were taught to do. I think if its a REAL choice between Husband and Wife and not just a expectation then YES. I know many Men whom would love to stay at home but that was never a option for them because it was never discussed.
Comment by CZ — March 13, 2010 @ 6:05 pm
britt #250, that’s fair. I found the talk to be very male-centric: from the view of what purpose a woman serves to a man.
True, I guess I just have a really hard time getting past the male-centric perspective of the rest of it. I didn’t really hear anything like this:
I don’t even get that from the parts you quoted. He spends a great deal of time setting up the story of Adam and Eve and how Adam needed her and how he would be so pleased with her. He didn’t really even talk about Eve at all - just how she completed Adam.
It actually reminded me of when my brother was all excited about the girl he was marrying, and he said, “She cleans and cooks so well”. I kept saying, “And? And? Tell me something about her that doesn’t relate to what you want out of her”.
Anyways, Lynnette basically summed up the rest of my thoughts. I’m done thinking about this talk. It’s ruined two days of my life so far and made me so mad at DH that I need to just let it go.
Comment by Stephanie — March 13, 2010 @ 6:10 pm
This reminds me of a relationship panel we had at a recent RS activity. One husband said, that the biggest thing he learned when he got married is that getting married didn’t mean his life continued on just as it had before, but with the nice addition of a wife. He had to adjust and make changes in his life because he realized they were a team, instead of her being an accessory.
Seems like it would be helpful if young men were taught a little bit better about what getting married means- and the first place to do that is at home, with how we as parents treat each other.
Not as accessories that go along with what we want to do, but true equal partners.
Comment by Alliegator — March 13, 2010 @ 6:14 pm
I went to lunch today with my friend and we discussed this talk. She is single and in her 30s. She has come to terms with the fact that she may never marry (she hasn’t had great dating experiences) and she’s okay with that. She loves her life. However, she no longer feels like she belongs in the church. This talk basically made her feel like she has no divine purpose since she doesn’t have a man to purify and strengthen. It’s sad that she doesn’t feel valued or of worth all on her own.
Comment by Risa — March 13, 2010 @ 6:32 pm
Naismith (#257), that’s a serious misread of what I was saying. I’m not talking about whether women did things on their own or in cooperation with others, or whether what they did involved the domestic sphere or not. Obviously you can find female contributions in all kinds of places, whether in the home or elsewhere, and I’m all for recognizing that.
But that’s a really different thing from asserting that the eternal role and destiny of women is to purify men.
britt (#255), I did like the second half of the talk better in its discussion of what couples can achieve together. (I should clarify that I thought it was better as far as gender–Risa has a really good point about where it leaves single women!) But the idea that men and women need each other and have to work together to be exalted does not necessarily imply that their relationship is reciprocal or that they have equal standing in it. I think in the church we often appeal to that teaching as an attempt to reassure women–look! women are important! only couples can be exalted! But that doesn’t actually address the question of female status in that saving relationship.
Comment by Lynnette — March 13, 2010 @ 8:19 pm
It definitely leaves single people in a bind. I’m sorry your friend was so affected Risa
Comment by britt--and the brat — March 13, 2010 @ 8:46 pm
Wow. Gotta say I’m surprised by how shrill and accusatory some of these posts are. I’d like to think that if we were in a room together, talking face to face, we would be slower to name-call, etc. But like I mentioned earlier, I’m new to this whole blogging thing . . .
#252/264-Lynnette, I loved your thoughts in both these posts. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
#258: CZ, I also loved this: “What is my divine purpose? Listening to God.”
Comment by hkobeal — March 13, 2010 @ 11:35 pm
#261–Stephanie, so sorry it had that effect on you. I feel responsible. I did start the whole thing . . .
Comment by hkobeal — March 13, 2010 @ 11:36 pm
Re 242 Zoe’s Tale is just a science fiction novel. In it, there are lots and lots of comments very much along the line of Elder Pace’s reminiscences/theorizing about what a brother would do. Zoe and her friend are always being smarter than the the guys, lots of comments along the lines of this: “Never send a teenage boy to do a teenage girl’s job.”
The author is not LDS, the story takes place decades in the future, and yet it is okay to make those sort of comments. But not in a BYU devotional.
Comment by Naismith — March 14, 2010 @ 12:08 am
And if he had said that, I might share your misgivings.
He said, “My focus this morning will be on the divine nature and destiny of women, and the sacred role they play in the sanctification and purification of men.”
My saying “my focus” he is making clear that he is focusing on just one aspect.
But mentioning the divine nature and destiny of women, then pausing and saying “and” communicates that he does NOT consider this their only role or destiny. Rather, this is A role they play. Which I think they do. It’s one of the many things women do.
If he was indeed concerned only about men, why bother to say things like, “Men and women can accomplish wonderful things alone…” He could have easily just said “men,” if that’s all he cared about.
I loved the talk. In my everyday life, I get all kinds of support for my career, etc. Indeed, in my job, where my supervisor is a woman, they are very un-understanding when I want to take time off for a grandchild’s illness, child’s activity, etc. even if it is totally within our university’s leave policy. They think I am overly “soft” to care about such things and think I am somehow less dedicated to the department. I am not going to be able to attend my daughter’s graduation (PhD) because I can’t afford to take the time off.
So this was balm to my soul. It’s a joy to hear such things being extolled and valued. It’s not that the other roles of women don’t exist, it just wasn’t his “focus this morning.”
Comment by Naismith — March 14, 2010 @ 7:04 am
Thanks for sharing your experiences, Naismith. I haven’t experienced that with my job at all, so I can’t relate but appreciate this reminder from you. My husband works in another state during the week. If my kids get sick, I bring them to work with me (not for the whole day, but for part of it). I am able to leave if I need to do something at my kids’ schools, etc.
But I can see how you would have received the talk differently.
Comment by hkobeal — March 14, 2010 @ 11:13 am
re: 246: fuzzy said: “Hell is defined, as I understand it, as the worst thing you can possibly imagine. … Hell is probably quite rural. Since tending sheep, chickens, goats, and perish the thought, a cow, is most people’s idea of hell on earth.. I am assuming there will be sheep, chickens, goats, and cows”
funny, I stand on the front stoop and look out over the cows and chickens in the pasture on one of those marvelous mornings when tongues of fog snake across the foothills or when those last rays of sun turn the light and all it touches to gold and I think, ‘if this is a close as I ever get to heaven, I’m good with that.’
Shows to go ya - some folks don’t like chocolate either.
btw, anyone see Masterpiece theatre a while back about
that little village in England facing the arrival of the
rail road? Can’t recall the name of the film, it had Dame
Judith Dentch in it. Anyway, if you saw it, did you
notice that old lady’s much loved “Bessie” cow all
dressed up in a very large set of long johns? I thought
at once, ‘Bessie the cow is wearing her garments!’ Are we
sure about the animals have “no souls” thing?
Comment by Betty Jo — March 14, 2010 @ 11:47 am
Hope Besse’s Gs are more comfortable than mine, Betty Jo. And I do think your place sounds like heaven on earth.
Comment by Kimberly — March 14, 2010 @ 11:56 am
Naismith- I am glad you brought that up about the lack of support for motherhood at work. That is true- most places don’t give a hoot what obligations wait at home. You are right- it is very good that Elder Pace gives credit where it is due. I think I get frustrated with both ends of it- I’d like to see more support at work for family obligations and more support at church for the work outside of our families and callings that women do.
Comment by Kimberly — March 14, 2010 @ 12:00 pm
oh no….Betty Jo….
I could do cows. My friend and I were laughing over my propensity to go to hell, as I am somewhat pagan and surrounded at the time by fundamentalist xtians loudly pronouncing my impending doom…..
Comment by fuzzy — March 14, 2010 @ 1:00 pm
Fuzzy said “Hell is probably quite rural. Since tending sheep, chickens, goats, and perish the thought, a cow, is most people’s idea of hell on earth.”
Where in the world did that opinion come from? Most people’s opinion? Well, it just goes to show that if you meet/interact with enough people you will hear just about anything.
My Hell would be quite the opposite. Endless pavement, huge towering structures, neon, and crowded noisy sidewalks, asphalt instead of grass, and backed up traffic on the interstate at rush hour.
Give me cows. A stream. Even a chicken. Or at least let me walk through that fine valley.
Comment by Melissa P. — March 14, 2010 @ 1:58 pm
“Sheep go to Heaven… goats go to Hell…” re Cake
I like both of them… guess I’ll be happy wherever I end up! lol
Comment by April — March 14, 2010 @ 2:07 pm
Hi Betty Jo-that was ‘Cranford’,and part of a series so there’s more where that came from.A village community grappling with the consequnces of the industrial revolution.You might also enjoy ‘Lark Rise to Candleford’,which is full of wise old saws.Good company-Sunday night viewing in our house.Lots of warm fuzzies.
My Amazon moment has passed.Used to be a bookseller.Best job I ever had.
Comment by wayfarer — March 14, 2010 @ 2:08 pm
Our divine nature is to be simple and simpering? Well, I’m screwed.
(thank you, April, I freaking LOVE that song)
Comment by Anna — March 14, 2010 @ 7:14 pm
huh, how do you get simple and simpering from avoiding things that harden? I don’t want my husband to be hardened. I’ve talked about this with my friend when her husband got back from Afganastan. It took him 8 months to work through some of the things he had experienced. Neither of them think he shouldn’t be an army dr, but they talk about how to keep from permanantly hardening.
I like to make goat’s milk yougurt AND I like to knit wool…huh. Is there a bartering system between Heaven and hell?
Naismith, thanks for your comments and different perspective with your work situation.
Comment by britt--and the brat — March 14, 2010 @ 8:05 pm
My husband found this talk for me from M. Russell Ballard called Women of Righteousness. It appears that LDS Living Magazine recommends it for the YW lesson on “Attitudes About Our Divine Roles”.
I love this Ballard talk. I think that if I am asked what the divine nature and divine role of women is all about, I’ll refer to this one.
Comment by Stephanie — March 14, 2010 @ 8:17 pm
That one was actually, ‘Return to Cranford”. The first one is also very good.
Comment by Alliegator — March 14, 2010 @ 8:21 pm
Great talk stephanie. I remember the “here I am, send me” part. I really ;ike thye spiritual gifts part.
Comment by britt--and the brat — March 14, 2010 @ 9:06 pm
Here’s another great one about women’s roles. The Role of Righteous Women by Spencer W. Kimball. A few quotes:
Comment by Stephanie — March 14, 2010 @ 9:08 pm
Here are a few quotes from the companion talk that Spencer W. Kimball gave to the men in the priesthood session of the same conference:
Amen.
Comment by Stephanie — March 14, 2010 @ 9:17 pm
Stephanie, thanks for those references! I was reading the Ballard talk when the Bishop called and asked me to speak next week. I said, Sure, what about THIS TALK. He said’ sounds great!’ You saved me from all that looking for a talk that I usually do. And it is awesome!
Comment by Melissa P. — March 14, 2010 @ 10:40 pm
“Do not, however, make the mistake of being drawn off into secondary tasks which will cause the neglect of your eternal assignments such as giving birth to and rearing the spirit children of our Father in Heaven.” Ummmm What if the “secondary” task is a PHD and you put off having children? I don’t like the implication that if you put off children for school you are avoiding your primal purpose.
Comment by cz — March 14, 2010 @ 10:54 pm
Neglect is a pretty strong word, I don’t think he means a little planning. It’s different trying to make the best of everything (having children, magnifying talents, educating yourself) and ‘neglect’. If your intent is to have 18 children, you might be neglecting your own intentions by getting a phd, but if you have a plan like have a few kids, get a degree that will allow you to help people and be a fulfilled happy mama, and develop talents that can do the same, anyone that complains is a turd.
Comment by pdig — March 14, 2010 @ 11:31 pm
#287–What pdig said.
Comment by hkobeal — March 14, 2010 @ 11:44 pm
ErinAnn (#227) - Maybe you missed my post (#94) responding to your question in #89…it was less than an hour after you asked it. Please don’t think you were ignored! I’m a newbie too, though, so maybe you were looking more for an answer from one of the regulars…
Comment by Cordelia — March 15, 2010 @ 12:42 am
i thought about responding to this in the first place and didn’t cause i can be lazy, but now i will since you reminded me
i don’t feel like we NEED to go to our husbands for a blessing. at all. God blesses us through prayer as well as when we haven’t asked at all. if we WANT a blessing from our husband, he can give us one, and he gets to use his priesthood. DH has told me that he is happy for any opportunity to use his because they don’t come that often, and so i see it like i’m blessing him by giving him a chance to!
obvious but important -> by virtue of holding the priesthood our husbands can be the bearers of blessings, but ALL blessings come from God, and you don’t need a priesthood holder to receive them.
hearken unto means to listen to. it does not mean ‘obey’.
when israel wanted a king, the Lord told Samuel, “Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.” so the Lord was telling Samuel that he needed to pay attention to what was being said by the people so that he would get the drift of what they really meant. they were saying “we want a king” but they meant “it’s easier to follow a king than be self reliant and in self control”. the Lord tells Samuel to go on and explain to the people what it really is that they are asking for.
now, i’ve only ever taken one women’s studies class, but a big part of what we talked about was the difference in communication styles between the sexes. i totally believe that there is something in our makeup that makes us tend towards being different in that way. if that’s true, it makes sense to me that God would want us to have a way to overcome it so we can have all the joy we should.
we are ALL supposed to learn to
-pray continuously
-follow the spirit
-develop a relationship with our savior
so… we are all supposed to be listening to (’hearkening unto’) God. we are reminded of that on practically every page of the scriptures. following that logic, it seems to me that any specific commandments which seem uneven/unfair but relate to that same topic are not NEW or SEPARATE commandments, but reminders that the Lord felt we needed for some reason.
why would men need an extra reminder to listen to God, and women need one to listen to their husbands?
if the phrase “hearken unto” is taken the way it was used to Samuel, it sounds to me like a suggestion that women might be a little more likely to misunderstand what her husband means by something he says, and that she will be better off (more joyful) if she remembers to carefully listen and interpret, rather than be quick to take his words at face value. this could prevent the whole ‘offense being taken when none was meant’ thing. this fits 100% in line with what i learned in women’s studies, just for reference.
if you think about what just happened, Adam took what God said at face value. don’t eat the fruit, okay i won’t. Eve saw the conflict and was able to make a complicated choice. that makes the reminder to listen to Adam sound even more gentle to me, like ‘keep doing what you did, because it will lead you to righteousness’. it does not remove her right, duty, power, or ability to speak to God directly by any means.
as far as men, i personally think they are getting another reminder to avoid ‘unrighteous dominion’ or anything like it. like, ‘don’t forget to listen carefully to what the Lord tells you, because it is easy and terrible to become a dictator’, because He is talking to men who already hold the priesthood, and like the scriptures say, misuse of power is a real danger.
there you go. that’s why it doesn’t bother me at all. my amateur logician skills at work.
Comment by pdig — March 15, 2010 @ 2:06 am
Stephanie - Re: #232 and #233 - I recently heard the idea that Adam doesn’t necessarily represent men and Eve doesn’t necessarily represent women. An alternative interpretation is that Adam represents a human spirit, and Eve represents a human body. I have mentally gone through the temple ceremony with this interpretation in mind (haven’t actually made it back to the temple yet), and it has brought me tremendous insight and peace. Hopefully it might for you, too.
Comment by Kajabada — March 15, 2010 @ 2:59 am
Kajabada, that’s an interesting thought. I’ll keep that in mind next time I go. (although the ceremony does tell us to consider ourselves respectively Adam and Eve, so it sounds literal to me)
pdig, I’ve had similar thoughts about Adam being so literal and Eve considering all angles. They approach the same problem very differently. I guess I identify with that so well because DH and I are the same way.
I’ve reconciled the hearken by thinking of God saying something like this, “Hey Eve, you went and changed the course of your life with Adam by making this choice to partake of the fruit without consulting him. He had no choice but to follow you. From now on, you need to covenant that you will talk things over with him and make the choice together”.
In fact, since we know Satan lied about there being no other way, I wonder if another way would have involved Adam and Eve together making the choice.
Comment by Stephanie — March 15, 2010 @ 8:40 am
i get what you mean. you just described the exact feeling i get when i am actually at a session. the version i gave above was the feeling i got while reading the scriptures before i had ever been to the temple, and it still fit after i’d been… but maybe yours is more accurate!
i got the impression that there WAS no other way, but that satan was lying because
-he wasn’t sure if there was another way, so he thought he was lying, which is lying
-a lot of the other things he added were not true
for instance, he said she wouldn’t die that day. that is true physically, but spiritually she did ‘die’ (become separated from God). i have gotten the impression that satan was lying in that he was guessing and embellishing, and putting it forward as fact - insofar as to suggest that God had been lying.
Comment by pdig — March 15, 2010 @ 11:04 am
pdig (#290) - Thank you so much for your response! I really appreciate it. You’re right, men and women do communicate differently, and we need to take that into consideration.
I remember being taught once in a BYU religion class that “hearken” in a scriptural sense meant “listen and obey.” Maybe that’s why I had such a problem with the temple covenant. But I looked it up in the dictionary and it says nothing about obeying being involved…so I don’t know.
I’m not sure if it won’t bother me anymore at all, but I really do appreciate your perspective. DH and I don’t get to the temple very often (it’s hard when you have a 2-year-old), but I will remember this the next time I go.
Comment by Cordelia — March 15, 2010 @ 1:30 pm
Dang. I guess engineering is probably hardening my divine nature.
Comment by Amanda — March 15, 2010 @ 1:57 pm
he’s talking about sin hardening us, keeping us from feeling the spirit…not a career
Comment by britt--and the brat — March 15, 2010 @ 2:20 pm
What I mean by my earlier post when I said that men need the priesthood and women don’t, is that women (for the most part) have a natural connection to the lord and already have a natural afinitiy for nurturing and mothering (again, this is for the most part, there are always exceptiosn to the rule), and I believe that men need the responsiblity of the priest-hood to keep them connected to church and family (as a general rule). You may disagree with me, and that is fine. This is just how I feel. I am glad I don’t have the responsliblity of the priesthood, honestly. I feel like the whole idea of being a mother is enough responsiblity for me (I didn’t always feel this way, but have come to a better understanding of the priesthood lately, and honestly feel that the way it is is right).
As for the issue of black people not being able to hold the priesthood. I really don’t understand why that happened, and I guess I won’t find out until I die. Does it disturb me? yes, it does, but I have the ability to seperate the gospel from the church as an organization, and I do at times disagree with the leaders of the church. You want to ask me about how I feel on prop 8? I hated it, and I left the church for a little bit after the church came out in support of it. I am back now, and my testimony is stronger than ever. I think instead of being bitter, we need to work on living the scriptures, being humble, faithful, loving, kind, not prideful, and we all need to work on cultivating a strong relationship with the lord. Sorry for the tangent. Probably no one will ever read this anyway.
Comment by Emily — March 15, 2010 @ 2:24 pm
I read it, Emily.
Comment by Stephanie — March 15, 2010 @ 2:48 pm
cordelia-i highly suggest reading these, keeping in mind this:
i’m a big fan of the jewish way of reading the scriptures, where certain words are repeated in certain places for a specific meaning, not just randomly. sometimes it says hear, sometimes listen, sometimes follow, sometimes obey, sometimes hearken… and i take them all differently. when God is the object, hearken can imply obey because if you are willing to listen to God it logically follows that you would also be willing to obey (generally), and because God would never tell you something that was not PERFECTLY RIGHT for you to do. it’s totally different with other humans. we are commanded to ‘be wise’!
as far as the regular dictionary, ‘hearken unto’ can mean either ‘to listen to’ or ‘to listen and give heed’.
so… using heed… it says
“give careful attention to your husband”
or “have regard for your husband”
i hope this doesnt come across bossy because i dont want it to be that way at all, i just love playing with words
Comment by pdig — March 15, 2010 @ 2:58 pm
i read it too, big e. thanks for writing it
Comment by pdig — March 15, 2010 @ 3:04 pm
more because im obsessed lol
“hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel”
“Hearken, O ye nations of the earth, and hear the words of that God who made you”
“Whoso would hearken unto the word of God, and would hold fast unto it”
“Hearken unto these words and believe in Christ”
“hearken to the Truth, and Give Heed unto It”
those are all scriptures, all either separating hearkening (listening) from the ‘go and do’ part, or repeating the sentiment that hearken means ‘listen’
im going to take your teacher to linguistics court for criminal dissemination of misinterpretation
Comment by pdig — March 15, 2010 @ 3:11 pm
Emily - thanks. I read it too, and I’m glad I did, because I know it was mostly a response to my comment. I’m sorry if I offended you. That wasn’t my intent. I was in a funk last week, and I let it spread to many parts of my life. Thank you for sharing your thoughts, and I’m glad you’ve come back and have a strong testimony. I’m really happy for you!
pdig - thanks for the links. I plan to read more about all of this when I have time tonight. Cheers!
Comment by Cordelia — March 15, 2010 @ 4:05 pm
Actually, if you really want to bring people like that to heel, you quote them in letters to the editor of the Ensign, telling the editor that they shouldn’t be wasting print on articles by women, since, as BYU Religion Professor “—[insert name here]–” had pointed out in telling you to ignore them, ….
Also write the President of the Church telling him that your ward was going through and deleting all the conference talks by women on the strength of Professor []’s explanation that they should be ignored and you wish they would just not even waste your time by letting them take up airspace at conference.
You would be surprised at what a vigorous response such contacts can bring.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — March 16, 2010 @ 8:03 pm
btw, the meaning is “hearken to your husband only when he is hearkening to God” …
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — March 16, 2010 @ 8:05 pm
#303 Now that is an inspired idea, Stephen M. But I shouldn’t have been drinking through a straw when I read it.
Comment by Kimberly — March 16, 2010 @ 8:59 pm
Emily, I read it, too.
Stephen, I would be okay with your suggestion in #304 IF husbands also have to make that same covenant–hearken unto your wife as she hearkens unto god. But alas, they don’t. It’s completely one-sided . . .
Also, have you written letters to the Ensign or to the GAs before? I never have.
Comment by hkobeal — March 16, 2010 @ 10:01 pm
This is two days since the last post so it may not be read but I wanted to add my comments after I just sat & read all 306 previous posts. : )
Emily #202 “I wasn’t put on this earth just to be something for another person!” I feel like I was put on this earth to be everything to another person.
Alligator #262 I TOTALLY agree that more needs to be taught to the YM about marriage & being a righteous leader in the home. My DH & I have had several conversations about his lack of ‘training’ in YM.
Thanks for all your honest comments. This is the types of discussions I wish we could have in RS.
Comment by Texas Gal — March 19, 2010 @ 12:05 am