General Young Women Meeting
So the General Young Women meeting this year is on March 27, 2010. I’ve never loved this—not when I was a young woman and certainly not now as a middle-aged mother of daughters. Last year would’ve been the first year I could’ve gone with my daughter. We didn’t end up going, although I don’t remember what else we had going that night. We won’t be going this year, either, because my daughter has a volleyball tournament three hours away that whole day, but I can’t help thinking about it. If I could plan that whole meeting, what would it be like? What kind of music would I pick? What kinds of speakers? What would they talk about?
I know what I don’t want to hear. I don’t want to hear about virtue (even though I think being virtuous is good). I don’t want to hear speeches persuading the young women how much more righteous they are than the young men. I don’t want to hear about anything pink or soft. I don’t want to hear about how the world is dangerous or coarse or vulgar. I happen to see good all around me, everywhere I look. Sure, there’s bad stuff, too, but that’s not what I choose to focus on. And that’s not what I want my girls to focus on, either.
When my daughter was about six, I bought a book called One Hundred Famous Women off the bargain rack at Barnes & Noble. Even the title of the book makes me laugh. Someone actually compiled a list with little bios of one hundred famous women! Imagine picking up a book called One Hundred Famous Men. Where would you even start?? Anyway, my daughter read that book like crazy. She dog-eared her favorite women and read them over and over and over. She read it until it fell apart. It’s inspiring to read about women (and men, too, but for me, I just relate more to women) who did amazing things—especially when so many of them did them against all odds. So I’d like to hear some stories about women who did amazing things and what/who inspired them to do those things. Even better would be to hear those stories from the women themselves.
I’d like to hear advice to the young women about planning for their futures—and by that I don’t mean decoupaging boxes with pictures of their favorite temples to remind them that their ultimate goal is temple marriage. I’d like the young women to hear about developing their leadership potential, sharpening their intellect, and getting job/career training so that they can be financially independent should they need or choose to have careers. I’d like to hear about them exercising their agency to go out and take the world by storm. I’d like to hear them encourage the girls to look for the good in the world—wherever it might be.
I hope to hear (read) some of that. What do you hope to hear?
I’d like to hear much of the same! I’m 18, so YW broadcasts are still very fresh in my mind–I really am tired of hearing about how I’m so righteous compared to the boys and how I can “influence” them for good. I’d like to hear real, practical stuff for the real world as well. Pretty much everything you said.
Also, two of my FHE brothers came over earlier. I briefly interviewed each of them (for my paper–see below) It turned into a very… enthusiastic conversation on the roles of women and men and “the way things are.” And apparently they think any strong woman is trying to be “better than men.” That’s why I’d like to see more talks on real strength, so that it will become okay to be strong and not just “sweet” and “virtuous.”
Side note: I’m writing a paper on gender roles and Mormon culture. Would any of you fMh-ers be willing to let me quote some of your comments on this site? Or do you have any particular nuggets of wisdom you’d like to be quoted?
Comment by Amanda C — March 17, 2010 @ 12:45 am
You know “virtuous” in the Bible, (at least in Proverbs, “Who can find a virtuous woman? For her price is far above rubies.”) Actually comes from a Hebrew root meaning “strong” and has almost nothing to do with chastity at all? It’s true!
Comment by AllieKay — March 17, 2010 @ 1:14 am
@Amanda C: If I happen to write anything worthwhile, feel free to quote anything I say.
@hkobeal: I understand exactly what you mean. I am so sick of being placed on a pedestal by all these talks. I’m 20 years old and currently attending school in Southern Illinois. I did go out to BYU for three semesters (10 months), but while I was there, the idea of gender roles was palpable every where I turned. That and the fact that I missed the Midwest far too much led me to come back to Illinois.
I attend a young single adult branch near my school and it feels like every Sunday I’m hounded on to get married and have kids. I’m sorry, but this really isn’t one of my priorities. I respect the women my age who may want to get married young and start a family. That is their decision and many may grow up to be strong women in the church. I have my own plans for my life, however.
Now let me just add at this point that I am an active member of the church and the first counselor of the Relief Society in my branch. I go to church to hear and live the gospel to the best of my abilities. That being said, I feel that what I do with my life is between me and the Lord. I have aspirations to be an author and a book-editor. I also want to go to China and teach English there (I have 4 semesters of the language under my belt). I want to learn as much about the world as I can before I settle down. If I meet a husband along the way who makes me happy, great! But he’d better know that I’m not giving up my dreams to be with him.
I don’t feel evil for wanting these things. I don’t feel like I’m going against my divine nature nor do I feel like I’m putting off having children for a selfish desire to travel the world. In fact, I feel like I’m doing my future children (I’m planning to adopt) a favor. The more educated I am, the more I will be able to teach them about the world they live in and the people around the world who are their brothers and sisters. The Lord has put these opportunities in my way so I can develop myself and I will take them. If this is what the Lord wants me to do, then I will do it.
P.S. There may be an article written by me that will pop up in the coming days that has to do with this very topic. I think I may have just answered my own question, haha!
Comment by Kim D — March 17, 2010 @ 1:19 am
@AllieKay: Sorry I didn’t respond to you. You must have updated while I was writing. That bit about the translations is awesome!
Comment by Kim D — March 17, 2010 @ 1:30 am
Amanda C., most of my stuff here is just blowing off steam, but feel free to pull it. I also wrote a paper about my feminist journey in the church that I’d be happy to send to you.
Kim, I love your post. I totally respect your attitude. And it irks, irks, irks me that women still have to justify (in an LDS context) why they have your types of ambitions…. and why you feel compelled to include that your desires will help your future children, and that’s what makes them okay. [I don’t think you think that’s what makes them say. But you have to operate in a system where you have to answer to those demands.]
Can’t we just be interested in pursuing our interests because they’re, you know, our interests? Like the boys do?
Comment by Hammie — March 17, 2010 @ 2:14 am
ergh…. end of the night typos…. “[I don’t think you think that’s what makes them okay…..]
Comment by Hammie — March 17, 2010 @ 2:15 am
As to the topic at hand…….
I wish our YW would hear about the important work there is to do in the world….. like fighting for social justice, getting involved in activism, standing up for human rights, ending poverty. I wish they were told, by their leaders, of the overwhelming moral imperatives to get involved in this work.
And as a positive byproduct, it would push Dear Brother Beck out of the church.
Comment by Hammie — March 17, 2010 @ 2:19 am
Ah.. I’m glad I’m not the only one that doesn’t fit in with the marriage/kid plan. The main problem I have is that many people don’t understand how stressful school is for me. I’m in one of the hardest majors (Electrical Engineering), and I don’t like the guilt trips I’m set on because I can’t volunteer my time.
I have a job (school), and I work at it from 9AM-9PM or later everyday. I would love to participate, but it isn’t going to happen. Same with dating. Talking about temple marriage and all is great, but for me, it’s like telling a primary student to start looking for an EC (eternal companion).
I also don’t like being told that I’ll be able to educate my future children very well, and that they will be lucky to have me as a mother. I’m not even sure if I want that yet. And it’s okay.
Comment by Amanda — March 17, 2010 @ 3:23 am
I actually have been having some of these same thoughts this past week. I’m a graduate student of religion and have been thinking about doing chaplaincy at adolescent treatment centers. During my class on youth and young adult development in faith communities last week, my mind starting racing with ideas on how I’d revamp the young women’s conferences. I can’t remember much of young women conferences I attended (about 8 years ago) except that they felt a lot like general conference to me–mostly boring with a few good stories thrown in.
I’d keep them to 90 minutes maximum with three speakers (the presidency) with 15 minutes each. The rest of the time would be spent on music, and one or two multi-media presentations. I thought it would be fascinating to randomly select two or three wards or branches each year from different parts of the world and make a video highlighting the young women. Instead of focusing on what these girls are doing (i.e. expansive service projects, etc.) focus on who they are. What it’s like to be a Mormon Young Woman in their part of the ward. What makes them different from others. What makes them the same. I’d love to see more diversity represented and acknowledged.
Comment by laurenlou — March 17, 2010 @ 3:36 am
Amanda C, I haven’t contributed much thusfar but for the sake of documenting your right to use anything I say, i’ll just tell you now that I’m totally okay with it!
I’d like to echo the comments of Kim D, Amanda, and Hammie (especially about Mr. Beck
).
I was one of those lucky souls to graduate from college just as the recession started really screwing things up. At least, that’s how it’s felt. Trying to figure out a next step (grad school? if so, which program? work? if so, which field?) while simultaneously just trying to get by financially is stressful enough without dating and thinking about marriage.
Comment by LDesque — March 17, 2010 @ 5:29 am
In the interest of full disclosure, I joined the church in college and thus was never in Young Women’s, so much of what I understand of what it’s like actually comes from all of you!
I agree with you hkobeal on what they should be hearing, especially about their futures. I’d love if more focus was put on preparing young women for their lives, individually, rather than in the context of when they have a family. If young women mainly hear leaders talking all about preparing for temple marriage and preparing for a family, that’s mainly what they’ll know to do!
I understand that family is important and these are things to think about and plan for, but what’s the rush? If you believe it will last for eternity, why would a couple years before it starts matter? With all the data on the success of couples who married a little later or had children a little later, I’d think that focusing more on fostering the young women’s aspirations, career goals, and interests would lead to stronger families a little bit down the road.
p.s. For the sake of covering my butt, I know that the success of these marriages are subject to many confounding variables, but I still find it interesting to think about. Also, I’m not trying to say that young marriages are always a bad idea. Clearly, many of them are quite successful. There! Butt-covered. =)
Comment by LDesque — March 17, 2010 @ 5:33 am
Who wrote the book One Hundred Famous Women? I was interested in getting it for my daughter but I can’t find that exact title.
Thank you.
Comment by Brooke — March 17, 2010 @ 7:10 am
Uh…hate to throw rain on your parade but I have been attending the YW broadcast for a few years now because of my calling, and this what they HAVE been hearing. Go back and read some of those talks–I challenge you to find mention of any craft in them.
Now I DO think we cannot avoid hearing about the revamped Personal Progress materials and program this year, and that does include pink, so I can’t help you out there. But the rest of the program is not nearly as offensive as you imagine it to be.
Comment by ESO — March 17, 2010 @ 7:40 am
I would also love to hear about planning for the future and the positive things the YW can do. They might do this. I also think local leaders are the most influential. I know when I was in YW a couple years ago, we really stressed education and careers. We even printed off scholarship apps for some girls to try and help them out.
Also, what are the references to Bro. Beck??? Who is he and what did I miss?
Comment by no name — March 17, 2010 @ 9:15 am
I’d like to suggest having some fo the women interviewed for Mormon Women: Portraits & Conversations by James Kimball and Kent Miles speak at both the YW and RS conferences.
The lives of prominent LDS women like Anne Perry, Christine Durham, Emma Lou Thayne, Laurel Thatcher Ulrich as well as lesser known women of accomplishment are great role models for LDS girls and women.
Comment by Course Correction — March 17, 2010 @ 9:29 am
I love amanda c attitude. Its’ great.
Having joined the church at around 25 or so, I never came into these issues. No, It wasn’t until my 40’s that I’m noticing the issue.
In fact, last Wednesday when I was waiting for Institute class to begin I was talking to the executive secretary of the SA Ward. He was complaining about there not being enough callings for men to participate in at any particular branch or ward or stake. My response was immediate, I really couldn’t help my self because I told him the only place for women to serve in the church is primary or ym or relief society, I then told him men and young boys get to run the whole church in every capacity imaginable.
Men just seem to automatically assume that they are entitled to not only church callings which has authority attached to it, but they also they also do it in the workplace and assume the same kind of authority without even so much of a flutter of an eye. If a woman assumed the same kind of authority without being asked shes’ looked on as being a “B”
Comment by Diane — March 17, 2010 @ 9:37 am
I re-read last April’s Young Women meeting, and I found nothing offensive about it. If you expect to hear less about virtue, and more about careers, you’ve come to the wrong church. As a YSA, it’s something I need to hear about, and I’m glad young women hear about it, too. My 12 hour day (6 days a week) revolves around school and career choices- I need the reminder that my life shouldn’t be centered around wordly accomplishments. Marriage isn’t an obstacle to individual growth, it’s supposed to promote it.
The only thing I absolutely don’t want to hear is about clothing standards. Stop nagging those girls about their clothes.
Comment by jane — March 17, 2010 @ 9:40 am
#14 Glen Beck is a right wing talk show host Mormon who made a comment recently about if your church pushes for social justice you should leave it immediately.
Comment by cyclingred — March 17, 2010 @ 10:02 am
Or something along those lines. I try to avoid listening to him.
Comment by cyclingred — March 17, 2010 @ 10:03 am
Re: #18, thanks, I guess I just put him so far out of my mind I forget he even exists. It is a wonderful coping mechanism I have.
Comment by no name — March 17, 2010 @ 10:06 am
OT …apparently my mother says the church is having to do major PR with other Christian denominations because of Mr. Beck… I hope hope hope they talked to him about the damage he caused…
Comment by April — March 17, 2010 @ 10:20 am
jane–
I absolutely agree. When I was in YW, I felt like that was what we talked about constantly, and it made us really self-conscious. Not only did it make us feal ashame dof our bodies, but it made us feel like everyone–boys, girls, and everyone else–was looking at our clothes. Suddenly our clothes mattered, and lot sof girls started buying really expensive and flashy clothes. Because you don’t want to be caught dead in an ill-fitted jean jacket if everyone is looking at you clothes, judging you by them.
Comment by AllieKay — March 17, 2010 @ 10:27 am
April–
I would be thrilled to hear that if Church formally reprimanded Glenn Beck, but it sounds too good to ever be true.
Comment by AllieKay — March 17, 2010 @ 10:28 am
In regards to the issue of Glen Beck, I am reminded of a quote someone once told me
“Set the Example, don’t be the example.” I think this would work in this instance as well, I think if people who knew us and knew that we are mormon, they would know how we really act and think about things and wouldn’t hold the church responsible for such an incredible idiot as Glen
Comment by Diane — March 17, 2010 @ 11:00 am
I would just be happy with talks that treated the YW as individual agents in their own lives. Teach them to work out their own salvation. Teach them to be a disciple of Christ. The marriage and family stuff will happen - those messages are plentiful - how about we just teach them that they are more than the roles they’ll play, and that by becoming the best PERSON they can be, they’ll also become the best mother, wife, whatever, they can be.
Comment by Reese Dixon — March 17, 2010 @ 11:10 am
Taking this in a different direction - What if you wind up a molly mormon despite your efforts to be superwoman? I double majored at UC Berkely (Chemistry and English Lit), got into grad school, wore pants to church occasionally. When I was the chorister in my singles ward, I insisted on sitting on the stand all the time just so there would be a woman up there (it was a small stage, usually only the bishopric and speakers sat on the stand). Due to academic burnout I took a year off after undergrad, then got married, then decided to have my children earlier rather than later (which turned out to be a good move, as I was infertile by my mid-30’s), then started doing daycare for my sister so she could work without feeling so guilty…15 years post-Berkeley, I take in sewing and raise chickens and bake my own bread.
Now my daughter is showing signs of significant intellect. What on earth do I tell her? There’s nothing wrong with the way life has worked out for me, but sooner or later she will notice I am dissatisfied with my achievements.
Comment by Jessica — March 17, 2010 @ 11:27 am
I would like to see a woman as the keynote speaker and the members of the presidency addressed by the title “President” instead of “Sister.”
But we all know that isn’t going to happen.
Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — March 17, 2010 @ 11:41 am
BTW, I visited the largest black mega-church in Chicago on Monday. This is from their bulletin:
How I wish we could see something like this in the LDS church, both for the YW and the adult women.
Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — March 17, 2010 @ 11:46 am
KimD, loved your comments. Thanks for sharing.
Hammie–loved this: “Can’t we just be interested in pursuing our interests because they’re, you know, our interests? Like the boys do?”
And the bit about social justice, poverty, human rights.
Comment by hkobeal — March 17, 2010 @ 11:52 am
LaurenLou–what a great idea! I think the girls would really like this. My daughter LOVES (to the point of driving me nuts) the new “Be strong” song for YW this year. Most of the reason why she likes it is because of the different languages that are in it. I’m sure she’d love to see some clips of YW around the world.
Comment by hkobeal — March 17, 2010 @ 11:53 am
ESO–no parade-raining here. I haven’t read the talks, so I’m mostly just using information I’ve gotten from the General RS meetings, talks by the YW and Primary presidency members during Gen. Conference, and info from my daughter.
FWIW, they really did decoupage temple boxes once last year as a way to think about their divine nature. Needless to say, I wasn’t really happy. So their divine nature is tied to getting married in the temple?? Holy narrow definition, Batman.
Comment by hkobeal — March 17, 2010 @ 11:55 am
Amen, I was looking through the 2010 Aaronic Priesthood manual and lesson 37 caught my attention. “Understanding Women’s Roles” Two talks were cited. Basically the message is Heavenly Father’s plan for you is to be a stay at home mom.
Comment by Happy Lost Sheep — March 17, 2010 @ 12:00 pm
#17 Jane: Re: ‘you’ve come to the wrong church.”
Whoa now. This kind of dichotomous thinking can’t be productive. So if I want to hear about self-reliance and independence and pursuing a career and not virtue (and of course, we could hear about all those things), then I’ve come to the wrong church?? I beg to differ. This is my church, too.
Comment by hkobeal — March 17, 2010 @ 12:02 pm
#25 Reese–love it. Wouldn’t it be great to hear Reese Dixon give a talk at the General YW meeting??
Comment by hkobeal — March 17, 2010 @ 12:03 pm
#26 Jessica, thanks for sharing your thoughts. If you were happy with your achievements, I’d say tell your daughter why you made those decisions and how they have made you happy. Nothing wrong with that. Life often (always?) doesn’t turn out the way we think it might.
But I feel sad that you would say you are disappointed with your achievements. That’s a different story altogether. Anything you can do–even a small thing–to take back a piece of what you originally wanted, or to start down a new path??
I feel you.
Comment by hkobeal — March 17, 2010 @ 12:05 pm
#27-28 Ms. Jack Meyers: love it. I’d also love to hear a woman be the keynote speaker and the last speaker. To not have to have a man finish things up. It always feels like we need a man to give his stamp of approval at the end. That’s gotta just be a tradition–obviously not doctrinal–and so is something I think we could hope to see changed. In the far-off future.
Comment by hkobeal — March 17, 2010 @ 12:07 pm
Wordpress is telling me that I posted I comment that I’m trying to post, but I don’t see it. Is there a length limit? It had a lot of quotes…
Comment by ErinAnn — March 17, 2010 @ 12:22 pm
It’s not trapped in moderation ErinAnn, I’d be stunned if there was a word limit. Maybe one of those random internet hiccups. Hope you can restore it.
Comment by Reese Dixon — March 17, 2010 @ 12:27 pm
Arg! I even changed it. I’m going to send it to you, Reese. Perhaps you can fix it?
Comment by ErinAnn — March 17, 2010 @ 12:35 pm
Usually if a comment randomly disappears, that means spam filter got it.
But, you never know.
Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — March 17, 2010 @ 12:54 pm
I like the idea of having all the speakers be women. And that we should explore all of our different strengths and talents because God gave us those abilities and He wants to see us become our very best. He loves us as a whole person and the best way to acknowledge that is grow and learn and develop every facet of our personalities and being. Motherhood is important, certainly, but it is still only one facet.
Comment by Abbie — March 17, 2010 @ 1:16 pm
I also liked Hammie’s comment about girls following their interests because they are their interests. Seems so common sense, doesn’t it?
#26- Jessica, you sound awesome. If I had accomplished all of the same things as you, I’d be very proud. (By the way, I make homemade bread out of fresh ground wheat, and I love to brag about that- as you can see!)
I think one mistake we can make as feminists is to devalue work that is typically done by women. The great thing about striving for woman power is that every woman can do whatever she is interested in doing- and domestic skills are just as worthy a pursuit as math and science. Now, to master all of those things, to me that sounds like Superwoman, indeed.
On the other hand, I do agree with hkobeal in that if you are disappointed with your accomplishments, I hope you’ll find something that is fulfilling to you to fill that void.
#28- Ms. Jack Meyers, I LOVE this! If only this were our church.
Comment by the milk (of the gospel) — March 17, 2010 @ 1:22 pm
#31–I am not sure what a “temple box” is, but my guess is that it is a place to keep your temple clothes. Need I say that even people who are not married are endowed and do indeed have temple clothes? Is it a bad goal to have each YW want to be endowed? I think it entirely appropriate.
I am not crazy about decoupage, but really, going to the temple is hardly a slap at becoming a fine feminist, educated, working, creative woman.
Your post was about the General Broadcast–I am positive there are a myriad of local inadequacies to whine about, but the General Broadcast just isn’t the bogyman you want it to be.
Also, for those longing for an all-female line up: the only male speaker is the prophet or a member of the first presidency. Is that really so problematic? Wouldn’t there be plenty of (feminist) women who would feel ignored or otherwise complain about never having the prophet speak directly to them like he does to the YM?
I am all for equity and modernity, but these complaints come straight out of the 80s. Let’s get concerned about ACTUAL slights rather than imagined ones.
Comment by ESO — March 17, 2010 @ 1:46 pm
I’d like to hear from women who are more like Chieko Okazaki and less like Julie Beck.
(Nothing against Sister Beck - I’m sure she’s nice lady and wonderful person with a dynamite testimony. I just don’t ever walk away from her talks feeling feeling empassioned and motivated. If anything, I just feel bored from hearing the same re-hashed talk over and over and over again about “daily scripture study helps strengthen your testimony” and “temple marriage is something to aspire to”.)
I hope that didn’t sound too harsh :ol
Comment by granolagirl — March 17, 2010 @ 1:47 pm
#43 ESO - What’s problematic is that men always get to teach women at their sessions while women get zip at the men’s sessions, let alone will a woman ever be the keynote speaker. It sends the message that men have things to teach women but women have zip to teach men.
I would rather see the instruction go both ways or let the women be self-reliant. They hear plenty from the First Presidency members throughout the normal sessions of General Conference. Would it really hurt to give them some space that is just for them? A little break from the androcentricity of the church?
Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — March 17, 2010 @ 1:55 pm
Agreed, ESO.
Did anyone read the article on Valerie Hudson, BYU Professor and author? I got mine yesterday. From the article:
Comment by ErinAnn — March 17, 2010 @ 1:57 pm
I’m only 19, so years of Young Women’s broadcast are still ringing in my ears.
I would like to hear actual TOPICS spoken about. Topics like repentance, mercy, peace, having a positive attitude, facing adversity. I got so tired of hearing things that were meant specifically for young women than for people. I wanted to hear things that would help me in my own personal spiritual growth that I could also use every day. I felt like young men got to learn about anything and i got to hear about my divine nature, my potential, my inherent righteousness. I wanted to hear actual doctrinal discussions and learn things instead of hear things I had heard a thousand times in YW.
I just wish I could have left those meeting feeling like I had something new to think about and study.
Comment by Lola — March 17, 2010 @ 1:58 pm
Changed and attempting again:
—————————————————————
Re: #28 Jack, how about the talks from last fall’s General RS Session? (And a couple are from the women speaking at the General Session.)
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=b2ac56627ab94210VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD (Sis. Matsumori)
This society is composed of women whose feelings of charity spring from hearts changed by qualifying for and by keeping covenants offered only in the Lord’s true Church. Their feelings of charity come from Him through His Atonement. Their acts of charity are guided by His example—and come out of gratitude for His infinite gift of mercy—and by the Holy Spirit, which He sends to accompany His servants on their missions of mercy. Because of that, they have done and are able to do uncommon things for others and to find joy even when their own unmet needs are great. (Pres. Eyring)
Comment by ErinAnn — March 17, 2010 @ 2:00 pm
Well, that mostly worked…
Comment by ErinAnn — March 17, 2010 @ 2:02 pm
I’m confused, ErinAnn. I don’t see what that excerpt has to do with my wishes for the women’s sessions. I attended the RS session last fall myself. Eyring was the keynote speaker, no women were addressed as “President,” and there certainly weren’t any female speakers in the General Conference priesthood session. There were 2 female speakers in the normal sessions, as usual.
“I believe that teh LDS doctrine is the most feminist of all the Christianities,” Hudson said.
I don’t mean to be rude, but that is a laughable sentiment.
Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — March 17, 2010 @ 2:13 pm
FWIW, in my ward The RS and Primary presidents (and I assume the YW president, but I can’t recall specifically) ARE referred to as “President XYZ” over the pulpit. I think that is true in the whole stake (Long Beach, CA), but can’t say for certain.
Comment by Jessica — March 17, 2010 @ 2:40 pm
Jack, I was talking about #28:
And you said, “How I wish we could see something like this in the LDS church, both for the YW and the adult women.”
That 12-week program doesn’t sound like it covers anything different that what I hear at broadcasts.
And did you check to see if there was one for the men?
———————
As to Valerie Hudson, there are things that are a priority to you (women & the priesthood, women-only meetings) that I just don’t see an importance to.
I agree with Valerie Hudson’s observations that the things that harm are the “chapel practice” versus the gospel doctrine.
———————–
And how about a little shout-back to ESO’s #13. Did anyone even acknowledge that?
Comment by ErinAnn — March 17, 2010 @ 3:13 pm
ErinAnn, I was referring to the fact that the study was being led by women who were all distinctly referred to by honorific titles. I haven’t seen the actual content yet, but I liked how they were advertising their female leaders according to their own strengths.
Priorities for me when it comes to feminism and religion are that women not be subordinate to men and that women have access to leadership callings and opportunities according to their talents, not their gender. The LDS church is way behind on both of those counts. How anyone could ever conclude that LDS doctrine is not only pro-feminist, but more pro-feminist than any other form of Christianity is beyond me. Hudson is either working with the most distorted definition of feminism I’ve ever heard of or she’s woefully ignorant of the status of women in other Christianities.
If Mormons want to see the good in the way their system treats women (and there is good there), that’s fine with me, but I can’t stand to watch them kid themselves that they’re actually leading the curve.
Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — March 17, 2010 @ 3:27 pm
Amen! I don’t see the usefulness in telling my twelve year old daughter to prepare herself for becoming a wife and mother. If anything I want her to know babies are for college graduates in at least their mid twenties. That’s just my take on it. I guess it’s a good opportunity to set the record straight since I’m not in YW or at the activities every week. Start my own regular indoctrination…
Comment by Cindy — March 17, 2010 @ 3:33 pm
Granted, Jack, I totally missed that as your point and didn’t look at the speakers names.
I disagree with you on the other subjects, but it requires more of a long conversation than a few sharp comments.
Comment by ErinAnn — March 17, 2010 @ 3:34 pm
Jack - not being a theologian myself, I don’t know if these doctrines exist outside the LDS faith, but when women refer to feminist doctrines, they’re almost always referring to 1) Mother in Heaven and 2) Eve making an informed and brave choice to seek out knowledge by partaking of the apple.
The impression that I have is that those two doctrines are fairly radical in the Christian world. What do you think?
Comment by Reese Dixon — March 17, 2010 @ 3:38 pm
Reese, I would say those are indeed radical ideas in theory.
The problem is that they’re lacking in radical practical applications. And there are so many other ideas in LDS theology which subordinate women that don’t exist in other Christian theologies, it’s hard to pronounce the LDS church the “winner” based on those.
Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — March 17, 2010 @ 3:43 pm
It isn’t a girl versus boys thing, it’s a stewardship thing. The Prophet and counsellors have a responsibility for the RS and YW programs. They aren’t just having random men speak because they are men and therefore have more impotant things to say. And I for one like to hear what they have to say specifically to women, even if sometimes it’s sappy. But President Uchtdorf has said awesome things.
However, I have been very disappointed by how few women speak in the general sessions. I don’t care that there are so few female general authorities. That is no excuse. Wouldn’t it be awesome to hear from apostle’s wives? Seventies are boring.
Comment by jen — March 17, 2010 @ 4:08 pm
As the YW president in our ward i would love to hear some broadcast talks that focus on developing a relationship with Christ, and also recognizing that their testimony and belief in the savior is more important than the rest of the fluff they are always hearing about in YW.
Maybe it’s because we live on the east coast, but I don’t really think our YW get a whole lot of “your main goal in life is to become a mother and wife” bit. All but one of the girls in our group have mothers that work full time. Both myself and one of my counselors have children and careers as well. I think to my girls this is the norm rather than the exception. In fact, I’ve overheard the lone girl with a stay at home mom denegrating her mother several times because “her only job is to clean house” (which is totally inaccurate). We spend a lot of time talking about careers and preparing for your future in YW, but we also spend time talking about preparing to be a wife and mother too. I think it’s fine to discuss all of these things, and homemaking skills (even the crafty ones) can be helpful even if you never get married. It’s all about finding the right balance.
That said, I think there isn’t nearly enough focus on the savior in the YW program. When times get tough for these girls and they feel overwhelmed with the pressures and stresses of the world, it isn’t going to be a pink personal progress manual or decopauged box that gets them through. They need to know they can get down on their knees and ask the lord for help. They need to know they can rely on their savior to carry them through those tough times. Isn’t this what the gospel is all about?
Comment by LisaR — March 17, 2010 @ 4:10 pm
This is a good topic. I am 24 and married but a few of my good friends (3 or 4 girls) are not. They all seem to be lost in trying to figure out what to do. They all went to college, some served missions, but as graduation has come and gone they don’t know what to do with their lives since they are not married yet.
I’ve been thinking about it and trying to figure out who is to blame. Was it the parents, the church….. that didn’t provide them direction in life? I was talking to my mom about this last night and she told me that the first time she met two of these girls, she asked them what they wanted to be when they grew up. They were 14 at the time and they both replied that they wanted to be wives and mothers.
However, life doesn’t always go as planned. Now single, they are trying to figure out, plan B.
Comment by shannonj — March 17, 2010 @ 4:15 pm
It isn’t a girl versus boys thing, it’s a stewardship thing.
So it’s not that men have spiritual insight to impart to women and women don’t have anything to teach men, it’s that men have stewardship over women.
Okay. All better now.
Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — March 17, 2010 @ 4:26 pm
Well, I’d certainly have to agree with you on that, Jack. Too bad she didn’t frame her comments on acknowledging that there *is* feminist doctrine, rather than trying to claim the prize. But I’m tempted to forgive her what I hope is a rhetorical flourish to emphasize her point that being LDS informs her feminism, in an effort to “minister” (Hee.) to other LDS women afraid of the label.
But, I can see how you might be equally tempted to not forgive her, seeing as her ranking makes your faith “less” feminist.
Comment by Reese Dixon — March 17, 2010 @ 4:37 pm
I’m just saying that that particular aspect (the Presidency speaking during women’s sessions) actually makes sense within the context of the organization of the church, which I understand you don’t agree with. What doesn’t make sense is why so few women talk during the general session.
Comment by jen — March 17, 2010 @ 4:42 pm
This is incredibly, incredibly sad and disappointing.
I agree with ESO on this topic.
Comment by Stephanie — March 17, 2010 @ 5:43 pm
A woman has to work twice as hard as a man to be thought of as half as good. Luckily this is not difficult”
Comment by c.biden — March 17, 2010 @ 8:28 pm
I have to agree with Jack, that saying feminist things is far less radical than actually changing the power structure to give women a voice. In fact, it might even serve as a pacifier, leading women to accept the real, deeper injustices because there is some consolation that softens the blow.
Comment by Hammie — March 17, 2010 @ 8:43 pm
Sorry for all my comments about revolution and radicalism on this and other threads….
I just finished a book by Audre Lorde [wow!!!!! mental orgasm, can I tell you!!!!] and I might still be a little bit on fire from it.
Comment by Hammie — March 17, 2010 @ 8:45 pm
“Virtue” as a young women’s value seems silly to me, since most of the values are virtues. How redundant. If it’s supposed to be about the chastity bit, call it chastity!
Comment by Anna — March 17, 2010 @ 8:54 pm
Virtue the value is deeper than chastity. It is a bit general, but could best be summed up by being worthy of the companionship of the Holy Ghost. It does include chastity, but the scriptures referenced refer to SO much more. One of the projects is to read the Book of Mormon–not exactly hand stitching your own chastity belt.
It’s not like the church talks about mother in heaven because it’s feminist, or has that perspective on Eve because it’s feminist. Both are related to our unique view of the fall and the eternities.
They affect action in general-as far as not believing in original sin-which is rather all encompassing. In some churches this one doctrine affects everything from parenting to baptism practices. our teachings in those issues reflect Eve’s choice as downward but forward-brave and progressive-a risk taker making the best of what she knew to get to where she really wanted to be.
As far as Heavenly Mother-we really know so little about what life after death will be like.
I agree with ESO about this whole thing.
Comment by britt-the pregnant — March 17, 2010 @ 9:02 pm
“Hudson is either working with the most distorted definition of feminism I’ve ever heard of or she’s woefully ignorant of the status of women in other Christianities.” …. Jack, have you ever even read any of Valerie Hudson’s writings? Are you aware of her knowledge of feminism and other Christian teachings on women? I’m guessing you were throwing this out there for effect but if you take the time to read what Valerie has to say it is pretty evident that she has spent a lot of time thinking about and studying about feminism as well as the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I’m in the middle of “Women in Eternity Women in Zion” and am finding a lot of insight in what she writes. It seems pretty arrogant to be so dismissive of someone’s point of view when she has devoted quite a bit of her life to this study…
Comment by Amanda — March 17, 2010 @ 9:16 pm
I think it is dangerous to think about what we want to hear from this meeting because the people who will speak are those whom the Lord has chosen to serve and guide His young women. They will deliver the messages the Lord specifically wants His young women to hear at this time. They speak for God in this setting. We need to be very careful what we think and say about them. When we start to question or rebel the Lord’s anointed servants, it may be a sign that we need to start questioning our own hearts.
Comment by T — March 17, 2010 @ 9:41 pm
Thinking is a dangerous pastime….
If the Lord loves his children, which I believe he does, wouldn’t he want his anointed servants to reach out and meet the real needs of those children? How silly to say that thinking about messages that would touch our hearts is somehow rebelling.
Comment by Alliegator — March 17, 2010 @ 9:59 pm
68-
I’ll bet they mean chastity, but they don’t want to make the girls uncomfortable by implying that much of their value has to do with their sexuality.
But, as I said before, the joke’s on them since “virtue” really means “strength” in the Hebrew. Now, that’s a value I can get behind!
Comment by AllieKay — March 17, 2010 @ 10:02 pm
I grow impatient with all the firesides and conferences we hold…for our members, our youth, our YW, etc. We get so many talks, some are motivational, some are infomericals, many lectures, but it’s like here’s your treat, another set of talks by “awesome speakers.” I wish we could do something else. But then I’m not sure what that is.
Comment by GatoraideMomma — March 17, 2010 @ 10:13 pm
AllieKay — Perhaps, but what kind of strength? Women of that time (or most times/places) were not valued for their ability to shlep sacks of rocks around. It’s not a physical strength. It is strength of moral fiber, standing strong in adversity, making correct decisions based on correct principles. That is a strength valued far above rubies.
Comment by ErinAnn — March 17, 2010 @ 10:13 pm
Precisely! That’s it!
Comment by AllieKay — March 17, 2010 @ 10:17 pm
Jack (and everyone else) — Here’s the wikipedia entry on Valerie Hudson and the link to the MormonTimes article. I couldn’t find it earlier. And on second look, it appears to be different than the print article that I received in the mail yesterday… I don’t remember this section:
She sounds like a fantastic lady with a rich history and experience.
Comment by ErinAnn — March 17, 2010 @ 10:21 pm
so is ‘virtue’ just a short way of saying ‘having strong virtues’? if so, i am all in.
i was never in young women’s bc i joined in my 20s, but i just got told i am about to be called to teach them 1 hour a week. this thread has given me a lot to think about!
Comment by pdig — March 17, 2010 @ 10:27 pm
Jack (#45)–I don’t know how many of these YW or RS broadcasts you have been to, but I feel that anyone who had seen one or two in the last 5 years would recall that the Prophet/First President message given rarely has the feel of a keynote address. The meetings are clearly planned and executed by the (all female) presidency in charge and although you are correct that the first presidency meets last, they are not the main event. I have not timed the talks, but my guess is that those talks are also shorter than the ones given by the female speakers. I have never felt that the attitude was one of “now I am here, I’ll really teach you something.”
Men and boys are, in fact, taught by women in the Church their whole lives. Most of their teachers at Church are women until theyr are twelve; from there they probably have female Sunday School/Seminary teachers and, of course, female speakers in Sacrament.
Although they are welcome, Bishops rarely come to Relief Society or Young Women. This is a very female sphere. I don’t know how many Churches have such regular female-only meetings and organizations, but outside of a Convent, I suspect it would be hard to find.
You do seem to have a thing for titles–personally, they don’t do anything for me. While I don’t find being called “Sister” demeaning (I would feel it an achievement to be a good one), mostly people just call me my name. I have often heard the Presidents of Primary, YW, and RS called “President,” but it’s really not my style.
While you may feel sorry for me/us for not having official power in our religion, I actually have and exercise pretty significant influence in my ward and stake. I am not bragging–it is simply a combination of my current callings and my personality. I’m not the kind of person who sits idlely by.
Comment by ESO — March 17, 2010 @ 10:28 pm
#70 - I read Hudson’s argument against gay marriage when it made the discussion rounds in LDS blogs last year, i.e. “gay marriage threatens egalitarianism.” She tried to argue that Mormonism was leading the curve in egalitarianism there, too, and I thought it was quite the exercise in cognitive dissonance. If she’s responded to any of the [devastating] critiques of her arguments that appeared in the Bloggernacle, I haven’t heard of it.
I haven’t read any of her other work, nor did I find the excerpt ErinAnn quoted at the link she provided (SquareTwo.org). But I know an outrageous statement when I see it and I don’t feel bad about dismissing it.
If you would like to point me to where she makes her case that Mormonism is more feminist than any of the other Christianities, I’d love to hear it. I’m dying to know how she concludes that Mormonism is more feminist than Christianities that allow women to seek ordination and don’t teach that women/wives are subordinate to men/husbands here or in the next life. I’d love to know how a church that excommunicates prominent feminists is more feminist than the thousands of denominations who let their feminists be. I’m all ears.
Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — March 17, 2010 @ 10:32 pm
#74
i feel you, buddy. EXCEPT - when i am writing a talk, i get a special kind of prompting-feeling that is different than the one i get in my day to day life, and i really love it. normally i only get promptings about my kids, my husband, my friends sometimes… but when i’m writing a talk i get a feeling like it is not about me, but the people who will hear me. maybe even only ONE person who will hear me, and i love that i get to feel a little bit of how much Heavenly Father loves them, and that i can be the means of Him talking to them. for that feeling alone, writing talks is one of my favorite things in the world.
in my experience, being on the listening end is a lot more hit and miss… but the times it has been good (sobbing happy tears good) were sooo worth all the boring talks.
Comment by pdig — March 17, 2010 @ 10:55 pm
#77 ErinAnn ~ She may be a fantastic lady with a great history and experience. I’ll never deny that.
But I feel pretty confident in saying that anyone who concludes that Mormon doctrine is “the most feminist of all the Christianities” isn’t looking at the whole picture.
#79 ESO ~ I’m really at a loss as to why I’m getting all these apologetics for the way the church does things. The thread asked what people would like to see at the next YW Conference; I answered honestly about what I’d like to see. If you, ErinAnn, and anyone else aren’t bothered by the things on my list and don’t agree with me that they send a message that de-values women, that’s fine by me. We’re all entitled to our opinions here, aren’t we?
However, this is not about me feeling sorry for you Mormon women who aren’t bothered by these things. Has everyone here forgotten that my daughter is a member of record? This is about me being bothered by the message that the church is sending my daughter when she attends with her father, and I think that giving men all of the honorific titles and not allowing women to address meetings of adult men is part of the message the church sends about which gender is the important one.
FWIW, I just did a Word Count on the last 4 YW/RS meetings and the male closing speaker always had the longest talk. And no, Protestants don’t have Sunday meetings that segregate the genders; personally I like it that way. Many of them do offer weekly evening Bible studies that are all-male or all-female and completely optional.
Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — March 17, 2010 @ 10:55 pm
Ms. Jack - I happen to agree with you on wanting those things in the next conference. I don’t think it will happen… especially by next conference, but it sure would be awesome! Having a woman address the men in Priesthood Session would probably make me so giddy and happy I might actually pass out…
Comment by April — March 17, 2010 @ 11:11 pm
Ms. Jack Meyers
I’ve been kind of trying to watch and not answer because I wasn’t sure what was going on with this whole conversation. I just want to tell you I have a ton of respect for you for trying to make sense of this all for your daughter. You must be a really great mom.
Coming from inside, I don’t feel like I am taught men are ‘more important’, but I can see how it looks. There is a lot of room between the doctrine and the culture, and I love to hear of any girl who is learning to distinguish between the two, and find what’s right for her.
As far as priesthood meetings themselves, I have to echo what ESO said in that boys are taught by mostly women at church, and if they have a SAHM, mostly women at home, too. It’s not a matter of men being better teachers or more important teachers, but of men being there to be role models as much as possible. JMO
Comment by pdig — March 17, 2010 @ 11:15 pm
Pdig, I don’t understand why women should be limited to teaching men mainly as children and not as adults. They’re children for 18 years; they’re adults for ~59. Hardly seems balanced to me.
Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — March 17, 2010 @ 11:31 pm
I’ve only been a member 5 years, but I personally have seen as many or more women than men teach Gospel Doctrine and Gospel Principles classes. That only leaves women out of Priesthood and High Priests, which means in weekly church, women can teach 3/5 adult classes, and men 4/5. That’s not to say I don’t get your point. I do believe there is plenty they could learn from a woman at PHood session at conference. I don’t expect that any time soon, but I don’t think it’s impossible.
Comment by pdig — March 17, 2010 @ 11:46 pm
#41 Abbie–I like this idea, too. I’m all about broadening the content of the topics we talk/hear about.
Comment by hkobeal — March 17, 2010 @ 11:59 pm
#43 ESO–for what it’s worth, the temple box was just a cute little box for them to put stuff in. And they decorated it with pictures of their favorite temples . . . nothing having to do with temple clothes or endowments, etc.
Comment by hkobeal — March 18, 2010 @ 12:00 am
#50/53–I think I’m with Ms. Jack Meyers on this one. I don’t know anything about Hudson, but I don’t agree that we are the most feminist of anything. I do try to see the good in the way the church treats women, but I’m also with Meyers that we shouldn’t kid ourselves about leading the curve. It seems pretty well-established that the church runs several decades behind popular culture when it comes to social change. We pride ourselves on not worrying about what “the world” thinks or wants . . .
Comment by hkobeal — March 18, 2010 @ 12:03 am
#58 Jen re: “However, I have been very disappointed by how few women speak in the general sessions.”
My daughter hates going to General Conference. Once last year, to try to hold off the boredom, she actually timed the number of minutes used by men and the number of minutes used by women. It was a very sad little mini-research study.
Comment by hkobeal — March 18, 2010 @ 12:06 am
#67 Hammie, what Lorde book did you just read? Share!!
Comment by hkobeal — March 18, 2010 @ 12:06 am
#71 T, I don’t think I am being dangerous; I think I am being thoughtful. And since I have dedicated and continue to dedicate HOURS of my life to the church, I have a vested interest in improving the organization. That doesn’t seem dangerous at all.
Comment by hkobeal — March 18, 2010 @ 12:08 am
Anyway, I always felt that it said a lot that the Prophet wanted to give a special message to the YW. If they neglected to come speak, I am sure many would wonder why the Prophet didn’t think the YW were important enough in the church to give them some time. It is not a small even they are doing, for the girls. It is a big event.
I always felt it was wonderful to hear from the President of the Church, or his counselors…( when I went with my daughter)…but if you really believe he is the Prophet on the earth today, I can’t imagine anyone wishing he would not speak. That doesn’t make any sense to me.
I remember them doing video presentations, showcasing YW from around the world, individual girls, and wards.
I can’t imagine we won’t hear more about virtue. This is …church. I hope they continue to talk about relationship to the Savior and listening to the still small voice. It is hard to hear sometimes these days, for the youth.
I imagine they will talk about trying to hear truth, and have faith amidst the news of the day, the cacophony that is their life, and technology that is taking over their social life and time.
I hope they reaffirm their worth as daughters of God. Many of the girls do not know their worth for just who they are , no matter what they are accomplishing, what their ACT score or size or talents are.
12 to 18 are such important years in the life of a woman.
Comment by Melissa P. — March 18, 2010 @ 12:12 am
And music! I hope we hear some great music. I know we will!
Comment by Melissa P. — March 18, 2010 @ 12:13 am
but if you really believe he is the Prophet on the earth today, I can’t imagine anyone wishing he would not speak. That doesn’t make any sense to me.
If you really believe women are holy agents of God with just as much to teach the world as men, I can’t imagine wishing they wouldn’t speak at the Priesthood session. That doesn’t make any sense to me.
Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — March 18, 2010 @ 12:50 am
I am going to agree with Ms. Jack Meyers on this, Someone said,
“Although they are welcome, Bishops rarely come to Relief Society or Young Women. This is a very female sphere”.
For I will know what all the women I preside over need and therefore I must make sure the men are getting the message.
To me the point is that they can come. When does the Relief Society president take a break and go on over to preside over the men? Is she welcome to go on in? I think if I ever become Relief Society President I will do just that.
Comment by cz — March 18, 2010 @ 1:11 am
Comment #15-
I’m not so sure Anne Perry is a woman I would want as a role model….
Comment by renee — March 18, 2010 @ 2:33 am
hkobeal, it was “Sister Outsider,” a collection of her speeches and essays. Incidentally, I just wrote a review of it on goodreads, if any of you care to join….. I love other people’s booklists.
Comment by Hammie — March 18, 2010 @ 2:57 am
Just wanted to chime in here and say that my ward has occasionally had women teach Elder’s Quorum, just to mix things up. We’ve also had a member of the RS presidency teach EQ, and vice versa. I’m not really trying to support one side or the other. Just saying that this happens in wards with more open interpretations of social norms.
Comment by Satsuki — March 18, 2010 @ 3:18 am
#80 “If you would like to point me to where she makes her case that Mormonism is more feminist than any of the other Christianities” I know nothing more about that statement than what was quoted on this thread. Which was besides my point. My point is this - I disagree with a lot of things that you say (#95 is a perfect example of a response that really seems to miss the point to me). However, I have read enough of what you write on here and on your blog to know that these are significant topics and that you have spent time thinking/pondering/studying about them. I respect that. Because this is not something that you open your mouth about without putting in some of your investment I would treat your opinion with respect instead of just blowing it off without even trying to understand. Which is why I think it is extremely arrogant to be so dismissive of Hudson’s opinions on this topic when it seems like you have not spent the time looking into why she thinks/says what she does. She has a different opinion/perspective than you, one you clearly don’t understand, and her statement is therefore completely nonsensical. I have listed one book that I know she co-authored…so if you say you are all ears, I would start with that book. It’s not about agreeing or disagreeing with what she says. It is about giving someone else’s (well)thought-out opinion some respect, regardless of how much you personally don’t agree with it. I think it just weakens what you say, when you dismiss her statements offhand, without even knowing why she says that. If you were to read the book and come back with your critiques of how she dissects LDS doctrine and feminism, that would be a topic worth reading. But just someone who is fairly ignorant of her writings on the subject dismissing them without knowledge of them ?….no so much.
Comment by Amanda — March 18, 2010 @ 6:53 am
(And let me pre-emptively say that I don’t expect you to read what she has written, I am just saying in terms of speaking out against someone’s position, it seems pretty weak when you can’t even articulate their arguments…) So I would expect the background work to be done by you and not a 3 point summary by me on this thread (which I am sorry for getting so off topic!….)
Comment by Amanda — March 18, 2010 @ 6:56 am
Jack–
Here is why you are getting all the apologetics:
You are being patronizing. Just like I can say my brother is stupid, but if you or someone else outside my family does, I will fight you over it, WE are allowed to say something like your above statement because we are members. When you say it, the statement is offensive. I am sure you FEEL like an insider based on your knowledge and experiences, but you are not, and your criticism feels like attacks.
Maybe you feel that is unfair, but I think it is pretty basic human nature.
It is clear that you don’t have the same understanding of a Priesthood meeting as we do. As Satsuki mentioned, it is quite common for a woman to be invited in to teach/speak with the Elders Quorum or High Priests class. We clearly have a different feel for the Prophet speaking. I am sure that when a woman is Prophet, she will also speak at every session of General Conference, including the YM session.
I am glad you don’t feel a loss for not having gender-divided meetings, but you can’t both complain about women not having autonomy over some meetings AND complain that you really wouldn’t want any autonomy. Well, you can, because you have made both arguments on this thread, but it makes you sound combative and not like you are seeking understanding but like you just want to show us all how very wrong we are.
Comment by ESO — March 18, 2010 @ 7:27 am
#100 & 101 Amanda ~ I know nothing more about that statement than what was quoted on this thread. [SNIP] I am just saying in terms of speaking out against someone’s position, it seems pretty weak when you can’t even articulate their arguments…
So, you can’t actually articulate the context of how Hudson sees Mormonism as the “most feminist” of all the Christianities, yet you’re trying to defend her point of view on that. And I’m the one who is ignorant of what Hudson has written?
You’re right about me having not read the bulk of Hudson’s work. But I am incredibly well-studied on how other Christianities view women v. how Mormonism views women, which is why I feel confident in saying that Hudson is overstating her case. And if you really want to call that arrogant, go for it, but I’m calling it now: neither you nor anyone else on this thread is actually going to put up anything substantive showing me how I’m wrong.
Unfortunately, Women in Eternity, Women in Zion by Hudson & Sorenson isn’t available in my college library nor in the Illinois I-Share program, and my college is incredibly stingy about making interlibrary loan requests. I can only make them for actual research, not for personal reading.
#95 is a perfect example of a response that really seems to miss the point to me
#95 was a tit-for-tat response to Melissa’s characterization of my argument as “wishing the Prophet and his counselors wouldn’t speak.” Not once on this thread did I say that. What I said was that I wish there was parity between the genders here—that if the men are going to be regularly permitted to come and address the adult women in their gendered meetings, that the women should be permitted to address the adult men in their gendered meetings. If the women aren’t going to be welcomed to address the adult men in their meetings, why not let the women be self-reliant in their own meetings as well?
And no, I don’t believe for a second that if it was an all-woman meeting, people would criticize the FP for not being involved.
#102 ESO ~ So now I’m not allowed to list my honest desires for an organization that my daughter participates in that I pay 5% of my income to without being dismissed as a patronizing outsider? This is news to me. Maybe I should just roll a new identity at fMh where I don’t make my religious background known so that you all will just assume I’m making my comments as a true insider (not the fake kind that still has personal stakes in the church) and won’t get distracted by the shiny flashing “never-Mormon” sign over my head.
you sound combative and not like you are seeking understanding
Funny, I feel the same way right about now.
but you can’t both complain about women not having autonomy over some meetings AND complain that you really wouldn’t want any autonomy.
I am at a loss as to where you are seeing a contradiction in my position. An annual gendered meeting meant for all the women in an entire denomination and a weekly gendered meeting meant for the women of a local church are completely different categories in my mind. I’m pretty sure that never in my time here at fMh have I offered commentary on how the weekly Priesthood/RS meetings are run other than to say that I don’t really care for them, and I really don’t have much to say about them beyond that.
Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — March 18, 2010 @ 7:59 am
#103- you had a fair statement here “So, you can’t actually articulate the context of how Hudson sees Mormonism as the “most feminist” of all the Christianities, yet you’re trying to defend her point of view on that. And I’m the one who is ignorant of what Hudson has written? ” My fault in that I didn’t articulate what I meant. Yes, I CAN articulate Hudson’s view on that. My statement “I know nothing more about that statement than what was quoted on this thread” was meant to address the context of Hudson’s original statement, as quoted on this thread. I didn’t read that interview with her. I don’t know that she ever makes that explicit claim in the book that I am reading (which is basically the extent that I know of her work, aside from her writing about SSM that you already referenced). But yes, I COULD argue her point. I’m not going to b/c this isn’t the thread for it and I am not super interested in doing research for anyone else. But if you are interested I would be more than willing to send you my copy of her book that you can’t get from your library and then I would love to discuss Hudson’s views as explained in that book. I don’t know that I necessarily follow everything she says (as in I don’t agree) but she has some insights into certain things that I certainly never thought of.
“but I’m calling it now: neither you nor anyone else on this thread is actually going to put up anything substantive showing me how I’m wrong” That was certainly never my intention to get into a discussion of Christian theology/feminism on this thread (so you’re right on that one :)). I was just addressing a comment that I perceived to be somewhat flippant on your part (??) that comes across as arrogant and unaware.
Comment by Amanda — March 18, 2010 @ 8:50 am
#74 - I guess I’m more of an outsider looking in, but I believe that in addition to firesides, there are lots of service projects and other things that organizations could be doing. This is just my take. There are a lot of people in need in this country and other countries. I think all members should be able to make their own decisions about where their time is best served.
It’s sort of off topic, but I, for one, never realized all the service projects that some other religions and churches do on a regular basis (pre-school, homeless shelters, etc.) I’m not saying that the LDS church needs to make a choice to do these types of things, just that other religions do them on a regular basis and seem to be successful (my children attend a Methodist preschool). I do see the LDS church moving in that direction, but I’d like to see more.
Finally, I believe the church of christ (formerly RLDS) has a female apostle. So I don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibility to ask for the president/leadership of a religious organization to speak at such a womens or mens focused devotional, and to hope for that leadership to be female. I hope that’s not offensive to suggest here.
Comment by aerin — March 18, 2010 @ 8:54 am
#104 - You’re welcome to send me your copy of her book if you like, and I can definitely return it when I’m done with it. That’s a very kind offer. You can e-mail me and I’ll send you my information.
However, there’s a good chance I won’t get through it until my semester ends in mid-May. If you want to wait until May to send it to me, that’s fine, too.
BTW, I should have said that Reese Dixon did try to point out some substantive ways in which Hudson may be coming to the conclusion that LDS doctrine is the “most feminist.” I forgot about that when I made my last post.
Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — March 18, 2010 @ 8:58 am
“My daughter hates going to General Conference. Once last year, to try to hold off the boredom, she actually timed the number of minutes used by men and the number of minutes used by women. It was a very sad little mini-research study.”
What good did that research do? It seems a better use of all those hours would be to try to find something that would help her live her life as a better disciple of Christ. I would hope that a man would not discount my words just because I am a woman.
I think the YW program has so much to offer, and as a parent I can help my daughter take advantage. If the Personal Progress book is read closely, the ultimate goal seems to be that a YW leaves home being worthy of having the Holy Ghost with her, recognizing its promptings, and being ready to be independant. Of course it suggests experiences and goals that teach skills like cooking, cleaning, etc. These are skills that everyone needs (by the way, the YM also learn “homemaking” skills as part of the Duty to God program). It also suggests home repairs, college applications, developing a talent, learning a skill to help in a current or future occupation. But most of the program is dedicated to faith and building testimony. These I hope will help my daughter make the right choices in her life and feel confident in those choices, as many of the women on this forum seem to have done.
Comment by TXgirl — March 18, 2010 @ 9:01 am
Jack–
I married a Kenyan, I’ve lived in Kenya, I visit Kenya, my family is Kenyan, my kids are Kenyan, I will likely live there again in the future and may even pursue citizenship. Yet, I would fully understand if actual Kenyans took offense at my making comments about how Kenyans really ought to reform their lives, worldview, and governance. Even if said it in the most innocuous, only wanting what-is-best-for-you way, such statements would be unwelcome.
The fact that you do not see how your statements play out like that here astounds me. Like you said, you are “incredibly well-studied” and since you already know that no one here “is actually going to put up anything substantive showing me how I’m wrong,” I guess I wonder why you even bother reading here, aside from wanting to fix us, or at least prove to us your superiotrity. One could equally ask why I bother responding to you–you have fossilized your understanding on the matter.
If I was seeking understanding about your personal religious beliefs and understandings, I would come to your blog and I certainly wouldn’t tell you there about all the ways I thought you were just dead wrong. You are here. Perhaps you see no difference, but I do.
Comment by ESO — March 18, 2010 @ 9:05 am
I guess I don’t see the prophet primarily as a man. He is the mouthpiece for the Lord. For me if Jesus came and spoke at the YW meeting I wouldn’t be complaining that he was male. (of course I wouldn’t pray to ask if what he said was true like I would the prophet-but still)
virtue is about FAR more than chastity. Please read the whole section and scriptures before we continue that comparison. It’s beyond ridiculous.
Comment by britt-the pregnant — March 18, 2010 @ 9:24 am
#108 ESO ~ I would love it if you came to my blog and tried to show me how the way evangelicals treat women could improve. I’m Protestant. Our brand of Christianity got started when one man took a list of complaints about his religion and hung them up in a public square. We don’t shy away from criticism and feedback, insider or outsider, we thrive on it.
And in my book, I haven’t criticized your religious beliefs or understandings. What I’ve criticized are religious practices. If I were criticizing your religious beliefs, I would be saying stuff like, “Thomas Monson isn’t really a prophet anyways, so I don’t see why you all make such a big deal over him speaking at YW Conference.” There’s a difference.
If you as someone with all your ties to and knowledge of Kenya wanted to articulate ideas on how Kenyans might make their lives better, I think you should be allowed to. If the Kenyans showed an inability to understand why someone with all of your ties to their country might have personal opinions on the matter that you’d like to articulate in a friendly manner when they openly ask for feedback in a forum where they’re accustomed to letting non-Kenyans participate, that would just show immaturity on their part, not yours.
I guess I wonder why you even bother reading here, aside from wanting to fix us,
It was a thread asking for feedback on what people would like to see to improve YW Conference. Of course I offered feedback on how to “fix it” (!), and I did so under the understanding that fMh has always been welcoming of input from non-members, ex-members, and NOMs. Did the community change while I was away in Utah last week? Since when were threads at fMh open to feedback from TBMs only?
I have zero interest in demonstrating how superior I am. My daughter goes to your church. When LDS leaders marginalize women, I lose, too.
you have fossilized your understanding on the matter.
I disagree. What I’ve done is expressed disbelief that I’m getting apologetics to suggestions that would apparently be perfectly innocuous if they were coming from a member. I’ve also asked that people interact with my comments substantively instead of with all this ad hominem, i.e. you’re arrogant, you’re patronizing, you’re a non-member, etc. Amanda is at least trying. With you, I’m still waiting.
Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — March 18, 2010 @ 10:02 am
Well, as a card carrying member, I think Jack is spot on, especially in comment #57
I also vigorously agree with having the females in Presidencies addressed as President instead of sister. I would also like the use of the word “auxilliaries” to end- it makes everyone else sound like a satellite to the adult male PH.
While I agree that it is generally easier to swallow criticism from an insider, I maintain that it should not preclude an honest evaluation of an observation. I think BJM would be an irresponsible mother of a daughter not to dig into every aspect of influence her daughter experiences, particularly the messages she receives regularly at her father’s place of worship. It should be noted, also, that Jack is equally zealous in pointing out the discrepancies in her own faith and I’ve always perceived her as being very fair in her observations.
(Not that BJM can’t argue her own points much better than I could, but I don’t think the path to enlightenment includes only hearing from insiders…)
Comment by Kimberly — March 18, 2010 @ 10:18 am
Jack’s criticism works for me because a) her stake (i mean her daughter- not her ward boundary- ha! Mormon geek humor!) and b) her criticism is very well rounded out by her praise for aspects that she does like.
I take ESO’s point but I don’t feel the same. I think everyone has a different line.
And before anyone tells me, “of course you aren’t offended- you aren’t Mormon!” Let me just say, Sister, please. I get to be the Mormon apologist at LEAST once a week. I didn’t ruin the dinner party but I definitely put a damper on it this last weekend when I held forth on why the Mormon Jesus “counts” as a real Jesus to a table full of Catholics and atheists. I take it on the chin plenty for standing up for Mormonism.
Comment by crazywomancreek — March 18, 2010 @ 10:44 am
ESO “I would fully understand if actual Kenyans took offense at my making comments about how Kenyans really ought to reform their lives, worldview, and governance”.
I think it’s irrelevant to the issue but I AM A CARD CARRYING MORMON. Am I more valid now? I think that is interesting because when your children get older they may want some balance being only part Kenyan. If you had a birds eye view of where all the fish are and someone was trying to fish in the wrong spot I suppose you wouldn’t say anything. I would. The thing why I disagree with women being the LDS being the most feminist church is that even the doctrine is sexist. So HUDSON yes a brilliant women but off point on this for me. It’s not the interpretation of the doctrine that causes problems. It’s the specific doctrines themselves. Women not being able to marry two men in the temple. Maybe if she said, we have the capability to become the most feminist organization, if we reconsider unfair doctrine to women. Then I would praise her ideals. I don’t claim to be nice all the time but how Jack was being treated is really sad.
Comment by cz — March 18, 2010 @ 10:56 am
More to the point of outside criticism- if it’s informed, it’s even more valuable (and thus, may hit closer to home than ignorant comments- which are quite easy to ignore). If a person cares enough about the issue and has some sort of personal investment in doing so (BJM’s daughter is a member, ESO’s family is Kenyan and she lived there), then these people are in uniquely qulaified positions to have some insight, as they are not born and bred of a culture that they are so accustomed to that the practices aren’t generally questioned because they are normative to the culture- they may see some things and offer some insights that insiders might miss, strictly from having no other point of reference or comparison or maybe a less broad experience in the subject matter. It’s relative and I’d never want to lose an informed perspective on any issue.
ESO, I wouldn’t call your insights into Kenyan culture rude on any level- I remember your cultural observations on Africa on a thread about charity overseas and the strong opinions you held (which even if I didn’t agree on every point, your informed opinion influenced me and was valuable and has affected my charitable choices). I would call you an expert consultant.
Comment by Kimberly — March 18, 2010 @ 11:10 am
The only part of Jack’s comments that made me feel a little like she was calling my brother stupid was the bit about the church teaching that women are subordinate to their husbands.
I’ve been trying to think about whether this bothered me because I think it’s true, or if it bothered me because it makes me sad that someone else would think it was true.
My (incomplete) conclusion is that it is not so black and white. There are things in the church that do support the idea that women are or will be subordinate to their husbands, but overall, I think those things are not (or must not be) understood correctly. I think God loves all his children equally, and anything that is inherently sexist has to come from our culture and will not always be that way. I don’t believe that women are or will ever be subordinate to their husbands. Otherwise what’s the point of God giving women brains. (although this isn’t the church of alliegator, so who knows).
Jack- I do appreciate your comments. That one made me uncomfortable, and I hope that our culture can catch up enough so that your daughter doesn’t have to deal with some of the painful things we do. I admire that you’re here trying to figure out how to make her life less confusing.
Comment by Alliegator — March 18, 2010 @ 11:40 am
I was about to defend Ms. Jack Meyers, but it looks like plenty of people already did. I love her comments, and I totally agree with her hopes for future YW conferences.
I am a member, and I grew up in the church. I remember feeling like women were inferior because men presided over everything and always had the last word. I desperately want to keep my daughters from feeling the same as they grow up in the church.
Comment by the milk (of the gospel) — March 18, 2010 @ 11:41 am
He will discount your words because you don’t have the authority, and in the LDS Church, only men have the authority, so yes, he will discount your words because you are a woman. You all seem to be talking around this fact, without ever coming out and saying it. Like Jack and many of the rest of you, I would love to hear more women speak in general conference, but I have to wonder who would listen. I’ve heard some complaints on this blog that women are not quoted enough in church meetings. Of course they aren’t, because their words don’t carry the same weight and authority as those of the men, becuase women don’t HAVE the authority.
I am a livelong active member of the LDS Church. I learned as a very young girl that men have authority over women, but women don’t have any authority over men, and, as a consequence, what men have to say is always going to be deemed more important than what women have to say. As long as men “preside” that’s just how it’s going to be. I think this is an interesting and very worthwhile post and discussion. We should all care about what transpires in general YW meetings. I sincerely hope (and do believe) that things will change eventually. Whether that means women receive the priesthood or they play more of an administrative role (over men and women) without the priesthood, I don’t know. But I am pretty sure that it will never happen without discussions such as this one among the rank and file of the Church. We are raising the future leaders, female and male, and we need to at least suggest to them that there might be a better way.
I stay with the Church because there is so much that I love about it and I genuinely believe that there should be a place in the Kingdom for every soul that wants to be there. I think it would behoove us to listen to all the voices who have a stake in this. I certainly appreciate all of yours.
Comment by CatherineWO — March 18, 2010 @ 12:00 pm
But….. they do. As long as we have the temple in its current form, wives are subordinate to their husbands. You won’t hear any GA outside the temple use that language, or even use the same language that we see in the temple. But the hierarchical relationship we are all supposed to covenant to obey is indeed a form of subordination.
To clarify, I don’t think that women ARE inferior or subordinate to their husbands. But I think the church, and particularly the temple, unequivocally teach that it is so.
And I’m a card-carrying member too. (Though I’ve been thinking lately that I should maybe turn in that card….)
Comment by Hammie — March 18, 2010 @ 12:05 pm
I didn’t read all the comments, I don’t have time today. But I just had to let you know i was “lol”ing at the temple box decoupaging, because I totally did that in young womens, and the boxes were recipe boxes none the less!
Comment by nm — March 18, 2010 @ 12:08 pm
Jack–perhaps we categorize various aspects of Mormonism differently regarding beliefs and practices; while you feel you have not criticized beliefs and only practices (which is laudable), I, and others, feel you have. For example, #109 articulated what many of us feel, that the Prophet is not primarily a man, and therefore we welcome his participation in YW broadcasts without feeling like we have been intruded on. You seem to think this is an offensive practice, while I feel it is tied to our beliefs.
You are quite right that FMH specifically and the bloggernaccle generally welcomes participation from anyone, but I hope you can see why some visitors (regardless of religion) would be more welcomed than others. I am not saying you are not welcome, just that your tone can be…abrasive.
You and crazycreekwoman and cz have pointed out that, because of your daughter, you need to criticize like this. I think staying informed is fantastic and of course I have opinions (to use my analogy) about some things about Kenya or the way Kenyans live could be improved. I WOULD FREELY SHARE MY OPINIONS AND PERSPECTIVE with my children, but I sure am not going to strike up a conversation with every bus bench companion about all the ways Kenyans are screwy. That is just plain patronizing; it surprises me that someone so well-read in feminism would have a tin-ear regarding this. My stake is in my children, not in Kenya, so I would feel it important to discuss with them, I agree that you have a stake in your childs’ religious life, but not so much in ours.
I have, in fact, reacted to your ideas in my previous comments. You chose not to accept/comment on my reactions to your articulated idea (that men should not be a party to YW broadcast), I don’t see any reason to re-iterate as it is frozen in the thread.
Comment by ESO — March 18, 2010 @ 12:13 pm
They do, sort of Hammie, but I think the parts that make it sound that way are open to interpretation. The temple ceremony has changed, so we can assume it will change in the future.
I don’t think I’d say the church unequivocally teaches that women are subordinate to their husbands. The church teaches that husbands and wives are to help each other as equal partners.
There does seem to be some mixed messages, which just reinforces to me that the stuff in the temple is misunderstood at best, and culturally biased at worst, and either way, will change at some point.
Comment by Alliegator — March 18, 2010 @ 12:14 pm
LOL nm- those recipes must have been out of this world… Well, if I made one contribution in our YW’s presidency, it was that I never had them decoupage a temple box.
Comment by Kimberly — March 18, 2010 @ 12:14 pm
True, ESO, but the OP asked everyone’s opinion, and Jack shared it along with all the other bus bench companions on fMh.
Comment by Kimberly — March 18, 2010 @ 12:23 pm
Aside from all the other good reasons Jack has reason to contribute: her daughter, her massive brain, her education, another very good one, central to this discussion is all the TIME she has logged in this FMH community.
Some people may shunt her to the side as an outsider in the faith, but she is NOT an outsider at FMH. Jack is one of us. She *is* a visitor that is more welcomed than others because the time she has spent here and the historical record of what she has contributed prove her level of investment.
Comment by Reese Dixon — March 18, 2010 @ 12:33 pm
I think we’re getting mired in a fairly unfortunate choice of words since Hudson’s statement is open to different interpretations. This isn’t a contest. When we’re talking Christianities, are we speaking of denominations? Because that would be tens of thousands falling under the more major groups of Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Quakers, etc. To say that the LDS Church is THE most feminist yes, I can see how that sounds overreaching, although she does caveat it with a line about theory vs. praxis. I do think what Reese mentioned regarding Mother in Heaven and Eve’s knowledgeable participation in the Fall does set LDS doctrine significantly apart from other Christianities. However, to call Ms. Hudson “woefully ignorant of the status of women in other Christianities” and say she maintains a “laughable sentiment” also sounds overreaching.
Imo, it’s difficult to argue that any of the Christianities has a stellar history of any broad definition of feminism. Female ordination isn’t common, at least not amongst Catholics, Evangelicals, and Southern Baptists, although different reform
movements have made significant changes.
It does sound very complex to have a child participate in an organization that goes against deeply held personal convictions. To do so without the faith in a modern prophet and all that follows is remarkable.
Jack’s comments shouldn’t be offensive. Hopefully we can hear more about how other Christianities promote egalitarianism.
And, fwiw, I always loved the YW Broadcast, mostly because it meant I got to go out to dinner alone with my mom once a year. I was a very spiritual kid
Comment by Lupita — March 18, 2010 @ 12:33 pm
I really loved #17, that’s pretty much how I feel about it. Yes, the comments at YW meeting may seem to stress family roles, but it is offered in a total context where they get all kinds of encouragement for careers, etc. And it’s not like they are ever DISCOURAGED from career: it was in that very meeting where Pres. Hinckley talked in glowing terms about a nurse who cared for him, who was an employed mother.
Of course it is amusing to make fun of recipe boxes, etc., but I gotta tell you, the reason my family is debt free is because of the homemaking skills I learned in Relief Society. Knowing how to cook, entertain, sew, mend, budget, garden, can, make jam, wrap presents, etc. has made all the difference to my family’s bottom line. I may not have earned an actual paycheck all the years of my marriage, but I have certainly made the most of what we had.
I think those are valuable skills that I would love my daughter to learn at YW. And in the world at large, they are generally dismissed.
i love having a single gender meeting, but then I also go to a single-gender gym, so go figure.
Comment by Naismith — March 18, 2010 @ 12:37 pm
Just a side note on those frustrated with “pink”… has anyone noticed that the background for FMH is pink??
Comment by Courtney Brown — March 18, 2010 @ 12:55 pm
To no one in particular:
I think it is sad that so many LDS and Non-LDS Women (seem) to have an inferiority complex. (If I am wrong about you, sorry. I was talking to the others) smile*
As to what I’d like to see more of in YW…(I grew up in the church and have a 12 year old daughter) I am basically happy with it. It’s not perfect, but neither am I. (For the record I clearly remember knowledge, skills, education, financial independence, strength, missionary work, service and yes virtue being taught and practiced in my Utah YWs)
Anyway, In a world that tells my daughter she is only intelligent, worthwhile, and happy if she gets a paycheck, detests keeping a house, and is beautiful, thin, rich, overtly-sexual, titled, and grown up (even the disney channel kids mostly act too old for their age)..ETC….I am happy to see the simple “virtues” taught to her. I know she is getting messages about being a mom and wife from peers, TV, media etc…that do not fit within our morals, so I don’t mind YW being taught what it is to be a good mom or wife.
And generally if I find a meeting mealingless, or boring it is all about me and my attitude. And that is what I teach my daughter. To look for the good in all things, even BORING meetings. Am I always successful? No way! But I try.
Comment by Janan — March 18, 2010 @ 1:04 pm
#83 April–whoa! Just the thought of a woman speaking to the men in the General Priesthood meeting . . . it has never even occurred to me that that DOESN’T happen. What kind of message does that send to 12 year old boys about whose messages “count”? That makes me very sad.
Comment by hkobeal — March 18, 2010 @ 1:16 pm
#107: ““My daughter hates going to General Conference. Once last year, to try to hold off the boredom, she actually timed the number of minutes used by men and the number of minutes used by women. It was a very sad little mini-research study.”
What good did that research do? It seems a better use of all those hours would be to try to find something that would help her live her life as a better disciple of Christ. I would hope that a man would not discount my words just because I am a woman.”
It didn’t do any good–other than confirm what she had previously suspected, which is that women get very little facetime in our general church meetings. She was just bored, plain and simple.
Comment by hkobeal — March 18, 2010 @ 1:17 pm
“There are things in the church that do support the idea that women are or will be subordinate to their husbands, but overall, I think those things are not (or must not be) understood correctly.”
Sure I believe that but until there is no such idea I refuse to believe we are a feminist organization. At least my definition of equality. But the doctrines and interpretations change, sure it’s possible. But as it stands now being a active member of the church, I myself am with Jack in that it is laughable.
Comment by cz — March 18, 2010 @ 1:19 pm
#111 (Kimberly), #116 (milk), & #118 (Hammie): I’m with you–both on BJM’s contributions here and re: the status of women. As long as the temple ceremony stays as it is and as long as the wording of the Family Proclamation stays as it is, then women will continue to be in an inferior position within the church structure/hierarchy. It is simply impossible for two people to be equal AND have one of those two people PRESIDE over the other. The words just don’t allow it.
Comment by hkobeal — March 18, 2010 @ 1:20 pm
#119 nm, hilarious! So do you still have your decoupaged recipe box??
Comment by hkobeal — March 18, 2010 @ 1:20 pm
I totally forgot to call Sister Jack (how great a name is that!?) out on her statement:
As a people? Your particular church home? Protestantism as a whole? You jest. Jes?
Comment by crazywomancreek — March 18, 2010 @ 1:29 pm
Courtney Brown-
Well, yes it is, but unlike stuff that goes on in church, we don’t assume that everything is a symbol for something deeper.
Though, as lovg as you mention it, a more earthy sort of color would better suit the art nouveau thing we’ve got going on.
Comment by AllieKay — March 18, 2010 @ 1:35 pm
Only if you decide to think so. There is NOTHING in there that says women are inferior.
Different, certainly. Inferior, no.
It’s only inferior if one buys into the notion that men’s roles are superior and thus denying women’s men’s roles makes them inferior.
I believe that women have roles, strength and power of their own.
Comment by Naismith — March 18, 2010 @ 1:39 pm
#136 Naismith . . . well, wives have to covenant to “hearken” unto their husbands, but husbands don’t. If that’s not placing one in a superior/more powerful position than the other, then I don’t know what is.
But I totally agree that women have roles, strength and power of their own! I’m with you on that one.
Comment by hkobeal — March 18, 2010 @ 1:42 pm
CZ- My statement wasn’t to support the idea that the LDS church is somehow more progressively feminist than other churches. I’m totally with you and Jack on that one. I was just stating that I don’t believe the heart of the gospel really teaches that women are subordinate.
HK (132)- as I was reading your comment, I had this though (so forgive me if it’s not well thought out…). If we have two teachings in the church that contradict each other, we end up kind of ignoring one and focusing on the other. Why can’t we focus on the one that is the way we’d like it to be instead of the one that isn’t the way we’d like it to be.
Instead of focusing on the preside part, lets focus on the equal partner part and stop giving the preside part any power.
On a somewhat related note: CatherineWo (117)- Women have authority in the church. They don’t have the priesthood authority. There is a difference. Perhaps not as much difference as there ought to be, but I think as women, we make it worse by saying things like “women have no authority”. Let’s make sure we use what we have, and not let anyone else think that we think we don’t have any.
Comment by Alliegator — March 18, 2010 @ 1:44 pm
HK- Wives covenant to hearken, as long as their husbands are hearkening to God. I’d like the language to be changed, personally, but ultimately, it’s all the same, so I choose to ignore (what I view as ) sexist undertones.
Hearken just means to listen. So we listen to our husbands as long as they are listening to God. We’re all ultimately listening to God. My husband also listens to me.
I’m not saying that the wording isn’t problematic. It is. I just don’t believe that the wording is the gospel, and go by what I feel the spirit of the covenant is. Wording does, and will continue to change. (Not soon enough, unfortunately).
Comment by Alliegator — March 18, 2010 @ 1:48 pm
Alliegator–you are taking a more positive position, which I appreciate and have also taken over the years. And I’m grateful to be reminded of this position. I am always in need of some softening/humbling.
But I finally got tired of talking myself into (or out of) that part of the temple ceremony and just decided not to go anymore. I’m happier now. Really, I am.
Comment by hkobeal — March 18, 2010 @ 1:58 pm
It seems to me that if women really weren’t seen as inferior by the hierarchy, then ya wouldn’t have to spin it that they weren’t.
We just need to remember, that while all animals are equal, some animals are more equal than others.
(and to all those that hadn’t noticed that all the Presidents of the LDS church were male, I suggest a ophthalmologist. They did wonders for my myopic vision.)
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — March 18, 2010 @ 2:22 pm
Priesthood is a calling, not because of any superiority or ability. It is just their calling. With any calling comes a list of duties. As we all know not everyone fulfills their callings righteously. Or well, or fully or whatever. I know haven’t always given my callings 100%. It seems to me there are two basic schools of thought…
A: Men being called to the Priesthood is just a thing created by Men.
B: Heavenly Father has called men to hold the Priesthood.
End of story.
Comment by Janan — March 18, 2010 @ 2:40 pm
or C: Heavenly Father has called men to the Priesthood currently but could easily add women at any given time which may or may not have to break down the barriers of “tradition = right way”. (I lean towards that it will require the breaking of “tradition,” but I don’t like to speak in absolutes when I am not absolutely sure.
Or it is less about the Priesthood than you seem to be supposing, and more about the status, value, and treatment of women and the place we, as women, hold in the eternal scheme of things.
Comment by Abbie — March 18, 2010 @ 2:51 pm
Re 137, I am not willing to discuss the sacred temple ceremonies outside of that context.
So you win, because I can’t play. So be it.
Comment by Naismith — March 18, 2010 @ 2:53 pm
Alliegator- I must have been missing something the last 17 years…what authority can I claim within the church as a woman? And I can’t just focus on the equal part of the statement when those in actual authority exercise the preside part. Help me get around this impediment because it seems rather fixed at this point.
I’m substituting something less emotional (although I do miss riding).
>Both men and women ride horses.
> I only see men riding horses here. Somebody bring me a horse, so I can ride.
>No, you ride in the wagon.
> But, the law says that both men and women ride horses.
>Yes, women know how to ride, but for now, only the men actually ride and nobody knows why it is that way.
> But, I ride horses when I’m in every other part of the country with both men and women. In fact, I’m a champion jumper.
> Well, although both men and women can ride, in Utah, only the men ride because women are already so good at it and they do not need to ride horses just to prove they can ride.
>But I don’t want to ride in the wagon, I prefer to ride-it’s how I’m used to getting around.
>Well, we do not understand why women do not ride here, but all the obedient and good women don’t feel the need to ride and are very happy not riding. You can talk with some women who are grateful they do not have the responsibility of riding and caring for a horse.They know that they were naturals at riding in the wagons and this law helps them to use that skill that they were intended to use.
>What if I get sick in the wagon and it comes more naturally to me to ride?
>Then you should practice riding in the wagon more often as an act of obedience to the law and when you realize that riding in the wagon is best for you, you will bring happiness to your entire family and you will be blessed. You must pray that you will be blessed with the understanding that riding is a burden to be carried by men.
>But, that’s not right- you said both men and women are riders.
>Yes. That’s what I said, that is true.
>Then, get off my dang horse…
>Why are you so rebellious, when I am only telling you what your divine purpose is so that you can find joy? Why would you even want to ride a horse? Everyone knows they are expensive and take a lot of time to groom and feed. I will hitch the wagon for you- I will put the hay in for you. Horses are sweaty and they poop a lot- I need to clean poop because it humbles me and teaches me to serve. Riding doesn’t make me better, it’s actually a burden. I am here to serve you and that is best done by making it possible for you to ride in the wagon.
>I know how to do that too and tack up as well. In fact, my horse is better groomed than yours- although I’m not trying to brag, but the stall is in better shape too. Besides, what if I want to go somewhere else than where you decide to pull the wagon?
>All the more reason for you to enjoy the wagon. It’s way too much work for you. And if you’d like to go someplace else, we’ll talk it over together and if I receive revelation that this is where we should go, I’d be glad to take you.
>What if I’ve already received revelation that my destination is a better one?
>Then, I will prayerfully consider it and if I get confirmation, we’ll go that way.
>Okay, I’ve had enough of this telling me to get in the wagon tripe. I just burned the wagon, now, take me up on the horse with you.
>I cannot do that, you will have to walk now because I do not have the authority to allow you on the horse with me.
Comment by Kimberly — March 18, 2010 @ 3:02 pm
#143
the “C” was implied in with the B. Thanks for clarifying.
Heavenly Father can change it up anytime.
But it makes a difference if you’re waiting on Him or the Men to change it. Gives me a different amount of patience.
Comment by Janan — March 18, 2010 @ 3:10 pm
#146
I quite agree - I find it easier to be patient with God.
Comment by Abbie — March 18, 2010 @ 3:17 pm
But what if God’s waiting on the men?
Comment by the milk (of the gospel) — March 18, 2010 @ 3:27 pm
#148 That’s what I think.
Comment by Kimberly — March 18, 2010 @ 3:29 pm
By the way, Kimberly, I liked your horse story.
Comment by the milk (of the gospel) — March 18, 2010 @ 3:34 pm
Thanks, milk, the sad part of that story is it was a take on one of my dd’s explanations as to why she wasn’t interested in the church.It’s how she explained it to one of the missionaries when they were trying to talk around the preside and authority issue.
Comment by Kimberly — March 18, 2010 @ 3:39 pm
That is really sad, Kimberly. I am so worried that my daughters will feel the same. As I mentioned way earlier in this thread, the role of women in the church wasn’t as big a deal to me until I started to think about having children.
Sigh.
Comment by the milk (of the gospel) — March 18, 2010 @ 3:48 pm
There’s a lot of comments here. I’m sorry for not having time to respond to everybody.
My statement that Hudson’s claim was “laughable” was probably on the harsh side, but I really did laugh when I read it. She made similar claims in her gay marriage argument last year, so I wasn’t surprised to hear it from her again. I’ll look forward to reading more of her LDS-feminist views and evaluating them more carefully whenever I get around to it.
#113 cz ~ Maybe if [Hudson] said, we have the capability to become the most feminist organization, if we reconsider unfair doctrine to women.
I would have no problem with such a statement.
#115 Alliegator ~ I sort of regret saying this because you’re being very thoughtful and I don’t mean to make you heartsick, but put me in with those who think church doctrine subordinates women, and the temple liturgy is a big part of this. I don’t even think it’s necessary to discuss the specifics of what the temple says to come to this conclusion though. I’ve met women who go through the temple and feel the same way, and I’ve met women who have found ways of being fine with it. But in my time studying the church, I have yet to meet a man who went through the temple and came out of it upset about what it taught about men. The fact that the distress is flowing in just one direction tells me that there is a problem and women are not just innocently misunderstanding an otherwise neutral liturgy.
#120 ESO ~ As others have pointed out, this isn’t a bus bench. In the last month I’ve had my visiting teachers over, visited Temple Square, attended all three LDS Sunday meetings at least once, had the [male] missionaries over for dinner, and taken cupcakes to the sister missionaries living behind us, all without saying a peep to any of them about my disagreements with the way the LDS church treats women. I generally don’t bring it up to people unless I’m specifically asked or a really good opening presents itself. I’m pretty sure most of the people in my husband’s ward who know me haven’t the foggiest clue of my feelings on the matter.
I spoke freely here at fMh because I’ve established myself here and I have credibility. My comments have probably gotten more confrontational as this thread has gone on, but originally there was zero intent of polemic on my part.
As for welcoming the prophet and his counselors at the YW meeting because the prophet speaks for Jesus, what can I say. I think Jesus would let women address the priesthood session. I mean, it was women he selected to receive the revelation of his resurrection and preach it to the “priesthood leaders.”
#126 Naismith ~ i love having a single gender meeting, but then I also go to a single-gender gym, so go figure.
Let me guess . . . Flirty Girl Fitness?
#134 crazywomancreek ~ Protestantism in general. I’m not saying that there aren’t Protestants who dislike criticism, but Protestantism is a system where new denominations are constantly forming and re-forming due to disagreements with one another. Criticism of one another is par for the course with us.
Outsider criticism can be more abrasive, but there’s a level of acceptance for it, too. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a Protestant use an argument to the effect of, “You’re not one of us, so butt out / watch it.”
Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — March 18, 2010 @ 4:02 pm
Alright sisters, let’s burn the wagons!!!
Saddle me up!
Love it, Kimberly.
Comment by Hammie — March 18, 2010 @ 4:02 pm
148,149 - That’s what I was trying to refer to with “tradition = right way” added, but I’m not *sure* about it.
The language in the temple bothers me more, so that’s usually what I end up focusing on. I think there is something in store for the women that is a natural partner to the current male priesthood, but I haven’t the faintest idea of what that would be (or when it would come). I just know being able to be pregnant and give birth is not it.
Since I’m a newb I’m worried about sounding like a jerk. I can’t really tell, so I’m putting this disclaimer out there.
Comment by Abbie — March 18, 2010 @ 4:05 pm
You sound good to me, Abbie.
Comment by the milk (of the gospel) — March 18, 2010 @ 4:18 pm
Kimberly (#145)…priceless. Ride on.
Comment by CatherineWO — March 18, 2010 @ 4:25 pm
Interesting comments and topic! Jack, what does your daughter think about all this?
hkobeal, maybe you should write a letter to the First Presidency giving your suggestions for future Gen. YW meetings. I personally don’t have any problems with men holding the priesthood. I don’t feel like I’m being subordinated in the church. As far as there being more male speakers at Gen. Conf., I agree it’s their stewardship.
While I think it’s important to talk about our concerns with each other, if you really have a problem you should pray and get some revelation from God.
Comment by Linda — March 18, 2010 @ 4:45 pm
Kimberly (145)
Authority means
It also means
.
Women in the church have very little of the first type of authority (my main point was that we shouldn’t cast aside what we do have…) Any calling we hold comes with specific authority to perform that calling. Women in the temple have specific authority.
As to the second definition, my ability to influence those around me is only limited by my abuse of that authority (as in, if I get rude about it, no one is going to listen to me anymore).
I realize that for many, this is not satisfactory, but again, based on my own personal revelation, this is how I am comfortable as a woman in this church. It’s not perfect, there are many things I’d like to see changed, but at the heart of it, this is where I feel I should be, and I feel like I can make a difference here.
Jack (153)- thank you for being considerate of my feelings, but I’m okay with people not agreeing with me. I wouldn’t agree with me if it weren’t for a feeling I had one sunday while sitting in sacrament meeting, still confused and upset about prop 8, and not feeling like I belonged. I totally get why women are upset by the wording at the temple. It DOES bother me, but I have figured out a way that works for me to deal with it, and I look forward to a time when it changes.
I agree with you that having the distress from the wording in the temple all fall on women is a problem. If I ever have a daughter, I plan to teach her how I feel about it, and I hope that she can figure out a way to be okay with it too, because there are a lot of beautiful things about this religion.
I actually talked to my Mister about the wording in the temple once. He had no clue that it might be upsetting, until I pointed out to him. Now I just have to figure out how to teach my boys better.
Comment by Alliegator — March 18, 2010 @ 4:57 pm
Hey Linda, welcome. I just read your intro. It’s good to have you!
Comment by pdig — March 18, 2010 @ 5:06 pm
#126:
Of course it is amusing to make fun of recipe boxes, etc., but I gotta tell you, the reason my family is debt free is because of the homemaking skills I learned in Relief Society. Knowing how to cook, entertain, sew, mend, budget, garden, can, make jam, wrap presents, etc. has made all the difference to my family’s bottom line. I may not have earned an actual paycheck all the years of my marriage, but I have certainly made the most of what we had.
Now I’m a convert, and so I was never in YW, as is my husband, but are they teaching the YM the same thing? How to cook, sew, mend, budget, garden, can, etc? It seems to me (again, convert, grain of salt please, these are my observations) that we teach our YW to aim for a career as a backup plan, and put forth home making skills as the most important things to learn. By contrast, our YM are taught to get as much education as they can, so they can earn a good living as their primary responsibility. I doubt most of them know how to thread a needle. I wish there was more equality to what we taught our young people. Every young person, regardless of gender should know how to cook, clean, sew, change a tire, budget, and make a living for themselves.
And you can tell me all day we encourage women to get all the education I can, but very few people expect them to actually use it. I’m pretty sure I’ve made several people’s heads explode when I explain that I have my PhD (my husband has a BS), I out earn him by quite a bit, AND he is planning to be the stay at home parent when we have children, while I work full time. Shocking, I tell you.
Comment by Dancer 007 — March 18, 2010 @ 5:07 pm
#159 there are a lot of beautiful things about this religion.
I whole-heartedly agree.
Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — March 18, 2010 @ 5:12 pm
Dancer 007, in cub scouts, they cook and do household chores and budget. I really like what they require of the boys. I’d love to see the girls do cub scouts, too.
Comment by Stephanie — March 18, 2010 @ 5:50 pm
My darling has never,in thirty years of marriage,pulled rank on me.I know this is not the point,but it also kind of is.We think the other guys are wrong,and that we are right.We’re just waiting for them to catch up.
Meanwhile,we teach our kids that we work together,for the welfare of all of us.We often disagree.We work on it until we can both feel good about it.No-one over-rules in our home.We work on a case by case basis.Most of the mature relationships that I know of operate on this basis.The church is changing,slowly,from it’s 50s paradigm,largely as individual families come to their own arrangements.I don’t need another man to tell me how to manage our family.We try to facilitate each other’s growth as parents.
Comment by wayfarer — March 18, 2010 @ 6:13 pm
Jack–lolz–you win, you totally out-Mormon me. You asked why people were being defensive toward you and I answered. I never told you to go away or that you weren’t welcome, I just told you why people might react that way to your comments.
Kimberly–love the horse story.
Comment by ESO — March 18, 2010 @ 6:43 pm
Potato, Potato, Sister Jack. From my perspective I would categorize the near constant schism process as being all about an inability to constructively process criticism. I also tend to view Protestantism as one long chain of fighting to secure rights in order to deny them to others. There is a little nuance in there, but that’s largely how I see it.
That’s not true. I am being too narrow in my focus by specifying “Protestantism.” I really mean “humanity.”
Comment by crazywomancreek — March 18, 2010 @ 7:02 pm
For ESO
CWC, I could go into my thoughts on the strengths of Protestant schisms and why I think they have been a good thing for the movement.
But, I’m lazy, an tired of this thread. Remind me sometime . . .
Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — March 18, 2010 @ 7:15 pm
Um, I’ve had several callings where my graduate degree was used, even required. Writing a history of the stake, working in public affairs. My education was valued by the church. And I expect to use it as a fulltime missionary.
Stay employed while raising children? That’s up to the individual. Our church is one of the few organizations that recognizes that as WORK, that maybe one doesn’t want to squeeze into the margins of a full life.
But “actually use it”? Absolutely. A paid career is not the only way to use an education. As a mom, I had to homeschool in subjects like AP European History and Algebra II. And edit my husband’s book chapters and do some soil tests and other fieldwork for him.
Even someone whose children are as spread-out as mine (18 years from first to last birth) still has 30+ years of employment productivity, even after we are home when the kids are young. And frankly, in this era of stingy defined contribution retirement plans, I don’t see how any couple can retire on one income. So I think most women are employed, even if not when their kids are young.
And really, just about all the LDS women I know return to/start careers after their children are grown. One bishop’s wife became an assistant professor at age 52, and got tenure in minimum time.
I guess it depends on where you live. Nobody in my ward would be shocked. We’ve had several families come here for mom’s graduate degree. I went to grad school with 3 children.
Also, I’m not sure our church has a monopoly at people whose heads would explode at such notions:)
Comment by Naismith — March 18, 2010 @ 7:36 pm
168- Thank you for that.
I have a bachelors degree in social work, and will get my masters degree when my children are older.
Sometimes it feels like women in the church criticize each other if they’re not staying at home with their kids, but on the flip side, sometimes comments about “actually using” our education feel just as critical.
Comment by Alliegator — March 18, 2010 @ 9:13 pm
#144 Naismith–I win? That seems like an odd way to characterize our conversation. I thought we were talking/writing/discussing–not trying to win a debate.
Comment by hkobeal — March 18, 2010 @ 9:58 pm
#148 Milk–Re: what if god is waiting on the men?
That is why I’ve grown tired of trying to figure out why things are the way they are here on earth. I have yet to hear an explanation that makes sense to me, so I’m satisfied–right now–with the explanation that this is not the way it’s necessarily supposed to be. I can’t believe in a god that would set things up intentionally this way, so somehow things are not as they should be in an ideal world. Sure, this isn’t an ideal world. I get that. So I’m just trying to find my way as an unorthodox Mormon in a NOT-ideal world . . . and I’m probably rubbing some people the wrong way in the process.
Comment by hkobeal — March 18, 2010 @ 10:00 pm
How about some talks that don’t even mention women’s role in relationship to men? I understand that the Priesthood is the power of God and thus really important, but these days Priesthood = Men in LDS parlance. Girls need to hear that they’re valuable aside from how useful or supportive they are to men. If girls really believed that, maybe they wouldn’t struggle so much with modesty and chastity and all of those other things that come up often in YW talks. It’s like we encourage girls to focus only on serving and pleasing others, and act surprised when they end up in compromising situations.
For good measure, throw in anecdotes about interesting and powerful women in church history (Emma Smith, anyone?), to show there’s precedent.
My mom always cries through the RS session of conference and tells me that the only talks she finds bearable are those given by males, because the women seem so far away from understanding anything about who she is or what she deals with. Female general authorities rarely address abuse, divorce, post-partum depression, eating disorders, or other topics that can’t be addressed with a cheery smile. Also, it could be pretty awkward with the men there.
@ Jack. Call it cognitive dissonance, but every faithful LDS woman on this site has to reconcile her testimony with unpleasant every-day realities, some way or another. If we believed LDS doctrine was inherently sexist, we wouldn’t be here.
Comment by Stina — March 18, 2010 @ 10:03 pm
#164 Wayfarer - loved this.
Comment by hkobeal — March 18, 2010 @ 10:04 pm
#172 Stina, good ideas. Too much focus on our purpose in relation to others (particularly husbands and children). Anyone read Carol Lynn Pearson’s poem about the girl who “loved to please and obey”? I’ll find it if anyone’s interested. It gets RIGHT to the heart of this issue.
I agree that even the talks by the female auxiliary presidency members don’t resonate with me. I always feel like they are trying too hard to convince us how happy we should be. And I am quite happy, but not in the way they are telling me I should be. And it always just seems like too much. I end up feeling like we live on different planets. But maybe that’s just me . . .
Comment by hkobeal — March 18, 2010 @ 10:07 pm
Why don’t the Young Men have a general meeting? This seems off to me.
Comment by April — March 18, 2010 @ 10:22 pm
April, good question. I’ve never thought about it.
Comment by hkobeal — March 18, 2010 @ 10:23 pm
Because they are included in the General Priesthood Meeting.
Comment by Lupita — March 18, 2010 @ 10:29 pm
Yesterday I read PARTS of a report (it’s super, super long–and super, super good) on girls’ grapples with the pressure of expectations of today’s frakked up (my expression, not the report’s) society. The study was conducted by Girls Incorporated, a “a nonprofit organization that inspires all girls to be strong, smart, and bold.” Cool, right? The study was sponsored in part by WalMart, go figure–I’m not a fan of the company and had never stepped inside a WalMart (because of a personal vow I took after reading about their awful wage policies as well as their homophobic hiring policies, not to mention their destroying the Mom and Pop stores of America) until the day I got a flat tire outside of Butte, Montana on a Sunday. It was the only tire store open. I was heartbroken. I felt I had violated my integrity–entering the store, not driving long-distance on the Sabbath.
The study reveals that girls feel they need to be a certain way, i.e., live up to the gender roles prescribed by society, when, in actuality, they don’t buy it and wish it wasn’t so.
You can find the pdf (it costs some bucks) at this website:
http://www.girlsinc.org/supergirldilemma/
At least check out girls inc.
I would like for our young women and women conferences to emphasize empowerment–in life (and in the church). Like Girls Incorporated, let’s inspire our girls and women to be “strong, smart and bold!”
Comment by Thoroughly Modern Molly — March 18, 2010 @ 10:30 pm
#177 Lupita, then why aren’t the YW included in the General RS meeting?
Comment by hkobeal — March 18, 2010 @ 10:33 pm
#178 Thoroughly Modern Molly–strong, smart, and bold. Love it.
Comment by hkobeal — March 18, 2010 @ 10:40 pm
Because YW are not in Relief Society.
All Priesthood holders attend the General Priesthood Meeting.
Why male youth do not attend an additional YM General Meeting is due to church policy that requires members to only attend one annual General Meeting (said policy of course being made up by me three seconds ago making it a complete and utter lie).
Comment by Lupita — March 18, 2010 @ 11:00 pm
#174 I’d like to read that. It sounds good.
I agree with several recent comments that it would be good for talks to focus on the YW individually instead of on their future (potential) roles as wives and mothers, or their ability to “support the priesthood.”
As someone else mentioned, in the Mormon culture, it’s too common that we say “the priesthood” and we mean “the men.” Thus lessons are about how we can help the men.
(Not to mention how stupid it sounds when we say that the priesthood is going to help people move or take down chairs after church.)
Comment by the milk (of the gospel) — March 18, 2010 @ 11:23 pm
#182 Milk–here goes. If you never hear from me again, it’s because I got uninvited to participate here after posting this poem
:
Obedient Girl (by Carol Lynn Pearson)
Everybody was proud of this little girl.
She loved to please and obey.
She got good grades.
And she baked good cakes
And she cleaned her room each day
(And she came home pregnant at seventeen).
She loved to please and obey.
Comment by hkobeal — March 18, 2010 @ 11:35 pm
A paid career is not the only way to use an education.
AMEN.
And it’s not the only way to keep an active resume, either.
I think as women, we make it worse by saying things like “women have no authority”.
I agree.
Influence and power go way beyond positional authority. Christ, in fact, had no position to speak of in His culture. He was “just the carpenter’s son.” What made Him powerful was understanding who He was, what God wanted Him to do, and how to love and teach and lead by example.
I think there is a significant limitation in thinking that the only real value or impact or influence comes from being the one “riding the horse.”
Comment by m&m — March 19, 2010 @ 1:37 am
[…] Like a few others, I’m making suggestions for YW Conference speakers. Being an optimist, I’m awaiting a thank you-call from headquarters. Leave a Comment […]
Pingback by Young Women’s Conference 2010–My Suggestions « Course Correction — March 19, 2010 @ 3:31 am
I’m really looking forward to this GYW meeting because my daughter will be singing in it.
I actually don’t know how it will be used (to accompany a video, perhaps?), but a few weeks ago she was asked to record “Be Strong” for use in the meeting. There are two guys and two girls. Alana will be singing the first half of the second verse.
Listen for her.
Comment by Alison Moore Smith — March 19, 2010 @ 3:45 am
#163 Stephanie, thanks for the BSA reference. I forgot about them! However, I lump them in with organizations like Girl Scouts…they are usually church-associated, but not part of a church….I don’t think learning something in BSA (which not every boy will be part of) is the same as something being taught in YM or YW.
#168 Naismith…ooops, you got me. In no way did I intend to say that you all who choose to stay at home are not using your degrees. It would have been better for me to say “Use them to work outside the home”. And you’re probably right that our Church doesn’t have the exclusive on exploding heads when finding out a woman works and the man stays at home….my view is slightly biased because my husband and I lived in the Northeast, converted, and chose to finish my education at a fellowship in Utah, making my views a little skewed, I think.
Comment by Dancer 007 — March 19, 2010 @ 8:09 am
The church considers education eternal…so whether you get some money from it is not as important as the changes to your mind, outlook and ability to serve. that’s true for men as well.
Comment by britt--and the brat — March 19, 2010 @ 8:42 am
#184 In Christ’s culture, for the times, the fact that he was a man gave him position.
Comment by Kimberly — March 19, 2010 @ 9:24 am
Also, influence can be an aspect of authority (especially since the person who has authority encompasses the fact that they can bring pressure to bear on the person they wish to influence). Influence is nice, but in the scope of things, it means very little- it’s just a consolation prize- if there is no power to enact.
Comment by Kimberly — March 19, 2010 @ 9:27 am
m & m - I take no issue with women who want to ride in the wagon- not at all. My issue is being told I have to ride in it for no other reason than a man says so.
The analogy with Christ doesn’t work at all. He was not influencing people as a Carpenter’s son. (Did you forget his native town, who only knew him as a carpenter’s son, weren’t as impressed with his ministry and took a little more convincing?) He influenced people through being God’s son, which bestowed upon him a power anyone who came into contact with him readily acknowledged. He did not heal people and enact miracles in the name of Joseph. The fact that he was known as a carpenter’s son only suggests that one could rise from humble origins- which was something Christ did preach (The first shall be the last and the last shall be first).
Christ is the epitome of power here on earth. Even his love had power. As such, his influence was far greater than anyone else’s because he had so much power behind him.
Comment by Kimberly — March 19, 2010 @ 9:41 am
I have a crazy idea. What if instead of telling the young women what they should do (career or housewifery), they taught them the gospel. Something like, I don’t know, the atonement, or Christ’s life, or loving their neighbor…
Too radical?
Comment by J-town — March 19, 2010 @ 9:51 am
I was thinking about how you’re not going to hear a story like this in the YW conference:
‘This is Gwendolyn from Kenya. At age 8 she underwent female circumcision, an invasive surgical process that was performed without anesthetic. At 11 she began attending the LDS church with a friend from school and got permission from her parents to be baptized. When Gwendolyn turned 13, she was forced to drop out of school and married a man eight years older than her. Now at 15, she has two daughters and is still active in church, although her husband disapproves. Gwendolyn says, “Joining the church helped me realize that the norms and standards that society sets for women are not always the best: women can be held to higher standards of self-control. Our bodies are given to us so we can experience this life and have joy. We are created to look like our Heavenly Parents.” Gwendolyn’s sisters in the church have helped her to raise her daughters and support her in her determination not to have them circumcised when they turn 8. Instead, she hopes that with her husband’s permission, they will be baptized.’
Instead, you’d get the sanitized version:
‘This is 15-year-old Gwendolyn from Kenya. She joined the church at age 11 because she loved the warm feeling that she felt when she attended. She says, “Joining the church helped me realize that the norms and standards that society sets for women are not always the best.”‘
No, this isn’t a true story. I just realized that I don’t really remember anything from YW conferences since they’re not often too memorable, even if they’re not objectionable. I like the idea of being a global sisterhood, but I think that we tend to focus only on the issues faced by girls in the US (even though there’s usually some kind of montage of photos, anecdotes, or quotes from young women around the world).
Comment by Stina — March 19, 2010 @ 10:23 am
I’m confused, you said that you haven’t been in years yet you are making judgements? I think you need to first watch one before you complalin about it. I think these talks are amazing, and teach us to be better people. If you go in with a negative attitude, you will certianly find something negative in it.
Comment by Emily — March 19, 2010 @ 10:28 am
#194 Emily–I don’t think I said I hadn’t been in years. And if I hadn’t actually gone to the church to watch it, I can read the printed transcripts in the Ensign.
Comment by hkobeal — March 19, 2010 @ 10:32 am
Hkobeal, thanks for the poem. Now that I read it, it sounds familiar. I’m going to have to read more of her stuff.
Comment by the milk (of the gospel) — March 19, 2010 @ 10:59 am
To answer the original question:
I would love a report on how the humanitarian contributions have been used in the last year.
I would love inspiring stories of women past and present who are making a difference in the world through their unique contributions.
I would like advise on how not to be a receiver or giver of abuse.
I would like talks on being accepting of our human family.
Comment by venus — March 19, 2010 @ 2:42 pm
Stina-
That bothered me so much when I was in YW. It seemed like lots of them were talking to us in these pretty little smiley voices (”Did you know that nurturing is a talent?”) with all of these pretty little stories of pretty little girls who got their friends to join the church or whatnot.
I felt like none of the storied ever recognized any actual struggles or hardhips in girls’ lives other than ‘wanting to fit in’. We seldom talk about abuse or depression or lonliness or anything else with the YW.
I don’t like the language they use when they talk about conversion or the Spirit. “She loved the warm feeling she felt” “Her friend seemed to glow” I often felt like they were talking to me like I was in second grade. This is probably why I didn’t get much out of these broadcasts. I had a real life with real problems in it, and they couldn’t all be solved with dressing modestly, inviting my school friends to church, following my mother’s example, or preparing for the temple (whatever the f*** that means when you’re 14 and have no idea what the temple’s even all about!).
Comment by AllieKay — March 19, 2010 @ 3:11 pm
#197 Venus–great ideas.
Comment by hkobeal — March 19, 2010 @ 4:04 pm
*gasp*
Stina?
Are you the Stina I know?
Comment by Hammie — March 19, 2010 @ 4:55 pm
#199, thank-you very much.
Comment by venus — March 20, 2010 @ 4:05 am
I’m late in the game here, but re: #45, BJM, our stake had a stake priesthood meeting last week, and the speakers were 3 women. It happens some places.
Off topic, I enjoy reading your comments.
Comment by meggle — March 21, 2010 @ 12:06 am
#202 Meggle–shut up! Are you serious?? Were they actual talks or just a quick share-your-testimony and then let the men give the real talks??
Comment by hkobeal — March 21, 2010 @ 12:07 am
Kimberly,
I guess you and I see ‘authority’ very differently. Your comment 145 suggests to me that you think that the only authority in the gospel is tied to presiding priesthood positions. I think there is more to what power, influence, and authority mean in the plan.
He influenced people through being God’s son, which bestowed upon him a power anyone who came into contact with him readily acknowledged.
I think you sort of made my point for me.
I think women who know they are God’s daughters and understand what that means will have power that people can see and recognize, too.
Again, I think women are powerful when they realize that they don’t need a church position to have significant influence for eternal good (even as we have plenty of opportunities w/in the Church, too, to do good).
Comment by m&m — March 21, 2010 @ 1:45 am
Kimberly, also, if you feel like sharing, I’d be interested to know what ‘riding the horse’ represents to you.
And I’d also wonder if you think women like me are really just content not riding because we aren’t naturally inclined to riding…because if I am hearing you right, you are not representing people like me right.
Comment by m&m — March 21, 2010 @ 1:57 am
I asked my husband about his experience with women in Stake Priesthood Leadership meeting and he said they have heard talks ( not testimony) from the Stake RS president before. Interesting.
Comment by Melissa P. — March 21, 2010 @ 9:25 pm
#202 meggle & #206 Melissa P., thanks for sharing that. I’m happy to hear that it happens at lower levels of leadership. I look forward to the day that it happens at the General Conference Priesthood session.
BTW, also off-topic, but I have begun blogging about things that bother or concern me when it comes to women in evangelical culture and the evangelical worldview: Complaints & Concerns I. I should have Part II up in the next few days.
Just in case anyone wants to see me apply my gender critiques to my own faith.
Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — March 21, 2010 @ 9:46 pm
I feel sometimes that even if a woman DID speak at General Conference Priesthood meeting that there would be those that would say it was just a pat on the head, and didn’t really mean anything in the bigger picture.
And would parse it to death and find it ‘lacking’ and falling short of their expectations.
Then again maybe some would see it as something big in the bigger picture, and be thrilled.
but I would love to see it too! ( well. I would have to read it. )
Comment by Melissa P. — March 21, 2010 @ 11:00 pm
I feel sometimes that even if a woman DID speak at General Conference Priesthood meeting that there would be those that would say it was just a pat on the head, and didn’t really mean anything in the bigger picture.
And would parse it to death and find it ‘lacking’ and falling short of their expectations.
Maybe. But I wouldn’t be one of them.
Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — March 21, 2010 @ 11:59 pm
m & m- First, I would never claim to represent anyone but myself because I couldn’t begin to understand all of the complex reasons someone else feels differently about things. I try to see things from other people’s point of view, but we can only know what others decide to share- and we can only suppose they are sharing what they in turn, know about themselves, which isn’t always known to ourselves at any given time. I know I’m always trying to figure myself out and sometimes, I catch myself by surprise and realize I’m holding on to certain ideas out of habit rather than reason- or I learn something that changes my mind.
Riding the horse simply means that I determine my own role and no one else has the power to limit that desire except myself-especially not based on any excuse as stupid as gender. A man should be able to ride in the wagon if he wants to. Being told what my role and its limitations are is undermining my choices based on my talents and inclinations. I can and do ignore that in the civil sector but at church, I can’t just get up and pass the sacrament even if I believe I should be able to. Any actions or objections I might make could jeopardize things that are important to me- like my callings or my temple rec or membership itself. Also, the potential for abuse of that authority is problematic. Women who have never experienced that may not be troubled by it, but I have…and I won’t give anyone that ability ever again, nor does my Lord ask it of me. I also have understood all along that my childhood and its terrors has had a lot to do with this need of mine to not have a man arbitrarily in authority over me, simply because he’s a man. I have no problem with representative authority at all- but in our church, over 50% of its membership is not represented.
And you missed my point about Christ. No one one earth has ever had the authority that he had based on his source of power-his level of influence was contingent upon his power. As the only begotten son of God, obviously, he not only had the power, he had the ability to back it up. Who’s gonna mess with someone who raises the dead and heals diseases that scared the bejeekers out of people? As a carpenter’s son, he was living proof that one’s spiritual heft isn’t limited to birthright or occupation. But, he could not have made that point as merely a carpenter’s son. He was the son of God. I could go out in the world and make all kinds of claims about my own divinity and tell people to follow me…but there’s nothing powerful I can do to convince people they should do so. I can’t turn water into wine or bring back the dead and frankly, neither can the stake president. What is it about the average human male that qualifies him for any position of authority over me only by virtue of his penis- only the fact he claims God says so? Then, why am I not struck dumb or even dead when I disagree with my bishop or other leadership?
I actually agree with you there. I feel the power of God behind me and through me every minute of the day. Men moving over and making room for women to work side by side in leadership positions that affect all of the men and women sharing membership seems an obvious acknowledgement of our own authority in the Gospel. Keeping us out of it and subject to their authority makes a firm statement that there is no way that any woman’s authority in the Gospel will ever trump a man’s or even be considered equal to his. No, you are mistaking my issue. It was never that even the youngest member, male or female, does not hold authority in the Gospel…because we surely do. It is the Church not the Gospel. It is merely my opinion that the perfection of men will ultimately involve understanding that women truly are their equals and will share power accordingly.
I acknowledge no authority over me other than God’s. Some man may have the ability to withold my TR, or give me crappy callings or even a panel of men could toss me out on my ear…but, I don’t have to acknowledge that he ever had the authority to do so.
Comment by Kimberly — March 22, 2010 @ 8:28 am
I would love to see a lot of focus on the Savior- his mission, the atonement, his example of service and love.
There is a lot of other stuff happening out there and sometimes I think it can get in the way of what is really important.
Comment by Jane — March 24, 2010 @ 10:48 pm
Bump. Or new thread?
Did anyone watch/listen to the YW session? Thoughts?
Comment by xenologue — March 27, 2010 @ 10:25 pm
I loved the meeting. Powerful.
Kimberly, thanks for your response. It helps me understand better where you are coming from.
(Incidentally, you remind me of a friend of mine. I wrote about her here. Some of the words you wrote here are very similar to some of the raw feelings she had. I kinda wish you could talk to her.)
Comment by m&m — March 28, 2010 @ 1:57 am
I was overall very impressed. The music and video were wonderful, so thanks to that amazing choir (and the parents who drove them to all the required rehearsals).
My daughter greatly enjoyed hearing Elder Uchtdorf’s talk about courting his wife. He is a great storyteller, with an amazing grasp of fairy tales.
A lot of understanding of the realities that our young women face in their lives.
My one flinch moment was when one counselor raved again (she mentioned this last year) about doing personal progress as an adult with her elderly mother, as if the example applied at all to those of us with teens. HELLO?? THE DYNAMIC IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. For one thing, as adults they both had fully formed brains. PP is just one more thing to fight over in many LDS homes. I was spoiled in that my older girls did the previous program, and had great leaders who were neutral parties and thus could work with the girls and be accepted. I could say the exact same thing that a YW leader says, but my own daughter will roll her eyes because it came from her stupid mom.
Comment by Naismith — March 28, 2010 @ 12:49 pm
Haha I am literally the first comment to this incredible writing?!?
Comment by Oscar Hodge — May 31, 2010 @ 1:08 pm