Women and Authority: The Mormon Concept of a Mother in Heaven
SUMMARY of The Mormon Concept of a Mother in Heaven by Linda P. Wilcox (W&A ch. 1)
There is a vague idea of Heavenly Mother in Mormonism, but it’s mostly based on the hymn “O My Father” and doesn’t go much beyond the fact of her existence. There is little writing or theology about her.
Eliza R. Snow’s poem “O My Father” (earlier known as “Invocation, or the Eternal Father and Mother”) sets the revelation (credited to Snow herself by Wilford Woodruff, but to Joseph Smith by Joseph F. Smith and others) about a Mother in Heaven in verse.
There is a third-hand account in Abraham H. Cannon’s journal about a vision of the Father, the Mother, and the Savior revealed to Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and Zebedee Coltrin.
Early church leaders seem to accept that, logically, if there is a Heavenly Father, then there must be a Heavenly Mother. For example, Erastus Snow said, “Now, it is not said in so many words in the Scriptures, that we have a Mother in heaven as well as a Father. . . . [T]o our minds the idea of a Father suggests that of a Mother” (p. 6). Later church leaders have followed the same line of logic. Bruce R. McConkie said, “An exalted and glorified Man of Holiness (Moses 6:57) could not be a Father unless a Woman of like glory, perfection and holiness was associated with him as a Mother” and Hugh B. Brown said, “[N]o home, no church, no heaven would be complete without a mother there” (p. 7).
1900-1910
- Women’s rights are tied in to the Mother in Heaven doctrine. Heavenly Mother is Heavenly Father’s equal; woman is man’s equal. The Deseret News printed in February 1905 that the truth about Mother in Heaven would be accepted by the world and that would lead to the ennobling of woman.
- There was also at this time, in America and in Mormonism, a yearning for the divine feminine.
- “The Origin of Man,” a statement by the First Presidency in 1909, contains this sentence: “All men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity” (p. 9).
1920-1940
- “Eternal” motherhood is a focal point. John A. Widtsoe said, “To be a mother is to engage in the eternal work of God” and Melvin J. Ballard said, “[M]otherhood is eternal with Godhood” (p. 9). Women as mothers are compared to Mother in Heaven and elevated by the comparison.
1960-
- Joseph Fielding Smith asked, “Is it not feasible to believe that female spirits were created in the image of a ‘Mother in Heaven’?” (p. 10)
- In the April 1978 General Conference, Spencer W. Kimball pointed to “the ultimate in maternal modesty” and “restrained, queenly elegance” of Heavenly Mother. Neal A. Maxwell suggested that “the anticipatory arrangements of a Heavenly Mother” would bring about our “regal homecoming” with unsurpassed beauty and music (p. 10-11).
- One problematic aspect of the doctrine of Heavenly Mother, about which there has been much speculation, is the question of whether there are many Mothers in Heaven, all plurally married to Father in Heaven.
- In the 1980s, poems about Heavenly Mother began to surface. A few excerpts: “Why are you silent, Mother? How can I / Become a goddess when the patterns here / Are those of gods?” (”Another Prayer” by Lisa Bolin Hawkins) ; “Who made the world, my child? / Father made the rain / silver and forever. / Mother’s hand / drew riverbeds and hollowed seas / drew riverbeds and hollowed seas / to bring the rain home.” (”Song of Creation” by Linda Sillitoe) ; “O Mother, give me your instruction, / O Father, teach me of your laws: / That I may follow, whole of heart” (”A Psalm” by Nola Wallace).
- In the 1990s a backlash arose. Prayer to Mother in Heaven is proscribed.
How a person conceptualizes a mother in heaven reflects their view of women. Emerging Mormon theologians are working on developing a theology more systematically from the more speculative folk theology. There is no official church definition of Mother in Heaven. For the most part, Heavenly Mother is whatever the individual Mormon sees her as, and thus she meets our needs (as a mother does).
Possible discussion points:
- Any thoughts on the hymn “O My Father”?
- What characteristics do you think Mother in Heaven has?
- Do you feel a connection with Mother in Heaven?
- Do you feel a need for a connection with Mother in Heaven?
- What can you learn about yourself, knowing you are a daughter or son of Deity?
Edited to add the cover image from the issue of Sunstone that published Wilcox’s essay. Lorie Winder Stromberg (who longtime fMh readers may remember from this guest post and this interview) wrote:
Heather, Linda’s piece on Mother in Heaven is classic! I was working at Sunstone when she presented it at the Sunstone Symposium and then had the assignment of coming up with the cover art featuring it when it was published. I went to the Salt Lake Library and found a great Leonardo drawing of a seated woman. The folds of her dress were well-defined, but as the eye moved up her torso to her shoulders and head, the drawing became increasingly sketchy, even unfinished. I loved this drawing and thought it visually captured the “sketchiness” of LDS theology when it comes to a Mother in Heaven.
Gen. 2:24 implies there is a Mother in Heaven. If men are to follow the example of Adam and leave their father and mother to cleave to their wife, then, for the example to be complete, Adam would have been leaving his heavenly Father and Mother to cleave to Eve.
Comment by Kurt — May 23, 2006 @ 4:30 am
Not being one who’s really made it to deep doctrine, I admit I haven’t thought much about Heavenly Mother (though I’m really doubting the whole plural thing there).
But, I remember asking about it once. The answer I got was something like this:
How often is Heaven Father’s name/identity used used profanely throughout the world? How often is Jesus Christ’s name/identity used profanely? Would you want our Heavenly Mother’s name/identity used that way? Do you think Heavenly Father would allow it?
While I certainly understand the desire to know our Heavenly Mother in such a way that we could know how to better emulate Her, it gives me comfort to think that Heavenly Father finds Her so precious to Him that He would not allow anyone to defile Her by the misuse of Her name/identity.
Comment by Stephanie — May 23, 2006 @ 5:47 am
Oh, gack, #2 - and I’m sorry, I don’t mean that personally, but what kind of heavenly mother who is a god/deity is still up on a pedestal and needs constant protection from her man? I would think a strong, thinking, well-spoken heavenly mother (modeled on an earthly mother at any rate) would be well able to ’school’ her ‘children’ if they get out of line.
Comment by RE — May 23, 2006 @ 6:05 am
Thanks for your comment, Stephanie. I think I can understand why this view has some appeal. But I also wonder why Heavenly Father would get to make decisions for/about Heavenly Mother. This isn’t what you’re saying exactly, but comments in this vein sometimes leave me with the impression that Heavenly Father locked his most prized “possession” in a safe so it wouldn’t get sullied. I wish we had reason to believe Heavenly Mother could make decisions for herself.
I admit, I feel no connection whatever to Heavenly Mother, and have no desire for a connection. At the same time, it worries me that she’s such a blank. I have no intention of turning into a pale shadow of a person in the next life, who’s powerless and passive, which is how we sometimes talk about her (fortunately, my prospects for going to heaven are zilch, so I don’t have too much to worry about :)).
It fascinates (and disturbs) me that Heavenly Mother is not a member of the godhead. Since we already believe that three distinct beings working in tandem can constitute a single “God,” and since we tend to flinch at mention of the trinity anyway, why not have four beings in our godhead? You might think that Heavenly Mother’s position there would be assured. Evidently it’s not.
Comment by Kiskilili — May 23, 2006 @ 6:37 am
Call it what you will, but I feel unusually uncomfortable when people use the unadorned term “mother” in a mocking or irreverent way. The last example - notable for its relative mildness - was a web log post titled something like “But it is just a bunch of mothers!”
I feel somewhat the same way about the term “father”, but not to the same degree, perhaps because “father” is rarely used as a swear word. I do not believe we should exalt motherhood as some sort of compensation or something, but the reason no doubt why “mother” is used in profanity is that it is obvious to nearly all (men especially) that it represents something uniquely sacred, thus to mock it shows similar contempt as to take the Lord’s name in vain.
Comment by Mark Butler — May 23, 2006 @ 7:51 am
The idea of a ‘divine feminine’ within the LDS tradition has always interested me, as there is a belief in a separate feminine entity. This is not a common belief in other Semitic traditions and never has been. In Islam and Judaism, there is an idea of a divine feminine, but it refers to certain traits of God and not a separate entity.
Within our tradition, thinking eternally, I see the idea as less relevant. Though I believe we can all connect to God, we are fundamentally ‘other’ than him. We really can’t apply our human ideals of independence when thinking about the divine. Nor can we say what the Godhead should be. God is, and that is what matters. Though some may not believe it, it is still true.
Comment by Rob — May 23, 2006 @ 9:27 am
Just to add to the responses to Stephanie’s comment– I find that explanation even harder to buy now that I’m a parent. I can’t imagine that a strong woman, a goddess, would hide from her own children, just to avoid having a few mortals take her name in vain. If She’s lived through the slings and arrows of mortal life, like maybe some arguments with her own teenagers, I think She can probably handle a few profanities.
Comment by pjj — May 23, 2006 @ 9:40 am
Mark, I agree with you about the gut reaction to ‘mother’ vs. ‘father’. However, I think a lot of that is culturally conditioned, particularly because being male (or a male parent) has more status/power/whatever in society, and so the male term or person is less vulnerable to being demeaned. We had a thread last summer that digressed onto ‘male’ swear words vs. ‘female’ swear words (which I don’t want to repeat, btw), but the gist and overall consensus of it was that most profanities target the female and often the mother, regardless of the gender of the person being given the label; i.e., ‘bitch’ insults just the woman while ‘bastard’ insults both the woman (mother) and the man (by being associated with the woman who got knocked up).
The point is, it’s much easier to insult females because there’s an embedded social value that sees women as lesser than men. The phenomena is masked by attempts to artificially elevate women and ‘protect’ them from such attacks (again, revealing women’s lessor status–she is unable to protect herself, in this paradigm), but even being on the pedestal is a vulnerable position because it’s much easier to fall or be knocked off of it.
Ergo, in a perfect society (Heaven?) it would seem that gods and goddesses would have equal respect and be equally capable of fending off and dealing with profanities against them. It seems to me that one of the reasons we know so little about our Mother is that we don’t “want” to–we’re using our collective cultural filter to “protect” her from ourselves. I suspect that if we, as a culture, wanted to know Her, we could.
Comment by Artemis — May 23, 2006 @ 11:16 am
The first public exposition of the Mother in Heaven concept was not Eliza R. Snow, but W.W. Phelps, who wrote an hymn that was sung at in Dec. 1844 at the dedication of the 70’s hall:
There is also the private teaching of Joseph to Zina on the matter which is well documented.
I have to admit that I just don’t like Oh My Father, mostly for aesthetic reasons.
Part of the problem with MiH doctrines is that popular Mormon concepts of theogony are incoherent and the Temple liturgy is grossly misunderstood. The consequence is that people just invent their own MiH doctrine to fill some sort of emotional need that is not rooted in the doctrines of the restoration.
Comment by J. Stapley — May 23, 2006 @ 11:20 am
New word for the day!
the·og·o·ny ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-g-n)
n. pl. the·og·o·nies
An account of the origin and genealogy of the gods.
Thanks J.
Oh, and J., I’d love to hear your explication of the Temple liturgy. I suppose it won’t be here online….
Comment by Artemis — May 23, 2006 @ 11:31 am
Thanks J. This is the reason that I tend to squirm whenever Mother in Heaven is addressed.
Comment by Rebecca — May 23, 2006 @ 11:47 am
Heavenly Mother is specifically mentioned in my patriarchal blessing, which I always thought was very cool.
Comment by Carrie W. — May 23, 2006 @ 11:52 am
I have two thoughts on this.
The first being that because oppression of women is so pervasive, yet so preventable, throughout the world means that it is somehow vital to the plan of salvation.
(Esp, women without a testimony of the gospel and the plan of salvation would have little motivation to have children if given the choice (note the declining birth-rates in countries where women are liberated and have access to bc). So in order to ensure that we’d have enough children to make the plan work the choice was largely removed from the women, (the party it affects the most,) through oppression.)
I think we, as women, agreed to this before we came here (which I think is the true reason behind the Temple’s hearken covenant, namely it teaches that we agreed to the unfair conditions of mortality before entering the world). So because of all that, if we knew anything of substance about Mother in Heaven, women wouldn’t have put up with the things that they needed to. We would have seen how collossally unfair most of history was, and put a stop to it. We would have liberated ourselves much sooner than we did, and the plan would have been frustrated. So she agreed to be kept secret from us.
My second thought is much less speculatory.
I think that worship of a female deity is ground that has been conquered by Satan. The church doesn’t have the cultural power to divorce worship of Mother in Heaven from paganism. Even among the member of the church, the two ideas are too close in our minds for us to effectively separate them. We can’t worship or pray to Her without changing the way we worship into something it shouldn’t be. And so we let it alone for now, even though it may cause struggles for many of us who desire to know more about Her.
Comment by Starfoxy — May 23, 2006 @ 12:02 pm
Starfoxy, I basically find both of the points you make as completely illusory. You state that women being oppressed is part of the plan of God! Wow, I am almost speechless. I defy you to incorporate female oppression into the cause of Zion, which by all accounts is the application of the Plan of Salvation in this life.
Your second point is also unfounded. Think about how much we would lose if we never had anything that challenged the establishment. We don’t worship MiH like FiH and Jesus Christ and it is not because it is too iconoclastic.
Comment by J. Stapley — May 23, 2006 @ 12:10 pm
I would like to know why the impression is that her name is protected against her will? That implies that God is refusing choice for his spouse! Come on, since when is respect a horrible thing. My husband stands up for me when my children are out of line. That is not because I am weak but because he loves me and doesn’t want to see them run all over me! I personally think our Mother has as much interest and concern over our well being as our Father. IT also doesn’t bother me to think there could be more than one mother. That happens here when people die so why limit what is there? It doesn’t matter to me if there is one Mother or 50. What does matter is that there are parents that love us and want the best for us. I personally feel that much of the inspiration given through the Holy Ghost comes from her influence as well as God’s I have had too many answers in different ways to think otherwise.
Comment by Tigersue — May 23, 2006 @ 12:27 pm
From p. 7 in regard to #2 (and subsequent discussion):
I am uncomfortable with this explanation for reasons already mentioned. If Heavenly Mother and Heavenly Father are equal, then she does not need to be “protected.”
I think I’ve seen you mention the Phelps hymn before, J., but Wilcox didn’t include it in this essay.
On p. 5, about Zina H.:
Comment by HeatherP — May 23, 2006 @ 12:38 pm
1. I love “O My Father.” It was sung in Spanish at my grandfather’s funeral and my spiritual experience with the third verse at that time has become an important part of my testimony — namely, that after this life we do in actual fact greet our Father and Mother in their royal courts on high.
2. I think one of the few things we can know with pretty good certainty about Mother in Heaven is that she is an equal partner to God the Father, based on teachings from Spencer W. Kimball about equal partnership in marriage. (Sorry, I am not going to search it all out right now but if someone else wants to, please jump in!) I also think, though, that there are realms and roles that we are totally unaware of right now, and that equal in the eternities may mean a great deal more than it means now to us as feminists *or* to those who view it through a more traditional Mormon lens. I trust that it will be consistent with God’s love for me and bring me joy, but beyond that … I can only shrug and wonder.
We also know that He could not be exalted without Her (nor She without Him). In that way, female godhood is an essential part of male godhood and vice versa. This is a thought that inspires nothing short of awe in me and sort of sends my brain in a spiral. Maybe that’s where the whole yin-yang symbol comes from … spiralling brain.
3. What I feel is more hope for a connection, than an actual connection. I think that more information about Mother in Heaven is something that will be forthcoming as the true and living church lives and grows and changes. I think this because of the fact that has not been publicly known in any earlier dispensation (DaVinci Code fictions notwithstanding) — it is doctrine that has come to us only in the last days. Possibly we will learn more as we become more worthy. I think this because some of the most important symbolic insights about Her seem to me to be in the temple, a place where knowledge is guarded for those who are worthy to enter there.
4. My need for that connection is not such that I cannot progress without it, but such that I think I will be able to progress more with it. It’s something I look forward to, but not something I spend a lot of time on right now.
5. This question is huge. Being the offspring of deity gives me a sense of potential and responsibility. It lends meaning to trials. Specifically, when I was going through infertility treatments I had a very clear sense that I was learning things that were to be used to help others, not just on earth but eternally.
Comment by Ana — May 23, 2006 @ 12:40 pm
A Heavenly Mother, as the codification of Divine Feminine would bring many qualities into a religion. Here are a few I can think of, as informed by Matthew Fox’s fabulous work Original Blessing.
Ecstasy; a celebration of passion; not keeping the soul clean, but keeping it “wet,” so it grows, expands, and stays green; enjoying creation’s pleasures; seeing humility as a way to befriend one’s earthiness, not despise oneself;not elitist or particular, but universal; seeing Jesus as a Son of God who calls others to their divinity;seeing ourselves as royal descendants who can choose to create or destroy; prophetic, and critical of the status quo; spirituality of the powerless, not just the powerful…
I see these qualities as messing deeply with fundamental Doctrine and cultural patterns. For one thing, sleeveless blouses would no longer be sinful. Neither would coffee or the fruit of the vine. Also, personal revelation would have a lot more weight, and no one could claim they belonged to the “true” church anymore.
Having a Mother in Heaven would seriously mess with the dry, sterile, comfortable order of things. We would find ourselves in a wet, dripping, green somewhat messy place. Is everyone ready for that? Think of Odyssey? Poor Odysseus never had a very smooth trip, what with all the gods and goddesses involved. If there had only been one legalistic Father in heaven, the Odyssey wouldn’t be such a long story…if we invite the Mother in, our lives could get a whole lot more interesting all of a sudden.
Knowing that I was a daughter of deities would suddenly put a lot more of the responsibility for my salvation on my own shoulders. And it would be more fun. Don’t we all dream of this when we are kids? Don’t we all go through a phase where we think we were adopted by our parents, and that we really had more illustrious origins?
By the way, the Matthew Fox I’m referring to is a defrocked Catholic priest, who was kicked out for his strong testimony of the feminine. I’m not referring to the actor….
Comment by pele — May 23, 2006 @ 12:52 pm
The book “Women of Mormondom”, which can be found in the original GospeLink software, talks about “Mother in Heaven” from Eliza R. Snow’s viewpoint.
Or, that is to say, it would, if the three consecutive chapters that deal with Mother in Heaven hadn’t been excised from the software.
Hunt down those missing 3 chapters, and you will find, as I did, that for Eliza R. Snow, Mother in Heaven was a very specific individual.
Mother Eve.
You may now feel free to begin your Adam-God speculations at your leasure.
Comment by Mark N. — May 23, 2006 @ 1:23 pm
Mark N., you bring up a very good point. Most ideas about MiH and spirit birth have a direct lineage to Adam-God - provenance that I find unreliable.
Comment by J. Stapley — May 23, 2006 @ 1:34 pm
Link’d! Feel free to cheerfully ignore me, but I’m here to say that we can and do know our Mother in Heaven!
Comment by Brad Haas — May 23, 2006 @ 1:43 pm
J. Stapley I fail to see why viewing oppression of women as part of the plan of salvation is so shocking, as to render you speechless. Suffering during mortality is part of the plan of salvation. The gospel says we can find peace and joy during this life but no one will escape some level of suffering. For women that suffering often includes being oppressed. Allowing that suffering to serve a purpose doesn’t change anything. May I also mention, lest I sound like a martyr, that the oppression of women hasn’t done men any favors either. I simply see the power-dynamics of the fallen world as being orchestrated with the main objective of getting spirits into bodies in mind.
I suppose at this point we need clear definitions. To me the plan of salvation (as taught by your average sunday school class) is the outline of the eternal progression of mankind. The step we are all at now (mortality) has two purposes (given by your average sunday school manual), #1 to get a body #2 to be tested. The next step is to return to Heavenly Father’s presence. The cause of Zion is to hasten the next step of the plan of salvation by showing us how to invite Heavenly Father into our lives. The cause of Zion is to build up the kingdom of God, and remove all of the tokens of the fallen world from that kingdom so that God may be there with us.
You’re drawing an unwarranted conclusion from my theory. My saying that female oppression is part of the plan, and serves a purpose does not necessitate that it be part of the cause of Zion. If that were true, then all the negative things of this world would be part of the cause of Zion. Death, disease, suffering and sin are all part of the plan of savation. Many of those serve a purpose in this life, but only in this life. Female oppression need not have a place in the cause of Zion, just to be a purposeful part of the plan, in the same way that suffering, death and sin have no place in the cause of Zion. In other words, I won’t incorporate female oppression into the cause of Zion, because it has no place there.
Either way in both of my theories, I’ve done exactly what you said in #9. I’ve “invent[ed] [my] own MiH doctrine to fill some sort of emotional need…” I don’t see my theories as any more radical than the more common theory of “protecting Her name against slander.”
Comment by Starfoxy — May 23, 2006 @ 2:03 pm
I am glad there is no developed mormon theology about MiH. I admit that I do feel “some sort of an emotional need” to seek out MiH. (Post #9) I am glad that I can believe in my own speculation (or personal revelation) and reject others’ teachings about the characteristics and role of MiH. I do not want the correlation committee to get its hands on MiH and stretch the concept of republican motherhood into the eternities.
Comment by kori — May 23, 2006 @ 2:16 pm
Hallo Heather
I just read you posting about mother in Heaven
I think you did a good job with it.
I am living in Holland Europe and over here we do not discuse these kinds of things.
This is not because the members of the church are dumb or not intrested it is more that the main approach of the lds church since brother Hinckley became in charge is that he wants to portray the lds church as main stream as possible.
I believe this is done to gain as much members as possible and to be liked and hausted like in the early days of the church.
The topic of Mother in heaven is not such a big issue for me.
This is maybe due to the fact that I feel that I gett enough encouragment from my Father and my big Brother Jesus.
I come from a earthly family where my mother due to illness wasn´t always there for me and I relied on my father and my older brother.
Like a friend of mine said it is intresting to know if there is mother in heaven of if this also means that Jesus has a wife, but will it determine my salvation not really.
Oh one more last note I read in one of the postings that we women might have chosen for a downgraded live that was our choice.
I do not know what we chose but I KNOW FOR SURE THAT IN MY FATHERS HOUSE HIS DAUGHTERS AND SONS ARE EQUAL AND ANYONE TEACHING THIS OTHERWISE IS NOT TALKING WITH THE SPIRIT OF GOD
Comment by elizabeth — May 23, 2006 @ 2:17 pm
Starfoxy, I agree that “protecting Her name against slander,” is a particularly illusory conception. The reason I find the idea of female oppression as you describe so shocking is that female oppression is a natural result of evolutionary biology, or the “natural man” if you prefer. I take the natural man to be an enemy to God. Saying that this state of opposition to God as being essential is as necessary as murder, rape, and all else that is in defiance of the Good. I don’t find anything particularly redeeming in it.
Comment by J. Stapley — May 23, 2006 @ 2:43 pm
J. Stapley, Our paths probably diverge way back at our belief in the nature of God’s involvement in the creation.
I take it, and correct me if I am wrong, that you believe that God put the pieces in place and then, more or less, let the whole thing go, only shaping and correcting where absolutely necessary. Therefore many of the things that are caused by evolutionary biology (like female oppression) were not directly caused by God, but were not stopped by God either out of respect for agency etc. In this way God is not responsible for the existence of the natural man as an enemy to God. (I realize that it is a pretty simplistic description. I’m aiming for brevity, but I doubt I’ll hit it).
The place where I think our beliefs diverge, is in the way that God put the pieces in place. I believe that God, having perfect knowledge, was incapable of not knowing how things would unltimately proceed on a large scale. Or, in other words He had to know. (I know this gets dangerously close to the mire of predestination, but that may be a discussion for another time. Suffice it to say, I don’t think this belief necessitates predestination.)
Since misogyny is a large scale thing, my belief would mean that God knew about it when he put the pieces together. My belief also includes the idea that He could alter the arrangements so as to prevent female oppression. He obviously didn’t, since misogyny exists worldwide, and my theory that it helped the plan of salvation was my guess as to why.
There are many equally viable theories as to why He allowed misogyny to proceed that would satisfy my beliefs, but can you blame me for picking one that seems to give a reason for the suffering?
Comment by Starfoxy — May 23, 2006 @ 3:17 pm
Starfoxy, you are engaging in what philosphers call theodicy. The problem with your reasoning is that every pervasive evil in the history of the world then becomes equally a tool in the hands of our God. Murder, rape, genocide, hate, selfishness, slavory, tyranny of all sorts are all as prevelant in our history. By your reasoning, they are all part of God’s design and I find that disturbing.
Comment by J. Stapley — May 23, 2006 @ 3:33 pm
I would counter your assertion that “Murder, rape, genocide, hate, selfishness, slavery, tyranny of all sorts” are as prevalent as misogyny. Which leads me to believe that misogyny isn’t the best word to describe the concept I’m thinking of.
The idea I’m thinking of is that, on this earth, when it comes right down to it men really are in charge of everything. Men are always at the top, all the way up to the Heavens. Whatever power a woman has (on earth) is power that was given to her by a man. Even in the creation story God told Eve that her desire shall be to her husband and he shall rule over her. Whether or not that is normative, descriptive or made up by crazy old guys translating the bible, it is reflective of the most widely demonstrated power dynamic in the world.
What I’m thinking of is in an entirely different order of magnitude. The things you list are indeed pervasive, but what I’m talking about is the very structure of our entire world. It’s built in. I don’t see how God could not be responsible for it.
I agree that the thought that God is behind those things you listed is very disturbing, and I don’t think He is.
Comment by Starfoxy — May 23, 2006 @ 4:16 pm
Mother in Heaven was recently mentioned by Pres. Packer in a Women’s Conference talk. You can find the talk in its entirety here.
I also just saw this quote…just to add to the few references we have….
“The purpose of mortal life and the mission of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is to prepare the sons and daughters of God for their destiny—to become like our heavenly parents.”
—Elder Dallin H. Oaks
Ensign, Oct. 1995, 7
Comment by mullingandmusing (m&m) — May 23, 2006 @ 5:14 pm
To clarify my statement:
I am capable of defending myself, both physically and verbally, however if my husband is present I don’t HAVE to. It is my husband’s responsibility, as per Church doctrine and more importantly (to us, anyway) as per the roles we agreed on, to “protect” me and our children. That doesn’t mean I cannot do so, and it doesn’t mean that I will not do so if I have to, but it does mean I will give my husband the opportunity to do so first, i.e. if somebody breaks into our house with the intent of doing physical harm to me and my children and my husband’s there, he’ll take care of it and I play back up, if however my husband’s not there, I will take what strength and knowledge I have and use it to forcefully expel the intruder.
In that context, considering that Heavenly Father is ALWAYS there, then there would be no need for Heavenly Mother to protect herself, which doesn’t mean she is incapable of doing so, but rather that she just doesn’t choose to do so at this time. Then again, I’m not a feminist. I’ve rejected the mentality that I have to take on those traits I consider “masculine” to be equal to a man. I know I am equal to my husband; I don’t feel any desire to prove it. In fact, in our household, it’s often been the case where I have to assure him he’s my equal.
To take the matter from a different angle, our stint down here on Earth is really short in the grand scheme of things. To put it in (middle-class) mortal terms: We’re on a field trip, or maybe staying over a few nights at summer camp. Is Heavenly Mother any less of a mother for giving us the opportunity to learn some independence? I don’t think so.
If our Heavenly Family is anything like my own (not that I’m suggesting it is–it’s just all I have to go on here), then it makes sense (at least to me) that Heavenly Father and our “big brother” and our fellow mortal brothers and sisters are the ones we are expected to get our help from. Going to Mom is just too easy. It’s too comfortable.
That’s the way it works in our family, at least. And it’s not because I love our children more than my husband does or because they love me more than him. And it’s not because I’m a push-over (I’m often more strict, actually). It’s just because I’m the Mom. Unfortunately, for people who have not had that kind of experience, I cannot explain it any better. It’s just, I’m the Mom.
I just feel that if I could run to Heavenly Mother every time I had a problem, and I knew that was the case, and She is anything like what I imagine a perfect mother to be, then it would be more difficult for me to progress on Earth, because I would feel as if I had too much of a safety net. While I know both my Earthly parents love me unconditionally, and I know Heavenly Father loves me unconditionally in an even more perfect sense than that, I can’t help but feel (in reference to repetance) that I have to explain myself to Heavenly Father, i.e. “Yes, I was wrong. I know that now. I am truly sorry….yada yada yada,” just like the rebelious teenager that we, as parents, have to face in our lives. Yet, if I could instead go to Heavenly Mother…I would not feel as much of a need to explain myself, because She would already understand. She wouldn’t be any less disappointed and I wouldn’t need forgiveness any less, but it would be more difficult to work my way through the “what I did wrong” and get that extra bit of enlightenment, the “oh, I didn’t think of that, that definitely makes it worse/better/different” that I sometimes get during the repentance process, because the “Oh, Mom, I tried…” would just be so much easier.
Now, I’m rambling and I’m not sure I’m making any sense, but I did want to clarify that protection doesn’t necessarily mean you’re in a gilded cage. It can happen like that, but I would assume that PERFECT protection works better than that.
Comment by Stephanie — May 23, 2006 @ 9:52 pm
Starfoxy,
“Whatever power a woman has (on earth) is power that was given to her by a man.”
The same could be said in the reverse, as well. Without women, men would not have power. Without men, women would not have power. Outside of that context, I do not see how men having power over women is a universal trait. There are men who have power over me. There are women who have power over me. There are men who have power over my husband. There are women who have power over my husband. However, neither of us are dominated by men (or a man) or women (or a woman). That is not a universal truth.
Comment by Stephanie — May 23, 2006 @ 10:15 pm
Stephanie, if you mean universal as in eternal, then I didn’t say that it is universal. If you mean universal, as in world wide, then yes I did say that. It is my opinion that it is world wide and will be for duration of mortality, but *only* for the duration of mortality. You are welcome to disagree with me, I have been very wrong before.
Comment by Starfoxy — May 23, 2006 @ 10:44 pm
It’s interesting to me that this parallels artists who decline to give interpretations of their works, allowing individuals to take whatever meaning fits their lifeview at the time.
~~~
Stephanie, I disagree with the idea that our Heavenly Father & our Savior Jesus Christ are/would be ‘tougher’ on us than our Heavenly Mother is/would be. It seems an insult to both of our Heavenly Parents, implying that one or both of Them are not quite perfect. I think it’s hard to take our earthly parents and extrapolate an accurate picture of our Heavenly Parents–too many flaws in our mortal state that would inevitably project onto Them.
~~~~
M&M–here’s the excerpt from Boyd K. Packer’s talk–I find it leaves me with more questions than answers.
Is he referring to the pattern of a mother and father to make a baby? If not, what pattern do you think he’s talking about?
I like Elder Oaks’ statement too. In a lot of ways, my knowledge of and connection to our Heavenly Mother seems like it will be one of those 9th Article of Faith things–I just hope it comes sooner than later for me.
Comment by Téa — May 23, 2006 @ 10:52 pm
The idea of life on earth as being purposely devoid of the Mother is intriguing. If it’s like summer camp, maybe then it’s like an initiatory rite of passage.
I remember watching Robert Bly a while back on Bill Moyers’ show, discussing his work The Sibling Society. He was relating how Native Americans led their young men through rites of passage into adulthood. The men of the tribe would drag the adolescent males out to their first hunt/sweat/or whatever initiatory rite. They would beg for their mothers, and their mothers would wail and moan after them.
Then, according to Robert Bly, when all was said and done, and the boys were out of sight, the ladies would go back to their tents/longhouses/teepees and have coffee and say “How did I do?” (So to speak.)
Implying, then that the absence of the feminine is one way we come into our initiation as human beings, and that the feminine is in on the whole thing to begin with.
And yes, there is something to being The Mom…my own child has been going through bouts of anxiety lately, and they seem to worsen when I’m around. I have had to be firm, and send her to school, or bed, or whatever transition is occuring at that moment, and that is the hardest thing in the world, because it is my nature to console and comfort her (and she knows this, too.) But cuddling her for the rest of her life is not going to help her get through her chronic worries.
So, if the initiatory rite is to be away from our mothers in order to grow up, how do we know when we’ve arrived? And when can we get reacquainted withour Mother?
Comment by pele — May 24, 2006 @ 12:54 am
M&M–here’s the excerpt from Boyd K. Packer’s talk–I find it leaves me with more questions than answers.
“The revelations make it very clear that mankind is the offspring of Heavenly Parents. We have in God our Father and a Heavenly Mother the pattern of our parentage.”
Is he referring to the pattern of a mother and father to make a baby? If not, what pattern do you think he’s talking about?
I took it more to meen our divine heritage as children of heavenly parents. I think it’s also interesting that She was even mentioned (as that isn’t an every-day occurence).
And now, after going back to read over his talk again, he talks a lot about following the patterns of our parents. I think perhaps he might be making a case for traditional marriage (we follow the pattern of our divine parents for ultimate happiness and fulfillment of God’s plan). “The plan provides for us into come into the world into a mortal body….If we follow the pattern, happiness and joy will follow.” So I think he uses this doctrine to illustrate simple principles and rules that should apply in this life (marriage, bringin children into the world, teach them “the gospel and moral standards” which “are set to prevent us from straying into…behavior that will result in disappointment and unhappiness.” I think he is also stating that we are children of God, not descended from animals. He seemed to pack a lot into that talk, didn’t he?
I actually find it interesting to consider the simple truths we can gain from that one fact…that we are children of a Father and a Mother in Heaven. And I think that, in short was his point. Look to that pattern to understand the way things are and are supposed to be.
I just repeated myself, didn’t I? It’s late…I ramble when it’s late….
Comment by mullingandmusing (m&m) — May 24, 2006 @ 12:55 am
Starfoxy, it seems to me that you are conflating the male dominated power structure in the Church with the power structure in the world.
In the real world, gender plays a significant role in acquiring and wielding power, but, in many societies, wealth, education, and family ties are generally far more important than whether or not you are male or female.
In the Church, however, a woman can never “work her way up” to the top, whether it’s through talent, hard work, spiritual gifts, or sleeping with the boss. In fact, the Church supports womens’ talents and efforts only within a narrowly proscribed role as a care giver. So, given this model, I can see how you would see women’s dependence upon men as divinely inspired, but I think this approach is dangerous and incompatible with the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Comment by Elisabeth — May 24, 2006 @ 6:15 am
Starfoxy,
No, I didn’t mean eternally. From an LDS standpoint, we know that women are the beloved daughters of a Heavenly Father who loves us very much; thus we will not be eternally oppressed. However, that wasn’t my point.
Even here on Earth, I’m not oppressed, nor are many other women throughout the world. Thus, it is not a universal trait. I do know there are women throughout the world, some of whom are right here in the United States and other places within the “civilized” world who are oppressed. They are probably even in the majority; historically speaking, they are definitely in the majority. But that doesn’t make it a universal trait.
There are men throughout the world who do not oppress women, whether or not oppressing women is an acceptable aspect of their culture or not. These are not all men who know the Plan of Salvation. These are not all men who have learned that women are spirit daughters of Heavenly Parents and are extremely valuable as people. Some men just don’t demean women.
Comment by Stephanie — May 24, 2006 @ 8:19 am
I was thinking last night in the middle of the night how grateful I am for Bill and his priesthood and his goodness and I feel protected because of it. I think my kids, as screwed up as they are, also feel a sense of protection. I don’t resent it, I’m glad of it.
But when men try to put one over on me, to boss me, they do run into trouble.
I can’t relate to the concept of mother in any real way, not as a mother or having a mother. I sucked as a mother, I still do, and my mother had not the first clue about mothering. I don’t get the idea of mother. So I can’t comprehend a mother in heaven. I don’t even care.
All I want is to make it out of here alive. So to speak.
Comment by annegb — May 24, 2006 @ 9:51 am
It is true that in the US and many western countries women have been able to climb corporate latters and be elected to public office. I’m not, however, mistaking the church governance for the worldly power structure. These leadership opportunities given to women are very recent, very western developments. Go back 30 or 40 years, and note how drastically the position of women the world over has changed. Note, also, the timing of this change with the rise of the church, and the teachings about MiH. I take this rather sudden change as a proverbial ’sign of the times.’
Like I said before in #22, I’ve invented my own doctrine. It makes sense to me, makes me feel better about some things, and doesn’t change a darn thing about my day to day life, or belief in the goodness of God. I don’t think it runs counter to the doctrines of the church. But that is quite strictly my personal opinion.
Comment by Starfoxy — May 24, 2006 @ 10:18 am
–Another question–
Does saying “I am a child of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother” generate different thoughts & feelings than saying “I am a child of God”?
Comment by Téa — May 24, 2006 @ 10:37 am
Starfoxy, I kind of LIKE your idea. I’m not good at debating– I can’t explain how or why I liked it in intellectual terms because I am so motivated by emotions and impressions. It just FELT right to me. It made sense in my heart.
Comment by Bee — May 24, 2006 @ 10:48 am
Does saying “I am a child of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother” generate different thoughts & feelings than saying “I am a child of God”?
I think this question gives us a more concrete way to think about being a child of heavenly parents. It gives us a model we are used to thinking about — our earthly families — to help us understand what it means to be the offspring of deity. When we think about our earthly parents we are used to considering what traits we inherited from them and what we learned from them during the time we were in their care. (I know, sometimes neither of these things works to our advantage in life — but at least it’s an accessible model.)
I was talking yesterday with a woman who is an engineering professor about what it meant for her to go through school with almost no female engineer role models. The engineering faculty at her large undergraduate institution included one woman. Our small engineering faculty of about 14 people includes four women. That makes me think that today it’s starting to be different for women engineers. Not perfect, but different and better.
Knowing even what little we know about Heavenly Mother is kind of like that.
Comment by Ana — May 24, 2006 @ 11:11 am
I am interested in the role that a belief in a Heavenly Mother plays in understanding our sex and gender roles. Does a Heavenly Mother necessarily support the idea of an eternal feminine (see Beauviour)? Is MiH the paradigm of what a woman ought to be? If so, what does this mean? Does MiH have a biological relationship to Her children that my mother has with me (ie. were we spiritually conceived by sexual intercourse and vaginally birthed by MiH)? If not, what does it mean to be a mother (as opposed to being a father)?
Comment by Loyd — May 24, 2006 @ 11:38 am
“it gives me comfort to think that Heavenly Father finds Her so precious to Him that He would not allow anyone to defile Her by the misuse of Her name/identity.”
Stephanie,
although I don’t buy it, the idea of “protecting her name” is a valid hypothesis- but, only if SHE chooses to protect herself. As eteral beings, equally powerful, equally exalted, full married partners in all their works, why do people feee compelled to phrase the “protetcing her from slander” theory as if is was HIS decision and not HERS to make?
I know we’re used to talking of Him as the God… but intellectually we know she is just as much a God too- she’s not one of his children or subjects. If our earthly plan is to be without her voice, or to not sully her name, let’s acknowledge it is HER will and power.
Comment by LDS wife #1 — May 24, 2006 @ 12:01 pm
Here are some thoughts I have regarding our Heavenly parents.
Jesus taught in John 5:19, “..Verily, verily I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: forwhat things soever he deoth, these also doeth the Son likewise.”
In all that Jesus said and did, He was emulating our Father in Heaven - showing us what He is like and how He loves us.
Jeffrey Holland said, “In word and in deed Jesus was trying to reveal and make personal to us the true nature of His Father in Heaven. He did this at least in part because then and now all of us need to know God more fully in order to love Him more deeply and obey Him more completely.” (Ensign Nov. 2003)
Since it is understood through modern day prophets that we also have a Mother in Heaven, it is natural to wonder about her. Why isn’t more known about Her? Why hasn’t She shown Herself?
I think the answer to that may lay in part by looking to Heavenly Father’s example. In each scriptural instance where Heavenly Father makes an appearance, he turns the focus away from Himself and to Christ by saying, “This is my Beloved Son, Hear Him!” (Jesus baptism, appearance of Christ to the Nephites, Joseph Smith’s First Vision)
The plan of salvation centers on the atonement of Jesus Christ. He is our intercessor at the throne of God. It is through him that we can return to our Heavenly parents.
Perhaps then, it is through Christ that we learn more about our Heavenly Mother as well as Father. And if our Mother in Heaven were to give us a message, wouldn’t she likewise ask us to turn our attention to Her Son?
I believe in a loving Mother in Heaven and look forward to a heavenly reunion. In the mean time, I think she would counsel us to learn about Her through the whisperings of the Spirit - which is the testifier of all truth, and to focus on Christ who makes a reunion with Her possible.
Comment by Patti — May 24, 2006 @ 3:08 pm
Lately I’ve been wondering why, if God loves his daughters so much, he set us up to be so physically vulnerable. Can you imagine how the history of the world would have been different if the average woman was as strong as the average man? The male/female power dynamic would have been radically different. Just putting women into wars as soldiers and able to fight off a rapist would make a major difference in the oppression of women down through the ages. As it is, women have historically (and in a large part of the world today) had to depend on men for their status and protection.
So I find Starfoxy’s idea to be very interesting. Making women vulnerable means that they would be more willing to attach themselves to a protector, and bear his children. We’re seeing the birth rate drop in first world countries because women don’t need that relationship with a male protector to function in society. Women are choosing independence and childlessness, where earlier there was no choice. There was no such thing as an “independent woman.”
The Gospel has a much better plan, of course. If a man offers love and respect to a woman, she’ll want to bear children.
Stephanie - I can understand that it’s nice to be protected. But what if you were being protected right out of having a relationship with your kids? Instead of your husband insisting that your kids respect you while you’re there, you are completely cut off from your children (who can only surmise your existence) and your husband doesn’t have to do much to help your kids develop a relationship of respect with you because there isn’t a relationship there at all. That’s the aspect I find troubling about HF “protecting” his wife from her own children. He’s not insisting that the kids interact with their Mother with respect; he’s keeping them from any interaction at all.
Comment by Melinda — May 24, 2006 @ 4:16 pm
Some ideas on this thread are very discouraging to me. I know we can’t possibly agree on what the word “feminism” means, and how we can be both Mormons and “feminists”, but I’m pretty certain that finding ways to justify the power men wield over women is not a fruitful exercise - no matter which definition of “feminism” we’re using. Explain, yes. Justify, no. Women are independent beings and have the ability to make their own choices. God did not create women to be “more vulnerable”, so that women would have to depend on men for their survival. Women all over the world carry, deliver, and support their own children without any help from men. It’s insulting to say that women are weak; therefore, women need men.
Comment by Elisabeth — May 24, 2006 @ 4:35 pm
These leadership opportunities given to women are very recent, very western developments.
Actually, if this is a model, then the Church is way ahead of its time, because women in the Church have had leadership opportunities since the RS was organized.
Women are independent beings and have the ability to make their own choices. God did not create women to be “more vulnerable”, so that women would have to depend on men for their survival. Women all over the world carry, deliver, and support their own children without any help from men. It’s insulting to say that women are weak; therefore, women need men.
If we only think of women as independent beings, then we sell ourselves short. The ideal is to be interdependent beings. The fulness of the plan of salvation requires men and women to work together. To need someone else is not a sign of weakness. A woman can be strong and capable and still need a man. And, on the flip side, a man can still be strong and capable and need a woman. We are supposed to need each other. This is something that I think feminism misses.
Comment by mullingandmusing (m&m) — May 24, 2006 @ 5:07 pm
We are supposed to need each other. This is something that I think feminism misses.
Since interdependence is a central tenet of feminism, perhaps you don’t understand feminism very well.
Comment by obi-wan — May 24, 2006 @ 5:38 pm
Elisabeth, I don’t want anything I say to be discouraging for you. This is all just my opinion, and I have *no* doctrinal basis for anything I am speculating. There is no reason for you to believe a word of it. I’m sharing (and defending) my theory because it makes sense to me and has made me feel better. I’m one of those insufferable people who think that all injustice must have a purpose, and just can’t let it go.
Comment by Starfoxy — May 24, 2006 @ 5:52 pm
I’m one of those insufferable people who think that all injustice must have a purpose, and just can’t let it go.
And we are back to theodicy and the incoherency of your proposition.
Comment by J. Stapley — May 24, 2006 @ 6:08 pm
J. what on earth does whether or not I’m engaged in theodicy have to do with this? Technically you’re are engaging in Theodicy just as much as I am. I’m claiming God allowed/caused evil things for a purpose. You to be claiming that God just plain is not responsible for these specific bad things that happen because these bad things are a result of free will. Both are theodicies, because both serve to reconcile the presence of evil things in the universe our not-evil God created.
You’ve given good arguments as to why my theory is incoherent, I appreciate that, and recognize that they are good arguements. It really comes down to the fact that my opinion is different than yours. However, your use of this theodicy business really irks me. It seems like you’re trotting out big words, assuming I don’t know what they mean, and insinuating that by engaging in this fancily named practice that I’m committing some amateurish philosophical faux pas. It really seems out of character for you to use such lame intimidation tactics in a debate like this, and I really hope I’ve interpreted your tone incorrectly.
Comment by Starfoxy — May 24, 2006 @ 7:42 pm
I agree with the ideal of interdependence, but I think it’s crucial to note that you can only have genuine interdependence in an egalitarian context. The relationship between a child and her parents isn’t one that you would describe as “interdependent,” and as its currently structured in Church teaching, I don’t think you can really describe the relation between a husband and a wife in that way, either.
Comment by Lynnette — May 24, 2006 @ 7:50 pm
I assume that you do know what it means and recognize that theodicy is, indeed, that in which we are both engaged. The problem is that you state previously that your reasoning applied to all injustice is disturbing (I find it disturbing when applied to anything), but then continue to state that “[you are] one of those insufferable people who think that all injustice must have a purpose, and just can’t let it go.” I am simply noting that when you employ such reasoning we are going back to the topic and associated problems.
No offense intended. No patronizing. No intimidation.
Comment by J. Stapley — May 24, 2006 @ 8:10 pm
Starfoxy - thanks for sharing your views with us. I’m sorry they are attracting so much negative attention. I think they are so difficult to digest for me because they seem to justify the status quo for women. And, more importantly, they ascribe divine reasons to things we really just don’t have answers for. We fell into this trap for many years when the Church claimed that God cursed blacks to be inferior and unfit to be given the full blessings of the priesthood. I certainly hope we don’t make that same mistake as women, and expecially as “feminists”.
Lynnette- thanks for the clarification of interdependent - I agree completely.
Comment by Elisabeth — May 24, 2006 @ 8:26 pm
and as its currently structured in Church teaching, I don’t think you can really describe the relation between a husband and a wife in that way, either.
I’m sorry you feel that way. My experience has been completely different. I find a great deal supporting marital interdependency in the Church, and I feel that interdependency with my husband as well. Is it always perfect on either stage? No, but I believe the principles and ideals are there.
Comment by mullingandmusing (m&m) — May 24, 2006 @ 8:46 pm
J, thanks for the clarification. It really seemed like you were trying to say that my argument was incoherent *because* it was a theodicy. And just to clarify, I didn’t know what it meant at the time, and have you to thank for a useful addition to my vocabulary.
Elisabeth, I can see how justification of the status quo is troubling. I think I like my theory so much because it fixes one major disconnect that bothers me. If women truly are strong and capable and independently powerful then women are ulitmately responsible for their own oppression. Women let it happen to themselves. The conclusion from that is that women really are inferior, because we failed to keep ourselves from being oppressed by our equals. However, by saying that the cards were stacked against women being independently powerful on earth, (by God with our permission for a noble purpose) then it means that we can be strong and powerful, but still disenfranchised through no failing of our own, physically, mentally, or spiritually.
I’m glad for the disagreements (even if they make me touchy and defensive), it’s good for thinking things through.
Sorry for the thread jack.
Comment by Starfoxy — May 24, 2006 @ 9:02 pm
Starfoxy, it breaks my heart to read what you wrote in your last comment. I think I understand you, though. Thanks.
Comment by Elisabeth — May 24, 2006 @ 9:10 pm
Starfoxy,
“It is true that in the US and many western countries women have been able to climb corporate latters and be elected to public office.”
I don’t think “climbing the corporate ladders” or “public office” has anything to do with the oppression of women. Khadijah (spelling varies), Mohammed’s (author of the Koran) first wife “climbed the corporate ladder,” i.e. she was a very successful business women trading her goods and making a very nice living, financially speaking, from it–does that mean she wasn’t oppressed? Women have held various public offices in various governments for a lot longer than a few decades. With “elected” in there, it complicates it because a working democracy itself is an infrequent concept in the history of the world, but women have been queens with all the power behind, and have still been oppressed whether there was a sitting king or not.
And, I guess that difference, disagreeing about what “oppression” itself means, makes this debate quite difficult.
Comment by Stephanie — May 24, 2006 @ 9:38 pm
LDS wife #1,
“If our earthly plan is to be without her voice, or to not sully her name, let’s acknowledge it is HER will and power. ”
Suits me just fine, though I acknowledge it’s only a theory.
Comment by Stephanie — May 24, 2006 @ 10:10 pm
“We would have seen how collossally unfair most of history was, and put a stop to it. We would have liberated ourselves much sooner than we did,”
Do you really think women could have ever done this on their own? I dont think it every would have happened. It still couldnt happen today. Not without men wanting it also. Im not trying to be antagonistic, just realistic.
Comment by Darryl — May 24, 2006 @ 11:48 pm
I want to say thanks, everyone, for your comments so far, and thank you Starfoxy for explaining your theory. I still don’t think I quite agree but I appreciate your perspective and I’m glad that you are contributing here (and that you haven’t left).
And I wanted to put a link here to the newest post at the Exponent II blog: Our Mothers’ Love
Comment by HeatherP — May 25, 2006 @ 1:07 am
I almost agree with Starfoxy… there is a part in the temple, when Adam and Eve are about to be cast out, where Eve is told she must do something inasmuch as she was the first to eat…
everybody know what I mean here?
anyway, I do see that moment as Eve losing some status and power in mortality. but interestingly, for a church that doesn’t follow “origional sin” the next action is that due to Eve’s choice, now all the living women have to do/say something.
Comment by cchrissyy — May 25, 2006 @ 9:12 am
baby cried and I didn’t quite finish the thought. anyway, I see that moment as setting up negative consequences on all women and I can see how others can stretch it to explain sexist adversity throughout the ages.
don’t quite agree, but I see it as a valid interpretation.
Comment by cchrissyy — May 25, 2006 @ 9:18 am
Stephanie is right, the disagreement about what oppression means is probably at the heart of all this disagreement.
I think Darryl’s comment in 61 does a better job of explaining the ethereal oppression that I’m talking about than I have. It’s not malicious oppression, or power hungry men actively trying to keep women under control, it’s that men are just plain in charge. Good men will let women be their partners and agents for themselves, bad men will be abusive and oppress and degrade women. If people are good and righteous, then it’s the power structure is completely benign.
Anyhow, I really think I did a bad job of explaining what I meant on this thread. Maybe I’ll try again sometime in the distant future.
Comment by Starfoxy — May 25, 2006 @ 11:28 am
I’ve been following this thread for a few days and I find all the comments very interesting. Good stuff. I agree with something Starfoxy said up in #13- that we as women knew what we were getting into and agreed to come to earth anyway. (I know that everyone who came to earth chose to come, I just think that we were probably aware of the different things we’d go through due to our gender). I’ve had a hard time with the endowment session and to be honest it makes sense (to me) to look at the hearken covenant that way. I feel some sense of peace that I was aware of what I was getting into yet decided to go through it all anyway.
To answer some of the questions of the original post: I don’t really feel a connection to MiH and it doesn’t bother me too much. I’m not very close to my own mother so I don’t really have a pattern to follow for a relationship to my MiH. I want to know more about her due to my own curiosity. Why am I working so hard to be righteous in a church that I often feel disconnected from? What’s the reward? I realize that we have some answers to those questions but I long to know more about my eternal reward as a woman rather than what I’m promised through my husband.
Comment by Blue gal — May 25, 2006 @ 11:49 am
Starfoxy, I’ve thought about your theory quite frequently since I read it on your blog some months ago (linked from another MiH discussion, I believe.) Some of it does certainly resonate with me, and I like the idea that we as women knew that there would be specific gender-related challenges. It makes it seem much less like some cruel trick of God or getting the short end of the evolutionary stick. I think there must be some necessity biologically for us to have the sexual dimorphism we have, as there are a fair number of primates that don’t. Likely, women have to invest so much in growing large-brained babies that they can’t really expend more energy into growing their own bodies, or through times of famine and food shortage, women would have required a greater share of the resources. It’s better to be smaller in tough times, especially if there are designated “protectors” who aren’t encumbered by the demands of gestation & lactation.
Well, there’s my long-winded biological ramblings.
Comment by mindy — May 25, 2006 @ 4:10 pm
I realize that we have some answers to those questions but I long to know more about my eternal reward as a woman rather than what I’m promised through my husband.
Does it help to think about the fact that your husbands eternal reward is also dependent on you?…that without you, he cannot achieve the highest degree of glory?
Comment by mullingandmusing (m&m) — May 25, 2006 @ 6:15 pm
To me, the idea of agreeing to be a second-class citizen in this life, based on some possible pre-life agreement to it that I can neither remember nor verify, is like saying being date-raped was okay because you think you said yes to the date-rapist, even though you don’t remember it (eg, were impaired). But I guess it could make it easier to deal with the rape as well, if you redefined it after the fact as consensual sex.
Comment by RE — May 26, 2006 @ 3:46 am
m&m- it does help to look at it that way. In my eternal curiosity I just wonder what MiH is doing, because I wonder what I will be doing in the eternities. We have some small idea what HF is doing and I would like to know more what MiH is doing. That’s all.
Comment by Blue gal — May 26, 2006 @ 9:53 am
Hear, hear, RE!
Like Blue gal, I’m curious. I don’t understand theologically what it means to be female. But in only one instance in our theology is divinity ever paired with femaleness (no clear evidence for female angels, no female participation in the Godhead), and then in a very qualified manner. And from our lack of information we often extrapolate characteristics that sound suspiciously like silence, submissiveness, and passivity. Not a lot to look forward to.
Comment by Kiskilili — May 26, 2006 @ 12:14 pm
I agree with RE and Kiskilli’s comments, but I’m concerned about understanding Starfoxy’s approach more fully, because I think many women in the Mormon church would agree with her rather than with me. I guess neither interpretation is “wrong”, but I wonder how we can build a bridge and work together as sisters with such divergent views about the consequences of being born a female. Any ideas?
Comment by Elisabeth — May 26, 2006 @ 1:08 pm
RE, Kiskilili, and Elisabeth
One major thing, that I don’t think I’ve made clear, is that my explanation of things has nothing to do with encouraging women to preserve the status quo. I’m not saying any of this to make anyone think that men have a right to oppress women. Men don’t have that right at all. Men oppressing women is wrong no matter you slice it. Having the right, however, is very different than having the ability. Men do have the ability to oppress women. All feminists, I think, would agree with that statement.
That is where RE’s date-rape analogy breaks down. Agreeing in the pre-existence to enter a world where men have the ability to control and oppress women doesn’t ever make the control and oppression okay. Agreeing to have sex means that it’s not rape, and therefore not wrong.
It would be more accurate to say that it’s like agreeing to go on a date with a man who has the ability to rape you, and whether or not you get raped is largely up to him. (Which is, I think, a fairly accurate description of most every date). You aren’t agreeing to be raped by going out with him, and if he does rape you it’s wrong. In my theory the part we don’t remember is agreeing to go on the date.
We agreed to come to an earth where men would have the ability to oppress us. Many of them do. We agreed to give men that ability, and we were aware of the risks when we did so. Back to the topic on hand, not knowing anything about MiH is part of what gave men the ability (not the license) to control and oppress.
*Why* we agreed to give men that ability is what I’m not completely convinced about, (though, as I mentioned earlier, I’m pretty sure it has to do with childbearing and the potential derailment of the PoS).
However, I think it’s pretty obvious that men *do* have the ability to control and oppress women, and since we’re all here on earth we must have agreed with those terms to some extent.
Comment by Starfoxy — May 26, 2006 @ 3:14 pm
Starfoxy,
I’m jumping into the end of this conversation and I really only read your last comment, so this is just a follow-up to that. I’m neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the theology you presented; I’m just curious about the results of your thinking.
In sum, you stated that while you believe we agreed to enter mortality knowing we risked gender-based oppression, you also believe such oppression is morally wrong and that we didn’t actually agree to be oppressed. So here’s my question: what actions do you think we should take or are justified in taking to prevent or end the oppression, now that we’re here?
Comment by Serenity Valley — May 26, 2006 @ 3:34 pm
Perhaps God reserved for the latter days his choicest female spirits, the ones who would valiantly fight gender oppression.
(I’ve never cared for the “latter-day elect” theory, but I figured I might as well co-opt it for my own nefarious purposes.)
Comment by Lynnette — May 26, 2006 @ 3:46 pm
Serenity Valley,
I think any and all actions that are not condemned by the gospel are appropriate. In fact, I think if men are living the gospel properly they will not oppress women. Now, the exact definition of oppression is still up for grabs, and some righteous men may or may not be engaged in it.
Comment by Starfoxy — May 26, 2006 @ 3:47 pm
Starfoxy,
Thanks for the response. I’d love to explore it a bit, though. To that end: specifics, please. What sorts of actions do you believe are not condemned by the Gospel? And how do you define oppression?
Comment by Serenity Valley — May 26, 2006 @ 3:54 pm
Lynnette, lol.
After the long night of apostasy, it’s time for the restoration of gender truth!
Comment by Eve — May 26, 2006 @ 4:48 pm
I would define oppression rather broadly. Very broadly actually. It definitely includes the big things; all forms of abuse, (physical mental emtional etc.), restrictions placed on women by governments and families (suffrage, arranged marriage) and media portrayals of unrealistic ‘ideal’ women.
I also think little things matter a lot. Like fMhLisa’s cartoon girls discussion, little kids never hear stories about girls, therefore they never develop an interest in stories about girls lives, and are subtly told that men are more important. I could go on and on. If you’re wanting specifics of oppression in a specifc church context, I’m not sure I want to go there. What I see as oppression may not be, and what others see as oppression I may not.
As far as what we can/should do, certainly voting (with ballots, dollars, and patronage), writing letters, signing petitions etc. In a church context letting your opinion be known is important. I think that using the proper chanels is appropriate though, (ie an interview with the Bishop or RS pres is better than complaining in Sunday School class.) I think being aware of doctrine, especially doctrine regarding governance of the church is important for women. That way we know when our bishop asks us to desribe our sex life that he is out of line. That way we know that we shouldn’t marry the dude who says we’re supposed to marry him because he had a revelation and holds the priesthood. I think that women should take advantage of opportunities to learn, and achieve advanced degrees. When you are intelligent you can protect your own interests, and educate those who infringe on your rights.
Lastly I think the one major thing that men almost always have over women is physical strength and intimidation. Being physically strong and capable of self defense can drastically alter a woman’s sense of entitlement in a relationship. She subconciously knows that she doesn’t have to defer because she can quite literally take care of herself if it ever gets to that level.
Comment by Starfoxy — May 26, 2006 @ 4:50 pm
Starfoxy,
When I read the first bit of your last comment, my work-addled brain thought, “She defines suffrage as oppression? That’s insane!” It took me a minute to figure out what you were saying.
Normally, I’d be happy talking about oppression outside a church context, certainly. But since this conversation is at heart about theology, that seems like a way of avoiding the most important questions. Certain intergender relationships–spousal, ecclesiastical, father-daughter, even ward member-ward member–are in fact based around our theology of gender. So how do you define oppression versus righteous interaction in context of our community? And how is that shaped by your theories regarding our premortal decisions, if at all?
Here’s an aside: given the Saviour’s intense emphasis on methods such as exaggerated compliance and shaming as a way of forcing change, would you consider such techniques to be within or beyond the pale as ways of fighting intergender oppression?
Seriously, I’m not going after you here; I just want to work out the implications of the ideas you presented above.
Comment by Serenity Valley — May 26, 2006 @ 5:12 pm
Starfoxy, you’ve mentioned before that you believe physical strength plays a defining role in the oppression of women, but I like the above quote from Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan (with a few of my own edits :P). Hobbes says that even though someone may be physically stronger, people are sufficiently equally matched in their capabilities of mind and body to counter the effects of physical strength. I guess what I’m trying to say, however, convolutedly, is that just because men are typically physically stronger than women, this difference in physical strength does not make the oppression of women inevitable.
But what also worries me about these ideas about physical strength is that a woman should never (EVER!) question her right to be entitled to physical safety in a relationship - or her right to be free from physical oppression and intimidation whether inside or outside a relationship. As I’m sure you know, any physical oppression, aggression or violence by men towards women (and vice versa) is completely unacceptable, and most likely criminal, regardless of which party is the stronger of the two.
Comment by Elisabeth — May 26, 2006 @ 5:44 pm
And from our lack of information we often extrapolate characteristics that sound suspiciously like silence, submissiveness, and passivity. Not a lot to look forward to.
In my mind, this is then an opportunity to exercise our faith and go to what we know about God. To imagine that He is holding a life for us as women that we would hate is not consistent with anything I know or feel about Him.
And, also, in my mind, we might be able to learn a little about how interwoven our Heavenly Parents’ lives are. If parents in this life are encouraged to be equal partners, to love and care for each other, and to love and nurture their children, I can’t imagine it would be much different in the next life. Frankly, I have quite a bit of curiosity about what Heavenly Father does. In the end, I don’t know that we really know that much about Him, either, except that He loves and serves us and is involved in our lives and in the world at large. I can only imagine that He is not working alone in those efforts.
I also really liked what was said above previously in this post about how He always turns things over to His Son, so the Savior is the one doing most of the specific things we can relate to and know about (scripturally, I mean).
Anyway, as I have pondered this, I think the best way for us to get a glimpse of what the heavens might be like is to ponder that patterns we see here, and ponder the revelation that has been given about fathers and mothers here, and about how family will be what we are about in the next life. Of course, some of the specifics won’t carry over (I don’t imagine fathers having to make money in the next life!), but I sense that many of the general principles (like those I listed above) will probably be similar. We will be about creation and service and love. With that kind of perspective, it sounds pretty good to me.
Comment by mullingandmusing (m&m) — May 26, 2006 @ 5:49 pm
Starfoxy,
Okay, here’s something I do want to critique about your theory. Above, you say that we agreed before we came here to give men the ability to oppress us. I don’t see any support for that idea in our canon. Certainly, our scripture and tradition teach that we agreed to come here, and we may well have known that men would have the ability to oppress us. The idea that we gave men the ability to do so, though, is unsubstantiated. I’ve never seen it in scripture. Further, given that our choice was, in effect, mortality under the conditions God chose (or was able) to provide, or outer darkness, we can’t argue that compliance is consent. (I’m not saying that HF coerced us, I’m just saying that our options were extremely limited). Was your statement just a hasty choice of words?
I’ve finally had a chance to look at the rest of the thread, and I’ve found another serious flaw with something you suggested above. Early on, you said:
The example provided here is unfortunately incorrect. “Pre-Restoration”, we may remember, coincides almost exactly with “preindustrial”; and all members of preindustrial societies actually had a strong motivation for the production of large families. Such societies had mind-boggling child mortality rates, and people could only ensure their own welfare as relatively nonproductive elders by making sure they had descendents to provide for them. So they had as many children as possible in the hope that some would survive to adulthood. Also, larger families were more productive economically; children acted as a net resource drain for a very short time, and then they enriched their parents.
Hence the ancient world’s many fertility rites, the frequent connection older literature makes between female fecundity and good fortune, and so on. Further evidence is that anthropological studies of today’s preindustrial societies invariably include accounts of female research subjects expressing pity upon learning that female anthropologists have few or no children, as the subjects assume that lack of children means poverty in old age.
The idea that God Himself would deny women basic agency in order to forward His plan is in itself less than compelling, as His plan is generally considered to be completely contingent upon our agency. I find it hard to believe that He would have been willing to use violence and rape to enforce His will when He wouldn’t allow Satan to use some other kind of coercion.
Finally, the general principle you suggest–’it’s endemic, so it must be necessary to God’s plan’–doesn’t seem to have any logical foundation at all. All human evil is endemic; is it all part of God’s plan? I think God’s plan is meant as the remedy for our corruption rather than the purpose of it.
Please consider these points as honest critiques of your theory, and nothing more. I don’t think Zion will rise or fall based on whether we agree; this is just an interesting conversation.
Comment by Serenity Valley — May 26, 2006 @ 6:30 pm
Starfoxy, as much as it addles my brain to admit it, I am intrigued by your position.
It reminds me of the time my mom left me at home with my dad and brothers. (I was a baby, so this is a family story). When it was time to change my diapers, my dad & brother took me out to the yard and hosed my baby bottom down.
Now, let’s say we Heavenly Kids needed some “alone time” with Dad, and Heavenly Dad took us out for a ride in the car. Suddenly, we’re in Dad’s world. Dad doesn’t drive slowly around curves so we don’t get carsick. Dad doesn’t know that we always stop for ice cream after the bank. Dad doesn’t stop so we can go to the bathroom, and we have to squat in the back and go in a drink cup.
See? I’m wondering if that may be the root of our oppression.
Comment by pele — May 26, 2006 @ 7:01 pm
First of all the idea that we are the *offspring* of heavenly parents is most definitely not clearly established in the “revelations” - not the canon at any rate. The idea of the exalatation as entailing the direct, natal, procreative, genesis of billions of spirit children has no basis in scripture.
D&C 132:19 speaks of eternal glory as entailing the “continuation of seeds” - the word continuation is rather informative. The scriptural precedent or ‘type’ we have for exalation is the promises made to Abraham, also known as the Abrahamic covenant.
And what are the promises made to Abraham? Among other things, that his *posterity* would be as numerous as the stars of heaven and the sands on the seashore. And yet he had what half a dozen children? And only one by Sarah?
Now might not we conclude the the Lord is trying to teach us a lesson here? That as valuable as a quiver of children are, that our eternal exaltation may be established through even one righteous natural (or adopted) heir? A Priesthood covenant and promise that went from Abraham and Sarah, to Isaac, and Rebekah, to Jacob Leah and Rachel, and by turns to the whole house of Israel? Indeed whereby we may say Abraham is our Father by adoption, even if we are not descended from him? (cf. Galatians 3)
So while in heaven we may yet indeed have and endless posterity, it seems much more likely in the manner of Abraham and Sarah, then the radically untenable speculation of procreative parenthood. A billion kids - think of the mess. Which is more beautiful a nicely branching tree or a bunch of grass all in the same clump? The doctrine of sealings is the best evidence that heaven is organized on the former, rather than the latter principle.
Comment by Mark Butler — May 26, 2006 @ 7:15 pm
err, “exaltation”
Comment by Mark Butler — May 26, 2006 @ 7:16 pm
Serentiy Valley,
re #80 I would think that any tactics the Savior used are completely appropriate, provided the goals are sound. And since our goal would be to make the equality of men and women functional then, I think it would be completely appropriate. Shame is a little tricky because, unlike the Savior, we are not perfect judges. So that one should probably be used sparingly.
re #83, If I thought Zion would rise or fall based on anyone’s agreement with me I would have had a heart attack years ago.
I appreciate your critiques, and will counter them the best I can.
There is certainly nothing in our canon that directly says that we gave men the ability to oppress. I think, however, that the Hearken Covenant in the Temple indicates that, as well as most of the Adam and Eve story in Gensis. Especially where Eve is told that Adam will rule over her. If we take these in a straightforward manner (ie that it reads exactly how God intended it to, and that it means exactly what it sounds like) then we have little else to assume other than that God put men in a position of authority over women for the duration of mortality. That position of authority is what gives men the ability to opress.
You make a very good point about my post-industrial-revolution mindset. I’ll have to think about that one for awhile.
I don’t think that God denied women basic agency, He merely limited our choices. If you really think about it, everyone’s choices are rather limited to begin with. Agency is less about being able to do whatever I want, but more about what I do with the choices given me. Many people born with handicaps, and suceptibilities have very few choices, but we do not claim that God removed their agency. Also, I don’t think that this set up restricts women only. I’ll be honest with you and say that I don’t exactly see how it restricts the men, but I feel it. Because men and women are so interconnected, women cannot be limited as a whole without men being limited as well.
Evil is part of God’s plan though. When Eve ate the fruit she was disobeying God, which is, by definition, evil. We believe she had to eat the fruit, and that it was part of God’s plan. Obviously there is no place for evil in God’s kingdom, but that doesn’t mean that it has no place in the plan. That is more or less beside the point. The reason I insist that it was part of God’s plan is because it is endemic, and highly preventable. I see it as being something that is so engrained in this mortal world, yet so contrary to the natural order of the eternities. It’s like a broken branch in the woods, it wouldn’t be that way unless something made it that way.
Elisabeth,
I mention physical strength mostly for its self-esteem building capabilities. I agree with you that no-one, male or female should ever fear for their physical safety. I also agree that men and women have the capability to be equally matched physically. However, few women trust their own strength and are taught to never ever ever hurt someone, even if they are hurting you. A woman building her strength and learning a self-defense discipline is more about changing her mindset than anything else.
Comment by Starfoxy — May 26, 2006 @ 7:35 pm
“Children’s children are the crown of old men; and the glory of children are their fathers” (and mothers) - Prov. 17:6
Comment by Mark Butler — May 26, 2006 @ 7:37 pm
Starfoxy, thank you so much for your comment #87 clarifying your interpretation of the temple covenant. So would you say a woman marrying in the temple is explicitly acquiesing to the man’s (husband’s) authority over her? Do you see this temple covenant as an approximation of a dialogue/covenant between women and men made in the pre-mortal existence?
Comment by Elisabeth — May 26, 2006 @ 7:55 pm
m&m - I think we need to qualify this statement to say that we might be able to learn something about eternal families from positive examples we see of couples we interact with in our own lives (or from the modern Western ideal), because the general pattern of the relationships between men and women on this earth as a whole is of women being tragically mistreated or shunted to the side and ignored.
Comment by Elisabeth — May 26, 2006 @ 8:09 pm
Elisabeth, I’m pretty sure that it is strictly a pre-mortal dialgue/covenant, as it happens while they are still in the garden.
As far as it being binding on women who marry in the Temple, I think that it doesn’t really matter. The only way anyone gets in ‘trouble’ with it is when they aren’t doing what the Lord says. When a man is being abusive or oppressive, he is violating his part of the covenant with the Lord. And since Brigham Young said that a woman shouldn’t follow her husband to hell, it seems that the covenant isn’t binding on a woman when her husband would lead her astray. The practical outcome is that everyone is only supposed to be doing what the Lord says. It’s really rather pointless, which is what led me to believe that it is descriptive rather than normative.
Comment by Starfoxy — May 26, 2006 @ 9:19 pm
Hmmm. Your [Starfoxy’s] arguments reminded me [oddly] of a scholarly relgious history book called “When God was a Woman.” . Among other things the author argues that societies which worshipped the goddess had a much more empowered female population: they tended include women in commerce, allowed them to own property, etc. Conversely as goddess worship was stamped out [by monotheistic patriarchal societies] women became increasingly oppressed, constrained and considered to be a man’s property.
Soooo, if it was our religion/culture rather than human nature that has led to women’s oppression. would that change your theory of consent, etc.?
Just wondering . . .
N.O.
Comment by Not Ophelia — May 26, 2006 @ 9:51 pm
N.O. -I’m really not sure. It seems like it could go either way. Given the way you phrase the way those societies were (”they tended include women in commerce, allowed them to own property,”) would lead me to say that it wouldn’t drastically alter my theory. In fact, it seems to bolster it, because it supports the notion that in societies with a prominent female diety women are more empowered in general.
If we agree that we aren’t supposed to worship MiH because she and Heavenly Father arranged it that way, (and not because that’s just the way we do things), then it seems that it is plausable that her absence from our discourses could have the purposes I outlined.
(BTW, That book looks fascinating, is it worth reading?)
Comment by Starfoxy — May 26, 2006 @ 10:13 pm
Or, the theory of consent could have developed for other reasons. A cool thing about matriarchal societies is that people in one valley didn’t tend to care what people in the next valley were worshipping. If the people in the next valley raised corn and oxen, they would obviously worship the goddess of corn and they god of oxen. It wouldn’t make sense for them to invoke the goddess of alfalfa, so to speak.
Why, when the matriarchal societies were peaceful and inclusive, and nothing really seemed to be wrong, was there this fairly quick shift to controlling, patriarchal, monotheism?
It would make sense that we would see these conditions before we were born, and consent to be born into them, anyway, knowing that this, too, shall pass. In that sense, free will is being exercised by human beings. I don’t think God created oppression necessarily, but it does seem to be the condition we’ve created for ourselves.
Comment by pele — May 26, 2006 @ 10:57 pm
m&m - I think we need to qualify this statement to say that we might be able to learn something about eternal families from positive examples we see of couples we interact with in our own lives
You are absolutely right! What I was referring to was the ideals mentioned in the Proclamation and in the ideals taught by our prophets.
Comment by mullingandmusing (m&m) — May 26, 2006 @ 11:00 pm
Evil is part of God’s plan though. When Eve ate the fruit she was disobeying God, which is, by definition, evil. We believe she had to eat the fruit, and that it was part of God’s plan. Obviously there is no place for evil in God’s kingdom, but that doesn’t mean that it has no place in the plan. That is more or less beside the point. The reason I insist that it was part of God’s plan is because it is endemic, and highly preventable. I see it as being something that is so engrained in this mortal world, yet so contrary to the natural order of the eternities. It’s like a broken branch in the woods, it wouldn’t be that way unless something made it that way.
Just some musings….
First of all, I don’t think we should classify Eve’s choice as evil. It was a deliberate choice to follow the first commandment they were given. She simply couldn’t follow both directives; she chose to kick the plan into motion.
Also, there are different ways to look at her choice. I have heard at least one scholar explain the “commandment” as more an explanation, along the lines of “you may eat every tree except the tree of knowledge of good and evil without consequence. It is given unto you to choose, and if you want to choose that man may be through the Fall, the consequence will be that I forbid you from staying in the Garden, and you will experience the consequences, introduce the mortal condition and you will eventually die.” I thought that was at least interesting to consider. Besides, I think her choice being classified as a transgression, not a sin, keeps her action from being classified as evil. She was anything but evil. But the Fall introduced fallen man…carnal and sensual and devilish and all that.
I wonder if a misunderstanding about Eve may be one of the things that has perpetuated oppression of women for centuries. That misunderstanding in and of itself, in my mind, is a good illustration of what “made it [oppression of women] that way.” Inappropriate oppression of women one of myriad examples of the natural man and of our mortal condition with opposition in all things. It is an evidence, as is every other ill present in relationships (from quibbles to war to cold-blooded crimes) of, as I would say to my kids, “bad choices.”
I think perhaps the premortal was a little like being told we were going to Disneyland. We were so excited about the end result that we didn’t really care much about what it would take to get there. During a road trip, most children lose site of that end goal, and complain about how long it is taking, or how hungry or bored they are, etc. I don’t know that this concept of oppression was any more pervasive in our “choice” to come here than any of the many other elements of opposition and wrongful exercise of agency that we see. But we shouted for joy at the prospect of this mortal existence.
It is not that God causes these things; it is that He allows them as part of our mortal journey and test. However, the ills that men and women impose on each other are all about the wrongful exercise of agency and the resultant consequences. The whole purpose of the gospel in God’s plan (remember, God’s plan includes the opposition, not just the solution) is to help change men and women from their “natural” into spiritual beings, spiritually begotten sons and daughters of the Savior. The closer people get to Him, the less of these ills that we see. Essentially all ills that show up in relationships between people (again, along the spectrum I mentioned before) are preventable. That’s the point of the gospel. To learn to overcome and prevent as much unnecessary pain and wrongdoing as possible. (Then there are those trials that aren’t preventable, but that’s for another discussion….)
There’s a quote somewhere that I can’t find that states that, in the premortal, we were less concerned about the struggles we would face and more simply grateful for this blessing, because we knew it was the only way for us to return Home. We saw more clearly then, of course, but that, to me, gives me a goal to reach for (to rejoice in this mortality thing, which I don’t always do!)
Comment by mullingandmusing (m&m) — May 26, 2006 @ 11:09 pm
Starfoxy,
You say,
Taken literally, our promise in the Hearken covenant makes us responsible for giving our husbands’ counsel a hearing, and even thenonly inasmuch as they are righteous. Oppressors are not righteous. The covenant simply can’t be construed as us giving them the ability to oppress us. Beyond that, we’re Mormons. We don’t take the Bible as a text that reads literally as God intended it to. Should we choose to, though, we still don’t have to take Adam’s rule over Eve as a prediction for the rest of humanity’s spousal relationships; Eve’s sorrow, childbirth pangs, desire for her husband, and subjugation to him are explicit as punishments for her sins. And we know, from canon, that God does not punish us for our first parents’ sins.
Re: limitations on men, that’s actually pretty simple to my mind. If it were true that God placed men in some permanent state of power over women, then most or all would in consequence be trapped in a permanent cycle of unrighteousness (see D&C 121:39).
Saying that evil is part of God’s plan doesn’t actually provide us with an explanation for how that is so. And I think we’re all familiar with the Mormon argument that since God gave Eve conflicting commandments, her action was not evil, but rather a transgression (NOT a sin) necessary to obey Him. Finally, the fact that any sort of oppression is highly preventable seems rather to indicate that humans are corrupt than that God condones our sins, for any purpose. Genocides are often highly preventable, but they happen frequently anyway. Are they part of God’s plan? Yes, something broke the branch, something caused the evil of human oppression–we did. Oppression is our choice; and God, who loves us and has done so very much to make us perfect and sinless so that we can return to Him, weeps at it.
I’m not opposed to the idea that God can take the sour, lemony consequences of human sins and make of them celestial lemonade, but that’s an act of grace and healing, an expression of His divine love. God’s gift of agency does not logically entail that He condones our misuse of that agency. It only requires that He see the agency as of so much worth that it counterbalances the evil we create. So the evil is not part of His plan, but rather a necessary cost–something He cannot spare us–for a greater good.
Comment by Serenity Valley — May 26, 2006 @ 11:46 pm
Is is much more likely that Genesis 2-3 is a fairy tale, as Brigham Young has it. Fruits and trees and flaming swords and all. It is positively ridiculous, not even a very good allegory, responsible for more evil than just about any other doctrine ever devised. Gee, I am evil because it is all Adam’s/Eve’s fault. Not.
Comment by Mark Butler — May 27, 2006 @ 12:18 am
With Mark, I think the Adam-and-Eve story raises a number of problems. His point, if I understand him right, is that people can take refuge in the fact of the world’s fallen state to perpetuate that evil and deny their accountability.
But, more pertinent to this discussion, I think there are further complications specific to Eve’s status, and, although I see potential problems with Starfoxy’s theory, I admire her ability to recognize the issue and her ingenuity in attempting to resolve it.
In the first place, I’m convinced there are two separate creation stories which are best read individually. In the first creation account, male and female of each species are created simultaneously, including humans; in the second, Adam is created first, followed by the animals, followed by Eve. The commandment to “multiply and replenish” is issued in the first account; I’m not convinced it applies to the situation of the second. So, while it’s an ingenious reading, I can’t convince myself Eve was issued conflicting commandments and chose to privilege one over another. (The very contradictions lead me to question whether either story has literal merit.)
There are several things I don’t understand about the church’s doctrine on Eve. By those reading literally and historically, Eve has traditionally been blamed as ultimately responsible for the evil and mortality she introduced into the world. Presumably, cursing her with subordination to Adam is meant either to justly punish her for her transgression, or to ameliorate the situation by keeping Eve’s evident predilection for evil and disobedience in check to Adam’s faithfulness (or both).
But since we maintain that the Fall was ultimately positive and necessary–a Fall “upward”–how does Eve’s punishment make sense? Why not reward Eve? Wouldn’t it make just as much sense (or lack of sense) to maintain that inasmuch as Eve was the first to partake of the fruit and was willing to implement God’s will in spite of the suffering that would be involved, Adam should be subservient to Eve on account of her evident forethought and wisdom and the strength of her conviction?
Secondly, we maintain that men are not punished for Adam’s transgression, but only for their own sins. The same seemingly cannot be said for women and Eve’s transgression. Unless the story is meant to illustrate a general principle that women are weaker and more prone to temptation and must be kept in control–and the church maintains vociferously that this is not the case–why punish all women for something a character in a mythic narrative is said to have done? I simply don’t feel accountable for Eve’s decision, so I see no reason to assume her punishment.
(I understand there are natural consequences of mortality such as pain in childbirth, but subservience is not a natural consequence–it’s a prescribed consequence, and I see no reason to prescribe it, let alone fulfill it.)
In sum, I see two fundamental disconnects in the story: Eve’s punishment does not follow logically from her behavior, and the application of her punishment to women in general does not follow logically if we deny the inferiority of women in general.
So what’s at issue here is more specific than theodicy. It appears that God is doing more than simply allowing evil as part of the natural world and mortals’ exercising of agency (which raises questions in itself). God is actually promoting and requiring evil behavior, insofar as we understand women’s subordination to be evil and God’s commandment to Eve to constitute her subordination (this is how I understand it, though I know many of you will quibble with me over it :)).
Furthermore, if women only hearken to their husbands when their husbands are hearkening to God, the situation appears vaguely bizarre and bordering on nonsensical. It’s a following-the-leader game in which X follows Y when Y is following Z; there’s no specific stipulation, however, that X follow Z when Y is NOT following Z, or indication what X does in the absence of a Y.
I would even argue that the very structure of the covenant, if understood this way, tacitly assumes the ambiguity of revelation. Here’s why: if the gist of the commandment is finally that both parties are to follow God because God’s will is perfectly clear and always known, there would be no reason not to simply have both parties agree to hearken to God. They would then literally never be in disagreement.
And if revelation is often ambiguous or not forthcoming–and I think we can all attest that’s the case–the very structure of the situation opens itself up to abuse.
Finally, I’m left wondering why I wouldn’t be asked to follow God on other occasions, whether my husband tells me to or not?
To bring my point back to the discussion, I think that in our doctrine women’s subordination is in fact commanded by God, raising a host of questions about God’s character, but I’m not convinced there’s an end which justifies this means.
Comment by Kiskilili — May 27, 2006 @ 10:16 am
Finally, I’m left wondering why I wouldn’t be asked to follow God on other occasions, whether my husband tells me to or not?
You have been.
Comment by mullingandmusing (m&m) — May 28, 2006 @ 6:31 pm
M&M, true, but women don’t make covenants to follow God, only their husbands insofar as they do. And if the point is to follow God, why insert the husband into the equation at all? It seems redundant to covenant to follow one’s husband as long as he follows God, if all that reduces to is “follow God.” Why not just follow God–especially if one doesn’t have a husband in the first place?
Comment by Eve — May 28, 2006 @ 10:12 pm
Starfoxy’s # 13 totally charms. As, well, the rest of ya are like I’m OVERHEARING people discussing something that’s not very directly related to aything I actually believe — if ya kin understand?
And what I get out of it is . . . That the holy & divine feminine probably IS sorta having to do with aspects of feminity that we men find sensual? If sex is divine, as we believe . . . Could it be possible that the Heavenly Mother IS the Fertility Godess AFTER ALL! I mean: Wow! (And, of course, One in an EXALTED — and even in a non-fallen, Garden of Edenish sense?
Of course maybe I’m not making any sense! (So — sue me!)
Comment by Kimball L. Hunt — May 29, 2006 @ 1:38 am
That the holy & divine feminine probably IS sorta having to do with aspects of feminity that we men find sensual? If sex is divine, as we believe . . . Could it be possible that the Heavenly Mother IS the Fertility Godess AFTER ALL!
I wish, though, that we had reason to believe her role had to do with more than just fertility. It seems to me that a culture dominated by heterosexual males would attribute fertility to the female divinity. If we really believe in equality, Heavenly Father ought to be understood just as much as a fertility God.
Comment by Kiskilili — May 29, 2006 @ 8:11 am
Which He is via Creation.
But it’s interesing how revealed, Abrahamic religion so much REMOVES “Her” from consideration?(!)
Origianlly we weren’t to liken Him (which of course was actually an emphatic form which could be translated Them) to anything on earth or in the heavens, meaning skies. But thereafter we began more and more to liken Him, by stages, to being anthropomorphic and then male? But if earthly gender is our template, we must admit the male with the female to always be a duad: Boom! Which is fine with me, ‘caus I’d have absolutely no problem worshiping Ishtar. Oops! But it says to have no gods before Him! Which I guess is my conundrum with the metaphysical archetypes I’ve inherited from my Judeo-/Xtian culture here? Despite the fact graven images of “divine” lol femaels are simply EVERYWHERE?!
Comment by Kimball L. Hunt — May 29, 2006 @ 11:36 am
Exactly — remember Monotheism, an invention which took the world by storm, was good, flashy, progressive invention for a time, but it’s now time to dig out Ishtar and Isis again.
Isis is coming, and boy is she P*SSED.
Comment by pele — May 29, 2006 @ 1:22 pm
Which He is via Creation.
Isn’t that fun for Heavenly Father! When fertility is applied to him it translates into actual participation in the cosmos, but when fertility is applied to Heavenly Mother it means serving as a divine incubator. Fertility applied to Heavenly Father is code for power; fertility applied to Heavenly Mother means “sensual.”
I just can’t hardly wait to become a sex object for eternity . . .
Comment by Kiskilili — May 29, 2006 @ 8:07 pm
101 - I know to what you refer, but that’s not 100% accurate. But this isn’t the place to discuss it. I understand the questions, but maybe it’s not it’s not what it appears….maybe it’s not the negative thing it’s made out to be.
“No jot, iota, or tittle of the temple rites is otherwise than uplifting and sanctifiying.” (James E. Talmage) If that is true, maybe we need to seek understanding from the Spirit to help us find the beauty in every jot and tittle of the temple ordinances. Questions are good, but only if they lead us to seek the answers in faith from God. The answers may take some time and will most likely come through the Spirit. This is one of the things I will be pondering more the next time I go to the temple. I, too, want to understand this more (I have some thoughts on it, but am sure there is more to it).
Comment by mullingandmusing (m&m) — May 30, 2006 @ 11:00 pm
M&M, It’s clear that we see these things pretty differently, but my question about your Talmage quote is–if that’s the case, why then has the temple ceremony changed over time? The temple ceremony about which he spoke, every iota and jot of which was completely uplifting, is substantially different from what we have today. If it was so perfect, why did prophets of God alter it?
Although I think your heart is in the right place, I also think we get into a lot of trouble when we try to justify the negative things in our religion or faith or history by claiming that they’re “misunderstood” or can be “reinterpreted” to mean precisely the opposite of what they literally say. For one thing, we effectively create obstacles to needed change. For another, we end up nihilistically twisting our language so that it becomes capable of meaning anything–and therefore means nothing. (Witness the Orwellian transformations of “patriarchy” into “equality” and “mother” into “woman” that have occurred over the last few decades.)
The efforts to console women about our subordination sound to me just as condescending as if we’d patted black men on the hand pre-1978 and dug up some kind of bizarre reason they couldn’t have the priesthood–their dark skin was a sign of God’s very special favor that meant they didn’t need it. How embarrassed would we be now if we had attempted these kinds of justifications?
I SWORE I was never going to comment on the temple again, so I’ll stop now before I get in any deeper.
Comment by Eve — May 30, 2006 @ 11:19 pm
The thing I like best about my worldview is that it rescues me from “nihilistically twisting our language” into having no meaning. I’m free to say, “Yep, that’s really unfair, and it sucks. Let’s try and fix it.” Or alternately, if it is beyond our/my power to fix, I can trust that God knows it’s messed up and that He will fix it (or me, or whatever needs fixing) right when He can and not a moment later.
Comment by Starfoxy — May 31, 2006 @ 12:27 am
EVe,
I understand what you are saying. I realize that not everything in the Church is all rosey. But I also think that not everything we think we see is really so. I do not feel subordinate to my husband. I truly feel we are equals. If the subordination of women is really as real and true as you claim it is, then I think a lot more women would feel the way you are describing. I still think that some of the frustration some women feel is not what God wants them to feel, and that suggests that maybe there is a lack of understanding somewhere along the way. Maybe there’s not, and I’m in la-la land. But I am obviously not one to assume that because I’m uncomfortable, that God has done or allowed something wrong. I have had too many experiences in my own life when I had to learn that it was my messed-up perspective causing me problems, and that reality as I had seen it really wasn’t real. I think if we see things with more spiritual eyes, we will be a lot happier. Women feeling subjugated sounds laden with cultural perspective to me, so I don’t jump on that bandwagon. I try to take our current prophets at their word, and they have a pretty awesome view of women. Why not try to take what they say on faith instead of thinking they are just coddling us and twisting words?
Comment by mullingandmusing (m&m) — May 31, 2006 @ 9:34 am
I do not feel subordinate to my husband. I truly feel we are equals. If the subordination of women is really as real and true as you claim it is, then I think a lot more women would feel the way you are describing.
One of the surest signs of subordination is acceptance of being subordinated.
Comment by obi-wan — May 31, 2006 @ 10:09 am
I’m sorry my inner demon came out–I’m working on taming it.
It always comes back to this. This is where we’re just going to have to disagree.
I don’t think we can ever entirely escape our cultural perspective; after all, even prophetic statements are couched in language, an artifact of culture. Both the view that women are subjugated and the view that women are equal to men are “laden with cultural perspective.”
I’d like to take our prophets at their word too, but since they make contradictory statements, I sometimes have trouble figuring out which word to take them at. And I think prophetic statements are subject to philosophical critique.
This is where my hermeneutic differs from many others’ in the church: I think while spiritual impressions can be valuable in conveying truth, I don’t think they give us a magic decoder ring for unlocking meaning from sacred texts. Whether or not I’m happy or comfortable with an interpretation, or whether or not it matches my personal experience with God, is not the best indicator of its validity. I believe this is the case for the very reason that both my ability to interpret and the words of the text themselves are “laden with cultural perspective.”
But you raise an interesting point, that most women don’t feel subordinate; I’m quite convinced our church is genuinely more sexist in theory than it is in practice.
Comment by Kiskilili — May 31, 2006 @ 10:12 am
Kiskilili ,
Interesting. How do you interpret then the concept that the Spirit can tell us “things as they really are”? Do you not think it’s possible for the Spirit to override cultural biases and perspectives? Just wondering….
Comment by mullingandmusing (m&m) — May 31, 2006 @ 11:26 am
Good question. I think we invariably frame religious experience in terms of cultural biases. I don’t know what “truth” means outside of a context. Also, my own experience is that the Spirit usually gives emotional rather than intellectual information; what specific conclusions we draw from that are informed by our culture. I also think the Spirit ordinarily does not come out of the blue, but in response to questions we ask, which are very specifically rooted in our culture.
My point, though, was more that I don’t think either how I understand the Spirit or what makes me happy is a good way of constructing what a text means. Our sacred texts already contradict each other; I doubt any of them adequately captures God’s perspective.
Comment by Kiskilili — May 31, 2006 @ 3:27 pm
Hmmmmm….I have had very clear experiences with the Spirit that were intellectual in nature, so maybe we have had different experiences in that regard.
In your view, what is truth in an eternal context?
This made me think of D&C 93:23-39. Not that I understand what it means, mind you, but it gets to definitions of truth. Something to mull over, perhaps…. (Something I like to do, obviously!)
I agree, at least to a degree, that our sacred texts can’t fully “capture God’s perspective”; however, I tend to think that the Spirit really can give us glimpses beyond the texts to come closer to understanding God’s perspective. I really believe in that.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Comment by mullingandmusing (m&m) — May 31, 2006 @ 5:51 pm
Wow! I just spent over an hour reading and trying to digest the comments on this thread. Some very interesting ideas here. As I was reading, I would think of various things to post, and then discover someone else had covered them beautifully.
As to the questions HeatherP posed in her original post, I really don’t feel a need for a separate connection to MIH. I believe she is an equal half of my Heavenly Parents, and I do look forward to a reunion with both of them, as symbolically presented in “Oh, My Father.” But I am perfectly content to let her be a mystery for me during this extremely brief mortal phase of my existence.
Patti’s comment (#45) struck me as being right on target:
Starfoxy’s ideas are very intriguing. I have no idea how much we knew about what our lives would be like in mortality, but it does seem logical that we knew that there would be plenty of pain, suffering, and injustice–even if we couldn’t comprehend how that would affect us personally. I think that we probably expressed our willingness to go through anything to progress. Most women who want to be mothers are willing to go through any suffering to have a child. Even those who are terribly ill for the whole nine months, usually feel their child is worth the price. Nine months is a short time when measured against a normal earth lifetime, let alone against eternity.
Perhaps the fact that our lives here on earth really are only a small slice of eternity is crucial to this thread. I was quite taken with Stephanie’s (#30) idea:
Comment by RoAnn — May 31, 2006 @ 9:57 pm
IMO, most LDS women don’t worry about many of the things bloggers are exercised over. I have read threads in LDS group blogs (NOT this particular thread, I hasten to point out!) where women expressed extreme frustration and/or anger, intense sorrow, deep agonizing, etc. over some form of perceived subordination or oppression of women in present-day Church practice or doctrine. I was happy to see mullingandmusing articulate my view (#110): we personally, as well as most women in the LDS church, do not feel subordinated now.
Over the years I have lived in 10 countries outside the U.S., and in none of them has this been a concern among the women I have known. In developing countries where the culture is male-dominant, the sisters are delighted that their status as equal partners with men is stressed in the Church: and they seem to be patient in recognizing that it takes time to change cultural traditions. Older male converts may struggle with the tendency to be abusive, but younger ones, or men raised in the church, are usually able to throw off the cultural stereotypes and treat their wives as equals without more than the normal efforts we all expend in reining in “natural man” tendencies. (I think that if we are speaking of emotional and verbal abuse, women are about as likely as men to be abusive in a U.S. home nowadays.)
Recently I spoke with a very intelligent, scholarly Australian sister, and asked her if “women and the priesthood” was a big issue in Australia. She essentially said that as far as she knew, it wasn’t. Someone might lament an individual man’s tendency to be dictatorial, but that was viewed more as a personal failing than as something which sprang from Church teachings.
I tend to think that discussions such as this one about “Mother in Heaven” are mostly confined to intellectually oriented sisters in developed countries, who have access to the opinions (either in person or through the media) of other women who are concerned with what might be termed “LDS Feminist” issues. The fact that I spent so much time at this thread reveals that, even though I don’t identify with sisters who feel subordinated, or who feel the need to know more about MIH, I am interested in reading about other views.
Re things said in the temple: I’m not comfortable commenting very specifically, but I’m with M&M (#100 & 107). Perhaps if temple attendees concentrate on catching all the words of all the covenants, they will no longer think some of the things that are being mentioned (i.e. #101)
Re: M&M’s very interesting question to Kiskilili (#113) “Do you not think it’s possible for the Spirit to override cultural biases and perspectives?” I do believe that God usually reveals truth to us within our cultural perspective, and that is why the temple ceremony has probably been changed for each dispensation (and within dispensations) to make it as understandable as possible. But I think that one of the fundamental purposes of the Gospel is to help us change our cultural perspective from a worldly to a more godly one. As we seek to become like Christ, I think it is some of those flashes of spiritual insight (intellectual information as well as emotional information) which help us stretch and reorient our perspective so that it gradually becomes congruent with God’s perspective.
Comment by RoAnn — May 31, 2006 @ 10:07 pm
I think this thread is dead and gone, but I did want to get on and apologize if I made anyone uncomfortable with (#101). I’m not always entirely sure where my own secret-sacred line of demaraction is, but I really didn’t mean to offend anyone else by overstepping hers. I’ll strive to be more circumspect and considerate in the future.
Comment by Eve — June 3, 2006 @ 4:42 pm
This doesn’t have much to do with this discussion (which seems mostly over, anyway), but the quote above reminded me of a term used in Japanese art: “yugen.” The definition is:
The subtle and the profound.
Yugen is at the core of the appreciation of beauty and art in Japan. It values the power to evoke, rather that the ability to state directly. The principle of Yugen shows that real beauty exists when, through its suggestiveness, only a few words, or few brush strokes, can suggest what has not been said or shown, and hence awaken many inner thoughts and feelings.
Could it be that the Spirit often works through this principle, or something comparable? Just a thought.
Comment by Lis — December 15, 2006 @ 3:45 pm
This is a comment I have placed in here in the past. It was put in a thread that wasn’t really discussing it’s content (see: third base: the hidden sexism in archives, Dec, 2006)
Here it is:
Dana-
I’m from Canada and I miss it:( My mom has had trouble with the male leadership in the church (and in her profession) for a long time. She is intelligent and opinionated and struggled with the idea that just because she was a woman, that meant that her leadership roles in the church were limited. She’s also an NDP in very conservative calgary but that is another dilemma.
But growing up I always knew that that part of the church was not the whole church. Communication with God, temple covenants, and personal revelation are all gender neutral.
I think the wikipedia article was mostly accurate, although I read it quickly. The relief society was very much involved in the suffrage movement and the church didn’t distance itself from the feminist movement until it mean distancing itself from families.
My mom thinks women will get the priesthood someday like non-white males were finally given the priesthood in the 70’s. I personally don’t think so, or rather don’t think that is the point- although I’m still working on what the point is. But I do think the church (not the fundamental principles of the gospel) is ever shifting and changing and things that happen in day to day sacrament meetings and other areas of the church will continue to change and be more led by women. Despite what people say, the church culture is very much affected by the world culture.
ps. where do you live in Canada?
Comment by cory — December 8, 2006 @ 1:00 pm
AND:
Dana,
That question wasn’t rude at all, and it is a very interesting problem. I think we should make it into a larger post/thread of its own. I’m sure lots of women have thoughts on this. I’m a bit devoid of thoughts today.
Comment by fMhLisa — December 8, 2006 @ 1:36 pm
My response! :
Comment by Dana — January 31, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
Dana,
I think that it is the nature of many women to be more timid as opposed to courageous, more cooperative as opposed to competitive, and more nurturing as opposed to protective. I am a returned missionary who served in Pusan, Korea in 1978-79. I was the third non-Korean sister back in that mission after non-Korean sisters were removed because of inability to cope. It was pretty rugged there in 1978 and the foreign sisters couldn’t handle it. Still, I felt at that time that young women should all serve missions — it was such a great experience for me. It has been the foundation of my life.
Later I returned to Seoul, Korea and lived for six years on the Yongsan US Army base. While there I did not meet one man who did not drive “off post” into the streets of Seoul. But I met many, many women who did not. They were frightened. It was then that I came to realize that women are made of different stuff than men. That is one small example but it speaks volumes about men’s and women’s natures. And perhaps it says that the role assignment made by God is not perfect but in most cases very orderly and workable and in keeping with the core needs of each gender.
I cannot imagine turning the tables and having the men serve in auxillaries only and the women running the wards and the stake. Imagine a stake high council with only women!! It is preposterous not because the women couldn’t handle it (in fact I think in most cases things would run smoother than they do now) but the men couldn’t take it. They are competitive and hierachical by nature. Women are much more cooperative and solicitious of others. Also men need their church roles to help them maintain their spirituality which women are more inclined to come by naturally.
I was recently released as the scout committe chairman in my ward. I guess that’s the closest a woman will ever get to leading a group of men in our church. I held the job of 4 years and in all that time I received nothing but cooperation and appreciation from all the men I worked with. The church is set up as it is for order’s sake but that does not mean that Mormon men are male chauvenists. And the ones that are are totally out of order.
I’m a convert of 30+ years and I have been very bothered at times by the male leadership aspect but I guess I have mellowed.
I am not so bothered anymore. And I cannot imagine living my life without the gospel. This minor irritation –ok major once in a while — is a small price to pay for the inner peace and the closess I feel to God.
— Annie And if women ever get the priesthood I will be floored!!
Comment by Annie — February 2, 2008 @ 12:25 am
I just skimmed over a lot of these posts so just yell at me if this has already been discussed. I just have a question I would like input on if I can get any. If the Mormon church still believes that polygamy will be practiced in the afterlife.. then why not assume that we have hundreds of heavenly mothers? Maybe that’s why one hasn’t ever been placed in the God head… there are just too many of them… And wouldn’t this also be another indicator that women are less important than men in this church…?
I’ve always been curious about this. I don’t believe in the church as I left it years ago.. but would like to hear any thoughts please!
Thanks!
Comment by julesb — November 5, 2008 @ 6:58 pm
I’M SURE HEAVENLY MOTHER IS ENTIRELY INVOLVED
I’m sure that our heavenly parents understand everything perfectly and are therefore in complete agreement with each other.
ELOHIM, the NAME of God, actually mean “GODS”. It is plural. THEY ACT AND KNOW ALL THINGS IN COMPLETE UNITY. It is not a question of whether she can “handle” her name being used slanderously, it is it does not have to be that way. Of course she needs him, as much as he needs her. They are inseparable and not in the least degree independent. They would be nothing without each other.
Also, all of you, imagine all the greatest righteous dreams and aspirations you want, and I believe they are probably almost all of those dreams a big part of her exalted existence.
I do believe however, that God the Father acts more as the messenger, the communicator with the Son, who in turn passes the message along to His servants. I believe that Heavenly Mother is at the Father’s side, and she is a part of all that He says and does, but it is he that “acts as voice” you could say, kind of the way that when someone receives a blessing, only one speaks.
Comment by Steve — February 10, 2009 @ 12:20 pm
and IF there are several with him, I fully believe that, as is was done in true polygamy in the early years of the Church, that they are all in their separate spaces, perhaps they are queens and priestesses of their own Universe. Just as in polygamy of the early church, if there were two women to the one man, they were a separate family and a separate household entirely. The man would simply care and attend to both. But separately.
Comment by Steve — February 10, 2009 @ 12:24 pm
I have such a hard time understanding how some women on this site have no problem whatsoever with the idea of polygamy. With all the focus on the family and the relationship between husband and wife, I find it hard to believe that it is part of any eternal plan. People speculate that it’s because there will be more righteous women then men in the celestial kingdom. Do we think that HF is so limited in his ability as to not be able to create the perfect numbers of women and men that it will all flush out equally in the end? I do not believe polygamy was part of the plan at all.
I believe we must have a heavenly mother, because it takes two to create life. But I do not believe we have more than one - or that HF has more than one wife. That idea is actually apaulling to me and actually creeps me out. I have no idea why we don’t know anything about her. I wish we did, because it would give us an example of divine femininity to aspire to. But we don’t.
Comment by Becky — February 17, 2010 @ 1:59 am
Wow, this is a long discussion thread, and it appears to have not been read since Feb 17th.
I have thought about this over and over, especially faced with the World view of women and womanhood. I have gone back and forth on the arguments, even thinking like Starfoxy. We all had a choice when comming down here, but now the veil is drawn. If we really want to know our mother in heaven, we should turn to our father in heaven in earnest prayer. Pray until your heart shows our Heavenly Father you want to know. I as a women believe that knowing my Heavenly Mother will help my progression, but it isn’t the center of my Progression. This is year it has been the back to basics for me: Christ is the center of my life, all other things are appendages unto it. Taking a familiar saying and making it more personal to myself.
I will tell you what I don’t by anymore: The argument that women are somehow demeaned because men speak for us. I don’t believe it, its why I choose not to associate myself (most of the time) with Liberal Feminist ideology. I like reading the debate, but the one thing that brings me unending joy is the Gospel of Christ. Doesn’t mean that I don’t have questions (oh my finite mortal mind has tons of those), just means that Christ is most important. He is the center of my life. He will no doubt lead me to answers and I will share a reference for one of them:
Women of the Old Testament by Camille Fronk Olson. This book has been an answer to many questions and left me with many more, especially as it relates to the Story of Deborah. God answers prayers. Let him answer yours.
Comment by Sarah — April 4, 2010 @ 6:50 pm
Annie’s comment (#121) makes my head hurt. Must stop hitting the wall.
Ah, that makes it all okay. It wasn’t that I cared about sharing my man with anyone else. It is my domestic sphere that I jealously guard. AAUUGH AAUUGGH AAUGGGH! Must stop ripping out my hair!
Comment by Stephanie — May 14, 2010 @ 2:54 pm