289 replies to this topic

[Nofear]

I have long disagreed with female worship where we try to put women on a pedestal there to be awed by men. I also see the pedestal used as a way justifying gender mores that are cultural and not intrinsic (e.g. you're more spiritual and (unspoken) here, do the laundry) as well as to falsely justify gender roles that are institutional (e.g. women are naturally more spiritual so men need the priesthood).

But, gender bias favoring men exists too. Who has not heard somebody say that Priesthood Session in General Conference is always the best session? Or what generated the need to have significant time spent in the Worldwide Leadership training sessions discussing the need for sisters voices to be heard and respected in the councils of the Church?

[SamIam]

Log, on 30 April 2012 - 08:40 AM, said:

</p>
Make of this what you will.

I always appreciate Logs comments and observations. I think they are often not given enough credence.

  

Quote

Brigham Young said:

A few remarks on woman. She is the glory of the man, but she is not at the head in all the creations of God. Pertaining to his children on this earth, she is not accountable for the sins that are in the world. God requires obedience for man, he is Lord of creation, and at his hand the sins of the world will be required. Could the female portions of the human family fully understand this, they would see that they are objects of tender mercy, and greatly blessed. This no doubt on a casual view appears to my sisters a glorious doctrine for them; and some might be tempted in their ignorance to take unwarrantable liberties, corrupt themselves with sin, and then take shelter under the doctrine that man alone is culpable for the sins they commit.

There are, however, restrictions placed upon woman. I will quote a passage of scripture to illustrate this. &quot;And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.&quot; When the crime was thus atoned for, then was she free, and prepared to receive in full the blessings she otherwise would have received had she not committed sin. Women must atone for sins committed by the volition of her own choice, but she will never become an angel to the Devil, and sin so far as to place herself beyond the reach of mercy. She will suffer all that she has strength to suffer according to the venality of her sins.

It always fascinates me how you can share a verse or a scripture from a source that the LDS community claims to sustain as a more probably correct venue of truth than the average members claims to be and it is so casually tossed aside in favor of their personal view.  Of course the main caveat is that that is "his interpretation" or the thought of the most abused statement in my opinion of all in LDS circles "only a prophet when speaking as a prophet..."

While Brigham is here expanding on a prophets perception so many will reduce it too "speaking as a man" or again he in not a prophet unless speaking as such.  For myself I have taken the approach that they or the scriptures are always a superior source of truth than I am until I understand precisely the spirit that provided the inspiration to the prophet speaking in either source.  When I feel I have comprehended that spirit then I feel comfortable speaking from a point of confidence that the ones who want to qualify scriptural or prophetic utterance find very uncomfortable.

I understand what Brigham is speaking to in this instance. It is  not a full treatment of the subject but it is enough that if one really wanted to understand they could do so by furthering their efforts in research and seeking out all of the quotes and scriptures on the subject and letting the spirit guide your understanding.

The temple is the best source but as many things there it is very nuanced.  However the essence of that material and the other material of quotes from general authorities and scripture.

I think Lehi's tree of life vision encapsulates the essence of my feelings.  As you read the journey keep in mind this is a temple imagery and we should see ourselves as Lehi in that he represents Lehi in the temple seeing himself as Adam.

The journey then is described as Adam's journey to partake from the tree of life which was barred him originally after being expelled from the Garden but by virtue of growing spiritually and having the ordinances provided he is prepared to once again partake of the fruit of the tree of life.

Using Lehi as our guide notice that the whole journey is what he sees.  A dark and dreary wilderness and waste,  a journey of many hours, mists of darkness, a rod of iron, others on the same journey, a spacious building and its various influences etc. etc.

Once Lehi finally gets through it all and partakes the fruit he turns around a with energy and desire calls to his family to join him.  In one verse he says that those that were willing &quot;did come unto me and partake of the fruit also&quot;  The chapter does not expand on their journeys through mists of darkness, or rods of iron, or spacious buildings or muddy waters etc.  Why? Because they have been on the journey with him.  In the imagery of an eternal family where the father leads and presides and guides as he is guided by the Lord this whole family has been waiting on the father to get it understood.  If your character and countenance easily recognizes the things of eternity then you join with the presiding priesthood leader who has struggled so and your journey is inclusive in his.  If though, you rebel from the pattern after having been shown the way then you simply have begun a separate journey with your family and wives and children and are as Laman and Lemuel.  Beginning again at the mists of darkness and the whole deal.  Laman and Lemuel are men who represent the collective whole of the journeys their families will be required to take.  Sadly in my life and perhaps many of us may say the same, I have started on the journey without having had the understanding of exactly what path to travel.  My wife and children have been required to travel the path with me, but the pattern is it requires the father to partake and then lead his family.  This isn't an exact pattern but if you wait I will get to the point and it will fit together better as a general rule of how it works.

Sarah's journey to the tree is not described in the vision.  When her husband finally gets there she is simply asked to join him and she does so.  Perfectly in accordance with the first oaths a husband and wife make in the temple.   Up until that moment her journey has been his.  In many cases she has provided the struggle that Lehi had to learn to overcome as in the murmuring when the children don't get back with the plates in time for dinner. For must of us as in their case we don't realize that the burden is different for a man and a women.

A women's nature is such that by virtue of their gender they are more naturally capable of fulfilling their role.  They possess the selflessness to give everything to rearing children.  They are naturally more prone to persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness love unfeigned, and to kindness.  All of the traits that a priesthood holder is required to achieve before he can lay claim to the powers of heaven a women possesses as a function of their very nature in their roles of wives and mothers.  

However, a man's role, which it requires those same talents, is a role of presiding.  He is born to this privilege as much linked to his gender as a mothers is to hers.  However, as the verses point out the risk of being at the top of the food chain per se is that it will go to their head, and sadly "as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they begin to exercise unrighteous dominion".

We as men seem to have a nature that is not so well attuned to the demands of heaven and instead we must plod the journey of a dark and dreary wilderness and waste,  a journey of many hours, mists of darkness, a rod of iron, others on the same journey, a spacious building and its various influences etc. etc. All the while subduing our natural tendency to abuse our role while all the while our wives are waiting.  And yes sometimes by the very design of God we may see them as the very obstacle that we have to kick against to reach our objectives of persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness love unfeigned, and to kindness.

What better way to subdue our nature than to be challenged from time to time to be quite and listen, to be nurturing and patient when our wives are excited and anxious, to moderate the peace in our home by being a stable flow that calms and directs as opposed to intimidates and demands.  We can as we all know intimidate - we tend to be bigger more powerful and stronger and louder and more resistant to emotional attacks and more insensitive.  We can cultivate that instead but these types are more inclined to grab a chain saw and chop down that tree of life rather than partake of its fruit.

I have recently begun to recognize that a woman's status after the fall was not what we all focus on - she partakes of the fruit and so she gets the number two position - this is a mistaken perception. It is a temporary condition that will not always be so in the way we perceive it at this time that is strictly designed to somewhat slow her down just a touch to not lead out and get things done faster than her husband can figure out what needs to be done.  In the long run for me, it is not that women are more righteous than men but simply that the righteous men that are worthy of righteous women are fewer in number.  As well I feel that they are righteous in different ways that complement the thought of two halves being as one whole.

He has to learn to preside, and in order to fulfill God's commandment to multiply and replenish the eternities he has to get it figured and in the right order - while she waits and waits and waits.  And if she waits too long then as the men are warned she will still have been true to her nature and she will be given to another who is worthy and has learned to properly preside in the eternities. Then someone else will benefit from the natural blessing it is to be a women whose very nature aspires to heaven, whose very heart beats to the rhythm of a Goddess and whose spirit waits to soar with a God to preside at her side.  However, many more men will fail to learn the duties of their role while women so naturally fulfill theirs. And while these men are called, they will not be chosen and their wives need only wait so long before they will wait no more but shall have the restraints of this mortal existence burst to appear in the glory of the chosen they have become.  It will feel better in the long run if we as men don't make them wait too long...

Edited by SamIam, 30 April 2012 - 12:36 PM.

[TruthSeeker24]

Bluntly put, yes, I do believe women are generally more righteous than men. I also believe there are a lot more righteous women than there are men. I do not believe women are held accountable to the degree than men are, as stated by Brigham Young in an earlier post to this thread. Yes, I believe women tend to be more loving and charitable as well. However, that is not to say that there are men who are just as righteous. My only argument would be in the general sense of it. Basically, there are MORE righteous women, and women do tend to be better than men in regards to morality and love. But there are men who are just as loving and righteous as the best of women, if not more. I do find it annoying that LDS men tend to place a huge emphasize on how great women are compared to men, as I do not believe that women SHOULD be better, and it usually feels like the guy saying it is only saying it to make himself appear humble. I hope I don't offend anyone for saying this, but I believe a man should be more righteous than his wife. I think men in general are poorly depicted in the media. In cartoons, they are usually blubbering idiots, and in magazines and pop culture, their sex craved individuals who can't take 2 seconds to get their mind off their rock hard 6 pack abs. Masculinity today is almost dead as far as I'm concerned. I do appreciate the question that this thread poses, as it seeks to keep everyone in a lowly state and humble, but at the same time, I can't help but feel that women are generally more righteous than men.

[Nofear]

In a similar vein, I suppose we ought to be careful not to confuse a greater ability to be empathetic and sympathetic (which does appear to be a gender distinction) with being more charitable and loving.

[wenglund]

LDS_RM, on 30 April 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

I believe this false teaching about genders, spirituality, and priesthood came about because a natural person was usurping the place of God in order to conjure an answer to a question only God can answer.

Ironically, your post is a case in point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Valentinus]

I like what Margaret Merrill Toscano said:

Quote

If a church's primary duty is to promulgate the gospel of Jesus Christ, which asserts that each soul is equally precious in God's eyes, it is important to question any policies that contravene or offend this principle.

The full article can be found here:

Are Boys More Important Than Girls?

Edited by Valentinus, 30 April 2012 - 01:45 PM.

[BlueDreams]

mercyngrace, on 30 April 2012 - 07:37 AM, said:

Do you believe that women are innately smarter, more charitable, and more spiritual than men?

What authoritative evidence validates your position (statements by GAs, scriptures, etc, not anecdotes)?

Have you heard this sentiment expressed in church by others to the extent that it may indicate a widespread belief?

No to the first.
To the second, I think it's misconstruing women's role and a form of biological determinism that focuses on attributes women "naturally" have that are linked to spirituality: Things like meekness, gentleness, love unfeigned, long-suffering, persuasion, charity, etc....ironically all attributes linked to the rights of the priesthood and access to the powers of heaven. Various points like, for example Holland's beautiful talk None Were With Him, that emphasizes women staying as near to the Savior as they could, the fact that women don't hold the priesthood, or the dirth of information/recent conversation on Heavenly Mother are then reinterpreted to fit preconceived notions of women.
To the third: Yes, I've heard it before, especially when I was in young women's. The bishop or counselors would come in to give a special lesson and without fail mention how great and amazing and astoundingly (more) spiritual women were. A great and long list of how stellar we all were just because of our gender. It would also entail some form of self deprication on the character of men to emphasize the point. Worked well for me and my since of pride, I'll tell you that. Who doesn't want to be an inch closer to perfection? But it's wrong. It's false doctrine....after all are we not all beggars? We all just sin differently. And I think this false idea is dangerous for a number of reasons for both men and women.
- It excuses men's behavior in the whole "boys will be boys" attitude....they can't help themselves
- Like I mentioned, it worked well for my sense of pride. A lot of my own faults were missed because they weren't really discussed. Did I have problems, was I more spiritual? No. I was just as fallen as the next gal or guy. The patterns of the gospel are universally applied.
- Personally, Because these traits like meekness, gentleness, or submissive were feminized while other traits like leader, directness, boldness were masculinized I took the former to be weak and closer to glorified doormats. The pennacle of my divine being was so sacred that I couldn't be mentioned or learned about among my fallen children??? I was constantly in need of being protected from the awful nasties of the world??? It's not in my nature to sit in the background and let someone else do the dirty work. These virtues sounded incapable of doing anything. And because of that I became allergic to them and did not want them attributed to myself. Submissive especially became synonymous to silent wimp. Because of that I lost out for a long time on very important traits in order to have actual God-given power as oppsed to the worldly ones these ideal are based from.
- Women who deal with the other end of pride...ie. self-deprication and inability to ever see any good in themselves also suffer from this. That ideal woman is forever never them. If most women are more spiritual and they're not, what does that make them with their darker hidden struggles? When they make a visible mistake the fall from the pedastal is especially bad compared to the similar problem from a man.
- Women lose out on their accountability and men are overburdened with it
- It continues some form a spiritual hierarchy among men an women...where only outside help (ie. the priesthood) gives men even a fighting chance. It's a false sense of "equality" that often comes from this. We are to be equally yoked. One is not to be above or below another. Both are to equally be empowered, submit their wills, and depend upon the Lord. Both are equally needed in private and public spheres to best fulfill the plan of our Lord.


With luv,
BD

[Mark Beesley]

mercyngrace, on 30 April 2012 - 07:37 AM, said:

Do you believe that women are innately smarter, more charitable, and more spiritual than men?

Some women are smarter than some men.  Some men are smarter than some women.
Some women are more charitable than some men.  Some men are more charitable than some women.
Some women are more spiritual than some men.  Some men are more spiritual than some women.

I'd be careful about making any serious generalization about such things.  (I think  you should send your e-mail, with a copy to the Stake President.)

[Analytics]

Mark Beesley, on 30 April 2012 - 02:17 PM, said:

Some women are smarter than some men.  Some men are smarter than some women.
Some women are more charitable than some men.  Some men are more charitable than some women.
Some women are more spiritual than some men.  Some men are more spiritual than some women.

All righteous men are qualified to hold the priesthood. No righteous woman is qualified.

As to unintended consequences, as time goes by, this will seem quainter and quainter.  It will be a bigger and bigger stumbling block to progressive thinking members. The continuation of this policy will ensure speculation and pseudo-doctrinal explanations persist.  And the church will be hurt whenever the person who is best suited to fill a given leadership role is disqualified because of gender.

[wenglund]

BlueDreams, on 30 April 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

Like I mentioned, it worked well for my sense of pride.

I think this is an important point to consider, though I would phrase it somewhat differently. I don't know about anyone else, but I have known a lot of women, young and old, throughout my life who have struggled with their sense of self and self-worth. It is really disheartening to see. In such cases, I am not sure it is such a bad thing to share with them areas in which they may be superior.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund, 30 April 2012 - 04:36 PM.

[Peppermint Patty]

Mercy,

Great OP. I don't think women are more spiritual than men. However, women are more religious than men in the LDS faith. More women than men are being converted and are active members.

This gender gap is growing.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Peppermint Patty, on 30 April 2012 - 04:12 PM, said:

More women than men are being converted and are active members.

This gender gap is growing.

Do you have stats to back this up, Patty? All I have is personal experience, but, in my mission, we baptised two men for every woman. I served in a ward where the ward mission leader and each ward missionary had a non-member wife. The last two branches I belonged to were heavily weighted against women, with the ratio in the first of them five men for every two women. In my current ward, we've had three people convert in the past twelve months, two of them men, and we have a convert baptism scheduled for tonight--another man.

[wenglund]

Analytics, on 30 April 2012 - 03:11 PM, said:

All righteous men are qualified to hold the priesthood. No righteous woman is qualified.

So? Hopefully you aren't going to make the mistake of assuming this somehow makes men better than women.

Quote

As to unintended consequences, as time goes by, this will seem quainter and quainter. It will be a bigger and bigger stumbling block to progressive thinking members. The continuation of this policy will ensure speculation and pseudo-doctrinal explanations persist. And the church will be hurt whenever the person who is best suited to fill a given leadership role is disqualified because of gender.

This isn't progressive thinking. It is a throw-back to inanity of the 70's where there was a push to eliminate the lines of healthy gender diversity, which merely served to elevate the worst in both sexes. It is time to retire the headbands and tie-die shirts and unisex buttons and join the 21st century where women can be real women and men can be real men, thus heightening the attraction of each to the other--which, in case you didn't get the memo, is ultimately why there are two sexes,

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mark Beesley]

Analytics, on 30 April 2012 - 03:11 PM, said:

As to unintended consequences, as time goes by, this will seem quainter and quainter.

Perhaps to some.  Probably not to most of the faithful.

Quote

It will be a bigger and bigger stumbling block to progressive thinking members.

Only to the ones who want to substitute their wisdom for that of the Lord . . . that's called pride, and that has always been a stumbling block. So, nothing new or progressive there.

Quote

The continuation of this policy will ensure speculation and pseudo-doctrinal explanations persist.

Perhaps for some.  For some of us, it is enough to leave things in the hands of the Lord.

Quote

And the church will be hurt whenever the person who is best suited to fill a given leadership role is disqualified because of gender.

The Church won't be hurt, only some individual members who have not learned to submit their will to that of the Lord.

I wonder how many temple recommend holding women in the Church have an issue with not being able to be ordained to the Priesthood and serve as a Bishop or Stake President, I mean, really, those are such lucrative jobs.  

[Peppermint Patty]

Hamba Tuhan, on 30 April 2012 - 04:30 PM, said:

Do you have stats to back this up, Patty?  

Hi, Hamba.  Here is an article that discusses the growing gender gap in the LDS Church.  On a side note, in the last 20 years, I have lived in 4 different Wards and 2 Branches.  In all of these units, the women outnumbered the men (3 to 1 in one of my Branches).

http://www.sltrib.co...mormon.html.csp

[Hamba Tuhan]

Thanks, PP. I note two things: 1) The study is about 'Mormons in the United States'. 2) Whilst the gender gap seems to have grown in Utah between 1990 and 2008, 'the male-to-female ratio actually narrowed somewhat in most of the nation' during the same period.

[Duncan]

Hamba Tuhan, on 30 April 2012 - 05:20 PM, said:

Thanks, PP. I note two things: 1) The study is about 'Mormons in the United States'. 2) Whilst the gender gap seems to have grown in Utah between 1990 and 2008, 'the male-to-female ratio actually narrowed somewhat in most of the nation' during the same period.

Also Julia Duin's book about Quitting Church supports the idea that women attend Church more then men and also a book entitled, "Why Men Hate Church" supports the idea

[mercyngrace]

I think it'd be presumptuous to equate hating/quitting church with being less spiritual.

Edited by mercyngrace, 30 April 2012 - 06:06 PM.

[mfbukowski]

Nevermind.

I need to read more before posting!

Edited by mfbukowski, 30 April 2012 - 05:59 PM.

[LDSToronto]

Bob Crockett, on 30 April 2012 - 10:29 AM, said:

I am not willing to rule out a "yes." it seems there are more female college students than men. I suspect that standardized college board tests show no significant differences, but I also suspect that more women then men take those tests. My eyeball experience in small branches and large wards is that more women attend church than men, in the LDS Church. My anecdotal experience as a one-time local church leader is that divorced women are much more likely to attend services than divorced men, and that in homes where one spouse is a member and the other is not, it is much more likely that the female will attend church services when she is the LDS member, as opposed to the male attending when he's the member. When I cast my eyeballs into Catholic churches in California, Mexico and Brazil, I see lots more women in mass and heading to confessionals than men. When I eyeball evangelical services in the U.S., I see way more women in the services than men. As far as charitable is concerned, I have no eyeball experience.

Church attendance does not indicate spirituality.

H.