25 replies to this topic

[Peppermint Patty]

This is a woman’s response to recent threads by Bill Hamblin and William Schryver regarding the importance of the historicity of the Book of Mormon.   In my experience, issues such as whether or not The Book of Mormon is historic, debates about geography and DNA are just not that important to most LDS women and certainly not the reasons why they believe in The Book of Mormon or attend Church.

Some interesting facts.  Despite women comprising over 60% of the membership of the Church, the  majority of FAIR Conference attendees and contributors of FAIR/FARMS are men.  Is it possible that LDS women are just not as interested in these subjects as men?  Is it possible that women join and stay in the LDS Church for entirely different reasons than men?

Much research attests to the idea that women are more religious than men, hold their beliefs more firmly, practice their faith more consistently, and work more vigorously for the congregation.  Some contend that women are socialized to be nurturing and submissive, qualities that make religious acceptance and commitment more likely.  Similarly, some social scientists argue that the role of the mother subsumes religiousness, since it involves such activities as teaching the children morality and caring for the physical and spiritual welfare of other family members. Some contend that religious belief is more of an emotional thing than a cognitive thing, and that this explains the disparity.

Whatever the reasons, most LDS women that I know are not really concerned about whether or not the BoM is historical.  I have never met an LDS woman who read the BoM and told me that it was a wonderful history book, or frankly was interested in its historicity, DNA or geography.  LDS women will tell you the reason they love the book of Mormon is because of how it makes them feel.  They are not too interested in the historic details, or even if there are any.  I highly doubt that most LDS would have any problem whatsover accepting an inspired Book of Mormon rather than a historic.

In my experience, one of the main reasons women attend Church more than men is that  it allows them to focus on achieving personal connections and avoiding social isolation, to feel connected to others. In my LDS experience, women are more emotional and men are more analytical.  It is possible that women have a more emotional approach to The Book of Mormon and men have a more analytical approach.

If you don’t believe me, then please feel free to attend the next Relief Society meeting.  

Just my 2cents.  Thoughts?

[Duncan]

Peppermint Patty, on 19 August 2012 - 02:29 PM, said:

This is a woman’s response to recent threads by Bill Hamblin and William Schryver regarding the importance of the historicity of the Book of Mormon.   In my experience, issues such as whether or not The Book of Mormon is historic, debates about geography and DNA are just not that important to most LDS women and certainly not the reasons why they believe in The Book of Mormon or attend Church.

Some interesting facts.  Despite women comprising over 60% of the membership of the Church, the  majority of FAIR Conference attendees and contributors of FAIR/FARMS are men.  Is it possible that LDS women are just not as interested in these subjects as men?  Is it possible that women join and stay in the LDS Church for entirely different reasons than men?

Much research attests to the idea that women are more religious than men, hold their beliefs more firmly, practice their faith more consistently, and work more vigorously for the congregation.  Some contend that women are socialized to be nurturing and submissive, qualities that make religious acceptance and commitment more likely.  Similarly, some social scientists argue that the role of the mother subsumes religiousness, since it involves such activities as teaching the children morality and caring for the physical and spiritual welfare of other family members. Some contend that religious belief is more of an emotional thing than a cognitive thing, and that this explains the disparity.

Whatever the reasons, most LDS women that I know are not really concerned about whether or not the BoM is historical.  I have never met an LDS woman who read the BoM and told me that it was a wonderful history book, or frankly was interested in its historicity, DNA or geography.  LDS women will tell you the reason they love the book of Mormon is because of how it makes them feel.  They are not too interested in the historic details, or even if there are any.  I highly doubt that most LDS would have any problem whatsover accepting an inspired Book of Mormon rather than a historic.

In my experience, one of the main reasons women attend Church more than men is that  it allows them to focus on achieving personal connections and avoiding social isolation, to feel connected to others. In my LDS experience, women are more emotional and men are more analytical.  It is possible that women have a more emotional approach to The Book of Mormon and men have a more analytical approach.

If you don’t believe me, then please feel free to attend the next Relief Society meeting.  

Just my 2cents.  Thoughts?

I lost a bet once to the RS Pres. in YSA and had to attend and teach RS but I am watching Wrath of Khan so I will have to get back to you about your points

[Brant Gardner]

Peppermint Patty, on 19 August 2012 - 02:29 PM, said:

In my experience, issues such as whether or not The Book of Mormon is historic, debates about geography and DNA are just not that important to most LDS women and certainly not the reasons why they believe in The Book of Mormon or attend Church.

I am certainly in no position to speak for women, so I'm treading lightly here. I suspect that you are correct, and that women in general have a different religious experience than do men. I have seen it in a number of modern as well as ancient contexts (at least plausibly different).

From personal experience, I know that I have often found some thing little thing in the Book of Mormon that is absolutely fascinating (to me) from a historical or anthropological perspective, and when I explain it to my wife she patiently responds; "so who would care?" I have learned not to expect validation from her.

Quote

Much research attests to the idea that women are more religious than men, hold their beliefs more firmly, practice their faith more consistently, and work more vigorously for the congregation.

And from what i have seen employ religious beliefs in a more concrete social fashion. Religion becomes part of the way that women care for loved ones. They are more often those lighting the candles or performing rights that invoke the divine for someone's benefit.

Quote

Whatever the reasons, most LDS women that I know are not really concerned about whether or not the BoM is historical.  I have never met an LDS woman who read the BoM and told me that it was a wonderful history book, or frankly was interested in its historicity, DNA or geography.  LDS women will tell you the reason they love the book of Mormon is because of how it makes them feel.  They are not too interested in the historic details, or even if there are any.  I highly doubt that most LDS would have any problem whatsover accepting an inspired Book of Mormon rather than a historic.

This description certainly fits my wife. In my case, of course, I not only find questions of history interesting, I find that I am compelled by the--not as a means of establishing or increasing faith, but as an aspect of understanding. I simply understand the people in the text better if I comprehend them in a real place and time.

My wife is much more concerned with the living.

[Sis W.]

I agree with most of PP"s points---but I believe that the reason most women are not concerned with the historicity of the BOM is that they are absolutely certain that Nephi, Moroni, Abinadi, Mormon and, heaven forbid, Abish, are real people--to believe otherwise is unthinkable---so why discuss it?

[robuchan]

I don't want to be sexist, but I think the premise in the OP is true.

Whatever it is about men that make them more likely to go into geeky type careers such as programmers, engineers, etc, the same thing makes men more likely to gravitate to the analytical side of the church's truth claims.

[calmoriah]

I would agree as well.  However, I don't know if this is something inherent in women or the result of cultural influence.

I am very analytical myself, so are all of the women in my family.  And all of us have a hard time in RS.  Don't know if this is something genetic or environmental.

Edited by calmoriah, 19 August 2012 - 03:48 PM.

[Libs]

Great post, PP.  I think you're onto something.

[juliann]

I think you have to be very careful to differentiate between historicity and authenticity because almost all LDS women would care about authenticity....and authenticity does rely on historicity.   If you mean scholarly and academic details,  I think few LDS care regardless of gender.  The problem with making generalizations about this is that those academic details have not been integrated into teachings on the BOM as they have with the Bible.   As an aside,  we watched a video in GD today about Capt. Moroni battling Lamanites and I got a kick out of seeing a mash up of leopard skin,  Aztec headdress and the studded "sword", the name I forget, metal helmet,  and all sorts of displaced historical tidbits,  all while they were running through a mountain forest with pine trees and aspen that looked suspiciously like a Utah canyon.

As for the majority of FAIR conference attendees being male,  I'm not sure that is true anymore.   It certainly was in the early years and it remains true for FAIR membership.

[CV75]

Peppermint Patty, on 19 August 2012 - 02:29 PM, said:

Whatever the reasons, most LDS women that I know are not really concerned about whether or not the BoM is historical.  I have never met an LDS woman who read the BoM and told me that it was a wonderful history book, or frankly was interested in its historicity, DNA or geography.  LDS women will tell you the reason they love the book of Mormon is because of how it makes them feel.  They are not too interested in the historic details, or even if there are any.  I highly doubt that most LDS would have any problem whatsover accepting an inspired Book of Mormon rather than a historic.

After all, "history" is "his story"...

[altersteve]

CV75, on 19 August 2012 - 05:17 PM, said:

After all, "history" is "his story"...

I lol'd. Well done.

[volgadon]

CV75, on 19 August 2012 - 05:17 PM, said:

After all, "history" is "his story"...

You mean "his tory." Sorry, the glibe and preposterous "his story" is a pet peeve of mine.

[blackstrap]

volgadon, on 19 August 2012 - 05:30 PM, said:

You mean "his tory." Sorry, the glibe and preposterous "his story" is a pet peeve of mine.

Must be a Canadian thing . ( some of you will get it )

[wayfarer]

In chinese thinking the yang is the white, dominant, male, creative (as in creating the earth), the powerful, the aggresive.  The yin is the black, the receptive, famale, diligent, etc.  While men tend toward yang and women yin, there are many different attributes in humanity, and stereotyping doesn't really work.  The curch cultivates in men a type of male dominance hierarchy (in greek, a high priest is called a hierarch -- it's where we get the word hierarchy -- from priesthood) which at times manifests itself, as Joseph Smith predicted, in a type of dominance game between people.  Not all historians, obviously are male, but historians who want to defend mormonism through aggressive tactics -- they do tend to be male.

[calmoriah]

juliann, on 19 August 2012 - 04:43 PM, said:

As for the majority of FAIR conference attendees being male,  I'm not sure that is true anymore.   It certainly was in the early years and it remains true for FAIR membership.

There were a number of women signing up for the live stream, can't remember the specific number, but wouldn't be surprised if it was pretty closely divided genderwise.

[calmoriah]

blackstrap, on 19 August 2012 - 06:07 PM, said:

Must be a Canadian thing . ( some of you will get it )

I did, I did.

[Evangeline]

I agree with juliann.  I would personally be very hesitant making these kinds of generalizations.  As a female, I have analytical AND emotional qualities.  I am interested in history, science, math, and other academic subjects.  I was a "geek" in school growing up.  Although I have chosen to focus on mothering my children at this point in time, I have never given up my pursuit of learning.  I would be very miserable if I did.  In the context of the church, I am very interested in historical aspects related to the Book of Mormon, and my membership in the church is not based primarily on the need for social connection or other emotional reasons.  I love the Book of Mormon for more than just how it makes me feel.  Perhaps it's possible I'm in the minority, but I really can't say for sure.  I'm just not sure if it is a good idea to compartmentalize men and women like this.

Edited by Evangeline, 19 August 2012 - 07:41 PM.

[calmoriah]

Quote

Perhaps it's possible I'm in the minority, but I really can't say for sure.  Compartmentalizing men and women like this bothers me a great deal, actually.

It is possible that female geeks just don't talk about their geekiness as much as male geeks do, thus it seems like our numbers are less than they really are.  In the past, it was a noted cultural trend that girls were encouraged to downplay their intelligence so as not to intimidate men.  Not sure if that is still prevalent, at least in the States.

Edited by calmoriah, 19 August 2012 - 07:45 PM.

[Duncan]

me little sister is an engineer and has three little boys so she is both analytical and emotional as she mothers her little scream team

[calmoriah]

It is silly, imo, to suggest that someone who is analytical can't be seen as 'emotional' as well or that emotional is seen as a negative quality when everyone is emotional (unless they have some extreme psychological dysfunction), just some are more expressive about it than others.

Edited by calmoriah, 19 August 2012 - 08:02 PM.

[Libs]

Generalizations can be true, even though there may be many exceptions.

I do think women process things differently, generally speaking, which doesn't mean that we don't have both the analytical, as well as the emotional sides. Its just a matter of which is more predominate (which can vary, of course, in both men and women).  On a continuum, I think women lean more towards the nurturing/intuitive/emotional side and men more towards the analytical, logical side of things.  On that continuum, there may be many women leaning more towards the analytical side, and many men leaning more towards the intuitive/emotional side.  But, generally, speaking, you will probably have somewhat of a division between men and women.

Edited by Libs, 19 August 2012 - 08:08 PM.