Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JAHS

Mormon men are groomed not to listen to women

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

No offense, but I don't tend to listen to bloggers of any gender.

yeah, me too, which is why I did not read your post.

 

;)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

 

My comment was on where, historically,  the focus of the father and mother has been.  I didn’t mean to convey that the two roles are mutually exclusive.

 I know that as a father, I’ve never believed my efforts to provide temporally for my family were anywhere near as important as my role in nurturing my children, even though my nurturing efforts have always paled in comparison to those of my wife.

I agree with the idea that fathers and mothers are both deemed by God to be important in the family but don’t believe God places equal value on temporal and nurturing efforts.

 

Just to help ensure we're talking about the same thing, here is what I found as the definition of temporal: relating to worldly as opposed to spiritual affairs; secular.

Do you believe men who have priesthood callings to serve God and their children are able to bless their children with spiritual blessings?  And that women are also able to provide spiritual blessings as well as doing the more mundane, temporal things they do to raise children?

In the Church I see that both men and women are active in giving their children both temporal and spiritual blessings, with both parents providing both types of blessings.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

yeah, me too, which is why I did not read your post.

 

;)

 

Haha I'd last about 10 seconds as a blogger :) !!!

 

Share this post


Link to post

IIRC there is no such thing as a temporal law of heaven.

In today's atmosphere it is not wise for men and women to ' get to know' each other too much. Men can bond with other men , women can bond with other women, but put 20 men and 20 women together in an activity, let's say a local community playhouse production, and biology will stick its little nose in where ever it can and … well I've seen the sad results myself. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, strappinglad said:

IIRC there is no such thing as a temporal law of heaven.

In today's atmosphere it is not wise for men and women to ' get to know' each other too much. Men can bond with other men , women can bond with other women, but put 20 men and 20 women together in an activity, let's say a local community playhouse production, and biology will stick its little nose in where ever it can and … well I've seen the sad results myself. 

I could use a little more of biology sticking its nose in.

My best friend and the person I trust the most in the world is a married woman. Why would this be a problem?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Ahab said:

The overall tone of what someone is saying is important, I think. So important, I think, that if one can spot a mean spirited tone in what someone else is saying, some hostility or desire to just complain about something, that it becomes very easy to just ignore EVERYTHING that person is saying.  And I would even say that not only is it easy to ignore someone who is talking that way but that it is also good to just ignore them when they are talking that way, maybe while saying to them, if the opportunity presents itself, that I will listen when they calm down and are not just going on in their mean spirited way.

All of us have weaknesses that we need to overcome but that doesn't mean we need to hear about so and so's weaknesses.  I get tired of hearing people complain pretty dang quick when I can actually hear that mean spirited tone in what they are saying.

If people want to be heard they should speak in a way that other people don't mind listening to what they are saying.

Actually, I have met her (at a conference at UVU this year), and Jana is very nice in person.  Even funny.  She got on her high horse in this article, perhaps exhibiting a mood she was in.  Who knows?

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, JAHS said:

Here is Jana Riess' evidence:

...................

I responded at RNS in the comments section as follows:

Quote

Jana has taken only the most extreme interpretation of events as her base, and speculated on many others. A more even-handed approach might have been to separate out ecclesiastical judgment from the criminal justice system (to which some her complaints do not apply).-- a system which she did not deign to even consider. After all, Bur**** and Murdock are merely being tried for their membership in the LDS Church by a high council. Jana apparently confuses that with any criminal trials which take place, and which are likely to see these men sentenced to prison and to a life as registered sex offenders. She has rendered judgment before the fact and found an entire male priesthood at fault. I am personally offended, not only because I have spent many more years than Jana as an active feminist, but because I am an LDS HP who considers women his equal in every respect -- aside from the fact that my fellow male priesthood holders in fact generally hold women in very high esteem and do not look down on them.

The main point which should have been made about my friend, Dr Lavina Fielding Anderson, should have been that her professional and well-researched report on actions by the Brethren should not have been punished as a violation of her covenant not to speak ill of the Brethren, but should have been left in abeyance -- as are most news reports by investigative journalists. If the well-known statement by Elder Oaks that one may not say something bad about the Brethren, even if true, that would invalidate all standard news reportage and scholarly research by faithful LDS professionals. In fact it was only applied selectively to her. As Pres Uchtdorf said, Mistakes have been made.

Jana's final error in her hit piece is in making this-worldly decisions final. Free agency applies here and hereafter. The LDS focus on proxy temple covenants for everyone, and acceptance or rejection by everyone, belies her simplistic notion that everything (including marriages) are set in stone for hapless female victims.

A social anthropological and phenomenological approach might have helped her avoid these misunderstandings.

 

Edited by Robert F. Smith
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, JAHS said:

Here is Jana Riess' evidence:

"This is unacceptable, but not surprising, for three sad reasons.

The first is due to ingrained structural sexism. In the Church, men exist in entirely homosocial corridors of power. They rarely attend meetings with women or girls, and never with women as equal partners. They do not have to listen to women at church as anything but merely advisory voices if they listen to women at all, though many do choose to listen and go out of their way to correct the imbalance.

I’m sorry to be so blunt about it, but there is no way around the reality: Women do not lead men in this church. Ever. Women do not even lead teenage boys in this church. Starting from at least the age of 12, if not earlier, men are conditioned at church to see women as ancillary to decision making.

It’s not surprising that, given this reality, male Church leaders are more likely to believe male perpetrators then they are female victims.

It’s a trust issue. It is human nature that when we are presented with cold, hard facts about a person we have counseled with, served with, and sat with for many hours in meetings, our knee-jerk reaction is to discredit anything bad about them. We want to continue believing that this person is exactly what we thought they were: the affable and loving bishop, the kind-hearted and funny member of stake high council. When the accused are people we know personally, seeing their names in connection with degrading stories of sexual abuse and predatory misconduct does not compute.

This is why the system is entirely stacked against women. It’s not just that women are not permitted to make decisions that affect anyone but other women and perhaps children in the LDS Church (and even then, such decisions must always be approved by male priesthood leaders). It’s also that women simply do not have the access to decision-makers that men do. When Stephen Murdock comes before a disciplinary council on charges of sexual misconduct, which I fully expect will happen, it will be the exact stake high council he served on, with the same men deciding his fate. Men who know him well.

The second sad reality is related. All Latter-day Saints, both men and women, are counseled to obey their leaders. To do so is considered a blessing. We are instructed that the Lord himself called our bishops, stake presidents, and general authorities to the positions they hold, and it is not our place to question them. Such a system is at great risk for abuse. It’s interesting to me that both Steven Murdock and Paul Bur**** were arrested when charges were brought by women and girls who were not, to my knowledge at least, members of the Church. Is this because the men never perpetrated acts of abuse on fellow members, or because Latter-day Saint women and girls had been so conditioned by a culture of obeying male authority and protecting the institution of the Church that they dared not speak the truth?

Finally, our religion has a long and unfortunate history of regarding women as objects. Polygamy is no longer practiced, but it has also never been refuted. Its legacy lives on in temple sealing practices that require divorced or bereaved women to have their first marriage “canceled” before they can remarry in the temple; men are under no such obligation."

What this means in practice is that a man may look forward to an eternity in which all of the women who married him monogamously in life become polygamists in the afterlife. Their consent to this, it seems, is unimportant—which suggests that Mormon men expect that even in the eternities, their decisions about women will still be more important than women’s decisions about themselves.

_________________________________________

In my experience Bishops very much listen to and use the advice of the female leaders of the church. They also very much listen to the voice of their own wife. 
Some of it are valid observations but I think she is over exaggerating things a bit too much.
 

Seldom do I read such utterly stupid nonsense posing as intelligent thought. She lost me on the first first two paragraphs for its sheer misandrist drivel and Feminist code words. Next...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Meet my Mum and two sisters and see what happens if you don't listen to them👻👻👻

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And besides wives, whom we never consult, none of us have mothers and so we learned nothing from them and find them without any authority and consequently have no respect for them.

 

 

Ya, a bishop might listen to his mom or wife, or maybe not.  It depends.  That is the point of the blog.  Women never are in a leadership role.  Any kind of "consulting" is always informal, if at all.  Back 2000 plus years ago when the bronze age nomadic tribe we now call this Israelites started writing stuff down, women had no say in anything.  In fact, they could get stoned for even trying. Therefore the religion they created reflected it.  Fast forward to the 19th century American society. Women were still second class citizens. They couldn't even vote.  And religions, including the new Mormon religion reflected this. Now (finally) things are changing is society.  Equal rights, and equal opportunity are no longer just wishes.  Strides are being made made to make them a reality.  Even some religions are starting to change their thinking.  Women clergy are not uncommon in many churches.   However, instead of being a progressive leader, our church is still stuck in 19th century thinking.  Utah continues to have a dismal record of gender wage inequality.  

Edited by sunstoned

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Ahab said:

Oh, that's just what she thinks.  I never pay much attention to anything she has to say.  I don't think any Mormon boys or men should look to her as the one we need to follow.

You are in luck because Mormon boys and men don't have to look to or follow any women.  Its not allowed.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Duncan said:

Meet my Mum and two sisters and see what happens if you don't listen to them👻👻👻

Until recently your mum and two sisters would not be allowed to give the closing prayer sacrament meeting because of their gender.  They still cannot hold most leadership positions in the ward/stake/church.  How is this okay?  

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Ya, a bishop might listen to his mom or wife, or maybe not.  It depends.  That is the point of the blog.  Women never are in a leadership role.  Any kind of "consulting" is always informal, if at all.  Back 2000 plus years ago when the bronze age nomadic tribe we now call this Israelites started writing stuff down, women had no say in anything.  In fact, they could get stoned for even trying. Therefore the religion they created reflected it.  Fast forward to the 19th century American society. Women were still second class citizens. They couldn't even vote.  And religions, including the new Mormon religion reflected this. Now (finally) things are changing is society.  Equal rights, and equal opportunity are no longer just wishes.  Strides are being made made to make them a reality.  Even some religions are starting to change their thinking.  Women clergy are not uncommon in many churches.   However, instead of being a progressive leader, our church is still stuck in 19th century thinking.  Utah continues to have a dismal record of gender wage inequality.  

No, the church is stuck in God's way of thinking, where it should be.  Utah women were the first women to vote in a national election, and later, when Utah became a state, it was the second state to extend the right to vote to women, following behind Wyoming.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Until recently your mum and two sisters would not be allowed to give the closing prayer sacrament meeting because of their gender

Something that happened from 1967 to 1978 officially is not "recently", though there were and possibly are some leaders who continued it as a custom.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/59902-women-didnt-pray-in-sacrament-meeting-until-1978/?do=findComment&comment=1209218229

And it wasn't a sexist (in the sense it was focused purely on gender) rule since there would have been men barred from giving those prayers as well (not saying it was the right or wrong thing to do, the reasoning is understandable though non-scriptural).

PS:  to be clear, I do think that rule, then custom where perpetuated along with the typical habit of having men be the last speaker in Sacrament meetings has had a negative impact on how the voices of women are seen by members, my biggest concern being young women who get the impression they are somehow lacking in doctrinal intelligence/discernment due to their gender or in other ways feel that they don't have important ideas to contribute.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, JAHS said:

Here is Jana Riess' evidence:

"This is unacceptable, but not surprising, for three sad reasons.

The first is due to ingrained structural sexism. In the Church, men exist in entirely homosocial corridors of power. They rarely attend meetings with women or girls, and never with women as equal partners. They do not have to listen to women at church as anything but merely advisory voices if they listen to women at all, though many do choose to listen and go out of their way to correct the imbalance.

I’m sorry to be so blunt about it, but there is no way around the reality: Women do not lead men in this church. Ever. Women do not even lead teenage boys in this church. Starting from at least the age of 12, if not earlier, men are conditioned at church to see women as ancillary to decision making.

It’s not surprising that, given this reality, male Church leaders are more likely to believe male perpetrators then they are female victims.

It’s a trust issue. It is human nature that when we are presented with cold, hard facts about a person we have counseled with, served with, and sat with for many hours in meetings, our knee-jerk reaction is to discredit anything bad about them. We want to continue believing that this person is exactly what we thought they were: the affable and loving bishop, the kind-hearted and funny member of stake high council. When the accused are people we know personally, seeing their names in connection with degrading stories of sexual abuse and predatory misconduct does not compute.

This is why the system is entirely stacked against women. It’s not just that women are not permitted to make decisions that affect anyone but other women and perhaps children in the LDS Church (and even then, such decisions must always be approved by male priesthood leaders). It’s also that women simply do not have the access to decision-makers that men do. When Stephen Murdock comes before a disciplinary council on charges of sexual misconduct, which I fully expect will happen, it will be the exact stake high council he served on, with the same men deciding his fate. Men who know him well.

The second sad reality is related. All Latter-day Saints, both men and women, are counseled to obey their leaders. To do so is considered a blessing. We are instructed that the Lord himself called our bishops, stake presidents, and general authorities to the positions they hold, and it is not our place to question them. Such a system is at great risk for abuse. It’s interesting to me that both Steven Murdock and Paul Bur**** were arrested when charges were brought by women and girls who were not, to my knowledge at least, members of the Church. Is this because the men never perpetrated acts of abuse on fellow members, or because Latter-day Saint women and girls had been so conditioned by a culture of obeying male authority and protecting the institution of the Church that they dared not speak the truth?

Finally, our religion has a long and unfortunate history of regarding women as objects. Polygamy is no longer practiced, but it has also never been refuted. Its legacy lives on in temple sealing practices that require divorced or bereaved women to have their first marriage “canceled” before they can remarry in the temple; men are under no such obligation."

What this means in practice is that a man may look forward to an eternity in which all of the women who married him monogamously in life become polygamists in the afterlife. Their consent to this, it seems, is unimportant—which suggests that Mormon men expect that even in the eternities, their decisions about women will still be more important than women’s decisions about themselves.

_________________________________________

In my experience Bishops very much listen to and use the advice of the female leaders of the church. They also very much listen to the voice of their own wife. 
Some of it are valid observations but I think she is over exaggerating things a bit too much.
 

I want to respond to the op but I find myself unable to read or comprehend it.

Probably one of those nonsensical dual X chromosome communications spoken of in legend that no one can hear.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Ahab said:

Yeah!  I mean, really, if she had not said the things I will highlight below she would have made it so much easier for me to listen to her:

Mormon men are groomed not to listen to women - I mean, come on, I am a "Mormon" man and I know that isn't true.

 

Mormons are conditioned to prioritize men's leadership over women's, and to listen to men more than women. Riess makes a valid argument that, as you have just done, can still be beneficial even if you need to filter some of her language.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Mormons are conditioned to prioritize men's leadership over women's, and to listen to men more than women. Riess makes a valid argument that, as you have just done, can still be beneficial even if you need to filter some of her language.

“Conditioned”?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_conditioning

So we are all Pavlov’s dog now?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, let’s roll said:

I am sorry if Ms. Riess’ life experience has given her such a low opinion of women.  It seems she believes women make no important decisions, have no lasting influence, are inconsequential in the lives of men.

My experience has been different.  The two most consequential people in my life are both women.  I esteem them more than any prophet or bishop.  Their counsel and guidance have played a central role in shaping me, certainly a much larger role than any of the fine prophets and bishops in my life.

And I have no doubt that not only are the Prophet and bishop ok with that, they would tell me that’s the way it should be.

And God would agree.  The Church and it’s leaders serve their limited purpose in mortality, family units are eternal and in my family (and many others) women are the core of that eternal bond.

The hand that rocks the cradle......................

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

“Conditioned”?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_conditioning

So we are all Pavlov’s dog now?

We are all subject to developing responses similar to that seen in Pavlov's dog, yes. Obviously his and subsequent studies are used to also understand human behaviour. It might be a good concept to use to understand ourselves and others.

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, JAHS said:

 

In my experience Bishops very much listen to and use the advice of the female leaders of the church. They also very much listen to the voice of their own wife. 

 

In my experience men often think they are listening and using the advice of women, but it really varies from man to man. Of the 3 men in my house tonight one is great at it. One has had a difficult time doing it, but recently just started to understand what he is missing. The last one greatly desires to do so and often thinks he does, but often entirely misses listening and using women's voices if they don't say what he wants them to say. I've found bishops to be like all of these men and somewhere in between them. 

So I think it is ok that we see women who are frustrated by leadership, but just as others have said about Jana taking it too far, if I were to say no bishops listen, then it  would also paint an incomplete picture.

11 hours ago, let’s roll said:

The traditional role of the father in a family has focused on the temporal, the mother on nurturing, in all its aspects, including spiritual.  

As between the two, it’s clear which one God deems of greater worth, regardless of how many mortals choose to more highly esteem the temporal and temporary.

It is clear to me that God deems them as equal worth (whether it is temporal or spiritual it us the same) as they are both parts of an eternal goal that cannot be completed without the other.

However, I do feel people often don't hold them in the same esteem and find that unfortunate because when I look at what my husband does to provide for a family it beautiful and can see how God has placed him in our family to give equally with me as a couple. 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

the mother on nurturing, in all its aspects, including spiritual.  

I don't mind division of roles, we do that in my family, some on traditional lines, others not so much.  I do have a major concern in the mother being the focus of spiritual nurturing while the father focuses on the temporal.  In the families I have seen this done, in the end the spiritual gets neglected.  Both parents need to be focused on teaching the spiritual for it to really be present in the home unless all the teaching is done one on one.  Of all things we teach to our children, I see the spiritual as the easiest for them to be distracted from...possibly because it requires more internal attention and a generally peaceful environment to be easier to identify.  If the father is focused on something else as his duty or role, I see the kids picking up on that pretty quickly and losing interest in listening to the mother.  The reverse is true as well as if Mom is focused on her more temporal duties, that provides distraction from any spiritual teaching Dad is trying to provide.

I also think teaching children anything works better if they see both parents modeling it rather than only one.  If they see Mom constantly cleaning the home, but Dad watches TV when he is at home, which habit do you think they will pick up.  If Dad gets up and goes to his church meetings, but Mom prefers to stay at home...same thing.  If Mom watches the budget, but Dad brings home impulse buys all the time, kids are unlikely to learn restraint....and Mom likely gets tired of it too.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Until recently your mum and two sisters would not be allowed to give the closing prayer sacrament meeting because of their gender.  They still cannot hold most leadership positions in the ward/stake/church.  How is this okay?  

I doubt they even gave it a second thought about who gave the closing prayer and they are fine with what callings they have, my Mum teaches Gospel doctrine, my older sister just got released as Primary Pres. and my younger sister is in cubs but that'll end soon, they like we all hopefully bloom where we are planted

edit. In the other ward that meets in the building the Bishop is a giant &*(^%$##$%&^& but whatever, I am not the first to point this out but his wife is basically doing his calling and making sure things get done and life is moving along swimmingly hahahhahaha!

Edited by Duncan

Share this post


Link to post

Well, this is the thread that did it. Time to finally comment. 

First, I have really enjoyed being a lurker these past many months and reading your thoughtful comments here. Thank you all.

Second, I also believe Jana Reiss went too far in her article (e.g., “groomed,” “[men] rarely attend meetings with women or girls,” “women do not lead men in this church – ever”). However… Her main points are solid.

1)    Women do not lead this church.
2)    On the grand scale of the church, women’s voices are advisory
3)    Both 1) and 2) can lead to negative impacts for women

Each of these points could have its own thread. I agree with many who have commented previously, that different men take advice from women very differently. On the whole, I believe most men try. And, on the whole, I believe most women have suffered at least a few negative impacts. Which is why this is such an interesting thread.

Share this post


Link to post

Not yet able to edit my posts yet. The following is a better list of Reiss's main points:

1)    Women do not lead this church.
2)    On the grand scale of the church, women’s voices are advisory
3)    Both 1) and 2) can lead to men not listening to women
4)    Items 1), 2), and 3) can lead to negative impacts for women
 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...