Unintended Consequences Of Gender Bias In The Lds Church

[Damien the Leper]

I like what Margaret Merrill Toscano said:

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 April 30, 2012 by Valentinus

[BlueDreams]

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]

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]

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]

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 April 30, 2012 by wenglund

[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]

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]

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.

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]

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

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

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.

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.

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]

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.com/sltrib/news/53117548-78/mormons-utah-percent-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]

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 May 1, 2012 by mercyngrace

[mfbukowski]

Nevermind.

I need to read more before posting!

Edited May 1, 2012 by mfbukowski

[LDSToronto]

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.

[mercyngrace]

...

Edited May 1, 2012 by mercyngrace

[mfbukowski]

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?

I dunno.

Priesthood session is the only one in which it is pretty much presumed that the audience is soley Priesthood holders and therefore 1- members and 2- fairly faithful members (evidenced by the fact that they are willing to give up a Saturday evening, put on a tie and shirt, and get themselves over to a chapel)

Were I ever called on to speak at such a session (fat chance of that happening!) I would make my talk less generic (The Plan of Salvation) and more to the point of what members (specifically men) actually need to hear.

In turn, many such talks from many speakers might lead to the conclusion that the "Priesthood session is better" because the talks are more topical.

That's one theory anyway. That theory should also apply to the Relief Society sessions as well- and I think it does. Those talks are also more focused and relevant imo.

[mfbukowski]

Church attendance does not indicate spirituality.

H.

No, clearly the most spiritual among us never go to church. That just proves that the Apostles are not spiritual at all because they always attend church.

[CV75]

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?

Another discussion thread got me thinking about this.

I beleive there is an innate spiritual "something" inherent in women that is just as valid as anythign physical, but I'm not quite sure what it is. I have heard the sentiment of concern in the OP, and have thought twice about it, but it is such a subjective thing and expressed in such varying contexts I can't say a homogeneous belief is widespread or important.

My position is validated by my understanding of the Pearl of Great Price.

(Copy/paste from the other thread)

I see the “seed of the body” as the male contribution directly aligned with priesthood; the “fruit of the body” as the female contribution, also aligned with the priesthood but in a different way. The "seed of the body" refers to the offispring with priesthood, and the "fruit" refers to either offspring (with or without priesthood). And then either type of fruit acts as a seed for the next stage of eternal progress.

It could also be that this seed/fruit dynamic plays out in the Creation, where the priesthood set the seeds and made the command but “mother earth” brought forth the abundance as the elements obeyed once the ground was watered. Not to be taken too far, but perhaps the commanding attribute can be construed as "male" and the obeying attitbute as "female." Perhaps this is why some may say that women are more spiritual as far as the dynamics of these two forms of power (at least in this world) are concerned.

Moses 4:21 indicates that the enmity between good and evil is a “priesthood – anti-priesthood” tension, since the enmity is between the warring seeds (priesthoods) and not specifically between the woman and the serpent. The “seed of the woman” is Christ’s priesthood in His person the second estate, and the serpent’s seed is Satan’s false priesthood, since it enjoys no realization in a body / second estate. Maybe this is another basis for people to generalize that “women are more spiritual.” If she (Eve) had the capacity for enmity that priesthood (Adam) does, she would not have partaken of the fruit.

(End Copy/paste)

Taking Adam and Eve as archetypes, this kind of scripture tells me that women are naturally / ingerently / innately more inclined to obey and less inclined to enmity in their spiritual makeup. Some may say this is "more spiritual" in an environment where ungodly command and enmity are prevalent, but this is only true when obedience and affinity are expressed in godly ways. Likewise, the priesthood attribute to command and hold enmity against the adversary is only legitimate when exercsied in godly ways.

[BlueDreams]

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-

I'm aware that my problem is reversed from many women's problems. Many of my companions had major self-worth issues. What I found in working with them and being a help if I could with the Lord's help was that it was often linked in some way to pride as well. I loved Benson's talk on pride and found this point applicable to many of the women I've known closely who've struggled with low self-esteem.

"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."

It was a sin of comparison where they simply did not meet up. They were often comparing themselves to something unobtainable and had learned to see themselves as something less than. Pointing out where a woman may be superior is problematic to me because it continues to look at them in comparison to another (even if that other is ficticious or generalized). Even with my sense of pride it was an ineffective tool to hide where I was weakest. I walked for years feeling better than my circumstances, greater than a majority who hadn't suffered like I had, and irreparably scarred as well as terribly inadequate at times. What I found most needed was not to look at one's good traits, but to learn to lose oneself and seek the Lord's opinion. The more one lets go of their own image for what the Lord sees the happier they are with who they are. They can accept their weaknesses and feel grateful for their strengths. They understand themselves as God sees them: fallen, but precious and worthwhile. It opens the door for greater trust in oneself, others around you, and the Lord.

Pointing out how good and amazing women (in general) are isn't often all that helpful because many women don't feel they're all that amazing. In other words they remain exactly how they've always seen themselves: comparably weak, ugly, incapable, etc compared to others unnamed.

With luv,

BD

Edited May 1, 2012 by BlueDreams

[wenglund]

I'm aware that my problem is reversed from many women's problems. Many of my companions had major self-worth issues. What I found in working with them and being a help if I could with the Lord's help was that it was often linked in some way to pride as well. I loved Benson's talk on pride and found this point applicable to many of the women I've known closely who've struggled with low self-esteem.

"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."

It was a sin of comparison where they simply did not meet up. They were often comparing themselves to something unobtainable and had learned to see themselves as something less than. Pointing out where a woman may be superior is problematic to me because it continues to look at them in comparison to another (even if that other is ficticious or generalized). Even with my sense of pride it was an ineffective tool to hide where I was weakest. I walked for years feeling better than my circumstances, greater than a majority who hadn't suffered like I had, and irreparably scarred as well as terribly inadequate at times. What I found most needed was not to look at one's good traits, but to learn to lose oneself and seek the Lord's opinion. The more one lets go of their own image for what the Lord sees the happier they are with who they are. They can accept their weaknesses and feel grateful for their strengths. They understand themselves as God sees them: fallen, but precious and worthwhile. It opens the door for greater trust in oneself, others around you, and the Lord.

Pointing out how good and amazing women (in general) are isn't often all that helpful because many women don't feel they're all that amazing. In other words they remain exactly how they've always seen themselves: comparably weak, ugly, incapable, etc compared to others unnamed. With luv,BD

Good point. Pride can be quite debilitating as also may be its twin sister, Envy.

It is just that some times you have to work with what you've got. If certain women are deep into the comparison thing, and that is what may be driving their low sense of self, it may help to some degree to meet them where they are at and given them a comparison where they come out on top.

The problem, however, as you astutely intimated, isn't so much that women compare themselves with others per se (not all comparing is unhealthy, there are some comparisons that are quite healthy, and provide useful feedback in terms of normalcy as well as possibilities), but rather it is the way they compare and the things they compare.

The tendency I have noticed is to over-inflate the positives in others and under-estimate the positives in themselves, while under-estimating the negatives in others and over-inflating the positives in themselves.

They also tend to over-inflate the importance of superficial things in others (like beauty, wealth, station, etc.), while under-estimating the importance of in-depth things in themselves (such as spirituality, charity, kindness, etc.).

This makes for a dangerous cocktail.

However, by mentioning the plausible superiority of women in terms of intelligence, spirituality, charity, and kindness, it may help certain woman look inward in a more intelligent, spiritual, and charitable way, and chance reorienting their mind to things that really matter in terms of self worth.

I am not saying this will always work, or necessarily work in the best of ways. I am saying that it may not be a bad thing, but perhaps even worth a try. I am saying that let's think of it in a positive way and recognize the loving concern and desire to help that may likely be behind such declarations in Church by men about women, and avoid the potentially prideful or envious trap of in-balanced and unhealthy comparisons and criticisms.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Nofear]

Taking Adam and Eve as archetypes, this kind of scripture tells me that women are naturally / inherently / innately more inclined to obey and less inclined to enmity in their spiritual makeup...

Relief Society presidents throughout the Church may have something to say about this.

[Senator]

Relief Society presidents throughout the Church may have something to say about this.

Yeah, while I give CV75 an A+ for creativity, I don't feel that it lands very agreeably.

[wenglund]

Relief Society presidents throughout the Church may have something to say about this.

Perhaps...that is until they compare notes with the Elders Quorum presidents.

Keep in mind that CV76 was speaking in terms of greater inclination rather than absolutes.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 1, 2012 by wenglund

[divinenature]

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.

Is that why 12 year old boys want to be ordained to the priesthood? Because of money? Is that why any man in the church wants the priesthood or a position in the church?

And even if only a dozen women want to be ordained to the priesthood so they can participate in ordinances with their children they should be able to. Just because some women don't want something doesn't mean that it should be denied to all women.

I imagine you might be surprised how many women would enjoy blessing their baby or confirming their child or even just standing as a witness to a baptism or sealing. But we've been taught not to want that and spend lots of time in Relief Society convincing ourselves we don't want it so you might be hard-pressed to find many women who would admit it out loud.