Women And The Priesthood

[Evangeline]

And now my turn.

You claim that "Part of the problem the church has right now is that men have been made way too comfortable in speaking not just to and about women but for women. It is going to take awhile to break the habit."

CFR that "men have been made way too comfortable" in this. Note that this is not a CFR that some random person without authority or without having conducted a rigorous survey has opined this to be true, but that it is actually shown to be true by some study or poll or other reasonably supported source that they are "made" "way too" comfortable in this one specific matter.

Also CFR that it is a "habit" and that it will take "awhile to break".

I second this CFR to Juliann. As a female, I have a problem when some women (as well as men) make such broad, sweeping claims in regard to gender issues in the church. Frankly, unless they have documentation to prove otherwise, I would prefer an acknowledgment they are merely expressing their own opinions, and not necessarily the opinions of many other women (myself included).

I dislike stereotypes a lot, no matter what forms they take.

Edited August 27, 2012 by Evangeline

[Erin15]

We can try to await the day... But that day will not come by just sitting and praying. But doing nothing but typing words in this forum will not hasten that day. So let's hear concrete proposals...What can we do as forum typers? Any suggestions?

Reading this thread, I think this right here is the point where you step over the line. Treating the church like a company or political organization to be changed through lobbying and repeated requests and picketing is wholly inappropriate unless you assume that it is not the Lord's church to begin with. Consider the following:

1) If this is the Lord's true church, then the decision to give women the priesthood rests solely with him, so praying to him is the one and only thing that should be done to change it. Lobbying the bretheren would be a meaningless gesture, because it is not their decision to make.

2) If this is not the Lord's true church, then lobbying and badgering the bretheren is the best way to get women the priesthood, because the decision is theirs to make. However, that would also mean that it ultimately does not matter whether or not women have the priesthood, because false churches have no authority to give, and placing hands on a women's head would give her nothing.

3) If you assume that political agitation is necessary because the Lord wants women to have the priesthood, but the bretheren will not listen to him, then we are back to point 1, because if the bretheren are not listening to the Lord, then this is not his church.

So, if this really is the Lord's church, then we are faced with the following reality: If the Lord wanted women to have the priesthood at this time, then he would order his apostles to make the changes and they would do so immediatly. He has not done so, which means there are only two possibilities:

1) That the Lord wants women to have the priesthood, but not at this time.

2) That the Lord never intends for women to have the priesthood.

I don't know if the correct answer is 1 or 2, but I know that the appropriate response of a disciple is to submit to the Lord's will and the Lord's timing. Trying to make the Lord change his mind is not the place for a disciple. A disciple seeks out the Lord's will and seeks to follow it.

"...becometh as a child, submissive, meek...willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father." "Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Mosiah 3:19 and Matthew 18:3

[BlueDreams]

Erin,

I don't know JCnowandforever's ideal situation entails picketing, lobbying, and the likes. I didn't necessarily get that vibe from him. That stated, I feel that there is plenty that can be done in the church to develop us to receive more. I don't know the will of the Lord concerning the priesthood and it's functions next to the next guy or girl out there. But I do know that I will only continue to not know if I don't ask questions....not just in prayer, but out loud, with people, with individuals. Questions arise consciousness to what we are doing and why. To me it is the gateway to receiving further revelation and change. Though I most certainly agree that this is the Lord's church, I would not state the decisions for the church (like priesthood to women) rests solely with Him. So much of what we can know, individually and communally, are based on our own state of being. The only way our state changes is by becoming aware of it....both our strengths as a people and our weaknesses as a people. It is a needed discovery that prepares us to receive further revelation. I don't believe picketting would be effective, but I do not think merely praying about it is adequate either. Our understanding of the Priesthood and women's role must be sought after and desired for us to receive more about it.

God doesn't necessarily orders in my mind. That's very short and easy and misses the point. His goal is conversion of hearts to Zion. This, in my mind, takes a whole lot more time but is far more integrative and active in bring about participation of the whole.

With luv,

BD

[KevinG]

Is this what he had in mind by shackled?

[BlueDreams]

CV75,

Maybe I’m lazy, but this is why I’ve chosen the paradigm I have based on the scriptural and temple accounts.

I agree with Juliann. THere needs to be some referencing. Not just of Scripture because I've read exactly what you've read on this and simply don't see what you see. There are ideas being injected into the text that cannot be supported on the text itself. So more info is most certainly needed to understand where you're getting these ideas. I don't think she means academic pieces or hebraic translations....but at least an authoritative quote would be nice (like from an apostle or GA).

I wouldn't call you lazy, I don't know you. But based on what I've read from your posts I wouldn't consider it exactly methodical. It feels like legos with the Gospel, where one takes pieces of this and that (which are correct) to construct an image of spiritual understanding by their own concepts (which may or may not be). That, to me, is a very precarious way of seeking truth. To me it is extremely important to seperate what I know and what I don't know and what I think when presenting ideas. What I know for certain becomes my foundation, what I don't know becomes goals, and my ideas presented become means to experiment and grow. Some ideas work, some don't. What makes or breaks these are based on what I find in scripture and within latter-day teachings/revelation. Right now, this idea of yours is substantiated only by what you've claimed. It does not fit well with what I already know to be true and there doesn't seem to be a legitimate reason for me to entertain the idea except for your belief in it. Simply put, that's not enough, especially with what I see as problematic implications.

In short there's no more reason to entertain your paradigm with the ones you've disagreed with. There's not much of a difference in validity.

With luv,

BD

Edited August 27, 2012 by BlueDreams

[CV75]

That stated, I feel that there is plenty that can be done in the church to develop us to receive more.

I think the idea of the Church “developing [women] to receive more” is laudable. I know (think) the “more” in this thread is priesthood office, but perhaps an inventory of what the Church is currently doing to develop women, and to what specific purposes, may help someone interested in the subject of “women and priesthood” to forecast and identify the best opportunities to interject the subject of priesthood office into the discussion.

I find that for myself, once a level of personal development is attained in any area of improvement, I often discover exactly what the “more” is that I obtain from said development. It is often something that may not be directly related to the original object of development and attainment. Perhaps it works this way in the larger organization of the Church.

If you are talking about how women should be treated by Church members in general, I think that is a very appropriate agenda item for a ward or stake council where there is a willingness to address them.

[CV75]

Is this what he had in mind by shackled?

No, but if you have a specific question about it, would be happy to explain it again--it isn't really my point of view, but a portrayal of how some of the more extreme accusations have come across to me.

[KevinG]

No, but if you have a specific question about it, would be happy to explain it again--it isn't really my point of view, but a portrayal of how some of the more extreme accusations have come across to me.

Relax... My smart***ery usually has nothing to do with the content of a discussion.

[CV75]

There needs to be some referencing.

***

In short there's no more reason to entertain your paradigm with the ones you've disagreed with.

Please see post #375 about my lack of references.

I am glad the paradigms I've disagreed with are not worth entertaining, and I hope my explanation of what I have offered has not come across as instisting on discussing anything anyone doesn't wish to. They are out there just like any other idea.

[CV75]

Relax... My smart***ery usually has nothing to do with the content of a discussion.

I'm as relaxed a fluffy pink feather! (I was just trying to talk about it again -- just kidding!)

[Erin15]

Questions arise consciousness to what we are doing and why. To me it is the gateway to receiving further revelation and change.

I respectfully disagree. The gateway to recieve further light and knowledge is obedience to the light and knowledge we already have. When moving up line upon line, precept upon precept, we do not move up to the next rung by asking the right questions, we do so by becoming worthy to recieve it by obedience to the previous rung.

As smart as we humans are, there is no amount of discussion that will make the truths of the universe known to us. They can only be recieved by revelation from on high, and the revelation we merit at any given time is predicated by eternal and immutable laws of obedience that not even God himself can violate.

I would not state the decisions for the church (like priesthood to women) rests solely with Him.

Our spiritual state may limit what God may reveal to us, and may limit the extent to which he can bless us, and at times may limit the level of the gospel which may exist among us, as in the days of Moses and the Aaronic Priesthood, but at no point do we become part of the head of this church. Jesus is the head, we are the body. He leads, we follow.

It is a needed discovery that prepares us to receive further revelation. I don't believe picketting would be effective, but I do not think merely praying about it is adequate either. Our understanding of the Priesthood and women's role must be sought after and desired for us to receive more about it.

It may be desired but it is certainly not needed. We do not need to know the mysteries of the kingdom to gain our salvation and exaltation. It might even be said that searching after such things could make us guilty of going beyond the mark as the jews of ancient times did. Our focus should be on living the principals we already have fully, rather than yearning after that which we don't yet know.

If we allow our yearning to crowd out more essential thigns, then we truly could stumble, and that yearning itself could become a stumbling block to us.

[juliann]

I second this CFR to Juliann. As a female, I have a problem when some women (as well as men) make such broad, sweeping claims in regard to gender issues in the church. Frankly, unless they have documentation to prove otherwise, I would prefer an acknowledgment they are merely expressing their own opinions, and not necessarily the opinions of many other women (myself included).

I'm uncertain how or why saying LDS men are too comfortable talking to, for and about LDS women would be perceived as anything but opinion. However, there is a way to approach documentation and that is to compare talks, articles and books from male LDS leaders about adult LDS women. Even that is not necessary since almost all General Conference speakers are men and I don't recall a talk from an LDS woman telling adult men how to be Sons of God or manage their priesthood (which is said to be the equivalent of motherhood on which there have been endless talks and books by men). Can you produce a substantial list of women instructing adult males on how to be Mormon men? I merely need to refer you to the last general conference session. I asked CA for this when he challenged what I think can be easily referred to as common knowledge. He didn't respond.

[juliann]

It may be desired but it is certainly not needed. We do not need to know the mysteries of the kingdom to gain our salvation and exaltation. It might even be said that searching after such things could make us guilty of going beyond the mark as the jews of ancient times did. Our focus should be on living the principals we already have fully, rather than yearning after that which we don't yet know.

If we allow our yearning to crowd out more essential thigns, then we truly could stumble, and that yearning itself could become a stumbling block to us.

We are told to seek knowledge, all knowledge. Joseph Smith said we could not be saved in ignorance. Our scriptures are full of exhortations to pursue light and knowledge. Below is a beautiful General Conference talk, by a woman giving counsel to girls.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2012/05/seek-learning-you-have-a-work-to-do?lang=eng&query=knowledge

“Education … will open the doors of opportunity.”² As you follow the Lord’s admonition to “seek learning, even by study and also by faith,”³ you gain not only knowledge from your study but added light as you learn by faith.

President Gordon B. Hinckley wisely counseled the youth of the Church: “The pattern of study you establish during your formal schooling will in large measure affect your lifelong thirst for knowledge.”⁴ “You must get all of the education that you possibly can. … Sacrifice anything that is needed to be sacrificed to qualify yourselves to do the work of [this] world. … Train your minds and hands to become an influence for good as you go forward with your lives.”⁵

Seek learning by faith. We learn by faith as we diligently gain spiritual knowledge through prayer, scripture study, and obedience and as we seek the guidance of the Holy Ghost, who testifies of all truth. If you do your part to gain knowledge, the Holy Ghost can enlighten your mind. As you strive to keep yourself worthy, the Holy Ghost will give direction and added light to your learning.

[Erin15]

We are told to seek knowledge, all knowledge.

Yes, but we are told to seek knowledge in a very specific way, lest we condemn ourselves. Knowledge is to be gained through obedience, faith, patience, study, and submission. We are all judged based on the light and knowledge we have, so increasing knowledge without increasing obedience would leave us in a worse state then we were before. To be learned is good only so long as we still hearken into the counsels of God.

Which brings us back to the same point. If we allow our yearnings to know the systeries of the kingdom to crowd out our faith and obedience, then that yearning itself can become a stumbling block for us. This is why we are warned repeatedly about the dangers of looking beyond the mark.

[CV75]

I'm uncertain how or why saying LDS men are too comfortable talking to, for and about LDS women would be perceived as anything but opinion.

Is another way of asking your root question, “Why does the President of the Church use his priesthood keys to counsel women?" or, "Why does the President of the Church, a man, determine whether or not women hold priesthood office?”

[juliann]

Which brings us back to the same point. If we allow our yearnings to know the systeries of the kingdom to crowd out our faith and obedience, then that yearning itself can become a stumbling block for us. This is why we are warned repeatedly about the dangers of looking beyond the mark.

I think that was covered in the above quotes. I also think the church would never have been organized had Joseph not been yearning for knowledge. Advocating for limiting knowledge is always going to be a losing position, especially in the LDS church. I think you are trying to create an apologetic for women not seeking more knowledge, but that is also not a winning position. It brings me back to my concern, any apologetic that demands one group have less or want less is not going to succeed in our current culture. Regardless of what anyone thinks they are saying, it is what everyone hears that matters when we have to start at a position of women being discriminated against by any definition used by modern societies...and we do have to start there.

This idea that these things should not be talked about has already passed us by. http://www.thc.utah.edu/?&pageId=6466 Notice the sponsors, it includes official church institutions. Notice the speakers. It includes McBaine who started the discussion of doing more for women at the FAIR Conference. If you have ever heard Ulrich or Bushman speak, you would know that they are both forthright and certainly talk about women's concerns openly and have for some time. It is a little late to be trying to create a situation where it is wrong to do this unless what the church itself sponsors is considered of no consequence.

[selek1]

We are told to seek knowledge, all knowledge. Joseph Smith said we could not be saved in ignorance. Our scriptures are full of exhortations to pursue light and knowledge.

Yet NOTHING in the exhortations t seek knowledge and truth gives us license to bully other seekers for simply stating their opinions, nor to demand authoritative, official statements from the Church in support of what is clearly a private interpretation.

CV75 has stated repeatedly that his comments are HIS opinion and HIS interpretation.

He has never claimed that his position is AUTHORITATIVE nor endorsed by the Church.

He has never claimed- not even INSINUATED- that his opinion is the only one possible or acceptable.

His chief antagonist cannot make the same claim.

Yes, but we are told to seek knowledge in a very specific way, lest we condemn ourselves. Knowledge is to be gained through obedience, faith, patience, study, and submission. We are all judged based on the light and knowledge we have, so increasing knowledge without increasing obedience would leave us in a worse state then we were before. To be learned is good only so long as we still hearken into the counsels of God.

Which brings us back to the same point. If we allow our yearnings to know the systeries of the kingdom to crowd out our faith and obedience, then that yearning itself can become a stumbling block for us. This is why we are warned repeatedly about the dangers of looking beyond the mark.

Bravo Zulu Erin15- Well done.

Thank you for expressing so clearly what I tried- and apparently failed- to communicate earlier.

No one is condemning those who simply seek more light or understanding.

Our problem lies with those who insist that their interpretation is correct and presume to jog God's elbow in order that he catch up to their wisdom.

Edited August 28, 2012 by selek1

[Erin15]

I think you are trying to create an apologetic for women not seeking more knowledge

As a matter of course, I resist it when people try to take my position and fit it into their pre-existing labels. It may be convienient, but it is rarely accurate, and it is often unfair. Rather than restating my position, I will simply ask that you not try to package up what I am saying into pre-existing molds and instead simply read what I am saying.

when we have to start at a position of women being discriminated against by any definition used by modern societies...and we do have to start there.

The reality we all face is that the gospel and feminism contain foundational axioms which are incompatible. The Gospel asserts that men and women are different, have different jobs, different responsabilities, but are ultimately equally valued. Feminism asserts that it is impossible to be seperate, different, and equal.

I am not bashing feminism. I am simply pointing out that those two positions are fundamentally irreconsialable.

So, how do we resolve this dilemma? Personally, I think it is a huge mistake to try and mingle modern philosophies with the gospel. That is a pathway to confusion, not enlightenment.

In my case, I simply prioritize between the two. Politically, I am a huge advocate in gender equality, but I am a disciple of Jesus first, and an equalist second, so I do not treat the church as I would a company or a political organization.

This brings us to the core issue. If you know the church is true, then you won't worry about whether or not women should have the priesthood, because this is his church and God runs it and this is the way he wants it for now.

If one does not know if the church is true or not, then I can see why it might become appealing to try and change it. That being said, I've been in the church all of my life, and I have never once heard this issue brought up by any sister in relief society, neither out loud nor in whispers. So, this is only an issue for a very small percentage of LDS people, the vast majority of sisters see no problem with it.

In my opinion, this would only be an issue for people who either value their political views more then their faith, those that only believe the church is half true, or both.

For those few, ultimately this problem is best solved by finding out if the church is true. Because, if it is true, then there is no need to ask God to change it, and if it is not true, then it doesn't matter anyway.

[Cobalt-70]

The reality we all face is that the gospel and feminism contain foundational axioms which are incompatible. The Gospel asserts that men and women are different, have different jobs, different responsabilities, but are ultimately equally valued. Feminism asserts that it is impossible to be seperate, different, and equal.

I am not bashing feminism. I am simply pointing out that those two positions are fundamentally irreconsialable.

If you have a problem with mixing the "philosophies of men" with LDS theology, you should have a big problem with patriarchy, the ultimate "philosophy of men."

As to your characterization of the "axioms of feminism," you have it totally wrong. Feminists do not "assert that it is impossible to be separate, different, and equal." Yes, most feminists are suspicious of "separate, but equal" philosophy (of men), which never worked too well for blacks, because separate was not actually equal. But no feminist thinks that men and women should be the same.

Here's a crash course in third-wave feminism: Western philosophy (of men), going back to Plato and earlier, has constructed a man-made world in which there is an essentialist connection between men and masculinity, and where masculinity is consistently defined as the more "central" of the two concepts within a long list of binary opposites, including mind-body, rational-irrational, order-disorder, subject-object, self-other, and dominant-submissive. Feminism seeks various strategies to discredit and deconstruct this great "philosophy of men." The various strains of third-wave feminism represent a number of those various strategies.

[juliann]

As a matter of course, I resist it when people try to take my position and fit it into their pre-existing labels. It may be convienient, but it is rarely accurate, and it is often unfair. Rather than restating my position, I will simply ask that you not try to package up what I am saying into pre-existing molds and instead simply read what I am saying.

You have completely repackaged everything being said and applied labels to it, are you really not aware?

The reality we all face is that the gospel and feminism contain foundational axioms which are incompatible. The Gospel asserts that men and women are different, have different jobs, different responsabilities, but are ultimately equally valued. Feminism asserts that it is impossible to be seperate, different, and equal.

2 Nephi 26: 33 . . . he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

I don't believe I have seen one source to back up anything you say. You have introduced the label feminism but seem to have little understanding of it. It is actually a rather complex movement.

For those few, ultimately this problem is best solved by finding out if the church is true. Because, if it is true, then there is no need to ask God to change it, and if it is not true, then it doesn't matter anyway.

We were recently told in Conference that there is a distinction between the church is true and the gospel is true, BTW. You should read that talk. Best wishes to you, but you are throwing out platitudes rather than responding so there is no point in continuing this.

[juliann]

NOTHING .

HIS opinion and HIS interpretation.

AUTHORITATIVE

INSINUATED- only

Just curious, what is with all the screaming?

[Cobalt-70]

1) If this is the Lord's true church, then the decision to give women the priesthood rests solely with him, so praying to him is the one and only thing that should be done to change it. Lobbying the bretheren would be a meaningless gesture, because it is not their decision to make.

That would be true only if it was God's decision to discriminate against women in the first place. Yet, there is no scripture that says that priesthood is incompatible with female genitalia. As with blacks and the priesthood, the only reason why we might as a practical matter need a revelation now, is that otherwise, those steeped in the more illiberal tradition might not accept the change.

3) If you assume that political agitation is necessary because the Lord wants women to have the priesthood, but the bretheren will not listen to him, then we are back to point 1, because if the bretheren are not listening to the Lord, then this is not his church.

So, if this really is the Lord's church, then we are faced with the following reality: If the Lord wanted women to have the priesthood at this time, then he would order his apostles to make the changes and they would do so immediatly. He has not done so, which means there are only two possibilities:

1) That the Lord wants women to have the priesthood, but not at this time.

2) That the Lord never intends for women to have the priesthood.

I don't know if the correct answer is 1 or 2, but I know that the appropriate response of a disciple is to submit to the Lord's will and the Lord's timing. Trying to make the Lord change his mind is not the place for a disciple. A disciple seeks out the Lord's will and seeks to follow it.

Taking the pre-1978 racial discriminatory policy as an example, I'm going to assume that you agree that God did not, as a matter of principle, want church in an ideal world to hurtfully discriminate against black people prior to 1978. If you are with me there, and agree, then there are two possible reasons why a revelation did not come prior to 1978: (1) the church leadership wasn't ready, or (2) the church membership wasn't ready. If God really wasn't just a racist, and was simply waiting for either #1 or #2, then political agitation could have sped up the process, and potentially led to a revelation in the 1960s or earlier.

[juliann]

. If God really wasn't just a racist, and was simply waiting for either #1 or #2, then political agitation could have sped up the process, and potentially led to a revelation in the 1960s or earlier.

Actually, political agitation slowed it down. Armand Mauss has that pretty well documented. This will never be considered a good strategy by anyone who values the church. Thus, as in this thread, you will see any attempt to discuss the different treatment of women in the church labeled as agitation, feminism, disobedience, apostasy or other trigger terms in an attempt to shut it down....even as the church is sponsoring conferences where women are discussing these allegedly wicked things.

[selek1]

That would be true only if it was God's decision to discriminate against women in the first place.

This assumes that the alleged discrimination is, in fact, taking place. You do not- and cannot- know God's reasons- but you assume they are discriminatory based solely on gender.

Your argument is both inescapably biased and based upon a secularist, presentist- and ultimately apostate conceit.

As Erin pointed out- if the Church and the Priesthood are what we claim them to be, then no one is being deprived of anything to which they are entitled.

Moreover, it is beyond our power to make the changes you and others are demanding- even if we wanted to.

That authority rests with the Lord. We await his pleasure.

If the Priesthood is NOT what it claims to be, then no one is being deprived of anything to which they are entitled.

We are not required to adjust our practices or policies just to suit someone else's arbitrary and subjective sensibilities.

In either case- no one is being deprived of anything to which they have a sovereign or inalienable right.

Yet, there is no scripture that says that priesthood is incompatible with female genitalia.

Which is why none of us are arguing that women will never hold the Priesthood.

As such, your argument is a distraction at best.

...the only reason why we might as a practical matter need a revelation now, is that otherwise, those steeped in the more illiberal tradition might not accept the change.

This implicity ignores the fact that if the Priesthood is true, then we are mere agents, rather than authors.

We have no authority to extend it except as we have been directed. Unless and until we receive such authority, we are at the limits of what we are permitted to do.

Nor does anyone have a right to it.

The Priesthood is niether ours to bestow- nor their's to demand.

Taking the pre-1978 racial discriminatory policy as an example, ,snip remaining racebaiting.

I understand that inflammatory hand-waving and speculative racebaiting really are the only arrows in your quiver, but you're overlooking the critical point: whether the Priesthood Ban was right or wrong, it did not change until the LORD made his will clear.

As Erin and many others have pointed out- whatever God's reason for "discriminating", it is not OUR place to tell him to change.

If and when the Lord wants the policy changed, he will indicate it.

Until then, you're simply trolling in order to sow the seeds of dissension and apostacy.

If the Church is what it claims to be, then the Lord is in control. Take your complaints to him.

Edited August 28, 2012 by selek1

[Erin15]

Actually, political agitation slowed it down. Armand Mauss has that pretty well documented. This will never be considered a good strategy by anyone who values the church. Thus, as in this thread, you will see any attempt to discuss the different treatment of women in the church labeled as agitation, feminism, disobedience, apostasy or other trigger terms in an attempt to shut it down....even as the church is sponsoring conferences where women are discussing these allegedly wicked things.

I think you are too quick to play the victim card on this issue.

I took some time to research the conference you are holding onto so tightly.

The really groundbreaking thing about the conference was actually the research that shows that, while in all other churches, women are far more active then men several times over, in the LDS faith men and women exhibit equal levels of religious observance and participation.

Since the LDS church has the only priesthood authority that is actually recognized by The Lord, this would indicate very strongly that the current dileniation of gender roles in the church has a highly positive effect. Here is an excerpt:

"From a sociological perspective, the priesthood system works," said Dr. David C. Campbell, a professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame. "It appears to motivate Mormon men to a level of religiosity that is equivalent to Mormon women."

And that, Campbell said, is news.

"Sociological research consistently shows that American women are more religious than American men by almost any standard that you can measure," Campbell told an audience of about 300 people — mostly women — attending a conference called "Women and the LDS Church: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives" in the Fort Douglas Officer's Club Theater Saturday afternoon. "But our research shows that LDS men and women are very close to each other in terms of religiosity."

Ironically, this conference you were holding onto so tightly actually makes a very strong case for why the current system is a good thing.