Mormon Feminism. What Is It All About?

[bluebell]

I think that the point is basically simple: some do. And these no longer believe but use the term for their own purposes. Thus, the term mormon feminist can be hijacked by a radical fringe.

Yeah, but that's not what you said.

You didn't say 'some' mormon feminists are trying to undermine the prophets but instead implied that all were. So if that was your point-simple or not-you failed to make it.

[why me]

https://www.facebook.com/LetWomenPray

Mormon feminists?

[why me]

Yeah, but that's not what you said.

You didn't say 'some' mormon feminists are trying to undermine the prophets but instead implied that all were. So if that was your point-simple or not-you failed to make it.

Certainly there is a vocal subgroup that is pushing for women holding the priesthood since they believe that without it , there can be no equality. Plus, the facebook page I linked in a previous post. And so, in that case, since it is these mormon feminists that are making the press reports, I would say that the radical fringe is making noise.

[why me]

Do we stop using the term mormon when speaking of the LDS churchjust because some fundamentalists out there still call themselves that? Just because some do, doesn't mean that there is suddenly a need to really understand what's meant by mormon...or feminist. The general group is the major definition. And from what I've seen, how you've described mormon feminists is far from the general truth.

With luv,

BD

If I am not mistaken this was the problem with the mormonfeministhousewives people. They were losing their brand name as more and more people began to use it. But I don't know what they decided about it.

[why me]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/55627824-180/women-general-church-conference.html.csp

‘Wear Pants’ group to LDS leaders: Let women pray at conference

After stirring up a national buzz with its "Wear Pants to Church Day," the same group of Mormon feminists has launched a letter-writing campaign to LDS leaders called "Let Women Pray in General Conference."

"While women hold important positions within the church, a woman has never given the opening or closing prayer at General Conference," it says on the website created by the members of the group All Enlisted. "We ask that women be given the

opportunity to pray in General Conference, as a symbol of equality within our church."

The site notes that women were not invited to speak in the Utah-based church’s twice-yearly meeting — now beamed to millions of Mormons worldwide — until 1984. But, in 1978, then-President Spencer W. Kimball issued a statement allowing women to pray in their local congregations

"There is no scriptural prohibition against sisters offering prayers," Kimball said in a First Presidency statement, and it is "permissible for sisters to offer prayers in any meetings they attend."

is urging members to write to various Mormon leaders, including Linda K. Burton, Relief Society president; Elaine S. Dalton, Young Women general president; Rosemary M. Wixom, Primary general president; Jeffrey R. Holland, Quorum of Twelve Apostles; and David F. Evans and Anthony D. Perkins, members of the First Quorum of the Seventy.

People can also sign a petition at the website, asking the authorities to invite a woman to pray at the April 2013 General Conference.

The LDS Church responded Monday evening that the conference lineup was already set, but didn’t say whether women would be praying.

"Decisions on speakers and prayers at General Conference were made several weeks ago and assignments were given to the men and women involved last week," church spokesman Scott Trotter wrote in an email. "Customarily, details of the conference programs are not announced until General Conference."

If there are no women praying at the April meeting, there’s always October

[TAO]

Whyme, I think you could simply simplify it to some Mormon feminists. I don't think they'd have a problem if you used the word 'some' in it. After all, it covers those who do, and discludes those who don't.

[BCSpace]

I am pretty sure it is all some kind of bra burning fetish gone crazy but I have been wrong before (though just that one time).

When do we men get to have a good old fashioned tie burning?

[why me]

Whyme, I think you could simply simplify it to some Mormon feminists. I don't think they'd have a problem if you used the word 'some' in it. After all, it covers those who do, and discludes those who don't.

But who is who since they all use the same description? But the vocal crowd, the group that make the news perhaps can be called Radical Mormon Feminists. Within feminism there are many disciplines. Maybe the same can be true for mormon feminism. But really, I see no point in a mormon feminism at all. I just see a point in using the names that are out there already within the feminist movement.

If you continue to demean women you will be removed from the thread.

[TAO]

But who is who since they all use the same description? But the vocal crowd, the group that make the news perhaps can be called Radical Mormon Feminists. Within feminism there are many disciplines. Maybe the same can be true for mormon feminism. But really, I see no point in a mormon feminism at all. I just see a point in using the names that are out there already within the feminist movement.

Then call the one 'radical mormon feminists' and the other 'mormon feminists'. Identify one with radical policies like giving women the priesthood and the likes, and the other with... well... I'm not sure =).

[Rivers]

Thanks for the responses on the topic.

A lot of these things that mormon feminists want seem reasonable to me.

[why me]

But who is who since they all use the same description? But the vocal crowd, the group that make the news perhaps can be called Radical Mormon Feminists. Within feminism there are many disciplines. Maybe the same can be true for mormon feminism. But really, I see no point in a mormon feminism at all. I just see a point in using the names that are out there already within the feminist movement.

If you continue to demean women you will be removed from the thread.

I can only feel sorry for a female friend of mine who has worn pants for years to church because she finds them more comfortable. However, when she visited a ward who did not know her she was asked if she were a mormon feminist by a couple of members because she was wearing pants. My friend said that this was done politely but she did not like people thinking that she was a mormon feminist because she wore pants to church. There are many women who wear pants to church and who may not want to be thought of as a mormon feminist. And this is who I was thinking of when I suggested that feminism has many disciplines that mormon women can chose to fight for equal rights in church without confusing lds with the term mormon feminist.

[thesometimesaint]

Anyone who would comment in church about a women's, or man's, manner of dress needs to be told to MYOB.

[why me]

Anyone who would comment in church about a women's, or man's, manner of dress needs to be told to MYOB.

But as you know there was a woman should wear pants to church day. And this was widely publicized even in the SLT. It would not be unheard of for a member to ask an another member if this had something to do with the campaign if they saw a member wear pants on or around that time. And it was done politely and not confrontational.

[thesometimesaint]

No matter how "polite" it was framed. It is a sign of a lack of wit and/or tact thing to do. IOW a MYOB moment.

[TAO]

Thesometimessaint, I think it's a bit too strong to say it's always MYOB. While it isn't exactly nice to criticize someone else's dress, it isn't very good to pull off a political issue in church either.

[thesometimesaint]

TAO:

While I prefer to be as gentle as a dove. There is nothing wrong with sometimes reproving with sharpness when prompted by the Spirit.

I'm much more interested in people coming to church than in what they wear when doing so.

Ps. Even if it was a political statement. Calling attention to it just confirms it.

Edited January 22, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[EllenMaksoud]

I don't mean women who are against males. I mean the general mormon feminist movement I hear about and read about on the internet. One example is the whole "wear pants to church day" event. And Joanna Brooks was one indiviual who was referenced in the podcast several times.

The interview with Bro. Hancock was about liberalism. Feminists in this context are women who are speaking out for things that they want for females.

As far as women getting the priesthood, as a newish Mormon, I have to say that men have something going on that I do not. I have seen it too many times. I won't press for or accept being an um "Priestess". As far as us wearing pants, well, that would just be the absolute END for me, and I would view the whole idea as being entirely disgraceful, unacceptable and um haraam. The next thing they'd have us doing is changing the oil on our own cars, and mowing the grass!!! I rather enjoy my privilege, and I'm not giving it up without a fight!!!

[why me]

Thesometimessaint, I think it's a bit too strong to say it's always MYOB. While it isn't exactly nice to criticize someone else's dress, it isn't very good to pull off a political issue in church either.

Personally, I see nothing wrong in asking the question. I see more of a problem in ignoring the women who were wearing pants by not engaging them in conversation. After all, they were attempting to make a statement at church and because of this, should be engaged in dialogue.

[juliann]

Personally, I see nothing wrong in asking the question. I see more of a problem in ignoring the women who were wearing pants by not engaging them in conversation. After all, they were attempting to make a statement at church and because of this, should be engaged in dialogue.

Actually, all they did was silently wear pants. It seems to be you that wants to disrupt church. After learning that there is no prohibition on pants, I wore them a couple of weeks ago and will until the weather warms up. Nobody said anything or even appeared to notice.

[Tacenda]

Actually, all they did was silently wear pants. It seems to be you that wants to disrupt church. After learning that there is no prohibition on pants, I wore them a couple of weeks ago and will until the weather warms up. Nobody said anything or even appeared to notice.

Juliann do you live in the MorCor, you don't have to answer my rudeness. I'm thinking not, because it's slim to zero that you see pants on women in church here. Unless maybe you live in a diverse ward area say Hill Air Force Base or somewhere like that.

Edited January 23, 2013 by Tacenda

[Calm]

I know of women in the MorCor who have worn pants due to health or job considerations, but it would be rare just for comfort....at least for a few more years.

[juliann]

But if they are wearing pants....they are wearing pants, the reason why doesn't change that. I am not in Utah but there is a good amount of Mormons about. Most members have ties to Utah and we are steadily losing retired members who return.

[changed]

A lot of these things that mormon feminists want seem reasonable to me.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with wanting the priesthood, or wanting to more fully participate in everything (blessing children, prayer in GC, talks in GC, knowing more about Heavenly Mother, etc. etc.)

The problem comes when trying to find the best way to obtain these blessings. In the world, you have to fight for what you want - sign petitions, stage protests, use bumper stickers etc. etc. but I don't think the church works like that... God rewards humility/submission/meekness/discipleship/patience/charity/hope/faith/repentance/broken heart and contrite spirit...

Mosiah 3:19...becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

It seems counter-intuitive to suggest "if we are extra humble/prayerful/submissive then we will get what we want" because that certainly does not work in worldly things... but I think it does really work for religious things. I think the early women of the church were rewarded with more because they made larger sacrifices - they gave up their homes, they stood up against mobs etc. etc. None of us have to make those types of sacrifices today, and because we sacrifice less, I think we're blessed with less.

[why me]

Actually, all they did was silently wear pants. It seems to be you that wants to disrupt church. After learning that there is no prohibition on pants, I wore them a couple of weeks ago and will until the weather warms up. Nobody said anything or even appeared to notice.

And why would asking them a question in the foyer disrupt church? We need to remember that these women are not strangers. They are ward members. I would think that they would enjoy a conversation about their protest. I see no disruption only dialogue and the sharing of knowledge. The foyer is full of people having conversations about job, kids, leisure, mundane things etc. It would be just one of many conversations taking place in the foyer. Also, a conversation is not disruptive and if they were wearing pants on that sunday of the protest I would think that the women would enjoy an opportunity to talk about it.

Edited January 23, 2013 by why me

[why me]

. After learning that there is no prohibition on pants, I wore them a couple of weeks ago and will until the weather warms up. Nobody said anything or even appeared to notice.

And this was my point with the protest. It has never been banned, the wearing of pants. As you proved, people did not react at all to you wearing pants. And this is why I saw no reason for such a protest. Women have been wearing pants to church for ages. It may not be a cultural norm but it is not banned.