Women: If You Understand Your Roles And Responsibilities You Will See No Need To Lobby For Rights

[canard78]

The following quote has appeared on several other places in the 'bloggernacle'.

“Young women you will be the ones who will provide the example of virtuous womanhood and motherhood. You will continue to be virtuous lovely praiseworthy and of good report. You will also be the ones to provide an example of family life in a time when families are under attack, being redefined and disintegrating. You will understand your roles and your responsibilities and thus will see no need to lobby for rights.”

Elaine S. Dalton, YW General President, BYU devotional, January 15, 2013.

My immediate thought was that it was a false rumour so went in search online. It's not:

You can view the full talk here (quoted comment at 32:30):

http://byutv.org/watch/de1638f4-c3d1-48ec-8999-cc8face48ab7/byu-devotional-address-elaine-s-dalton-11513

Church News reported on it but didn't include the quote:

http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/63152/BYU-devotional-Discipleship-is-not-a-spectator-sport.html

So does this mean that good mormon young women should not lobby for rights? Any rights? Should Mormon women not have got involved in the right to vote in. Should Mormon women in countries with limited women's rights (like Guatemala) just give up? Is she limiting this to women's rights or any rights?

In the talk (at 12:50) she says lowering the mission age made "young men gasp" in conference - her comments about women not lobbying for rights might cause a similar number of gasps.

[Damien the Leper]

Ugh...this is ridiculous too! This nonsense needs to stop.

[thesometimesaint]

Ugh...this is ridiculous too! This nonsense needs to stop.

Agreed.

[bluebell]

It seems obvious to me that she was speaking in a church context-that women in the church who understood their true place (next to God, as a close friend of mine recently said) then they would not feel the need to lobby for rights in the church.

Unfortunately, she didn't clarify though, making it super easy for any who want to to claim she meant something else.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think it essential to give due consideration to the context in which the statement was made (and, in that regard, thank you for providing a link to the full talk).

There is, in the secular world, a misguided notion that traditional roles pertaining to motherhood, child rearing, etc., are emblematic of the oppression of women. The Church of Jesus Christ teaches the contrary: that such roles are honorable and ennobling.

I read Sister Dalton as saying that women who have such an understanding regarding motherhood will be less inclined to feel oppressed when acting in that role.

Edited January 22, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[ControlFreak]

It seems obvious to me that she was speaking in a church context-that women in the church who understood their true place (next to God, as a close friend of mine recently said) then they would not feel the need to lobby for rights in the church.

Unfortunately, she didn't clarify though, making it super easy for any who want to to claim she meant something else.

I agree, that she surely meant lobbying for rights within the church (a reference to pants day?), but either in that context, or taken out of context, I still find it, at a minimum, a horribly worded thing to say that if women knew their place they wouldn't feel a need to lobby for rights.

[canard78]

It seems obvious to me that she was speaking in a church context-that women in the church who understood their true place (next to God, as a close friend of mine recently said) then they would not feel the need to lobby for rights in the church.

Unfortunately, she didn't clarify though, making it super easy for any who want to to claim she meant something else.

I don't agree that it's clear. She says: You will also be the ones to provide an example of family life in a time when families are under attack, being redefined and disintegrating. You will understand your roles and your responsibilities and thus will see no need to lobby for rights.

She says: be an example of family life in the context of a world where families are under attack. She is not talking solely about a church context in this statement, she is talking about their place in the world and the way other people in the world see them.

Even if it was only intended for a church context will a church spokesman apologise and make that clarification? Even if is only 'don't lobby for church rights' it seems a strange thing to say.

Should Emma Smith have stayed quiet about the tobacco on the upper floor? Maybe she should have...

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I agree, that she surely meant lobbying for rights within the church (a reference to pants day?), but either in that context, or taken out of context, I still find it, at a minimum, a horribly worded thing to say that if women knew their place they wouldn't feel a need to lobby for rights.

It seems weird that it could be a reference to pants day or the women pray at conference push. What do either of these have anything to do with the divine calling of motherhood, or traditional families? It would be nice to get a clarifying statement, but I won't hold my breath.

Edited January 22, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[bluebell]

I agree, that she surely meant lobbying for rights within the church (a reference to pants day?), but either in that context, or taken out of context, I still find it, at a minimum, a horribly worded thing to say that if women knew their place they wouldn't feel a need to lobby for rights.

I agree that it's too easy for people to take offense to the statement, or to assume the worst and react by putting her words in a completely different context than she meant them, and that as far as that is true, it would have been better if she had just not said that phrase at all.

Even if her words are true (and in a sense i think they are), the topic is too emotionally charged for them to do much good in today's atmosphere.

[ERayR]

For those seeking to find fault any wordin

I agree, that she surely meant lobbying for rights within the church (a reference to pants day?), but either in that context, or taken out of context, I still find it, at a minimum, a horribly worded thing to say that if women knew their place they wouldn't feel a need to lobby for rights.

For those seeking to find fault the wording does not matter, fault will be found. Too bad there are those who seek to find fault and divide rather than to seek understanding.

[canard78]

I think it essential to give due consideration to the context in which the statement was made (and, in that regard, thank you for providing a link to the full talk).

There is, in the secular world, a misguided notion that traditional roles pertaining to motherhood, child rearing, etc., are emblematic of the oppression of women. The Church of Jesus Christ teaches the contrary: that such roles are honorable and ennobling.

I read Sister Dalton as saying that women who have such an understanding regarding motherhood will be less inclined to feel oppressed when acting in that role.

All that could have been said without the very strong statement of 'don't lobby for rights.' It's a highly inflammatory statement and will lead to a loss of faith or as a stumbling block to some investigators if the statement is shared with them.

I'm glad you joined in - given your job on the church news. I noticed the Church News article about it tactfully avoided mentioning that quote:

http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/63152/BYU-devotional-Discipleship-is-not-a-spectator-sport.html

Was that a conscious decision?

[Scott Lloyd]

Even if it was only intended for a church context will a church spokesman apologise and make that clarification?

I don't think the Church ought to get into the habit of apologizing for statements of leaders just because some people's hypersensitivity inhibits their ability to read for comprehension.

[canard78]

I agree, that she surely meant lobbying for rights within the church (a reference to pants day?), but either in that context, or taken out of context, I still find it, at a minimum, a horribly worded thing to say that if women knew their place they wouldn't feel a need to lobby for rights.

If it is only about church rights, she should have said so. Even if it is, it's still a strange thing to say. Especially in the current climate. It makes the church leaders seem even further out of touch with the members.

It is the last thing that some struggling members need to hear.

[bluebell]

I don't agree that it's clear. She says: You will also be the ones to provide an example of family life in a time when families are under attack, being redefined and disintegrating. You will understand your roles and your responsibilities and thus will see no need to lobby for rights.

She says: be an example of family life in the context of a world where families are under attack. She is not talking solely about a church context in this statement, she is talking about their place in the world and the way other people in the world see them.

Even if it was only intended for a church context will a church spokesman apologise and make that clarification? Even if is only 'don't lobby for church rights' it seems a strange thing to say.

Should Emma Smith have stayed quiet about the tobacco on the upper floor? Maybe she should have...

I'm fine with you disagreeing with me, but i don't find your arguments to the contrary to be at all convincing, especially knowing that the talk came quickly after a group of women began lobbying for rights in the church and how that movement has been getting a lot of press. And also knowing that sis. Dalton is not blind to the suffering that women go through on a global scale, i would have think very little of her to think she doesn't care about any of that, and i don't see a reason to do so, as of yet.

Also, there's a difference between sharing your thoughts and opinions, as Emma did, and 'lobbying for rights'. But your example does illustrate how emotions are quick to take this topic and run, in directions it was likely never intended to go.

[canard78]

I don't think the Church ought to get into the habit of apologizing for statements of leaders just because some people's hypersensitivity inhibits their ability to read for comprehension.

Maybe not - but that statement out of context is going to hurt a lot of people: You will understand your roles and your responsibilities and thus will see no need to lobby for rights.

Even 'in context' it's going to hurt a lot of people. Even if it's in the context of 'don't lobby for church rights' it makes it sound like: 'sit down and shut up, this is a theocracy and we're not interested in your opinions.'

[sheilauk]

i haven't been able to view the talk (tech issues) but I've read the summary in Church News. Its a shame she said this in what seems otherwise to be a reasonable talk to young people. Like others here, I wonder if she meant it quite how it came out and whether it was a bit 'off the cuff'.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm glad you joined in - given your job on the church news. I noticed the Church News article about it tactfully avoided mentioning that quote:

http://www.ldschurch...ator-sport.html

Was that a conscious decision?

My colleague Marianne Holman is not here at the moment to ask. My guess is no. I don't think she harbors the sort of hypersensitivity that would drive her to deliberately avoid quoting it.

[Scott Lloyd]

Maybe not - but that statement out of context is going to hurt a lot of people: You will understand your roles and your responsibilities and thus will see no need to lobby for rights.

Even 'in context' it's going to hurt a lot of people.

I disagree, but time will tell, I suppose.

[thesometimesaint]

I'm fine with you disagreeing with me, but i don't find your arguments to the contrary to be at all convincing, especially knowing that the talk came quickly after a group of women began lobbying for rights in the church and how that movement has been getting a lot of press. And also knowing that sis. Dalton is not blind to the suffering that women go through on a global scale, i would have think very little of her to think she doesn't care about any of that, and i don't see a reason to do so, as of yet.

Also, there's a difference between sharing your thoughts and opinions, as Emma did, and 'lobbying for rights'. But your example does illustrate how emotions are quick to take this topic and run, in directions it was likely never intended to go.

I think that without clarification from her. It leaves her words as they stand.

[ERayR]

If it is only about church rights, she should have said so. Even if it is, it's still a strange thing to say. Especially in the current climate. It makes the church leaders seem even further out of touch with the members.

It is the last thing that some struggling members need to hear.

Repeat my post #10 above. Too many think others should walk on egg shells to keep their own feelings from being hurt. Those sentiments hurt my feelings. Do my feelings count?

[ERayR]

i haven't been able to view the talk (tech issues) but I've read the summary in Church News. Its a shame she said this in what seems otherwise to be a reasonable talk to young people. Like others here, I wonder if she meant it quite how it came out and whether it was a bit 'off the cuff'.

Why is it such a shame?

[canard78]

I'm fine with you disagreeing with me, but i don't find your arguments to the contrary to be at all convincing, especially knowing that the talk came quickly after a group of women began lobbying for rights in the church and how that movement has been getting a lot of press. And also knowing that sis. Dalton is not blind to the suffering that women go through on a global scale, i would have think very little of her to think she doesn't care about any of that, and i don't see a reason to do so, as of yet.

Also, there's a difference between sharing your thoughts and opinions, as Emma did, and 'lobbying for rights'. But your example does illustrate how emotions are quick to take this topic and run, in directions it was likely never intended to go.

I probably wasn't clear, I agree with you that her comments were probably triggered by the 'wear pants/let sisters pray' movement. But her statement doesn't make it clear that she is talking about this.

Even if she is. Would you feel comfortable with a 1950s approach to women in the church? Do you think any of the following changes were in response to the women's rights movement of the era? I don't know the details of how these changes happened, but if any Mormon women lobbied (or even wrote to) church leaders raising this issue, were they in the wrong?

Other developments during the presidency of Spencer W. Kimball included having women granted their young women advancements in sacrament meeting, in 1978 the First Presidency and Twelve issued a policy allowing women to pray in Sacrament Meeting In 1980 the general presidents of the Relief Society, Young Women and Primary were invited to sit on the stand during general conference and in 1984 women spoke in general conference for the first time since 1930. Since then women have spoken in every general conference. In 1978 a conference session specifically for women was added, initially two weeks before the October General Conference, and later one week beforehand.^[18]

Brigham Young University, the LDS Church's flagship educational institution, has made several changes in its policy towards women. In 1975 the four-year, full tuition and boarding expenses presidential scholarship was changed from only being available to men to being available to an equal number of men and women.^[19] BYU established a Women's Research Institute in 1978.^[20] Among its directors over its 21 years of existence was Marie Cornwall. At the end of 2009 BYU restructured its Women's Studies Programs, freeing more money for research on women's issues by ending an institute staff, placing the Women's Studies Minor in the Sociology Department and thus putting all the money that previously was split between research and staff directly into research expenditures.^[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_Mormonism#Women_in_20th_and_21st_Century_Mormonism

Edited January 22, 2013 by canard78

[ERayR]

Do you think any of the following changes were in response to the women's rights movement of the era? I don't know the details of how these changes happened, but if any Mormon women lobbied (or even wrote to) church leaders raising this issue, were they in the wrong?

No!

[Scott Lloyd]

I probably wasn't clear, I agree with you that her comments were probably triggered by the 'wear pants/let sisters pray' movement. But her statement doesn't make it clear that she is talking about this.

Even if she is. Would you feel comfortable with a 1950s approach to women in the church? Do you think any of the following changes were in response to the women's rights movement of the era? I don't know the details of how these changes happened, but if any Mormon women lobbied (or even wrote to) church leaders raising this issue, were they in the wrong?

I think you are reading things into what bluebell said. (And pardon, I hit the rep point button on your post when I intended to hit the "Quote" button.)

[canard78]

I disagree, but time will tell, I suppose.

The mormon mothers at babycenter.com forum are unhappy about it.

http://community.babycenter.com/post/a39389503/good_mormon_women_see_no_need_to_lobby_for_rights

What world, on what planet, does Pres. Dalton live on? I don't know how much longer I can hold on, stay in the church

This might just be the straw that breaks the camel's back for me. So many LDS women, striving to be faithful yet still hoping and trying for change and equality in the church they've given so much to, and this is the slap in the face Salt Lake dishes out?

Next time my mom gives me grief about not going to church I will bring this quote out and tell her as soon as this attitude changes I will consider going back to church. But untill then I will not support this type of attitude towards women.

Clearly this will hurt people and depending on how far social media sends the message (all out of context) will decide how many are hurt by it.

Being hypersensitive is one thing. Choosing your words carefully when you represent the church is another.