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

[ControlFreak]

For those seeking to find fault any wordin

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.

Seeking understanding is the whole point of this. Her statement does the opposite. It makes sisters feel like they have no place lobbying for change in the church. My understanding of their whole movement was to lobby for change in the culture of the church. Not even church policies. What is wrong with that?

Is it so wrong disagree with her? Her statement can be absurd and close-minded and the church can still be true. Her statement can be absurd and close-minded and she can still be an otherwise great and inspired person. Everyone has a few screwed up ideas in their head, and everyone lets things come out of their mouths the wrong way from time to time. It is no shock to me that SIster Dalton is no exception.

I sure hope that most members of the church took umbrage with Mark E. Peterson's racist statements in the past. That doesn't mean he didn't provide other good inspiration to the church even though his race related comments were waaaay of the mark? Are we not allowed to call a spade a spade?

[ERayR]

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

http://community.bab...obby_for_rights

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

Again I do not think it incumbent on Church leaders to walk on egg shells for the benefit of the hypersensitive. If they choose to have hurt feelings it doesn't matter what is said they will find some way to have hurt feelings.

[volgadon]

CF, It is the lobbying part.

[Scott Lloyd]

Seeking understanding is the whole point of this. Her statement does the opposite. It makes sisters feel like they have no place lobbying for change in the church.

Define "lobbying."

[canard78]

For those seeking to find fault any wordin

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.

She told young women of the church that they should not lobby for rights. End of sentence. That statement doesn't need 'seeking' or an agenda. It's a self-contained statement.

So do you think women should not lobby for any rights? Or only church rights? If you believe the latter, wouldn't you say the latter rather than the former?

[canard78]

Please can we keep this to a civil conversation? It will get very quickly locked otherwise.

[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'.

Why is it such a shame?

Because, though i think I understand what she was getting at, its not really clear and it can be taken out of context and misused and, even though its not fair, that is the world we live in today. That's not to say I think difficult/contentious issues should be ignored, just that when addressing them, clarity and careful use of words is better. Given today's world, I think its wise to always look to see how something might be perceived and try to counter it.

I hope I'm being clear!

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

There have always been those who are all-too-ready to "make a man [or woman] an offender for a word." That is still the case today, and I don't expect it to change anytime soon, despite the degree of political correctness that is imposed upon discourse.

[bluebell]

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

I think that trying to interpret her words without using context would be a huge mistake.

[ControlFreak]

Define "lobbying."

Well, therein lies the whole problem, doesn't it? We have no idea what Sis. Dalton means by that word? Maybe she meant sending letters to the prophet asking him to change doctrine? In which case, I wouldn't complain overly loudly.

My definition would be everything as little as encouraging others beyond my own family to do something differently. Say, for example, a facebook post asking people to support the idea that you really can wear pants to church, even though it is culturally unacceptable.

[Scott Lloyd]

So do you think women should not lobby for any rights? Or only church rights? If you believe the latter, wouldn't you say the latter rather than the former?

I don't believe any "lobbying" in the political, pressure-group, public protest sense of the term is ever appropriate in the Church of Jesus Christ.

As I tried to make clear in my posts on your thread over on the "In the news" forum, there is a distinction between a well-intentioned expression of concern and a media-driven pressure campaign.

[ERayR]

She told young women of the church that they should not lobby for rights. End of sentence. That statement doesn't need 'seeking' or an agenda. It's a self-contained statement.

So do you think women should not lobby for any rights? Or only church rights? If you believe the latter, wouldn't you say the latter rather than the former?

Church membership is a privilege not a right. Membership is offered on acceptance of the precepts of the church. To accept those precepts then to start lobbying to change them to fit ones own concepts is a wee bit hypocritical.

[Scott Lloyd]

Please can we keep this to a civil conversation? It will get very quickly locked otherwise.

Has someone here been uncivil?

[canard78]

Define "lobbying."

Webster:

Lobby: "to attempt to influence or sway toward a desired action"

Right: "something to which one has a just claim"

So LDS women should do nothing to attempt to influence the church to do something the feel they have a just claim to?

Even something simple like whether they can say prayers in church meetings or not?

Some of the church practices are just that... practices. They are not doctrine. They are not eternal. They are just processes and practices. Why shouldn't a woman be able to raise a concern about that practice and suggest something they feel should be done differently?

[ControlFreak]

I don't believe any "lobbying" in the political, pressure-group, public protest sense of the term is ever appropriate in the Church of Jesus Christ.

As I tried to make clear in my posts on your thread over on the "In the news" forum, there is a distinction between a well-intentioned expression of concern and a media-driven pressure campaign.

Again, I think you've hit the heart of the issue. As a single statement, without explanation, it sounds very restricting depending on your definition of "lobbying". Personally, I don't think she should have made such a potentially inflammatory statement without more detail. That would suggest she is a normal, imperfect person. No big deal.

On the other hand, should she now clarify using hindsight and realizing that people are misunderstanding?

[Scott Lloyd]

Webster:

Lobby: "to attempt to influence or sway toward a desired action"

Right: "something to which one has a just claim"

So LDS women should do nothing to attempt to influence the church to do something the feel they have a just claim to?

Even something simple like whether they can say prayers in church meetings or not?

Some of the church practices are just that... practices. They are not doctrine. They are not eternal. They are just processes and practices. Why shouldn't a woman be able to raise a concern about that practice and suggest something they feel should be done differently?

Please see my post #36 and regard it as a response to this.

[BlueDreams]

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.

It means that it was at a BYU devotional and I'll pay attention to it about as much as I pay attention to other BYU devotionals (nigh unto nothing). Sometimes there's great stuff that's said. Sometimes there's controversial stuff. Sometimes there's some really dumb comments.

I'm aware of the fact that it was probably within the context of the church. I still disagree. The more I've grown to understand my role and worth and responsibility as a woman and see more where there is a disparity between that and reality/practice. It does not qualm my desire to see change to further understand and utilize our responsibilities as women.

In the context of the world....oye. Just no. Not even close. it falls into a number of "good women" pitfalls that maintain the status quo and maintain damaging systems that limit women's rights and the health and safety of children/families.

So in short she could have used far better words to pull across her point. I'm not exactly sure what her point is. But I assume its along the lines of "petitioning for silly change within the church is a waste." But I'm not sure. At the very least she could have made her point a whole lot clearer and specific. I understand that she was probably going for general application as opposed to unnecessarily pointing people out to cause offense. But it falls way flat because of it.

With luv,

BD

[DavidB]

I am waiting on the pdf, speeches.BYU has not posted it yet.

I would like to understand the context.

Out of context it is a horrible thing to say.

Equal pay;

Voting rights;

And wasn't a 13 girl shot in head for wanting females to have an education?

[canard78]

Has someone here been uncivil?

It wasn't 'at' anyone in particular - I just know how quickly hot button topics get locked. I would be interested to have as many people as possible participate.

[canard78]

Church membership is a privilege not a right. Membership is offered on acceptance of the precepts of the church. To accept those precepts then to start lobbying to change them to fit ones own concepts is a wee bit hypocritical.

Some 'precepts' are simply cultural practices. Some of those precepts might only get reviewed and updated when people who find them difficult raise it as a concern.

[canard78]

I don't believe any "lobbying" in the political, pressure-group, public protest sense of the term is ever appropriate in the Church of Jesus Christ.

As I tried to make clear in my posts on your thread over on the "In the news" forum, there is a distinction between a well-intentioned expression of concern and a media-driven pressure campaign.

I think I missed the newsroom thread and I don't think I started one... I'll go and have a look.

Lobbying has a broader definition than the one you've given it above.

ETA: Found it:

Edited January 22, 2013 by canard78

[juliann]

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.

I don't think that motherhood, etc. is considered the problem at all even in the secular world. Even feminists have children. The objection is pretty clearly centered on the unequal attitudes and outright treatment of women....particularly when it is institutionalized. Sis. Dalton clearly made an inflammatory statement that I am sure she would revise in hindsight. I don't think any rational person could really think she meant what she said (and yes, she said it).

I think it actually focuses what is perhaps the bigger problem, and that is that the church has no way to have an open conversation about this to the point that even trying to broach it has to be done sideways....thus resulting in statements so vague they can be turned against them very easily. I am quite sure that this was indeed an attempt to respond to those concerned about the recent lobby events in the church. But inserting this comment in a context of talking about the world, I don't think a case can be made for that. The church will have to respond to this in some more direct manner. When Julie Beck's talk made waves they responded quite directly in a panel discussion in a worldwide training conference.

But on the bright side, conference will probably have its highest ratings ever.

[canard78]

I am waiting on the pdf, speeches.BYU has not posted it yet.

I would like to understand the context.

Out of context it is a horrible thing to say.

Equal pay;

Voting rights;

And wasn't a 13 girl shot in head for wanting females to have an education?

I posted a full link to the talk. It's about 30 minutes long

[ERayR]

Because, though i think I understand what she was getting at, its not really clear and it can be taken out of context and misused and, even though its not fair, that is the world we live in today. That's not to say I think difficult/contentious issues should be ignored, just that when addressing them, clarity and careful use of words is better. Given today's world, I think its wise to always look to see how something might be perceived and try to counter it.

I hope I'm being clear!

It has always been easy to have ones words misconstrued. From Joseph Smith till now there have been those who would find fault with every word uttered. I agree that ideally a discourse would not be misconstrued. That being said I am of the opinion that there is always some who would second guess and find fault with every word uttered by a church leader. I do not think it incumbent on Church leaders and conference speakers to have to worry about the hypersensitive. For every one who finds fault thousands find comfort and direction.

[tyler90az]

She was only talking about lobbying within the church. It is highly probable, I would bet on it, that she has heard about the women's lobbying(pants). That would then lead me to believe she was, if not completely in part, referring to that particular lobbying.

I understand what she is saying though if women understood their greatness no lobbying would take place. To me, motherhood is more honorable then being a Priesthood holder(is that doctrine?). The problem is none of us are spiritually perfect to comprehend the greatness of all God's plans. If we/they were spiritually perfect they would see what they have is greater(motherhood) than Priesthood. It would essentially be lowering themselves to Priesthood holders, a lesser privilege(if you will).

The problem is then, how do we make women realize the greatness of motherhood? Is it being addressed in conference enough or locally? Is there stuff coming out on a consistent basis on lds.org? Is there a website devoted to the greatness of motherhood? Is there a whole general conference devoted to motherhood greatness?

That is the whole problem women do not realize the greatness of motherhood, or men for that matter. Can you blame them though? The world that we live in today does not tell them motherhood is greatness, on the contrary.

Even in situations where women work, which should not be frowned upon, bearing a child for nine months is greater then holding the Priesthood. Then in those blessed situations where the woman stays home, by choice and circumstance, more greatness comes. The blessing of watching them grow every step of the way, their triumphant, even their falls. Ideally, nothing should be more appealing to women then that. So, how do we make that more appealing, it falls on husbands first and church second? We need to be educated more, at least I do.

The greatest(maybe I need a better word) thing any mortal person could do is give birth to a child of God. That means if they work everyday they still performed the greatest act a human being could ever do bear and giver birth to a child.

Now do not get me wrong, I think women should be able to pray in conference. Why not, what is the problem with them praying?

That brings me to another point about the Prophets(apostles if you prefer). I love and sustain all the prophets do not get that mistaken. When lobbying comes from faithful members I expect them to listen, evaluate and pray. Then if it is determined by them, then God, it should take place. That to me is what true Prophets would do.

True Prophets would not be stubborn and say, "I am not doing it because they are lobbying," that is not a Prophet of God. True prophets of God would not say, "well we have to wait because people might think it was not a decision made by god, rather public pressure." If it is brought up by faithful and praying members it should seriously be considered. A true Prophet of God cares for his sheep and tends to their needs. I am not accusing the Prophets of doing any of those things, that is just what Prophets of God are to me.

My prayer is that God will touch the Prophets and give revelation that it is a great thing to hear the purest creation of God pray in General Conference.