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

[Scott Lloyd]

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: http://www.mormondia...entry1209214871

Words carry connotations and shades of meaning that sometimes are widespread yet don't get documented, even in formal dictionary definitions.

Lobbying is very clearly a political term. (It is derived, after all, from the practice of lurking in the "lobby" of a legislative hall in order to buttonhole and try to influence lawmakers.) I'm saying that the Church of Jesus Christ is not by design a political institution, and politics have no place within it. Yes, we can make suggestions, bring things to the attention of leaders, raise concerns, etc. But ultimately the decision must be directed by God, not mortals.

Edited January 22, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[canard78]

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

I agree with you on all points. I don't think I'd ever even watched a BYU devotional before. It was only because she'd said it that I wanted to 'go to source' and see the whole talk.

The problem is that by making that statement in a public forum and by making it such a pithy soundbite she's shot herself in the foot. It's so easy to requote and share.

There's already this video been created in response:

Ironically she makes a joke about 'memes' on social media in response to the missionary age lowering. I think she's given easy material for other meme creators.

[ERayR]

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.

And when we accept membership we don't get to define either except in the sphere of the callings we are called to.

[DavidB]

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

Thanks for the link, however, I have slow innernetwebs.

[canard78]

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.

You start by saying women should feel no need to lobby in church but then say that lobbying for women to pray in conference is a good thing. I'm not sure I get whether you support or oppose a woman lobbying in church.

[Scott Lloyd]

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: http://www.mormondia...entry1209214871

Pardon, the thread was started by Tacenda. I was responding to your post on the thread.

I'm glad you found it.

[thesometimesaint]

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

But what is the context? Should women just sit down and shut up about being equal to their boy friends or husbands concerning rights to being heard, and taken seriously. Or is it really just a silly argument about wearing pants to church meetings.

[canard78]

Words carry connotations and shades of meaning that sometimes are widespread yet don't get documented, even in formal dictionary definitions.

Lobbying is very clearly a political term. (It is derived, after all, from the practice of lurking in the "lobby" of a legislative hall in order to buttonhole and try to influence lawmakers.) I'm saying that the Church of Jesus Christ is not by design a political institution, and politics have no place within it. Yes, we can make suggestions, bring things to the attention of leaders, raise concerns, etc. But ultimately the decision must be directed by God, not mortals.

To your first point... exactly. Words carry connotations. Perhaps she didn't stop to consider the 'shades of meaning' from a statement like 'good mormon girls don't lobby for rights.' I agree that she probably meant rights in the church. But she didn't say rights in the church. She said 'don't lobby for rights.' That's all she said.

I also agree with your definition of the origin of the word lobby. But it means more than political activism today. Words have meaning based on the hearers understanding of the word.

[cinepro]

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.

There is a difference between something being "misconstrued" and someone just flat out saying the wrong thing.

The strangest thing to me is that Sister Dalton didn't have enough self-awareness to see that that phrase might be a landmine and go way out of her way to word it in a way that couldn't be misconstrued. At the very least, she should have put the word "rights" in bunny quotes to show she was referring to "so-called" rights and not actual "rights".

Because as it reads, the only argument for it having been "misconstrued" is that the plain reading is so awful that no sane American woman could have uttered it in public in 2013 and meant what it says, so therefore she must have meant something else.

Besides, I think Sister Dalton is

Edited January 22, 2013 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

But what is the context? Should women just sit down and shut up about being equal to their boy friends or husbands concerning rights to being heard, and taken seriously. Or is it really just a silly argument about wearing pants to church meetings.

Some of us here have given our interpretations of the context. Beyond that, I think you are intellectually capable of going to the link, listening to the talk and forming your own conclusion.

[juliann]

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.

What happened to going after the one? We can put our hands on our hips and get huffy or we can show compassion to those who are asking for more involvement in the church. I strongly suggest the latter because the church will not win a media battle on these simple things. Creating a situation where there is "another way" to get the same point across without going to the media won't fly, either. There is no other way for women to speak to those who make these decisions. And everybody knows that so that is a particularly weak defense.

All Enlisted seems to be targeting minor practices that the church has actually made statements about...yet they are not following their own statements. So when it goes to the media, the church not only has no defense, they look even more sexist because these are such small things. When there are official statements that women can give prayers, the church is in the are you still beating your wife situation. These women are not going to stop because they don't need the church to play. They only need the media and they obviously have them. I didn't think the prayer thing would tickle media fancy but it did. For the church to be able to say this just isn't the way to do things, they need to provide the right way...which means setting up a way for women to reach leadership. Then they will have the opportunity to explain why things are as they are and people can take it or leave it. But until they do that, there really is no defense against a slow and steady media campaign.

[canard78]

There is a difference between something being "misconstrued" and someone just flat out saying the wrong thing.

The strangest thing to me is that Sister Dalton didn't have enough self-awareness to see that that phrase might be a landmine and go way out of her way to word it in a way that couldn't be misconstrued.

Because as it reads, the only argument for it having been "misconstrued" is that the plain reading is so awful that no sane American woman could have uttered it in public in 2013 and meant what it says.

Exactly. The words on their own, even in context are going to be hurtful.

I recognise that Scott and ErayR are defending the point that women should not create a political pressure groups and media campaigns to push through anything from women having the priesthood to being able to pray in conference. But Sister Dalton didn't say this. And it will be requoted in areas where Scott and ErayR aren't around to clarify and defend. It was simply a badly chosen language.

[Saints Alive]

...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?

I think you are talking her out of context and bearing false witness against her remarks. This is obviously in reference to women and the priesthood and women in church leadership positions.

[canard78]

Some of us here have given our interpretations of the context. Beyond that, I think you are intellectually capable of going to the link, listening to the talk and forming your own conclusion.

But most people who read or hear it won't go and watch the full talk. Not just the nit-picking critics but well-intentioned, faithful members. She has created a soundbite that will live far beyond the talk she has given.

[Scott Lloyd]

To your first point... exactly. Words carry connotations. Perhaps she didn't stop to consider the 'shades of meaning' from a statement like 'good mormon girls don't lobby for rights.' I agree that she probably meant rights in the church. But she didn't say rights in the church. She said 'don't lobby for rights.' That's all she said.

I also agree with your definition of the origin of the word lobby. But it means more than political activism today. Words have meaning based on the hearers understanding of the word.

A hearer's or listener's inherent disposition to find fault will impact that person's ability to comprehend the intended meaning of a speaker or writer.

[tyler90az]

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

All things work out for the good of those who love him. Maybe this was Gods plan all along. If it gets more people to watch, it was worth any negatives it may receive, in my opinion.

Funny to think about it that way.

[Scott Lloyd]

But most people who read or hear it won't go and watch the full talk. Not just the nit-picking critics but well-intentioned, faithful members. She has created a soundbite that will live far beyond the talk she has given.

I was addressing thesometimesaint in that post and pointing out to him or reminding him that he has your link at his disposal.

[canard78]

I think you are talking her out of context and bearing false witness against her remarks. This is obviously in reference to women and the priesthood and women in church leadership positions.

Bearing false witness? That's a bit strong? Should I hand in my recommend?

They were questions to open the discussion. I intentionally spent about an hour online finding the original talk, watching it all and reading different perspectives of people who had seen the quote so that I wasn't just 'flaming' and pressing buttons.

Out of interest, did you watch the full talk before making a comment that I was bearing false witness?

[tyler90az]

I agree with you on all points. I don't think I'd ever even watched a BYU devotional before. It was only because she'd said it that I wanted to 'go to source' and see the whole talk.

The problem is that by making that statement in a public forum and by making it such a pithy soundbite she's shot herself in the foot. It's so easy to requote and share.

There's already this video been created in response:

[media=]

Ironically she makes a joke about 'memes' on social media in response to the missionary age lowering. I think she's given easy material for other meme creators.

That video is sadly amazingly effective.

I feel bad for Sis.Dalton, really bad that her words were used against her. People say things they do not mean, people say things the wrong way, people are people.

[ERayR]

What happened to going after the one? We can put our hands on our hips and get huffy or we can show compassion to those who are asking for more involvement in the church. I strongly suggest the latter because the church will not win a media battle on these simple things. Creating a situation where there is "another way" to get the same point across without going to the media won't fly, either. There is no other way for women to speak to those who make these decisions. And everybody knows that so that is a particularly weak defense.

All Enlisted seems to be targeting minor practices that the church has actually made statements about...yet they are not following their own statements. So when it goes to the media, the church not only has no defense, they look even more sexist because these are such small things. When there are official statements that women can give prayers, the church is in the are you still beating your wife situation. These women are not going to stop because they don't need the church to play. They only need the media and they obviously have them. I didn't think the prayer thing would tickle media fancy but it did. For the church to be able to say this just isn't the way to do things, they need to provide the right way...which means setting up a way for women to reach leadership. Then they will have the opportunity to explain why things are as they are and people can take it or leave it. But until they do that, there really is no defense against a slow and steady media campaign.

To me going after the one is a one on one activity. I am not saying that there is not some misstatements made in conference addresses but what bothers me is the flock of crows sitting on the fence looking for things to pounce on.

[ALarson]

There is a difference between something being "misconstrued" and someone just flat out saying the wrong thing.

The strangest thing to me is that Sister Dalton didn't have enough self-awareness to see that that phrase might be a landmine and go way out of her way to word it in a way that couldn't be misconstrued.

Because as it reads, the only argument for it having been "misconstrued" is that the plain reading is so awful that no sane American woman could have uttered it in public in 2013 and meant what it says, so therefore she must have meant something else.

I completely agree with this. However, I really do like and respect Sister Dalton too and would love to hear a clarification from her.

There are already repercussions from this at least in one ward I'm connected to. I have a close family member who is a YW's president and she told me they have already been asked by the Bishop to make sure the young women in their ward understand what Sister Dalton was referring to. She is struggling with knowing how to handle it. Again, it would be good to have a clarification from the source.

[canard78]

A hearer's or listener's inherent disposition to find fault will impact that person's ability to comprehend the intended meaning of a speaker or writer.

As I said in post 64, this quote will live beyond her talk and some faithful members with no disposition to find fault would still find this comment frustrating and hurtful.

My mother is about as faithful a member I know. I hope, for her sake, that she doesn't see this quote (even in context). She would find it very frustrating and upsetting.

[Saints Alive]

Bearing false witness? That's a bit strong? Should I hand in my recommend?

They were questions to open the discussion. I intentionally spent about an hour online finding the original talk, watching it all and reading different perspectives of people who had seen the quote so that I wasn't just 'flaming' and pressing buttons.

Out of interest, did you watch the full talk before making a comment that I was bearing false witness?

So you honestly believe that sister dalton doesn't want women to have the right to vote, etc. as you suggested in your OP?

This is classic mountain building on top of mole hills.

[tyler90az]

You start by saying women should feel no need to lobby in church but then say that lobbying for women to pray in conference is a good thing. I'm not sure I get whether you support or oppose a woman lobbying in church.

I started by saying that I understand what Sis. Dalton was getting at. Then in the middle(or there about) said we are not perfect or church. Then at the end I agreed lobbying can be a good thing for the church.

Sorry about the confusion, written communication is not my strong suit. Just ignore my babbling if you have to, haha.

[thesometimesaint]

A hearer's or listener's inherent disposition to find fault will impact that person's ability to comprehend the intended meaning of a speaker or writer.

I think that any speaker should always be aware of the impact their speech will give. Sure there will always be those that deliberately misrepresent what was said. However that is no where the majority of people. Taken at face value some clarification by this speaker is in order.