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

[Saints Alive]

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.

That sounds a lot like bending the will of God to the peoples liking. I think it is supposed to be the other way around.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

I agree with Saints Alive, that those who are faithful enough to have heard Sister Dalton speak before and who have a sense of what is in her heart will not read into this remark any ill intent or unintended message.

Edited January 22, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[rameumptom]

Perhaps her meaning was that there are eternally more important things to be spending your life on, than using up precious time lobbying to wear pants in church. Whether one wears pants or not in church does not affect one's eternal potential. Whether one focuses on being an example to the world and strengthens her family WILL have both temporal and eternal effect.

[cinepro]

I can't hear it out here in Los Angeles, but can anyone in Utah let me know if they can hear Emmeline Wells spinning in her grave?

While editor of the Woman’s Exponent, Emmeline felt that its major purpose was to educate women about all subjects and to encourage them to be active in public affairs, particularly politics. Women were encouraged to write their thoughts down and to submit them to the magazine.

Through her work Emmeline became known to the national leaders of the suffrage movement. In Utah she was elected vice president of the Women’s Suffrage Association. Emmeline became a personal friend of Susan B. Anthony and corresponded with her regularly. She attended several conventions in Washington, D.C., and met several presidents of the United States, never passing up an opportunity to speak out for women’s right to vote. In an interview with the associated press in Washington, D.C., she said, “For one, I am proud of Utah’s record in dealing with her female citizens. I look forward with eager hope to the day when woman suffrage shall become universal.”

Edited January 22, 2013 by cinepro

[canard78]

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.

I asked several questions in my OP. I was raising the implications of the quote and questioning why she would use this kind of blunt language.

The mole hill was very easy to turn into a mountain given the language Sister Dalton used.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think that any speaker should always be aware of the impact their speech will give.

Sure. But a hearer bears an ethical responsibility to be charitable in how he construes the message. This is especially true within the Church, where we ought to be forgiving and forbearing regarding one another's imperfections.

Edited January 22, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[canard78]

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.

No worries, I agreed with a lot of what you have to say. I remind my wife regularly that her role as a full-time mother and home maker is, in my eyes, a wonderful success. I agree that this need to be celebrated.

[sheilauk]

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.

As Cinepro said, there is a difference between people finding fault and misconstruing and 'putting your foot in it'. Of course, there are those who will find fault whatever, those who look for faults, those who are easily offended and those who are hypersensitive, but one doesn't have to step on the landmine for them. And it seems to me that its not just the hypersensitive who are unhappy with those words used by Sis Dalton. And because of the outcry over those few words, other sensible things are being overlooked.

[Saints Alive]

I asked several questions in my OP. I was raising the implications of the quote and questioning why she would use this kind of blunt language.

The mole hill was very easy to turn into a mountain given the language Sister Dalton used.

I still don't see how you could think that was a reasonable question. I don't see how you can make the jump from telling sisters that once they realize the importance and full scope of their divine role they will have no need to lobby (the church) and sister Dalton thinking that women shouldnt have gotten the right to vote. One doesn't equal the other.

[thesometimesaint]

I have. I stand by my comments. Even taken in the purported context. Without further clarification BY THE SPEAKER it leads to terrible implications. Just as Paul's injunction for women to remain silent in church.

[Tacenda]

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.

Exactly Canard Already on these other boards they're saying women in the church are told to stay sweet. That sounds way to much like the Fundamentalists when they tell their women to "keep sweet". We don't want to be compared to a group that put women in the 19th century when women were considered chattel. It'll spill onto the faithful boards.

[canard78]

I still don't see how you could think that was a reasonable question. I don't see how you can make the jump from telling sisters that once they realize the importance and full scope of their divine role they will have no need to lobby (the church) and sister Dalton thinking that women shouldnt have gotten the right to vote. One doesn't equal the other.

But she didn't say "no need to lobby (the church)" - she said "no need to lobby for rights." Even if I interpret the statement as 'don't lobby for the priesthood' or church rights, there will now be many YWPs having to explain this statement to confused young women.

I was asking the question to illustrate the concerns and criticisms that will come as a result of this talk.

[Saints Alive]

But she didn't say "no need to lobby (the church)" - she said "no need to lobby for rights."

She didn't need to! It should have been self evident from the context of the speaker and her position what she was referencing. Hopefully it wont cause too much grief for YWPs to explain this to those lacking common sense.

[juliann]

Sure. But a hearer bears an ethical responsibility to be charitable in how he construes the message. This is especially true within the Church, where we ought to be forgiving and show forbearing regarding one another's imperfections.

Actually, I think we all need to pray for Sis. Dalton right now, she must be going through hell. We have an unfortunate culture of attacking women very harshly. We see that with the really cruel things said about feminists on this board. But what goes around comes around which is why I wish people would get that attacking women is attacking women no matter what side you think you are on.

[DavidB]

In my opinion no one can read the words quoted or watch the limited video and not think "what rights is she talking about".

I agree with juliann that a followup is needed or an edit to the print version much like is done for GC talks.

[DavidB]

This seems like material for Kirby, or some other Deseret new person.

[thesometimesaint]

Sure. But a hearer bears an ethical responsibility to be charitable in how he construes the message. This is especially true within the Church, where we ought to be forgiving and forbearing regarding one another's imperfections.

I'm all for that. Mainly because I fall so far short of that perfection. That I need all the forgiveness and forbearing I can get. To be as charitable as I can get the speaker in this case needs to clarify what she meant.

Edited January 22, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[canard78]

This seems like material for Kirby, or some other Deseret new person.

I'm surpised it hasn't already

[ALarson]

She didn't need to! It should have been self evident from the context of the speaker and her position what she was referencing. Hopefully it wont cause too much grief for YWPs to explain this to those lacking common sense.

As I stated in my previous post, this is already causing grief for one YW's president who's been asked to address this by her Bishop (explain it to the YW in her ward). She told me she will try to smooth things over, but without clarification from Sister Dalton, she's struggling and doesn't want to assume exactly what Sister Dalton meant.

[Scott Lloyd]

This seems like material for Kirby, or some other Deseret new person.

Kirby is not a Deseret News person.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm all for that. Mainly because I fall so far short of that perfection. That I need all the forgiveness and forbearing I can get. To be as charitable as I can get the speak in this case needs to clarify what she meant.

You missed my point. Charity and forbearance on the part of a hearer should not be conditional upon a clarifying statement or apology from a speaker.

Edited January 22, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[cinepro]

Actually, I think we all need to pray for Sis. Dalton right now, she must be going through hell. We have an unfortunate culture of attacking women very harshly. We see that with the really cruel things said about feminists on this board. But what goes around comes around which is why I wish people would get that attacking women is attacking women no matter what side you think you are on.

I suspect if a male leader of the Church had said it, things would be much worse...

[MorningStar]

I think Sis. Dalton was trying to say gently that protests trying to create change in the church is silly. When I hear "lobby", to me that means to organize a movement to put pressure on those who make decisions, which I feel is not appropriate in the church. If you want to wear pants, wear pants. You're not going to be excommunicated. But to make sacrament meeting a place to push an agenda is not appropriate. We're there to renew sacred covenants. I feel like as a woman, I can express my opinions fine, but it's not lobbying.

[Garden Girl]

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'.

I've read her talk... and it is a shame because all of the beautiful principles she spoke of have been completely lost in the controversy over the one phrase... yes, I wish she hadn't said it... in or out of context it's not good.

GG

[thesometimesaint]

You missed my point. Charity and forbearance on the part of a hearer should not be conditional upon a clarifying statement or apology from a speaker.

Which is more charitable, to seek clarification or just go by what was actually said?

A clarifying statement removes any doubt as to what was meant by what was said. I'm not asking for an apology. A forced apology is worthless.