Feminist Mormons Ask Lds Leader To Clarify Comment

[smac97]

Here: http://fox13now.com/2013/01/30/feminist-mormons-ask-lds-leader-to-clarify-comment/

PROVO, Utah — Some members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints want one of its leaders to clarify a statement she made about women’s rights at a Brigham Young University devotional earlier this month.

Elaine Dalton, LDS Church Young Women General President, said in part, “You will also be the ones who provide the example of family life in a time when families are under attack, being redefined and disintegrating. You will understand your rights and your responsibilities, and thus see no need to lobby for rights.”

The statement has drawn sharp criticism from members who are fighting for gender equality. Mary Ellen Robertson, interim executive director of the Sunstone Institute, said the comment was discouraging.

“That was really like a stake in the heart for a lot of people because here’s their advocate saying, in essence, ‘don’t ask for anything else, don’t lobby for more,’” Robertson said.

A Mormon feminist group, WAVE, is asking their supporters to write Dalton and express their feelings as well as ask her to clarify herself so young women aren’t getting a mixed message.

Robertson said Dalton’s statement was hard to hear from someone with such authority.

“It’s just not the message I think a lot of people hope to hear from a person who is in an influential position in the church,” Robertson said.

Fox 13 News reached out to the LDS Church on this matter, but a church spokesperson declined to comment.

A few thoughts:

1. The article does not specify the context of Sister Dalton's comments. The Trib article (here) advises that Sister Dalton was speaking at a BYU devotional on January 15 when she made the remark quoted above.

2. The Trib article provides a bit more of the quote: "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."

3. The Trib article further states:

When Dalton’s quote was posted on the Feminist Mormon Housewives Facebook page and later discussed on the group’s blog,the two sites elicited more than 600 comments, many of which noted the discrepancy between what Dalton said about women’s rights and what early Mormon feminists had to say.

In the 19th century, several of the Utah-based church’s top female leaders worked tirelessly for women’s rights that went well beyond motherhood. Among them was Susa Young Gates, daughter of Mormon prophet Brigham Young and an accomplished writer and editor who launched the Young Woman’s Journal.

4. I am not sure there is a "discrepancy," which the Trib presupposes to exist. Later on on the Trib article, it states: "It is unclear whether Dalton was referring to women’s rights in general, such as equal pay for equal work, or whether she was reacting to recent campaigns in which Mormon women wore pants to church and members urged LDS leaders to let women offer prayers during the faith’s semiannual General Conferences."

I suspect that Sister Dalton's remarks related to the latter issue (the "Pants Protest" thing). Public protests against the Church by members of the Church are, I think, not appropriate. I do not think members should publicly "lobby for rights" regarding matters of Church governance, at least not through publicity campaigns such as this one. The whole point of a public protest, after all, is to impose social pressure. While that is fine for secular forms of governance, I do not think it is appropriate within the Church. There are mechanisms in place which allow individual members to make their voices heard.

The wearing-pants-to-church thing was a bit silly. I do not know of any doctrinal prohibition against women praying in General Conference, nor would I have any problem with such a thing. I do, however, take issue with church members publicly demanding this of the Brethren.

5. I think some of the efforts on this point have been appropriate. For example, this form letter to be sent to the Brethren includes this statement: "In the history of the Church, faithful members have presented ideas and concerns to Church leaders and asked them to pray about it. Without these faithful members taking their concerns to their leaders, the Relief Society, the Primary program, the Welfare system, Seminary programs, Family Home Evening and the Word of Wisdom wouldn't be in place. Similar to our faithful ancestors, we are here with a real, heartfelt concern, and we pray that our church leaders will consider our plea."

I think this is a valid point.

6. However, the "Let Women Pray Campaign" is a bit problematic. The term "campaign" itself is adversarial. Press releases for this Campaign, such as this one, sent to and published by the Associated Press and other media outlets, seem to be out of bounds.

7. Scott Gordon of FAIR is quoted in the above press release as follows:

Scott Gordon, president of the Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research, or FAIR, a volunteer Mormon anti-defamation group, said it never hurts for church members to respectfully question traditions.

"It's a good thing to have people once in a while question what policies and practices are cultural and what things are important or inspired of God," said Gordon.

I agree with that sentiment broadly. I just question the means utilized to question policies and practices.

8. The group which is publicly pushing for women to pray in general conference also started the wear-pants-to-church thing. See here. I think this group is starting with innocuous "cultural" issues within Mormonism (such as women praying in General Conference, which appears to lack a doctrinal foundation and instead is a longstanding tradition that probably deserves reconsideration), but that might end up agitating for doctrinal changes.

This quote, for example:

One of the organizers, Kimberly Baptista, said the event Sunday is not about being able to wear pants, but about stimulating a discussion over the larger issue of women's roles within the church, which she says are less significant than those of their male counterparts.

"It's a symbol to us of larger gender inequalities in the church," said Baptista, 42, of North Carolina.

Baptista, a lifelong member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said women lead other women, and they lead children, "but they don't ever lead the whole congregation or the men."

Leading "the whole congregation" is a priesthood function, but it appears to be on the list of prospective changes in mind.

I wonder if this group would be more successful if it clearly established the parameters of its objectives, as I suspect some of the resistance to it is based on the concern that this is the beginning of a "campaign" that will culminate in demands for doctrinal changes.

9. Another point being raised in this discussion is that the Church should "[a]llow women access to all callings that do not require the Priesthood, such as ward clerk and Sunday School President, and allow women to have oversight of a ward’s finances."

While I agree with the general proposition that whether women can be in non-priesthood-requiring callings merits further attention and discussion, I am not sure that A) public demands for such a discussion are appropriate, and B) that there is an objective means of determining which callings must be filled by a priesthood holder.

10. The link in the preceding point wants the Church to give to "women stewardship over women's sexuality." What does that mean?

Your thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

[thesometimesaint]

As it was Sister Dalton whom initially made the comments. It is probably best to allow her to clarify.

[smac97]

As it was Sister Dalton whom initially made the comments. It is probably best to allow her to clarify.

Agreed. I would still like to discuss the overarching issue, tho.

Thanks,

-Smac

[juliann]

FYI as to the Scott Gordon quote, what you quoted was pretty accurate but most of what that reporter did was wildly inaccurate. He was not quoting Scott, the reporter listened to him and then paraphrased badly and in his own words, not Scott's. Most of the time reporters get it right, they may not quote the part you would want quoted but are accurate. This one not so much.

There was a long discussion about this on the board. The problem was that she didn't clarify...so even though it is probably she meant the pants stuff...that was anything but clear. So there is really no context for a statement like that. It says what it says and I'd say even most Mormons wouldn't know about the pants thing to begin with. No outsider would....so when she says don't lobby for rights, 90% of the population will see women's rights in the context of human trafficking sorts of things, not pants on Sunday. So it is a problem regardless of intent.

[thesometimesaint]

I find in the Church that public demonstrations are the least effective way of bringing about change, Whether it is needed or not.

So we should treat our fellow brothers and sisters with equal respect and dignity. There is no excuse for doing anything to the contrary.

D&C 121: 41-42

41. No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the ^bpriesthood, only by ^cpersuasion, by ^dlong-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

42. kindness, and pure ^bknowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the ^csoul without ^dhypocrisy, and without ^eguile—

Edited January 31, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Buckeye]

Smac, I hope you can see the irony of your using a public forum such as this board to protest against these women's public protest. "What?", you say. You're not protesting? Simply starting a dialogue? Wanting answers to your questions? Well maybe these women should have the same right. They have not called themselves a "protest", but rather a petition. Let's allow them the right to define themself.

I have not sent a letter or taken any affirmative action for these members' petition. But I also will not criticize them unless I can provide a better way to address their real concerns. I cannot. I'd reallly like to hear if anyone else has better ideas.

***********BOLD PREDICTION***************

I will make a prediction that a woman does give a prayer in April's General Conference. It's just a wild hunch based on the church newsroom's response to this petition: "Church spokesman Eric Hawkins said decisions on people leading prayers were made several weeks ago but haven't been made public." That seems like classic cover to me. The church can now have a woman pray, but contend the decision was not made because of the petition. The other option is to keep the status quo, have only men pray, and ensure continued media attention. We're still very much in the mormon moment after all.

*************************************************

[TAO]

buckeye, as far as I can tell, smac isn't protesting them protesting, he's protesting what they are protesting about. That isn't that ironic, tbh. It would be if he was doing the first, but I don't quite see him doing that in this post.

Edited January 31, 2013 by TAO

[Buckeye]

Tao, Smac repeatedly says he does not take issue with the requests themselves - be they pants or prayer. What he takes issue with is the manner in which the members are seeking to be heard - public petitions rather than ____blank____________ (he doesn't specify).

The irony is that Smac chose to air this grievance in this public forum rather than go directly to these petitioners and tell them he thinks they are in error. If Smac really believed what he preaches, he would email the petitioners, not start a public blog post.

Edited January 31, 2013 by Buckeye

[TAO]

Tao, Smac repeatedly says he does not take issue with the requests themselves - be they pants or prayer. What he takes issue with is the manner in which the members are seeking to be heard - public petitions rather than ____blank____________ (he doesn't specify).

The irony is that Smac chose to air this grievance in this public forum rather than go directly to these petitioners and tell them he thinks they are in error. If Smac really believed what he preaches, he would email the petitioners, not start a public blog post.

Is there not a difference between a voice on an obscure board and a publication which is spread throughout the media though? From what I can tell, Smac doesn't intend for his complaints to travel outside of the board. He isn't intending to make a public statement, even if he is posting in a public place. Would that make the situation, persay... different?

[go_utes01]

Tao, Smac repeatedly says he does not take issue with the requests themselves - be they pants or prayer. What he takes issue with is the manner in which the members are seeking to be heard - public petitions rather than ____blank____________ (he doesn't specify).

The irony is that Smac chose to air this grievance in this public forum rather than go directly to these petitioners and tell them he thinks they are in error. If Smac really believed what he preaches, he would email the petitioners, not start a public blog post.

How about these women speak with their local leaders individually about their concerns. Those leaders can then report the concerns to those above them, etc. The need to draw public attention to yourself - especially in ways meant to make the Lord's Church and/or chosen leaders look bad is NOT the best way to bring about change (at least in my opinion). Sunday service is not meant as a forum for public protest, it is meant as a place to worship with fellow saints and learn about Heavenly Father and His Gospel.

[Buckeye]

The sentiment for both seems to be the same. The prayer petitioners could have just written on their own without making a facebook group. Smac could have just emailed the petitioners on his own rather than make a discussion board post. But both chose to make a public statement. The fact that the media cares more about the prayer petitioners than it does about Smac doesn't change the fact that both the petitioners and Smac both chose to go public with their grievances.

[go_utes01]

The sentiment for both seems to be the same. The prayer petitioners could have just written on their own without making a facebook group. Smac could have just emailed the petitioners on his own rather than make a discussion board post. But both chose to make a public statement. The fact that the media cares more about the prayer petitioners than it does about Smac doesn't change the fact that both the petitioners and Smac both chose to go public with their grievances.

Requesting members submit form letters to leaders and/or encouraging public protests in Sacrament meetings does not seem anywhere near the same as wanting to discuss something on a "discussion" forum. I could be wrong though.

Edited January 31, 2013 by go_utes01

[Buckeye]

How about these women speak with their local leaders individually about their concerns. Those leaders can then report the concerns to those above them, etc. The need to draw public attention to yourself - especially in ways meant to make the Lord's Church and/or chosen leaders look bad is NOT the best way to bring about change (at least in my opinion). Sunday service is not meant as a forum for public protest, it is meant as a place to worship with fellow saints and learn about Heavenly Father and His Gospel.

You're conflating the two issues. For the pants, the whole point was to have a public showing of support because some women felt misjudged when they wore pants. The church never opposed their wearing pants. Only other members (particularly women) opposed the practice. So the audience was "the public" and the only way to make progress was through a public dialogue.

For the prayer issue, the audience is those who select the prayers. That need not be a public issue, I agree. But do you really think these members would get any traction by speaking with their direct leaders? I've never seen that work in my life. And to be fair, they are not trying to draw attention to themselves, but attention to the issue.

[Scott Lloyd]

Smac, I hope you can see the irony of your using a public forum such as this board to protest against these women's public protest. "What?", you say. You're not protesting? Simply starting a dialogue? Wanting answers to your questions? Well maybe these women should have the same right. They have not called themselves a "protest", but rather a petition. Let's allow them the right to define themself.

I don't read Smac's comments as being a protest against what those women are doing so much as a commentary on the fairness and quality of a newspaper article. A newspaper article, by nature and definition, is very public indeed, so a public comment on such an article is highly appropriate.

In short, I don't perceive the irony that you claim here.

Having said that, I would add that, having gone public with a campaign for change in a non-public institution, such as the Church, one has no reasonable cause for complaint about someone choosing to comment in public on that campaign.

Edited January 31, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[go_utes01]

You're conflating the two issues. For the pants, the whole point was to have a public showing of support because some women felt misjudged when they wore pants. The church never opposed their wearing pants. Only other members (particularly women) opposed the practice. So the audience was "the public" and the only way to make progress was through a public dialogue.

For the prayer issue, the audience is those who select the prayers. That need not be a public issue, I agree. But do you really think these members would get any traction by speaking with their direct leaders? I've never seen that work in my life. And to be fair, they are not trying to draw attention to themselves, but attention to the issue.

Well at least you are not cynical about Church leaders. My experience has not been that local leaders ignore issues/concerns that members bring to them. If that has been your experience, I am sorry you had poor leaders. A "public showing of support" for pant wearers did not seem necessary or even what the organizers themselves had in mind.

Edited January 31, 2013 by go_utes01

[Buckeye]

Ok. We'll just have to disagree. I can't make any more points beyond those I already said. So I'll stop derailing this thread further.

Please, everyone, continue with the public judging of these sisters.

[Scott Lloyd]

Ok. We'll just have to disagree. I can't make any more points beyond those I already said. So I'll stop derailing this thread further.

Please, everyone, continue with the public judging of these sisters.

You were doing fine until you tacked on the passive-aggressive dig at the end.

[TAO]

Please, everyone, continue with the public judging of these sisters.

Chill, friend. We aren't taking this thread all too seriously. It's not sheerly serious (for now). I hope it stays that way =).

Edited January 31, 2013 by TAO

[Buckeye]

Scott, that's the whole point. These sisters are children of God and deserve the same respect any other person If it is wrong for them to publicly criticize church leaders, it is equally wrong for us to publicly criticize them. Mote and beam. Do unto others. All that good stuff.

[go_utes01]

Ok. We'll just have to disagree. I can't make any more points beyond those I already said. So I'll stop derailing this thread further.

Please, everyone, continue with the public judging of these sisters.

We are not judging the sisters, some may be disagreeing (judging) with their actions. Judging righteously is something we are commanded to do.

Edited January 31, 2013 by go_utes01

[Buckeye]

Chill, friend. We aren't taking this thread all too seriously. It's not sheerly serious (for now). I hope it stays that way =).

One problem with message boards is they make it very hard to understand other's temperment and seriousness. I hope you know I am fairly calm right now and trying not to take this too seriously. But I think Smac's was serious in asking our opinion as to these sisters. And if so, and if we have a right to judge them, then why don't they have a right to judge church leadership?

Edited January 31, 2013 by Buckeye

[Walden]

How about these women speak with their local leaders individually about their concerns. Those leaders can then report the concerns to those above them, etc. The need to draw public attention to yourself - especially in ways meant to make the Lord's Church and/or chosen leaders look bad is NOT the best way to bring about change (at least in my opinion). Sunday service is not meant as a forum for public protest, it is meant as a place to worship with fellow saints and learn about Heavenly Father and His Gospel.

"Sunday service is not meant as a forum for public protest, it is meant as a place to worship with fellow saints and learn about Heavenly Father and His Gospel." Unless of course the call to protest and/or advocate comes in the form of a letter from the First Presidency telling people what they should think about issues like Prop 8, then it is okay to lobby for public outcrying and activism.

Oh, the irony of a church choosing to firmly advocate public policy for their own self-interest, while telling those within the church whom have gripes to keep them internal and out of public view, is laughable.

[TAO]

But I think Smac's was serious in asking our opinion as to these sisters. And if so, and if we have a right to judge them, they why don't they have a right to judge church leadership?

Well, whom does the church leadership represent?

[Buckeye]

We are not judging the sisters, some may be disagreeing (judging) their actions. Judging righteously is something we are commanded to do.

You pulled a 180 in just 22 words. Impressive. Are you judging or not? Whichever way you choose, allow others to do the same.

[Buckeye]

Well, whom does the church leadership represent?

For the membership, it represents the Lord. For the Lord, it represents the membership. Church leadership cannot adequately serve the people if it is not listening to the Lord. Likewise, leadership cannot adequately serve the Lord if it is not listening to the people.