Feminist Mormons Ask Lds Leader To Clarify Comment

[EllenMaksoud]

After having seen several other cultures, I am not sure what they are talking about. IMHO, Mormon women are treated like queens.

[semlogo]

After having seen several other cultures, I am not sure what they are talking about. IMHO, Mormon women are treated like queens.

Putting someone on a pedestal is not the same as giving them respect.

Latter-day Saints DO treat women like queens and princesses, but it strikes me as an overcompensation for having shut them out of meaningful leadership roles. We recognize the inequality, and we try to compensate by complementing women and denigrating men. It's ingrained in the culture now.

[EllenMaksoud]

Putting someone on a pedestal is not the same as giving them respect.

Latter-day Saints DO treat women like queens and princesses, but it strikes me as an overcompensation for having shut them out of meaningful leadership roles. We recognize the inequality, and we try to compensate by complementing women and denigrating men. It's ingrained in the culture now.

Yes, the emasculation of men is a huge problem in 2013. Being very new to LDS culture, I am not sure I have the right to comment further. On a spiritual/metaphysical level, I see things going on with the men that I can not explain. Experientally, the Sisters that taught me in Kirtland sure had authority that made me pay attention.

I don't think that if I had six children at home, I would want to be a member of the 12 or even the 70. Men can't bear children so a role reversal is sub standard at best. Besides, women have softer laps to sit on while our children relate their struggles.

Of course, if there were APS for humans, a powerful, ambitious woman could simply give her husband her Mommy AP.

[Tacenda]

Putting someone on a pedestal is not the same as giving them respect.

Latter-day Saints DO treat women like queens and princesses, but it strikes me as an overcompensation for having shut them out of meaningful leadership roles. We recognize the inequality, and we try to compensate by complementing women and denigrating men. It's ingrained in the culture now.

Sort of like property or trophy women. I work with children and hate to see the princess mentality start at such a young age. They're girly girls too soon. With the help of their parents sometimes. Edited February 1, 2013 by Tacenda

[teddyaware]

Sort of like property or trophy women. I work with children and hate to see the princess mentality start at such a young age. They're girly girls too soon. With the help of their parents sometimes.

Just a thought: If everyone in the Church lived their lives with very strong, unshakable testimonies in God, Christ and the Restored Gospel, with an eye single to God's glory, and with a vibrant, living faith that each are most assuredly beloved and blessed sons and daughters of God -- wouldn't all this fretting about gender roles and carnal power struggles just melt away in the most glorious light of truth? Could it be that issues like this one are all just a worldly distractions and snares?. Overcoming the great inward enemy of our own fallen natures is more than enough work to occupy our time, and the best of our energies, efforts and thoughts. I believe many of us will one day look back and lament because of our lost opportunities for spiritual imrprovement while we dwelt on earth, and wonder why we wasted our time spinning our wheels and going nowhere, preoccupied with unprofitable, unedifying debates that have their root in the pride and strivings of the natural man.

[slamarwi]

The part in the temple recommend about your relationship with your family came about because women lobbied for it to happen. The church may not be a democracy, but it's not a dictatorship either.

The impetus for the addition or change in temple interview questions may or may not have occurred because of a lobbying effort. It may have come about simply because the brethren watched the news and came to the realization men have a difficult time doing what's right and needed to be called on it.

On your second point, you're absolutely right, It's not a democracy or dictatorship - it's a theocracy.

[Calm]

Secondly, the mail gets delivered and certainly the message received. Of course, we aren't always going to get the answer we want or possibly even an answer. But if you believe the prophet really is the prophet, he is likely getting the message anyway.

However, for some people just believing this is not enough especially if you have been troubled by something for years and not seen any changes been made or ones were made that you felt actually made things worse.

Not knowing what is going on can add extreme amounts to anxiety and doubt. Trust is important, but we know that the Church chooses not to trust in certain situations but instead to take action to protect its members...so it may be confusing to some why "you need to just trust" is a valid answer in this area and not in another one.

Knowing a process was in place that had checks and balances as it done say for the tithing program and how they report money so it is not dependent on a one man at a time link all the way up the chain to those who make the final decisions, where any single man might drop the ball out of loss of interest, accident or illness or because they disagreed with the problem and wanted it ignored or whatever....having a process where one knew one's thoughts would be on record and officially catologued could be very helpful in helping members trust the entire system more.

Edited February 2, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I don't think saving face is more important than giving women a voice in the church.

The Church has been willing in the face of much controversial coverage to start a more public discussions about homosexuality, its place in the lives of faithful Saints as well as giving faces and voices to those involved in the conversation on many levels, including giving a voice to some who identify themselves as gay. (see for example mormonsandgays.com ). I have to wonder if this would have happened faster without the outside pressure or not. It is impossible to know.

[Calm]

As to the idea that it never occurred to the GAs that women might want to be treated equally with men in regards to the right to publically pray to their Father in Heaven in general conference, that's a scary thought!

At the very least, women want real and obvious to see examples for their children to be able to see what it is like to be a faithful Saint. Seeing a woman in a variety of roles, including speaking for the Church in beseeching God through prayer, can be very helpful in making concrete what faith should mean for young women just as having a missionary come talk to a primary class helps make sense of "I hope they call me on a mission".

[Calm]

But I pledged to calmoriah that I would disengage from this thread; please don't try to draw me back into it.

Edited February 2, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

And because they do deal with people with common human concerns and conditions, it seems to me that Church leaders should be given allowance to drop conversations that in their judgment seem unproductive or irrelevant, and to allow the dropped party to figure things out. Clearly priorities have to be made to focus the exercise of keys and as to where their energy will be placed, and we can't expect the Church leaders' priorities to always match our own.

I agree that a leader's priorities need not always match an individual's one, but to simply drop a conversation without informing the other that you are doing it seems to contradict the idea of the leaders actually being the servants of the membership and it seems to me to be a sign of disrespect to behave that way. Telling someone that it is time for the conversation to be dropped would be different, just to leave them hanging is very unkind in my view. Edited February 2, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Interesting how this all mirrors typical discussions between husbands and wives in traditional marriages.

The men just shut up.

Juliann left at the same time as Scott, IIRC.

I am sticking around in hopes of clearing up what are to me some obvious misunderstandings.

Edited February 2, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I don't think she needs you to save her, gallant though your effort may be.

If you can show me succinctly where I erred- in your opinion- since she can speak up if she wants to- let me know.

You seem to be very good at distorting what I actually say. In fact- just give me quotes and let the assembled multitudes of millions of onlookers judge if I answered them or not.

Juliann was not saying the Church should be like all the businesses in the world, she was talking about how it would be perceived in contrast to a business and with that perception, its implications need to be considered because this will affect how people respond to the Church, both inside and out. Edited February 2, 2013 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

All you have said in relation to that is that the church simply does things different than 'the world', something that is CLEARLY, mf, a non-answer.

This is simply ridiculous.

The rift between the way the church does things and the worldly way is clear to anyone who is LDS. We are taught, as I have said, to be NOT "of the world".

If you don't understand this simple dichotomy I certainly am not going to waste time detailing LDS standards which differ from the world. Just look at the "For the Strength of Youth" pamphlet for a list for the youth alone. No I am not going to look it up for you.

[Calm]

Now, there does seem to be an inconsistency between how women are refused to participate in certain positions in the church and in "society at large". What justifies such difference? That is what you should be talking about if you want to address juliann's issue. You obviously think it is but you haven't explained why. All you have said in relation to that is that the church simply does things different than 'the world', something that is CLEARLY, mf, a non-answer.

And it is not even about what justifies, but just a simple recognition of impacts of the inequalities rather than just dismissing it as irrelevant or unimportant. In my view the inequalites are very, very important because they may be the key to how we now relate to each other as well as in the family as in the Church and looking at what is culturally determined and what is doctrinally determine can help us improve our relationships by removing obstacles created by the "tradtions of the fathers" and allowing us to focus on "the teachings of the Father".

I am not saying automatically remove the inequalities, I am saying examine them from a variety of POVs so that one can understand how they affect people both inside and outside the Church so that where the inequalities are important we can maximise their benefits and where they are not, they can be changed so that they do not inhibit and instead allow for growth.

Edited February 2, 2013 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

Juliann was not saying the Church should be like all the businesses in the world, she was talking about how it would be perceived in contrast to a business and with that perception, its implications need to be considered because this will affect how people respond to the Church, both inside and out.

I'm still not getting it- could you clarify that?

[sunstoned]

But the women of the church ARE powerless without a public campaign. What other means do they have to get their voices heard? And how are GAs supposed to know the concerns of everyone in the church unless we tell them? They're not mind readers.

Currently there are no representative groups for women to share the concerns of women in the church with general leadership. As some have pointed out already, this isn't a democracy and women have no representatives.

I agree with you. Currently, there is no mechinism in place to contact or to have any type of dialog with a GA. If someone on this thread disagrees, then let them map it out, step by step how one could reach a General Authority and discuss an issue.

[TAO]

To be quite honest, I think discussions of power in the church are pretty much well... rather pointless. Honestly, who cares about power?

[CV75]

I agree that a leader's priorities need not always match an individual's one, but to simply drop a conversation without informing the other that you are doing it seems to contradict the idea of the leaders actually being the servants of the membership and it seems to me to be a sign of disrespect to behave that way. Telling someone that it is time for the conversation to be dropped would be different, just to leave them hanging is very unkind in my view.

On an interpersonal basis, it can seem unkind, but is not always innapropriate. Extending this to to an organizational-to-group application (in line with the OP), and when the conversation is structured and expected by the initiator to be public, the petitioned party in all propriety may opt to drop participating in the format altogether, or respond in a way best suited to the format. This can be interpreted as dropping the conversation, and be offensive to members of the petitioning group who have personalized a dysfunctional format or have expectations about the kind of communication that are incongruent with the format.

The example of dropping conversations in the thread was just a springboard to suggest that is is reasonable that the Church might not engage in public discourse in a personal style, or engage in it at all.