Mormon Feminist Disarray

[Avatar4321]

Um.....

You dont have a concern about private interpretations as opposed to the interpretations given by the Holy Spirit?

[CV75]

The problem with sermons and lectures (aka mansplaining) is that it is almost always the case that the same judgments thrown out about the other guy gal apply to the sermonizer.

Yes--if a proponent of one idea or the other could simple state the case without condemning another idea, that would go a long way toward keeping the peace. And of course, presentation is everything.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

What an interesting thread.

[juliann]

This is just IMHO, but of all the things she proposed, only one got my eyes wide. The notion that a woman could be sealed to more than one man. I could see the day where the church only seals one woman per man for eternity, but a woman being sealed to multiple husbands? If we are serious about our doctrine of eternal marriage, that would be kind of unworkable.

Women already are sealed to multiple husbands, they just have to wait until they die. Proxy sealings are just as legitimate as live sealings. That should be common knowledge by now. It says no more about eternal marriage than men being sealed to multiple women.

[Calm]

This is just IMHO, but of all the things she proposed, only one got my eyes wide. The notion that a woman could be sealed to more than one man. I could see the day where the church only seals one woman per man for eternity, but a woman being sealed to multiple husbands? If we are serious about our doctrine of eternal marriage, that would be kind of unworkable.

Since one does not have to worry in the Celestial Kingdom about any concern with not knowing who a child's father is, what is the difference between allowing a man to have multiple wives and allowing a wife to have multiple husbands? Would the problem be satisfied with only allowing one or the other, thus not creating possible confusion over interlacing family units where a husband might have multiple wives and his wives multiple husbands, etc. If so, if the only need is to ensure avoidance of such confusion (and would there be any confusion among celestial beings in the context of eternity), then why couldn't it be where the wife is the 'hub' as opposed to a husband, after all haven't women been as likely to be as in love with and committed to the men they have married as a man is to any of his wives? Edited April 24, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

You dont have a concern about private interpretations as opposed to the interpretations given by the Holy Spirit?

How do you know her interpretation was not given to her by the Spirit? What about those who read her interpretation, read the scriptures and are inspired by the Spirit to understand it in those terms?

Nephi taught us to liken the scriptures to ourselves. As long as she doesn't insist on claiming prophetic ability for the Church, as long as she explains this is her own interpretation that she feels inspired to pursue, what is wrong with her sharing it any more than people sharing their testimony and understanding of the gospel in other areas?

[juliann]

You dont have a concern about private interpretations as opposed to the interpretations given by the Holy Spirit?

Most would consider private interpretations to be of the spirit so I don't understand the distinction. What you said demeaned looking at scripture through a woman's perspective as if that automatically removed anything coming from a woman from the HS. I do agree with Hudson that the church will not progress until it does begin to fully use the gifts of all of its members rather than elevating male interpretations merely because they are male.

[Avatar4321]

How do you know her interpretation was not given to her by the Spirit? What about those who read her interpretation, read the scriptures and are inspired by the Spirit to understand it in those terms?

Nephi taught us to liken the scriptures to ourselves. As long as she doesn't insist on claiming prophetic ability for the Church, as long as she explains this is her own interpretation that she feels inspired to pursue, what is wrong with her sharing it any more than people sharing their testimony and understanding of the gospel in other areas?

The very fact that she is advocating to interpret the scriptures from a woman's viewpoint instead of looking to the Spirit. To be fair, I am completely opposed to looking at it from a man's perspective too. I want to know what the scriptures teach as inspired by the Holy Ghost. My concern is that's not what she is advocating.

[juliann]

The very fact that she is advocating to interpret the scriptures from a woman's viewpoint instead of looking to the Spirit. To be fair, I am completely opposed to looking at it from a man's perspective too. I want to know what the scriptures teach as inspired by the Holy Ghost. My concern is that's not what she is advocating.

I can only conclude that you have not read her Square Two article...or her Ensign article to make such a statement.

If we have faith in God and really want to be like him, we must listen to the voices of the women. As with male voices, not all that is said or recommended by female voices will be right, but without hearing those voices, without speaking and listening in righteousness, there will be inadequate emotional impetus for the Saints to become Zion.

[Tacenda]

Since one does not have to worry in the Celestial Kingdom about any concern with not knowing who a child's father is, what is the difference between allowing a man to have multiple wives and allowing a wife to have multiple husbands? Would the problem be satisfied with only allowing one or the other, thus not creating possible confusion over interlacing family units where a husband might have multiple wives and his wives multiple husbands, etc. If so, if the only need is to ensure avoidance of such confusion (and would there be any confusion among celestial beings in the context of eternity), then why couldn't it be where the wife is the 'hub' as opposed to a husband, after all haven't women been as likely to be as in love with and committed to the men they have married as a man is to any of his wives?

The solution to the problem would be to go by the bible where it says there is no marriage in heaven. But of course we will be with our loved ones.

[mtomm]

I guess somewhere in there she explains how come men need both fatherhood and priesthood in order to become like Father-in-Heaven but women only need motherhood to become like Mother-in-Heaven? I thought she was going to there for a second but then she just dropped talking about how priesthood fits in with fatherhood.

Can someone help me out here?

Edited April 24, 2013 by mtomm

[CV75]

I guess somewhere in there she explains how come men need both fatherhood and priesthood in order to become like Father-in-Heaven but women only need motherhood to become like Mother-in-Heaven? I thought she was going to there for a second but then she just dropped talking about how priesthood fits in with fatherhood.

Can someone help me out here?

She is saying men and women are apprentices to Heavenly Parents (Father and Mother) respectively, and while the paths in some ways are very diffrerent, they are, and more importantly, most complimentary. Her opinion is that women preside over the First Tree, bringing spirits from God's presence into physical bodies, while men preside over the Second Tree, reuniting spirits and physical bodies back into the presence of the Eternal Family. We can't have either without the other. In the big picture, they both have stewardships both over which they preside and within which they hearken to the other.

[Calm]

I guess somewhere in there she explains how come men need both fatherhood and priesthood in order to become like Father-in-Heaven but women only need motherhood to become like Mother-in-Heaven? I thought she was going to there for a second but then she just dropped talking about how priesthood fits in with fatherhood.

Can someone help me out here?

My impression was that Priesthood was not in addition to Fatherhood or even fatherhood, but part of it.

[Avatar4321]

I can only conclude that you have not read her Square Two article...or her Ensign article to make such a statement.

Sure, I didn't read them. The whole basis of my post was just based on what they said. Somehow I knew what she said without reading a thing.

[mtomm]

My impression was that Priesthood was not in addition to Fatherhood or even fatherhood, but part of it.

She is saying men and women are apprentices to Heavenly Parents (Father and Mother) respectively, and while the paths in some ways are very diffrerent, they are, and more importantly, most complimentary. Her opinion is that women preside over the First Tree, bringing spirits from God's presence into physical bodies, while men preside over the Second Tree, reuniting spirits and physical bodies back into the presence of the Eternal Family. We can't have either without the other. In the big picture, they both have stewardships both over which they preside and within which they hearken to the other.

Then I believe that JoAnna has a legitimate criticism. It seems there is a lot of speculation here with not much substance about what the priesthood actually is. If we go back to what we've been taught by the prophets from the beginning we see that it is the power of God, the authority to act for God and doesn't have anything to do with fatherhood other than this author wants it to. Can it make men better fathers? Of course. Could it make women better mothers?

[Calm]

If we go back to what we've been taught by the prophets from the beginning we see that it is the power of God,

God is The Father, that is the role he has told us he holds for us, how can his power not have something to do with Fatherhood? Edited April 24, 2013 by calmoriah

[CV75]

Then I believe that JoAnna has a legitimate criticism. It seems there is a lot of speculation here with not much substance about what the priesthood actually is. If we go back to what we've been taught by the prophets from the beginning we see that it is the power of God, the authority to act for God and doesn't have anything to do with fatherhood other than this author wants it to. Can it make men better fathers? Of course. Could it make women better mothers?

I don't think the problem is about comparing and critiquing ideas, but how and in what spirit that is done, and the subsequent impact on unanimity.

She does admit: "After all, God the Father does not call himself after one of the offices of the apprenticeship—of all the titles he could possibly claim, God the Father takes unto himself the title of Father. We need to understand this more fully than we have to date."

Women have the power of God and can act with authority also, it just isn't called priesthood, and she offers a very reasonable opinion about why and how that is. The power of God makes men and women better husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, etc., each in their pathway to Godhood (as Father or Mother as the case may be).

[mtomm]

How is this different than anything we are taught every Sunday? I can see why Juliann thinks this will resonate with the general membership, it's the same thing they already believe. She does make a nice wishlist at the end.

Basically, the article says women are mothers and men are fathers who hold the priesthood. Men continue to preside at church because that's what priesthood holders do. And that isn't very important because the family is the most important unit and we are equal at home. I guess she is trying to say that women just don't understand how powerful they really are and when we come to understand that power we will no longer feel that we are unequal.

Edited April 24, 2013 by mtomm

[wenglund]

I guess she is trying to say that women just don't understand how powerful they really are and when we come to understand that power we will no longer feel that we are unequal.

...what does "equality" have to do with it? As I understand things, the objective is to become our very best selves (like Christ), and to become "one" (i.e. united in mind, heart, and spirit) with each other in our respective roles as parents,

I think that the disconnect experienced by some good folks may be due to their obsession with the notion of "equality," to the point that it isn't well thought out and ceases to make sense, though certainly fueled by emotion, and has errantly become for them the end objective rather than, in a limited sense, part of the means.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CASteinman]

When the Scripture says "No man taketh this honor unto himself" it obviously left out women.

I guess that means women can take the honor unto themselves.

[Calm]

I guess she is trying to say that women just don't understand how powerful they really are and when we come to understand that power we will no longer feel that we are unequal.

More than that, when we come to understand what we are really are, we will be able to accomplish much, much more.

[Stone holm]

I avoid feminism topics as I usually get crosswise with feminists eventually. I do feel it is dangerous, however, to label feminists either liberal or progressive as they can be quite conservative in their views on a number of fronts especially their occasional tendency to restrict the liberty of others who do not conform to their views of proper behavior which is more of a conservative viewpoint than a liberal viewpoint. I believe that they tend to be lumped in with liberals and progressives because it is the liberal and progressives who champion the rights of women. But a person who champions the right to be a Catholic does not make them a Catholic, and the fact that liberals have in the past championed the right of a Catholic does not mean that Catholics are liberals.

[Avatar4321]

More than that, when we come to understand what we are really are, we will be able to accomplish much, much more.

I agree. Women are very powerful. One of the reasons Joseph organized the Relief Society was to organize the women and empower them to shame the priesthood into stepping up and doing what was required of them.

[juliann]

I guess somewhere in there she explains how come men need both fatherhood and priesthood in order to become like Father-in-Heaven but women only need motherhood to become like Mother-in-Heaven? I thought she was going to there for a second but then she just dropped talking about how priesthood fits in with fatherhood.

Can someone help me out here?

I have to admit Valerie's writing is not an easy read. But I noticed that she comes from a different vantage point...most certainly because of her profession. She always speaks from a global woman's perspective not an American or even Westernized Mormon woman perspective. That is sadly missing in all Mormon feminism that I have seen and it is a mistake....and another reason they need to include those like Valerie. Anyway,

In Motherhood, we see the power by which hearts can be moved to beat together as one and how new life can be brought forth, symbolized in the events of biological motherhood but operative even in its absence. To use an analogy, this apprenticeship is both as focused as counting the number of hairs on the head of a baby and as broad and as wide as remaking the world in which that baby will grow up. [emphasis added]

That is where she is going with motherhood. And that is why the church needs to start emphasizing the duty of women to become active in all walks of life. In other words, get her out of the home. At the same time, she is putting men in the home. There is ample support for the idea that family is first, church second. So she has kind of taken the typical feminist position and flipped it. Where feminists have created an order of importance with priesthood at the top where women need to go, she is leveling the playing field. It is not go get something at church....it is go change the world.

[CASteinman]

In other words, get her out of the home.

Not quite the message of the First Presidency and the Twelve.