Recent Developments In "ordain Women" Movement

[Tacenda]

Or their voiced opinions mirror exactly what they have been reared to think. But I hardly believe that Calmoriah's expressed opinions on this and other threads necessarily fall into the nice box you want them to. I have no paradigm as to what women think. However I do believe there is a very strong paradigm in the Church which suggests that women should think a certain way and if they do not think that way and verbalize their thoughts they may well find themselves being considered subversive. And, of course, if anyone suggests that they might be conditioned to think in a certain way according to their assigned gender role well then of course you are calling them weaklings. Because of course the assigned gender role and expressing complete satisfaction with that role is a sign of strength in the church. The same strength that permits us to short change YW programs year after year, and puts a woman before an entire male disciplinary council if she is accused of transgression, and which excludes women from many of the policy formation bodies in a Ward, and which gives a very peculiar way of looking at modesty, etc. I remember quite well going through the period when the men of African descent were denied the Priesthood, I do not believe you would have had very many men saying extend the Priesthood now....I certainly didn't despite many awkward hometeaching moments with a biracial family. Did I think Mormon men were weak back then? No we were simply following what we were being told. So why is it making the same observation about women now is an assertion that they are weak. By the way whenever I bring this up with my wife she corrects me and informs me she already has the Priesthood, and that if women want more access they should just asked that its offices be expanded.

This is exactly right, though in my limited ability to put it in words, my mind screams "conditioning"!

[Glenn101]

Or their voiced opinions mirror exactly what they have been reared to think. But I hardly believe that Calmoriah's expressed opinions on this and other threads necessarily fall into the nice box you want them to. I have no paradigm as to what women think. However I do believe there is a very strong paradigm in the Church which suggests that women should think a certain way and if they do not think that way and verbalize their thoughts they may well find themselves being considered subversive. And, of course, if anyone suggests that they might be conditioned to think in a certain way according to their assigned gender role well then of course you are calling them weaklings. Because of course the assigned gender role and expressing complete satisfaction with that role is a sign of strength in the church. The same strength that permits us to short change YW programs year after year, and puts a woman before an entire male disciplinary council if she is accused of transgression, and which excludes women from many of the policy formation bodies in a Ward, and which gives a very peculiar way of looking at modesty, etc. I remember quite well going through the period when the men of African descent were denied the Priesthood, I do not believe you would have had very many men saying extend the Priesthood now....I certainly didn't despite many awkward hometeaching moments with a biracial family. Did I think Mormon men were weak back then? No we were simply following what we were being told. So why is it making the same observation about women now is an assertion that they are weak. By the way whenever I bring this up with my wife she corrects me and informs me she already has the Priesthood, and that if women want more access they should just asked that its offices be expanded.

 

My observation was about your contention that a poll, an anonymous poll, could not be trusted because LDS women are reared to or conditioned to think a certain way and that they would be adverse to speaking up, sayin how they really feel. Then you use Calmoriah, Blue Dreams, Juliann, etc as examples of women who do not fit that mold. I have no box in which I wish to place them, not the ones who post here, or the many anonymous women that responded to the poll. I happen to believe that most LDS women are pretty typical of the ones that I have met in my times and travels, and I cannot stereotype them as being mostly one way or another. So many of the ones that I have met are converts and hardly have been reared in an LDS culture to be submissive, etc.

 

I do not know what culture that you are used to, but I have not even seen that culture of submissiveness in LDS women who were pretty much raised in the church. I am used to some pretty opinionated and strong willed women who do not mind speaking their minds.

 

As to the majority of them wanting the priesthood, I actually think that the poll was pretty accurate, if the opinions of the female posters on this board are any indication. Most of them do not want th priesthood, and have articulated their reasons. That is not to say that they are satisfied with the status quo. Many obviously are not.

 

Maybe if a poll were taken asking some different questions, there would be some different results. Maybe the design poll itself is suspect rather than the women who responded to it.

 

Glenn

[mfbukowski]

I didn't think I could handle being Executive Secretary.  After two years ... I still don't!

As you have learned, and the sisters who want to be bishops have not, what you think you can "handle" has nothing to do with what position you might be called to.  If I can be called to be a bishop, anyone can be.

 

It almost seems that thinking that one cannot measure up to a calling is precisely what qualifies one to receive it.

Edited October 1, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Storm Rider]

Stendhahl's Holy Envy would seem to come into play here.  We may have to learn from other religions that have opened up to women.   We don't even have a woman's curriculum anymore.   We are taught from the same manual as the men...women or even women's quotes are rarely used. 

..... We have a very accomplished and powerful woman in our ward which has always been very conservative.  She has sat around a conference table with the President in the White House.  She has told me that she stays in her career because she was called to it. She is quiet and unassuming, never talks about it...the perfect LDS woman...except her husband stays home with the kids.    In other words, unless you knew her personally you would never know.  This is just freakin' wrong.  What an example to the possibilities to contribute to the world for our young women.

First, perspective is everything. It could just as easily be said that men do not have their own curriculum anymore; they must use the same one as the Relief Soceity.

The example of the woman who works outside the home and has been in the White House; her behavior is what most would call humility. Simply because a group is not using her accomplishments to parade before others may be a problem for the group, but I suspect it does not mean anything to the actual people involved directly.

 

You have given us an example of a woman who felt CALLED to her job and she did it. What is the lesson to learn? If you feel led by the Spirit, do it. More importantly, her husband stayed home with the children. It is interesting that his example isn't even discussed, it was the throw away in the example. Why must this individual's example be held up for women? Do we have a group that tried to prevent her from doing what she felt called to do? We're they ostrisized by the Church?

Why is it so hard to accept that the important lesson is to follow the Spirit. This couple both came to a conclusion that works for them. Others may come to the same conclusion, but that does not require that everyone else must follow after them. For those that are married, the fundamental unit is the family. Most coulpe's will find what works and no one in the Church is stopping them.

Edited October 1, 2013 by Storm Rider

[Kenngo1969]

As you have learned, and the sisters who want to be bishops have not, what you think you can "handle" has nothing to do with what position you might be called to.  If I can be called to be a bishop, anyone can be.

 

It almost seems that thinking that one cannot measure up to a calling is precisely what qualifies one to receive it.

Indeed.

[Stone holm]

My observation was about your contention that a poll, an anonymous poll, could not be trusted because LDS women are reared to or conditioned to think a certain way and that they would be adverse to speaking up, sayin how they really feel. Then you use Calmoriah, Blue Dreams, Juliann, etc as examples of women who do not fit that mold. I have no box in which I wish to place them, not the ones who post here, or the many anonymous women that responded to the poll. I happen to believe that most LDS women are pretty typical of the ones that I have met in my times and travels, and I cannot stereotype them as being mostly one way or another. So many of the ones that I have met are converts and hardly have been reared in an LDS culture to be submissive, etc.

 

I do not know what culture that you are used to, but I have not even seen that culture of submissiveness in LDS women who were pretty much raised in the church. I am used to some pretty opinionated and strong willed women who do not mind speaking their minds.

 

As to the majority of them wanting the priesthood, I actually think that the poll was pretty accurate, if the opinions of the female posters on this board are any indication. Most of them do not want th priesthood, and have articulated their reasons. That is not to say that they are satisfied with the status quo. Many obviously are not.

 

Maybe if a poll were taken asking some different questions, there would be some different results. Maybe the design poll itself is suspect rather than the women who responded to it.

 

Glenn

I keep looking for that meek and submissive Mormon woman that the media talks about, am sure that someday I will find her. No. I do not think Mormon women are meek and submissive, but I do think that all of us Mormons are very, very reluctant to question the status quo. And when we have official proclamations talking about the eternal nature of gender and suggesting that certain roles are thereby assigned by God. Under these conditions to poll Mormon women asked them whether they want the Priesthood when they have basically been told to even think that way was offensive to God...well, the Sisters are in the main very devout, so what would you expect the response to be? I can only think back to the fact that I always defended the Church back before the extension of the Priesthood to the African Americans. Had I been asked in a secret poll whether I thought the Priesthood should be extended back then, I would probably have said no, not because I thought that they shouldn't have I, but because I knew, or thought I knew, that they were not supposed to get it yet.

And if you go back and read some of their posts, yes they said they did not want it...but what they also say is that is there is something missing, and BlueDreams says elsewhere she does not want to be a priest, but a priestess..course she actually probably already is. So yes, I do think we are all conditioned to think certain ways, some more so than others. I was shocked to hear a sister say the other day at Church that she refuses to listen to Sisters from Utah speak at conferences, etc anymore. And you hear stuff like that from the Sisters out here more and more frequently. When our Ward was confronted with a Stake Pres going slightly rabid over the SSM debate in NH, the Stake sent a High Councilman to read a letter encouraging the members to be active in the fight and he went to read it in RS and they sent him packing and told him to keep his politics out of their meeting. So no, I do not consider Mormon women meek and submissive.

[Nofear]

While I haven't been following the thread too closely, the issue of men and women in the Church working together closely was brought up. Were that the case, the Church would need to have something like BSA's Youth Protection policies. There would need to be a guard not just against violations of chastity but also false accusations. While such occasions would be rare, history teaches us that increased opportunity will bring increased events. Of course, one can argue whether or not the increased in undesirable events will be outweighed by the potential for good, but that's a rabbit hole I'll leave for others.

[Duncan]

I keep looking for that meek and submissive Mormon woman that the media talks about, am sure that someday I will find her. No. I do not think Mormon women are meek and submissive, but I do think that all of us Mormons are very, very reluctant to question the status quo. And when we have official proclamations talking about the eternal nature of gender and suggesting that certain roles are thereby assigned by God. Under these conditions to poll Mormon women asked them whether they want the Priesthood when they have basically been told to even think that way was offensive to God...well, the Sisters are in the main very devout, so what would you expect the response to be? I can only think back to the fact that I always defended the Church back before the extension of the Priesthood to the African Americans. Had I been asked in a secret poll whether I thought the Priesthood should be extended back then, I would probably have said no, not because I thought that they shouldn't have I, but because I knew, or thought I knew, that they were not supposed to get it yet.

And if you go back and read some of their posts, yes they said they did not want it...but what they also say is that is there is something missing, and BlueDreams says elsewhere she does not want to be a priest, but a priestess..course she actually probably already is. So yes, I do think we are all conditioned to think certain ways, some more so than others. I was shocked to hear a sister say the other day at Church that she refuses to listen to Sisters from Utah speak at conferences, etc anymore. And you hear stuff like that from the Sisters out here more and more frequently. When our Ward was confronted with a Stake Pres going slightly rabid over the SSM debate in NH, the Stake sent a High Councilman to read a letter encouraging the members to be active in the fight and he went to read it in RS and they sent him packing and told him to keep his politics out of their meeting. So no, I do not consider Mormon women meek and submissive.

 

 

ah! My older sister yelled at a General Authority once and kicked him out of the kitchen-he offered the elders help with cleanup after a zone conference. Mom was furious to say the least.

[Scott Lloyd]

The closest I've seen is this exchange with President Hinckley which could be ​ interpreted as a suggestion that if enough women agitated for a revelation it could come:

I see only a reaffirmation that a change would come if and only if there were a revelation from God mandating it.

The comment about agitation was only by way of observation of what was true at the time: that women in the Church were not agitating for it. What President Hinckley said does not sustain the notion that agitation would bring it about.

Edited October 1, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Glenn101]

I keep looking for that meek and submissive Mormon woman that the media talks about, am sure that someday I will find her. No. I do not think Mormon women are meek and submissive, but I do think that all of us Mormons are very, very reluctant to question the status quo. And when we have official proclamations talking about the eternal nature of gender and suggesting that certain roles are thereby assigned by God. Under these conditions to poll Mormon women asked them whether they want the Priesthood when they have basically been told to even think that way was offensive to God...well, the Sisters are in the main very devout, so what would you expect the response to be?

 

 

You must be a lawyer, or a politician, or maybe (shudder) both. In your first post that I responded somewhere near the beginning of this thread you stated something to the effect that you would not trust the accuracy of such a poll because LDS women have been reared to not even think about such things.

 

Your actual quote "I agree with you. I don't think a poll in this instance is of much value, it would take a very strong willed woman to overcome the psychological pressure currently existing against even thinking about it ... to respond positively. Such a woman who actually vocalized such sentiments would fall under condemnation in the eyes of her brothers and sisters, and would probably sustain at least some verbal abuse."

 

Now you are saying that women are opinionated, and strongwilled, yet we have a poll, for whatever it is worth, saying that 90% of those strongwilled, opinionated LDS women do not want the priesthood.

 

It just may be that the poll pretty accurately reflects the opinions of those pretty devout women, for whatever reason. Mayve some don't want it because they just do not want anymore on their plate. Maybe some are happy with the patriarchal order. Maybe some are not sure and want to be sure that they want what the Lord wants for them. I just don't know all of the reasons. The poll did not ask that. But we are getting some pretty good responses from our devout but strong minded sisters here on this board.

 

As I mentioned in my earlier post, I really think that a poll can be worded so as to obtain just about the response desired. That is why I distrust them. I don't know how they are designed. Now you've got me agreeing with you.

 

Glenn

[Stone holm]

You must be a lawyer, or a politician, or maybe (shudder) both. In your first post that I responded somewhere near the beginning of this thread you stated something to the effect that you would not trust the accuracy of such a poll because LDS women have been reared to not even think about such things.

 

Your actual quote "I agree with you. I don't think a poll in this instance is of much value, it would take a very strong willed woman to overcome the psychological pressure currently existing against even thinking about it ... to respond positively. Such a woman who actually vocalized such sentiments would fall under condemnation in the eyes of her brothers and sisters, and would probably sustain at least some verbal abuse."

 

Now you are saying that women are opinionated, and strongwilled, yet we have a poll, for whatever it is worth, saying that 90% of those strongwilled, opinionated LDS women do not want the priesthood.

 

It just may be that the poll pretty accurately reflects the opinions of those pretty devout women, for whatever reason. Mayve some don't want it because they just do not want anymore on their plate. Maybe some are happy with the patriarchal order. Maybe some are not sure and want to be sure that they want what the Lord wants for them. I just don't know all of the reasons. The poll did not ask that. But we are getting some pretty good responses from our devout but strong minded sisters here on this board.

 

As I mentioned in my earlier post, I really think that a poll can be worded so as to obtain just about the response desired. That is why I distrust them. I don't know how they are designed. Now you've got me agreeing with you.

 

Glenn

 

Well plead guilty to the lawyer part.  Yes, it takes a very willful person to take a stance thay you know is going to throw your level of faith into question in the Church.  I know in the past I have not had that much willfullness thinking back to my days trying to explain the African descent ban to biracial families, defending the campaign against the ERA, seeking to weed out homosexuals in a school system...and most people consider me a fairly willful person....perhaps more now than I used to be.   It takes a pretty "willful" woman to say, I want the Priesthood -- knowing that she is cutting against some very strong sentiment in the leadership of the Church in opposition and the potential reaction of numerous conservatives in the Church.  And I suspect that poll is questionable in other regards, having read the comments of some of the strong willed women you refer to in that they actually do want some of the things associated with the Priesthood and some would like to see an expansion of their roles as Priestesses, etc.

[Scott Lloyd]

 I was shocked to hear a sister say the other day at Church that she refuses to listen to Sisters from Utah speak at conferences, etc anymore. And you hear stuff like that from the Sisters out here more and more frequently.

Heaven preserve us from that sort of attitude. Whatever the leadership role of women in the Church might be in the future, I dearly hope it is not reflected by such regional factionalism and blanket faultfinding, which I would find equally unpalatable whether it emanated from a female or a male.

[Stone holm]

Heaven preserve us from that sort of attitude. Whatever the leadership role of women in the Church might be in the future, I dearly hope it is not reflected by such regional factionalism and blanket faultfinding, which I would find equally unpalatable whether it emanated from a female or a male.

 

Well yes it is not a good attitude that is for sure, except everyone within earshot of the remark understood exactly her reasoning and were in various stages of agreement as to it.  Its not uncommon for a new move in from out west to speak in Fast and Testimony, and you hear the murmured sigh -- "Oh well She is from Utah, give her awhile to detox."

[Scott Lloyd]

Well yes it is not a good attitude that is for sure, except everyone within earshot of the remark understood exactly her reasoning and were in various stages of agreement as to it.  Its not uncommon for a new move in from out west to speak in Fast and Testimony, and you hear the murmured sigh -- "Oh well She is from Utah, give her awhile to detox."

As I said, heaven preserve us.

 

D&C 38:27

[ksfisher]

Well yes it is not a good attitude that is for sure, except everyone within earshot of the remark understood exactly her reasoning and were in various stages of agreement as to it.  Its not uncommon for a new move in from out west to speak in Fast and Testimony, and you hear the murmured sigh -- "Oh well She is from Utah, give her awhile to detox."

 

I find this very interesting.  What kinds of things would people from Utah say?

[juliann]

 

 

Your actual quote "I agree with you. I don't think a poll in this instance is of much value, it would take a very strong willed woman to overcome the psychological pressure currently existing against even thinking about it ... to respond positively. Such a woman who actually vocalized such sentiments would fall under condemnation in the eyes of her brothers and sisters, and would probably sustain at least some verbal abuse."

 

Now you are saying that women are opinionated, and strongwilled, yet we have a poll, for whatever it is worth, saying that 90% of those strongwilled, opinionated LDS women do not want the priesthood.

 

 

You need to read Neylan's blog entry about the reaction to her FairMormon (previously known as FAIR)  talk two years ago... she doesn't advocate for priesthood.  She was responsible for the I Am a Mormon church campaign and runs the Mormon Women Project.  In short, you don't get more supportive and involved with the church,  but look at the abuse she took.  (And this was ongoing, not just some of the conference audience.)   Most important, look at the attitude change that took place in just one year.     

 

http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/2013/10/a-moderate-mormons-manifesto/

 

A year ago, I spoke at the FairMormon conference to a group of apologists, or people who offer arguments and maintain convictions in defense of Church doctrine and practice. Understanding my audience, I felt the need to spend a good portion of my talk establishing that we have a serious problem in the way the women of our church feel represented, needed and integrated into decision making. Despite my best efforts, I was still called an apostate, told I was making a big deal about nothing, and was repeatedly told by men that their wives “don’t care about any of that stuff.” However, upon returning to FairMormon, this year as a moderator for an all-female panel, the electricity in the room around our comments was completely different: rather than starting from a defensive stance of having to convince our audience that what we were talking about was important, the conversation started with the assumption that all is not well with our women. The whole audience seemed to agree: Salt Lake, we have a problem.

 

I could take on Falstaff himself in a throwdown of insults with the library of personal attacks I have amassed over the past year.

 

Again, one can not credibly deny that we do not "speak our minds" about church doctrine and policy,  men or women.    I would never say what I am saying here in a church setting....just as I would never start talking about Joseph Smith's 30+ wives in a lesson about temple marriage.  That is our culture and to repeatedly deny that becomes merely argumentative to the point of derailment.

[Scott Lloyd]

I find this very interesting.  What kinds of things would people from Utah say?

Yes, let's turn this into a pile-on thread about how (fill in the blank here: stupid, idiotic, bigoted, provincial, uneducated, unenlightened, arrogant, overly zealous, under committed, poorly dressed, overweight, underweight, unsophisticated, etc.) Mormons from Utah are.

 

It can be so unifying for the rest of us to find a certain group to blame all our ills on. And, as Christ said, "If ye are not one, ye are not mine."

Edited October 1, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Stone holm]

Yes, let's turn this into a pile-on thread about how (fill in the blank here: stupid, idiotic, bigoted, provincial, uneducated, unenlightened, arrogant, overly zealous, under committed, poorly dressed, unsophisticated, etc.) Mormons from Utah are.

 

Interesting list that you put forward there Scott Lloyd.  Let's see how many of those would fall in the right category and how many are your assumptions --- stupid (no), idiotic (not necessarily), bigoted (yeah that one sometimes would be included), provincial (not necessarily), uneducated (no), unenlightened (depends), arrogant (no), overly zealous (no), under committed (no), poorly dressed (absolutely not, more likely to be overdressed and over groomed with too much make-up), unsophisticated (hm, that one is tough, lacking in environmental sensitivity or conscience yes otherwise probably not).  No Scott Lloyd don't think you are very good at understanding the reactions of non-Utahns to Utah Mormons, maybe you should spend some time away.  The biggest reaction is a sense of living in a bubble -- it usually wears off in about a month or two or they flee back to Utah.

Edited October 1, 2013 by Stone holm

[Buckeye]

.... And, as Christ said, "If ye are not one, ye are not mine."

 

Most often, this is the reason I give to people when they ask why I feel so strongly for women to be included in priesthood ordiances and priesthood service.

[Stone holm]

I find this very interesting.  What kinds of things would people from Utah say?

 

If you have ever heard the phrase "milk before meat",  bovine fluids in very abundant supply, coupled with platitudes, but very well coifed hair.

[Scott Lloyd]

 No Scott Lloyd don't think you are very good at understanding the reactions of non-Utahns to Utah Mormons, maybe you should spend some time away.  The biggest reaction is a sense of living in a bubble -- it usually wears off in about a month or two or they flee back to Utah.

Maybe you should spend some more time among Mormons in Utah if this caricature really constitutes your perception.

[Scott Lloyd]

Most often, this is the reason I give to people when they ask why I feel so strongly for women to be included in priesthood ordiances and priesthood service.

Perhaps you ought to give a thought to other applications of this passage of scripture.

[aspire]

If you have ever heard the phrase "milk before meat",  bovine fluids in very abundant supply, coupled with platitudes, but very well coifed hair.

And you forgot, the Conference voice. Very Mr. Rogers like, rather condescending to adults.

[Paloma]

On pondering the responses I've read from some women here on mormondialogue, and thinking of insights I've gleaned from listening to women in Christian leadership in other contexts, I'm more convinced than ever that the heart of the discussion is really about spiritual giftedness, living out who God made each unique individual to be, and expressing the diversity ("the body has many parts") within Christian community.

I see the importance of 'community' as a huge strength in the LDS church and culture, and so I think that a recognition of gender differences along with individual giftedness for the purpose of building up the whole body is key.

A Scripture verse that I keep thinking of here is: "For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again." (2 Corinthians 5:14-15). This talks about having to serve our Lord (our love for him, and his love for us) because of our love and gratitude to him. (And even more, it speaks of God's love for us as a supreme motivation for obedience and service.) And the love of God flows from him, through us, reaching out to everyone he loves, all for whom Christ died.

For me, this concept of the love of Christ compelling us is foundational, along with understanding that God gifts us uniquely for service.

I think of the movie, Chariots of Fire and Eric Liddell's words: "I feel God's pleasure when I run." There is a sense of being fulfilled (that has nothing to do with selfishness!)  when we express who God made us to be and use the gifts he's given us. 

 

We are given spiritual gifts so we can give and serve, for the benefit of the whole community.

We (Christian men and women) have the Holy Spirit, the giver of gifts, within us and longing to live out his life through us. ("For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me." Galatians 2:19-20)

 

With these words in mind, and also thinking of how "Christ's love compels us", I am thinking that there's the possibility of blocking what's within.  But blockage can hurt!   I will always remember the words of a woman telling her story about how she had longed for the opportunity for spiritual leadership in her community.  She said that she felt like a nursing mother who had no outlet for expressing what she had to give.   It's incredibly painful, as some of us know from experience about that need for relief!

 

I think both of how the community needs that gift of women being empowered to minister in their community, fully using their God-given gifts, and also  the need for a visible, inclusive presence within the community of both genders involved in spiritual ministry.

 

This is changing course a little from what I've written above ...

 

Something I've thought about regarding women in the LDS church (lets put it under the heading:  How Life would be for me if I were to become an LDS woman)  is the mothership role.  I've been aware that the role of motherhood is highly valued and regarded.  To tell you the truth, what blows my mind here is that a woman (as I understand it) cannot participate in the ceremony (searching here for the actual word ... it's not sacrament ... is it officiation? No! it's ordinance!) that is the blessing of the baby within the LDS community.  I love that this is done in community. But as I understand it (and I've seen it only once), the mother does not hold her baby; she does not stand in the circle; she sits with the rest of the onlooking community.

The "mother and child" motif, whether it's the Madonna and child or the Piéta where Mary holds her newborn and her dying son respectively, are powerful images for me because of the reality they express regarding the bond and love between mother and child. (That's not to take away at all from the love between father and child, a strong and beautiful biblical theme illustrated wonderfully between God the Father and his son Jesus Christ.)

That's all I'm going to say about that!

Edited October 1, 2013 by Paloma

[BlueDreams]

Maybe you should spend some more time among Mormons in Utah if this caricature really constitutes your perception.

 

Not that I don't agree with this. But it may help to remember what part of outside of utah stone holm's from (vermont area). Speaking as an east coaster who had a companion who was very utahn (rural utah at that) in the north east....it's a bit of a culture shock. East coasters (myself included) are blunt, naturally sarcastic, and often have a different set of values that often don't mesh well with what I've seen out west. I wouldn't make the point as value-laden as stone-holm did (for example instead of platitudes my utahn comp would have called it tactful . And my blunt ways of telling it as it is was often deemed rude. I assure you we actually got along quite well). But seeing it first hand, I would state that there can be a number of cultural differences to navigate in either circle....and that these differences can be a hindrance or a source of strength depending. (ex. my comp began asking me very poignant questions because she trusted me to be honest and I learned to be more considerate of how I said things). 

 

But this is fairly off topic anyways.

 

With luv,

BD