Has Feminism Affected Missionary Work?

[DJBrown]

In my ward, there is a small handful of people, mostly sisters, whose church activity has decreased in the last year.  I know personally that most of these sisters point to gender issues and the church's doctrine on women and the Priesthood, etc. as the source of their lessened desire to participate in church life.  

 

It does not take long following several blogs that discuss gender issues and the church to notice within the comments sections a clear impact on many who read the articles on these blogs and participate in those discussions.  Many members online will come out and say that they are losing interest or faith in the church and its leaders as a result of these controversies.  

 

I have several question relating to all of this:

 

1.  What are your opinions on whether feminism has negatively impacted the faith of members of the church and on the activity level of this sub-culture within the church?

 

2.  Have the arguments, statements, and voices of LDS feminists affected the missionary work of the church?

 

(It is hard to believe that this does not negatively impact missionary work- the number of less active members requesting that their names be removed has increased over the last two years in my stake fairly significantly.  Many of these folks cite these very issues as the cause of their requests.)

 

3.  If the controversy in the church stirred by feminism has negatively affected faith of some members and/or our missionary efforts, does that not result in accountability on the part of those doing the stirring?  And do those negative affects not provide some degree of an answer to the questions voiced by the feminists?

 

I have been struck by the passages in the Book of Mormon recently that describe the contention and dissensions that took place in the church in 4 Nephi.  Is not the current controversy similar in its affect to those that took place among the Nephites?

 

I recognize that many who voice opposition to the church and its leaders from within will claim and have claimed that such negative affects prove that the church is failing in its mission and should correct its course.

 

What say ye? 

 

 

[stemelbow]

In my ward, there is a small handful of people, mostly sisters, whose church activity has decreased in the last year.  I know personally that most of these sisters point to gender issues and the church's doctrine on women and the Priesthood, etc. as the source of their lessened desire to participate in church life.  

 

It does not take long following several blogs that discuss gender issues and the church to notice within the comments sections a clear impact on many who read the articles on these blogs and participate in those discussions.  Many members online will come out and say that they are losing interest or faith in the church and its leaders as a result of these controversies.  

 

I have several question relating to all of this:

 

1.  What are your opinions on whether feminism has negatively impacted the faith of members of the church and on the activity level of this sub-culture within the church?

Feminism ideology? sure. I think it's clear women, even if they had priesthood, haven't been regarded as priority quite like men.  We still have a ways to go.

2.  Have the arguments, statements, and voices of LDS feminists affected the missionary work of the church?

 

(It is hard to believe that this does not negatively impact missionary work- the number of less active members requesting that their names be removed has increased over the last two years in my stake fairly significantly.  Many of these folks cite these very issues as the cause of their requests.)

Simple really. It's obvious women are treated with less regard than men in the Church. Someone pointing that out, and other's read or hear that pointing out, will cause these others to understand that the Church has gender problems--a negative thing to most.

3.  If the controversy in the church stirred by feminism has negatively affected faith of some members and/or our missionary efforts, does that not result in accountability on the part of those doing the stirring?  And do those negative affects not provide some degree of an answer to the questions voiced by the feminists?

No. The accountability of the problems and discrimination need to be addressed in the culture and teachings. People pointing out the problem shouldn't be blamed for slow progress in the Church if the Church is unwilling to progress.

 

I have been struck by the passages in the Book of Mormon recently that describe the contention and dissensions that took place in the church in 4 Nephi.  Is not the current controversy similar in its affect to those that took place among the Nephites?

When I read 4 Nephi I see absolutely no comparison in it to be made with feminism.

 

I recognize that many who voice opposition to the church and its leaders from within will claim and have claimed that such negative affects prove that the church is failing in its mission and should correct its course.

 

What say ye?

The Church will always need correction. It'll need to evolve.

[Duncan]

I think women are talking about it but I haven't seen anyone leaving the Church over it

[carbon dioxide]

The Church will always need correction. It'll need to evolve.

Yes as long as the evolution is closer to what God expects us to be and not evolving along the lines of society since God does not evolve with society. 

[Buckeye]

Feminism isn't the cause of sisters leaving. It is the solution if we choose to embrace it. Christ was quite a feminist in his day. His church should follow that example today.

[juliann]

 

 

1.  What are your opinions on whether feminism has negatively impacted the faith of members of the church and on the activity level of this sub-culture within the church?

 

Feminism is not a very descriptive term. There is even in-fighting about who gets to claim the label.

 

2.  Have the arguments, statements, and voices of LDS feminists affected the missionary work of the church?

 

 (It is hard to believe that this does not negatively impact missionary work- the number of less active members requesting that their names be removed has increased over the last two years in my stake fairly significantly.  Many of these folks cite these very issues as the cause of their requests.)

 

Investigators are likely very unfamiliar with Mofems. But they don't need to be. It has been noted that the only time our girls find out they aren't allowed to do something is in church. That is the problem. People are expected to come from a world where women are told they can do and be anything to a world where they are limited in what they can do and be. In a world where we all have to be able to take care of ourselves, I can see where an investigator would be very troubled to find out that their daughters were being told that being a mother was their only goal.

 

 

3.  If the controversy in the church stirred by feminism has negatively affected faith of some members and/or our missionary efforts, does that not result in accountability on the part of those doing the stirring?  And do those negative affects not provide some degree of an answer to the questions voiced by the feminists?

 

 

The only controversy I have seen is coming from online and it is an American problem. I doubt most members even know about Kate Kelly. However, I think the real problem is awareness not "stirring." There are problems with the way the church has dealt with women. We all feel it at one time or another. It is just that we never put it together as a pervasive problem. That is what "the feminists" are doing...connecting the dots.  What has been random annoyance at some male leaders or the inability to get things done without their approval then becomes a systemic problem. I think a good example of this is women being allowed to pray in GC.  That is great...until you realize a woman can be president but has never been deemed important enough to give a prayer.  So at this late date, correcting a wrong can sometimes make the inequity even more apparent.

 

I have been struck by the passages in the Book of Mormon recently that describe the contention and dissensions that took place in the church in 4 Nephi.  Is not the current controversy similar in its affect to those that took place among the Nephites?

 

No. There are some real problems that need to be fixed. And fast.

 

I recognize that many who voice opposition to the church and its leaders from within will claim and have claimed that such negative affects prove that the church is failing in its mission and should correct its course.

 

 And there are some who say that the Restoration is an ongoing process with many changes in store.

[cinepro]

Feminism isn't the cause of sisters leaving. It is the solution if we choose to embrace it. Christ was quite a feminist in his day. His church should follow that example today.

 

If we consider that Christ was the god of the Old Testament,  I'm not sure the Mosaic Law would qualify him as a "feminist."  But I guess we can spin it any way we like.

[Buckeye]

If we consider that Christ was the god of the Old Testament,  I'm not sure the Mosaic Law would qualify him as a "feminist."  But I guess we can spin it any way we like.

 

I tend to see Christ as a direction more than a fixed point. Whatever portions of the OT actually reflect divine will (and I'm doubtful about many parts), I believe one can see a feminist bent there too. You just have to compare the OT to its surrounding world, rather than to our world.

[Buckeye]

To answer the OP directly, I think that feminism is making missionary work better. My ward is better off now that we have a set of sister missionaries. Lowering the ages and giving sister missionaries more responsibilities in the mission is widely seen as a positive for the young women who serve - a positive that will bear more fruit when they raise their own families some day. And I believe the world's perception of the church is improved by seeing young women actively engaged in preaching the gospel. Yes, there are other miracles we are waiting on (to quote Elder Holland), but the church's recent feminist transitions have been a very good thing (i.e., more sister missionaries, women praying at conference, women allowed to work at BYU and as institute teachers even if they have children at home, etc.)

[The Nehor]

If we consider that Christ was the god of the Old Testament,  I'm not sure the Mosaic Law would qualify him as a "feminist."  But I guess we can spin it any way we like.

Anyone who puts in circumcision is not much of a masculinist either.

[why me]

I think that members need to decide who leads the church. If it is men or human beings or is it heavenly father? If it is a group of sexist men, then by all means women should demand more power. If it is led by heavenly father, then one must take their issues to him. Once the leadership is seen as caving in to the demands of certain members, it is doomed as a restorative church. It will just become another protestant sect such as the CoC. Also, the internet may be planting unhealthy seeds in the minds of female members as well as in male members. The most equal societies according to research have the most violence against women: Demark, Finland and Sweden lead the way. But the EU is awash in violence against women and for the most part, women seem to have more equality under the law than in the US.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/05/violence-against-women-eu

 

Back in the day, the gender roles were well set inside the church. But of course, under a false understanding of equality, certain women view equality as a defacto understanding the men and women are equal in all things. Unfortunately biology did not think so. Women give birth and because of this fact, we are already unequal. It is a shame that heavenly father did not create a bargaining chip in creation by having the woman and the man decide who will give birth.

 

What is unfortunate is the sad fact that many members think that they know more than the god who has created us. And since wordly equality, has not actually done much in liberating women in the area of everyday life regardless of the strides of laws in granting basic equality. In other words, so called worldly equality has not increased the happiness of women. So, what to do? Relief society taught women how to be good mothers and priesthood taught men to be good fathers. Together they made a whole in teaching what makes a good family. But maybe this should change. Maybe we should become more worldly. Why not?

Edited February 20, 2015 by why me

[stemelbow]

I think that members need to decide who leads the church. If it is men or human beings or is it heavenly father?

I think it's clearly humans who take the lead on some things the Church does and says. If there is good and use that the Church produces, then great. If there is not so good and uselessness, then too bad. But as it is, God will use any tool, any person, it seems to me, to express good and useful avenues for us to pursue.

[Buckeye]

I think that members need to decide who leads the church. If it is men or human beings or is it heavenly father? If it is a group of sexist men, then by all means women should demand more power. If it is led by heavenly father, then one must take their issues to him. Once the leadership is seen as caving in to the demands of certain members, it is doomed as a restorative church. It will just become another protestant sect such as the CoC. Also, the internet may be planting unhealthy seeds in the minds of female members as well as in male members. The most equal societies according to research have the most violence against women: Demark, Finland and Sweden lead the way. But the EU is awash in violence against women and for the most part, women seem to have more equality under the law than in the US.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/05/violence-against-women-eu

 

Back in the day, the gender roles were well set inside the church. But of course, under a false understanding of equality, certain women view equality as a defacto understanding the men and women are equal in all things. Unfortunately biology did not think so. Women give birth and because of this fact, we are already unequal. It is a shame that heavenly father did not create a bargaining chip in creation by having the woman and the man decide who will give birth.

 

What is unfortunate is the sad fact that many members think that they know more than the god who has created us. And since wordly equality, has not actually done much in liberating women in the area of everyday life regardless of the strides of laws in granting basic equality. In other words, so called worldly equality has not increased the happiness of women. So, what to do? Relief society taught women how to be good mothers and priesthood taught men to be good fathers. Together they made a whole in teaching what makes a good family. But maybe this should change. Maybe we should become more worldly. Why not?

 

Or maybe there are other options, such as God patiently working with an entire people, many of whom have specific keys and authorities for limited periods of time, but all of whose voices must be heard for Zion to come to pass. Good leaders know how to listen without "caving." Good leaders know that ordinary members quite often receive inspiration that could benefit the entire church - for example, the RS and Primary.

 

Also, "gender roles" have never been "set" in the church. Mary and Martha saw things differently in the NT. Sister Okasaki worked outside the home at time when that was taboo in the church. And sisters in the early days had significant spiritual opportunities that are no longer available, such as anointing and blessing their children and fellow sisters.

 

I will agree with you on one point, though. I don't see much value in debating "equality." I find much more success in discussing what is good. And that is why I'm a feminist. It is good for people - both men and women - to preside, provide, protect, baptize, anoint, drive, vote, read, prepare meals, nurture and teach children, control and direct finances (home and church), and on and on. If the day comes that men can give birth, I'd hope that they (we) would aspire to that role too. But just because that's not biologically possible now doesn't mean we need to artificially limit people's opportunities for growth in order to make things more "equal."

[why me]

Or maybe there are other options, such as God patiently working with an entire people, many of whom have specific keys and authorities for limited periods of time, but all of whose voices must be heard for Zion to come to pass. Good leaders know how to listen without "caving." Good leaders know that ordinary members quite often receive inspiration that could benefit the entire church - for example, the RS and Primary.

 

Also, "gender roles" have never been "set" in the church. Mary and Martha saw things differently in the NT. Sister Okasaki worked outside the home at time when that was taboo in the church. And sisters in the early days had significant spiritual opportunities that are no longer available, such as anointing and blessing their children and fellow sisters.

But there is a problem, at least according to the OP. Women leaving the church do to perceived inequality. In this case, one must decide who heads the church. Men or god. If men, then they should meet like at a board meeting and decide whether women should receive the priesthood or any other issue that they think that they should have more say in. However, if god leads the church, then issues should be taken to him in prayer. If women are leaving the church because of inequality, then they must not believe in heavenly father leading his church rather consider the other option: men leading the church without guidance from above. I don't see a middle way here. It is either one or the other.

 

When I was a young man gender roles were rather set. No one forbid women to work but it certainly wasn't encouraged unless of course it was necessary. And relief society and priesthood had clear teachings for men and for women. And it was always brought out that men and women were more than equal in the church, even if there were distinct differences in callings etc.

Edited February 20, 2015 by why me

[Buckeye]

But there is a problem, at least according to the OP. Women leaving the church do to perceived inequality. In this case, one must decide who heads the church. Men or god. If men, then they should meet like at a board meeting and decide whether women should receive the priesthood or any other issue that they think that they should have more say in. However, if god leads the church, then issues should be taken to him in prayer. If women are leaving the church because of inequality, then they must not believe in heavenly father leading his church rather consider the other option: men leading the church without guidance from above. I don't see a middle way here. It is either one or the other.

 

When I was a young man gender roles were rather set. No one forbid women to work but it certainly wasn't encouraged unless of course it was necessary. And relief society and priesthood had clear teachings for men and for women. And it was always brought out that men and women were more than equal in the church, even if there were distinct differences in callings etc.

 

Again, false dichotomy. There is a much more realistic approach; namely, that church leaders discuss amongst themselves, as well as with the members they visit throughout the world, regarding the desires of the church. As they come to agreement on a direction to take, they prayerfully submit that recommendation to the Lord. With his approval, they then act. That's how I read the events leading up to the 1978 revelation. And it's how I expect any new significant change - say women's ordination - to happen. The Lord could direct on his own, but most often he waits until the people are ready and express a desire for more guidance. Leaders must speak with and listen to the body in order to know what our desires are and to gauge whether we are ready to move forward.

 

The fact that our leaders are seeing many young adults, an in particular women, leave the church should cause them to inquire as to why. For very many, the reason may be that they are searching for something better - something this church could offer if our hearts changed.

[Buckeye]

...

 

When I was a young man gender roles were rather set. No one forbid women to work but it certainly wasn't encouraged unless of course it was necessary. And relief society and priesthood had clear teachings for men and for women. And it was always brought out that men and women were more than equal in the church, even if there were distinct differences in callings etc.

 

I'm quite confident that women who leave the church are aware the church teaches that men and women are equal. That teaching can be found in pretty much every general conference and Ensign. The disconnect arises because the church's definition of "equal" is starkly different from these women's. For the church, 'equal' means saying "we value you just as much as the men." For these sisters, 'equal' means actions, not words; it means being allowed to participate in all good things - ordinances, councils, etc. - and in having the same teachings and emphasis for both genders. As one example, in our current environment the  boys get a lesson on modesty 1-2 times per year; the girls get the lesson 1-2 times per Sunday.

[Calm]

The only controversy I have seen is coming from online and it is an American problem.

 

It may be also a European problem given from what we heard from some European sisters.  However, as you know…but perhaps not some others reading the board so I will repeat this….in areas where the outside culture has a problem with gender equality, the Church may be seen as a shining example of feminism…as reported by Sharon Eubank in her talk, "This is a Woman's Church":

 

I am going to tell you a story, and it actually happened to Lillian DeLong, a friend of mine. She served on a Relief Society board years ago. And she was assigned to go to Ghana. And she had her husband with her. And they were in a very rural part of Ghana. So, they did their training. She was there to do Relief Society Training. And it is a very simple structure and they were in different rooms, and her husband was in Priesthood and she was in Relief Society and they did their training. After it was over, a woman came up to her, in her beautiful Ghanaian church dress, and she shook her hand and she kept saying “This is a woman’s church.” She’s just crying and tears are just streaming down her face. She kept saying, “This is a woman’s church.” Lillian didn’t really know what she was talking about. And she’s smiling and saying, “Yeah.” But the woman just kept pumping her hand and saying over and over again, “This is a woman’s church.” And finally Lillian said, “What do you mean, ‘This is a woman’s church?’” And she said, “We have just been in the marvelous Relief Society that teaches us not only spiritual things but temporal things about how to make our lives and our children and our families better. And at the same time your husband is in the Priesthood room and he is teaching our husbands that the culture of the church does not allow for them to beat their wives and their children.”

And she said, “In this church, my husband and I get to go to the temple and we are going to seal our children to us. And I have seven of my eleven kids that are dead. And I want my children with me and this is a woman’s church, because it protects me and gives me all of those things.” I never forgot this story that Lillian told me. And although it maybe is a poor title for this talk, it is why I titled this talk that, because our doctrine gives us those things.

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2014-fairmormon-conference/womans-church

 

Valerie Hudson Cassler, who is considered an international expert on women's issues also has pointed out that celestial marriage as taught by LDS is in her view that best remedy for gender inequality and domestic abuse we have.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_M._Hudson

 

So it may take sometime for the Church to catch up to the some of the needs of women in Western cultures (I think it does a better job of protecting and helping women develop in many ways than the outside Western culture, but in some ways we lag), but at least in these countries women are capable of taking care of ourselves for the most part and we can on our own find opportunities to grow while in the countries where women are significantly oppressed, they need the Church to provide opportunities they can find nowhere else…and it is doing that.

Edited February 20, 2015 by calmoriah

[why me]

Again, false dichotomy. There is a much more realistic approach; namely, that church leaders discuss amongst themselves, as well as with the members they visit throughout the world, regarding the desires of the church. As they come to agreement on a direction to take, they prayerfully submit that recommendation to the Lord. With his approval, they then act. That's how I read the events leading up to the 1978 revelation. And it's how I expect any new significant change - say women's ordination - to happen. The Lord could direct on his own, but most often he waits until the people are ready and express a desire for more guidance. Leaders must speak with and listen to the body in order to know what our desires are and to gauge whether we are ready to move forward.

 

The fact that our leaders are seeing many young adults, an in particular women, leave the church should cause them to inquire as to why. For very many, the reason may be that they are searching for something better - something this church could offer if our hearts changed.

Of course there could be a world wide discussion about issues in the church. Women, gay rights, chasity rules, word of wisdom, etc. After, getting their desires about what to take to heavenly father the GAs can all pray about these issues. So, maybe there will be a loosening of chasity rules when it comes to fornication. Maybe there will be a yes for gay marriage in the temple and a yes, for women's ordination. And maybe coffee can be drunk.  All problems solved. And life can go on as before. However, the fact will still be made: was it social pressure that changed the church's course or was it men. Or was it heavenly father's direct intervention. But in such matters, there no proof of god involvement at all. I think that most protestant reformation churches did what you said and all can claim direct guidance on why policies have changed.

 

And the lds members who support ssm, female ordination, etc if the answer is no, will not be satisfied. Then it is back to square one.

 

Those faiths that claim truth: catholic, orthodox, and lds cannot be seen as institutions of participatory democracy when it comes to worldly issues.

Edited February 21, 2015 by why me

[Senator]

Of course there could be a world wide discussion about issues in the church. Women, gay rights, chasity rules, word of wisdom, etc. After, getting their desires about what to take to heavenly father the GAs can all pray about these issues. So, maybe there will be a loosening of chasity rules when it comes to fornication. Maybe there will be a yes for gay marriage in the temple and a yes, for women's ordination. And maybe coffee can be drunk.  All problems solved. And life can go on as before. However, the fact will still be made: was it social pressure that changed the church's course or was it men. Or was it heavenly father's direct intervention. But in such matters, there no proof of god involvement at all. I think that most protestant reformation churches did what you said and all can claim direct guidance on why policies have changed.

 

And the lds members who support ssm, female ordination, etc if the answer is no, will not be satisfied. Then it is back to square one.

 

Those faiths that claim truth: catholic, orthodox, and lds cannot be seen as institutions of participatory democracy when it comes to worldly issues.

 

Poppycock!

[BlueDreams]

I have several question relating to all of this:

 

1.  What are your opinions on whether feminism has negatively impacted the faith of members of the church and on the activity level of this sub-culture within the church?

 

 

Well, I'm a feminist.....it hasn't seemed to negatively effected my faith. Nor that of my cousins. But of course, feminism is a very broad umbrella, as Juliann pointed out. For example, I don't even 100% agree with Buckeye's ideas. And I've met plenty of feminists and mormons who I don't agree with for this or that reason. I think certain ideologies could effect activity, but feminism is not a unified block within the church. 

 

 

2.  Have the arguments, statements, and voices of LDS feminists affected the missionary work of the church?

 

 

No idea. I was a missionary before the issues with KK came up. My guess is not much more than beforehand with investigators. Mormon women were already stereotyped as oppressed wallflowers who may have some sister wives. Feminism has nothing on that. On the same note, I think LDS feminism has made some very positive changes for women and missionary work, seen in the massive increase in sisters serving.  Have certain views probably led to what you mentioned? I'll take what you've told me on face value. I think certain views, especially, can feel marginalized or incongruent with the church for these people....which could lead to disaffection. But that's not all the picture of LDS and feminism. Not even close

 

3.  If the controversy in the church stirred by feminism has negatively affected faith of some members and/or our missionary efforts, does that not result in accountability on the part of those doing the stirring?  And do those negative affects not provide some degree of an answer to the questions voiced by the feminists?

 

 

Only if the reverse is true and the church can be accountable for it's parts that are effecting this. Feminists aren't the problem. There is a discrepancy between what is taught and what actually is set up in the church...and even how what is part of our doctrine is even discussed. On the one hand, we teach that all are valuable to God and that male and female roles are equally important, necessary, and when joined are the image of godliness. We believe in Heavenly Parents. On the other, the organization of the church doesn't allow for this pertinent use of male and female voices and view to be utilized. Women are given platitudes while men do the grunt work. Women are expect to bring the refreshments while men give the true spiritual message. Even our Mother is painted as a silent woman who's just there in the backdrops of Heavenly Father. This is changing, and I'm glad it is. But there's still a lot to change and the way we go about things can still limit the spiritual development of women. This limitation, with or with out a polished feminist philosophy to back it up can leave a sense of marginalization and discrepancy in women's lives.   

 

I have been struck by the passages in the Book of Mormon recently that describe the contention and dissensions that took place in the church in 4 Nephi.  Is not the current controversy similar in its affect to those that took place among the Nephites?

 

No, if anything I think of it more as the periods where the pride of the Nephites began to be a stumbling block. Do you know that there is a clear pattern in the BoM and the PoGP with how women are treated and how close we are to a zion society? For example the first gender disparity mentioned after the Fall is seen in the story of Lamech, one of Cain's decsendants. He was found out by his wives Zilah and Adah of killing a man to gain power through his secret combinations. The women exposed him to their community. So the secret combinations continued among the males or the "sons of men" while this knowledge was institutionally shut out by Lamech's decsendent. (Moses 5:52-53). In contrast, at the beginning of Moses 5 (10-12), you see Adam receiving revelation from the Lord, Eve, hearing these same things, expounds and adds to this revelation and together in partnership, they teach the next generation, making "all things known to their sons and daughters." The BoM also shows a similar pattern where when the people are worse, gendered relationships grow worse, when they do better, gender relationships are more respected and cared for. The church isn't perfect in their gender issues. Over the generations the gender roles have not been utilized equally, knowledge, revelation, etc....it's something we work on, and there's room for more growth. We have beliefs that have continued in us from a fallen world that need to be altered. 

I recognize that many who voice opposition to the church and its leaders from within will claim and have claimed that such negative affects prove that the church is failing in its mission and should correct its course.

What say ye? 

 

 

The church isn't failing in its mission anymore than you and I are. Meaning we fail and we fall short, but that does not mean the same as we are failing in our overall mission.....it means we need to repent, seek out the Lord's ways, and course correct to improve our walk. The church needs to course correct in how it discuss gender issues and how well we work together as male and female in all levels of the church. It's doing that. I don't think that that'll look like the world's view of gender equality....in part because I think many of the world's view has had a problem of favored male roles even in its pursuit for equality. It's also favored achievement, hierarchy, and power structures that are not in accord with God's ways. But we will change and we should change in our understanding of gender, male and female roles, and utility of said roles in running the church. 

 

 

With luv,

BD 

[Yirgacheffe]

 

 

Also, "gender roles" have never been "set" in the church. Mary and Martha saw things differently in the NT. Sister Okasaki worked outside the home at time when that was taboo in the church. And sisters in the early days had significant spiritual opportunities that are no longer available, such as anointing and blessing their children and fellow sisters.

 

 

Um if "gender roles" were never set then why was there a time when Sister Okasaki working outside the home was taboo in the church?

[why me]

Poppycock!

The lds church is not a democracy. LDS members sustain leaders but they do not exercise a vote to vote in a  leader. This is not a grassroots church where members actively particpate in setting policy for the worldwide church. Of course, there may be room for technical issues to be solved but certainly not doctrinal issues.  And even technical issues would be nearly impossible to put to a worldwide church for discussion.

 

And general conference is not a place for democratic discussion. Just the opposite. It is a place where sustained leaders give important direction for the membership. One must change the internal dynamics of the church if one wishes to create a church with a participatory democracy.

[Antoni]

 

The only controversy I have seen is coming from online and it is an American problem.

 

This is true - in my corner of Zion there really isn't a problem - women in the church seem content and happy with how the church is organised. We're not losing females because of it and most recent converts have been women. I'm only aware of the contention as I keep an eye out online.

 

The problem seems to be with those that have grown up in the church (usually in the US to be frank) who don't get it. They think they can just have the church on their terms. They are a vocal (and sometimes aggresively so) minority. Despite their intentions perhaps these sisters would do well to consider their worldwide sisters and consider why they are not contentious on this issue.

 

 

Light, Love and Peace.

[Antoni]

The lds church is not a democracy. LDS members sustain leaders but they do not exercise a vote to vote in a  leader. This is not a grassroots church where members actively particpate in setting policy for the worldwide church. Of course, there may be room for technical issues to be solved but certainly not doctrinal issues.  And even technical issues would be nearly impossible to put to a worldwide church for discussion.

 

And general conference is not a place for democratic discussion. Just the opposite. It is a place where sustained leaders give important direction for the membership. One must change the internal dynamics of the church if one wishes to create a church with a participatory democracy.

 

Amen!

[Lost in Ohio]

Personally I think there are gender based cultural notions that negatively affect both men and women. One of the most glaring to me is the idea that women are innately more spiritual, more charitable, and smarter than men. I have heard it said many times that men are spiritually less than equal and lack the same capacity for charity and compassion as women. I've also heard frequently that it's necessary for men to have the priesthood because without it they wouldn't be spiritual or charitable enough and women because of their greater inmate spirituality and compassion don't need that ‘crutch’. I have seen this conceit taught many times, always by well intentioned men seeking to elevate the role of womanhood and to acknowledge the priceless role women play in the Plan of Salvation.

While the goal is worthy, the message in my opinion is misguided. As a father of a son and three daughters I cringe when I hear it. The implication seems to be young men and men in the church in general pretty much can't help themselves from being less able to be Christ like because of inherent gender flaws in their nature. As though Heavenly Father weren't capable of creating something better for us poor XY chromosome carriers. Young women on the other hand are given an unrealistic expectation for spirituality and virtue the weight of which can cause them to feel excessive shame if they fall into error because of the height of the pedestal upon which we have placed them.

Just as the capacity for sin and error are human conditions equally applying to both male and female, so to I think are their righteous opposites - the capacity for faith and obedience.

The Proclamation on the Family makes it explicitly clear that men and women are equal, each endowed with equal potential. Men and women may have different qualities and natures, but I think they are both capable of equal spirituality and Christ like potential.

The gender of the person giving the opening prayer or the spiritual message I think is of really little importance eternally. Nor do I agree with the notion stated in an earlier post that women are given just platitudes while men do the grunt work. My wife is currently serving as RS President and has been YW’s President three times. Believe me she does plenty of “grunt work”.

I doubt any of us, with our finite and mortal perspective, can truly understand what equality really entails in the Lord’s way. I do think though that the organization that we have now and with the teaching and guidance we have been given, we have a foundation from which we can learn the truths that we need to learn. Worrying about what the gender of the person who has the assignment to bring cookies is and who is giving the prayer seems a distraction from the things that are really important eternally.

With sincerity,

Edited February 22, 2015 by Lost in Ohio