Feminist Wants Women Only Speakers At General Meeting

[JLHPROF]

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2335717-155/mormon-feminist-wants-womens-session-to

 

A former member of OW wants the First Presidency to not speak at the General Women's Meeting.

 

 

Typically, the three female heads of the church's auxiliaries — Primary for children ages 3 to 11, Young Women for ages 12 to 17, and Relief Society for adult women — offer individual sermons but the concluding speaker traditionally is a member of the all-male governing First Presidency. 

"I hope you will consider claiming the General Women's session as exclusively female," Smith writes in a letter to the women leaders posted at Exponent II website.

 

 

Have we really reached the point now where we don't even want to hear from our prophet?

Personally, I would take every opportunity to hear the words of a prophet.

Edited March 26, 2015 by JLHPROF

[ERayR]

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2335717-155/mormon-feminist-wants-womens-session-to

 

A former member of OW wants the First Presidency to not speak at the General Women's Meeting.

 

 

 

Have we really reached the point now where we don't even want to hear from our prophet?

Personally, I would take every opportunity to hear the words of a prophet.

 

A little presumptuous trying to dictate meeting agenda.

[carbon dioxide]

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2335717-155/mormon-feminist-wants-womens-session-to

 

A former member of OW wants the First Presidency to not speak at the General Women's Meeting.

 

 

 

Have we really reached the point now where we don't even want to hear from our prophet?

Personally, I would take every opportunity to hear the words of a prophet.

I say let them have their own meetings.  We will see the men handle being excluded from an all women meeting.  I predict very few will complain.

[rpn]

It will be real progress when women address men at the priesthood meeting.   Imagine the idea that women would have something to offer the men hold the priesthood.

[Calm]

I think there would be a majority of female members who disagree.

[bluebell]

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2335717-155/mormon-feminist-wants-womens-session-to

A former member of OW wants the First Presidency to not speak at the General Women's Meeting.

Have we really reached the point now where we don't even want to hear from our prophet?

Personally, I would take every opportunity to hear the words of a prophet.

So would I.

I HATE this idea, and I'm annoyed that some women feel they have right to speak for all of us.

[Scott Lloyd]

I say let them have their own meetings.  We will see the men handle being excluded from an all women meeting.  I predict very few will complain.

whoah. I very much doubt that the women organization leaders or even all but a tiny faction of faithful LDS women would hold with Ms Presumptuous Feminist.

[Scott Lloyd]

It will be real progress when women address men at the priesthood meeting.   Imagine the idea that women would have something to offer the men hold the priesthood.

It's not all that novel. Both gospel doctrine teachers in our ward now are female. I'm a faithful attendee, as are many of my brethren in the ward.

[mormonnewb]

So would I.

I HATE this idea, and I'm annoyed that some women feel they have right to speak for all of us.

 

I get the fact that you hate the idea.  I assume that's because you relish the opportunity to hear from our beloved prophet.  Okay, I get it.

 

But I don't think she ever stated (or even implied) that she spoke for all women (or even a majority of women).  Does she not have a right to express her own opinion about who should address her at the event?

 

To me, this is the most confusing part about the issue of gender equality in the Church -- the fact that so many WOMEN are opposed to feminists.  During the civil rights movement, Dr. King was VERY popular amongst black people.  I imagine that there were VERY few who would say, "He doesn't speak for ME."  And I know they wouldn't say it very loudly (at least not in the presence of other black people).

 

However, women in our church seem to go out of their way to attack other women who are interested in ... gasp ... women being equal to 12 year old BOYS in ecclesiastic authority.  Just about every Sunday, some sister will make an unsolicited (and often irrelevant) dig at "feminists" or "prideful women."  I sometimes wonder if they get extra points on their TR worthiness score if they have insulted at least one other woman each quarter.

 

I just couldn't imagine standing up in our church in 1977 to slam those who had the "nerve" to suggest that I should have the priesthood.  And if any of you know a black man who did such a thing, please punch him in the throat for me (I'm MOSTLY kidding, but if you decide to do it, I won't be mad at you).

 

Seriously, I get why men would be hostile to women who have the "temerity" to desire full participation in the religion that they give their lives to.  I really do get it.  But that they would get hostility from other WOMEN?  But hey, I'm new here.  Maybe a seasoned Mormon can explain this one to me.

[why me]

I get the fact that you hate the idea.  I assume that's because you relish the opportunity to hear from our beloved prophet.  Okay, I get it.

 

But I don't think she ever stated (or even implied) that she spoke for all women (or even a majority of women).  Does she not have a right to express her own opinion about who should address her at the event?

 

To me, this is the most confusing part about the issue of gender equality in the Church -- the fact that so many WOMEN are opposed to feminists.  During the civil rights movement, Dr. King was VERY popular amongst black people.  I imagine that there were VERY few who would say, "He doesn't speak for ME."  And I know they wouldn't say it very loudly (at least not in the presence of other black people).

 

However, women in our church seem to go out of their way to attack other women who are interested in ... gasp ... women being equal to 12 year old BOYS in ecclesiastic authority.  Just about every Sunday, some sister will make an unsolicited (and often irrelevant) dig at "feminists" or "prideful women."  I sometimes wonder if they get extra points on their TR worthiness score if they have insulted at least one other woman each quarter.

 

I just couldn't imagine standing up in our church in 1977 to slam those who had the "nerve" to suggest that I should have the priesthood.  And if any of you know a black man who did such a thing, please punch him in the throat for me (I'm MOSTLY kidding, but if you decide to do it, I won't be mad at you).

 

Seriously, I get why men would be hostile to women who have the "temerity" to desire full participation in the religion that they give their lives to.  I really do get it.  But that they would get hostility from other WOMEN?  But hey, I'm new here.  Maybe a seasoned Mormon can explain this one to me.

I think that you need to begin to think outside your own box. You are constantly bring up the race issue as if they are related to women in the lds church. The comparison is not a good one.  I understand that you are hostile to many things inside the lds church. At times, I feel sorry for you because you may have joined the church without knowing the worship culture or with the understanding of it. But, I can say that if more women would be members of the lds church, they would be happier and more peaceful with their lives. Why? Because, the church advises women where life goals can be put and of their role as a woman in society and within god's plan. For example, mormon women are highly educated. They work across professions and are success in a wide variety of businesses. Or they can be a home mom and receive great respect for that career too. No one looks down at a stay at home mom in the church. And no one looks down upon professional lds women or working class lds women.

 

And since you brought up race again, I can bet another canadian penny that african americans would benefit being members of the lds church too. It is all about family and the roles that need to be played to make a family to be a success. We all need that regardless of race.

[why me]

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2335717-155/mormon-feminist-wants-womens-session-to

 

A former member of OW wants the First Presidency to not speak at the General Women's Meeting.

 

 

 

Have we really reached the point now where we don't even want to hear from our prophet?

Personally, I would take every opportunity to hear the words of a prophet.

I am surprised that this would make the news. But then again, it is the SLT. Is this really a news article?

 

From the link:

 

To help foster healthy, open conversations with fellow believers, Smith has launched what she calls a "Fifth Sunday Project," in which she suggests that Mormon congregations use the "fifth Sunday" to discuss women's issues in a church setting and supplies resource materials on her Facebook page, including articles, blogs, scriptures and books. She also welcomes suggestions and participation from people of varying perspectives.

 

This does not foster  healthy conversation at all. But it will cause divisiveness. I just can't imagine how this would work world wide since there are cultural differences specific to each country. I can also see arguments and ill feelings being harvested with such meetings. But then again,, this is perhaps what she wishes to cause. Church meetings are not about debating politics and feminism is political. Also, women themselves would disagree with each other as would men. I can see no harmony is such debates or deliberations. But I can see people avoiding this meeting.

Edited March 27, 2015 by why me

[rodheadlee]

So if  Jesus Christ showed up They wouldn't let him in?

Edited March 27, 2015 by rodheadlee

[Tacenda]

I get the fact that you hate the idea. I assume that's because you relish the opportunity to hear from our beloved prophet. Okay, I get it.

But I don't think she ever stated (or even implied) that she spoke for all women (or even a majority of women). Does she not have a right to express her own opinion about who should address her at the event?

To me, this is the most confusing part about the issue of gender equality in the Church -- the fact that so many WOMEN are opposed to feminists. During the civil rights movement, Dr. King was VERY popular amongst black people. I imagine that there were VERY few who would say, "He doesn't speak for ME." And I know they wouldn't say it very loudly (at least not in the presence of other black people).

However, women in our church seem to go out of their way to attack other women who are interested in ... gasp ... women being equal to 12 year old BOYS in ecclesiastic authority. Just about every Sunday, some sister will make an unsolicited (and often irrelevant) dig at "feminists" or "prideful women." I sometimes wonder if they get extra points on their TR worthiness score if they have insulted at least one other woman each quarter.

I just couldn't imagine standing up in our church in 1977 to slam those who had the "nerve" to suggest that I should have the priesthood. And if any of you know a black man who did such a thing, please punch him in the throat for me (I'm MOSTLY kidding, but if you decide to do it, I won't be mad at you).

Seriously, I get why men would be hostile to women who have the "temerity" to desire full participation in the religion that they give their lives to. I really do get it. But that they would get hostility from other WOMEN? But hey, I'm new here. Maybe a seasoned Mormon can explain this one to me.

To the point in the last paragraph pertaining to men being hostile if women want the PH. It seems that men are way more open to it than the women you speak of here. I see it a lot, especially in conversations on this board. Pretty impressed by that. And I'm not even a big women's libber.

[BlueDreams]

Have we really reached the point now where we don't even want to hear from our prophet?

Personally, I would take every opportunity to hear the words of a prophet.

 

I'll admit it, last GC I had a similar thought....though not so ham-handed. I remember thinking at the end that it felt almost disruptive to have Uchtdorf speaking at the end. And Uchtdorf is one of my favorite speakers and apostles....can't even deny it. I've loved just about every talk he's given. I have a picture with him and Sis. Uchtdorf (who I like even more) after watching the play "I am Jane." It had nothing to do with who he was or not wanting to hear from him as a prophet. I think it was just that after all of the changes they've made to the session, they've been highly successful of making it a solidly female-space. I remember feeling buoyed up as a woman by the session in a way I usually wasn't before and feeling strengthened and comforted by a uniquely feminine spiritual session. So when it came time for Uchtdorf, it was just a shift that seemed odd. It would be similar to running into the Temple president in initiatories. It would seem off because it's a female space. 

 

But I probably wouldn't insist on thinking that's the best change possible. My sentiment could have been a fluke and I also remember seeing them there and liking that a good number of the apostles were there when it started. I also think it would be cool to have the RS pres speak in Priesthood. Or maybe have the apostle/prophet go first or in the middle instead of always last. Or maybe just settle into the changes we've made already for a conference or two (what's a year) before making more to see how it's going. I wouldn't insist that my sentiment or thought should be how the session should go.

 

With luv,

BD 

[Senator]

I'll admit it, last GC I had a similar thought....though not so ham-handed. I remember thinking at the end that it felt almost disruptive to have Uchtdorf speaking at the end. And Uchtdorf is one of my favorite speakers and apostles....can't even deny it. I've loved just about every talk he's given. I have a picture with him and Sis. Uchtdorf (who I like even more) after watching the play "I am Jane." It had nothing to do with who he was or not wanting to hear from him as a prophet. I think it was just that after all of the changes they've made to the session, they've been highly successful of making it a solidly female-space. I remember feeling buoyed up as a woman by the session in a way I usually wasn't before and feeling strengthened and comforted by a uniquely feminine spiritual session. So when it came time for Uchtdorf, it was just a shift that seemed odd. It would be similar to running into the Temple president in initiatories. It would seem off because it's a female space. 

 

But I probably wouldn't insist on thinking that's the best change possible. My sentiment could have been a fluke and I also remember seeing them there and liking that a good number of the apostles were there when it started. I also think it would be cool to have the RS pres speak in Priesthood. Or maybe have the apostle/prophet go first or in the middle instead of always last. Or maybe just settle into the changes we've made already for a conference or two (what's a year) before making more to see how it's going. I wouldn't insist that my sentiment or thought should be how the session should go.

 

With luv,

BD 

 

I can see an all female meeting being a change that will take place in the near future.  The sisters will need to convince the bretheren that its not personal, that they simply would like that female autonomy......you know, like the male meeting is.

[stemelbow]

I can see an all female meeting being a change that will take place in the near future.  The sisters will need to convince the bretheren that its not personal, that they simply would like that female autonomy......you know, like the male meeting is.

Agreed. I think it's necessary for a few reasons.

[smac97]

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2335717-155/mormon-feminist-wants-womens-session-to

 

A former member of OW wants the First Presidency to not speak at the General Women's Meeting.

 

 

 

Have we really reached the point now where we don't even want to hear from our prophet?

Personally, I would take every opportunity to hear the words of a prophet.

So how does this call for gender segregation square with the OW group's call for having women attend the Priesthood Session? The former kinda undercuts the latter, wot?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Alan]

Feminism is my view has long since stopped being about equality between the sexes.

It is about female superiority, and probably always has been if the truth were known. The feminists are, in my view, a really good reason why women don't have the priesthood. 

[Avatar4321]

So if  Jesus Christ showed up They wouldn't let him in?

maybe if He appeared as a woman

[bluebell]

I get the fact that you hate the idea.  I assume that's because you relish the opportunity to hear from our beloved prophet.  Okay, I get it.

 

But I don't think she ever stated (or even implied) that she spoke for all women (or even a majority of women).  Does she not have a right to express her own opinion about who should address her at the event?

 

To me, this is the most confusing part about the issue of gender equality in the Church -- the fact that so many WOMEN are opposed to feminists.  During the civil rights movement, Dr. King was VERY popular amongst black people.  I imagine that there were VERY few who would say, "He doesn't speak for ME."  And I know they wouldn't say it very loudly (at least not in the presence of other black people).

 

However, women in our church seem to go out of their way to attack other women who are interested in ... gasp ... women being equal to 12 year old BOYS in ecclesiastic authority.  Just about every Sunday, some sister will make an unsolicited (and often irrelevant) dig at "feminists" or "prideful women."  I sometimes wonder if they get extra points on their TR worthiness score if they have insulted at least one other woman each quarter.

 

I just couldn't imagine standing up in our church in 1977 to slam those who had the "nerve" to suggest that I should have the priesthood.  And if any of you know a black man who did such a thing, please punch him in the throat for me (I'm MOSTLY kidding, but if you decide to do it, I won't be mad at you).

 

Seriously, I get why men would be hostile to women who have the "temerity" to desire full participation in the religion that they give their lives to.  I really do get it.  But that they would get hostility from other WOMEN?  But hey, I'm new here.  Maybe a seasoned Mormon can explain this one to me.

 

First, it's important to remember that there is a lot of hostility within the feminist movement within mormonism.  This is not something that only happens 'against' feminists so let's not make that implication.  I consider myself a moderate and many feminists despise moderates as much as they do conservatives.   

 

People don't like being disagreed with, it doesn't really matter where on the spectrum anyone lands.  Nor does it matter what gender the person is.

 

Second, of course women are more invested in this movement than men are.   It directly impacts women way way way more than it will ever directly impact men so it makes sense that men would have a 'if it happens it happens' kind of attitude while women are more divided.

 

I grew up in northern wyoming right next to yellowstone national park.  When the federal government decided to reintroduce wolves into the park it was a HUGE deal in my neck of the woods.  And it was not popular by any means.  While our local newspaper got hundreds of letters to the editor in support and in opposition-most of the support ones came from out of state while most of the opposition ones came from local people.  I'm guessing that all of the people who were adamant that the wolves be allowed back who were from New York city for example, would not have been as supportive if someone was trying to reintroduce them into central park.   Why?  Because wolves thousands of miles away where other people hang out with their kids are different than wolves next door where you hang out with your kids. 

 

Ideals are easier to live with when they are for other people.  

 

I'm not saying that men are not affected by women's issues in the church.  Only that they are less affected than women.

 

Third, when someone tries to change something from how it's always been to how they want it to be, and they do it in the name of a group of people and for the good of those people (per their way of thinking), then i consider such a person attempting to speak for that group of people.  

 

Fourth, try taking a poll sometime of all the men and boys who are typically excited to go to the priesthood session of general conference and ask them if they would be more or less excited if they knew that no apostles or prophets would be speaking during that session anymore.  I would bet that the majority would say they would be less excited.

 

It doesn't take much of a stretch of the imagination that the majority of women would feel the same way if they were told that no prophets or apostles would be speaking at the women's meetings anymore either.  

 

And fifth, speaking only for myself, i do not see any benefit to an all female meeting.  

Edited March 27, 2015 by bluebell

[Buckeye]

I get the fact that you hate the idea.  I assume that's because you relish the opportunity to hear from our beloved prophet.  Okay, I get it.

 

But I don't think she ever stated (or even implied) that she spoke for all women (or even a majority of women).  Does she not have a right to express her own opinion about who should address her at the event?

 

To me, this is the most confusing part about the issue of gender equality in the Church -- the fact that so many WOMEN are opposed to feminists.  During the civil rights movement, Dr. King was VERY popular amongst black people.  I imagine that there were VERY few who would say, "He doesn't speak for ME."  And I know they wouldn't say it very loudly (at least not in the presence of other black people).

 

However, women in our church seem to go out of their way to attack other women who are interested in ... gasp ... women being equal to 12 year old BOYS in ecclesiastic authority.  Just about every Sunday, some sister will make an unsolicited (and often irrelevant) dig at "feminists" or "prideful women."  I sometimes wonder if they get extra points on their TR worthiness score if they have insulted at least one other woman each quarter.

 

I just couldn't imagine standing up in our church in 1977 to slam those who had the "nerve" to suggest that I should have the priesthood.  And if any of you know a black man who did such a thing, please punch him in the throat for me (I'm MOSTLY kidding, but if you decide to do it, I won't be mad at you).

 

Seriously, I get why men would be hostile to women who have the "temerity" to desire full participation in the religion that they give their lives to.  I really do get it.  But that they would get hostility from other WOMEN?  But hey, I'm new here.  Maybe a seasoned Mormon can explain this one to me.

 

 

Hey newb,

 

Your point is accurate that this sister is only voicing her own opinion, not trying to speak for "all women." Seriously, who does that?

 

I'll take a stab at answering your questions, but with the caveat that I'm speaking as a man and so have no first-hand knowledge. In my experience, the women who most strongly oppose changes to the status quo are the women for whom the status quo works and who have the least trust in men. It's not that these women wouldn't find some value in blessing their children or seeing other women on the stand. It's that such blessings would come with risks that, if women could be bishops, these womens' husbands would watch football all sunday they might be called as bishop themself. It's not that much different than when women first began wearing makeup, going to college, or (current issue) having plastic surgery. The actions of other women pose a threat to those who are comfortably situated because they worry their husbands/society will expect them to also embrace the changes.

 

In short, the women who react most violently to other women are the same women who trust men the least. And please note that this group of women is a minority. I'm certainly not including the women on this board. I find most all women here to be quite reasonable.

Edited March 27, 2015 by Buckeye

[smac97]

I get the fact that you hate the idea.  I assume that's because you relish the opportunity to hear from our beloved prophet.  Okay, I get it.

But you apparently don't respect it.

 

To me, this is the most confusing part about the issue of gender equality in the Church -- the fact that so many WOMEN are opposed to feminists.

Indeed. Who do they think they are? Who authorized them to think for themselves? Such uppitiness by LDS women against their self-appointed feminist betters is deeply troubling.

</sarcasm>

My personal opinion is that self-appointed "feminist" "leaders" are not gaining traction with the women of the Church because A) they are "self-appointed," B) they are engaging in offensive conduct, C) some appear to be setting themselves up as voices of authority alternative and superior to the General Authorities, and D) they are "selling" wares which most LDS women are simply not interested in "buying," and E) there appears to be more than a little hostility within the self-appointed LDS "feminist" movement against, well, the Church and its leaders and its doctrine.

 

During the civil rights movement, Dr. King was VERY popular amongst black people.

Which speaks very well for Dr. King, and very ill for the self-appointed "feminist" "leaders" under discussion.

 

I imagine that there were VERY few who would say, "He doesn't speak for ME."  And I know they wouldn't say it very loudly (at least not in the presence of other black people).

Your implied endorsement of groupthink seems a bit weird, but whatever.

Anyhoo, Dr. King appears to have had a message which resonated with most black folks. Self-appointed "feminist" "leaders" amongst the LDS faithful apparently do not. Dr. King had remarkable gifts of oratory and persuasion. Self-appointed "feminist" "leaders" amongst the LDS faithful apparently do not. And here's the kicker: Dr. King was viewed as being fundamentally correct in his overarching desire to advance the circumstances and welfare of those on whose behalf he advocated. Self-appointed "feminist" "leaders" amongst the LDS faithful apparently are ... apparently not so viewed.

 

However, women in our church seem to go out of their way to attack other women who are interested in ... gasp ... women being equal to 12 year old BOYS in ecclesiastic authority.  Just about every Sunday, some sister will make an unsolicited (and often irrelevant) dig at "feminists" or "prideful women."  I sometimes wonder if they get extra points on their TR worthiness score if they have insulted at least one other woman each quarter.

Right. When will these women just shut up and submit to their self-appointed feminist betters? They really need to learn their place.

And I really appreciate you speculating about these women having ulterior motives ("extra points on their TR worthiness score") because they do not listen to their self-appointed feminist betters. I'm so glad we finally have a man around to stand up and speak for LDS women (and demean them in the same breath!). Props, man!

 

Seriously, I get why men would be hostile to women who have the "temerity" to desire full participation in the religion that they give their lives to.  I really do get it.  But that they would get hostility from other WOMEN?  But hey, I'm new here.  Maybe a seasoned Mormon can explain this one to me.

Again, my personal opinion is that self-appointed "feminist" "leaders" are not gaining traction with the women of the Church because A) they are "self-appointed," B) they are engaging in offensive conduct, C) some appear to be setting themselves up as voices of authority alternative and superior to the General Authorities, and D) they are "selling" wares which most LDS women are simply not interested in "buying," and E) there appears to be more than a little hostility within the self-appointed LDS "feminist" movement against, well, the Church and its leaders and its doctrine.

I think D) is perhaps the most significant factor. The self-appointed "feminist" "leaders" are advocating a paradigm which most LDS women do not want. But that's just my view. I hope some of the LDS women on this board will weigh in on this topic. I think they'll do so, even if it means risking getting dissed and having their motives/honesty questioned by . . . well, you ("I sometimes wonder if they get extra points on their TR worthiness score...").

Thanks,

Edited March 27, 2015 by smac97

[Senator]

Feminism is my view has long since stopped being about equality between the sexes.

It is about female superiority, and probably always has been if the truth were known. The feminists are, in my view, a really good reason why women don't have the priesthood. 

[Buckeye]

So how does this call for gender segregation square with the OW group's call for having women attend the Priesthood Session? The former kinda undercuts the latter, wot?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

That's actually a pretty good point. Maybe this one of the reasons this sister split with OW. Who knows?

[smac97]

I am surprised that this would make the news. But then again, it is the SLT. Is this really a news article?

 

From the link:

 

To help foster healthy, open conversations with fellow believers, Smith has launched what she calls a "Fifth Sunday Project," in which she suggests that Mormon congregations use the "fifth Sunday" to discuss women's issues in a church setting and supplies resource materials on her Facebook page, including articles, blogs, scriptures and books. She also welcomes suggestions and participation from people of varying perspectives.

 

This does not foster  healthy conversation at all. But it will cause divisiveness. I just can't imagine how this would work world wide since there are cultural differences specific to each country. I can also see arguments and ill feelings being harvested with such meetings. But then again,, this is perhaps what she wishes to cause. Church meetings are not about debating politics and feminism is political. Also, women themselves would disagree with each other as would men. I can see no harmony is such debates or deliberations. But I can see people avoiding this meeting.

Oh, you are so wrong. This proposal would be great! It's very similar to the "Race Together" campaign used at Starbucks, and we all know how well that went.

 

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac