One woman speaker

[clarkgoble]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The God that I believe in and the one that I find in the scriptures could not possibly favor one gender over another.

Well that's rather vague. It seems clear that if you believe in the God of the old testament and new testament that he didn't call women priests or women as his 12 disciples. There are some references to women, but they always seem to be minor characters. We don't have a book of prophecy from a woman. (Huldah finding the Book of the Law often thought to be Deuteronomy doesn't really count)

I think were it a regular man doing that most feminists would justifiably call that favoring one gender over the other.

Quote

If polygamy is something that God approves of (and I don't doubt that it could be), I don't think it will be practiced in the eternities in the same way it has been practiced here on Earth during the history of our church.

That I would agree with. I think God gave the command and how we implemented it was dismal at best. My guess is that if polygamy arises out of remarriage for time that it would have to apply to both sexes. If I were to die and my wife live remarry and live 40 more years that means she'd be with her second husband for four times the length she was with me. It defies logic to think that relationship would not persist.

Quote

So, while I wouldn't say that we are "wrong about basically everything", I do think that mortal weaknesses have led us astray quite often in our otherwise noble practice of religion.

That I completely agree with in general.

[clarkgoble]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I respect your disagreement but just wanted to note that I had said prejudiced against women when it comes to managing the affairs of the church.

To the degree there is inequity in structures then that's prejudice. Now we may have to maintain such prejudice until God give a different direction if we claim the Church is led by revelation. So I don't think we should say this prejudice is wrong. But it is prejudice in the sense of treated differently and unequally.

Now one possible defense is to note women are far more religious than men and that God is creating structures to keep men involved. I'm not sure that argument works, but at least there's some argument for it. But that doesn't mean it's not a structural inequity (just as affirmative action is a structural inequity - just a structural inequity aimed at compensating for other inequities).

[clarkgoble]

17 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Differentiation of roles and responsibilities along gender lines is not "showing favor", any more than a man is God's favorite because he gets called to be Bishop and his brother doesn't.

Showing favor and being a favorite in our contemporary language aren't really the same thing. I think "favor" is again a bit of a problematic term. I think treating structurally equally is a better term to look at. Again the main concern is structural problems and not necessarily intents. That's why I find using terms that have intentionality as either a key component of the use or at least a strong connotation are misleading.

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

To the degree there is inequity in structures then that's prejudice. Now we may have to maintain such prejudice until God give a different direction if we claim the Church is led by revelation. So I don't think we should say this prejudice is wrong. But it is prejudice in the sense of treated differently and unequally.

Now one possible defense is to note women are far more religious than men and that God is creating structures to keep men involved. I'm not sure that argument works, but at least there's some argument for it. But that doesn't mean it's not a structural inequity (just as affirmative action is a structural inequity - just a structural inequity aimed at compensating for other inequities).

I think there is a difference between unequal and inequitable that is worth noting.  I see the church as the first, in regards to women, but not the second.  I don't agree with those who view inequality and inequity as interchangeable as just because something is unequal does not automatically mean that it is unjust.  

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think there is a difference between unequal and inequitable that is worth noting.  I see the church as the first, in regards to women, but not the second.  I don't agree with those who view inequality and inequity as interchangeable as just because something is unequal does not automatically mean that it is unjust.  

That's a good point. I should have said unequal instead of inequitable. My bad. My not so secret confession is that I thought them synonymous only to discover they're not! So I'm still learning every day.

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Showing favor and being a favorite in our contemporary language aren't really the same thing.

True.
The fact that God chooses his sons to lead his church doesn't mean he has a problem with his daughters.
Patriarchy does NOT automatically cause misogyny.

[HappyJackWagon]

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

True.
The fact that God chooses his sons to lead his church doesn't mean he has a problem with his daughters.
Patriarchy does NOT automatically cause misogyny.

I disagree. Surprise!

I certainly don't think that is the intent. Nor do I think there is a dislike for women in the church. I think it's a gentler form of misogyny in which the church treats women as weak, incapable, and in need of a man's protection. The women couldn't possibly do X calling because only a man can do it properly OR because a woman should be doing something more menial like passing out the towels while the men perform the baptismal ordinance. There's a place for both and I think men are just as capable of passing out towels, yet they don't, because that's the woman's job. The kind of gender divisions create a culture of superiority of men.

Clark posted earlier that men may need the callings to keep them involved because women are more spiritual, which is offensive to both men and women IMO. But when is the last time anyone really sat on the edge of their seat excited to hear the next female speaker in conference? If they are so much more spiritual wouldn't we value their words more than others? Instead, it's often a time people go to get snacks (from what I've heard). Women's talk(s) are rarely used as 5th sunday lesson materials for teachings of our times. The misogyny in the church comes from the systematization of undervaluing the potential and contributions of women when it comes to anything other than women, girls, or children. IOW- women are treated as if they have little to contribute to the men and YM of the church.

[rockpond]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

So you think they intentionally shaft women while managing the affairs of the Church?

No, absolutely not.  I think "they" are just acting in the structure that they are put in, the structure they believe was put there by God.  Nobody is intentionally shafting women.

[rockpond]

15 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Well that's rather vague. It seems clear that if you believe in the God of the old testament and new testament that he didn't call women priests or women as his 12 disciples. There are some references to women, but they always seem to be minor characters. We don't have a book of prophecy from a woman. (Huldah finding the Book of the Law often thought to be Deuteronomy doesn't really count)

I think were it a regular man doing that most feminists would justifiably call that favoring one gender over the other.

The old and new testament are a reflection of the time and culture in which they were written.  It's on us (through the Spirit and continuing revelation) to determine what is of God and what is of man.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I disagree. Surprise!

I certainly don't think that is the intent. Nor do I think there is a dislike for women in the church. I think it's a gentler form of misogyny in which the church treats women as weak, incapable, and in need of a man's protection. The women couldn't possibly do X calling because only a man can do it properly OR because a woman should be doing something more menial like passing out the towels while the men perform the baptismal ordinance. There's a place for both and I think men are just as capable of passing out towels, yet they don't, because that's the woman's job. The kind of gender divisions create a culture of superiority of men.

 

I've seen men passing out towels in the baptistry.  

But, i do agree that the church has created (and i think is working on overcoming) a culture of superiority of men.  I think it created it on accident and not on purpose because of the sexist culture that the patriarchy existed in though and not because of the patriarchy itself.  

I think it's very possible to have a patriarchy and not have a culture of superiority of men.  

I also think that it does a disservice to women to imply that if only women did what men now do in the church, all would be well.   That reasoning comes from the misogynistic idea that women improve their station as they move into men's spheres because men's spheres are obviously and without question the best place to be and where all people should aspire to. 

Women in the church will gain their true place as 'what do the men have' is taken out of the discussion and it instead becomes about what God wants for and expects of them as daughters in His kingdom, irrespective of what the men are doing.

 

[rockpond]

15 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

To the degree there is inequity in structures then that's prejudice. Now we may have to maintain such prejudice until God give a different direction if we claim the Church is led by revelation. So I don't think we should say this prejudice is wrong. But it is prejudice in the sense of treated differently and unequally.

Now one possible defense is to note women are far more religious than men and that God is creating structures to keep men involved. I'm not sure that argument works, but at least there's some argument for it. But that doesn't mean it's not a structural inequity (just as affirmative action is a structural inequity - just a structural inequity aimed at compensating for other inequities).

I believe that there is inequity and, as you said, that's why I am comfortable calling it prejudice.  I also recognize that many believe the structures come from God.

Regarding your second paragraph -- I used to favor that explanation.  But my wife has told me, several times now, that she finds it patronizing and offensive.

[stemelbow]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've seen men passing out towels in the baptistry.  

But, i do agree that the church has created (and i think is working on overcoming) a culture of superiority of men.  I think it created it on accident and not on purpose because of the sexist culture that the patriarchy existed in though and not because of the patriarchy itself.  

I think it's very possible to have a patriarchy and not have a culture of superiority of men.  

I also think that it does a disservice to women to imply that if only women did what men now do in the church, all would be well.   That reasoning comes from the misogynistic idea that women improve their station as they move into men's spheres because men's spheres are obviously and without question the best place to be and where all people should aspire to. 

Women in the church will gain their true place as 'what do the men have' is taken out of the discussion and it instead becomes about what God wants for and expects of them as daughters in His kingdom, irrespective of what the men are doing.

 

I guess anything is possible.  It'll be interesting to see the Church, if it remains a patriarchy as it is, do away with a culture of superiority of men.  You say it's very possible.  I'd say, I guess it's possible, but extremely unlikely.  So we'll see.  My guess is if the Church doesn't change away from patriarchy it'll never happen. 

To your point though, I don't see anyone arguing that "women improve their station as they move into men's spheres" so much as we're all better off if we don't try to cap women off from leadership and contribution.  Women need not move into men's spheres so much as women need to be unbridled so they are free to go wherever the spirit directs them.  For some reason God has always just let us humans run with whatever we feel is appropriate.  We end up with things like the priesthood ban, polygamy and sexism, though.  Its up to us to fix it, I guess.  Not Him.  He never saw it His duty, apparently. 

[Jeanne]

Truthfully, I have seen some of the jobs men have in the church and I do not envy them.  A lot of women may feel the same way..but what it is irritating is for women who want to participate fully in rolls of authority or perfect talents, are not given the CHOICE to do so. 

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I guess anything is possible.  It'll be interesting to see the Church, if it remains a patriarchy as it is, do away with a culture of superiority of men.  You say it's very possible.  I'd say, I guess it's possible, but extremely unlikely.  So we'll see.  My guess is if the Church doesn't change away from patriarchy it'll never happen. 

To your point though, I don't see anyone arguing that "women improve their station as they move into men's spheres" so much as we're all better off if we don't try to cap women off from leadership and contribution.  Women need not move into men's spheres so much as women need to be unbridled so they are free to go wherever the spirit directs them.  For some reason God has always just let us humans run with whatever we feel is appropriate.  We end up with things like the priesthood ban, polygamy and sexism, though.  Its up to us to fix it, I guess.  Not Him.  He never saw it His duty, apparently. 

I think the problem is illustrated by how people automatically assume that the only or best way for women to be unbridled is for them to be ordained to the priesthood.  

I.e., the only and best way for women to be unbridled is for them to have access to what the men have.

They can't imagine anything better for women than the priesthood.  They can't imagine any better roles in the church than roles the men currently occupy.  That's where all the focus is, and most people can't even articulate an argument on how to offer women more in the church without talking about men.  

It's a well-meaning but sexist approach to solving the problem.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I disagree. Surprise!

I certainly don't think that is the intent. Nor do I think there is a dislike for women in the church. I think it's a gentler form of misogyny in which the church treats women as weak, incapable, and in need of a man's protection. The women couldn't possibly do X calling because only a man can do it properly OR because a woman should be doing something more menial like passing out the towels while the men perform the baptismal ordinance. There's a place for both and I think men are just as capable of passing out towels, yet they don't, because that's the woman's job. The kind of gender divisions create a culture of superiority of men.

Clark posted earlier that men may need the callings to keep them involved because women are more spiritual, which is offensive to both men and women IMO. But when is the last time anyone really sat on the edge of their seat excited to hear the next female speaker in conference? If they are so much more spiritual wouldn't we value their words more than others? Instead, it's often a time people go to get snacks (from what I've heard). Women's talk(s) are rarely used as 5th sunday lesson materials for teachings of our times. The misogyny in the church comes from the systematization of undervaluing the potential and contributions of women when it comes to anything other than women, girls, or children. IOW- women are treated as if they have little to contribute to the men and YM of the church.

Everything you describe here is a result of people being foolish.  If we undervalue the contribution of the women in the Church that is our own foolishness.  It doesn't mean they need to have men's roles so we take them seriously.
Nothing you describe here indicates that God having specific gender roles (including having the men preside) means there is anything inferior about his daughters.

Honestly, forced equality and identical distribution of callings would be more offensive I would think.  Would you want to be the person given a calling because you agitated for it (the office seeker) or would you prefer to wait for God's word on the subject?
Because I think I'd make an awesome member of the First Quorum of Seventy....maybe I should start agitating for that?

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Clark posted earlier that men may need the callings to keep them involved because women are more spiritual, which is offensive to both men and women IMO. But when is the last time anyone really sat on the edge of their seat excited to hear the next female speaker in conference? If they are so much more spiritual wouldn't we value their words more than others? Instead, it's often a time people go to get snacks (from what I've heard). Women's talk(s) are rarely used as 5th sunday lesson materials for teachings of our times. The misogyny in the church comes from the systematization of undervaluing the potential and contributions of women when it comes to anything other than women, girls, or children. IOW- women are treated as if they have little to contribute to the men and YM of the church.

Note I said that's a common argument. I don't buy it myself. I don't quite see it as necessarily offensive though, anymore than affirmative action is inherently offensive. We might disagree with it but I'm not sure it means offensive. I'd also distinguish this from being more spiritual. While some make the argument women are more spiritual than men, that's technically a separate argument.

Again I wouldn't use the term misogyny here although I definitely think this a problem. The Church has gotten better but there's a whole lot more that could be done. In both directions. There's no reason for instance that the Primary Presidency is only made up of women or Sunday School Presidency only made up of men. I'd love to see that change. Likewise historically the Relief Society had a fair degree of independence. There's no reason we couldn't improve that better, although wise Bishops already do that.

I'd love to see a PH/RS lesson manual that goes through the teaching of major women in the church like Zina Huntington or Eliza R. Snow the way we have done each of the Presidents. For the monthly lesson from a conference talk I notice our stake often has used talks by women.

 

 

Edited April 11, 2017 by clarkgoble

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think the problem is illustrated by how people automatically assume that the only or best way for women to be unbridled is for them to be ordained to the priesthood.  

I.e., the only and best way for women to be unbridled is for them to have access to what the men have.

They can't imagine anything better for women than the priesthood.  They can't imagine any better roles in the church than roles the men currently occupy.  That's where all the focus is, and most people can't even articulate an argument on how to offer women more in the church without talking about men.  

It's a well-meaning but sexist approach to solving the problem.

You're not addressing what I'm saying, but seem to act as if you are.  I'm not saying any of what you are arguing against.  I find this line interesting: "and most people can't even articulate an argument on how to offer women more in the church without talking about men"

I had just said in the post you quoted "we're all better off if we don't try to cap women off from leadership and contribution"*

and "women need to be unbridled so they are free to go wherever the spirit directs them"*

*Notice I didn't talk about men.  Easy stuff, really. 

Edited April 11, 2017 by stemelbow

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Note I said that's a common argument. I don't buy it myself. I don't quite see it as necessarily offensive though, anymore than affirmative action is inherently offensive. We might disagree with it but I'm not sure it means offensive. I'd also distinguish this from being more spiritual. While some make the argument women are more spiritual than men, that's technically a separate argument.

Again I wouldn't use the term misogyny here although I definitely think this a problem. The Church has gotten better but there's a whole lot more that could be done. In both directions. There's no reason for instance that the Primary Presidency is only made up of women or Sunday School Presidency only made up of men. I'd love to see that change. Likewise historically the Relief Society had a fair degree of independence. There's no reason we couldn't improve that better, although wise Bishops already do that.

I'd love to see a PH/RS lesson manual that goes through the teaching of major women in the church like Zina Huntington or Eliza R. Snow the way we have done each of the Presidents. For the monthly lesson from a conference talk I notice our stake often has used talks by women.

 

 

I was in the SS presidency around 30 years ago, and was the sunday school secretary! I guess that calling is non existant now. 

Also, I agree, why has the church left out so many women's voices in the church for both RS and PH to learn from? Women have learned about all the former prophets, but why not RS presidents, etc? I wish some little bird could get over to church headquarters and put it in their ear!

Edited April 11, 2017 by Tacenda

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You're not addressing what I'm saying, but seem to act as if you are.  I'm not saying any of what you are arguing against.  I find this line interesting: "and most people can't even articulate an argument on how to offer women more in the church without talking about men"

I had just said in the post you quoted "we're all better off if we don't try to cap women off from leadership and contribution"*

and "women need to be unbridled so they are free to go wherever the spirit directs them"*

*Notice I didn't talk about men.  Easy stuff, really. 

First, i wasn't just responding to your post but also to the common arguments used when discussing women in the church.

Second, what do you believe the church can or should do right now to allow women to go wherever the spirit directs and to have access to leadership?  

It's not just about not talking about men, obviously.  It's about finding answers without taking about men.  

 

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

First, i wasn't just responding to your post but also to the common arguments used when discussing women in the church.

Ok.  I didn't think you addressed anything I said, so while you quoted me you didnt' seem to respond to what I was saying at all. 

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Second, what do you believe the church can or should do right now to allow women to go wherever the spirit directs and to have access to leadership?

uncap and unbridle. 

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

 

It's not just about not talking about men, obviously.  It's about finding answers without taking about men.  

 

Done and done. 

[Tacenda]

36 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Note I said that's a common argument. I don't buy it myself. I don't quite see it as necessarily offensive though, anymore than affirmative action is inherently offensive. We might disagree with it but I'm not sure it means offensive. I'd also distinguish this from being more spiritual. While some make the argument women are more spiritual than men, that's technically a separate argument.

Again I wouldn't use the term misogyny here although I definitely think this a problem. The Church has gotten better but there's a whole lot more that could be done. In both directions. There's no reason for instance that the Primary Presidency is only made up of women or Sunday School Presidency only made up of men. I'd love to see that change. Likewise historically the Relief Society had a fair degree of independence. There's no reason we couldn't improve that better, although wise Bishops already do that.

I'd love to see a PH/RS lesson manual that goes through the teaching of major women in the church like Zina Huntington or Eliza R. Snow the way we have done each of the Presidents. For the monthly lesson from a conference talk I notice our stake often has used talks by women.

 

 

I guess I'm feeling a come what may attitude! I just posted on LDS.org's Discussion Board that I found while viewing my ward account. I posted the question about why we don't have lessons about the women leaders in the church like we do the men. Of course my topic needs to go through the moderators first, so we'll see what comes of it. But still I doubt it would even get close to the twelve. How can we speak to them, should I call the church office building? I really feel like we need this. I might return to Relief Society for it!

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I've seen men passing out towels in the baptistry.  

But, i do agree that the church has created (and i think is working on overcoming) a culture of superiority of men.  I think it created it on accident and not on purpose because of the sexist culture that the patriarchy existed in though and not because of the patriarchy itself.  

I think it's very possible to have a patriarchy and not have a culture of superiority of men.  

I also think that it does a disservice to women to imply that if only women did what men now do in the church, all would be well.   That reasoning comes from the misogynistic idea that women improve their station as they move into men's spheres because men's spheres are obviously and without question the best place to be and where all people should aspire to. 

Women in the church will gain their true place as 'what do the men have' is taken out of the discussion and it instead becomes about what God wants for and expects of them as daughters in His kingdom, irrespective of what the men are doing.

 

I agree. That's a great point. It's not that the women must aspire to be like men, but they shouldn't be summarily cut off from doing things simply because they are women. I've never seen a man handing out towels like the women do, but as you point out, they can if they choose. Of course women cannot simply choose to participate in the ways men do. It's about opportunity for those who choose to participate differently, not mimicry of men.

Unfortunately, figuring out what God wants is funneled through the men and the culture in which they live.

[HappyJackWagon]

46 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Everything you describe here is a result of people being foolish.  If we undervalue the contribution of the women in the Church that is our own foolishness.  It doesn't mean they need to have men's roles so we take them seriously.
Nothing you describe here indicates that God having specific gender roles (including having the men preside) means there is anything inferior about his daughters.

Honestly, forced equality and identical distribution of callings would be more offensive I would think.  Would you want to be the person given a calling because you agitated for it (the office seeker) or would you prefer to wait for God's word on the subject?
Because I think I'd make an awesome member of the First Quorum of Seventy....maybe I should start agitating for that?

It seems leadership needs to be agitated before they will consider different possibilities and/or take the matter to God. So it wouldn't bother me at all to agitate and then receive a calling that previously would have been unavailable. Agitation doesn't necessarily remove the possibility of revelation.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It seems leadership needs to be agitated before they will consider different possibilities and/or take the matter to God. So it wouldn't bother me at all to agitate and then receive a calling that previously would have been unavailable. Agitation doesn't necessarily remove the possibility of revelation.

Like Joseph and the 116 pages.

[HappyJackWagon]

46 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Note I said that's a common argument. I don't buy it myself. I don't quite see it as necessarily offensive though, anymore than affirmative action is inherently offensive. We might disagree with it but I'm not sure it means offensive. I'd also distinguish this from being more spiritual. While some make the argument women are more spiritual than men, that's technically a separate argument.

Again I wouldn't use the term misogyny here although I definitely think this a problem. The Church has gotten better but there's a whole lot more that could be done. In both directions. There's no reason for instance that the Primary Presidency is only made up of women or Sunday School Presidency only made up of men. I'd love to see that change. Likewise historically the Relief Society had a fair degree of independence. There's no reason we couldn't improve that better, although wise Bishops already do that.

I'd love to see a PH/RS lesson manual that goes through the teaching of major women in the church like Zina Huntington or Eliza R. Snow the way we have done each of the Presidents. For the monthly lesson from a conference talk I notice our stake often has used talks by women.

 

 

I agree. I don't think misogyny is precisely the right term either, but it does dig into the problem. What word would be better? Sexism, chauvinism, machismo, male jingoism?

Again, I don't think believe there are negative motives for these things but rather that they are due to the cultural influence.