Younger Mormons far more likely to be troubled by women’s roles in the LDS Church, study shows

[Gray]

On 12/14/2018 at 12:10 PM, clarkgoble said:

This is the typical Protestant reading for sure. The problem with this is that the context for Paul's use of "set apart" is the Old Testament where it's use is nearly always tied to a ritual and someone in authority doing the setting apart. So even if you reject Acts as relevant (which pretty much presupposes its historic claims are false - itself a problematic position) you have to deal with the context of Lev 8 & 9 with Paul's use. In contrast what's the case for it being Paul just setting himself apart? You've asserted this but I don't see an argument beyond "modern eyes." But the modern eyes claim doesn't work if you acknowledge Acts reporting on something that happened in the relative recent past. In particularly I think Acts 13:2-3 is pretty darned significant for deciding how to read Paul's use. 

So I think there's more than a little circularity in your argument. You say I'm reading it through modern eyes but I'd say the same of you - just that you're reading it through a somewhat Protestant lens that is incentivized to dismiss authority. (I recognize you're largely following Ehrman and others, but even if they've broken with many aspects of Protestantism they're still looking through that lens)

You're misidentifying my influences. I'm reading it not through a protestant lens, but a the lens of critical scholarship. Ehrman's readings aren't protestant at all, not sure where you're getting that. Ehrman is not a protestant. There are many conflicts with what Paul says about himself and with what Acts says about Paul. Paul's is the earlier source, and of course is first-hand when it comes to himself.

 

Quote

I'd add that the word Paul uses, aforizo, is used in the Septuagint for the consecrating of Levites. (Num 8:11) It's also used for separating an animal to God or God separating Israel I'll admit. But I think there's significance here.

Finally I'd note that with respect to prophets in the Old Testament the situation is more complex than you suggest as we see with Elijah & Elisha. 

Persuasive language doesn't imply no authority. One need only look to Joseph Smith's sermons for an example of that.

He's not the authority the way say Peter is it's true. I don't think that means he doesn't have authority. In the same way today if a Bishop is speaking to his congregation there are limits on what he can do authority wise. So I don't think this works as a good argument.

Paul no where seems to have the ability to set policy or doctrine for churches, for instance. He must persuade them to listen to him. There isn't some kind of charter saying, an apostle said this, therefore it is so.

 

Quote

Right, I understand that. I'm just pointing out the problems with that view. I think you'd quickly acknowledge that Ehrman has his own perspective - perspectives many other scholars in the field don't agree with. Ehrman is hardly an uncontroversial figure. He tends to see much of the NT history as fictional or at minimum heavily distorted. Further even Ehrman acknowledges that Jesus claims special authority rather than merely appealing to scholarly reading of the texts, the way say Hillel does. To make the move to assume that no one else does seem dubious to me. And Ehrman does see the presumption of authority in texts like the epistles of John. One can say that's later, but that then runs into the problem of assuming a break rather than establishing it.

Recognize that my position is not that mine is the only defensible reading but that it is a mainstream defensible reading. To say that the Mormon perspective on authority is not Biblical is to say that it's not a reasonably defensible reading of the Bible and history. So you're making a much stronger claim than merely one can read the Bible in a different fashion than Mormons do. (After all we're all aware Protestants tend to read it quite differently due to their conception of a priesthood of all believers)

Ehrman really isn't that controversial, unless you tend to prefer apologetic sources. Among critical scholars he's pretty mainstream. Of course there are some areas where there isn't a lot of consensus, in which case there isn't really a mainstream view. For example, the question about whether or not Jesus thought of himself as the Messiah. Ehrman says yes, others disagree.

John of course is a special case - the Johannine community is highly sectarian, which of course implies the idea of special authority. John is also very late, late enough to come into the era where ecclesiastical authority started to be much more sharply defined. However, the Johannine community would not have recognized the authority of other Christian communities

I would agree that Jesus probably also claimed authority as a Jewish prophet, perhaps as the Messiah - but not, to my earlier point, priesthood.

 

Quote

My oft repeated point is that you're equivocating in the discussion over priesthood. By that use of priesthood Mormons don't claim priesthood. You do see the problem don't you? I've raised this point several times now.

My argument isn't problematic. It's very simply and obvious - LDS notions of priesthood as a kind of all-encompassing ecclesiastical authority that applies to BOTH leadership and ritual are not in keeping with the Biblical text. That's not controversial.

 

Quote

Given the paucity of texts I don't think you can say we should expect explicit discussion. Especially when there are ambiguities in the text that can be reasonably read as authority and which use language treated as authority only a decade or two later. Again there's a huge circularity here in how later, yet in the same general time era, texts get dismissed.

More to the point, the very fact you acknowledge these later texts completely undermines your original claim which is LDS authority is not Biblical. Now you've moved to goal posts to there's not unambiguous explication of such authority in the pre-temple destruction era.

There is absolutely nothing in the text to suggest that priesthood is anything other than what I said it was from the outset. To say otherwise is an argument from ignorance.

I haven't dismissed any texts, merely pointed out that that the dating of the texts fits into the general timeline of the development of ecclesiastical authority as outlined by Ehrman. If you point to a late first century text as evidence for a strong hierarchy in the early first century, I will rightly call that out. And of course we must remember through all of this that authority does not equal priesthood - the actual original point under discussion.

Biblical sources identify priesthood as meaning X. They never identify it as Y. To claim priesthood is Y is not in keeping with our Biblical sources, and not in keeping with a historical reading of those sources.

Hope you had a merry Christmas, by the way

Edited December 30, 2018 by Gray

[clarkgoble]

10 hours ago, Gray said:

You're misidentifying my influences. I'm reading it not through a protestant lens, but a the lens of critical scholarship. Ehrman's readings aren't protestant at all, not sure where you're getting that. Ehrman is not a protestant. There are many conflicts with what Paul says about himself and with what Acts says about Paul. Paul's is the earlier source, and of course is first-hand when it comes to himself.

Ehrman was raised Evangelical and then moved to very liberal Protestantism in grad school. He maintained that position for the next decade or two until the problem of evil moved him fully into the atheist camp. But he most definitely comes out of the Protestant tradition with a bias towards those readings. But certainly he now adopts a view where they're so problematic as to be dismissed. His view now is that there was an early real Jesus teaching an apocalyptic religion where the world was about to be destroyed with no claim of Messiahship. That in turn biases how he looks at authority of the Elders in Jerusalem as well as the rise of authoritarian structures in the various Churches outside of Jerusalem - particularly in Asia Minor.

10 hours ago, Gray said:

Paul no where seems to have the ability to set policy or doctrine for churches, for instance. He must persuade them to listen to him. There isn't some kind of charter saying, an apostle said this, therefore it is so.

 I find that a weak argument as I'd said earlier. Joseph spent a lot of time persuading people of doctrine. That doesn't mean he didn't have authority as a prophet. Second as I also mentioned 2 Cor 10 has him claiming authority. Now how a Mormon will read that and how an Evangelical will read that are quite different of course. But there is an authority claim. I'd also say this claim it's all persuasion is difficult to reconcile to 1 Thess 4. For example, 

• For you know what commands we gave you through the Lord Jesus. For this is God’s will: that you become holy, that you keep away from sexual immorality, that each of you know how to possess his own body in holiness and honor, not in lustful passion like the Gentiles who do not know God. In this matter no one should violate the rights of his brother or take advantage of him, because the Lord is the avenger in all these cases, as we also told you earlier and warned you solemnly. For God did not call us to impurity but in holiness. 8 Consequently the one who rejects this is not rejecting human authority but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you.

Again one can push this in other directions, but my point is that at best the text is underdetermined and Ehrman's is not the only justifiable reading. (And many see his readings as problematic as I'm sure you know)

10 hours ago, Gray said:

My argument isn't problematic. It's very simply and obvious - LDS notions of priesthood as a kind of all-encompassing ecclesiastical authority that applies to BOTH leadership and ritual are not in keeping with the Biblical text. That's not controversial.

But of course that's controversial even in an LDS context. So for instance Johnathan Stapley sees two separate uses of priesthood - one the ecclesiastic authority and the other cosmological. The cosmological priesthood is not at all hard to find in 1st century texts even if not explicit in the Biblical text. One can then debate what is or isn't Biblical or how such texts ought be seen contextually relative to the Biblical text proper. That's a question of the hermeneutics of the text. As to the more ecclesiastical authority, again that depends upon how you see the authority the twelve apostles and elders in Jerusalem. Not everyone agrees with Ehrman there. I'm certainly not arguing it's irrational to take such a view. I am, however, arguing that this is not the only reading. That is not everyone follows what you outline in how to interpret the Council of Jerusalem in 50 AD. Certainly some (I can't recall where Ehrman falls) deny the historicity of Acts 15. But others definitely accept it and that's once again become the majority view I believe. 

Quoting from Bauckham's James. 

• Luke’s account of the Jerusalem council and its ruling on the status of Gentile converts in the Christian mission outside Palestine (Acts 15), though its historical value is widely disputed, probably does reflect accurately the position of authority over the expanding Christian movement which the Jerusalem church leaders exercised in the period of James’ leadership in Jerusalem (Bauckham 1995a, 1996a). Paul had reservations about this authority, but there is no reason to think they were shared by the majority of those Christian Jews who spread the Gospel and founded Christian communities throughout the Diaspora. Many of these, such as Peter, Barnabas, Mark, the other brothers of Jesus (1 Cor. 9:5), and Andronicus and Junia (Rom. 16:7), had been members of the Jerusalem church and would naturally maintain close links with it. We should also not forget that the Jerusalem church would have played a unique role in the spread of the Christian Gospel in the Diaspora, not only by sending out its own members as missionaries, but also by preaching to the thousands of pilgrims from all parts of the Diaspora who came to Jerusalem every year for the festivals and who could take the Christian message back to their own communities. The church in Rome is an example of an extremely important Christian community whose origins had nothing to do with the Pauline mission, but probably much to do with the Jerusalem church. Its links with Jerusalem seem to have remained close (Rom. 16:7, 13; 1 Pet. 5:12–13).

11 hours ago, Gray said:

There is absolutely nothing in the text to suggest that priesthood is anything other than what I said it was from the outset. To say otherwise is an argument from ignorance.

Nope. Sorry. You're just wrong. It's fine to have one reading you privilege. But to argue it's the only justifiable reading is just demonstrably wrong. It's fine to be persuaded by Ehrman and others of course. But to argue that's the only view is quite misleading.

11 hours ago, Gray said:

I haven't dismissed any texts, merely pointed out that that the dating of the texts fits into the general timeline of the development of ecclesiastical authority as outlined by Ehrman. If you point to a late first century text as evidence for a strong hierarchy in the early first century, I will rightly call that out. And of course we must remember through all of this that authority does not equal priesthood - the actual original point under discussion.

Thus you're making an argument from silence. i.e. we don't have clear unambiguous evidence for the structure of the pre-temple destruction beyond the controversial Council of Jerusalem accounts. Therefore there was no structure. I'll rightly call that out as an argument from silence. Made worse since there are texts, like Acts 15, purporting to give accounts. One might argue those are weak but they are there.

11 hours ago, Gray said:

Biblical sources identify priesthood as meaning X. They never identify it as Y. To claim priesthood is Y is not in keeping with our Biblical sources, and not in keeping with a historical reading of those sources.

This now gets back to equivocation fallacies that I've been pointing out. If you are saying the Bible doesn't use the language Mormons use then I'm 100% there with you. But that's not the same as not having the structures. Further the language even within Mormonism is often ambiguous and equivocal at times. (Indeed that's the whole argument behind Jonathan Stapley's attempts to divide priesthood into a cosmological and ecclesiastical component)

I'd add that again the question of context for the Biblical texts matter a great deal here. Hebrews is of course a key text here although I recognize you see that as late and thus irrelevant. However it Biblical. Again I'd simply ask we be careful in our claims and not conflate them. After all if I'm following you you're fine with later texts have priesthood that are Biblical. You just see it as a late development. But that's a different claim form their not being Biblical. So while we may disagree over how to read Hebrews, certainly it's Biblical and certainly it's relevant here regardless of its date. Particularly the 7th chapter.

Now again many, particularly those in the Protestant tradition (whether conservative or liberal) are apt to balk at the Mormon reading of Hebrews. That doesn't mean it's not a completely defensible reading. 

 

[rodheadlee]

On 11/30/2018 at 10:09 AM, Tacenda said:

This podcast is so on point concerning women's roles, I doubt many will listen, but it's well worth it and short. This gal explains how she feels in the church relating to women's roles. She's not every woman, but when I listened I thought of those TBM's on this board, you know who you are, that are feminists. Since I have little faith that many will listen I will c/p quotes that go perfectly with it. I'm not that big of a feminist but support those that are and those upcoming young ladies that need a voice in the church. https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2018/11/the-asherah-grove-004-why-i-feel-unequal/

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/135-60-61.pdf Quote: "If by power hungry you mean I would welcome a heightened ability to bless the lives of others, then, yes, I’m power hungry. Aside from its administrative function, if priesthood is merely a sort of temporal permission to tap spiritual resources already available to the faithful, then it is superfluous. If, however, priesthood truly is a real, bestowed power that can enhance our ability to bring comfort and peace and joy into the world, then, yes, I’m power hungry and unambivalently so. Who would not righteously want such a power?"

http://www.ldswave.org/?p=402

"I recognize that some of these issues are church wide, some local, and some unchangeable. Some of them are simple and some of them are deeply ingrained. All of them, nevertheless, make me feel unequal and are worth talking about.

I feel unequal when there are more (a lot more) men’s voices in religious texts, meetings, leadership positions, and decision making bodies.

I feel unequal when callings that don’t necessitate the priesthood are given only to men: Sunday School Presidency, BYU, BYU-I and BYU-Hawaii Presidents, Church Education Commissioners, Ward Mission Leaders, recommend takers at the Temple, etc. (Similarly, men are not currently called in Primary Presidencies and could be.)

I feel unequal when women doing the same job are called by different titles (i.e. Sister vs. President) and/or are accessories to rather than serving equally with their husbands, i.e. Mission President’s wives.

I feel unequal when I have a calling as an auxiliary leader and have to get approval of every decision by men and/or when I am not invited to attend Priesthood Executive Committee meetings (PEC) which directly influence my stewardships.

I feel unequal when my value is primarily linked to being a wife and mother rather than by being a child of God.

I feel unequal when the men in my life acknowledge that they have no female spiritual leaders in their wards or communities.

I feel unequal when women have less prominent, prestigious, and public roles in the church, even before and after childrearing years.

I feel unequal because even one of the most inherently female-dominated time periods, having a new baby, is publically displayed at church in an all male ritual of the baby blessing.

I feel unequal when males handle 100% of the church finances.

I feel unequal when I am taught at church that my husband presides in my family, he is the head, and all things being equal, he has the final say.

I feel unequal when people preach that men and women are completely equal and in the same breath say the above sentence.

I feel unequal when I realize that at church all men have the final say. Good leaders might consult with female auxiliary leaders, but ultimately even after being called to a position via inspiration, men still make the final decisions.

I feel unequal when cub scouts and boy scouts have a larger budget (they are allowed to do fundraising- although this might be a local issue) than achievement days and Young Womens and thus, they often have better activities.

I feel unequal when the Young Women and Young Men’s programs have such different manuals, budgets, activities, etc.

I feel unequal when fathers and mothers are encouraged to fulfill primary roles to provide and nurture, but only the fathers are given the freedom to seek out the best way for them to provide, whereas, mothers are told the best way for them to nurture—to be stay at home moms.

I feel unequal when men teach me that being a stay at home mother is the most important thing a person could do, and yet most of them do not do it.

I feel unequal when people do not emphasize fatherhood as much as they do motherhood and when we have numerous annual lessons on the priesthood and I’m not taught anything about the woman’s role as a priestess.

I feel unequal in primary when most of the lessons and songs are about men although most of the teachers and leaders are women.

I feel unequal because church disciplinary courts are made up of solely men and there are no female voices in the very sensitive matters of church discipline.

I feel unequal when women have to talk to men about their sins, especially sexual ones, and have no other church sanctioned options.

I feel unequal because most men, even inspired ones, can’t fully understand or provide enough resources for sexual abuse.

I feel unequal when young girls are taught about modesty and chastity from older men, especially because females make decisions about these things for very different reasons than males.

I feel unequal because many of the official church declarations and proclamations have no female input, regardless of how drastically they affect women.

I feel unequal when there are no checks and balances for females who experience abuse in the system. While abuse may be rare, it is terrifying that women have no resources to go to outside of the male hierarchy.

I feel unequal because the Relief Society’s autonomy was taken away and it became an auxillery presided over by men.

I feel unequal when women’s financial autonomy isn’t encouraged as much as men’s at church and/or church schools.

I feel unequal because men conduct, men preach, men speak.  Men teach us how to be women.

I feel unequal because local leaders rarely use gender inclusive language even though church manuals and General Conference talks try to do so.

I feel unequal when men speak at Relief Society and Young Women’s meetings, but women never speak in priesthood meetings.

I feel unequal when there are very few women’s voices in our official correlated church manuals.

I feel unequal when women don’t pray in General Conference and usually only give 2 or 3 of the many talks.

I feel unequal because men and women can be sealed to different numbers of people.

I feel unequal in the temple because women a have different script and role.

I feel unequal when female employees of the Church Educational System and temple ordinance workers are no longer allowed to keep their positions after they have children.

I feel unequal because we know very little about Heavenly Mother and her role in the Godhead and there doesn’t seem to be any emphasis on the part of our leaders to pray and find out more. I don’t know what my divine potential means as a female and that makes me feel less important.

I feel unequal because all of these concerns are mediated by male leaders and that they are only as important as these men deem them so. While most of our leaders are wonderful, there is very little in the structure or doctrine to prevent male leaders from misogyny or benevolent sexism.

I feel unequal when these gender inequalities are not acknowledged by leaders. It is difficult to be a female in a patriarchal church and we are trying our best to make it work. Acknowledgement of that difficulty would go a long way."

I'm sorry but many of these sound like a serious Pride problem to me. 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

I'm sorry but many of these sound like a serious Pride problem to me. 

What you just said has always frustrated me when I've heard it, even though I don't feel unequal as she does. Where do you get the impression this is pride? 

[rodheadlee]

19 hours ago, Rain said:

What you just said has always frustrated me when I've heard it, even though I don't feel unequal as she does. Where do you get the impression this is pride? 

Because it's all about her. Christ's main message was we are to serve others. yeah I could say I feel unequal because I was born to a line of carpenters instead of being born to well to do academics.  But I don't I just be the best Carpenter I can be.

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Because it's all about her. Christ's main message was we are to serve others. yeah I could say I feel unequal because I was born to a line of carpenters instead of being born to well to do academics.  But I don't I just be the best Carpenter I can be.

Part of it is about the accessibility to learning who we are as women though.  If we don't have many women as role models or see them functioning outside of very limited ways, it can be harder to understand all of the ways we can serve in order to become the best Saints we women can be.

And while women are commonly present as teachers and ward leaders, they are often not perceived as leaders by the girls in my experience because "leaders" are who one sees up on the stand in Sacrament Meeting or on TV at conference (perhaps this has changed somewhat in more recent years with greater appearances at conference by women).  And leaders are who become role models quite often, imo.

Edited January 1, 2019 by Calm

[Rain]

45 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Because it's all about her. Christ's main message was we are to serve others. yeah I could say I feel unequal because I was born to a line of carpenters instead of being born to well to do academics.  But I don't I just be the best Carpenter I can be.

If your wife came to you and said, "I feel like you don't value what I say because you are always the one who decides what to do in our couple's scripture reading time" would you feel like she is being prideful? True question here. 

If your answer is no, how do you differentiate that with this, "I feel unequal when women don’t pray in General Conference and usually only give 2 or 3 of the many talks"?

 

[Calm]

19 hours ago, Rain said:

If your wife came to you and said, "I feel like you don't value what I say because you are always the one who decides what to do in our couple's scripture reading time" would you feel like she is being prideful? True question here. 

If your answer is no, how do you differentiate that with this, "I feel unequal when women don’t pray in General Conference and usually only give 2 or 3 of the many talks"?

 

And the writer wasn't describing it as herself having to do most of the list, but rather the absence of any woman in that role....which implies imo something very different than pride, though some can feel a vicarious pride in seeing someone they identify with though more often I think it is more about feeling connected., just as we might feel more connected if a leader is from our town even if we don't know him.

Edited January 1, 2019 by Calm

[Prof]

22 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

I'm sorry but many of these sound like a serious Pride problem to me. 

I think she makes several good points. I understand where she is coming from. I hope that there are some changes.

[rodheadlee]

15 hours ago, Rain said:

If your wife came to you and said, "I feel like you don't value what I say because you are always the one who decides what to do in our couple's scripture reading time" would you feel like she is being prideful? True question here. 

If your answer is no, how do you differentiate that with this, "I feel unequal when women don’t pray in General Conference and usually only give 2 or 3 of the many talks"?

 

For us that is a DNA, I always ask what she wants to study.I always ask her opinion on spiritual matters. 

[rodheadlee]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

Part of it is about the accessibility to learning who we are as women though.  If we don't have many women as role models or see them functioning outside of very limited ways, it can be harder to understand all of the ways we can serve in order to become the best Saints we women can be.

And while women are commonly present as teachers and ward leaders, they are often not perceived as leaders by the girls in my experience because "leaders" are who one sees up on the stand in Sacrament Meeting or on TV at conference (perhaps this has changed somewhat in more recent years with greater appearances at conference by women).  And leaders are who become role models quite often, imo.

I'm not ignoring you. The wind is howling the halyards are rattling and I have a headache. So I can't think very well at the moment. Part of the reason I said what I said is it doesn't seem like the woman who wrote this appreciates her role as a mother. I'm sure my perception is skewed because we are childless. We've been married 45 years and I'm watching my wife mother anything with two legs or four legs that walks within 10 feet of her. I think everyone recognizes the roles that mothers play in shaping the world.

Edited January 1, 2019 by rodheadlee
To fix double negative

[Jeanne]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

Part of it is about the accessibility to learning who we are as women though.  If we don't have many women as role models or see them functioning outside of very limited ways, it can be harder to understand all of the ways we can serve in order to become the best Saints we women can be.

And while women are commonly present as teachers and ward leaders, they are often not perceived as leaders by the girls in my experience because "leaders" are who one sees up on the stand in Sacrament Meeting or on TV at conference (perhaps this has changed somewhat in more recent years with greater appearances at conference by women).  And leaders are who become role models quite often, imo.

As a former LDS young woman and adult...this is so spot on. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

I'm not ignoring you. The wind is howling the halyards are rattling and I have a headache. So I can't think very well at the moment. Part of the reason I said what I said is it doesn't seem like the woman who wrote this appreciates her role as a mother. I'm sure my perception is skewed because we are childless. We've been married 45 years and I'm watching my wife mother anything with two legs or four legs that walks within 10 feet of her. I think everyone recognizes the roles that mothers play in shaping the world.

No problem, headaches are always acceptable excuses to ignore the world for me.  Hope it clears up.

One can appreciate one's role in one area while feeling unsatisfied in another...just as a man who works outside the home may love his role as father, but find being stuck for 20 years in the same job with no sense of movement or engagement from one's employer very dissatisfying.

And one can love aspects of one's work/role and still feel it is not enough...perhaps like a music teacher that is assigned to work with beginners, but never is given the chance to work with the more advanced to be able to experience what her work has led her students to all those years.  Some may not feel the need to see more than the immediate growth, others may crave it to get a sense of belonging to something bigger.

Edited January 1, 2019 by Calm

[changed]

On 11/30/2018 at 12:09 PM, Tacenda said:

This podcast is so on point concerning women's roles, I doubt many will listen, but it's well worth it and short. This gal explains how she feels in the church relating to women's roles. She's not every woman, but when I listened I thought of those TBM's on this board, you know who you are, that are feminists. Since I have little faith that many will listen I will c/p quotes that go perfectly with it. I'm not that big of a feminist but support those that are and those upcoming young ladies that need a voice in the church. https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2018/11/the-asherah-grove-004-why-i-feel-unequal/

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/135-60-61.pdf Quote: "If by power hungry you mean I would welcome a heightened ability to bless the lives of others, then, yes, I’m power hungry. Aside from its administrative function, if priesthood is merely a sort of temporal permission to tap spiritual resources already available to the faithful, then it is superfluous. If, however, priesthood truly is a real, bestowed power that can enhance our ability to bring comfort and peace and joy into the world, then, yes, I’m power hungry and unambivalently so. Who would not righteously want such a power?"

http://www.ldswave.org/?p=402

"I recognize that some of these issues are church wide, some local, and some unchangeable. Some of them are simple and some of them are deeply ingrained. All of them, nevertheless, make me feel unequal and are worth talking about.

I feel unequal when there are more (a lot more) men’s voices in religious texts, meetings, leadership positions, and decision making bodies.

I feel unequal when callings that don’t necessitate the priesthood are given only to men: Sunday School Presidency, BYU, BYU-I and BYU-Hawaii Presidents, Church Education Commissioners, Ward Mission Leaders, recommend takers at the Temple, etc. (Similarly, men are not currently called in Primary Presidencies and could be.)

I feel unequal when women doing the same job are called by different titles (i.e. Sister vs. President) and/or are accessories to rather than serving equally with their husbands, i.e. Mission President’s wives.

I feel unequal when I have a calling as an auxiliary leader and have to get approval of every decision by men and/or when I am not invited to attend Priesthood Executive Committee meetings (PEC) which directly influence my stewardships.

I feel unequal when my value is primarily linked to being a wife and mother rather than by being a child of God.

I feel unequal when the men in my life acknowledge that they have no female spiritual leaders in their wards or communities.

I feel unequal when women have less prominent, prestigious, and public roles in the church, even before and after childrearing years.

I feel unequal because even one of the most inherently female-dominated time periods, having a new baby, is publically displayed at church in an all male ritual of the baby blessing.

I feel unequal when males handle 100% of the church finances.

I feel unequal when I am taught at church that my husband presides in my family, he is the head, and all things being equal, he has the final say.

I feel unequal when people preach that men and women are completely equal and in the same breath say the above sentence.

I feel unequal when I realize that at church all men have the final say. Good leaders might consult with female auxiliary leaders, but ultimately even after being called to a position via inspiration, men still make the final decisions.

I feel unequal when cub scouts and boy scouts have a larger budget (they are allowed to do fundraising- although this might be a local issue) than achievement days and Young Womens and thus, they often have better activities.

I feel unequal when the Young Women and Young Men’s programs have such different manuals, budgets, activities, etc.

I feel unequal when fathers and mothers are encouraged to fulfill primary roles to provide and nurture, but only the fathers are given the freedom to seek out the best way for them to provide, whereas, mothers are told the best way for them to nurture—to be stay at home moms.

I feel unequal when men teach me that being a stay at home mother is the most important thing a person could do, and yet most of them do not do it.

I feel unequal when people do not emphasize fatherhood as much as they do motherhood and when we have numerous annual lessons on the priesthood and I’m not taught anything about the woman’s role as a priestess.

I feel unequal in primary when most of the lessons and songs are about men although most of the teachers and leaders are women.

I feel unequal because church disciplinary courts are made up of solely men and there are no female voices in the very sensitive matters of church discipline.

I feel unequal when women have to talk to men about their sins, especially sexual ones, and have no other church sanctioned options.

I feel unequal because most men, even inspired ones, can’t fully understand or provide enough resources for sexual abuse.

I feel unequal when young girls are taught about modesty and chastity from older men, especially because females make decisions about these things for very different reasons than males.

I feel unequal because many of the official church declarations and proclamations have no female input, regardless of how drastically they affect women.

I feel unequal when there are no checks and balances for females who experience abuse in the system. While abuse may be rare, it is terrifying that women have no resources to go to outside of the male hierarchy.

I feel unequal because the Relief Society’s autonomy was taken away and it became an auxillery presided over by men.

I feel unequal when women’s financial autonomy isn’t encouraged as much as men’s at church and/or church schools.

I feel unequal because men conduct, men preach, men speak.  Men teach us how to be women.

I feel unequal because local leaders rarely use gender inclusive language even though church manuals and General Conference talks try to do so.

I feel unequal when men speak at Relief Society and Young Women’s meetings, but women never speak in priesthood meetings.

I feel unequal when there are very few women’s voices in our official correlated church manuals.

I feel unequal when women don’t pray in General Conference and usually only give 2 or 3 of the many talks.

I feel unequal because men and women can be sealed to different numbers of people.

I feel unequal in the temple because women a have different script and role.

I feel unequal when female employees of the Church Educational System and temple ordinance workers are no longer allowed to keep their positions after they have children.

I feel unequal because we know very little about Heavenly Mother and her role in the Godhead and there doesn’t seem to be any emphasis on the part of our leaders to pray and find out more. I don’t know what my divine potential means as a female and that makes me feel less important.

I feel unequal because all of these concerns are mediated by male leaders and that they are only as important as these men deem them so. While most of our leaders are wonderful, there is very little in the structure or doctrine to prevent male leaders from misogyny or benevolent sexism.

I feel unequal when these gender inequalities are not acknowledged by leaders. It is difficult to be a female in a patriarchal church and we are trying our best to make it work. Acknowledgement of that difficulty would go a long way."

 

Thank you for posting this list, I agree - I feel unequal.  

 

[juliann]

On 12/30/2018 at 8:06 PM, rodheadlee said:

I'm sorry but many of these sound like a serious Pride problem to me. 

What label to you apply to the men who can do all of these things and expect to? Are they power hungry or just prideful? 

Wouldnt it be more productive to address the listed inequalities than attack the writer?

[Jeanne]

Just wanted to say that the women on this board...rock!!  Listen to them. 

[Rain]

9 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

For us that is a DNA, I always ask what she wants to study.I always ask her opinion on spiritual matters. 

See, this is where some of us see problems. Hearing what I have read from you about you about your wife I would completely expect you to talk with her about this. What often doesn't happen though is men speaking with women about things that happen, sometimes things that directly affect them.  I've had this happen to me so many times.  

I don't think, most of the time, that it is connected to negativity. I think that often, men just don't even think to ask and when they do they may not know,  like most people, women included  how to listen.

On 12/31/2018 at 5:07 PM, rodheadlee said:

Because it's all about her. Christ's main message was we are to serve others. yeah I could say I feel unequal because I was born to a line of carpenters instead of being born to well to do academics.  But I don't I just be the best Carpenter I can be.

Here is something I am seeing that you may not be. There is really not much, if anything, that is all about her. Nearly all of it, is how she can best serve all of God's children. 

It is sort of like asking the capenter, who has the master designation, to only stack wood the rest of his life. There is nothing wrong with a carpenter to stack wood. It is a good and necessary and often fulfilling thing to stack the wood, but if we don't let the carpenter create beautiful furniture for the temple or any other worthy thing, we ignore the skills and talent God has given to the carpenter.

I have been a stay at home more now for 24 years. I am so grateful for the ability to be with my children, to teach them, to open new worlds for them etc. However, my patriarchal blessing, other blessings I have received, my mission, and other roles I have had, have taught me motherhood is not the only thing in my life. There are other places God wants me as well. 

Is it possible where you see pride, it is only that she is trying to be doing what God has in mind for her to do?

 

Edited January 2, 2019 by Rain

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

What label to you apply to the men who can do all of these things and expect to? Are they power hungry or just prideful? 

Wouldnt it be more productive to address the listed inequalities than attack the writer?

I can't I'm too busy doing the dishes.😄

[Tacenda]

I've long felt Pres. Jimmy Carter makes a very good point. And this has seeped into many church organizations. 

[rodheadlee]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I've long felt Pres. Jimmy Carter makes a very good point. And this has seeped into many church organizations. 

Yeah but he gave away the Panama Canal. He's on my bad guy list. It's our Canal we built it he should have at least secured free use for u.s. citizens. The Chinese are taking control of it now. Do you know there's prophecy that Manasseh or Ephraim what control the gates of their enemies. I'll have to look up the scripture. But at one time the US and Britain controlled the Suez Canal the Panama Canal The Straits of Gibraltar the Bering Strait Hong Kong and others that I can't think of right now.

The blessing was to Abraham in Genesis 22:17

Edited January 2, 2019 by rodheadlee