What I want my church to do for Latter-day Saint women

[Nofear]

A Salt Lake Tribune oped by Natalie Brown: https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2023/09/24/natalie-brown-what-i-want-my/

What do you think she has right and what do you think she has wrong?


For bonus points: support your opinion with statistical data where possible.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Nofear said:

A Salt Lake Tribune oped by Natalie Brown: https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2023/09/24/natalie-brown-what-i-want-my/

What do you think she has right and what do you think she has wrong?


For bonus points: support your opinion with statistical data where possible.

Can’t read it as I have used up 100% of my free allotment, so I agree with 0% of what she wrote at this time, but there is a 82.5% chance I will change my mind once I have read it.***

***stats based on a survey of 1, demographic of white female, age 60-65 years

[Rain]

Same problem.  No access and I am not interested enough to pay for it.

[rpn]

I didn't agree with anything she wanted for women, and I just don't understand how anyone thinks that have the power to decide their own charitable contributions somehow changes tithing or even personal donations.

I do hope that someday soon we have women in Sunday School Presidencies and in Clerk roles (though I suspect the issue is a desire not to have men and women working together alone, which could be solved by alternating all of the clerks being women and then the next time men (same with SS).

[Kenngo1969]

I've read this.  I don't have anything in particular to say in response other than what, already, is well-trod ground between [or among] men and women in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I would be interested, keenly, in what someone like Valerie Hudson Cassler or Sharon Eubank might have to say in response to this.  Now that, Alas!, I have navigated away from the article, I cannot access it again without running into the paywall.  Otherwise, I might compare it in detail to what Sister Eubank said in her 2014 FAIR-LDS Conference Presentation, "This is a Woman's Church."

I commend that course to anyone willing to pursue it.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2014/womans-church

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

A Salt Lake Tribune oped by Natalie Brown: https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2023/09/24/natalie-brown-what-i-want-my/

What do you think she has right and what do you think she has wrong?


For bonus points: support your opinion with statistical data where possible.

I can't get past the paywall either. Can you list her concerns?

[Malc]

You may be able to see behind the paywall (legally) using spaywall:

https://www.spaywall.com/search/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sltrib.com%2Freligion%2F2023%2F09%2F24%2Fnatalie-brown-what-i-want-my%2F

[Nofear]

7 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

I can't get past the paywall either. Can you list her concerns?

It wasn't behind a paywall for me (but my browser clears all the cookies when I close it, except for whitelisted sites, like this one). Additionally, if you put the site into "reader" mode, the whole article will show up (that doesn't work for most sites, like the WSJ or Atlantic, etc., but does for the Tribune).

[MrShorty]

My summary of Brown's article is that she is calling for greater empowerment of women in the church. She starts with an observation that some women in the church choose to pay their "tithing" to charities other than the church, and how those choices around where to donate money feels empowering. In another segment, she references a recent podcast where Dr. Julie Hanks and Valerie Hamaker get together and talk about each of their choices in the wake of Pres. Benson's To the Mothers in Zion talk (where he speaks rather strongly against working mothers and strongly promotes mothers who stay at home). Again, a theme of the podcast discussion is choice and empowerment as it relates to how women understand prophetic teachings and choosing to be obedient or choosing to have careers. I don't think it should come as any surprise that many women of that generation felt like they had to choose between obedience to the prophet and having a career, and how many of these women feel like they chose obedience when -- in hindsight -- they wish they had chosen careers.

Sister Eubank's FAIR talk was mentioned. I noticed a similar theme in the middle of her talk. Sister Eubank for a few paragraphs talked about how empowering our doctrine is, but how our practices and traditions have not always (and maybe still don't) live up to the doctrine. She talked about a couple of ways that she sees positive change coming into the church that empowers women beyond what maybe has been our traditional practice.

Underneath these conversations is an underlying tension between complementarianism and egalitarianism that I don't think we really have settled on. Sister Eubanks in particular makes several comments about how husbands and wives are equal, but also makes frequent reference to stereotypical roles for each gender. As long as we waffle between these two opposing ideals, there is going to be an uncomfortable tension in our discourse.

At the end of the day, I agree with Brown and Eubank that we need to do better at helping our women truly achieve their potential without getting lost in false traditions about what men and women can and cannot do. Of course, a big part of that is the struggle to separate truth and error in our beliefs about gender and gender roles. I think we have enough examples from our history of how difficult it can be -- even in a church led by prophets and apostles -- to separate truth from tradition. I hope we continue to make progress in these areas.

[rpn]

21 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

 Of course, a big part of that is the struggle to separate truth and error in our beliefs about gender and gender roles.

Years ago, maybe 3 or 4 years after the Proclamation, I was asked to give a talk on it in a Sacrament meeting (likely because I had a rather public career).  I noted that we gender a lot of things that it doesn't, noting that while it does gender nurturing and it does gender providing (both with urging to work it out) it does not say a single word about who mows the lawn, writes the checks, cleans the toilets or makes breakfast, lunch or dinner or  most of the other tasks in the household.   I pointed out that it never helps to argue something is the other person's job anyway, and they can't claim church doctrine as the basis for it, but that all such divvying it up can play to their strengths and because they care about each other, they would take on their partner's most hated task lovingly, if not joyfully, at least sometimes and a bunch of other suggestions about how not to use the differences in gender as a bludgeon against each other or to put them in their place or anything that undermined the harmony and good working order of their home and family life.  

There is a lot less of gendering in our doctrine than there is in the way we think about our discipleship, IMHO.

Edited September 25, 2023 by rpn

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

A Salt Lake Tribune oped by Natalie Brown: https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2023/09/24/natalie-brown-what-i-want-my/

What do you think she has right and what do you think she has wrong?


For bonus points: support your opinion with statistical data where possible.

That priesthood office should carry a valuation that is deducted from tithing and fast offerings. Retroactively.

Edited September 25, 2023 by CV75

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

I can't get past the paywall either. Can you list her concerns?

Natalie Brown: What I want my church to do for Latter-day Saint women

Offer more empowerment, more say, more agency, more authority, more joy.

 

(Rick Egan | The Salt Lake Tribune) Latter-day Saint faithful walk to the Conference Center for a women's session of General Conference in April 2022. Guest columnist Natalie Brown would like to see The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints grant women more agency and authority.

By Natalie Brown | Special to The Tribune

  | Sep. 24, 2023, 12:00 p.m.

I am a believer in the principle of tithing. As I have written elsewhere, there is an important perspective to be had in deciding that you have enough and can return something to the Lord.

However, I recently listened to some women discuss their decisions to allocate tithing to organizations other than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I was struck with an observation that I have been unable to shake. They were experiencing an emotion that I have not felt within church settings as they decided how to direct their resources: joy in exercising agency and making decisions. I want to feel that joy.

Agency matters to our happiness. We know this. Church lessons repeatedly stress that agency is essential to our growth and development. In my experience, though, the agency offered to women within the church often feels like the choice to conform with prescriptions, roles and budgetary decisions made or ultimately approved by men. However much we say we value agency, there’s always a script: You are free to make the right choice. Agency comes with caveats, particularly for Latter-day Saint women.

 

Women are frequently told to stop seeking permission, but this is easier said than done because Latter-day Saint women also live within a context in which they, in fact, require (and can lose) male permission to access resources, authority, the temple, and priesthood blessings within church settings. Sisters must have permission and authority delegated by men to act officially within the church. They must be deemed worthy to enter temples by two men asking questions drafted by men. They are excluded from leadership positions that do not pertain exclusively to women and children, including positions like financial clerk that have little to do with priesthood functions. Women who followed the prophetic counsel to stay home often also depend on men for their financial maintenance.

Some practical implications of this structure are that I have never seen a ward budget. I do not know how my tithing or fast offering money is spent. I do not even have a way to contact general authorities beyond my stake president, a regional lay leader who is not required to pass on any communication to higher-ups, in order to share my perspectives or ideas. We are raising young women who understand their potential, but we do not offer enough adult women an organization in which they can fully use their talents and exercise agency.

Some women I know will, of course, disagree with this statement. I am glad that the church is meeting their needs. I would simply suggest, however, that we have a problem when a significant number of women perceive the situation as I do. This problem cannot be rectified by protesting too much over the pulpit that women who want more are wrong in their perceptions or by reassuring them that they really are equal and loved. Too many of my peers have voted with their feet. As I begin my 40s, I am largely alone among my closest friends in remaining active in the church.

When the personal and the prophetic clash

 

(The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) President Russell M. Nelson speaks at General Conference on Palm Sunday, April 2, 2023. Guest columnist Natalie Brown wonders about when the counsel of church leaders conflicts with personal revelation on personal matters.

The church teaches personal revelation, but it also teaches members to follow the prophet. It’s unclear which of these principles trumps when they clash. Sometimes, we are reminded that general authorities give only “general” and not personal advice. Other times, it is implied that our personal inspiration would not conflict with the prophet’s guidance if we were only more faithful.

Like all Latter-day Saint women of my generation, I was told by Ezra Taft Benson, a former church president, that righteous women should stay home and rear children — a prescription that was reinforced throughout the Young Women curriculum. Benson, of course, did not have to bear the consequences of his advice. But to this day, I feel doubt over decisions I have made about my career as well as constant judgment. A recent discussion by therapist Julie Hanks clarifies that I am not alone in struggling with the multigenerational legacies of Benson’s teachings on Latter-day Saint women and their families.

Like all members, I am asked to tithe to an organization that does not invite my views on how money I earned is best spent. Because I do not have sufficient resources to tithe and significantly donate to other charitable organizations, paying tithing to a patriarchal, centralized church means that I do not get to experience the growth and fulfillment that can occur when you give to and/or have decision-making power over an organization’s resources. Women in the early, more autonomous Relief Society often exercised greater authority over economic and spiritual resources at church than Latter-day Saint women do today.

I am grateful that women have not been told that they must serve missions, but I agonize over how to raise sons for whom serving missions is an expectation. I have frequently heard leaders say that men who are worthy will want to serve missions, with the implication that men who choose not to serve missions have sinned. This formulation leaves little room for genuine agency. In my house, missions will be framed as a choice.

I could cite further examples, such as modesty rhetoric and being told how to dress, in which women’s use of their bodies has been judged and constrained. The deepest questions of how I should direct my life, use my resources and occupy my body occur within an institutional context in which men have already decided the “right” answers.

I have rarely been trusted to seek my own revelation when I have questioned those answers or sought more than the roles in which men have placed me. Too often, I have been met with threats of discipline or asked to remain silent. I have been told that I do not understand the gospel. I have been labeled a complainer. Men and women have labeled me a complainer when I have suggested minor reforms. And people question whether such things have really occurred to me because women in the church are not trusted as authorities on their own experience.

Desires for a changed church

 

(Illustration by Christopher Cherrington | The Salt Lake Tribune)

I want a church in which I can grow by making decisions and exercising authority, not a church in which I am simply asked to wait and follow. I cannot imagine who I would be within a church community that celebrated rather than constrained or shamed my agency, because I have never lived in one. I cannot imagine how it must feel to act on one’s righteous but unconventional desires without shame, guilt or receiving a lecture on how I have disappointed some man. I want something better for me.

My experience is valid. So is my desire to feel greater joy, agency and authority within church settings. I cannot wait another four decades for the church to become more inclusive of women, because my life is unfolding now.

Only men can make the institutional changes surrounding gender that I think we need. I can claim, however, my own agency to interpret teachings in ways that feel more empowering to me and consistent with the Spirit. I can also choose which messages I will (not) pass on.

Women who have experienced trauma in the past surrounding their agency might be unable to decide simply that they no longer need permission to act in a culture that requires them to seek it and truly feel that way. We minimize the harms we have systemically inflicted by requiring women to always ask a man when we fail to recognize that undoing such harm will require structural changes in addition to personal efforts.

However, I want to test the prospect that God loves me enough that he will continue to bless and inspire me even if I don’t comport with other people’s interpretations of his rules. I want to contribute to the church community I love. And I’m ready to believe that it is secure enough to accommodate the more empowered person I want to become.

 

(Courtesy) Natalie Brown, Salt Lake Tribune guest columnist.

Natalie Brown is a writer, scholar, lawyer, mother and Latter-day Saint based in Boulder, Colo. She is writing in her personal capacity. Her views do not reflect those of the church or her employer.

Editor’s note • This story is available to Salt Lake Tribune subscribers only. Thank you for supporting local journalism.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, rpn said:

I didn't agree with anything she wanted for women, and I just don't understand how anyone thinks that have the power to decide their own charitable contributions somehow changes tithing or even personal donations.

I totally understand the idea of being able to choose my own donations. The more excess I've been able to donate to charities has made it a real joy in researching and choosing. If the church were to suddenly change and tell us we can do that I would totally jump on it.

But this really has nothing to do with being a woman.  The men are at the same place women are with tithing at least as far as anyone who is not in leadership is concerned. Even if today we suddenly got women co-prophets and apostles it wouldn't change the ability of people paying tithing to decide where it goes.  Such an odd thing to put under a title about women.

1 hour ago, rpn said:

I do hope that someday soon we have women in Sunday School Presidencies and in Clerk roles (though I suspect the issue is a desire not to have men and women working together alone, which could be solved by alternating all of the clerks being women and then the next time men (same with SS).

 

Edited September 25, 2023 by Rain

[Calm]

 

Quote

You are free to make the right choice

Isn’t that pretty much how it is for everyone though?

Men do make the decisions, but it is a very small set of men.  And everyone else has to rely on personal revelation to decide if what the Church or the leaders are asking is the right choice or not and risk losing privileges.

Men generally do know more about how stuff works in my experience.  I think it would be fantastic is there was part of SS or RS/PH that taught those not in leadership the inner workings.

And I do think it would be wise to set up greater accessibility of higherups

Edited September 25, 2023 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

I heard somebody last week say that the church was most sexist organization they are presently a part of. I had to admit that I would agree that there isn’t anything that I’m involved in that shows more sexism. Whether or not you define what the church does is wrong or right it still doesn’t address the reality that women don’t hold nearly the amount of power and privilege that men do in the church. I get that a lot of people believe that that is by design. 
Question is, is it actually by design by God?  
I hope she gets the changes she needs. 

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Nofear said:

A Salt Lake Tribune oped by Natalie Brown: https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2023/09/24/natalie-brown-what-i-want-my/

What do you think she has right and what do you think she has wrong?


For bonus points: support your opinion with statistical data where possible.

From the article:

Quote

I recently listened to some women discuss their decisions to allocate tithing to organizations other than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I was struck with an observation that I have been unable to shake. They were experiencing an emotion that I have not felt within church settings as they decided how to direct their resources: joy in exercising agency and making decisions. I want to feel that joy.

Observation #1: She wants to re-define "tithing" so that it refers generically to charitable giving.  That won't do.  There is nothing prohibiting her from donating to any "organizations other than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."  But she can't call those donations "tithing."

Observation #2: An individual's subjective emotions trump obedience to the Lord's commandments.  She is preemptively justifying her disobedience by claiming that doing so will bring her "joy."  

Observation #3: She wants to usurp the authority of those sustained by the body of the Church.  Nobody is impairing her and others' ability "to direct their resources."  Again, they can donate to other institutions and initiatives, but they cannot call that a tithe to the Lord's Church.

She goes on at some length to characterize the Church as oppressing women.  A key bit:

Quote

Women are frequently told to stop seeking permission, but this is easier said than done because Latter-day Saint women also live within a context in which they, in fact, require (and can lose) male permission to access resources, authority, the temple, and priesthood blessings within church settings.

Um, men also live within this context.  

Quote

Sisters must have permission and authority delegated by men to act officially within the church. They must be deemed worthy to enter temples by two men asking questions drafted by men. They are excluded from leadership positions that do not pertain exclusively to women and children, including positions like financial clerk that have little to do with priesthood functions. Women who followed the prophetic counsel to stay home often also depend on men for their financial maintenance.

None of this has much to do with tithing.

Quote

Some practical implications of this structure are that I have never seen a ward budget.

Well, she can ask for it.  I've seen plenty of ward budgets.  They are pretty perfunctory.  

And, FWIW, in my experience the Relief Society is typically given a much larger budget than the EQ.

Quote

I do not know how my tithing or fast offering money is spent.

Once money is donated, it's not her "tithing or fast offering money."

Re: tithing money, we all have pretty good ideas where and how it is spent.

Re: fast offerings, nobody (except the bishop, the finance clerk, and perhaps the stake president) know how it is spent.  That privacy is rather the point of such offerings.

Quote

I do not even have a way to contact general authorities beyond my stake president, a regional lay leader who is not required to pass on any communication to higher-ups, in order to share my perspectives or ideas.

Nor does anyone else, including men.

Quote

Some women I know will, of course, disagree with this statement. I am glad that the church is meeting their needs. I would simply suggest, however, that we have a problem when a significant number of women perceive the situation as I do. This problem cannot be rectified by protesting too much over the pulpit that women who want more are wrong in their perceptions or by reassuring them that they really are equal and loved. Too many of my peers have voted with their feet. As I begin my 40s, I am largely alone among my closest friends in remaining active in the church.

Alas.  Plenty of men are also "voting with their feet" as well.

Quote

The church teaches personal revelation, but it also teaches members to follow the prophet. It’s unclear which of these principles trumps when they clash.

Actually, the Church's counsel on this is pretty clear.  Personal revelation will not exceed one's stewardship.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

A person is not given revelation to direct another person unless they have priesthood or family responsibility for that person.

This principle is described by Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as the principle of “stewardship in revelation.” This means that “only the President of the Church receives revelation to guide the entire Church. Only the stake president receives revelation for the special guidance of the stake. The person who receives revelation for the ward is the bishop. … When one person purports to receive revelation for another person outside his or her own area of responsibility … you can be sure that such revelations are not from the Lord” (“Revelation,” New Era, Sept. 1982, 46).

Here:

Quote

As I review the following eight purposes of revelation, I hope you will recognize the extent to which you have already received revelation or inspiration and resolve to cultivate this spiritual gift for more frequent use in the future.
...
Speaking under the influence of the Holy Ghost and within the limits of his or her stewardship, a person may be inspired to predict what will come to pass in the future. This is the office of the prophet, seer, and revelator, who prophesies for the Church. Prophecy is part of the calling of a patriarch. Each of us is privileged to receive prophetic revelation illuminating future events in our lives, like a Church calling we are to receive.

This is all very basic stuff, and the writer states she is approaching her 40s and is a lawyer.  IOW, she very likely knows all about these principles, and is still deliberately not addressing them.

Quote

Like all members, I am asked to tithe to an organization that does not invite my views on how money I earned is best spent. Because I do not have sufficient resources to tithe and significantly donate to other charitable organizations, paying tithing to a patriarchal, centralized church means that I do not get to experience the growth and fulfillment that can occur when you give to and/or have decision-making power over an organization’s resources. Women in the early, more autonomous Relief Society often exercised greater authority over economic and spiritual resources at church than Latter-day Saint women do today.

Translation: She is justifying her decision to not obey the Law of Tithing.

Quote

I have rarely been trusted to seek my own revelation when I have questioned those answers or sought more than the roles in which men have placed me. Too often, I have been met with threats of discipline or asked to remain silent. I have been told that I do not understand the gospel. I have been labeled a complainer. Men and women have labeled me a complainer when I have suggested minor reforms.

Well, her public statement via the Tribune is chock full of complaints, so...

Quote

I want a church in which I can grow by making decisions and exercising authority, not a church in which I am simply asked to wait and follow. I cannot imagine who I would be within a church community that celebrated rather than constrained or shamed my agency, because I have never lived in one. I cannot imagine how it must feel to act on one’s righteous but unconventional desires without shame, guilt or receiving a lecture on how I have disappointed some man. I want something better for me.

Well, I hope she has a change of heart.  If not, good luck finding a religious organization that meets all of her various (and, in my view, fairly unrealistic) expectations/demands.

Quote

Only men can make the institutional changes surrounding gender that I think we need.

Only a very, very few men can make such changes.  The rest of us are asked to do the same things that are asked of her.  Exercise faith.  Serve.  Sustain the brethren.  Keep the commandments.  And so on.

Quote

I can claim, however, my own agency to interpret teachings in ways that feel more empowering to me and consistent with the Spirit. I can also choose which messages I will (not) pass on.

Not exactly new, this.

Quote

I want to test the prospect that God loves me enough that he will continue to bless and inspire me even if I don’t comport with other people’s interpretations of his rules. I want to contribute to the church community I love. And I’m ready to believe that it is secure enough to accommodate the more empowered person I want to become.

She's pretty far off in terms of the Restored Gospel.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But she can't call those donations "tithing."

She can call them whatever she wants.  She can’t expect for the Church to call them that though.

[LoudmouthMormon]

4 hours ago, Nofear said:

What do you think she has right and what do you think she has wrong?

I think Barbie was a great movie.  Ken brings the patriarchy to Barbieland and rules for a time, but he quickly tires of the responsibility.  After Barbie foiled his plot to enshrine patriarchy in the Barbieland constitution, he finally breaks down in tears.  He admits to Barbie that power and leadership was much harder than he thought.  He admits that once he learned the horse and cowboy aspects of patriarchy weren't as central to power as he initially thought, he sort of lost interest in running things, and didn't quite know how to get out from in front of everyone.   He gladly hands back over the reins of power, and Ken's Mojo Dojo Casa House goes back to being the Barbie Dreamhouse.

In other words, if Natalie Brown has any uppity opinions that need to change, I figure the best way to do that, is just put her in charge for a while.  Make her Relief Society president for a year.  That'll show her.  Because it's the easiest thing to gripe about how RS has less power than EQ, until you're actually sitting at the helm, and then you wish there was less work and decisionmaking involved. 

Edited September 25, 2023 by LoudmouthMormon

[Calm]

3 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

any uppity opinions

Uppity?  Seriously?

Quote

 

Because it's the easiest thing to gripe about how RS has less power than EQ, until you're actually sitting at the helm, and then you wish there was less work and decisionmaking involved. 

And this is why women walk away not feeling listened to.

Are Priesthood and leadership callings worth the sacrifice for men?  If so, then why wouldn’t it be for women?

Edited September 26, 2023 by Calm

[LoudmouthMormon]

 

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Uppity?  Seriously?

So, if you'd be so kind as to read my whole statement, in context:

10 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

if Natalie Brown has any uppity opinions that need to change

 

I don't know if she does or not.  I don't know if that's the right way to characterize some of her opinions or not.  I'm speaking to the people who might think in those terms.  

 

 

Quote

And this is why women walk away not feeling listened to.

Holy crap do I know how that feels, after reading your swift unkind rebuttal.  Where you stepped over any attempt at comprehension, to just react to a single word.  It's like you don't give a crap what my opinion actually is.

The rest of the thread is yours.    Like Barbie (and the women you mention), I'm abandoning Barbieland and going to go live in the real world.  (I'm totally serious about thinking it was a great movie, btw.)

Edited September 25, 2023 by LoudmouthMormon

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

I heard somebody last week say that the church was most sexist organization they are presently a part of. I had to admit that I would agree that there isn’t anything that I’m involved in that shows more sexism. Whether or not you define what the church does is wrong or right it still doesn’t address the reality that women don’t hold nearly the amount of power and privilege that men do in the church. I get that a lot of people believe that that is by design. 
Question is, is it actually by design by God?  
I hope she gets the changes she needs. 

I heard it too, from this podcast. 

https://atlastshesaidit.org/episode-152-spelling-it-out/

But unless the women are "agitating" for it, it most likely wouldn't happen, or maybe even if that actually happened it really wouldn't happen.

https://wheatandtares.org/2014/03/24/agitating-for-change/

I've never needed the PH in all my years of being a female member. But I think there are women that would do a wonderful job. 

Edited September 25, 2023 by Tacenda

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

I totally understand the idea of being able to choose my own donations. The more excess I've been able to donate to charities has made it a real joy in researching and choosing. If the church were to suddenly change and tell us we can do that I would totally jump on it.

But this really has nothing to do with being a woman.  The men are at the same place women are with tithing at least as far as anyone who is not in leadership is concerned. Even if today we suddenly got women co-prophets and apostles it wouldn't change the ability of people paying tithing to decide where it goes.  Such an odd thing to put under a title about women.

 

This was my first thought when reading the article.  This is not a gender issue.  Neither is the whole agency thing.  Most men in the church are in the same situation as the women, being told what to do and how to do it to conform to God's will.  I don't really see how having a man in charge is affecting my agency in any way.  If a woman was in charge, my agency would be unchanged.

Edited September 25, 2023 by bluebell

[Rain]

5 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I think Barbie was a great movie.  Ken brings the patriarchy to Barbieland and rules for a time, but he quickly tires of the responsibility.  After Barbie foiled his plot to enshrine patriarchy in the Barbieland constitution, he finally breaks down in tears.  He admits to Barbie that power and leadership was much harder than he thought.  He admits that once he learned the horse and cowboy aspects of patriarchy weren't as central to power as he initially thought, he sort of lost interest in running things, and didn't quite know how to get out from in front of everyone.   He gladly hands back over the reins of power, and Ken's Mojo Dojo Casa House goes back to being the Barbie Dreamhouse.

In other words, if Natalie Brown has any uppity opinions that need to change, I figure the best way to do that, is just put her in charge for a while.  Make her Relief Society president for a year.  That'll show her.  Because it's the easiest thing to gripe about how RS has less power than EQ, until you're actually sitting at the helm, and then you wish there was less work and decisionmaking involved. 

This reminds me of what people (members of the church) said to me before we had children. That we wouldn't like the late nights and lack of sleep,  throw up on our clothes, and needing a babysitter.  Like that would make us desire the blessings of children less. 

Edited September 26, 2023 by Rain

[Calm]

2 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

don't know if she does or not.  I don't know if that's the right way to characterize some of her opinions or not.  I'm speaking to the people who might think in those terms.  

Using “uppity” is going to make you look like a bigot/sexist since it is associated by many in my experience with comments about people getting above their station in life, don’t know their place, etc .

I believe I would have had a similar reaction if you associated “uppity” with a man, though not as immediate.  It is just a problematic word these days applied to anyone, imo.

Quote

The adjective uppity is an informal, somewhat old-fashioned word. When used to mean "arrogant" or "presumptuous," it is no more offensive than either of these synonyms. In its meaning of "aspiring to a rank or position higher than one deserves or is entitled to" it is decidedly disparaging, the implication of the word being that the one described does not deserve or is not entitled to rise in standing. Beyond this denotation, however, uppity has a long history of being applied to members of racial minorities and especially to Black people. Its association with such uses, and the bigotry they represent, means that when it is used to describe a member of a racial minority it is likely to be considered especially offensive

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/uppity#:~:text=The adjective uppity is an,than either of these synonyms.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

 

So, if you'd be so kind as to read my whole statement, in context:

 

I don't know if she does or not.  I don't know if that's the right way to characterize some of her opinions or not.  I'm speaking to the people who might think in those terms.  

 

 

Holy crap do I know how that feels, after reading your swift unkind rebuttal.  Where you stepped over any attempt at comprehension, to just react to a single word.  It's like you don't give a crap what my opinion actually is.

The rest of the thread is yours.    Like Barbie (and the women you mention), I'm abandoning Barbieland and going to go live in the real world.  (I'm totally serious about thinking it was a great movie, btw.)

  Notice how I quoted what I was reacting to when I said women walking away….the griping about power and how hard leadership was. (Uppity was dealt with in the previous section, not this one.)
 

Who is the one who stepped over any attempt at comprehension?

Edited September 26, 2023 by Calm