Are Latter-day Saint Women Oppressed?

[MustardSeed]

45 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Maybe marginalized?  I do think that women in the church are often marginalized.  Very much so.

We tolerate this at church.  It’s super interesting to me how we tolerate it at church (I did, for the longest time) but it’s so clear how intolerable it is in other environments. 
 

IMO, Our children will not tolerate the marginalization of women when they are running the church, Im  fairly confident. I’ll miss out.  

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I’m going to be obnoxious and say that I do not actually believe the self-report that results in the statistic indicating that religious women are more sexually satisfied than not religious women. I think it depends on the religion and the level of purity focus. I think that there are way too many factors to be considered.

You will be hard-pressed to convince me that a patriarchal environment in and of itself leads to great sex for women. 

I dug a bit into the research and I really want more of the raw data but can’t find it.

And oh boy, I love the call to repentance on page 26. 

https://wheatley.byu.edu/00000187-81c5-d575-ad9f-c5d7c4f10001/the-myth-of-sexual-experince-the-wheatley-institute-april-2023-pdf

To paraphrase: Even if you used to be a huge slut you can change your mindset now. Also acting like focusing on the person instead of sexual novelty is something that is unique to people with limited sexual histories. Weird.

The whole “discussion” section is a mishmash of guesswork and supposition. This is so very Mormon.

I especially like how they talk about people who have sex too early create a kind of counterfeit connection and that leads to a bad marriage. As if the desire for sex without having it doesn’t do the same thing in horny young religious people all the time.

AND WHERE IS THE ACTUAL DATA?!?!

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

We tolerate this at church.  It’s super interesting to me how we tolerate it at church (I did, for the longest time) but it’s so clear how intolerable it is in other environments. 
 

IMO, Our children will not tolerate the marginalization of women when they are running the church, Im  fairly confident. I’ll miss out.  

I agree, I think we do tolerate it, some just because that's the way it has always been and so it looks "normal".  It's already changed a lot in the last 20 years; I hope it continues to change because I do think we still have a ways to go.

[Leaf474]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Thank you for asking, I've been thinking about this exact question since yesterday.  

I've certainly complained on here plenty about some of the church's practices and teachings surrounding women.  And I've been in many a conversation that included a male poster or two not handling it very well when I and other women posters wouldn't just tow the line and agree with them on something or another gender related. I readily admit (and have over and over on here through the years) that the church had/has work to do on their treatment and understanding of women.

But it never occured to me to suggest that latter-day saint women are "enslaved, abused, maltreated, subjugated, exploited, victimized, crushed, etc." because the church used to teach about the priesthood in a male-centric way or skips those chapters in SS lessons that present God's dealings with women in a less than kind or loving light, or was really messed up in regards to women and modest.

I don't exactly know what word I think would work better.  Maybe marginalized?  I do think that women in the church are often marginalized.  Very much so.

Ahh... marginalized. Thanks for the input 🙂

 

As a non-lds, it doesn't feel right for me to say that it fits or not. But it sounds like a lot of people here would agree with you.

[Leaf474]

I understand these questions call for speculation, but...

 

Is the role of Heavenly Father more interesting, responsible, or exciting than that of Heavenly Mother?

 

Can little girls "grow up" to become Heavenly Fathers?

 

Can a woman become the only God with whom her offspring have to do?

[Raingirl]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Sorry for the confusion.  My part in this discussion started when I replied to a statement that CA made where he said "One only need look at the leadership hierarchy" to see proof that the church oppresses women.  I understood him to be saying that the oppression stems from women's inability to ever be called as a bishop, stake president, apostle, or prophet.

All of my comments were focused on that specific statement, which in my mind centers on callings.  So my comments were based on the question of whether or not women not being able to have certain callings was oppressive to them.  That's as far as my scope went on the thread. 

I assumed your comments were in that scope (since that's where my mind was), but it sounds like you weren't speaking to that specifically.  Sorry I misunderstood you.

Thank you so much for sharing that.  I have a very close friend who has expressed similar things regarding the treatment of single sisters in the church.  She has pulled away from the church because of it.  We need to do better.  I hope things can change.

I’m sorry. I responded in a very sleepy state and misunderstood you. MS brain doesn’t help, either!

 

I do think that not being able to have certain callings because you’re female can be oppressive. I am not certain that it’s true across the board. No different than not being allowed certain jobs, etc, simply because one is female. 

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

I understand these questions call for speculation, but...

 

Is the role of Heavenly Father more interesting, responsible, or exciting than that of Heavenly Mother?

 

Can little girls "grow up" to become Heavenly Fathers?

 

Can a woman become the only God with whom her offspring have to do?

To answer your question in order:

Probably not.
Maybe.
Die Adam-God spouting HERETIC!

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

I’m sorry. I responded in a very sleepy state and misunderstood you. MS brain doesn’t help, either!

 

I do think that not being able to have certain callings because you’re female can be oppressive. I am not certain that it’s true across the board. No different than not being allowed certain jobs, etc, simply because one is female. 

I think you can argue about the oppressive part but it is very discriminatory.

[Raingirl]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I think you can argue about the oppressive part but it is very discriminatory.

To me, discrimination is oppressive. 

[MustardSeed]

12 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

To me, discrimination is oppressive. 

I agree.  

[The Nehor]

20 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

To me, discrimination is oppressive. 

It often is.

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

To me, discrimination is oppressive. 

Can you elaborate on this idea?  You said earlier that you didn't view your orthodox Jewish community as oppressive but in my understanding they are discriminatory towards women, right?  How does that work if discrimination is oppressive?  Or, do you now view it as discriminatory but you didn't when you were a part of it?  

I have no desire to debate your conclusions on this, I'm just asking so I can understand this comment and how it fits in with your earlier comment.  

 

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I agree.  

I think, in regards to this topic, it all comes down to whether or not God can discriminate and be a just and moral God. 

For those who are believing members of the church but also define discrimination as inherently and always immoral, that ups the ante on the issue and takes it to a different level than it might be for those who don't view it that way (such as myself).

It sounds like you are in that camp and if so then it makes a lot of sense that the topic "steams you" (to quote you from earlier ).  I can better see where you are coming from when I think of it in those terms.

 

 

[bluebell]

57 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

Ahh... marginalized. Thanks for the input 🙂

 

As a non-lds, it doesn't feel right for me to say that it fits or not. But it sounds like a lot of people here would agree with you.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to figure out my feelings on it.  Often I have to write things about and explain them to others before they even make sense to me.

[MustardSeed]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

think, in regards to this topic, it all comes down to whether or not God can discriminate and be a just and moral God. 

100%. I believe that He is far more just than our church is.  
what I mean by that IMO is that our  church is man made, mostly. We are doing what we can.  It’s largely good.  But we are millions of miles away from the awesomeness  that God is, and we will do well to humble ourselves and remain open to change. I think that the restoration was a scratching of the surface . 
 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Leaf474 said:

I understand these questions call for speculation, but...

 

Is the role of Heavenly Father more interesting, responsible, or exciting than that of Heavenly Mother?

 

Can little girls "grow up" to become Heavenly Fathers?

 

Can a woman become the only God with whom her offspring have to do?

1) we know next to nothing save she exists and lives in harmony with the Father and the Son, so I would say learning about the role of the Father is more interesting, speculating about the Mother can be.

2) Heavenly Father is an exalted man and gender (typically understood to be biological sex) is said to be eternal, so unless a child has the wrong biological sex  assigned at birth (doctrine teaches only male or female), a little girl is not seen by most as capable of becoming a Father, only a Mother.

3) my guess is most members would say that since all worlds most likely follow the same pattern, no; but one could speculate there may be worlds where Heavenly Mother is part of the worship process.  Some would likely say that she used to be on the world.

Edited October 19, 2023 by Calm

[manol]

14 hours ago, Raingirl said:

... my newly assigned home teacher’s wife stood up and threw a hissy fit because her husband had been assigned a single sister.

I have been in her husband's shoes, and was not at all happy with being effectively forced to ask for a re-assignment because my wife played the jealousy card.  It felt like I was turning my back on someone. 

14 hours ago, Calm said:

What I wanted and still want is it for the girls I was teaching and for all the girls in the Church as well.  I want the glass brimming and overflowing for all the youth of the Church.

Which is why I feel the absence of similar celebration for the girls and young women.  They needed that kind of recognition too.

Imagine you are called to a top-level Church committee tasked with promoting or creating policy and lessons which would truly celebrate girls and young women similar to the way boys and priesthood holders are celebrated (which I think would be fantastic).  What would you suggest?

 

Edited October 19, 2023 by manol

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, manol said:

 

Imagine you are called to a top-level Church committee tasked with promoting or creating policy and lessons which would truly celebrate girls and young women similar to the way boys and priesthood holders are currently celebrated (which I think would be fantastic).  What would you suggest?

 

That's a hard one because priesthood holders aren't really celebrated anymore.  Not in a church setting anyway.  Individual families might do stuff.

[manol]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That's a hard one because priesthood holders aren't really celebrated anymore.  Not in a church setting anyway.  Individual families might do stuff.

I was mirroring @Calm's wording:  "I feel the absence of similar celebration for the girls and young women."

That being said, I readily acknowledge your care and precision in word choice.  What wording would you suggest?

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, manol said:

I was mirroring @Calm's wording:  "I feel the absence of similar celebration for the girls and young women."

That being said, I readily acknowledge your care and precision in word choice.  What wording would you suggest?

I'm not sure.  Let's let @Calm explain what she meant by her statement and go from there.  They used to celebrate priesthood advancement so maybe she was talking about how it used to be done?  They used to hold something that was usually called "priesthood preview" for boys turning 12, for example.  It wasn't really a celebration in the typical sense of the word but I do think it was meant to make the boys feel special.  Plus they usually got refreshments afterwards too. 

A few years ago they stopped those though and started doing "temple and priesthood preparation" for all boys and girls advancing out of primary.

Edited October 19, 2023 by bluebell

[Calm]

1 hour ago, manol said:

Imagine you are called to a top-level Church committee tasked with promoting or creating policy and lessons which would truly celebrate girls and young women similar to the way boys and priesthood holders are celebrated (which I think would be fantastic).  What would you suggest?

Start by having a meaningful ritualized role (think of it as an ongoing coming of age process that has at least some of the public presence that the Aaronic Priesthood has) that could be given to young women as part of their development process.  This role would hopefully grounded in revelation and doctrine and if not that, then tradition that does not contradict revelation such as past practices of the RS, so that church narratives, both talks and lessons, can be expanded to include such behaviour, such as sharing more stories of women performing relevant work in these areas, prophets and women leaders and mothers teaching these principles and how young girls and women’s lives were altered by hearing these as is done with stories of boys and young men acting in and learning about their priesthood role.  

Perhaps this could be something that has to do with the humanitarian work done by the Church (the Relief Society and many women already volunteer in these areas and they seemed to have taken a very strong leadership role in this in early church history).  I am curious if it is known why Church Welfare was placed under the direction of the Presiding Bishopric as part of the Priesthood correlation effort and if it would be possible for the Relief Society to assume this role instead, even if under the authority of the Presiding Bishopric.  This might be challenging in some places in the world with women lacking organizational background, but there are women activists in every country I am aware of, so while challenging to have local as well as global women leaders in these areas as we currently do, it seems workable to place local women in visible and authoritative church positions (Sharon Eubank has headed LDS Philanthropies for quite sometime, iirc she said she reports to a committee that includes General RS members, there is of course all the general officers of the female auxiliaries that include local board members).  Plus if this is a structured role in the church organization, women would develop the organizational/administrative skills as they advanced in the callings related to this.

This would have the very great advantage of increasing the awareness and accessibility of the service aspect of the Church, making it a required part of church service that is not dependent on local leaders being sure to include it in youth activity.  I have been in wards where youth had very few organized church service projects and wards that did and it always seemed to me there was greater socialization and community among the youth and between the youth and adults in wards that did frequent service projects as part of the various organizations, especially as a ward.  Volunteerism has been demonstrated to increase health and even longevity, so even if one doesn’t recognize the spiritual necessity of caring for those in need, it is a practical advantage to create youth who are very active in volunteering.

If not a doctrinal issue, change some of the general officer callings for women to last for life, with emeritus status around 70 years in age similar to the First Quorum of the Seventies, so that youth and adults can become more familiar with women leaders.  If General Authority is not doctrinally required to be tied to a priesthood office, include these under General Authorities rather than General Officers.

Have ward women leaders rotate in sitting on the stand so youth become familiar with who they are (having EQ and YM doing this as well would not be a bad idea imo).

If not a doctrinal/revelation issue, let women again assume the role of healers and include young women in the process.  This would take awhile to redevelop the mindset.  There is a Brigham Young quote I just read where he wishes and encourages members make more use of calling on female healers rather than relying solely on elders for this role.  I will try and find this.

As far as I know, while I believe Joseph Fielding Smith and others were inspired to focus on strengthening the Priesthood into the backbone of the Church, I have not heard of it being revelation that removed many of the functions of the Relief Society in the process.  If this was an administrative decision to do so (and I assume there are enough records on this to determine the process), then it could be an administrative decision to return functions where it works within the current doctrinal/revelatory framework.

Perhaps with the increased presence of service missionaries, the Mission President’s wife could assume authority over those missionaries within the boundaries of the mission and under the authority of the Mission President or if her role in providing for many of the missionaries’ needs is a full time job already, perhaps a local woman could be given this calling…

IOW, there would be quite a few callings of this ritualized role for women above the local level, whether under the authority of the Relief Society (which makes the most sense to me) or independent of it.

Edited October 19, 2023 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

the Mission President’s wife

And could she be as official as he is?  Not just his wife? Why can’t they both be presidents? 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

That's a hard one because priesthood holders aren't really celebrated anymore.  Not in a church setting anyway.  Individual families might do stuff.

There are still plenty of lessons focused on the Priesthood and stories about the importance of the Priesthood as well as integrated recognition of priesthood callings through certain callings being in the awareness of ward members simply by having them sit on the stand either weekly or when visiting.  The role itself is celebrated, which is what I see as even more important because this will instill a greater desire/drive to live up to the role imo as it should when people are relying on you***, but having recognizable role models in wards as well as generally speaking (meaning women in global callings that last longer than 5 to 7 years) is important as well even if not “celebrated” in the ways others might think “celebrating” implies. I do think the way we teach children to respect bishops and the priesthood ordinances as well as identify the young men as they advance in their priesthood offices at least up to being set apart as elders could be identified as “celebrating” the Priesthood (I assume they still do the last, though I don’t go to church very often and may have missed this being discontinued).

***My callings as a teacher were always more meaningful and motivating to me than say my calling as a ward librarian, which could easily have been filled by pulling someone from the hall or as a bulletin person since if the bulletin didn’t get printed for a week (not that I missed any and I did try to be more creative, but it felt more about doing it for myself than for others where when I taught I saw the faces of those depending on me right in front of me each week), there are always the announcements the conductor shares and the music posted.

Edited October 19, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

And could she be as official as he is?  Not just his wife? Why can’t they both be presidents? 

Yep.  I just can’t think of an appropriate title…the other ideas I have considered before, so the brain fog isn’t getting in the way.  Service Mission President, I suppose, though it feels forced.

Edited October 19, 2023 by Calm

[Rain]

40 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That's a hard one because priesthood holders aren't really celebrated anymore.  Not in a church setting anyway.  Individual families might do stuff.

I can think of one instance that sort of fits. Every week in my ward the YM get thanked at the pulpit for doing the sacrament. Now 1. The pianist and chorister do as well (and sometimes the talks) and 2. thanking  is not the same as celebrating, but the YM  get recognized every week and the YW rarely if ever do (only if they have one of those 2 callings or on the rare occasion they give a talk). 

And other people don't get thanked (until released). I've done the program for about 1.5 years and have never been thanked over the pulpit. The man who passes out the program has never been thanked. The people who set up the chairs have never been thanked. The person who unlocked the doors has never been thanked. It's not that I want that recognition. It's just that the recognition, or celebration, heavily skews towards the YM over the YW by a long ways.