Are Latter-day Saint Women Oppressed?

[MustardSeed]

6 minutes ago, Rain said:

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. 

 It not just the thanking but the visibility- it’s less about celebration to me but about value. 

Edited October 19, 2023 by MustardSeed

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Rain said:

It's just that the recognition, or celebration, heavily skews towards the YM over the YW by a long ways. 

I think recognition of youth as part of the community, contributing to it is massively important.  At the very least, it will likely create greater loyalty which may affect activity rates.

[Rain]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

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, 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).

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).

And stake women leaders at stake conference sit there as well and speak.

Also, when stake women leaders speak in wards recognize them as such.  It amazes me how often when my husband (HC), and other HC, choose a stake women's leader to speak with him how often the bishopric will announce his calling, but not hers. Part of the problem is usually the bishopric doesn't know they are leaders, but even when my husband introduces them as such in emails, texts and in person when they both get there it doesn't often stick in the mind of the one conducting. 

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

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 Rain

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

 It not just the thanking but the visibility- it’s less about celebration to me but about value. 

Celebration to me is about recognizing the importance of a role more than the idea of having a party or whatever (like opening a mission call has turned into these days); visibility/recognition has to occur first in order for a role to be valued.  You can’t value something you are not aware of or don’t think about much.

I generally don’t think of extended celebrations like open houses and such in terms of celebration in the church as I am not a party person.  Celebration to me translates into recognition (even if mostly nonverbal awareness) and respect, such as the high respect we give to the Apostles (well, well deserved) and Bishops (well deserved for most, there isn’t the time available before holding the calling to be able to avoid those who do not wear the mantle as they should).  
 

I have always known who the RS President is in my wards, but since I mostly served in Primary and my daughter only attended YW for her first year or two, I often don’t know who the YW President is and rarely know her counselors. Nowadays the same goes for the Primary Presidency.  There have been wards where I didn’t know the High Priest Group Leader or his counselors and a very few where I wasn’t aware of the EQ presidency because they weren’t that active in ward activities while there have been a few wards the EQ President was almost as visible as the Bishop because he was always up in front encouraging participation in EQ and ward events.

I know we have limited time now, but I think it would be great if we at least rotated through have the various leadership callings sitting on the stands, including the youth leaders, not elevating the person, but showing how the roles are integral to the ward family.  If youth is trained to think of their callings as true leadership, maybe they will put more thought and effort into them.

Edited October 19, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Rain said:

in person when they both get there it doesn't often stick in the mind of the one conducting. 

If we start calling them by their title instead of the generic “Sister”, this could help.

A lot of the stuff on my list is already being done, I am just thinking a more formalized and expanded role could create a parallel path for girls, young women, and adult women similar to the Priesthood without impinging on the authority and value of the Priesthood (because that is needed at full strength for males, imo) without removing most of the opportunities for boys, young men, and adult men.

And if we had this path for women, we could give more recognition to boys and young men because there wouldn’t be the awkwardness of not having the same opportunities for girls and young women.

I don’t want to take anything away from value of the Priesthood, I see it as raising the priesthood ships at the same time as raising the female ships because the water level itself is being raised.

Edited October 19, 2023 by Calm

[Rain]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

If we start calling them by their title instead of the generic “Sister”, this could help.

I agree, but it gets confusing. The 3 presidency of the church and 3 stake presidency members all get called, "President", but the bishopric counselors don't get called "Bishop" or "Counselor". I never hear the high council members getting called "High Counselor Smith" - I always hear Bob Smith from the high council.  

So do stake RS, YW and primary counselors get called "President"?  What about ward?

 

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

A lot of the stuff on my list is already being done, I am just thinking a more formalized and expanded role could create a parallel path for girls, young women, and adult women similar to the Priesthood without impinging on the authority and value of the Priesthood (because that is needed at full strength for males, imo) without removing most of the opportunities for boys, young men, and adult men.

And if we had this path for women, we could give more recognition to boys and young men because there wouldn’t be the awkwardness of not having the same opportunities for girls and young women.

I don’t want to take anything away from value of the Priesthood, I see it as raising the priesthood ships at the same time as raising the female ships because the water level itself is being raised.

 

[Raingirl]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.  

 

If you discriminate against minorities, isn’t that oppressive? If you discriminate against the disabled, isn’t that oppressive? If you discriminate against the LGBTQ community, isn’t that oppressive? Same with discrimination against one gender or the other.

I would say that some of the differences in gender found in Orthodox Judaism can be oppressive.  I just didn’t personally feel that way.  And in Judaism, if as a female, you want to become a rabbi, you can do that. You won’t be recognized as such by most Orthodox (there is actually a very small number who do), but there’s not an LDS ward in all the world where a woman is going to be called as bishop. 

[manol]

Thank you Calm for your in-depth and imo extremely well thought-out reply.  I hope some General Authority incognito ventures across your post and goes, "hmmm..."

2 hours ago, Calm said:

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 [be] grounded in revelation and doctrine...

Brilliant.  I deliberately left out the word "doctrine" because I didn't want to influence your reply.  Imo a reasonably well-articulated underlying doctrine plays a major role in establishing the basis for and significance of a policy within the LDS paradigm. 

2 hours ago, Calm said:

If not a doctrinal/revelation issue, let women again assume the role of healers and include young women in the process. 

Imo this is POSSIBLE, and does not require as big a paradigm shift as did rescinding the priesthood ban.  Imo it's not much further than a policy change away. 

2 hours ago, Calm said:

  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.

I'm not aware of that quote, but having two prophets aligned in support of female healers is better than only having one (Joseph Smith).

I'm sure you're familiar with Joseph's second sermon to the Female Relief Society, in which he strongly defended the practice of women giving blessings.  History of the Church volume 4 pages 602-607, and Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, commencing on page 223.

Edited October 19, 2023 by manol

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

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. 

That’s a good example. The young women are ushers/program passer-outlets in my ward, and they often get thanked at the beginning of sacrament meeting, but I’m not sure that it’s every time. You bring up a good point.

[Leaf474]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

To answer your question in order:

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

I'm not sure if I get the joke, but it sounds funny 😂 👍

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Leaf474 said:

I'm not sure if I get the joke, but it sounds funny 😂 👍

The only god that we have to do with sounds like the language of one of the Adam-God talks Brigham Young gave.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, manol said:

deliberately left out the word "doctrine" because I didn't want to influence your reply.  Imo a reasonably well-articulated underlying doctrine plays a major role in establishing the basis for and significance of a policy within the LDS paradigm. 

I want it to be doctrinal so it is not looked as an accommodation rather than something that can and eventually viewed by members and leaders as should be integral to the Church.

Not all women leaders wanted to go to ward council meetings in my experience, especially when it first started.  If they understand the doctrinal basis better, I think there tends to be more acceptance that is is a better way of doing things.

Edited October 20, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, manol said:

I'm not aware of that quote, but having two prophets aligned in support of female healers is better than only having one (Joseph Smith).

Quote

"Why do you [the women of the church] not live so as to rebuke disease? It is your privilege to do so without sending for the Elders." (JoD 13:155)"

It was one of the Bens who posted it, I did not write down the last name though and both offer substantive comments.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I want it to be doctrinal so it is not looked as an accommodation rather than something that can and eventually viewed by members and leaders as should be integral to the Church.

Not all women leaders wanted to go to ward council meetings in my experience, especially when it first started.  If they understand the doctrinal basis better, I think there tends to be more acceptance that is is a better way of doing things.

I agree.  For me, there's a strong ick factor to the idea of creating stuff for the women to do or ways for them to be seen just for the sake of having women doing stuff and being seen.  It feels condescending to me.  

But if it's supported doctrinally then that's a whole different ball game.  That has a purpose that exists outside of "let's make the women feel special"

[Rain]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I agree.  For me, there's a strong ick factor to the idea of creating stuff for the women to do or ways for them to be seen just for the sake of having women doing stuff and being seen.  It feels condescending to me.  

But if it's supported doctrinally then that's a whole different ball game.  That has a purpose that exists outside of "let's make the women feel special"

This. I'm not sure it has to be "doctrinal". Just have a good purpose other than to make women feel good.

Edited October 20, 2023 by Rain

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, Rain said:

have a good purpose other than to make women fel good.

It doesn’t have to be doctrinally tied to women, that would be a nice plus; but I think it needs to be seen as defined doctrinally as part of the mission of the Church, which is why I lean towards it being something in the humanitarian/welfare area as that has been defined as the fourth mission of the Church. Missionary work suffers imo when being viewed as primarily the responsibility of one sex, but manages well with it overseen by those with the Priesthood, so leadership in one area being dominantly one sex is something we have seen work practically throughout the Church.

Edited October 20, 2023 by Calm

[Tacenda]

On 10/18/2023 at 10:16 PM, Raingirl said:

I didn’t say anything about callings.  
 I feel invisible in the church as a woman, in particular an unmarried woman, because I AM invisible. IT’s demonstrated in so many ways, large and small. 
I just erased the long reply I had typed out, with several examples.  Because nothing is going to change and it’s too depressing. 
I will say that single women in the church are the most invisible.  That was also better in Judaism. Our existence was noticed and not ignored.  I once was getting a book signed by the male author. He noticed my unmarried status (my hair was not covered) and inquired as to whether I was open to meeting someone. Did I have a desire to marry someday? Now, some people will say this is sexist or oppressive or whatever. But this gentleman had a genuine interest and concern, along with the genuine desire that everyone gets to experience the joys of marriage and family.  In this church, I have been shamed and criticized for being single. In this church, my single status is seen as a reason to shun me and pretend that I don’t exist. In Judaism, it was seen as an opportunity to reach out and embrace my existence, and to do a mitzvah.  There was not a single Shabbos that I wasn’t invited to share the Friday night meal with one household or another.  I was welcomed and embraced.  I didn’t experience incidents such as the time in RS shortly after baptism, when my newly assigned home teacher’s wife stood up and threw a hissy fit because her husband had been assigned a single sister. You see, some of the women want us to be invisible, too. 
But invisibility and oppression are not limited to unmarried women. 
As a Jewish woman, I could fight on the front lines right alongside the men. I wonder how Mormon men would handle that situation. 

 

I can't give rep points,but count this as a hug instead. Those members doing that, don't know what they're missing out on. I'm sure you have a wealth of experience and knowledge to share as a convert, I always loved to hear people's experiences outside of the church. And I hope this changes Raingirl, but understand if you feel like the ship passed already. And they don't deserve you anyway! ❤️

[Meadowchik]

11 hours 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

When it comes down to it, some might say LDS women can leave at anytime, so it's not oppression. If however, the US government worked the same way, it would be oppressing women.

 

[Meadowchik]

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm not measuring oppression by feelings but by actions in a greater context. 

For example, I think that we can all agree that Afghan women are oppressed.  They certainly aren't the only women in the world who are but they are an easy target and one that we all know about.  When I think about labeling Latter-day Saint women as oppressed I think about what an Afghan woman would think about that, and I think she would laugh in my face (or worse). 

When compared to a basic example of the oppression of women in the world, I sincerely don't think that LDS women can legitimately claim that label. The differences between the two groups are too stark for it to fit both in my opinion.  I'm not asking anyone else to agree with me.  But that's why--when I measure oppression by action--it doesn't work.

There can be different ends of a scale/spectrum where the definition still holds.

It's not about an individual not getting called not a few types of callings. It is about all women being excluded from all callings that have authority over them in the church at the ward, stake, and general church level, because they are women.

 

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

Probably because we've all had different life experiences or view different labels in different ways. 

In this case it's probably a difference between beliefs about inequality and inequity, mixed in with the common understanding of sexist as meaning unjust and prejudiced.  If someone sees the church not ordaining women as not being unjust or done through prejudice (even though they might agree that the practice is an obvious example of inequality), then they probably wouldn't see the church as sexist.

That's a misunderstanding of a basic definition. 

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

In my experience, highly logical and intelligent people come to all sorts of conclusions that I have no idea how they came to.  In those instances I'm reminded that reasonable people can disagree about so many things precisely because it's not logic and intelligence alone that shapes our beliefs. 

It's a whole lot of emotional and mental and baggage stuff too.

Of course it is. 

There are different ways people manage uncomfortable facts. 

And if a woman believes the prophet, stake president, bishop, her father, and then her husband can speak for God to her, she has much more than her own individual perceptions to manage.( I think she even will struggle knowing her own thoughts in the first place especially at a young age. )

If she sincerely believes that then what chance does she have of knowing she can diversify her thinking? 

Freedom begins in the mind.

 

[Meadowchik]

14 hours 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.

Abused, maltreated, subjugated, and exploited all reasonably fit the model of LDS heirarchy over women. For the record, it can fit for everyone else too who are not in power positions. But for women, moreso:

People are entering into a system where their own thoughts must fall behind the thoughts of others, and basically to then model their whole lives on that. And women are the subjugated population within that population. 

 

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

It is about all women being excluded from all callings that have authority over them in the church at the ward, stake, and general church level, because they are women.

For precision:  They aren’t excluded from all callings that have authority over them at those levels.  The RS Presidency has authority over women in the ward, the Stake RS Presidency while is more supportive, is also authoritative when it comes to instructing women leaders and teachers in the way they should be leading/teaching, giving them directions that the women are expected to follow.  Same with the General RS Presidency, who are General Officers of the Church.

There are, however, substantially fewer female leaders

Edited October 20, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

15 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

And if a woman believes the prophet, stake president, bishop, her father, and then her husband can speak for God to her, she has much more than her own individual perceptions to manage.( I think she even will struggle knowing her own thoughts in the first place especially at a young age. )

Is there any difference here if it was a female in authority making the claim she can speak for God to this woman?  Would she not have as much difficulty struggling to know her own thoughts?

Edited October 20, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

People are entering into a system where their own thoughts must fall behind the thoughts of others

I never believed that way and from the way my large extended family talks (including my husband’s side), they haven’t experienced the Church that way either.

That sounds more like some of my high school classes where some teachers weren’t fond of independent thinkers.

I have no doubt that many in the Church see it as you do where their thoughts must align with leaders or they are sinning, and there are some leaders who push for it, but I don’t see it as inherent to the system myself.  I have never been penalized for expressing a different POV than a leader except in the case of a stake president requiring my husband to shave after I asked his beautiful beard be spared.  This was back in the 90s and he was a more traditional leader, so the request was a long shot.  The beard was gone whether I spoke up or not.  And his insistence did not change my thought about the policy one whit.

[MustardSeed]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

inherent to the system myself.

I do. Follow the prophet (or bishop or local leader etc)…who always has been and always will be male…suggests to me an inherent understanding that women are missing something fundamental that is required for adequate skill or (what, exactly??) to receive and relay information from God. 

“Worthy priesthood leader in the home” is an aspired asset.  Many people don’t have that. What does that mean for them? I’m 
 
Practically speaking, I think we all know that women are not missing a thing. I agree that there is more in actual interaction in church socially that shows  openness to ideas and opportunity than otherwise. 

[MustardSeed]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

When it comes down to it, some might say LDS women can leave at anytime, so it's not oppression.

Good point.  We have choices.  For those of us have been in the church our entire lives, there comes a point when if we see a problem, we should do something about it- leaving, even,  if we need to.

IMO there are many people who, in all circumstances of marginalization, never realize that there’s anything wrong. Take children, for example. They live daily in (toxic) families and don’t realize anything is off until they get out into the world and recognize that there are alternatives to the way that they were raised. When we grow up in the church and never leave, it’s not always apparent to us that something is off. i’ve been a member of my whole life, but I had parents who would sit at the dinner table after church and examine out loud problems within the church. They were also very devoted and faithful. But I was raised with a critical eye and learned at a pretty young age, not to take everything at face value. I do not think leader ship would approve. In fact, it probably has a lot to do with why my own children have left the church. I look at my friends whose children have all stayed, and I recognize that there is no dissent. There is no discussion of problems. There is no awareness of imbalance etc.  Everyone is fine with how everything is, and would probably be alarmed by this entire conversation. 
 

Now I’m rambling. The point is, I am not a victim and so I probably shouldn’t act like one. I have a choice to stay or go.