A boycott and a birthday - Women's boycott this Sunday

[pogi]

Has anyone seen/heard of this boycott going around on your social media networks?  I haven't heard about it until now and am guessing not much will come of it, but curious if it has any steam behind it at all.  Report back from your wards if you noticed a smaller women's presence on Sunday (or maybe you won't be there due to the boycott). 

This from the Tribune:

Quote

 

Some Latter-day Saint women have decided they are not going to take last year’s removal of female leaders from the stand at worship services sitting down.

In fact, they’re sitting out, choosing this Sunday, the 182nd anniversary of the founding of the Relief Society, to stay home from church as a way to protest the slight and, as they see it, the global faith’s undervaluing of women.

The thinking is that their invisibility may bring more visibility to the issue. Certainly the absence of women from the two-hour block — depending on how many join the one-day revolt — could make for some, shall we say, interesting services Sunday.

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2024/03/14/latest-mormon-land-will-lds-women/

 

 

I've heard of protests, but I don't know that I have ever seen a church boycott before (unless my memory is failing me).  Doing it on the anniversary of the Relief Society certainly puts an exclamation point on it. 

Do any of you see any more changes coming from more and more women raising women's issues?  I think it made an impact on influencing the decision to have women pray in General Conference meeting.   Is there hope for more positive change, or is removing women from the stand an indicator of what's to come?

[Calm]

There was the wear pants to church day (alternate wear purple iirc, but that could have been tied to Priesthood protests now I think of it) that was supposed to be going on for a few years as a protest, but as far as I could tell other than a couple of articles in the news, nothing really happened (there was no actual rule against wearing pants contrary to the belief of the organizers).

But that probably drove up attendance a bit. I don’t remember any boycotts for just a Sunday. 

Edited March 15 by Calm

[Tacenda]

47 minutes ago, pogi said:

Has anyone seen/heard of this boycott going around on your social media networks?  I haven't heard about it until now and am guessing not much will come of it, but curious if it has any steam behind it at all.  Report back from your wards if you noticed a smaller women's presence on Sunday (or maybe you won't be there due to the boycott). 

This from the Tribune:

 

I've heard of protests, but I don't know that I have ever seen a church boycott before (unless my memory is failing me).  Doing it on the anniversary of the Relief Society certainly puts an exclamation point on it. 

Do any of you see any more changes coming from more and more women raising women's issues?  I think it made an impact on influencing the decision to have women pray in General Conference meeting.   Is there hope for more positive change, or is removing women from the stand an indicator of what's to come?

First thing I thought of is, do they listen to "At Last She Said It" podcast which is a feminist pair of active Latter-day Saint women discussing things like this. Second, I remember a few years ago, the women had a wear paints to church day. Can't remember the group these ladies associated with, possibly the Kate Kelly group. 

Edited March 14 by Tacenda

[pogi]

57 minutes ago, Calm said:

There was the wear pants to church day (alternate wear purple) that was supposed to be going on for a few years as a protest, but as far as I could tell other than a couple of articles in the news, nothing really happened (there was no actual rule against wearing pants contrary to the belief of the organizers).

But that probably drove up attendance a bit. I don’t remember any boycotts for just a Sunday. 

I do see so many more women feeling comfortable and confident wearing pants to church now, even the temple (gasp!), so if nothing else, it helped change the culture.  It's not even seen as rebellious anymore, so that is good.    

[pogi]

52 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

First thing I thought of is, do they listen to "At Last She Said It" podcast which is a feminist pair of active Latter-day Saint women discussing things like this. Second, I remember a few years ago, the women had a wear paints to church day. Can't remember the group these ladies associated with, possibly the Kate Kelly group. 

My wife got me hooked on At Last She Said it.  I really like those ladies! 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Has anyone seen/heard of this boycott going around on your social media networks?  I haven't heard about it until now and am guessing not much will come of it, but curious if it has any steam behind it at all.  Report back from your wards if you noticed a smaller women's presence on Sunday (or maybe you won't be there due to the boycott). 

This from the Tribune:

 

I've heard of protests, but I don't know that I have ever seen a church boycott before (unless my memory is failing me).  Doing it on the anniversary of the Relief Society certainly puts an exclamation point on it. 

Do any of you see any more changes coming from more and more women raising women's issues?  I think it made an impact on influencing the decision to have women pray in General Conference meeting.   Is there hope for more positive change, or is removing women from the stand an indicator of what's to come?

I haven't heard of this until right now.  I can't imagine that it will be much of anything in my ward.  It seems weird to me to do a boycott on a sunday when there isn't RS, but I get they are doing it on the RS birthday.

[MustardSeed]

Never hear of it, it won’t make a dent in my ward.  
 

I grew weary of At Last.  After a year of listening to complaining I traded it in for The Moth.  

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Has anyone seen/heard of this boycott going around on your social media networks?  I haven't heard about it until now and am guessing not much will come of it, but curious if it has any steam behind it at all.  Report back from your wards if you noticed a smaller women's presence on Sunday (or maybe you won't be there due to the boycott). 

This from the Tribune:

 

I've heard of protests, but I don't know that I have ever seen a church boycott before (unless my memory is failing me).  Doing it on the anniversary of the Relief Society certainly puts an exclamation point on it. 

Do any of you see any more changes coming from more and more women raising women's issues?  I think it made an impact on influencing the decision to have women pray in General Conference meeting.   Is there hope for more positive change, or is removing women from the stand an indicator of what's to come?

I haven't seen this going around on social media networks. I think there is always hope for positive change, and the insight gained from sacrament meeting attendance is a great way to identify and nourish hope in the Lord's will.

If I understand the local origin of this particular practice and ending it, I think any traditional, local gesture of inclusion might have to be reconsidered as local character changes or when it assumes a different message.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Never hear of it, it won’t make a dent in my ward.  
 

I grew weary of At Last.  After a year of listening to complaining I traded it in for The Moth.  

I'll look into The Moth, I like to listen to podcasts but wish I was more a listener to music like I use to be. Trying to branch out to find some other than LDS related ones. Good to know!

[Calm]

22 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Can't remember the group these ladies associated with, possibly the Kate Kelly group. 

It was the group before Kate Kelly and Ordain Women, All Alike or something like that (too lazy to look it up) iirc. 

One of my big problems with Kelly, believing it was for her more personal aggrandizement than desire to help women in general in the Church is because she said she didn’t do the pant thing because she didn’t like to wear pants…Iow, she couldn’t be bothered to just do it one day for a couple of hours for the principle, which makes it seem like she wasn’t that invested in that principle, contrary to her claims. Her refusing to contribute a chapter to the history of Ordain Women, which would have driven their fundraising book sales way up as she was the only well known one for some bizarre reason, when she wouldn’t personally benefit from it and was refused control over it was another checkmark on the side of not so devoted advocate after all for me. 

Edited March 15 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

36 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'll look into The Moth, I like to listen to podcasts but wish I was more a listener to music like I use to be. Trying to branch out to find some other than LDS related ones. Good to know!

It’s not LDS-  but just interesting stories.  Let me add a link for a recent favorite 

[MustardSeed]

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-moth/id275699983?i=1000645535056
 

very uplifting episode.

[MustardSeed]

Sorry to digress- 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

there was no actual rule against wearing pants contrary to the belief of the organizers

There are many many unwritten rules that people observe. https://emp.byui.edu/ANDERSONR/itc/Teachings/chapter2/The_Unwritten_Order_of_Things.htm
 

 

[Calm]

19 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

There are many many unwritten rules that people observe. https://emp.byui.edu/ANDERSONR/itc/Teachings/chapter2/The_Unwritten_Order_of_Things.htm
 

 

Yep and that is how they ended up approaching it. It wasn’t a bad idea, imo, it just would have been a bit more credible that they were heavily involved in church and had done their homework beforehand (which would be a signal they took it seriously***) if they had approached it as symbolic at the beginning rather than give the Church a way out if addressing it imo.  The Church leadership had the advantage on that one. 
 

***Added much later:  I understand the excitement of coming up with an idea when they were probably brainstorming and wanting to get going on it right away while the excitement was peaking, so it never occurred to them to doublecheck if it was actually policy or not.  In some ways, it is very appropriate that it happened this way because it is often the unwritten rules that are more suppressive/oppressive for members in the Church than the written ones, such as certain so-called modesty policies that go to the extreme when it’s not mandated by church headquarters’ policies.

Edited March 15 by Calm

[JustAnAustralian]

First I remember seeing about this (or the author) was her opinion piece in the Trib a few days ago.

I don't expect to see much here. I don't hear or see any conversation of that style in either the corridors or the ward RS facebook page. My guess is that the general ebb and flow of people attending/visiting family outside the ward will have a larger effect than the proposed protest.

 

I do find it funny that her solution to "girls don't see enough women" is "girls now see even less women".

Edited March 15 by JustAnAustralian

[The Nehor]

I still know women who try to enforce the “no pants on women” thing. They generally don’t have the power to do much about it and most of them will be dead in the next ten years.

[Tacenda]

43 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

First I remember seeing about this (or the author) was her opinion piece in the Trib a few days ago.

I don't expect to see much here. I don't hear or see any conversation of that style in either the corridors or the ward RS facebook page. My guess is that the general ebb and flow of people attending/visiting family outside the ward will have a larger effect than the proposed protest.

 

I do find it funny that her solution to "girls don't see enough women" is "girls now see even less women".

Yes, there's a better way than this I would think. But hey, bottom up! Maybe this Tribune article will get in the hands of the first presidency.

[smac97]

21 hours ago, pogi said:

Has anyone seen/heard of this boycott going around on your social media networks? 

A quick googling shows a thread on exmormon Reddit, which includes these comments:

"Is this lacking visibility and fanfare? I have not heard anything about it until now from anywhere including the TBM space. Or is it by design so MFMC have no way to prepare for it?" 

("MFMC" is apparently a new acronym for "Mother F&^%$*&^ Mormon Church.")

"I tried to get info on it by reaching out to various groups a few weeks ago and no one knew anything about it. I just came across this update yesterday. There doesn’t seem to be any publicity really.."

Also, John Dehlin is publicizing it on Instagram:

Quote

A faithful Mormon woman (Kierstyn Kremer Howes) is leading a church boycott for faithful Mormon women this Sunday. I sincerely hope that: 1) LDS women rise to their own power within the Mormon church, and 2) that they don’t excommunicate Kierstyn.

John is also advertising this on Facebook:

Quote

A faithful Mormon woman (Kierstyn Kremer Howes) is leading a church boycott for faithful Mormon women this Sunday. I sincerely hope that: 1) LDS women rise to their own power within the Mormon church, and 2) that they don't excommunicate Kierstyn.

Please spread the word. Time is short.

Her project is being endorsed and advertised for free by John Dehlin.

So . . . the Tribune, John Dehlin and the Ex-Mormon subreddit.  Not the best lineup for marketing an event to "faithful" Latter-day Saint women.

21 hours ago, pogi said:

I haven't heard about it until now and am guessing not much will come of it, but curious if it has any steam behind it at all. 

Not much, I think.

21 hours ago, pogi said:

I've heard of protests, but I don't know that I have ever seen a church boycott before (unless my memory is failing me).  Doing it on the anniversary of the Relief Society certainly puts an exclamation point on it. 

I read her article in the Tribune.  She's taking a publicly adversarial / in-your-face approach:

• "This past December, I suggested women in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should stay home from church March 17 as a way to highlight the crucial, yet consistently undervalued, role we play in the faith."
• "I will stay home March 17."
• "I’ll email my bishop to let him know I opted out of church to bring attention to the struggles women in our church are experiencing, including myself. I plan on sharing some of my own experiences, as well as some ways I think we can better represent women in our church."
• "This testimony meeting would be a great time to share your experiences as a woman in the church and your hopes that the church will work to improve the lives of Latter-day Saint women."
• "I suggest that, on March 17, we use #JesusChristisRelief to send a message to the First Presidency."

We've seen this sort of rhetoric before.  Dehlin, Kelly, Young, Snuffer, Calderwoods, Runnells, Helfer-Parker, and so on.  They all essentially courted confrontation with the Church.  Deliberately.  Intentionally.  They provoked discipline.  They demanded it.  They publicized and sensationalized and sensationalized their disputes with the Church.

I hope she reconsiders her posture.  Hijacking testimony meetings and hashtags is not the way to go.  Encouraging members of the Church to deliberately disobey the commandments is not the way to go.

21 hours ago, pogi said:

Do any of you see any more changes coming from more and more women raising women's issues?  I think it made an impact on influencing the decision to have women pray in General Conference meeting.   Is there hope for more positive change, or is removing women from the stand an indicator of what's to come?

The RS presidency sitting on the stand during Sacrament Meeting does not seem to make much sense.  They are not there to preside or participate or speak.  And if they are there for "representation," then that rationalization applies to all presidencies in the ward, of which there are a lot.  Does it make sense for all those presidencies to also sit on the stand in the name of "representation"?  It seems not.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 15 by smac97

[smac97]

19 hours ago, Tacenda said:

First thing I thought of is, do they listen to "At Last She Said It" podcast which is a feminist pair of active Latter-day Saint women discussing things like this. Second, I remember a few years ago, the women had a wear paints to church day. Can't remember the group these ladies associated with, possibly the Kate Kelly group. 

I was serving as my ward's bishop during the "Wear Pants to Church" protest.  I was aware of the protest ahead of time.  We had one sister in the ward, a newly-married woman, who wore pants on that Sunday.  She did not speak or act out in any untoward way, and I felt no need to say or do anything about it.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

It was the group before Kate Kelly and Ordain Women, All Alike or something like that (too lazy to look it up) iirc. 

One of my big problems with Kelly, believing it was for her more personal aggrandizement than desire to help women in general in the Church is because she said she didn’t do the pant thing because she didn’t like to wear pants…Iow, she couldn’t be bothered to just do it for the principle, which makes it seem like she wasn’t that invested in that principle, contrary to her claims. Her refusing to contribute a chapter to the history of Ordain Women, which would have driven their sales way up as she was the only well known one for some bizarre reason, when she wouldn’t personally benefit from it and was refused control over it was another checkmark on the side of not so devoted advocate after all for me. 

Personal aggrandizement seems like a common element of the I'm-going-to-make-some-noise-on-my-way-out-style activism we've seen.  Part of this may arise from the realization that activists recognize that they have more social cachet, both inside and outside the Church, when they are "maverick" members than after they are excommunicated.   Of those who have used these methods (Dehlin, Kelly, Snuffer, Young, Reel, Runnells, Helfer-Parker, etc.), it seems like only Dehlin has been able to maintain his 15 minutes (perhaps Snuffer as well, though I think he actually may be less into the self aggrandizement thing).

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A quick googling shows a thread on exmormon Reddit, which includes these comments:

"Is this lacking visibility and fanfare? I have not heard anything about it until now from anywhere including the TBM space. Or is it by design so MFMC have no way to prepare for it?" 

("MFMC" is apparently a new acronym for "Mother F&^%$*&^ Mormon Church.")

"I tried to get info on it by reaching out to various groups a few weeks ago and no one knew anything about it. I just came across this update yesterday. There doesn’t seem to be any publicity really.."

Also, John Dehlin is publicizing it on Instagram:

John is also advertising this on Facebook:

Her project is being endorsed and advertised for free by John Dehlin.

So . . . the Tribune, John Dehlin and the Ex-Mormon subreddit.  Not the best lineup for marketing an event to "faithful" Latter-day Saint women.

Not much, I think.

I read her article in the Tribune.  She's taking a publicly adversarial / in-your-face approach:

• "This past December, I suggested women in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should stay home from church March 17 as a way to highlight the crucial, yet consistently undervalued, role we play in the faith."
• "I will stay home March 17."
• "I’ll email my bishop to let him know I opted out of church to bring attention to the struggles women in our church are experiencing, including myself. I plan on sharing some of my own experiences, as well as some ways I think we can better represent women in our church."
• "This testimony meeting would be a great time to share your experiences as a woman in the church and your hopes that the church will work to improve the lives of Latter-day Saint women."
• "I suggest that, on March 17, we use #JesusChristisRelief to send a message to the First Presidency."

We've seen this sort of rhetoric before.  Dehlin, Kelly, Young, Snuffer, Calderwoods, Runnells, Helfer-Parker, and so on.  They all essentially courted confrontation with the Church.  Deliberately.  Intentionally.  They provoked discipline.  They demanded it.  They publicized and sensationalized and sensationalized their disputes with the Church.

I hope she reconsiders her posture.  Hijacking testimony meetings and hashtags is not the way to go.  Encouraging members of the Church to deliberately disobey the commandments is not the way to go.

The RS presidency sitting on the stand during Sacrament Meeting does not seem to make much sense.  They are not there to preside or participate or speak.  And if they are there for "representation," then that rationalization applies to all presidencies in the ward, of which there are a lot.  Does it make sense for all those presidencies to also sit on the stand in the name of "representation"?  It seems not.

Thanks,

-Smac

I struggle to believe that Dehlin hopes I "rise to my own power within the Mormon church".

And I agree with you that if this is something that the organizer wants 'faithful' latter-day saint women to get behind in mass, it's a mistake to make it so palatable to mormon critics.   That's going to turn a lot of faithful women off right from the start.

I also wonder if she's referring to the testimony meeting that the worldwide church is going to be holding on Sunday night for RS women in honor of the organization's birthday?  The testimony meeting will not be worldwide as I understand it but rather something held in wards and stakes (who choose to gather) after the broadcast is over.  Speaking personally, I would struggle to maintain good feelings towards any sister who hijacked the meeting for that purpose unless she could do it in a way that keep her words focused on testifying of the Savior and His gospel.

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I struggle to believe that Dehlin hopes I "rise to my own power within the Mormon church".

Could you clarify?  What are you quoting here?

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And I agree with you that if this is something that the organizer wants 'faithful' latter-day saint women to get behind in mass, it's a mistake to make it so palatable to mormon critics.   That's going to turn a lot of faithful women off right from the start.

And yet we see this methodology over and over again.  Helfer-Parker, for example, surely knew that the adversarial, nigh-unto-scorched-earth approach would not persuade many (if any) not already on her "side," but she did it anyway.  So did Kelly.  So did Young.  And Reel.  And Runnells.  It's almost as if their target audience is not run-of-the-mill "faithful" Latter-day Saints, but rather disaffected and/or former Latter-day Saints.  Perhaps they are also attempting to persuade Latter-day Saints who are still exercising faith, but who are struggling with it in one way or another.  The thing is, though, that whatever "influence" the Kelly / Young / Reel approach may have on these folks, it's almost certainly not going to be in the direction of strengthening and stabilizing faith in and devotion to the Restored Gospel.

Whom do you think is Howes' intended audience?

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I also wonder if she's referring to the testimony meeting that the worldwide church is going to be holding on Sunday night for RS women in honor of the organization's birthday?  The testimony meeting will not be worldwide as I understand it but rather something held in wards and stakes (who choose to gather) after the broadcast is over. 

Apparently so:

Quote

This past December, I suggested women in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should stay home from church March 17 as a way to highlight the crucial, yet consistently undervalued, role we play in the faith. I selected that particular day because it would be the 182nd anniversary of the founding of the Relief Society and if any group in our church deserves some relief, it’s the women.

A month later, the church announced a Worldwide Relief Society Devotional and Testimony Meeting to be held March 17 to “commemorate the purpose and founding of the Relief Society.” Coincidence? Perhaps.

The "Coincidence?  Perhaps" implication is . . . unlikely.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Speaking personally, I would struggle to maintain good feelings towards any sister who hijacked the meeting for that purpose unless she could do it in a way that keep her words focused on testifying of the Savior and His gospel.

Here is what she is advocating:

Quote

Attend the Devotional and Testimony Meeting

Women ages 18 and over are invited to gather to watch a prerecorded message from church President Russell M. Nelson and the Relief Society General Presidency after which “women will have the opportunity to participate in a testimony meeting.”

This testimony meeting would be a great time to share your experiences as a woman in the church and your hopes that the church will work to improve the lives of Latter-day Saint women.

Send a Message

A lot of women reached out to me after I published my first article. I heard a lot of stories of women being belittled, maligned, insulted and ignored. I heard a lot of concerns about raising daughters in an environment that so obviously favors sons. I heard a lot of heartbreak. Even women who didn’t feel the same way as I did acknowledged there is a problem.

Many women told me, “This is why I left.”

These are stories that need to be heard.

In the announcement for the devotional, women are encouraged to use the hashtag #JesusChristisRelief to share testimony and connect globally with other sisters on the day of the broadcast.

We know that the eyes of the governing First Presidency and the Relief Society General Presidency will be on that hashtag to see what women share. I suggest that, on March 17, we use #JesusChristisRelief to send a message to the First Presidency. We can tell them the stories we’ve been sharing among ourselves. We can tell them why we decided to stay home from church that day. We can share the ways in which we’d like to see our church become a more equitable place, which include:

• Allowing women to sit in the stands.

• Allowing women to hold their babies in blessing circles.

• Requiring that women be part of disciplinary councils involving other women.

• Adding more artwork of women in our church buildings.

• Instating a female Sunday school president or a male Primary president.

• Using more quotes from female leaders in church lessons.

Many of these ideas come from Neylan McBaine’s “Women at Church: Magnifying LDS Woman’s Local Impact,” so perhaps include a recommendation for that book in your outreach.

Send leaders the message that, while we appreciate the celebration, what we would really like is some parity.

I know it can be scary to speak up or step out of line at church. But to quote Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and Latter-day Saint Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, “Well-behaved women seldom make history.”

However you chose to observe the 182nd anniversary of the founding of the Relief Society, I hope you have a happy March 17.

"This testimony meeting would be a great time to share your experiences as a woman" (but not in relation to testifying of Jesus Christ)

"Send a Message" (but not about Jesus Christ)

"I suggest that, on March 17, we use #JesusChristisRelief to send a message to the First Presidency" (but not in relation to testifying of Jesus Christ)

So she does indeed seem to be encouraging others to hijack the testimony meeting and the hashtag.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 15 by smac97

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Could you clarify?  What are you quoting here?

And yet we see this methodology over and over again.  Helfer-Parker, for example, surely knew that the adversarial, nigh-unto-scorched-earth approach would not persuade many (if any) not already on her "side," but she did it anyway.  So did Kelly.  So did Young.  And Reel.  And Runnells.  It's almost as if their target audience is not run-of-the-mill "faithful" Latter-day Saints, but rather disaffected and/or former Latter-day Saints.  Perhaps they are also attempting to persuade Latter-day Saints who are still exercising faith, but who are struggling with it in one way or another.  The thing is, though, that whatever "influence" the Kelly / Young / Reel approach may have on these folks, it's almost certainly not going to be in the direction of strengthening and stabilizing faith in and devotion to the Restored Gospel.

Whom do you think is Howes' intended audience?

Apparently so:

The "Coincidence?  Perhaps" implication is . . . unlikely.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

Here is what she is advocating:

"This testimony meeting would be a great time to share your experiences as a woman" (but not in relation to testifying of Jesus Christ)

"Send a Message" (but not about Jesus Christ)

"I suggest that, on March 17, we use #JesusChristisRelief to send a message to the First Presidency" (but not in relation to testifying of Jesus Christ)

So she does indeed seem to be encouraging others to hijack the testimony meeting and the hashtag.

Thanks,

-Smac

I was quoting your quote of Dehlin. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

23 hours ago, pogi said:

Report back from your wards if you noticed a smaller women's presence on Sunday

Action item taken.