Encouraging and empathic words from a cheerful and respected spiritual leader, delivered with a European accent–what’s not to love, right?
I don’t doubt Uchtdorf’s sincerity–or the fact that many women in the church needed this message (because many women do, in fact, feel like forget-me-nots).
I’m referring to President Uchtdorf’s recent talk in the General Relief Society Meeting a few weeks ago.
When I read a summary of the talk, I cringed. Wasn’t there anyone close to President Uchtdorf who could have tapped him on the shoulder and warned him against comparing women to forget-me-not flowers, no matter how well-intentioned?
As I read some of the positive personal reactions to his talk, I asked myself this question: “As a representative of the church, does Uchtdorf deserve credit for at least acknowledging the effect the patriarchal weight of the church often has on women?” After all, this is an institution that in the year 2011 does not allow women to pray from the pulpit in its semiannual general conferences. In a recent book published by the church on the “history and work” of the Relief Society, an entire chapter (out of a total of 10) is devoted to explaining that the organization functions under the direction of the priesthood (i.e. under the direction of male leaders in the church). Another entire chapter (again, out of 10) is devoted to explaining that a woman’s place is in the home (i.e. women are the “guardians of the hearth”), where according to the Family Proclamation, the husband presides. As my wife has observed on more than one occasion, the church is one of the few places she frequents where the word “patriarchy” is generally used with a positive connotation. Some might argue that it’s a benevolent patriarchy. . . Benevolent or not, though, it’s a patriarchy.
So why do women sometimes feel like forget-me-nots? Is that a rhetorical question? It’s like Uchtdorf is a nice kid sent over by the school bully to apologize for any adverse effects women may be experiencing from being stuffed upside down into trash cans and having their lunch money stolen. It’s nice of him to come over and make nice–but what women really need is to be able to walk down the hall without worrying about whether or not it’s their day to be duct-taped to the flagpole in their underwear.
I came across this rant by an individual who shall remain anonymous. If I were a women listening to this talk, I think I would have reacted the same way.
I didn’t watch any of General Conference this year–first time ever to not partake. But I heard a lot of people talking about how much they loved Uchtdorf’s talk, “Forget Me Not.” I just watched a few minutes–beginning at 16:20 until maybe 18:00.
http://lds.org/general-conference/2011/10/forget-me-not?lang=eng
Here’s part of that clip:
“You are not forgotten. Sisters, wherever you are, whatever your circumstances may be, you are not forgotten. No matter how dark your days may seem, no matter how insignificant you may feel, no matter how overshadowed you think you may be, your Heavenly Father has not forgotten you. In fact, He loves you with an infinite love.”
and this:
“It is my prayer and blessing that you will never forget that you are truly precious daughters in God’s kingdom.”
Uchtdorf’s the best of what we’ve got. On the one hand, I see why so many women LOVED this talk. Me? I don’t like it.
I don’t like being told how I’m like a little forget-me-not flower. And I don’t like being told that God has not forgotten me. Hello–I’ve never thought God forgot me. I’ve never felt insignificant or overshadowed by GOD. It’s the CHURCH and its LEADERS that are forgetting/neglecting/ignoring us.
It makes me rabidly mad to hear one of the top three leaders of our church attempting to make women feel better by telling us that God has not forgotten us. What I’d like to hear is what THEY are doing to make it so that talks like this never need to be delivered. Don’t talk to me about God. And don’t tell me you’re talking to God for me. I can do that for myself.
CHANGE WHAT YOU ARE DOING THAT MAKES WOMEN FEEL INSIGNIFICANT AND FORGOTTEN AND LIKE STUPID LITTLE FLOWERS. CHANGE THE POLICIES. USE YOUR PROPHETIC MANTLE TO GET UP IN GENERAL CONFERENCE, GODDAMMIT, AND TELL EVERYONE THAT YOU ARE GOING TO CHANGE A POLICY. TEN POLICIES. LET A WOMAN GIVE A GODDAMN PRAYER ALREADY. LET FEMALE CHURCH MEMBERS BE IN CHARGE OF THEIR OWN GODDAMN MEETINGS. STOP TELLING MEN THAT THEY PRESIDE IN THE HOME. REVISE THE FAMILY PROCLAMATION SO THAT IT DOESN’T USE STUPID-ASS LANGUAGE LIKE “PRESIDE” WHILE YOU TRY TO CONVINCE PEOPLE THAT “PRESIDE” INFERS “EQUALITY.” STOP TELLING WOMEN WHAT TO WEAR. AND STOP TELLING YOUNG WOMEN THAT THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE YOUNG MEN’S SEXUAL BEHAVIOR.
But PLEASE, for the love of God, don’t tell us that God hasn’t forgotten us. We’re not that small. Or stupid.
[Next week we may finally get to a list of the best conference talks ever (for Open Mormon types)–the companion post to 10 A Mormon in the Cheap Seats: The Worst Talks Ever].
[Last Post: 13 My Journey to the Cheap Seats (Guest)]
I have to admit, although I like Uchtdorf generally, her response really resonated with me. The whole “you aren’t forgotten” is nice in a way, but it’s also like a kid yelling to his parents upstairs, “I’m not taking any cookies from the jar!” – the parents go, “huh? We weren’t assuming you were. But now we wonder…”
Should I take this as another example of how clueless the GAs are over how their policies affect people? The very fact that Uchtdorf would think this would come across as a positive, reassurring message makes me think I should answer, “Yes!”
Second that rant. Real change would be worth more than 100,000 words. But I don’t think Uchtdorf has the power, so instead he tries to do what he has the power to do, only he doesn’t really have the power to make us feel better either, at least not me. I have felt forgotten by God before, like I missed signing up for something. What helps me out of that is a reminder of my strength and power, not a reminder that I’m still pretty even though I have no power.
Every year I’m jealous of the priesthood session (I realize I’m romanticizing what happens there, it’s mostly a “don’t do porn” session, but there’s a different vibe). They never tell men how sweet and remembered they are, they tell them to get in gear and be better. I’m not a huge fan of the guilt approach, but I find it so much more inspiring to see the potential in people than to pat them on the head.
FWIW – I actually liked the things he reminded us not to forget, particularly the idea of being happy now and remembering the difference between a wise and foolish sacrifice.
Why as members of the church do we think our leaders are suppose to have a perfect understanding of everyone’s pain? Isn’t that Christ’s job? You are placing judgement on Uchtdorf because you think he should understand perfectly the way you feel…a person he’s mostly likely never met. Goodness my husband can’t even do that for me. What I heard from the talk was that he’s trying to say that he’s aware this is an issue and he’s trying to reach out to you in the way he knows how. Can he make it go away right now? No, but he’s trying to get us all on fair playing ground so that we can work this out. Good job taking something good and bringing out the bad. That is very uplifting very encouraging. It’s also very generous of you to point out to everyone how idiotic (no I think you called them stupid) they are for finding peace and comfort in the address. It’s an example I’m sure many are looking forward to following. But I guess that is to be expected by someone who has been abused. They abuse.
Welcome Apron Appeal. We’re not usually a confrontational-type of blog, and I hope you feel comfortable enough here to stay and chat. I think I understand where you are coming from. I think I can clarify a bit?…
The frustration in the piece seems to have more to do with the Institutional Patriarchy in the church more than with Uchtdorf himself. It’s challenging because one can acknowledge the kindness that Uchtdorf exudes, and see that he really cares – and then scratch our heads and think, “Hm…. LOVE Uchtdorf, but this institutional benevolent Patrarchy thing is backfiring because it’s not helping the situation.” We get a lot of talks like this and for me they feel like I’m being placated, rather than feeling reassured that the brethren are aware of these issues and are in the conference room together trying to find ways to solve the gender equality that exists within the framework of our church. There are a lot of people who feel this way, and the frustration comes from understanding that the leaders can’t understand everyone’s pain, and if we have all men making all of the institutional decisions without asking women what they think – they never will. Good leadership comes from listening to an array of voices, not an echo chamber. When I realize this, it makes me sad – because I lose hope that the church will ever evolve into a place of equality- a place where I feel I can reach the measure of my creation.
I know it seems like ranting and negativity, especially when criticism is pointed at someone like Uchtdorf. But the lack of equality and strong presence of Patriarchy is something that keeps getting swept under the rug, and we as women (or equalists) have no power to change it, because of said structure. So it seems that intelligent and thoughtful rants on a blog are one way of being heard and hoping that our logic, along with the sentiment from others concerned about this, makes it’s way in whisper form all the way to the COB until someone hears it. Or, in the case of all caps in the OP above, in yell form. Sometimes we yell, because the whisper isn’t being heard. Sometimes yelling until we’re heard is the MOST kind thing we can do, for a church we love.
Brent – this sentence jumped out at me as pure brilliance. I think it says it all: ” As my wife has observed on more than one occasion, the church is one of the few places she frequents where the word “patriarchy” is generally used with a positive connotation.”
The power in this woman’s response to Uchtdorf’s talk is palpable. I love it. For God’s sake we have to concede that “preside” doesn’t carry the connotation of “equality.” What a bunch of malarkey. To be fair I didn’t listen to Elder Uchtdorf’s talk, but I really love writing that doesn’t pull punches and I think the person quoted here really says some important and accurate things.
To be fair I don’t really trust you as this is my first time reading your blog and you’ve just insulted me as one of the stupid who liked the talk :) So I’m not really sure if you are insulting me further or agreeing with me to some extent. BUT rather than get too defensive to quickly and start misinterpreting your message all over the place I’m going to ask for some clarification (because remember I’m…well I don’t prefer to call myself stupid, but I will recognize that I’m slow. Stupid seems to indicate I’m incapable of thought and reason and slow just means I’m capable but, you know it takes me a while) Are you saying you do like what i wrote because I didn’t pull punches or you DON’T like what I wrote because I did pull punches? And if your comment was in reference to something else, when then…I’ll now accept the title “stupid” It’s always fun to try to understand how others interpret your words whether written or spoken isn’t it?
Apron, I think Sterling was commenting on the response of the woman who was quoted in the OP, not your comment. Just a guess. ;)
However, I do think it’s important to recognize, as you’ve pointed out here, that this talk is valuable for women who feel depressed or distanced from God. Not every talk is for everyone. Some GCs I only find one or two that are meaningful to me while I find many more that I am just not the intended audience.
I agree, hawkgrrrl. This talk really resonated with a lot of women.
Uchtdorf is totally clueless. He loves to speak in poorly-rooted analogies. This “forget-me-not” speech reminds me to his new book, “Happily Ever After” in which he compares women to fairy-tale characters. Does he spend his time just thinking of to what he can compare women next?
Major cringe on the fairy tales characters–unless Mulan was in the mix??! ;)
“As a representative of the church, does Uchtdorf deserve credit for at least acknowledging the effect the patriarchal weight of the church often has on women?”
My take: No. I don’t see any apology or acknowledgment of the effects of patriarchy in what he said. I don’t think it was his intent to address that at all (which is not to say he isn’t addressing other real yet different issues). Personally, I don’t hear a lot of complaining about women being forgotten. Rather what I hear most is that we are being mistreated. Neglect could very well fall into that category. But I don’t hear a call to remember us, just to treat us fairly and equally. So, like the individual you quoted, I don’t think he’s either intently or even necessarily inadvertently addressing effects of the patriarchy.
I don’t know, maybe that is his interpretation of how feminists feel, forgotten, neglected, unhappy, held up to impossible standards. Then again maybe he is just reaching the conclusion that these are issues for the general woman population of the Church. He never addresses why he thinks these are issues, just assumes that they are. So no, I don’t think credit is due for acknowledging or apologizing when that never happened.
This: “maybe that is his interpretation of how feminists feel, forgotten, neglected, unhappy, held up to impossible standards.” is a great interpretation. And it plays into the whole stereotype of feminists being bitter and angry.
Were you to have the sisters actively participating in all aspects of church organization and leadership, this talk would have been unnecessary and absurd.
The church still maintaining a salary policy unfair to women teachers at BYU is particularly irksome. (“Are you honest and fair in your business dealings?”) I would love to see women employees of the church file a class action suit similar to the one filed against Walmart.
I think that was the point of the post–talks like this shouldn’t need to be given. If it’s true that so many women feel small and forgotten and neglected, is it at least *possible* that something the church is doing is contributing to those feelings???
Apron, I don’t expect perfect understanding from anyone, let alone the leaders. But how about “some” understanding? This speech shows next to none. In fact, it seems to show misunderstanding, to suggest that such an approch whould do much of anything to help women feel better about themselves.
If Uchtdorf is offering anything to the women of the church, it’s crumbs off the table. Now, Apron, I don’t think you’re stupid if this talk appealed to you. But I do wonder if it appealed to you because you’re a gung-ho apologist for the church who is delighted to praise even crumbs off the table–anything to counteract criticism of the church or its leaders.
I’m tired of crumbs . . .
There are so many wonderful things about Mormonism. The patriarchy is not one of them. The more I try to reconcile myself with the idea that this is how “God organized the church”, the more I realize the god I believe in would never create such an organization for his children. It is frustrating to say the least, but it will never change. I can change, however, so that is my angle. I simply don’t fret over this issue anymore, and my relationship with the church is much more personal, and certainly more modified than what is presented by “the brethren”. If they wanted to at least maybe try and create some equality, starting by letting women pray in GC from time to time would help….as well as having a relief society general meeting as often as they have priesthood (every conference, instead of every other conference), and having the prophet himself speak to the women every time, as he does to the priesthood every time. Maybe if they tried showing we are as “important” as the men, we may start to believe that they believe it. I already believe it, but their actions show their ideas are otherwise.
Nice comment, Kamisaki. I agree–SHOW that we are as important instead of just telling us that we are.
I like how you put it, “THere are so many wonderful things about Mormonism. The patriarchy is not one of them.” and “I can change”… both encapsulate my sentiment.
I think the way things are are a great demonstration – a showing – of what is going on subconsciously through the culture of Mormonism. We get so used to the inequality that it feels normal, it even feels benevolent. Yet, it’s there. I like the thought that “Love is a verb.” We prove the existence of our beliefs through our actions. I’m tired of crumbs too, and no amount of prayers “allowed” at general conference makes up for what is lacking to achieve true equality within the LDS culture.
but it is soooo much easier just to say it. . . actually doing anything about it requires change
Apron Appeal said, ” But i guess that’s to be expected by someone who has been abused. They abuse.” I’ve always prided myself on the fact that you could hold a gun to my head and you would have to pull the trigger and kill me before you could force me to abuse a child. I know firsthand the physical and emotional pain to have to overcome and could never repeat that onto a child. But you’ve just told me in no uncertain terms how that’s not true at all. WOW!!
I haven’t been that astounded by a fellow Mormon since Richard Scott’s talk about how the victim must own some of the responsibility for their abuse. That one must have made a huge impact on you, too, but 180 degrees from where a victim like me would take from it.
Consider yourself very blessed to be able to make such a harsh blanket judgment about something which you have obviously not had the pleasure of experiencing firsthand. again, WOW!
Part of me thinks this is a “taking offense where none is intended” situation. Why do we pounce on our leaders as we do? He meant well.
Part of me wants to write him and ask him why women don’t pray in conference and why it’s not appropriate for women to open a sacrament meeting with prayer.
annegb, I’d love for you to write him a letter. I think all of us should write a letter and ask about this policy (or X number of similarly marginalizing policies).
However, they’ve explicitly told us that if we send a letter to them, they will simply re-route it back to our local leaders. And thus the circle remains closed. We have no mechanism/means through which to even ask a question of anyone other than local leaders.
Another blog post of people taking things out of context. Must we always look for the bad in everything? That is the main problem here if you ask me.
And @Annegb…I have said the opening prayer in my sacrament meeting so take that up with your bishop.
Legimitate criticism is not “pouncing on our leaders.” Yet in the Mormon mindset, it is. That’s because the leaders have fostered this environment of defining any criticism, no matter how valid, as somehow evil. Yet when legitimate criticism is squelched within ANYTHING involving humans, the result is a virtual guarantee of abuse of authority. The Mormon Church is a vivid example of this phenomenon.
“He meant well” is one of the feeblest defenses of an action. That’s why the saying “The road to hell is paved with good intentions” exists. People (women) being ignored, forgotten, devalued, etc., need something more substantial than, “He meant well.”
I have to say the “rant” didn’t resonate with me nor did the post really resonate with me. :) I understand the issue here, and I do agree that of course actions often speak louder than words. But I find the judgement here incredibly harsh.
First of all, while many women in the Church may feel insignificant, I don’t think that it’s merely or mainly because of how the Church treats them (and I think the majority of women in the Church who think all is well in Zion, would be agree). Considering that Elder Uchtdorf is probably trying to reach the majority of his audience, and not the minority, this is what he’s addressing. He’s speaking to women of a particular mindset. Sure, that may not be how we view things – we may not feel that God has forgotten us, or that we need encouragement. We feel we know where the problems lies and what needs to be done. And Elder Uchtdorf refuses to do it. But maybe that isn’t the case. Insecurities are rampant in society, regardless of religious denomination. You can easily feel useless, overseen, and insignificant, even if you’re a working, athestic mother (or single lady).
I think what Elder Uchtdorf address has a vast application, and it’s just upsetting to one certain audience because, well, we still don’t get to pray. True. And it’s lame. But I think tainting every good message because of our frustrations leaves you unable to enjoy anything anymore.
Flower comparisons, of course, are crappy. But who knows. A lot of women may like it. And as it goes, a lot of women DID like his talk. And some didn’t. And so it goes. Not everything is for everyone. And we certainly don’t know what Elder Uchtdorf is trying to get done behind closed doors for the women of the Church. Maybe he’s been petitioning and asking to let women pray. Maybe everyone else said no. Who.freakin.knows. Nobody. But in the meantime, lets shred him to pieces because we’ve decided that all of our insecurities stem from one source only – the patriarchy of the Church.
P.S. I’m not a fan of inequality, and there’s plenty that rubs me the wrong way on a regular basis. I just wish we could also give others the benefit of the doubt, and not just see the bad, when clearly someone is trying to deliver a positive, encouraging message that in essence we don’t oppose. And apparently only oppose because of a crappy comparison and the fact that we think the speaker who wants us to feel good is partially guilty for all our insecurities. Hmph.
And would we really feel all better if all was equal within the Church in terms of who can do what? Is that truly the source of feeling overlooked and insignificant for most people? I don’t actually think so, though it may be a part of it.
Fran, I’m guessing we’re actually not too far in terms of what we think of this talk. ;) I agree that focusing too much on the negative is not helpful. But I wonder whether focusing only on the positive–or framing every issue/talk/lesson/article in the most positive light possible–while ignoring the difficult parts about it . . . is helpful/healthy either. (That was a terrible sentence, but hopefully it’s understandable!)
I think Brent’s objective in these posts, however, is to highlight things that have pushed him away from the field and up towards the “cheap seats.” So he’s not trying to focus on the positive; he’s trying to sort through some of his frustrations. I guess each individual has to judge for him/herself whether engaging in these conversations/topics is helpful/healthy. I’m sure for some people it’s not. I think for some people, it is.
As for me, I think the jury’s still out. ;)
I didn’t understand. Could I have that sentence in German? :) Just kidding.
No, I agree – no need to pretend like everything is just perfect and peachy. That’s gross. But, when I read the rant that was quoted, I don’t feel like it was a balanced approach to the talk. It was, well, a rant.
It’s good to read though what the intent is, and I wasn’t really offended by anything I read. I engage in these discussions “at my own risk”. :) I can always choose to not read something I find unsavory, right?
I was just throwing out my thoughts, and of course, being a bit defense of my fellow German. Haha. :) I think Brent should write about whatever he wants. It’s his corner of the internet, and writing about things is so helpful in sorting things out.
Good luck with that.
And I really can’t type tonight. That would have been atheistic and not athestic…
As for “legitimate criticism”. I think the problem with “legitimate” criticism is that what’s legit and what’s not is in the eye of the beholder. When I’m mad at all the slow drivers in front of me on the road, I feel it’s really legitimate to mention to my husband that they are ignorant, idiotic drivers who should be banned from the streets because they’re a traffic hinderance and safety threat. I find it very legitimate to criticize, but my husband thinks that they may not really know any better, and that they may have a good reason for going slow, and that I should be more patient.
The thing is that with our frustrations, we may often have a valid point, but our criticism may not always be very constructive for ourselves or others, and at times, despite being valid (because I think whenever someone has a concern then it’s valid, because that’s how they feel) not as applicable, important or helpful to the majority of people.
Being able to voice concerns and disagreements within the Church, is important, I think. But I think it could also become an issue when all everyone does is voice their disagreement (read legitimate criticism) all the time. The fact is that none of us are perfect, and we won’t ever be in this life. Crap will happen. Every day. Whether you’re at home, at work, on the street, or at Church. I’d like to think that our big mission is learn to love each other, despite our annoying shortcomings, and blind spots. And give each other the room to grow.
And I think that’s where occasionally some people feel that a “legitimate concern” is “pouncing” – when the reaction seems disproportionately big to the supposed problem/offense, it simply appears a bit heartless. That’s at least how I perceived it.
However, I do this is as well…
P.S. One last thought on wanting the leadership of the Church to “understand and change” stuff. I want that, too. I really do.
But, recently, as I’ve talkedandtalkedandtalkedandtalked with my parents (who are in their 60s) about all kinds of gospel stuff (women and priesthood, inequality, modesty in regards to clothes etc.), I realize no matter how much we talk, no matter how carefully I explain the issues, no matter what – my parents don’t get it. And they’re smart people, who aren’t even as conservative as other Mormons, and they care about me. They want to understand me, and still they don’t get what the problem is and what I’m talking about.
My point: the older you get, the more set you are in your ways. We all adopt a certain way of how we see and look at the world, and some of those mindset are INCREDIBLY hard to change, even when someone listens and tries, they just don’t really understand what you’re saying or where you’re trying to go, and their way of thinking is so different that you just keep talking past each other even though you both speak the same language.
So, sometimes when I get frustrated, I wonder how realistic it really is for me to hope for the things I’m hoping for. It’s easy to assume that they just don’t care, or ask the right things or listen or whatever. But those old guys are all just a product of their lives as well. Dunno…I just get tired of being mad all the time.
Yes, Fran. I also get tired of being mad all the time. And sometimes I wonder what my life would feel like if I weren’t mad/agitated/annoyed all the time (with regard to the church). I’ve never NOT had the church in my life, so I honestly don’t know what that would feel like. It might feel a heckuva lot better. Or it might not. Who knows what I might miss?
And yes–the leaders of the church are very old and are products of their time. That doesn’t help me, right now, though. And it doesn’t help my daughters and son as they grow up in a church that doesn’t live up to a lot of the ideals that I’m trying to instill in them. :(
Well, yes, I realize it doesn’t necessarily help to realize people simply are who they are when there are practices in place that we find problematic and that can/do affect our children. I agree. And I wasn’t trying to suggest to just take comfort in that and be happy.
But, I occasionally get myself to think that if I can teach my kids to not just have this complete trust in authority, and to be thinking, questioning beings, to not be afraid to voice their opinions, and make their own choices, even if they’re the only ones making that choice, and at the same time to realize that people are people, and no one is perfect, and some of the older folks certainly don’t think as we do and it’s hard for them to come around to our way of thinking, just as it may be hard for us to get someone else’s thinking in 30-40 years, …if I can teach them to be compassionate, while not buying into everything fed to them at Church…maybe they’ll be fine. And Church could be an enjoyable place for them.
But then of course you get weird comments about your kid not being modest, and you just want to shoot everyone and run. So, I realize it’s tricky. :)
“I get so tired of being mad all the time.” Me, too. I have to remind myself about Jesus and the Plan of Salvation and figure God’s going to work it out.
Heather, I know. Bugs me no end. Makes me mad. Have to remind myself what I wrote above. And hang in. I’m tired of crumbs, too.
I bet you $25 if Mitt Romney is the candidate for pres, my bishop will change this policy. Whaddya think?
So your bishop seriously won’t allow a woman to open the sacrament meeting? I don’t think that rule’s even in the handbook anymore.
And yeah on the crumbs. And then I think, “Whatever. I can take the crumbs. I’ll get my bread somewhere else, and I do . . .” But what about my kids?? Should I be satisfied with them only getting the crumbs? Gur . . .
Well, it’s complicated. He’s a great guy–young and caring–new to the job. I asked him about it and he said they weren’t doing it on purpose, just they asked couples and that’s how it worked out. I think it’s probably become so ingrained that the ward clerk or whoever asks them assumes the priesthood holder will give the opening prayer. But other wards in my stake do the same thing. I’ve griped about it for years. It started (in my opinion) because some idiot takes every word out of an apostle’s mouth as gospel.
But isn’t that what we’re doing here? Yes, he’s an apostle, but he’s a man. I mean, he didn’t get up in the morning and say “I think I’ll write a talk that’s going to piss off a bunch of women.”
I didn’t care that much about the prayer thing until I wanted to give the opening prayer because it scares me to pray and they wouldn’t let me and it became this huge power struggle. And now I’m a fanatic on the subject.
I think we might see some real change if Mitt runs.
Because I’ve known Brent and Heather for a couple of years now, every now and again I pop in and read the blog and once in blue moon make a comment on D&S (well, I think I did once). I guess that makes me more of a lurker than a community member, but I’ll try to say what I want to say in the spirit of what attempts to be a less confrontational blog – but I may get blasted for saying this, anyway. I have two things to pipe in with.
1) I’m fairly chill about people being in different places in the church. I’ve never seen Brent’s “cheap seats” approach to being Mormon as a big deal – that is how he chooses to do things. For that reason, I have to chime in and say that this post sort of pushed me over the edge about respecting how different people approach the gospel and their membership in the church. I did sort of get the vibe that Apron got that you felt that any woman that liked the talk was clueless. Just like I really don’t like the “my way or the highway” approach of the Levitical set, I don’t really care for it from folks who seem to be saying they want a more open, accepting church. I probably wouldn’t have said anything if I hadn’t gotten the same vibe from you in your column on testimony. It may not be your intention, but sometimes it feels like you’re just the mirror image of a certain ward clerk we know: my way is the best way to “do” Mormonism and the rest of “all y’all” are stupid. It may not be your intent – and I get that. But if our intent is to make a church where we hold our arms open to all… then it even has to be to the “stupid” people that like conference talks.
2) Crumbs. I am aware of the issues of patriarchy in the church and the desire to change things. But (yep, you knew it was coming) I have real issues with insulting and denigrating what women do in the church as a way to highlight that patriarchal system. Crumbs? Anybody that has spent five minutes in a bishopric meeting or Elders quorum should hardly think of the priesthood as the “bread” and Relief Society as “crumbs.” When my mom didn’t go to church for years because she was caring for my handicapped sisterit was the Relief Society that came to our home several times a month to share gospel lessons. When a storm snowed us in it was the RS that walked up our half-mile, snowed-in driveway to check on the family and bring us a gospel message. My first gospel examples were those women and their messages, and that means more to me than any experience I have ever had in the priesthood because those experiences are foundational. Calling the good that can be done with RS “crumbs” is not the way to fight patriarchy in the church. Highlighting the work of the YW president and seminary teacher that shepherded my wife through her childhood in the projects of Boston doesn’t feel like crumbs. The joy and excitement my oldest son has for the scriptures because of his former primary president doesn’t feel like crumbs to me. Hearing my Oliver sing primary songs that Heather taught him because he wants to cheer himself up at a tough moment is not crumbs. My kids have never come home inspired because of a prayer-talk somebody droned on with at conference, but they sure have come home and inspired me with their enthusiasm after primary.
I think ONE key to changing the condescending language and approach the church uses regarding women is to start speaking of what women do in the church as powerful. This is not “blaming the victim” — this is saying that Foucault is right: language has power, and we have to take control of how we speak of what women do in the church. Attack condescending language. Go in and create now orifices in Bishops that relegate the RS to preparing party trays for activities. Crush the ward clerks with the Church Handbook of Instructions and the scriptures when they creepily check out your wife and comment on the “appropriateness of her dress.” Raise your hand in opposition to leaders that make sexist comments. But I kindly request that we not refer to women’s service in the LDS church as crumbs.
Ok, I’ll take my lumps and go back to lurking now.
@Jason D., I hope you come back to read how happy I was to read your comment about Oliver. I dread the Sunday that I get released from Primary because it just may be my last. :( Or if not the last, the beginning of the end. We had our primary program practice today and I told the kids I wanted them to raise the roof on all the songs. And raise it they did. They were so awesome and I was so grateful to have been a tiny part of their enthusiasm.
And since I think I’m the one who started the “crumbs” thing, I feel like I should comment back. I never meant to imply that the work women do at church is crumbs. I’m confident saying that the work I do in primary every Sunday is worth a helluva lot more than someone reading the crappy manual in a high priests group lesson.
But there are just SO MANY ways in which women are marginalized at church, I am just plain running out of steam.
But a genuine thanks for your comment. I’m always glad to read your thoughts.
Heather, I’m sorry that you’ve reached the point where you feel you have nothing more to offer anyone in the context of the LDS church. I think you would be a great visiting teacher. From my point of view my activity in the church allows me to lay claim to the church my family helped build starting in Kirtland. Because I have that temple recommend I can rail against imperialism (when I taught priesthood in September) and for an equitable social contract regarding wealth as well as a healthy respect for science (when I taught Sunday school the second week of October). Tomorrow I get to trash the idea of theocratic dominionism and legislated morality in my Priesthood lesson. This is my church, and I refuse to let the bastards take control.
Heather, when I saw the words “crumbs” I thought you were making reference to the conversation between Jesus and the woman of Canaan in which she asks for “crumbs” off the gospel table. I drew from that a complaint that what women were “allowed” in the church was nothing more than crumbs. Like I said, I know that the actual gospel and the practice of the same in the church is uneven, but I am really bummed when there seems to be so much emphasis on how hard it is for women in the church that many sisters throw their hands in the air and don’t exercise the full power of their callings. What’s the use of being a fantastic visiting teacher or YW president if I can’t start prayers in sacrament meeting or make decisions in a disciplinary council.
I have to say, though, as tired of the church as you are, I have to say that I find this whole sort-of-LDS blog thing just as exhausting and frustrating, so I guess I should have a little more understanding of your feelings about the church. For my comments I got not only the child pats on the head of “there there, you just don’t understand what patriarchy is” to “your illogical, ADD, and illiterate.” My goodness, if I was treated like this at church I really would say I was out of steam and leave.
My kids and wife miss you in Primary. I will miss you when you leave the church.
Hey now . . . I didn’t say I was leaving (I know, I know–I said I was running out of steam, but that’s not the same thing!).
One more thing. I agree–in part–that the sort-of-LDS blog thing can be exhausting and frustrating. I feel that way sometimes, too. But for me, I need a place to process all my thoughts/feelings about Mormonism. It’s not just a religion; it’s a way of life; it’s a worldview.
So this has been a positive outlet for me. A place where people get me, because the people in my ward sure as heck don’t (even though they’re nice enough–most of them, anyway!!).
And, most of what I write here on Doves and Serpents is not Mormon-related. It’s about being a mom and a parent and a wife and a woman–all parts of my identity that often, but not always, intersect with my Mormonism.
Hey, Jason, glad you are still lurking (smile):
1) Not sure the “stupid” criticism is a good read of the post (I even went back and took a look at the post again after reading your comment). I put a fairly philosophical front end on what I thought was an interesting (and valuable) “rant.” The “stupid” accusation is aimed the other way–it’s the women that feel like they’re being patted on the head by an authority figure that are asserting that church leaders shouldn’t think THEY (as in the women who feel patronized) are that stupid.
2) There are those that may want to change the church. I don’t. In fact, I’ll be writing a few Cheap Seats posts against the idea of advocating for significant changes in the church, but that’s another topic for another day. My point was to present a particular viewpoint–a feminist viewpoint–of a particular church talk–and from that perspective, this talk was offensive to its core. That doesn’t mean that the talk doesn’t have value, or that other people can’t find value in it. In fact, I’d argue that it’s possible to be both offended by it AND to find value in it (assuming one is able to come at the talk from different perspectives).
That said, however, it seems clear to me that women are second-class citizens in the church. The very fact that church leaders have to spend so much time trying to convince everyone this isn’t true is, in my opinion, some pretty good evidence to the contrary. I have no doubt that some women (and a lot of the men) like it that way (but that doesn’t make it any less of a patriarchal system). Of course, at some point, we’re going to have decide for ourselves whether God is sexist or not–and whether or not the sexist elements of the church are really a reflection of his will or something we’ve constructed in our own image. [We could start that discussion, of course, by asking ourselves whether or not the pronoun in the previous sentence is appropriate].
… well, as long as Jesus keeps showing up as saying “our Father who art in heaven” I am good with the pronoun… and I will keep teaching my kids that the He pronoun is accompanied by a She.
Thanks for the invitation to keep lurking, but really, my short foray into this world is really sort of leaving a bad taste in my mouth. Tone, meaning, context, assumptions … everything in this virtual world seems so devoid of meaning but simultaneously hyper-charged with emotion. I suppose that is why I drifted away from regular postings on my Latin America blog. Anyway, you can crisis about the church… I am having severe technology doubts and my devotion for the e-world is declining. Do you suppose there is a former-techies and concerned Luddites? Wow, that was a groaner of a joke.
It’s a unique medium. . . different in a lot of ways, often to be taken in small doses. . .
Jason, I don’t think the “crumbs” are a reference to the work women do in the church, which is seriously admirable — many of the women I’ve known and worked with have put in hundreds of hours into their callings. I will also say that in many wards I’ve been in the women are keeping everything going in very fundamental ways. The “crumbs” are a reference to the respect and power women are given for their heartfelt volunteering.
Imagine yourself as a woman you know and care about (maybe a wife, a sister?). This woman wakes up at 6am and spends the entire day working. She makes the meals, does all the dishes, laundry, school runs, she probably has two or three small ones at home that she has to entertain and, in this economy, she probably has some kind of part-time job that she is fitting in somehow. She is very smart and a gifted leader and organizer, she would like to do some work outside her home, but her husband won’t allow it (he’s never mean, it just isn’t the way things are done). After hours of physical labor, she is sent to take care of the doctor’s visits, asked to call the electric company to solve a problem and take money to the bank. There is a problem at the bank and with the electric company, but she can’t really take care of any of the problems because her name isn’t on any of the accounts and they won’t let her make any decisions. She’s not on any of the bank accounts either and so she doesn’t actually know how much money her family has. Her husband loves her and wants her to be happy — occasionally, he consults her on big decisions, but she never knows what he’ll decide and sometimes she’ll find that he has completely gone against something she felt strongly about. She usually finds out long after the fact, even when it is something that affects her directly. After dinner when she is so exhausted that she can barely stand, her husband pats her head and says, “You do so much pretty girl, I really appreciate it.”
It isn’t that she is working in the home (some women love it and find it fullfilling, I certainly have at certain points in my life), it is that she has no choice but to work in the home. It isn’t that she has to do the work of taking care of the utilities and banking, it is that her name isn’t on any of the accounts and she doesn’t have a real voice in the decisions of her household. This is the kind of thing we are talking about when we talk about “crumbs.”
One thing that strikes me about conversations about sexism at church is that people often say things like, “Praying at General Conference isn’t such a big deal, why don’t you give the leaders the benefit of the doubt and let it go?” But that argument cuts both ways, if it is no big deal, why can’t we change it?
I was trying to write a post just like this and I couldn’t quite make it come together. That’s exactly what I was thinking about the crumbs thing.
Heidi, I don’t have to imagine crappy patriarchy… you describe the lives of my non-member sisters and their multiple attempts at marriage and live-ins, minus the partner loves them part and without any of the beatings, drinking, drugs, porn, and emotional torture. And trust me, I get being condescended to.
I’m simply saying that one of the great ways to fight the inequality in the church, particulary as practiced in the leadership, is to recognize the power of the service of the sisters in the things they are called to serve in. I’m sure you can persuade somebody somewhere to drop the oppression by saying “prayers in sacrament meeting are unfair and it needs to stop.” I’ll fight it by saying things like “… I knew this sister once that was the best teacher and baptizer in the entire mission and I think we need to stop ignoring what the sisters have to say about missionary work” or “… when that sister shares her testimony the spirit rocks your world and she needs to be the anchor speaker for stake conference.” Please don’t think I was attacking you. I’m suggesting that there are solid actions we can take to change things… outside of the blogosphere.
Hmm. Not sure if can let this one slide, Jason: “I’ll fight it by saying things like ‘. . . I knew this sister once that was the best teacher and baptizer in the entire mission and I think we need to stop ignoring what the sisters have to say about missionary work.'” Sure, there is the obvious problem that what sisters have to say about missionary work is often ignored, but that’s not the real problem. Hopefully you can see the irony in your comment. The real problem is that there is a meeting somewhere OF MEN discussing what THEY can do to HELP WOMEN navigate a partriarchal culture that marginalizes them. Women don’t need the patriarchal system to do a better job of taking car of them–no matter how well intentioned. They need authority within the system. . . They need to be IN THE MEETINGS talking for themselves (and that is a very different thing).
Jason, I wasn’t offended and I didn’t feel attacked and I hope you didn’t feel attacked even though I disagreed with some of your ideas. I wrote my description calmly (just wanted to write down how it feels to me), but you’re right that tone can be very hard to get on the internet and my response could be read in a much more heated way.
It’s not that I don’t think your suggestions are good ones and, I should add, I’ve known many men and women who do and say the kinds of things you are talking about. However, for many of the reasons Brent describes below, I think it will make the environment more pleasant and humane without really touching the underlying issues.
And where, Jason, did you get the idea that I was referring to the service woemn in the church give when I evoked the word “crumbs”? I can’t even figure out how anyone would reach that logical conclusion from what I said, if they were paying attention to what I said.
You’re right… it was totally illogical of me to think you were speaking in a scripturally layered reference to Matthew 15 and the “crumbs” as the gospel and extending that to what women are or are not “allowed” to do in that as the Canaanite in the verses. My bad.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I definitely wasn’t thinking of that story at all. I don’t even know that story! Ha ha!
I remember a time when this type of talk would have made me feel good. (I didn’t actually hear the talk) That was before I learned my stake taught that there was no need for me to get confirmation on a calling because I was being called by a man who was called of God. Because he was called of God it made my calling from God. It was this type of attitude that made me equate God with priesthood leaders. If the priesthood leader approved of me than God approved of me.
As I got older and had to deal with a situation with my bishop and realized, even though he was a good man and had faith in other areas, in the situation we were dealing with I had more faith than he had. However, he was the priesthood leader I had to follow his direction. That’s when my big “ah ha” happened. Why would God put someone between me and Him?
If I really am a daughter of my Heavenly Father who loves me and I love him… why can I not just go to him to find out how he feels about me?
Why am I content to work and serve in the church, struggle with children alone in a pew on Sunday, to look up on the stand and see men sitting in cushy seats tell me how God feels about me and that there are probably things I could be doing better so that God would love me more?
I’m not content anymore. I no longer need a middle man. Now that I feel I can go directly to God I feel I am worthy just because I was born. There is nothing I need to do to get God’s love. Deciding what to do in my life to grow and serve is between myself and God.
I believe that Elder Uchtdorf is probably a great guy and loves the Lord and is doing his best to serve God and wants to serve and help people in the church. I further believe he helps many people.
For me, now I just feel these type of talks are a little bit arogant.
I think Jason makes a lot of sense. I think everybody makes a lot of sense which gets me in no end of trouble and confusion.
If I go to my gut the truth is a talk by Elder Uchdorf is a -10 on a scale of 1-10 in a list of things that truly concern me. Frankly, women giving the opening prayer as one of my bandwagons isn’t even on the top ten of my problems.
Feeling marginalized is a problem and that’s probably contradictory since not giving a opening prayer is part of that (“do I contradict myself…very well then”). But I believe I’ve had a part in that because of my neurotically abrasive approach. I don’t think a man with my personality would have fared much better.
So the marginalization occurs realistically when a strong capable woman dissents from her bishop whose word is law because he’s the priesthood. If you’re me you give him an Italian salute and dirty look. The strong woman (a woman working her butt off is not being given crumbs when she’s asked to do the REAL work of an event that’s presided over by the bishop–the crumbs would be the nod the bishop gives as he basks in “his” success). The strong good faithful woman is marginalized when she dissents, is over-ridden, and bows her head and says “behold the handmaiden of the Lord.”
I do not want the priesthood; I hate being in charge; problem people are problems whether man or woman. But I don’t want a pat on the head with that patronizing “be a good girl and let the men handle this” response when I know they’re just as stupid as the rest of us.
Anyway, that’s my gut. I watch my “strong” and wonderful friends fear to make a decision or step on their priesthood holder’s toes or go with a dumb decision and think “you’re going straight to heaven when you die.”
When I referred to crumbs, I was referring to the amount of equality women literally have in the church, as I see it. Not our contribution to the church, as women. That, is something that is so large it can’t be measured, and deserves endless acknowledgement.
Perspective is an interesting thing. It changes with time and space. When I was an active and believing member, I knew things were not completely equal in the church but I let so much go because I felt – (and still do feel) that the majority of the men in the church are some of the most well-intentioned men on earth. As I move away from the church ideologically, I find a few things with my different perspective:
1. How much I love my Mormon heritage and tribe and how many beautiful things it has brought into my life. It gave me tremendous stability and safety and helped me grow roots. Not everybody has the luxury of roots.
2. How limiting roots can be at times. I remained, as Anais Nin says, “tightly in a bud” in many ways.
3. As I get more perspective and see things from another world view, I see more and more clearly the inequality that exists in the church doctrine and the organization. It’s not a judgment statement, that those within the church aren’t wise enough to see it – not at all. Just a statement that I do see things differently now. I am loyal to my roots, but not loyal to what needs to be changed. I am also sure that there are many things I can’t see from my perspective that I will hopefully grow to view clearly.
Please don’t take this analogy in the spirit of “I’ve evolved past everyone in the church”, because that’s not at all what I intent it to mean. Please don’t read this as “if you don’t see what I see, you are ridiculous”, because that’s not at all what I mean. I struggle to find an accurate way of explaining the clarity that comes when sexism is suddenly visible. What was once fuzzy or unseen is suddenly undeniably there. And sexism in the church is undeniably there, whether those close up can see it or not, and whether those who see it, care – or not.
That said, I understand that pure equality isn’t on everyone’s agenda or must have list. For some, good intentions are enough. For me, they’re not.
Anngb– as per the 2010 Handbook, there is no prohibition on women to give both prayers in SM or stake conference, for that matter. There actually was no prohibition before the latest Handbook, just sexism and culture in some areas. In my Salt Lake ward, women have given both prayers for as long as I remember.
As far as having couples give prayers, my husband, when he was bishop–until 3 years ago– was told by the stake president to avoid asking couples to offer prayers at the same meeting. Yes, it’s easier for the clerk or whoever does the asking but it may exclude the singles. Although our ward would pair two singles for prayers too.
Yes, I know that. My leaders know that. I assume they don’t care.
Thank you for this post, and for all of these comments. I have to admit the rant in the original post resonated with me, too, although it wasn’t long ago that I would have been among the women who were comforted by Uchtdorf’s talk.
I don’t know if church leaders are aware of the pain this subject causes, like Apron suggested. But I think they should be, and if they are receiving revelation from God, I don’t see why we shouldn’t expect some understanding from them. I guess what it comes down to for me is the point that Heather and Bitherwack made toward the beginning–talks like this wouldn’t be given if the church weren’t creating a condition in which women feel forgotten, neglected, marginalized, patronized, diminished. This is because of the whole crumbs thing–not that the work women do is crumbs, but that the respect we’re given is crumbs. We “help” and “nurture” and sometimes even “preside”–when there aren’t any men around to do it for us. But we know that spiritual matters are really in the hands of the men, and that’s why church leaders feel the need to constantly offer reminders that–contrary to all other evidence–we really are important.
The fact that many women don’t feel this way doesn’t mean that it’s not happening–it maybe means that they are in particularly progressive wards and stakes that give them more respect than others do; it may mean that they aren’t aware of it yet, as I wasn’t until I left for college; it may mean that they are, like D. Michael Martindale suggested, apologists for the church who just can’t support dissension; it may mean that it’s just not something that bothers them. It doesn’t necessarily mean that their happiness is not legitimate–but their happiness doesn’t mean that our dissatisfaction isn’t legitimate, either, or that the situation isn’t real.
I finally got around to reading the link to the speech (or rather, the summary of the speech).
I don’t see the negative things in it that Brian saw. It doesn’t sound like the speech had anything to do with throwing crumbs to the women of the church who are being treated condescendingly. One could conceivably read a subtext of that theme between the lines, but that would be an interpretation. That subtext is not there in the words.
This doesn’t change the fact that women ARE treated in a condescending way in the church, only that this speech isn’t addressing that issue.
Nevertheless, I do sense a bit of condescension in what he says, particularly this: “Using the forget-me-not flower as a metaphor for his remarks, President Uchtdorf noted that although the flower is small in size, and easily unnoticed among larger flowers, it is still beautiful and vibrant.”
There’s also a direct quote that I like very much, which is a bit of an accusation on how some women in the church are complicit in ennabling the condescending attitude toward them: “Dedicating some of our time to studying the scriptures or preparing to teach a lesson is a good sacrifice. Spending many hours stitching the title of the lesson into homemade potholders for each member of your class may not be.”
So I don’t think this speech says what Brian claims it says. But I still like the conversation that resulted from it, over a critical issue in the church.
It’s pretty hard to buy the whole “God hasn’t forgotten you” line when you see stuff like this:
http://bycommonconsent.com/2011/10/17/out-of-respect-for-them/
Clarification: this actually has nothing to do with whether God has or hasn’t forgotten women, but makes it pretty clear, IMO, that the church is happy to forget/ignore/neglect half of its members. As a mother of a soon-to-be-12 year old girl, this represents a major failure to me.
I just listened to this talk again tonite and was struck by how off this summary is of his talk. He didn’t compare women to the flowers, he used them as an analogy for truths we should remember in our lives.
It certainly doesn’t change the way some people feel about things, but I think it’s unfortunate that this talk was used as a springboard for such venting.
He compared the way he felt as a child to the way grown women sometimes feel in the church. . . He then compared the way he felt to the forget-me-not flower, and then used the forget-me-not flower as a metaphor for how women feel in the church. . . Saying that “he compared women to forget-me-not flowers” seems like a pretty fair way of putting this in shorhand. . .
If you listen to the talk from the right perspective, it’s a nice talk (as I’ve stated). From a feminist perspective, however, it’s a disaster. Can you imagine the Relief Society president giving this talk in priesthood session to the men?
‘Can you imagine the Relief Society president giving this talk in priesthood session to the men?’
Actually, something similar to your suggestion appeared in a hilarious satire published by Dialogue in 1981
The link is: http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/dialogue&CISOPTR=2704&CISOSHOW=2639
I hope you enjoy it as much as I did. It helps us understand the differing points of view… ‘a walk in pink moccasins’, as Carol Lynn Pearson would express it. Which can be read here:
http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/?p=1041
The introduction alone is a pearl of wisdom. Speaking of the importance of Mother in Heaven, she points out the effect of a gender reversed talk in church; “The fact that this glimpse is fairly shocking and leaves us disoriented demonstrates the extent to which we have all become acclimated to absurdity, to being assured that a Motherless House is normal.”
Do you think women are given “crumbs” in the church because that’s what they accept?
Is this a time where the Dr. Phil saying ” You teach people how to treat you”, applies?
As far as I know, overall his talk was well received. Sometimes it’s easier to say the other person should change, the brethen need to call on women to say prayers in conference etc… What is much harder, is to take responsibility and take a stand. Walking out, declining callings, or whatever you feel demeans you, don’t participate in. That’s the tough stuff. In my opinion change will not occur until we change ourselves. Wasn’t it a mormon woman who said. “Well behaved women never make history.” I wonder if that means well behaved women get crumbs.
Yes, momtosix–it was Laurel Thatcher Ulrich who said that. ;)
I think you’re right, momtosix. Not that the leaders are blameless–they create the environment that makes it a high price to pay to speak up. But nothing’s going to change as long as women in the church buy into and propogate the rhetoric that justifies their current standing in the church.
People can feel small or forgotten in the church for many reasons, sexism is just one of them and maybe even the one Dieter F never even thought of in giving this talk. I think many of the women that enjoyed the talk so much are not bothered in the least by sexism in the church. I myself as a priesthood holder feel insignificant and forgotten some times and was greatly uplifted by the talk. Sure he spoke to women in particular, but what was he supposed to do, it was RS conference! Apart from that is there any reason to assume that he was trying to console women for the sexist attitude of the church?
Excellent point, Marco……excellent.
This entire argument seems to be missing several points. To begin with, let me ask: what sort of marginalization are women experiencing in the church? And then, What would “make things better”? Would things suddenly be better if there were a woman at the head? Would the policies suddenly shift to equality if half of the quorum of apostles were women? Then I would ask if the doctrine of the priesthood is true at all? There is a social movement for gender equality, but that does not translate to a religious movement when we are speaking of God’s order and establishment. If the church is true, along with its doctrines, then we must trust that the way things are are of divine origin and inspiration. If it is not, then we are social gathering, subject to social standards, morality, and doctrine. If that is what the church is about, even as a man, I decline my membership. The only thing that makes me a mormon is that I believe it is God’s church, and led by his inspiring guidance. To think that the prophet, apostles and other leaders are led by any other means, makes them false leaders. Women do not hold the priesthood for whatever purpose God has established, and God has established his kingdom as a patriarchal order, for whatever reasons. It’s not a question of whether or not we follow our leaders, as much as whether or not we believe they are empowered by God and whether or not we accept God’s order. My wife and I are equals, and that will not change when I receive the priesthood. Holding the priesthood does not suddenly place us on unequal grounds. If any man in the church believes so, then he need watch himself careful least his priesthood authority is made null by his abuse of power and authority given by God, because in God’s kingdom, “no power or authority can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood.” Women who want equality, look to your men and demand it of him in the home first.
Actually, David, there are other possibilities beside the two extremes of all or nothing. It is possible for the leaders of the church to be inspired by God and yet do things of their own accord that are not necessarily the will of God.
If they are inspired by God and yet not necessarily doing the will of God as far as their church callings are concerned, wouldn’t they be apostate, and therefore their leadership and the church’s policies be apostate as well? I see it very simply as black and white. It’s not to say men who lead the church are infallible, as all men are. But in the case of God’s true church, which we claim to be, is it still the true church if the leaders are no longer leading by inspiration? And then if God allows men to mislead and misrepresent his church, is it still his church? I don’t see how it could be. And if it’s not, then we’re all following a false prophet.
I know you see it as black and white. That’s a mindset that I can’t respect. There is very little, if anything, in life that is black and white.
For your way of seeing things to be true, the leaders of the church would have to be robbed of their free agency. The only way they “cannot lead the church astray,” as the saying goes, is for them to be puppets of God. Everyone is capable of making errors, even General Authorities. And I don’t mean the cute little errors that qualify them as “fallible.” I mean huge whoppers of mistakes at times. “They’re only human” just means that such mistakes are inevitable, sooner or later.
This is why “blind faith” is not considered a virtue in the church> We are always responsible for our own choices, our own search for truth, and our own inspiration. There is nothing virtuous about relinquishing all that to any other man–even a prophet.
It goes without saying that very little is black and white in this world. However, God is white and Satan is black. We stand in the middle, sifting through numberless shades of grey. My point was that if the LDS church is God’s church, then its doctrine and policies are infallible and white. That is, speaking of it as an institution established and led by God. Yes, we all have our agency, and we are free to understand truth through our own tainted lens, and to follow it according to our own convictions. It is the place of the church to teach true doctrine and implement policies which reflect and support that true doctrine. It is the work of the individual to search those out and apply them as they see fit into their own lives. That is our agency. But God knows the hearts of men, and would not place leaders at the head of his church who would twist the truth to fit their own standards of righteousness, or who would corrupt His whiteness with false teachings. Does that mean we should believe everything spoken from the pulpit? That is an individual choice we all must make, according to our faith and convictions, as church doctrine teaches.
A person doesn’t have to deliberately want to twist the truth to screw things up. Honest mistakes are quite common. Acting in a way based on your own bias, but thinking you are following the will of God is also quite common. To have the black and white situation you desire, the leaders of the church would have to be not-quite-human, because no human gets through life without screwing things up big time at one point or another, no matter how sincere their heart.
All it takes is a thorough examination of church history to know the infalliblechurch concept is refuted by the evidence. The only possible hypothesis which preserves a belief in the church is to recognize that the church can indeed make mistakes, and it’s up to us as individuals to determine what is valid and what is error. Otherwise one would have to reject the church entirely, if one were to be honest. The evidence allows no other recourse for the honest soul.
However eloquently spoken this “Sunday school answer” may be, it has been shown time and time again in the church that “inspiration” is not set in stone. The church changes policies all the time, according to current societal circumstances. There are many of these that I find very difficult to swallow. Women are oppressed and undervalued in the church. We are made to feel like second class citizens, and the leaders try to smooth over our ruffled feathers with frou-frou warm fuzzies about being the “strength behind our men”, and “our men couldn’t be who they are without the strong women behind them”. Maybe, as a man, you cannot fully understand where us women are coming from. Those of us brought up in the church were indoctrinated from birth about the superiority of men in the church. I am very cautious with my boys’ church education. They have asked numerous times why God would choose men to hold the priesthood and be the leaders in the church. I tell them that I don’t believe a true God would choose men to be the leaders, but that’s just the way Mormons believe. I tell them that the church has many good things to offer, but to never put themselves above the worth of a woman, and never value the word of men over that of women. No man is going to receive inspiration on my behalf. If each of us is truly a child of God, then I’ll receive my own inspiration from God, not through a man. I realize this isn’t what current church “doctrine” is, but our church has already shown its ability to evolve and change according to the needs of society, and it is my hope that it won’t be long before women have an equal voice in this church. It has so many good things to offer, but unfortunately, one of its greatest resources and voices is terribly muted by such blindly accepted ideas. Women need to stop just taking it, and show that we are a force to be reckoned with, and not one iota below the all powerful men of this church.
I disagree with the premise that the church has modified its policies and standards in order to fit societal standards or models. I can understand how someone might interpret certain policies that way because of the historical context in which those decisions were made. However, to think that God is a changing being who changes his policy and doctrine in order to fit the social appeal of the day, is to make him subject to society, rather than the other way around. If you don’t believe a true God would choose men to be the leaders, why are you LDS? You must not believe in the Bible or scriptures at all, if you believe that this one point is wrong, for all the scriptures teach of the patriarchal order of God, and His prophets, and clearly state that the priesthood is a male order. For that matter, I guess God is a chauvinist too, since he presents himself in scripture as the head, when we know there is also a mother in heaven. I know this may seem male chauvinist from certain societal perspectives, but I believe that has more to do with a perspective that has only been strengthened by the abuse of power and authority held by men. The church does not teach that men are superior in any way, and the patriarchal order does not imply that in itself. Does a matriarchal order imply female superiority? It sounds like you would make the church a democratic order with women having an equal voice. The church, God’s church, is not a democracy, but rather a theocracy, with God at the head.
Ironically, David, the points you make are good arguments for not believing the LDS Church is what it claims to be.
I don’t believe the church is what it claims to be. But that doesn’t mean I go all the way to the other extreme and believe it’s a false, fraudulent thing of no value either. There’s lots of middle ground between those two extremes that your dogmatism precludes you from being able to consider at this time.
I was not raised in the church. My mother was raised in it and my grandparents are still LDS. I was baptized a Lutheran and by the time I entered high school I believed in various world religions (thanks to open-minded, loving, supportive parents). There are still aspects of other religions I hold fast to. However, in college I looked into the church and received revelation that it was where I needed to be. In the beginning I was very skeptical of the priesthood. Over time, I have come to realize it is a name and a station, with it comes “authority”. I guess I could have a name too. Let’s call me, oh I don’t know, a “mother”. I also have “authority” although it is of a different type. So now I have one too and I have authority. Ok I will admit the authority given to men in the church provides for spiritual purposes. I, however, do not need the priesthood to have a personal relationship with God and I have never been told by “authority” that I do. So really who are they affecting? It is my understanding that God knows our hearts and if you wish to have nothing to do with the priesthood based on your convictions then there is no issue. Women of the church do not need to be freed from priesthood. We are there for a reason.
Let me begin with your quote “Women are oppressed and undervalued in the church”. I am a woman of the church and I feel more put down by your comment than by the priesthood. I am not weak and I am not oppressed. I am, in fact, quite outspoken and very comfortable around the leaders of the church. My husband has never patronized me, I won’t allow it. I teach my sons to value women and to realize once they hold the priesthood they are not suddenly give power but responsibility. I am raising them in not only the church but I have also taken them to a local Buddhist temple, as well as spend time with my parents who now are very familiar with paganism. I want them to make the right choice for them. My “authority” is that they shall find where they should be.
I will even go so far to say that one day this church may have a Prophetess. *Gasp*. But it will be on GOD’S time not ours.
It will be on God’s time–or on the timescale of the male leaders in charge. It depends on if you accept the rationale that everything the GAs do was directed by God. I personally find it impossible to accept that rationale, mainly because there is mountains of evidence that that is not how this church operates.
I think God is ready for some changes and is waiting for us to follow along. But we (=the church and many of its members) are dragging our feet.
We’re behind him–not following him, but being dragged along, it seems.
God may be unchanging, but the leaders certainly haven’t been. We are a church that values our PR. We thrive on audiovisuals and forcing spiritual experiences through soft music and lulling speech. It is all very orchestrated and carefully planned, and what is released to the public is scrutinized extensively according to the image of how it reflects on the church. Leaders are fallible. Leaders can misinterpret revelations and inspirations. Even Elder Oaks denied ALL women the chance to participate in the Payson temple groundbreaking “out of respect” so “they wouldn’t get their shoes dirty.” Not exactly revelation, not particularly “respectful” as he stated, but rather a way to bar women from something that “should” be done by men. The women weren’t asked if they didn’t want to get their shoes dirty, they were just told that they couldn’t participate, and a man was making that choice for them. Women are a non-entity, and it is getting worse and worse. I personally know many women who were at that groundbreaking (my husband being a Paysonite) who would have loved the opportunity to get their shoes muddy in order to participate in a temple groundbreaking. It was shameful, and it is heartbreaking that men in power think so little about the feelings and abilities of the women in this church. To make such judgments on our behalf (and yes, this is a petty example, but still representative of a much bigger problem) is disrespectful and belittling. The church is more of a democracy (using the term loosely) than you may care to admit. However, the democracy only exists as far as the male input into the equation. And most of the time, God and his inspiration has nothing to do with it. When I was on my mission in South America, women were not allowed to touch the sacrament tray at any time. The deacons would trip over themselves down the rows, to keep unholy women’s hands from passing the trays. When I brought this issue up to the bishops and branch presidents, I was dismissed, with the explanation that it is God’s will that women not have any part in the sacrament administration, including passing the tray to their neighbor. This was their interpretation of inspiration and revelation. I brought it up to the mission president, and was dismissed, saying there were more important issues, such as baptismal numbers and retention to worry about. What could be more important than showing 50% of the church population (possibly more) that they are every bit as worthy and valued as the other half? It was a huge slap in the face, but also opened my eyes to the massive problem that our patriarchy is. I appreciate forums such as this one to voice an opinion, and know it is heard. This statement of “why are you LDS if you disagree” is such a cop-out, and so very wrong. It is, once again, glossing over and dismissing the issue at hand. I am culturally a Mormon. I would love to believe it wholeheartedly, but the God I believe in doesn’t play favorites.
@ new age mormon: your very actions show that you take a proactive approach to being a strong and unoppressed woman in the church, as I do. However, the majority of women DO allow themselves to be oppressed at the hands of church leaders, every time they allow themselves to play the second-fiddle role that is handed to them almost every time. I don’t allow this in my home, with my boys, with my husband. We are truly equals in our home, but that is only because we actively make an effort to teach our family open-mindedness and equality, regardless of gender or any other difference that often leads to inequality. Being proactive is key. It is why I will never be oppressed in the church, and why, if it comes to it, I would leave the church to maintain my equality as a woman.
@David: in regards to your comment “It sounds like you would make the church a democratic order with women having an equal voice.”…ABSOLUTELY, as it pertains to the responsibilities that God gives to his children on earth to organize and maintain the church. God may be at the head, but that doesn’t mean men are more capable or should be in charge of the execution of all things on earth. I don’t believe a just god would do that, and in my opinion, the priesthood leaders are mistaken on that interpretation of revelation, and, of course, in their own favor. It quite simply makes no sense whatsoever when talking about a god who treats all his children equally.
PRESIDING is only a façade. Clearly only a façade…. In my house I’m the boss, my wife is just the decision maker
Brent, Seriously, let it go. Whatever it is.
You have so much talent. Spending it on this “anti mormon lite” stuff is such a waste.
If you are unhappy with Elder Uchtdorf or any other church leader, take the frustration out in a constructive way. Go volunteer to help someone. It will make you feel better than this stuff will. I promise.
In life there are builders and wreckers. Seems like most of you people are wreckers!
Care to elaborate, Demeree? Your comment as it stands is quite meaningless and somewhat insulting if you’re not going to make a case for it.
Perhaps you’re not familiar with the concept of wreckers. These are not machines that go around wrecking things just for the sake of being destructive. They clear away useless, defective, or outmoded structures to make way for better, more useful structures.
Wrecking is the first step in building. You have to clear out the crap before you make something good.