The 1800s called. . . they want their magazine back. Here’s a link: http://www.lds.org/friend/2012/08/women-are-important-in-the-church!?lang=eng.
I’ve included a PDF below (just in case someone comes to their senses and takes this down before too many people see it). A couple comments (between the lines):
“Women Are Important in the Church!“
I try to envision what was going through the author’s mind as he or she typed the exclamation point at the end of that sentence. . . I can’t do it.
“The members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles [all men] are special witnesses of Jesus Christ [and therefore tasked with running the church, and that includes periodically assuring women they are important, even though men are in charge of everything].”
“Women Are Important in the Church!“
. . . just in case the title wasn’t enough.
“Women are daughters of our heavenly father [why does their dad get all the credit?], who loves them [because this point needs clarification].”
“God placed within women divine qualities of strength, virtue, and love [and we recommend that all women watch this Stuart Smalley clip every morning. . . and avoid reading a “dangerous” feminist propoganda]”
“Wives are equal to their husbands. Wives and husbands work side by side to meet the needs of the family.“
But don’t forget who’s in charge while you’re working side by side (i.e. “fathers are to preside over their families”). And before you get any ideas, we want to point out that “mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children” (and that includes having dinner on the table and doing the laundry, dammit). See The Family: A Proclamation to the World.
“Women of the Chuch today are strong and faithful [did you watch the Stuart Smalley clip this morning?]”
“Much of what we accomplish in the Church is due to the selfless service of women [because, as is the case in almost every organization, there are those in charge, and then there are those that do the actual work. . . as the saying goes, behind every selfless women is a priesthood holder with the proper authority]”
“Latter-day Saint Women are incredible! [back to the Stuart Smalley clip. . .]”
Last comment: What.The.Hell? No one, at any point, with any editorial responsibility, stopped to think that maybe this article wasn’t a good idea? No one? Seriously?
[Last Post: 36 Truth or The Onion?]
There were so many things about this original talk from April 2011 that had issues. It would be interesting to see how the re-telling of this talk showed/shows up in the New Era, since a good chunk of the talk was about judging the character of a young woman based on the contents of her purse.
To be fair, though, it was also the talk that included the story of the Stake in Tonga. You may remember – there were a bunch of “prospective elders” who became the subject of a stake high council meeting. The stake RS president asked – ASKED – if it would be “appropriate” for her to bring something up during the meeting. The story was to illustrate that women’s counsel is needed in our councils, but made it clear that although it was the RS president’s idea, the implementation happened only because the stake president felt the spirit.
This talk also told about how women choosing to work outside the home need to do it prayerfully, considering how that choice would affect their families. But rather than using the story of a woman who chose to work outside the home (to beneficial effect), instead the story was about a woman in Auckland, New Zealand who made a to stay home because, “her choice about whether to work or stay home was about a new carpet and a second car that she didn’t really need.”
Ironically, the messages in the 1800s were far more empowering than that one. Maybe the 1400s is calling.
At the bottom of the link, there is a “Do You Have Feedback on This Page?” link if you’d like to share your concerns there. Maybe I’ll just link them to this article.) (Just kidding, I won’t really do that. They won’t care about my feedback anyways since I resigned last year. I’ll let you share it yourself there if you’re inclined to do so.)
Nikki,
Thanks for pointing out the feedback link.
This is just a simplified version of the May 2011 article which is much more chauvinistic and limited in its view of women’s roles and potential. http://www.lds.org/ensign/2011/05/lds-women-are-incredible?lang=eng
At least the primary article was successful in keeping out the following elements from the original:
-A reiteration of female subjugation to the bishopric within the church (in the very MIDDLE of an article glorifying women)
-The subtle backhanded and weak ‘exceptionality clause’ for working women which essentially admonished the rank and file to not judge working moms TOO harshly. It also contained the obligatory clause for single sisters and childless sisters, because of course God simply hasn’t gotten around to blessing them yet.
-A story about a fabulous YW whose purse contained beauty products, recipes, mints for her breath, a FSY pamphlet and a little notebook to copy scriptures. Note, this YW didn’t have a pocket knife (to be prepared), a tablet computer with the LDS apps, books, smart phone, work time sheet, college application, appointment calendar, business cards, rosin and a “d” string for her violin (or a clarinet reed), an outline for a lesson she taught or was going to give, an agenda for her Laurel presidency meeting with action items, a scientific calculator for her calculus class etc. Oh no, she had breath mints.
-Stories from PREvictorian women (the spiritual standards)
-Stories of modern women whose spiritual value was found in serving the men in their ward (Tongan example)