Blogger of Jared

99 Responses to “Issues in Mormon Feminism”

I guess I just think we need fewer blogs about Mormon feminism and more supporting each other in sharing the gospel. It doesn’t quite generate the same amount of traffic though… does it?

This is so true! Controversy naturally stirs debate and attracts attention, while orthodox issues slip through the cracks of popular readership.

I’ve been amazed—if not stupified— by some of the “LDS feminism” posts I’ve read now and then. Masquerading under the banner of Latter-day Saintness, these women pontificate and opine on matters that are clearly contradictory to revealed gospel principles. I’m not going to go into any specifics or call anybody out, but suffice it to say that it’s something that has disappointed me more than a few times.

What is the point to so-called “feminism”? True feminism, in my mind, seeks to foster divine qualities of womanhood, emphasize a woman’s important role as wife, mother, nurturer, and caretaker. The degenerate version we see so often in the media (and some LDS blogs) attempts to portray womanhood as nothing different from (nor inferior to) manhood. They want the same roles, the same opportunities, the same experiences, the same treatment.

God disagrees, as the author of the article pointed out. We have different roles. Men pee standing up. Women have babies. We’re different. Any attempt to blur our divine differences and homogenate the sexes obviously is “more or less than [truth]” and therefore contrary to the gospel plan.

A great talk is “Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments” by Elder Holland, which he gave at a BYU devotional a few years back. In this talk he clearly defines that man and woman are two separate halves of a greater whole. Only by joining ourselves together and fulfilling our separate roles can we achieve exaltation. Satan wants anything but that, and will use any resources (including and especially social ideologies) at his disposal to confuse and muddle what God has inspired and instituted.

[/end disjointed rant]

Comment # 1 left by Connor on January 30th, 2007

I find this argument in many ways disturbing. What if you changed the arguments outlined in this post from gender differences to racial differences. It is unfortunate that something as strait forward as “social, political, and economic equality of the sexes” is viewed with such distrust. There is nothing in such a sentiment that remotely conflicts with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Saying that your modern conceptions of stay-at-home motherhood are God’s eternal law is hubris. All you have to do is read the story of the Saints to learn that this isn’t so. I don’t know of any Mormon feminists that believe that men and women are (or should be) the same - just that they are (or should be) equals.

This phrase doesn’t make sense: “Equality based upon being a boy or girl, it would seem, is insignificant when compared with equality based upon being a child of God” Equality isn’t based on being a boy or girl.

You are basically saying that we should not work to change systematic evils in society, but we should focus on individuals and strengthen them against evils. Well, why can’t we do both?

Comment # 2 left by J. Stapley on January 30th, 2007

J.

Thanks for weighing in…

I find this argument in many ways disturbing. What if you changed the arguments outlined in this post from gender differences to racial differences.

This is a poor comparison, The Lord has outlined gender roles and responsibilities quite clearly. Race roles… not so much. Not to mention it’s fallacious to discount my arguments just because applying them to a different scenario renders them inaccurate.

As to my statement on equality, I included this in the portion of my thoughts regarding placing inflated values on women being seen as equals to men. My concern here is that feminism sees the status of mortal men as some type of gold standard. This is unfortunate. It draws attention away from who we are really commanded to be like unto.

Well, why can’t we do both?

We can. Unfortunately Mormon feminism often becomes such a dominating ideology that the more important stuff gets lost. Take Zelophehad’s Daughters for example. Great blog, phenomenal authors. Unfortunately many of the posts I read there have some kind of feminism spin to it. I just want to see them put their wordsmithing skills to more uplifting uses.

Comment # 3 left by The author on January 30th, 2007

What if you changed the arguments outlined in this post from gender differences to racial differences.

Has God made any declarations on race origins and purposes? Not that I’m aware. Sure, there have been some leaders who have opined one way or the other, but nothing (to my knowledge) has been revealed by a prophet regarding eternal purposes or plans regarding race.

I’d respond to your other points, but I need to go catch my bus.

Comment # 4 left by Connor on January 30th, 2007

Are you saying that it is not ok to systematically discriminate by race, but it is ok to do so by sex?

Comment # 5 left by J. Stapley on January 30th, 2007

Are you saying that it is not ok to systematically discriminate by race, but it is ok to do so by sex?

I’m not sure where you extracted an endorsement of systematic discrimination from the post.

Comment # 6 left by The author on January 30th, 2007

Not treating people as equals == discrimination.

Comment # 7 left by J. Stapley on January 30th, 2007

Not treating people as equals == discrimination.

Oh come on J., that’s erroneous.

Discrimination has more to do with denying basic rights/privileges. I think even the Savior was unequal in his treatment of women vs. men.

Comment # 8 left by The author on January 30th, 2007

The Gospel is about equality - you said your self, we are all children of God. What feminism aims to do is eradicate the oppression of women that has occurred for centuries. There is absolutly nothing about the Proc to the Family which would contradict this.

You also have to understand, while the things outlined in that declaration are ideal, many many many women are unable to live even close to that ideal. Feminism is about allowing them the ability to provide for their families, and be able to do so as well as men are able to do so. Because of feminism, gone are the days when a single mother has to raise her kids in poverty because she has limited options in careers, salary, and childcare. Gone are the days when a woman feels forced to stay an abusive relationship (at least in some countries). Gone are the days when LDS stay at home moms (and their husbands) feel they should not pursue education and personal fulfillment. Gone are the days when LDS woman feel they have to have as many kids as biology will allow - even at the detriment to their own health. Gone are the days when men and husbands get to chose what woman and wives do with their bodies (thats not advocating abortion either - just consensual sex and pregnancies, even in marriage). Those days are not that far behind us, and it is largely due to Feminism that we have progressed past that.

You also have to understand, gender has been defined by men for centuries. Yes, woman bear children (and most feminists celebrate that fact!). But, feminism helps LDS woman themselves understand that to be a Woman of God does not mean they need to be Betty Crocker, keep silent at church. Feminism helps LDS woman understand the power they have that has been degraded and discounted in society for centuries. It helps us understand, especially those who don’t have kids, that our value is not connected to our reproductivity. Likewise, I think it helps men to understand the same about themselves.

Pink does not equal girl, blue does not equal boy - gender is not our personality, gender does not determine our worth in society, and feminism, has helped woman and men alike to understand this and to be better for it.

PS - I don’t think its really fair to say what other members should blog about. Many of the very things you are complaining about - like posts at Zelophads Daughters and FMH, have been extremly uplifting to me and helped me immensly when my faith and testimony were challenged. I would suggest you not frequent such blogs if you have an issue with them.

Comment # 9 left by Veritas on January 30th, 2007

J., maybe you can help me because I really don’t understand how this is perceived. How do you think feminists define equality? There is a camp in the church that believes that men and women ARE equal; there is a camp that does not (most people vocal about feminism fall into the latter category, at least in the online world). What I’ve never been able to get my mind around is what the basis of “equality” is for the latter group. What do you envision equality looking like? How would it be measured? Clearly this is more a matter of perception that some set reality because there are so many points of view about the degree of equality between the sexes in the Church. So I’m interested to hear this concept fleshed out more from a perspective that is not my own.

(I like what the author used here as the definition of power, which heavily influences my perception of what equality means in God’s eyes.)

Comment # 10 left by Michelle on January 30th, 2007

Hey — interesting thoughts. But I think the evidence is really handled in a kind of sloppy manner here. For example, are you sure the proclamation on the family says that gender is the determinant factor in social or economic identities? I find the statement that gender is an “essential characteristic” — but presumably only one among many, and not necessarily the most important. At any rate, if we believe that gender automatically overrules other aspects of our social, economic, and spiritual identities, we must believe it for reasons other than the proclamation, because it just doesn’t say what you want it to. So, at the least, more evidence is needed.

RE male and female roles in the Celestial Kingdom… Well, we just don’t know much of anything on that topic. There hasn’t been revelation. Remember how we don’t know much, if anything, about God the Mother? Pretty much the same goes for other Celestial priestesses — and we don’t even know that much about the roles of Celestial priests.

On your transitory treasures point, I fear that you may have indulged in a partial and selective reading of the scriptures. Consider these two statements from the Doctrine and Covenants:

Nevertheless, in your temporal things you shall be equal, and this not grudgingly, otherwise the abundance of the manifestations of the Spirit shall be withheld. (Doctrine and Covenants 70:14)

For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things; for if you will that I give unto you a place in the celestial world, you must prepare yourselves by doing the things which I have commanded you and required of you. (Doctrine and Covenants 78:6-7)

Clearly, there is a spiritual, eternal dimension to the Mormon struggle to create social and economic equality in temporal things. Unity based on being children of God, as you mention in your post, requires us to follow God’s commandment that we strive actively for equality in temporal things.

With regard to your arguments about the atonement, I don’t necessarily disagree. Nonetheless, an implication of your arguments would be that righteous men should resign their priesthood, as well — such power is, after all, trivial and unnecessary. Or if it isn’t, why then is it only trivial and unnecessary for women? Bear in mind, as you answer this, that Mormons believe that women do become priestesses in exaltation.

Comment # 11 left by RoastedTomatoes on January 30th, 2007

Part of all this is based on the Proclamation on the Family. A commentor mentioned that this is the ideal. Unfortunately, that is what must be taught. If church leaders were to talk to the exceptions to the ideal, then many would consider themselves exceptions. The exceptions would evetually become the illigitamate rule.

When we loudy and publically proclaim the exception we are at least indirectly contradicting the rule. Or at least perceived that way. This can be dangerous business. Of course there are exceptions. The ideal is what must be taught.

We all must be patient and tolerant with the legitimate exceptions, and not drive them to be defensive. But we ought to support the ideal as taught by the prophet.

Comment # 12 left by Eric Nielson on January 30th, 2007

Boiled down, you seem to be saying that women don’t need to worry about their situation in this world because the situation in the next life will make up for this life.

Comment # 13 left by Melinda on January 30th, 2007

RoastedTomatoes and J. Stapley have said much more eloquently (and probably calmly) what I would say in response to this post. I will add a few thoughts, however.

Just because I support feminism, doesn’t mean my sole goal in life is to be exactly like men. Instead, I want similar (equal) opportunities for growth and development. And don’t you dare tell me that the opportunities afforded to me because of feminism are “transitory treasures.” It is because of feminism that I am able to get an advanced degree at a higher institution of learning. Learning is central to my life (and to God’s plan), I have received direct revelation from God about my chosen path in academia, and feminism has enabled me to do this.

Also, in reference to your comments about our blog, I understand that you might not find much of the feminist material especially uplifting. However, I hope that you will recognize that blogs like ours are uplifting to a different audience (hi, Veritas!). Many women need spaces where they can sort out the difficulties they have faced being women in our society, and honestly, we don’t have a lot of spaces like that in the official chuch structure. While I understand that the feminist critiques may turn you off, we are trying to better understand (in our own way) what it means to be women and daughters of God.

Comment # 14 left by Seraphine on January 30th, 2007

RT

Thanks for your critiques. I agree that the evidence here is light but that’s mostly due to the fact that it’s a post and not a dissertation

Regarding the prominence of gender in determining our social roles, I think that I was safe in my inferences inference simply due to our understanding of the Plan of Salvation (including understanding what our Heavenly Father’s work and glory is coupled with the teaching that we are to be like Him someday)

I fear that you may have indulged in a partial and selective reading of the scriptures.

I believe I may accuse you of such as well… Does the scripture you cited not refer to fulfilling temporal actions such as baptism as opposed to simply trying to “be a good person”? Surely the Lord isn’t saying that we must gain the esteem of men to qualify for the celestial kingdom

Or if it isn’t, why then is it only trivial and unnecessary for women?

you seem to be saying that women don’t need to worry about their situation in this world because the situation in the next life will make up for this life.

Yeah I was afraid it would come across that way. That’s why I included my suggestion that equality will be a natural side-effect of our efforts to make all people Christ-like, instead of trying to make women “man-like”.

Comment # 15 left by The author on January 30th, 2007

Author, I think your inference about the eternal destinies of men and women is, I guess, based on the philosophies of men. There’s no revelation in any of our canonized scriptures that tells us what exalted women will do in the eternities. If you think you know the answer, it comes from some source other than the revelations published by the church — and as such, it isn’t binding on anyone but you.

Regarding the scriptures I quoted, you ought to actually look at the context before assuming you know what it is. Both are specifically about social and economic equality — not baptism. Section 70 gives the examples of food, raiment, and housing as things in which we must be equal in order to have manifestations of the Spirit. Section 78 puts a similar commandment in the context of eliminating poverty — both an economic and a social reality. 4 Nephi provides a similar vision of social, economic, and political equality as a prerequisite for spiritual blessing. So your argument that we shouldn’t seek economic and social equality for women on the basis that it’s a temporal thing fails; God cares quite a lot about our efforts to establish temporal equality. What He doesn’t like, in the scriptures, are efforts oriented toward our own personal temporal comfort and gain. But when we work in an altruistic way on temporal issues, we’re on the side of the angels.

Can I recommend that you drop the idea of “man-like” women? This is a straw man; feminists aren’t trying to make women into men. They’re instead trying to make sure that both women and men are free to grow and develop as individuals.

Last but not least, I know this is a blog post and not a conference paper. On the other hand, it’s also an argument which may well have serious consequences for socially-disadvantaged others, and therefore it needs evidence for us to be justified in accepting it. If the evidence is weak, contradictory, or nonexistent, then accepting an argument that tends to reduce equality is probably unjustified — and may in fact go against the spirit of the revealed texts I quoted above.

Comment # 16 left by RoastedTomatoes on January 30th, 2007

I think even the Savior was unequal in his treatment of women vs. men.

That is just absurd.

Comment # 17 left by Veritas on January 30th, 2007

“And he inviteth them all to come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God.”—2 Nephi 26:33

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”— Galatians 3:28

Comment # 18 left by Serenity Valley on January 30th, 2007

Veritas: One might note that he very rarely chided or challenged particular women, but did so very often to men, very often tested them and put them in difficult situations (see, for example, the experiences of Peter).

Comment # 19 left by TMD on January 30th, 2007

It is hard to believe that “Author” is serious. The post almost looks like a “troll”ing one.

Does the post mean that, in the early 1900s, Mormon women should not have cared whether they were able to vote (i.e., political equality)? Shame on those of our LDS foremothers (like my grandmother) who supported and advocated that women be permitted the vote. Or in the 1960s, does mean that Mormon women should not have cared whether the law permitted employers to pay less to female workers than to male workers (i.e., economic equality)? Shame on those LDS women (and men) who supported such laws; they should have relied on the Atonement (or on free markets) to change the hearts of employers to provide appropriate (not necessarily equal) pay for equal work.

Or does it mean that, during the early correlation years when only priesthood holding men were allowed to pray in Sacrament meeting, (1) women should not been concerned or should not have missed the opportunity to pray in such meetings, and (2) that there was no reason for the Brethren to reverse the policy and extend the Sacrament prayer ability to women? Was it a mistake for the Brethren to reverse the policy if equality is not an important principle (at least for matters where male priesthood was not a heaven-revealed requirement for an activity)?

If “Author” is serious, I will check with my three LDS feminist daughters, and my less stridently feminist LDS wife, whether they would like him to join us for a lively dinner discussion some time (but wear a kevlar flak jacket).

Comment # 20 left by DavidH on January 30th, 2007

I think it’s wrong to criticize feminism hook, line and sinker. We shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. Obviously there are many benefits of the effort to bring more equality to our society. I am grateful that I can vote, that I was able to get an education, etc. I think the trick comes in knowing where to draw the line in what should and shouldn’t be desired in terms of “equality.” I just don’t think that everything our mortal brain thinks of will always line up with what God thinks on this topic. Equality was defined by someone above as equal chance for growth and development, but in an eternal sense, life teaches us all at one time or another that what we think is good, sufficient, necessary or appropriate for our growth sometimes doesn’t line up with God’s perspective. Figuring out what really is God’s will is a key to all of this, and I realize that part of the reason there are differing opinions about where that line should fall is because there are different perspectives about what is and isn’t God’s will with regard to feminist hot topics in the Church. I suspect that unless we could come to agreement on those issues, it’s unlikely that there will ever be agreement on where limits of feministic aims in our religion should be.

I have to wonder if the author might be addressing more of the kinds of situations where God’s equality and opportunities for growth are instead interpreted as inequality. Indeed, Christ invites us all to come to Him, and we can all do that, regardless of our gender roles, or whether or not we hold priesthood authority, or whether we can hold certain church positions. And I think, as different as some of our perspectives are, that point should be something that should be given more attention in discussions like this — as some common ground and the cohesive part (central Person) of the gospel that is supposed to heal all wounds. It seems to me that the author’s attempt to focus on the equality the Savior offers is not to negate the benefits of feminism in society, but rather to remind us that any efforts we make as humans to do anything “must fail” and only the Savior’s perfect love will be able to make all things equal and possible for all. Not that we don’t try to do our part, but sometimes I wonder if we try too much (in this way and many others) to do too much on our own.

Comment # 21 left by Michelle on January 31st, 2007

“Part of comprehending our eternal nature includes coming to terms with the implications of male and female roles in the Celestial Kingdom.”
This is where the difficulty lies for me. Since we are given no information as to the female role in the Celestial Kingdom, the only place I can look for guidance is in the temple. And in the temple, there are so many instances of Eve being in a subordinate role that it discourages me.
I could agree that power imbalances on earth are the result of the fall and not worry too much about it, if I felt that in the eternities the imbalance would be corrected and there would be true equality. But the temple makes it look like things won’t be that much different on the other side. And it bothers me when I am made to feel that a righteous woman would love her role and not aspire to something more - that she should find joy and nobility in a subordiante role. Being given a role model and an understanding of my role in the celestial kingdom would make all the difference for me. I have trouble understanding why Heavenly Father would not give us more knowledge of this.

Comment # 22 left by Sally on January 31st, 2007

I think the Scriptures DO define women’s rolls in heaven to some degree. Firstly we are told that God is the Father of our spirits. It is impossible to have a Father without a Mother. And if that be so then child bearing is part of that role. When Adam and Eve were born/moulded God finally said to them to be fruitful and multiply (have kids). This was while they were still Celestialised beings. They had not fallen at this point. This demonstrates having children to be a Celestial law.

I fully support standing up for what is fair. But God made certain intelligences men and others women for a reason. Men and women do have some different areas of higher ability to excel. In spite of China’s efforts to mass produce “its”. They failed. No matter how much brainwashing they have used over all these decades (since the 40’s) they have not turned women into being the same as men. And their army structure demonstrates this.

Why should a woman want to be a man. I like to be a man because I get to marry a woman. There is nothing wrong with being a woman. That men get the priesthood is just relevant to the areas of higher abilities that men happen to have. That women carry children in their womb is just relevant to the aresa of higher abilities that women happen to have.

It is important to fight for rights. But I have to agree with Michelle question: Where are you going? It is wrong to try and out-think God’s wisdom.

Comment # 23 left by Doug Towers on January 31st, 2007

Sally

If you note in Scripture Man was made the head of the home AFTER the fall. This makes it obvious that it wasn’t so before the fall. Thus it will not be so in heaven. All will work together as one.

Comment # 24 left by Doug Towers on January 31st, 2007

Doug, note that before the fall, Adam and Eve were not celestial but rather terrestrial. Furthermore, please also note that Mormon feminism is not in general opposed to the idea of having children; most of the Mormon feminists I know have children.

“God made certain intelligences men and others women…” Now this idea is contradicted by the proclamation on the family. The proclamation says that gender is an eternal part of our identities, which means that God didn’t make it.

“Men and women do have some different areas of higher ability to excel.” There are certainly areas where men and women differ on average as groups. But — here’s the important thing — the variance within each group is almost always larger than the difference between them. The implication? For any given “manly” trait, there are always women who are better at it than pretty much any particular man, and vice versa.

“Why should a woman want to be a man.” In a comment above, I noted that this is a red herring. Feminists don’t want to make women into men. They just want both women and men to have the opportunity to make themselves into who they want to be. By characterizing feminism as being about making women into men, you reveal that you either don’t know any feminists or that you just haven’t listened when they’ve talked.

“…men get the priesthood…” Think temple again. Women become priestesses in the Celestial Kingdom. Can they do that without priesthood? So priesthood is part of their eternal destinies, too.

“It is wrong to try and out-think God’s wisdom.” This is exactly one of the major arguments that was made in favor of slavery, segregation, and the Holocaust. Supposing that treating some group of people in a way that denies them control over their own lives is “God’s wisdom,” absent any published or canonized revelation on the subject, is a morally dangerous game.

Comment # 25 left by RoastedTomatoes on January 31st, 2007

Help a brother out here.

I have heard a few talka bout the right to vote and get an education, and that is great. What might help me and the Author would be to speak for the proper role of current feminism within the church. I am not sure this is where the Author or Naiah wanted this to go, but it would help me.

Given that women can vote and get an education and work at the profession of their choice as it currently seems to me to be, can someone fairly simply state what the proper role of current feminism within the church should be? What does the faithful modern Latter-Day Saint woman appropriately want that she does not have within the church? I am not trying to be sarcastic here, and I am not looking for axe-grinding either.

Also, there has been a lot of talk about equality. It seems like comparing men to women is like comparing apples to oranges. But can’t an apple be equal to an orange in the eyes of God?

Also, is not the continuation of the family unit a significant goal eternally? Does this not give us at least a vague general view of the eternities?

Comment # 26 left by Eric Nielson on January 31st, 2007

“Also, is not the continuation of the family unit a significant goal eternally? Does this not give us at least a vague general view of the eternities?”

Not really — the diversity of human family arrangements across cultures and over time means that the continuation of the family is compatible with an almost endless array of views of the eternities. It’s important to remember that there’s no good reason to believe that 1950s-era US family life will be continued into the eternities; it might be anything else from human history, or even some kind of life no human has ever lived.

On the question of what feminism should be working towards, I’ll take a pass. However, let me point out that the author of the original post did explicitly argue against working for, e.g., equal pay for equal work.

Comment # 27 left by RoastedTomatoes on January 31st, 2007

A lot of the defense of feminism points out all the great things in society that have happened because of feminism, which is fine. But that doesn’t mean that it is necessary or proper for members of the Church to measure the rightness of the Church against a feminist ideal.

I do believe it’s important that in our secular society men and women are treated equally under the law (this would mean for me that some feminist causes, such as affirmative action, should be cast into oblivion). But I differ from many feminists in that I don’t believe it’s important that there be proportionate representation of men and women in all sectors of society. I’m not all that concerned if the majority of politicians are men as long as there are no formal barriers to women participating. But removing barriers to participation of women in public life, in education, in careers, etc. is a positive, noble goal. As RT says, “They just want both women and men to have the opportunity to make themselves into who they want to be.” That’s great.

But that doesn’t seem to be the goal of feminists in the Church. The goal of some feminists in the Church is to get the Church to conform to a feminist ideal, or at least to point out where the Church doesn’t conform to feminist ideals and criticize it for its failures. To feminists all differential treatment of men and women based on gender is A Bad Thing. Prescribing gender roles or having a male-only priesthood hierarchy is unacceptable because it is contrary to a feminist ideal of robust equality in all aspects of life. As far as I can tell, these aspects of the church are considered bad things because to some feminists differential treatment necessarily entails differential valuation. That God would entrust only to men the government of the Church indicates that God values men more than women. So in order for the Church to reflect God’s equal love for men and women, it must change to make the government equally shared between men and women.

But I see no reason to believe that differential treatment necessarily entails differential valuation. I see no reason to believe that an all-male priesthood is bad for men or women. I see no reason to believe that prescribing gender roles is bad for men or women. I don’t think that in any significant way the aspects of the Church that run afowl of feminist ideals prevents men or women from “making themselves into who they want to be.”

Probably the main reason that feminist critique from within the Church gets my goat is that I believe that sustaining the leadership entails giving them the benefit of the doubt. It strikes me as presumptuous and outside God’s order for members to declare the right path for the Church or to criticize the Church for not conforming to an outside ideal. I know some members have no problem with this, and that’s their right, but it just doesn’t feel right to me.

Comment # 28 left by Tom on January 31st, 2007

I’ll take a stab at answering Eric Nielson’s question about the purpose of feminism in the modern LDS church.

First, on a practical level, feminism (and the Church!) encourages women to develop their talents and set personal goals towards self improvement and happiness - and feminists contend that women should have the same opportunities as men to do this.

One way the current structure of the Church undermines the value of women and the effectiveness of the Church is by denying women opportunities to serve in non-priesthood callings based solely upon their gender. There are no doctrinal reasons for the current practice that only men may serve as Sunday School presidents or as ward clerks, for example. And in many areas of the Church, bishops routinely struggle to fill these callings with men, while qualified women stand willing to serve.

As one commenter pointed out already, some Mormon traditions are based upon outdated, unexamined beliefs of the roles of men and women, e.g., women were not allowed to pray in Sacrament Meeting until quite recently. This practice is one among many practices that should be changed because of a dogged following of cultural practices, rather than a careful reading and understanding of the doctrine.

Thus, to the extent the feminist movement (and the civil rights movement) sheds light upon harmful prejudices and practices, then feminism has much to offer all of us, including the Mormon Church.

Comment # 29 left by ECS on January 31st, 2007

RT, I don’t think the author is arguing against that. He says:

“So, Mister, you think you’re so flippin’ smart, are you trying to say we should abandon the fight for women’s rights?”
Nope. I’m saying go about it a different way.

On this whole thread, I’m a little disappointed, as no one is actually engaging or addressing any of the points that were made in the original post. People are picking at loose threads without even glancing at the cloth.

Eric, I actually found your questions to be totally in for this discussion. This post makes one (vague) argument for the relationship of ‘feminism’ and the gospel. As you said, “Given that women can vote and get an education and work at the profession of their choice as it currently seems to me to be, can someone fairly simply state what the proper role of current feminism within the church should be? What does the faithful modern Latter-Day Saint woman appropriately want that she does not have within the church?,” and yes, there’s a lot of talk about ‘equality’ in such discussions, and really I’m guessing that 99% of the time when people are disagreeing with each other over such issues, it’s really just this semantic trip wire. So, yeah, I too want to know, “can’t an apple be equal to an orange in the eyes of God?” So, if someone could address those two issues for me (proper relationship of feminism and the gospel & just what the nature of equality looks like in the context of such discussions), either in light of the points made in this post, or their own experience, I’d appreciate it.

Comment # 30 left by Naiah Earhart on January 31st, 2007

Naiah, I disagree with your characterization of the original post. Consider this argument:

I think it’s fair to say that most level-headed feminists have an altruistic goal in mind— namely to elevate the social and economic status of women worldwide to be on par with men. This noble cause stems from the blind assumption that socio-political and economic rights have some sort of intrinsic long-term value (why else would there be cause to fight for these rights?). They, of course, do not…

That’s an explicit argument against fighting for social and economic equality, isn’t it? Furthermore, it’s in the meat of the post, whereas what you quote is a throw-away line at the end — not really integrated into the attitudes expressed by the post as a whole. The cloth of the post is made of the threads; there’s no evidence that any of the arguments in the post have revelatory backing or are in fact reflective of God’s will. Doesn’t that worry you?

Comment # 31 left by RoastedTomatoes on January 31st, 2007

Naiah -

I tried to address Eric’s and your question about the place of feminism in my first comment. I want to follow up with your question “can’t an apple be equal to an orange in the eyes of God?” The answer, of course, is YES!! And many feminists would agree with this statement: in God’s eyes - we are all equally loved and cherished.

Unfortunately, the way we are treated on this earth is not a reflection of God’s love for us. That’s why we must all work inside the Church, and outside the Church, to make sure each of us, women, men, blacks, and the poor and sickly, are treated as God would treat us.

This comes to a fundamental flaw in this post’s presentation. We need to separate the beautiful idea of God’s love from the practices people subject each other to on this earth, which are NOT ordained by God. It’s no good to justify treating people unfairly by reassuring them that God loves them.

Comment # 32 left by ECS on January 31st, 2007

Naiah — let me quickly apologize for the tone of my last comment, which was harsher than I wanted it to be. Both you and the author of this post are struggling sincerely with these issues, as am I. Please forgive me for the aggressive nature of the last bit that I said; I didn’t mean to be a bully.

Comment # 33 left by RoastedTomatoes on January 31st, 2007

ECS: As one commenter pointed out already, some Mormon traditions are based upon outdated, unexamined beliefs of the roles of men and women . . .

. . . This practice is one among many practices that should be changed because of a dogged following of cultural practices, rather than a careful reading and understanding of the doctrine.

How do you know what’s unexamined, what’s outdated, and what’s a result of incomplete understanding of the doctrine as opposed to things that in place because they have some purpose? Is your understanding of doctrine the only legitimate one? Are you so certain that your understanding is superior to that of the people who govern the Church?

That’s why we must all work inside the Church, and outside the Church, to make sure each of us, women, men, blacks, and the poor and sickly, are treated as God would treat us.

I agree. But who’s to say that a perfectly loving God wouldn’t assign the government of the Church to males? Who’s to say that a loving God wouldn’t give the primary responsibility of nurturing children to women? And so on.

I don’t really want your answers to these questions because I’m quite sure that none of us here really has the answers. None of us knows which aspects of the Church are contrary to God’s will. Since it’s an institution full of imperfect people we can safely say that some things are. But I don’t see any reason to use feminist ideology to make those judgments.

Comment # 34 left by Tom on January 31st, 2007

I am a bit confused here. We seem to be dealing with vagueries. “The Author”, what equality do you see as unallowable for men and women? The Priesthood? Leadership Positions in church, based on the priesthood?

For others, what other inequalities are there built into Mormonism? Is it the whole family proclamation thing? Doesn’t it contain an escape clause?

Comment # 35 left by Matt W. on January 31st, 2007

Tom-

You say wouldn’t a loving God assign the “government” of the Church to males? Sure. But many of the service opportunities denied to women do not fall under the rubric of “government”.

For example, the practice of women being denied the opportunity to pray in Sacrament Meeting was founded more upon the personal prejudices of the correct role of women than it was upon specific doctrines of Christ, or any sense of propriety in “government”.

You question my ability to discern the difference between God’s will and “Man’s” will for this Church. I think we have to look at each of these practices individually, and match them up to the settled doctrines of the Church. The “Proclamation of the Family” is not a settled doctrine of the Church.

Comment # 36 left by ECS on January 31st, 2007

ECS,
So, you’re saying that by examining the settle doctrine of the Church you can rightly pinpoint which church policies are right and which ones are wrong? I’m doubtful.

And the government thing was just one example. Who’s to say that a loving God wouldn’t be OK with a policy that women shouldn’t be ward clerks or Sunday School presidents? On it’s face, I see no more justification for restricting the government to men than restricting prayer in sacrament meeting to men. To be truthful, I don’t know of any unimpeachable justification for any differential treatment of men and women or for any prescription of gender roles by the Church. But I also don’t know of any unimpeachable reasons why these things necessarily should not be so or why they entail or imply differential valuation of men and women.

Comment # 37 left by Tom on January 31st, 2007

Tom -

Good point. Since there’s really no justification one way or another for many of these practices, why not err on the side of providing more opportunity to serve in the Church, rather than less?

Comment # 38 left by ECS on January 31st, 2007

It seems to me there is no end to oportunities to serve within the church. So many of the ways we meaningfully serve are independent of any calling whatsoever. Not having a time consuming calling can actualyy free one to serve in the church (and the world) in more meaningful ways. In many ways a calling is a burden.

Comment # 39 left by Eric Nielson on January 31st, 2007

ECS,
I didn’t say that there is no justification, just that I don’t know of any unimpeachable ones. I wouldn’t be so presumptuous as to declare practices of the Church as wholly without justification. I don’t know nearly enough to make that kind of judgment. I actually trust that there is some good reason for restricting the government of the Church to men, as well as for other instnaces of differential treatment of men and women based on gender. To me, the fact that certain aspects of the Church are contrary to feminist ideals doesn’t require special justification. If I see no evidence that policies are bad for men or women or that they somehow impede the Church from accomplishing its mission, then I just trust that the leaders whom I believe to be worthy of my sustaining vote know what they’re doing.

Comment # 40 left by Tom on January 31st, 2007

Tom, I think what you and a few others here are arguing is that we should never be dissatisfied with church policy and it is not our place to ever question it.

I think it is perfectly appropriate to challenge traditions in the church without doubting the inspiration of our church leaders. It may be that something that I see as unequal they have never even thought about, and my urging to them that it be changed would lead them to pray about it and get a sure revelation one way or the other. I believe this is how much of the Doctrine & Covenants came to be. For example, if we didn’t QUESTION the idea that blacks could not recieve the priesthood, it never woudl have changed.

Heavenly Father doesn’t seem to ever just send down a thunderbolt of revelation to even the Prophet - rather, it comes as a result of questioning and prayer. I am sure without a doubt that much of what the brethern focus their prayers and efforts on are a direct result of letters they recieve, or suggestions that filter their way up from local leaders. This is not a church of tyranny but of commen consent, that doesn’t just mean we get to vote on things when presented, but that we can in the right spirit, urge change.

I don’t think any feminist would claim they have recieved revelation for the church or that they are a greater authority than the Bretheren…rather, that we see areas where the church could progress or where we ourselves are willing to serve but because of tradition are unable to. Making suggestions to our leaders about such things within the church is not inappropriate.

Comment # 41 left by Veritas on January 31st, 2007

Tom, I think what you and a few others here are arguing is that we should never be dissatisfied with church policy and it is not our place to ever question it.

Not really. I’m arguing that differential treatment doesn’t necessarily entail differential valuation, that it is not unreasonable to believe that a perfectly loving God could institute or at least be OK with policies that are contrary to feminist ideals, that the Church doesn’t necessarily need to conform to feminist ideals to be right with God.

I disagree with feminist critics of the Church. I don’t think their arguments have much merit. I don’t think there is good reason to believe that the Church needs to change in regards to gender policies. I don’t think that “progress” should be measured against an outside standard.

That’s one part of my beef with “Mormon feminists”: I just think they’re wrong. But being wrong alone isn’t enough to bug me much. I’m wrong about stuff, I’m sure. I may be wrong in disagreeing with feminists.

There’s another aspect of “Mormon feminism” that bugs me. You’re right that I’m not comfortable in general with internal criticism of Church policies. I have said as much. It strikes me as presumptuous. Though I wouldn’t say that we should never question Church policies and decisions. We should always be seeking to know from God if our leadership is worthy of our sustaining vote. And I recognize that it is proper to continually evaulate the Church leadership/policies and our own beliefs and see if they match up and I agree that it is acceptable to, as you say, in the right spirit, express our thoughts to leadership. But I don’t believe the right spirit is carping criticism, angry diatribes, and self-certainty, which is how I would characterize most of the Mormon feminism that I have encountered. I just don’t see value in it. I realize that some people do. That’s fine. I don’t.

Comment # 42 left by Tom on January 31st, 2007

Tom -

I’m sorry you’ve had such negative experiences with feminists. Check out J. Stapley’s excellent post at BCC about being a Mormon feminist. It’s very well written, and no “carping criticism, angry diatribes and self-certainty” there.

Comment # 43 left by ECS on January 31st, 2007

ECS,
I know I’m jumping into your discussion here but I’m perfectly comfortable with the fact that women aren’t called to be clerks. As a member of a bishopric I spend more time with the clerks than I do with the bishop, oftentimes just me and the other clerk in the small clerks office. There’s lots and lots of communication going on between clerks and bishoprics and any idiot can see the problems that would arise if women were called as clerks. This is only my opinion, but I think the fact that women aren’t called as clerks is a purely practical issue.

Why we don’t call women as SS presidents, I have no idea, I wish we could, but to make it a feminist issue seems absurd.

Comment # 44 left by Rusty on January 31st, 2007

Wow, Rusty. I don’t appreciate you calling me an “idiot” and my views “absurd”. Guess I’m done with this conversation.

Comment # 45 left by ECS on January 31st, 2007

I happen to think there is a reasonable balance in the church. Men can not be Relief Society presidents nor can they be Primary Presidents as far as I understand. We all know how much the Lord loves little children. Maybe the ones he really loves and really trusts are the ones he wants working with little children. Specifically Mothers and Primary Presidents. Let the men be things like High Priest Group Leaders and Clerks - Ugh.

Comment # 46 left by Eric Nielson on January 31st, 2007

ECS, way to respond to the rhetoric and not to the point.

Comment # 47 left by Matt W. on January 31st, 2007

Rusty, are you concerned that if women were ward clerks, the clerks’ office would be a breeding ground for adultery, or are you just concerned that there would be social discomfort?

Either way, I have to say that I always find it disheartening - and frankly demeaning - to hear that by virtue of my sex, I frighten my brothers in this church.

Comment # 48 left by Serenity Valley on January 31st, 2007

Lots of people of Both Genders are uncomfortable alone with members of the opposite sex. And it’s not just a church thing.

Comment # 49 left by Matt W. on January 31st, 2007

Matt W. - I’m not interested in continuing a conversation that has degenerated into disrespectful name calling. Nevertheless, to answer the substance of the comment - I don’t believe that LDS men and women working together to fulfill church callings are any less able to ward off temptation than the millions of men and women working closely together in the workforce who choose not to have sex with each other.

As to the point about why women can’t be Sunday School presidents being “absurd”, if there is no reason to exclude someone based upon their sex from serving in a position, why not open that position to everyone? I fail to see how this is an “absurd” suggestion. In Singles Wards, where women typically outnumber the men, bishops have difficulty filling these callings with men. I’ve known bishops to change the name of the position to “Sunday School Coordinator” from “Sunday School President,” or “Scheduling Coordinator” from “Executive Secretary” to fill these callings with women because no men are available to serve. Unless there is a worthwhile reason to restrict these callings to men (which no one has yet articulated), it undermines the effectiveness of Church administration to require men to serve in callings where women would do just as well.

Finally, would it be “absurd” for women before 1980 to express their desire to pray in Sacrament Meeting? Judging from the viewpoints expressed in this post, I’m afraid the answer to that question is yes.

Comment # 50 left by ECS on January 31st, 2007

But I don’t believe the right spirit is carping criticism, angry diatribes, and self-certainty, which is how I would characterize most of the Mormon feminism that I have encountered.

I’m really sorry you’ve had such negative experiences. The response might have something to do with an interchange where such feminist feel they are being attacked. I know that I question myself constantly, am averse to “carping” (not criticism, however) and generally tend towards too much self-doubt and introspection rather than what you characterize above. But when I feel attacked I sometimes revert to less patient and thoughtful portions of my personality. I’d say that the arguments I’ve seen on the naccle about feminism where “carping” or overt self-righteousness figure prominantly feature such behavior from both sides. It’s not rhetorical isolation. Women just get called on it a lot more, for any number of reasons I dislike.

As for the post at large, I figure Vertias, Roasted Tomatoes, and others have already expressed many of my sentiments, and done so better than I would today.

What most bothers me (other than the usual conflation of sex and gender) is the author’s implication that working for social justice outside of the church cannot help build the gospel or kingdom of God. Surely part of our “test” here must concern how much effort we exert to make sure social structures limit opportunities for abuse and the general tromping upon others’ abilities and efforts at self- and community betterment (not to mention, say, free will). Isn’t working for that stuff a portion of loving God and loving our neighbors? I wholeheartedly agree with the author that social problems will all vanish should everyone keep those two commandments as God intends. Since we all know the total fufimment of such a thing in this fallen world is a pipe dream, I’ll keep on working to end systemic violence and discrimination through legal as well as spiritual channels. Especially since we can never accuretly parse what God intends in this fallen place. (See the many naccle debates on the Proclamation if you think its language means the same crystalclear thing to all of us trying to do right.)

I do appreciate the author’s sincere engagement with the issues. The post seems rather reductive, but as the author says, it’s not a disssertation. Which my comment is starting to resemble, so I’ll shut up now.

Comment # 51 left by Janet on January 31st, 2007

hmm… interesting twists and turns the discussion has taken here. I’m sorry I haven’t been monitoring more closely to respond to everyone’s comments.. life gets in the way you know

I will be hopefully be available more this evening to expound upon why I wasn’t intending to disregard the heroic strides that feminism has made and trying more to, as the title says, address “issues” in Mormon feminism

I apologize to those who came into this thread only to be offended. Please don’t be. Just as Seraphine pointed out that Zelophehad’s Daughters is a place to figure things out, so I hope this thread will be too. I am not an ideologue and can be persuaded when presented with valid arguments. Likewise I don’t recommend that any of us reject ideas presented just because they clash with what we have presupposed to be correct.

Comment # 52 left by The author on January 31st, 2007

Dear Author–for the sake of your own sanity, DO NOT try and respond to everyone! You’ll go crazy and you will get carpel tunnel (sp?). I think people understand if you just respond to various threads rather than all individuals. If someone is quite angry (and I haven’t read all the comments so don’t know if anyone was) it’s always nice to respond if there’s been a misunderstanding, but goodness, don’t do a point-by-point. I tried it once. Bad, bad idea.

And y’all who run this blog–I’ve never really been over here before and just wanted to say you’ve got the best blog name ever. It makes me giggle.

Comment # 53 left by Janet on January 31st, 2007

But I don’t believe the right spirit is carping criticism, angry diatribes, and self-certainty, which is how I would characterize most of the Mormon feminism that I have encountered.

Oh, but Tom, self-certainty is such fun. Take it from an expect: you have not yet begun to blog until you gaze in dumbstruck wonder at the unassailable rock upon which your own ideas rest, and shake your head sadly at the folly of those who simply haven’t the eyes to see the unshakeable truth that is…you.

On a more slightly serious note, I’ve never seen any evidence that carping criticism, angry diatribes, etc. are confined to any particular point of view–and certainly not to feminists, for that matter. (I here submit the entire Bloggernacle, more or less, as Exhibit A). Such behaviors seems rather to be common to the human condition, and there’s a fairly predictable pattern that characterizes the downward spiral, whatever the topic of discussion. A falling level of civility seems to lower all boats. And being correct about the matter under discussion has no necessary correlation with one’s level of civility (witness Mormon missionaries bashing with JWs, for instance).

Comment # 54 left by Eve on January 31st, 2007

Whoah, ECS, you know that I never said you were an idiot, I said that “any idiot can see the problems that would arise…” Can you really not see the problems? Whether or not you agree that they are truly problems is another issue, but if you truly can’t even see the problems that I’m implying, then I guess I did call you an idiot and for that I apologize, I shouldn’t have done so. (FWIW, I thought that I had erased that word thinking it was too strong but apparently I forgot to rephrase it. I understand if you don’t believe me though.)

Rusty, are you concerned that if women were ward clerks, the clerks’ office would be a breeding ground for adultery, or are you just concerned that there would be social discomfort? Either way, I have to say that I always find it disheartening - and frankly demeaning - to hear that by virtue of my sex, I frighten my brothers in this church.

Serenity Valley,
Reducing the complex issues of mutual attraction down to “a breeding ground for adultery”and men being “frightened” is less than what I would have expected of you. I don’t know a single brother that is “frightened” of a sister in our ward. I know lots and lots that think it’s probably a good idea to avoid repeatedly being in a small space with another sister. It’s the same argument against a man being alone with children (in primary) or missionaries being in companionships (and never alone with sisters) or someone being outside the bishop’s office whenever he is conducting an interview with a female. I would imagine that what you are implying is right, most of us would feel completely comfortable and be totally appropriate in the clerks office, but there is no way all of us would. I think it’s wise that the church constantly puts up safeguards. (I’m not even saying that this is why the church only calls men as clerks, I was only saying that it probably wouldn’t be a good idea to have female clerks, even if they could be called as such)

Comment # 55 left by Rusty on January 31st, 2007

Take Zelophehad’s Daughters for example. Great blog, phenomenal authors. Unfortunately many of the posts I read there have some kind of feminism spin to it.

On behalf of ZDs, may I just say, why, thank you, Author. And trust us: if you find our combination of Mormonism and feminism disconcerting, so do we. Just one reason we have to have a blog to come to terms with it all.

(Also, and far more importantly, because The Bouncer made us do it.)

Comment # 56 left by Eve on January 31st, 2007

ECS,
Regarding the “absurd” comment, that was a personal opinion, one of which comes from someone who just doesn’t care enough about the issue to complain. I’m fully behind you on the desire for women to be called as SS presidents, but for now I just have too many other things that are going to take precidence over that in my hierarchy of important things to worry/think about in life.

Comment # 57 left by Rusty on January 31st, 2007

Rusty, thanks for explaining your comments. First, I don’t understand the problem with men and women working together, so I guess I am an idiot. If the only thing stopping LDS men and women from jumping into bed with each other are the rules that segregate them from each other’s company in the Church, then we’re in trouble. Surely you spend lots of time working with attractive women in your profession, but you choose to honor your marriage covenants instead of entering into illicit relationships. Women should not be shut out of opportunities to serve in the Church because men are unable to resist sexual temptation.

Second, many Church practices and even the temple ceremony have changed over the years to accommodate modern egalitarian principles. I find it absurd to believe the Church has now achieved perfection in this area, and that we can accept the practices of the status quo as unchangeable and divinely sanctioned.

Comment # 58 left by ECS on January 31st, 2007

It’s the same argument against a man being alone with children (in primary) or missionaries being in companionships (and never alone with sisters) or someone being outside the bishop’s office whenever he is conducting an interview with a female.

Rusty, the issue with men being alone with primary children is that the situation is a good hiding place for abuse, and not just of the sexual variety. Honestly, I’m not sure why we target men for this concern - women are as likely to be physically or verbally abusive, and while such things may be less damaging to children than sexual abuse, they’re still serious risks. The problem here is the potential for abuse of one’s position of authority. That goes for interviews between bishops and women as well.

I’ve worked with plenty of men. I’ve travelled, for work, with men. I’ve spent time with them socially, I’ve seen other women spend time with male coworkers (and supervisors, and employees) regularly. And since I have always been lucky enough to work in settings which have openly discussed, carefully considered standards for workplace behavior which include mutual respect between all coworkers, I haven’t seen anyone coerced into a sexual relationship. Aside from coercion - I haven’t been hit on by male coworkers; I haven’t hit on male coworkers; I haven’t seen male coworkers hit on by other women. We’re all adults, after all. We’ve learned to see each other as something more than sex objects.

The argument that men and women in the church can’t handle spending time alone together would indicate that either we treat each other poorly, thus making private interactions unpleasant, or that we don’t truly interact with each other as adults. (That’s the trick with missionaries, really - many of them aren’t quite adults yet. They’re young enough that their hormones may still be in adolescent overdrive; they aren’t necessarily mature enough, cognitively, to fully consider the consequences of impulsive actions; and they often haven’t much experience interacting with members of the opposite sex on a non-sexual, non-romantic level.)

The reason I find worries about mixed-gender interactions among Mormons concerning is that I don’t want to mistreat people, and I don’t want people to think of me solely in sexual terms. As I said before, I find the former concern disheartening and the latter concern degrading.

Frankly, if two adults find themselves closed in the ward clerk’s office and realize that they’re being overcome with physical attraction for one another, they can just open the door themselves and find a chaperone. That’s what being an adult is all about.

Comment # 59 left by Serenity Valley on January 31st, 2007

[…] In the bloggernacle, one of the statements that I hear over and over again from non-feminists is: “I don’t support feminism because I don’t think that women should be the exact same as men”� (or as a recent blogger put it at the Blogger of Jared� [it’s in the comments],� we shouldn’t� be� ”trying to make women ‘man-like’”).� Now, while I admit that feminists are much more likely than the average person to be skeptical that various gender differences are inherent or natural, throughout feminist history there has been a large amount of tension around “equality” and “difference” and what those ideas mean for the feminist movement.� […]

Comment # 60 left by Zelophehad’s Daughters » Blog Archive » Exploring a Misconception about Feminism: Difference and Equality on January 31st, 2007

Sheesh folks, all I was saying, and it was literally a side comment born from anecdotal observation, is that it’s probably not a good idea to have women and men alone regularly. That’s all.

Women should not be shut out of opportunities to serve in the Church because men are unable to resist sexual temptation.

Um, “opportunities to serve in the Church” are plentiful, the fact that women don’t serve in two of them (SS prez, clerk) isn’t “shutting [them] out.” Unless you consider men to be “shut out from serving in the church” because they can’t be primary presidents. Secondly, isn’t it sexist to assume it’s always the men who are unable to resist sexual temptation? It seems a little presumptious to assume all the blood is on the hands of men. And why assume it’s always just a sexual thing anyway, there are legions of other ways one can be tempted to form an inappropriate relationship without taking off a single item of clothing.

Serenity,
I’m not understanding the difference in your argument FOR safeguards against the abuse of men over children (or bishops over females) and AGAINST safeguards against the abuse of bishopric counselors over sister clerks (or vice versa). (I ask this question hoping you know that I don’t think this is the reason that the church doesn’t call sister clerks, it’s the reason that I think it’s probably not a good idea).

And of course we’re adults. If everyone were as mature as us there would be no problems with adultery and abuse in the Church. However, there are those who have temptations that are easily curbed when safeguards are in place. Maybe it would be fine for women to be clerks and there were other safeguards in place at that point. I don’t care.

Comment # 61 left by Rusty on January 31st, 2007

Okay, let’s talk about women being man-like (as that comment of mine has come under the hottest fire)

I did not mean any form of physical, emotional or spiritual traits. I meant it in the context of the discussion, specifically social, political and economic status. (This, coincidentally, trends back toward my transitory treasures argument).

Feminism strives for equality of the sexes… I’m trying to say that this is wrong only because it robs women of grander things. Don’t strive for educational opportunities equal to that of men, strive for the educational opportunities that suit your needs/wants, male opportunities be damned

When I considered my options as a child of dirt-poor welfare family with two disabled parents, I didn’t demand to be given the same opportunities as the rich kids of non-disabled parents, I didn’t even take their situations into account. I just decided what I wanted to accomplish, and am doing it.

Essentially I guess I’m arguing that the main feminism flaw is that it is inferior, from a Gospel perspective, to altruism… But maybe I am seeing a conflict where there is none.. maybe they can both co-exist. I currently don’t think so though.

Comment # 62 left by The author on January 31st, 2007

Rusty, I think men should be allowed to serve as Primary Presidents or in Primary Presidencies. I thought it fairly obvious, but the reason I said men are responsible for the consequences of sexual temptation is because it’s almost physically impossible for a woman to force herself sexually upon an adult man.

Comment # 63 left by ECS on January 31st, 2007

RT:

I don’t know if you are still following this, but you comments on diversity of families interests me. When you cast typical Mormon concepts of eternal families as 1950’s style families it sounds to me like quite an extreme thing to say. Basic man/woman at least functionally married and raising their own children is what we are talking about no? ‘Neither is the man without the woman nor the woman without the man in the Lord’, and ‘Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife’ (both from memory if not perfect) are not sentiments from David O. McKay in the 50’s, they come a lot further back than that. I am no sociologist, but it seems to me that ther traditional family has been the fundamental building block of nearly all societies for nearly all time with only minor exceptions. Not some unique blip in history in middle America during the 50s. Am I that far off? I have a hard time believing there is that much ambiguity in what eternal families means.

Comment # 64 left by Eric Nielson on January 31st, 2007

Janet:

Thanks for visiting us and complimenting the name. I hope you stop by once in a while when you can. Hopefully our name is good for a few giggles if nothing else.

Comment # 65 left by Eric Nielson on January 31st, 2007

E CS:

The “Proclamation of the Family” is not a settled doctrine of the Church.

Please define “settled doctrine of the Church.”

If the only thing stopping LDS men and women from jumping into bed with each other are the rules that segregate them from each other’s company in the Church, then we’re in trouble.

Oh please . . .you know this works. Why do you think there is segregated housing at BYU? (do you suppose that’s a take off of the teach them correct principles idea?)

Women should not be shut out of opportunities to serve in the Church because men are unable to resist sexual temptation.

Now wait just a minute. What on earth makes you think it is the men who are necessarily unable to resist the sexual temptation?

Comment # 66 left by Guy Murray on January 31st, 2007

ECS,
The fact that men can’t serve as primary prez isn’t a masculinist issue, why does the fact that women can’t be SS prez have to be a feminist issue? There are certainly men out there that would love to be primary presidents but I’ve never heard a single man (or woman) complain about it. I have, however, heard many men (and women of course) complain that women can’t be SS presidents. I’m sincerely curious as to why you think that is?

…men are responsible for the consequences of sexual temptation is because it’s almost physically impossible for a woman to force herself sexually upon an adult man.

That’s the reason? Wow. I expected a much more nuanced and less sexist answer. Women are the victims, men are the predators. Okay. Well, I hadn’t even thought about rape as an issue, my thoughts were more along the lines of (mutual) emotional, psychological and sexual infidelity to their spouses.

Comment # 67 left by Rusty on January 31st, 2007

Oh my heck. Hackles are up. I’ve glanced over the thread and after one miscommunication and mistaken offense after another, I am more convinced than ever of the need for a fully-moderated, carefully conducted discussion with an intent of consensus-building. Uh, like, yeah.

I only have input on one issue raised, I do believe that the Proclamation is ’settled church doctrine,’ as in the 2007 Primary Theme book, where the monthly theme and scripture are given, one month it is the Proclamation that is cited. It may not formally have been canonized yet, but if the Primary cites it as scripture, in our correlated world, then it’s probably ’settled’ enough. Just my two cents on that.

Comment # 68 left by Naiah Earhart on January 31st, 2007

Feminism strives for equality of the sexes… I’m trying to say that this is wrong only because it robs women of grander things. Don’t strive for educational opportunities equal to that of men, strive for the educational opportunities that suit your needs/wants, male opportunities be damned

The problem here is that traditionally male opportunities in education have been broader and more extensive than female opportunities (though this is changing quite a bit). So, in effect, what feminists push for (”having equal opportunities to men”) means having a wider range of opportunities to choose from (so that a woman can choose a path that bests “suits [her] needs/wants”).

I guess what I’m saying here is that you and the feminists seem to be in a certain amount of agreement on this point.

Comment # 69 left by Seraphine on January 31st, 2007

Naiah, in support of the validitiy of the Proc. on Fam. D&C 107:22-27 or so, sure seems to support a document unanimously signed by the entire FP and Qof12 as binding upon the Church.

Comment # 70 left by Matt W. on January 31st, 2007

A lot of the defense of feminism points out all the great things in society that have happened because of feminism, which is fine. But that doesn’t mean that it is necessary or proper for members of the Church to measure the rightness of the Church against a feminist ideal.

I haven’t had time to read all comments today, but just had to say this summed up what I’ve been thinking about, but couldn’t figure out how to articulate.

Comment # 71 left by Michelle on January 31st, 2007

The comment was made that females must have the priesthood in heaven because the temple talks of priests and priestesses. However a lot of temple stuff is purely figurative. What would women do with the priesthood in heaven? Baptise? No. Heal the sick? No. Be a bishop? No. What then??? The temple talks of Gods having priesthood. So let’s get that straight - a God has authority to act in the name of …….?????

I have heard claim that there is no support for a dctrine that eliminates women from the priesthood. Where do I start in refuting that claim? The Scriptures clearly demonstrate a male priesthood. Show me a female that is called to the office of Cheif High Priest (President of the Priesthood) anywhere in scripture. Yet we have piles of evidence of men thus called. Also God laid out that men were to receive the priesthood. Nothing about women.

Hopefully my words won’t be misinterpreted, as they were last time, and I have explained myself correctly.

Paul explains that women are to be silent in church (he means relative to church government). To excuse this, many just palm Paul off as being anti-women. However that is purely speculative, as my deceased wife always enterpreted that as stated in concern for women. And whatever you wish to personally believe doesn’t detract from its inclusion in scripture.

Women are different. Always have been. And always will be.

Nothing about being inferior. Just different. Enjoy it.

Comment # 72 left by Doug Towers on January 31st, 2007

I must admit, I have only just come to this discussion, as I have a blogspot [http://godly-science.blogspot.com] which treats this type of topic - among others, and I have written a number of books, either directly on it, or which include reference to it, and someone has therefore, referred me here.

I must admit, I really enjoyed the thoughts of the good gentleman/brother who posted the initial post.
Just to help keep this discussion in context, I would like to re-post up a couple of paragraphs, because they will help form a pillar around which I would like to say a few things.

Perverted Doctrines:

From Wikipedia: In simple terms, feminism is the belief in social, political, and economic equality of the sexes, and a movement organized around the belief that gender should not be the pre-determinant factor shaping a person’s social identity or socio-political or economic rights.

The Lord’s proclamation on the family drags a hefty harrow rake right across the central hardened ground of this definition. Gender, says God, is the pre-determinant factor shaping a person’s social identity, meaning the standards/behaviors a person ought to adhere to when interacting with society. The Lord laid out those basic responsibilities for men and women. There is no escape clause in the proclamation for those who dislike the assignments their genders were given. The ideal society of God is designed to have two distinct genders whose innate skill sets sometimes overlap and sometimes complement each other. We know this to be true by virtue of the existence of eternal families coupled with our Heavenly Father’s work and glory (to make us like Him). Else why would gender be eternal?

I believe that Satan would like nothing more than to distort our self-perception as it relates to our gender. Part of comprehending our eternal nature includes coming to terms with the implications of male and female roles in the Celestial Kingdom. Not because we receive some reward for acting like a man or woman, but because the Lord knows that true happiness is only found by following His instruction. As long as feminism, good intentions notwithstanding, continues to blur that self-identification, humanity will bask only in short-term pleasure and search in vain for the peace the Gospel brings.

There have been a few side referencs included along the way also.
Someone wanted to include the issue of ‘race’, etc. as if that was the same as ‘gender’.
That was answered by others pointing out that within the Family Proclamation and the Gospel scripture generally there wasn’t any refernce to the differences between them, or of their status. Yet the Proclamation does reference male and female as possessing roles that are so deep that they contribute intimately to their self-identification.
This state was declared by a prophet to be one valid and essential to our eternal identity and future happiness.
Whereas, although there may be people who identify with themselves as being, Indian, or Chinese, or some other race, the real point is that they probably should not!
Let’s put it this way, we are in a fallen state, and when we are restored to that proper state, all such things will disappear as if they never happened.
This, of course, will certainly not be said of gender.

Let’s just straighten out a few terms that are often used in this topic of discussion that are just grossly misunderstood, simply because we live in the world, and get caught up in it.
As I say time and again when discussing this topic:
Equality does NOT equal “sameness”.

Let’s just look, for instance, at the def’n of ‘feminism’ of Wik.
From Wikipedia: In simple terms, feminism is the belief in social, political, and economic equality of the sexes, and a movement organized around the belief that gender should not be the pre-determinant factor shaping a person’s social identity or socio-political or economic rights.

Note the word this def’n uses: “equality”.
It is the term bantered about almost universally regarding feminism.
Yet it is a totally wrong term.

What feminist women are demanding [we don’t ASK anymore - “political correctness”] is really to have the SAME opportunity as men - not equal.
Men are equal with women; they were born and designed that way, by God; neither is any more important than the other; as Doug, above, said, ‘they are different’! Let’s celebrate! How boring and dead pan if we were the same.
Fortunately, we’re not the same; and should not be treated so - neither by government, nor by parents, nor by siblings, nor by schools, nor by one another, nor by God … and He doesn’t treat us as if we were the same!
But he does treat us as being equal.

Do you realize that if we weren’t different, we would actually be of absolutely NO VALUE TO EACH OTHER AT ALL!

Things in life … and people in life, for that matter, are of no value to each other if they were all the same.
We are only of value as we are different and have different talents and skills and spirit to offer one another.

The reason that diamonds are so highly valued is that they possess RARITY.
It is RARITY that brings the value of male and female to each other.
One was born to do or be certain things better than the other, and vice versa - by Divine decree.
Men will never be able to have babies - not unless scientists “break through” on achieving it via sex change!

Each should respect the other’s divinely-appointed territory.
It will contribute to their value, one to the other.

That is the genius of the Godhead:
Each member of it possesses mutually-exclusive roles that none of the other two can properly perform, but which are absolutely necessary to accomplish their all-important designs of eternity, when all put together.

As I say, you are most welcome to visit my Blog and examine the ‘treatment’ of, and comment on, the topic there, for it has a long history - one fraught with many misgivings and many misunderstandings. [http://godly-science.blogspot.com]

Comment # 73 left by Denidowi on February 1st, 2007

Rusty - men being restricted from serving as Primary Presidents is the same issue as women being restricted from serving as Sunday School Presidents.

As for the comment about sexual temptation - it was meant to be a flippant reply to your comment about all the “blood” being on men’s hands. As others have pointed out already on this thread, men and women have many opportunities in our society to engage in illicit sexual behavior. Using sexual temptation as a justification for segregating men and women from each other at church is specious as best.

Comment # 74 left by ECS on February 1st, 2007

Men being restricted from serving as Primary Presidents is the same issue as women being restricted from serving as Sunday School Presidents.

Exactly. I’m glad we agree. That’s why I don’t understand why one issue is worthy of being on the feminist agenda (or talking point or whatever) and the other isn’t worthy to be on the masculinist agenda.

Using sexual temptation as a justification for segregating men and women from each other at church is specious as best.

In theory, yes. But be a bishop for a couple years and see if your theory still holds up. Ask a stake president if it would be a good idea to cut back on the amount of regular close interaction two married (not to each other) people should have or if the church should increase the contact.

BTW, this has nothing to do with doctrine or the priesthood. I’m with you on your overall point, but my original point, which I still maintain, is that it’s probably not a good idea to have married men and women working together regularly in tight quarters.

Comment # 75 left by Rusty on February 1st, 2007

The fact is many adults do succumb to temptation. With the incidence of adultery and broken marriages in our society, I’m not sure that pointing out the fact that men and women often work together very closely outside of Church contexts supports the notion that this is something that should not be of concern to the Church. Yes, people more often than not behave appropriately. But there are enough problems that we should be wary.

But again, as Rusty has pointed out, this is probably not the reason that sisters aren’t called as ward clerks. As far as I know, no reason has been given, so attacking this as an instance of a Church policy based on bad reasons is a bit of a straw man. Rusty points out, and I agree with him, that one positive effect of not having married women and men working intimately with one another in Church callings is that there is reduced chance for things to go wrong. Again, it’s one positive effect, and most likely not the reason and pointing out the positive effect doesn’t mean that the Church (or Rusty, or myself) regards members as little more than sex objects just inches away from becoming adulterers.

Comment # 76 left by Tom on February 1st, 2007

I read the post but don’t have time for all the comments. I just wanted to answer your question below:

Instead those same energies could be directed towards the gospel message of becoming more like Christ and letting him change hearts.