aerin — I also think it would be cool if Elisa would be willing to add some comments and join in the discussion here. And I’d be interested in reading your thoughts on the topics you’ve mentioned.

   0 likes

I also appreciated Madame Curie’s post too. I still don’t understand the reasons to close the WRI and am still part of the fb group to keep it open.

I think it is a very difficult thing to be a feminist in the LDS church. Also to attempt to separate the gospel from LDS culture. I may write a separate post myself on both of these topics.

   0 likes

   0 likes

The fundamental tenant of feminism is choice–the choice for women to be able to live the lives they choose to live in order to create for themselves an identity that brings them happiness and fulfillment.

I couldn’t agree more. And what choices does Mormonism give women?

~ Administer the sacrament? Nope.
~ Baptize their own children? Nope.
~ Give blessings? Nope.
~ Honorific titles? Nope.
~ Leadership callings over both men and women? Not really.
~ Being sealed to more than one spouse? Not while you’re alive.
~ Work in the temple when you have children at home under the age of 18? Nope.
~ Knowing your husband’s temple name? Nope.

So what choices does Mormonism give women? As far as I can tell, you get to choose whether or not to serve a mission (with both options being considered honorable), and you get to choose how many times you can go on a mission.

You also get to choose whether or not to fill your uterus with a baby—although you can do that just fine without Mormonism, so that doesn’t really count.

Wow. Some choices. I can’t see why more women don’t line up for that.

   0 likes

   0 likes

Upon getting a decent nights’ sleep, I realize that I responded hastily, Paradox, to your criticism. I responded to your testimony at the end without dealing with the rest of your criticisms, many of which were well thought-out.

I don’t like the approach of bearing one’s testimony at the end of what someone says, because it immediately shuts down the conversation. The argument goes, “No one can argue with your testimony” – and that is true, because no one can argue with a feeling. While the GAs will suggest that the person you are speaking to will be left with your heart-felt Spirit in their mind, I assure you that for some (many, even) that is not the case. In particular, those of a primarily scientific or reasoning mind-set are left feeling that the speaker has resorted to saying “Because God says so”.

The problem with this is that Mormons don’t have a monopoly on God. Every Muslim, Catholic, Jew, Protestant, you name it, feels strongly about their faith and can say “Because my God says so!” and call it a day. Rather than feeling the Spirit, I was left feeling exasperated at the end of your message, because you resorted to the classic “bear down in testimony” to try to convince me. And its not convincing – its frustrating, because my concerns with the church’s relationship towards women is not something that can be prayed or obeyed away. I know – I’ve tried.

I also want to make clear that I am not really against Elise here – as you can see, I agreed with her in her assessment of the WRI. The comments you took exception to in my post were more towards those who call themselves feminists while blindly obeying whatever their priesthood leaders tell them to, and who cannot recognize the legitimate concerns some have with the church’s relationship with women. Please don’t apply my comments to a demographic they were never intended for.

Only someone completely ignorant about the power and authority attached to the presence of the Holy Ghost would believe such nonsense. Women have a crucial work in this Church, and you know nothing of our hearts and minds if you think that we’ve sold our souls to an institution of malevolent white men for a mess of pottage we have to cook ourselves.

I am not ignorant of the “power” of the Spirit – I had been an active, truly converted member of the LDS church for 10 years. I made a conscious choice to turn my back on family and close friends when I joined the church at the age of 21, and I fully believed its “promise” of a “crucial work” for women. That promise was unfulfilled for me, and I personally know for others as well. I am not wanting to give a full biography of my life, but trust me, I fully understand what you call the “power” of the Spirit. Furthermore, your calling legitimate concerns of the church “nonsense” only serves to drive a further wedge between those Mormon women who have legitimate concerns and the rest of the Church.

We are some of the busiest women in the country, and we don’t deserved to have our intelligence as women and the value of our service questioned like this.

First, I don’t really think being busy has anything to do with intelligence, but that’s besides the point.

I was neither questioning “your” intelligence or the value of your service. Indeed, I think the service and commitment of any woman in whatever role she chooses to fill is admirable. The key here is the word “choose” – I judge from your response that you assume that all Mormon women who are actively engaged in what the prophet tells them to do so because they have “chosen” to. The problem with that is that some (many?) make choices strictly because “The Prophet has spoken.” These choices are often contrary to their own personal strengths or life plan. For example, the moms who quit successful careers or drop out of school simply because “The Prophet said so” – without question or without personal confirmation. I have serious issues with that mentality. That is not feminism, when you give someone else the right to make lifestyle decisions for you, in the name of “authority”.

Some other examples are those who voted against Prop 8 in California recently, NOT because they personally felt it was right or compelling, but SOLELY BECAUSE the prophet said to. I place no very high commendation on blond obedience.

As a general rule, my issue with the Church’s relationship to women boils down to the Family Proclamation, which gives the idea that all men and all women have one and only divinely appointed role. I disagree with lumping people together based solely on their anatomy – penis = priesthood, mammary glands = mom.

It has been my pleasure to see for myself that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are the greatest protection I have against men who would degrade or objectify me in any way because they have taught me to believe in myself enough never to tolerate such treatment.

And while that is your personal experience, my personal experience also includes seeing men continue to carry callings within the church while sexually abusing their children and raping their wives. I am glad that you have had only positive experiences with such things, but your positive experience does not negate negative ones. I don’t think the church causes all such problems, but I also don’t think it acts as an immunity from them. For some individuals predisposed to unrighteous dominion or to some raised in overly “patriarchal” families, yes, it can be a negative.

As a young single Mormon woman, I know with certainty that the men and women leading this Church today care about me and my peers enough to tell us the truth–that careers and social causes will never EVER substitute for a genuine, loving, Christ-like character.

I agree with you – I never argued otherwise. Developing Christ-like attributes is certainly a positive thing.

Such women–no, such saints are eager to bless the whole human race, and need no one’s permission–not a university, and certainly not a degree–to engage in such service.

Still not seeing the relationship to my comments here. I naturally agree that no one needs a college degree to improve their character.

The women of this Church will continue to care for a bless the women of this world without the WRI because caring for our sisters (for truly we believe that is what they are) is just as much a part of our religion as everything else we do.

I don’t doubt it, but you do realize that Elise’s original post was in favor of keeping the WRI and why it was a disservice to eliminate it, correct?

The fundamental tenant of feminism is choice–the choice for women to be able to live the lives they choose to live in order to create for themselves an identity that brings them happiness and fulfillment… We have made our choice to follow the divine voice that is within our hearts and minds, the voice that comes straight to us from God. This is why we believe our leaders, both men and women, because what they say matches what God has said to our individual hearts and minds through His Holy Spirit. (D&C 8: 2)

Agreed – see my comment above about the importance of choice. As long as it is what is best for the individual, I don’t care if she listens to Pres. Monson, Pope Benedict, or the Shah of Iran. As long as she is given choices – real choices, and doesn’t feel compelled to make certain decisions because of her anatomy.

Do not claim to be an advocate for all women if you’re only going to be an advocate for women who think like you do.

First, I never took it upon myself to be an advocate for all women – that is far too stressful of a role for anyone. Second, I don’t expect everyone to think like I do. The beauty of feminism is that each women should be entitled to think for herself. I would be incredibly stupid if I thought even the majority of people thought like me. The blog sort of serves a fairly limited niche of individuals, and I don’t even claim to be an advocate for them.

Because of the Holy Spirit, we build ourselves into women of faith, and you have no right to ridicule or question that and still call yourself a feminist. This what we have chosen, and we are feminists just as much as you are because we believe in choice–our choice to be builders of the Kingdom of God.

That’s fine, I respect and applaud that choice. But please bear in mind that in your “we,” you have chosen to make yourself an advocate for all active Mormon women. And I have witnessed first-hand that if someone does not fulfill a neatly-defined, pre-packaged “method” of “building themselves into women of faith,” then their choices are ridiculed and they are no longer respected. Some of these individuals even choose against their own conscience and make decisions to fit the mold – and even then, I don’t ridicule them, but I do feel angry for their sake.

Wow. The only thing wrong with that statement is that it’s entirely false. The Relief Society has always been under the direction of the Priesthood. Always. The Relief Society was just as much of a Restoration as the offices of the Priesthood were. You can look that up in the Deseret News archives if you’d like. Female Relief Society by Eliza R. Snow. President Julie B. Beck reiterated that fact in the most recent General Relief Society Meeting a month ago. Your misunderstanding of the origin of the Relief Society shows how qualified you are to make any analogy on its behalf.

First, see chanson’s response, above. Second, I do not find Deseret News to be the most, um, reliable source for historical accuracy. I could tell you historical facts about the church and its relationship with women that I am sure the Church works hard to keep hidden (e.g., the fact that Joseph Smith took a 14-year-old Helen Kimball to wife, as one of his documented 32 polygamous wives. Won’t find that one in the Priesthood manual, will you?). Finally, I can make any analogy I want to make – you do not have any power to stop me. As to my “authority,” of course I don’t have that – I am a feminist women within the Mormon church. My thoughts will be forever consigned to the blogosphere.

   0 likes

A friend of mine is an ordained Lutheran minister, and a woman.

The pre-school my children attend has a “pastor Pat”. Because I was raised LDS, with all of that context, I assumed that Pastor Pat was male. I was shocked to learn that she is not.

The Community of Christ (formerly the RLDS) has ordained women, and has female apostles.

But the issue of leadership, authority and ordination are not what I wanted to address. I just wanted to point out that telling someone they have power and autonomy and actually giving them that power and autonomy are two separate things. It is one thing to talk about giving choices and options, it is another to actually give those choices and support them.

For me personally, as I mentioned in my comments above, I am disappointed that an institute to study things like “gender related violence around the world” would be deemed unnecessary to the mission of a university who proports to value women. As the premier university of the LDS church, which also proports to value women (all women – not just the ones that think like “they or we” do) I am shocked that such a mission was seen as less valuable.

I have found over the years, personally, that actions speak much louder than words. I’m sure I won’t change anyone’s mind. I can understand the argument that the General authorities had nothing to do with this, that it’s just a budget decision, and that women are really and truly valued for being who they are.

I will say, I want so much more for my daughter than for her to assume that since she was born female, she “deserves” gender related violence or abuse, that her education is not as important as a man’s (by staying in school she is taking a man’s place), and that she is worthless without a temple going priesthood holding husband. Some of these messages are still prevalent in some of the LDS communities – and were definitely present thirty years ago.

If my daughter chooses not to be a mother, that is her choice. She doesn’t have to do or be anything to be worthy of my unconditional love as her mother. She is valuable just the way she is, whatever she decides to do.

   0 likes

Me too. It’s quite a, um, paradox.

   0 likes

Paradox – The fact that you just bore your testimony to me indicates that you want to use spiritual feelings to fight reason. I’m cool with that, and I feel no need to respond because I no longer share that testimony. I hope you continue to find joy in your service in the church and in what you have defined as “feminism”.

I’ll continue voicing my opinions for the rest of us who aren’t nearly so content.

   0 likes

“When the Relief Society was changed from an autonomous body to an auxillary of the priesthood, the process marginalized women. The symbolism of that change is synonymous with the symbolism of the change being effected with the elimination of WRI.”

Wow. The only thing wrong with that statement is that it’s entirely false.

Paradox, at one time, the Relief Society was internally organized and chose its own leaders. Now the RS leaders are chosen by the priesthood hierarchy at every level, from general president to ward-level president.

Curie’s statement is not “entirely false.” We’re very happy to have you come here and offer your perspective and discuss these issues with us. But talking past each other (when I assume you know what she meant) doesn’t help us have a constructive discussion.

   0 likes