Monday, October 1, 2012

In case you thought Mormons were sexist.

One of the common criticisms I hear about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints aka LDS Church aka “Mormons” is that it’s a “boys’ club”. People think that because women don’t hold the priesthood that we are second-class citizens in our religion. I would like to state, for the record, that that is FAR from the truth.

This was made crystal clear to me last night when I attended the church-wide Relief Society broadcast, a meeting for all women of the LDS church 18 years and older. Before the broadcast, our Stake held a dinner in the cultural hall of our building. When I walked in, the room was packed with round tables, each filled with women sitting and chatting. Moving amongst the tables were men wearing aprons and carrying trays as they served food to the seated women. The men were all priesthood holders who had given up their evening to come to the church and serve the women so that we could enjoy our evening with one another.

Later as I watched the broadcast, I was touched by the story told by the General Relief Society President, Linda K. Burton. She told of a handcart trek she took over the summer with youth of the church as part of a celebration of the LDS pioneer heritage. She explained that one part of the trail, a steep hill, was set apart as a “women’s pull”. The men were to step aside and only the women were to pull the handcarts up the hill, in order for them to fully experience what the widowed and single pioneer women had to face those many years ago.

Image from the Central Oregonian- not a photo of the same trek, but a similar event.

These teenage boys could have easily teased and laughed at the plight of their female friends, or they could have sat down for a breather while these ladies did their task, but they chose instead to show their utmost respect for these women, to let them know that even though they could not help them, they were not alone. These men, both youth and adult, chose instead to line the trail on either side, their hats removed and placed over their hearts out of love and support for these women as they struggled up the hill.

In our church, women do not hold the priesthood, it is true. But we uphold every priesthood holder, and they know it. These stories I’ve shared with you are certainly not uncommon or isolated incidents. Boys are taught from a young age that women are to be loved, protected, and most importantly- listened to and respected. We know that our role as homemakers and mothers is sacred and that we are the heart of the family and the home. And we know that the home and family are the foundation of the church. We are constantly reminded by our priesthood leaders that we are counselors for our husbands, and that our thoughts and opinions take the utmost priority. These are not just patronizing platitudes- I have read transcripts from the church-wide priesthood meetings in which men are constantly reminded to show love and respect to their wives, mothers, daughters, and sisters, and chastised when they fail to do so.

The women of the LDS Church are anything but oppressed! On the contrary- we are treated as queens and equals, and we are made better women because of it.

**Update: Due to the multitude of harsh comments, I have chosen to close the comments section for this post. While I appreciate many of you who have been able to respectfully share your differing views and contribute to the discussion, the post was intended as an uplifting and positive message, not as an invitation for contention. Mormon Mommy Writers is not a battleground, and while I welcome a constructive sharing of beliefs and ideas, when the discussion becomes toxic I feel it is better to agree to disagree and let us part ways. Thank you again to those of you who shared your opinions in a thoughtful way, and I truly appreciated the opportunity to read your words.**

64 comments:

  1. What a fun evening that must have been for all the sisters who attended the dinner. I've been to a couple of those dinners and really enjoyed them all.

    I agree with your comments. Most of the men who hold the Priesthood over time come to respect and revere not only the role the sisters play, but the strengths that each of us are blessed with. They certainly have excellent role models in most of our leaders and General Authorities!

    Over the years I've encountered Priesthood holders who do not yet "get it," despite the best efforts of thier leaders to enlighten them. I've been fortunate enough, too, to see some of these brothers grow and evolve as they gradually gain that eternal perspective and understanding that the Lord intends them to have. As we know, the doctrines of Christ are perfect, but alas, His followers achieve perfection each at his/her own pace. Regardless, I can testify that the Lord holds the sisters in the highest regard and am proud to be one of his daughters.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I guess it is all in how you look at it. From my perspective letting the women push isn't really respecting them. A lot of the things the church does feels to me like they are making the women feel equal but they really aren't. So these are rare moments and not the norm.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that the mere fact that a "women's push" exists is a sign of sexism.

      Delete
    2. The "women's push" exists during the youth activity of pioneer trek to simulate the situation that existed for many pioneer families...when the husband passed away and left the wife to continue on alone to the Salt Lake Valley. Up until then the youth (under the direction of a "Ma and Pa") work side by side pushing handcarts through rugged terrain.

      Delete
    3. I think someone is trying too hard to twist this into a lesson on sexism.

      Delete
  3. To say that there is equality simply because the ruling class is generous and respectful and deferential misses the point entirely. It does not matter how well the men in the church treat the women, the point is that the men are in charge and that is the problem. There is no equality unless women are capable of holding the same leadership positions as men.

    It's okay for women to be okay with the arrangement, and to say they don't want the top leadership positions anyway, which is often heard from Mormon women. But this is not equality. Just because you don't mind being second class citizens, or don't feel that you are treated as second class citizens by the first class citizens, does not mean that you are not, in fact second class citizens.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very well put! I wish you had given your name because I'd love to quote this on my own blog.

      Delete
    2. Amen! Couldn't have said it better myself.

      Delete
    3. Nicely said.

      Delete
  4. April and Anonymous,

    It really is how you define "equal". Equality, according to the world and mathematics means that both sides of the equation are exactly the same. That is impossible in the world of human beings, and more specifically, men and women. Men are NOT women, and women are NOT men. They are compatible, they have many overlapping areas of interest and ability, but they cannot, nor will they ever, be equal. Understanding that the priesthood of God is here upon the earth as a tool, a way to teach man how to develop the god-like qualities of boundless love, generosity, and to deny the selfish beast that is the natural being. Look at any woman in the world. Very few don't already have these qualities in abundance, just by the nature of her being a woman. And add mortal motherhood into that mix, and her ability to nurture, to love unconditionally, to give up much of what she is especially when her children are young, and she is that much closer to divinity. Men need the experience they otherwise would miss out on to gain that divinity that we women have by our very nature.
    Denying men the opportunity to grow by using the priesthood just to call us "equal" shows that the true purpose of our compatible, but unique mortal experiences is not yet fully understood.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Equality of the sexes doesn't mean that mean and women are the same. Of course they are biologically different. That isn't the test for sexism. It means that both sexes are treated equally when it comes to opportunity. If a system is setup to allow men to run the organization, and women not allowed that opportunity simply because of their sex, it is sexist.

      You can try to explain it away by saying that women in the LDS church do, in fact, lead. Or say that they are allowed to do other things (give birth, etc.) that men are not. But, until a woman can be the president of the LDS church, until that is not banned simply because of the gender of the person, then it is sexist.

      It is wonderful that you find comfort in the existing system. But, your personal feelings about that system don't mean it is just. Just like another's personal feelings that an organization is awful doesn't necessarily make it so. You have to compare the system to an unbiased standard. That standard, in the case of sexism, is a definition:

      Sexism: discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities; especially, such discrimination directed against women.

      Your church fits that example perfectly. You are limited in your job opportunities because of your sex. So, by definition, the LDS church is sexist.

      Source for definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexism

      Delete
    2. Please do not condescend to me and pat me on the head. I do "find comfort in the current system" because I know it comes from God.
      No one has ever claimed that the Church or the priesthood power is, or ever was, a worldly entity. It is divinely given, instituted by God. It is "peculiar". It has never, nor will it ever, conform perfectly to the view of the world. And it shouldn't. It is for men to conform to God, not the other way around.
      Is it for mortal men (generic use of the word 'men') to help them grow? Yes. Are people perfect? No. Will some men abuse that position? Yes. Are they right for doing that? No. Will they have to answer to God for their misuse of His power? Absolutely.
      My choice to believe in the church means I believe ALL the tenets of the faith--including the current system of the priesthood as it is revealed to men on the earth. To tell me that because I choose this that I am somehow deluded as to what life is really about, has not walked in my shoes, does not know why I have chosen the way I have. I am not unintelligent. I have a brain. And I choose to use it. Just as you do. That too is a God given right--the ultimate gift of our Father. My choices have led me to my firm foundation upon the rock of my Savior, regardless of what the world may say. You can call that misguided and uninformed if you choose. But it doesn't change my opinion about what the priesthood is and what it is for. I have come to that testimony through my own experience with the Holy Ghost bearing witness to me as I study the scriptures, listen to the words of our current prophets and apostles, and support my local priesthood leaders.

      Delete
    3. Oh dear, Megan. The above reply is merely offering the definition of the term "sexist," and explaining why the Church fits into that mold. There is no need to take it personally. All you need do is state that, in your view, God has created a system that meets the definition of sexism, and that you choose to follow it. No on is calling you stupid or condescending to you. This is just the fact. Maybe in the afterlife we will figure out why God has created a sexist institution, but there is no need to "kick against the pricks," and claim someone is insulting you for explaining that words have definitions and this system meets the definition of sexism. Your response doesn't actually counter those claims, you simply say "that's the way it is, and the Holy Ghost tells me it's all true."

      Delete
    4. con·de·scend·ing/ˌkändəˈsendiNG/
      Adjective:

      Acting in a way that betrays a feeling of patronizing superiority.
      Demonstrating such an attitude.

      Delete
    5. So now we're having a vocabulary lesson? LOL. I'm an attorney, I know what the term means. I also know an emotional response when I see one. No amount of complaining about a person's tone will change the reality that there are unequal opportunities in the Church for men and for women. If God's plan fits the definition of sexism, so be it.

      Delete
    6. You just proved my point. Thank you.

      Delete
    7. I hear you Unknown... I hear you.

      Delete
    8. Sexism is defined differently to different people, so we ar just going to have to agree to disagree. But I'm sure you can see by the discussion that in our religion women don't take being pushed around very well whether it be by men or women.

      Delete
    9. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that men should be "denied the opportunity to grow by using the priesthood", as you noted above. I think what people ARE saying, is that maybe we shouldn't deny women the opportunity to grow by using the priesthood. If the priesthood power is really that wonderful, and has the capability of blessing the lives of those who possess it and who receive the blessings of it (which I believe it is), then why wouldn't women also want to exercise their spiritual gifts in this way? We encourage young men to look forward to receiving the priesthood and serving God and others in that way. Yet when women express interest in it, we are often told that we shouldn't aspire to power, or that we are power hungry. I have never heard this sentiment expressed to a man who desires the priesthood. Making women equal would not diminish a man's role - that why its called EQUAL.

      Delete
    10. Not much more about this subject can be said that hasn't already been said. But religion isn't supposed to be logical or we wouldn't need faith to live it. I think every religion should have things that don't make sense to the world around us. It's those things that try our faith and make us pray to our loving Father in Heaven to find out if it's true. Who does what in any religion isn't nearly as important as feeling love from God.

      Delete
  5. Every decision made in the church is approved by a man. Every single one. If a Relief Society president makes a decision and the Bishop does not like it, it's gone.

    The only reason he is the Bishop and she is not because he is a man. That's it. Nothing else.

    And this is equality? Pull off the rose-colored glasses and take a look at the church. What you describe is putting women on a pedestal and talking about how special they are, not treating them as equals.

    And let's be honest, for every activity where men serve women with aprons, there are 30 where the women do all of the cooking with almost no recognition.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lauren,
      Perhaps you need to take a look at the church without the blinders the world would have you wear. There are counsels that men AND women participate on for the benefit of those they serve. Bishops do not make decisions willy nilly without thoughtful input. Men who are given the solemn and terrifying responsibility of caring for part of the Savior's flock turn to Him constantly to try and make the right decisions.
      But expecting them to be as perfect as the God we all serve is hypocritical. They are imperfect beings striving to live the commandments. As are women. And according to Heavenly Father, we are all here to learn and grow. How men and women do that is designated by Him in His divine plan.

      Delete
    2. Terrifying doesn't mean what you think it does.

      Delete
    3. Have you ever been a man given that responsibility from God? Have you ever been married to one? It is terrifying for the humble soul whose only desire is to serve our Father by serving His children to the best of his finite ability. It is scary and difficult and overwhelming to become the spiritual shepherd for a time, representing our Savior. I think terrifying is a great word to describe it.

      Delete
    4. I think your points are perfectly illustrated by the fact that the elder's quorums do not need (nor do they ask for) the sustaining votes of the women. However, the Relief Society president is not only chosen by a council of only men, but must be sustained by men as well.

      These are exactly the rose-colored glasses you mention. Just because they say the word, "Equal" doesn't mean they practice it.

      Delete
    5. Megan, maybe you are in a more progressive ward. The past 4 wards I've been in (over the past 20 years) have had the men in leadership make the final call on all decisions. Our RS president in our current ward has fought tooth and nail for some changes (which are very needed) but the Priesthood holders continue to exercise their authority to shut them down.

      Delete
  6. I’d like to thank everyone who has shared their comments so far- I appreciate the opportunity to examine different perspectives on what is apparently a very hot-button issue! I would like to add my additional two cents.

    I believe that callings in the LDS church have very little to do with power and a lot to do with service. Members of the church do not aspire to become bishops or General Authorities. They feel humbled and anxious for the opportunity to serve, but we believe that these opportunities to serve are not rewards for skill or faithfulness, but rather callings from the Lord, based on His own criteria, whatever that may be. I have seen men go from being bishops to serving in the nursery, from being Elder’s Quorum presidents to playing the piano for Primary (children’s Sunday School). Never is this thought of as a “demotion” or a sign that you’ve done something wrong. It’s simply a new way to serve God.

    As Megan pointed out, men and women are inherently different. Women could easily spend their time saying, “What can this church do for me?” but I am pretty sure that we should be thinking about “What can I do for the Lord?” and even more importantly, “What does the Lord want me to do for Him?”

    I guess what I’m trying to say is that we are all given opportunities to serve, and no one is really any greater than the other. They are all different in their own way, and if we spend our time and energy sitting around comparing, then we are missing the point entirely. That time and energy is much better spent looking for our own way to serve, however that might be.

    Some may say I’m being naive if I think a General Authority isn’t any more important than a nursery worker, and that’s fine. I prefer to think that I’m simply seeing the bigger picture.

    Again, thanks for all the comments and I welcome discussion!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I appreciate your thoughtful response to the more accusatory comments here. I wanted to let you know that I agree with your view of service in the church on my optimistic days. My dad was bishop while I was a teenager, and I never got the feeling from him that he lifted himself above others in the ward. He's a very humble man. I also thought it was funny when people outside the church referred to the prophet as powerful, because I viewed him in the same way I did my dad, as a humble servant.

      However, my views of the hierarchy in the church have changed as I have researched church history, especially the history of the Relief Society. The priesthood leaders of the church have taken away many autonomous powers and privileges the sisters in the Relief Society used to enjoy and relegated them to a "auxiliary" of the priesthood, instead of the parallel institution it used to be. These decisions were made without any claim to revelation, just on priesthood authority.

      It's becoming clear to me that the current structure of the church may not be what God intended whatsoever. While I somewhat admire the obedience and faith it takes to be comforted in subordination, I hope that more and more women start to ask questions about our status in the church. It would be nice to get some clear answers.

      Delete
    2. This is the view you *should* have... but unfortunately this is not how it *really* is. I know this is a difference of culture vs. doctrine. The doctrine would obviously say that men should not aspire to callings. However, as a man, and having been part of the church for 30 years of my life, I can say that in every ward, and in every group of men there were men aspiring to callings. Silly in my mind, because it didn't mean greater pay but more work. I begged to be in the primary pianist position. I would have been content there for the rest of time with the ones who are literally innocent.

      But... because I was responsible and well respected I got the "higher" callings. And that is where I would have remained. Very few go from Bishop to primary teacher unless they totally blow it, or make some complaint.

      The striving for position started in the Deacon quorum and continued on up, getting really thick on the mission, where prestige came with higher callings... and it just gets worse from there.

      Why do I say this, if the point isn't that people are imperfect, because I'm sure we'll both agree we're not in disagreement here?

      Because it is about power. When you strive to get to a position, whatever stupid reason, you then feel you have power ( and in this case you certainly do). And you use this power. Against the doctrine, sure, but it happens in every ward.

      Delete
    3. Tones and Analisa, thank you so much for your comments and for participating in the discussion. I am not being patronizing when I honestly say that I truly appreciate the opportunity to look at my religion from a different perspective, because it allows me the opportunity to question why I believe what I believe, and whether or not it really is from God.

      All I can really say is that I know the gospel is perfect, but the people aren’t. Each individual has to decide for themselves how much the imperfections of God’s servants are really impacting the organization of the church.

      For me personally, I believe it is what it is for a reason, and I believe that some may call “what it is” sexist. I now see that, in contrast to my sentiments in the post above, that “sexist” could very easily be a word used to describe the church because of the relegation of the priesthood to the men only. And I guess that for me, personally, it doesn’t matter.

      Here’s why: As a parent, I often allow one child privileges that I do not give another. They may see it as grossly unfair because they do not see the bigger picture as I do. There are things that I understand about them that they do not. Things that I see on the inside that have very little to do with their outsides. For me, I trust that God’s reasons are the same. I believe that I am a woman not just in my physical body, but spiritually as well. I believe that before I came to earth I had the same spiritual qualities as I do now, and I believe that God has given, and will give me every opportunity I need (emphasis on ‘need’) to grow and develop in the way that I should.

      I believe this to be true for every individual on the planet, whether male or female, and I believe that in God’s wisdom that men need the priesthood and women do not. Why is this the case? I don’t know. It may have something to do with their spiritual makeup. But I’m not God, so I can’t say. I must simply have faith in God that He knows what’s right. Is it sexist? By definition of the word, yes. Do I care? No. Because I trust in God. I let Him handle the bigger picture, and I do the part that I believe He has called me to do. And I am thrilled with that. If I had needed the priesthood for any reason, He would have given it to me.

      Some may call it blind faith, and that’s fine, but for me it’s not blind. I see the hand of God in my life every day, and I am thankful for what he’s given me. I know He knows me, and I know He is helping me become the person He wants me to be.

      Uh oh...I’m trying to please a man...sorry, feminism. This one is worth it. ;-)

      Delete
  7. I guess my question for anyone who disagrees with the way the church is run would be, do you believe that the Proclamation on the family was inspired and are the words of the Lord?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure that we are intended to view the Proclamation as "the words of the Lord." President Packer spoke in conference in 2010 and referred to the Proclamation as revelation, but when the talk was published, his words were changed to "It is a guide that members of the Church would do well to read and to follow." So, pretty simply, it's a guide, not the words of the Lord.

      Here's the original audio/video and the final printed talk:
      http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/cleansing-the-inner-vessel?lang=eng

      Delete
    2. Analisa is right on this one. We have a very established way in which things are canonized and declared official revelation. The POF, nor anything since reversal of the priesthood ban, has come remotely close to it. The church sent a strong signal by changing Elder Packer's talk to edit out his statement that the POF was "revelation". The POF was written primarily by BYU law professors and some church staffers to help support the church's action in fighting SSM in Hawaii. The document is legal word smithing. Now the First Presidency signed it. That means something. I have no problem with members of the church deciding for themselves to treat the POF as inspired or decide that for them it is the "words of the Lord." However, no member of the Church can be bound by that interpretation until it is presented to the body of the Church and officially voted in per the D&C.

      Personally, I definitely don't see the POF as reaching the level of the words of the Lord. I don't want to hold the church to that. Just like I don't want to hold Elder (at the time) Benson's 1964 conference talk on communist origins of the civil rights movement as inspired and binding on the church or many others. Otherwise we build a box around ourselves that make it harder for the Lord to actually communicate with us, at very least.

      For example, clearly until we figure out how "preside" and "equal partners" can logically coexist I think there is some refinement to be done.

      Delete
  8. In the math I learned equal do not mean both sides of the equation look identical only that they add up to the same.
    2 x 5 = 1+2+3+4
    Man + priesthood = woman + motherhood = child of God + serving the Lord.
    Women and men in the church are not concerned about appearing equal in the eyes of society but in how they appear in the eyes of the Lord and in serving in the way he wants us to serve.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bahaha! As a woman with a PhD in applied math...I don't think you quite understand how an equation works.

      Delete
    2. Priesthood ≠ motherhood. Fatherhood = motherhood. Priesthood = priestesshood.

      Delete
    3. Fatherhood=Motherhood. That is all. There is no equal to having the authority to act in His name. It is a seperate thing.

      I find most women are referring to getting pregnant what they mean when they say that PH = Motherhood. So right of the bat they exlude women who can't get pregnant. 12 year old boys get the PH, women have to wait and wait and wait for something that may never happen that doesn't depend on how good a person is. This type of comment is truly hurtful to women who want to carry a child but never will.

      Delete
    4. I will echo this idea as I think it should get a lot more attention than it does:

      You have to be worthy to hold the priesthood. You could be a cocaine-filled prostitute (and I’m not implying I think any less of someone like this, but the church does) and still get pregnant. You could also be the most worthy, obedient, selfless woman and not be able to bear children.

      And don't mention adoption, because the same goes for men.

      Where then, is equality?

      Delete
  9. Megan, yes there are physical differences between the sexes. That fact has been used throughout history to justify discrimination on the basis of gender, same as race, ethnicity, and any other characteristic you care to name. But unless you can show how those physical differences are relevant to the separate roles in the church, they remain an artificial basis for discrimination. Just because humans beings are not mathematically equal to one another is no excuse to divide them into first- and second-class citizens.

    The simple fact is that if the LDS church were a public corporation or other public entity, the kind of discrimination it once exercised based on race, and still exercises based on gender, would be illegal.

    Whether that's because the church lags behind the rest of civilized society or because it has progressed far beyond it, I suppose is for each individual to decide.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The eye-opening moment for me was realizing that the same exact arguments for why women should not have the priesthood were used to explain why women shouldn't be able to vote.

    We'll grow past this as a church (I'm an optimist!) but with these cultural attitudes so ingrained, it's going to take a while.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It only took African-American men 148 years to get the priesthood, so I'd wager women should have almost equal bearing as men in 2126 or so.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I can't even believe this is a serious post... somebody please tell me this author is attempting satire? Please? Or that I've time-warped back to the 1950s?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL! Thanks, Anonymous! Come on, 1950s wasn’t so bad! And no, I’m a college graduate living in 2012 (they didn’t have the internet in the 1950s). :-) Just goes to show how different cultures can be even within one country!

      Delete
  13. Nicely said! You should definitely send this to all your non-Mormon friends to show them how Mormons aren't sexist.

    ReplyDelete
  14. In your attempt to show that the Mormon church is not sexist, you did exactly the opposite. So sad to see women resigned to their fate in the mormon church.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comment! I understand your opinion, but I’m not sad or resigned to my “fate”. I am happy and confident in the life that God has given me. I hope this answers your concerns. :-)

      Delete
  15. I'm sorry if anyone was offended by my desire to defend my beliefs. If we can agree to disagree, we should leave the conversation right now where it is. We are each converted to our own way of thinking and an argument via comments are not going to change our minds.
    I apologize for my part in fomenting any negativity in this discussion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Megan, I can tell you are passionate and words can get heated when they touch on something you love. I appreciate your participation in this discussion and your efforts to stand up for what you believe in.

      Delete
  16. There are still places in the South that are racially segregated in many ways. It's common for high schools to have separate white and black homecoming and prom elections, for instance. Racially segregated fraternities and sororities still thrive on college campuses.

    Does the fact that the participants in such institutionalized racial segregation are by all accounts happy and fine with the arrangement mean that it is not racist? Racial segregation is racially discriminatory, by definition. The individuals involved to not have to act "racist" toward one another to make it a racists system.

    So it is with the LDS church. No one is saying that individual leaders anywhere act like sexists in their treatment of women. We're saying that the entire system is sexist by definition because it practices gender-based discrimination.

    (And, make no mistake: outsiders view gender discrimination in the LDS church the same way they view still-extant racial discrimination in the South: an unfortunate holdover from a backward era.)

    ReplyDelete
  17. I found this line in the article as proof that women are not treated equal, "We are constantly reminded by our priesthood leaders that we are counselors for our husbands." I don't want to be a counselor for my husband, I want to be a partner! In the end a counselor has no final authority, just like the women of the church.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous, I often hear this, and I have to wonder- would a company do well with two presidents? Would a nation thrive under two kings? For any successful institution, including the family, there must be one who has a final say. Just something to keep in mind.

      So why is it the men in the Mormon religion? Excellent question, and one I believe only God can answer. Our religion requires a lot of faith in hard doctrines, and a lot of trust in God. I trust in Him because I have a testimony of my religion, but I understand that there are many who do not, and they are entitled to their opinions and I completely understand how they could feel that way without having it confirmed to them through practice and prayer.

      Thank you for your comment, and I do understand where you’re coming from.

      Delete
  18. I suggest you watch conference. If women are equally respected in Mormonism, we should hear an equal number of talks by women.

    To this date: There has never been parity in General Conference. In most recent general conference, Men gave 25 talks. There were two talks given by women. Clearly, women are equal to men in the eyes of the lord.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Who ever wrote this blog is a twit.

    I hate seeing blogs like this because they suggest to the world that Mormon women are too dumb to even understand the concept of sexual discrimination which DOES mean allowing some to have higher privileges or power based on a gender-test.

    Mormons aren't this stupid. Just this Mormon is this stupid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous, I laughed out loud when I read your comment. Those who resort to name-calling are saying a lot more about themselves than they are about the person they’re calling names. :-)

      Delete
    2. Tell you what, why don't you respond to your inability to fit definitions to words, and then, we'll argue about whether or not that failure might constitute stupidity.

      Delete
  20. The good thing is, that women can participate now in Sacrament meeting. I mean, we used to not even be able to say the prayer...so..maybe the church IS coming around a bit?

    It kind of reminds me of my mission and the history of the church. My mission president believed women shouldn't be out on missions, that it was the "Priesthood's role".
    Joseph Smith practiced polygamy and bigamy with other men's wives....it's just the men of the church. Their visions will fade and die with them. The church will continue to evolve into something less sexist as society continues to become less sexist.

    ReplyDelete
  21. You are like the Uncle Tom of Mormon women.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I'm on my lunch break, but I wanted to write a quick something. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Sexism does still exist with the LDS Church, and many of us women (and men) have experienced it to degrees that many Mormons aren't even aware of.

    Please understand that bad things do still happen in the Church, even if it is the "Lord's Church" and that sexism, homophobia, racism, classicism and the such do exist within the confines of the LDS organization, members, church and culture.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Becca, thank you for your comment. I believe you are absolutely right, and that the LDS church has plenty of negativity within it. You make a valid point, and I don’t disagree. I try to remember that the gospel is perfect but the people certainly aren’t.

      Delete
  23. Kasey, thank you for being willing to broach such a sensitive topic. I think you have handled the criticism in a manner that would make your Father in Heaven proud.
    To everyone else, thanks so much for your comments. It has truly been enlightening. Thanks for visiting our humble blog!

    ReplyDelete

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails