We saw a lot of feminist changes in the year 2014 in the LDS church, big and small. We saw women of color praying for the first time in a General LDS Meeting, CES policy changes of women with children at home being able to teach as a full-time paid employee, and many more. As a moderate Mormon Feminist, I advocate for small changes that help expand the understanding of the role of women in God’s plan. Earlier this month on twitter I put together a list of wishes of my own, big and small. Here are submissions to #MormonFeministWishlist2015:
- Women may serve as witnesses in and out of the temple
- Women can serve in Sunday School Presidencies
- More stories of women from the scriptures shared during our meetings without putting them on a pedestal (e.g. claims that they are more humble, submissive, spiritual, etc. than men)
- More depictions of biblical characters as not just white Europeans
- I never hear another LDS man or woman say “I don’t respect women who don’t respect themselves by covering up” and instead we respect all humans regardless of what they wear because they are children of God
- LDS youth will learn principles of positive body image in modesty lessons (hopefully from Beauty Redefined, which I hear is starting to have stake-wide firesides in Utah Valley)
- We begin celebrating all the ways fathers nurture children; #ItWasDad campaign, anyone?
- More 8-11 year old girls get to participate in pinewood derbies than ever before
- A new policy that allows women to hold their babies for their blessing
- No more Mormon LGBTQ suicides. No more homeless Mormon LGBTQ youth
- Change the name of priesthood session during conference to “Men’s Session”
- Mothers of children younger than 18 can be temple workers, just like fathers of those same children can
- My daughter’s activity day leaders will skip modesty shaming and have career exploration day
- Be grateful for baby steps and bear my Christ-based testimony more often
- A woman of color praying in a general session of LDS conference
- Wearing pants to church isn’t seen as a protest or statement, but just a valid choice for Sunday best
- When possible, replace “Heavenly Father” with “Heavenly Parents”
- The LDS church curriculum department produces a “Teachings of Eliza R. Snow” for 2016
- When teaching the law of chastity, we cover consent – what it is and isn’t, and help a lot of people avoid a visit to the bishop’s office this year
- Never give up hope; be grateful and long suffering
I’m trying to remember to be grateful for every baby step change, and remember that the core of what I want is to improve Zion with a heart full of love. Which I’ll add as the most hopeful item on my wishlist for 2015:
- That members of all stripes and persuasions can become more understanding and empathetic towards each other, and find a way to become more like Zion.
Change has got to start somewhere, right? Do you have any Mormon Feminist Wishes for 2015?
Wheat & Tares 
I will be blunt: I hate words Long-suffering. I also very much dislike the word Sacrifice as women are to good at it. I just don’t think I am capable of waiting for the “church” to grow up.
*****Profound comment alert*****
Nice list!
Nice list, just a few comments…
In my ward for decades women wearing pants was pretty normal, including the RS presidency. It was only in recent years that it became imbued with a sense of “protest” or statement–and we can thank MoFems for that loss of choice.
Although I don’t disagree much about moms serving as temple workers since various temples have done that different ways, I have to point out that in my local temple it wasn’t presented as a ban on mothers as much as a place for single sisters to feel needed and valued, filling a role that only they could. A lot of single women complain that they are always a second choice, that a married women would always have preference. So if you are okay with them losing their special role and again feeling like second-class leftovers, fine. I personally don’t have a strong opinion either way, but it is not as slam-dunk clearly obvious to me, having seen the pride and camaraderie that those single women developed through their service.
Sue, I can see what you mean….at church on Sunday the SS teacher focused on the stories of Elizabeth and Mary. I was incredibly pumped for a lesson all about female discipleship. The first comment about Mary from our stake clerk? “This just shows how much more humble and submissive women are than men, because we don’t have many examples of men being humble and submissive like this in the scriptures…..”
I wanted to stab myself with a spoon, and I angrily muttered lists of humble, submissive men from scripture to my husband…
But I do have to say, I have unexplained infertility (1 IVF baby) and I’ve found discipleship in long-suffering, and surprisingly the greatest blessings of the atonement in my life have been there. So I’m going to agree to disagree with you on that one.
The Church may never be what I want it to be in my lifetime. Do I give up on it or continue to be anxiously engaged?
Naismith: I didn’t participate in the first pants day, as I wasn’t really a feminist at that point – and it was largely the negative response to those women that helped develop my sympathy for the cause. I don’t think I would have been able to wear pants to church the first time if I didn’t know I had sisters in the Gospel out there I was supporting and others supporting me. Now that I crossed that hurdle – I support putting the protest connotation behind us. I get why it’s there, and I think it was probably an important, needed thing for a lot of women. But I think the current purpose of pants day the last two years, “to celebrate the inclusiveness of the gospel” is something we can all get behind.
I wore pants on pants day because another sister in the ward asked me to, and there’s no reason not to, so I joined her. I definitely consider myself a feminist and always have, but I haven’t been big on wearing pants at church because I have always worn dress pants at work, so they seem corporate to me. Silly I guess since men at church look very corporate. Actually, I’ve observed on many occasions that “fancy dress” for men & women makes zero sense because women have poorer circulation than men. This results in weekly thermostat wars in our ward.
Overall, I like many points on your list, but this one is so important, not controversial and yet unlikely: “When teaching the law of chastity, we cover consent – what it is and isn’t”
Hawkgrrl- why do you think that is? Do you think the church feels that discussing consent would be tacitly giving youth permission to break the Law of Chastity?
And Kristine- great list.
I like the list in the main.
I did wear pants, and have done so ever since. It was not common where I am, and one sister who had done so previously had been put under a lot of pressure not to after being called to the RS presidency, and had to resort to the handbooks to defend herself. It had been viewed as a thing that any new members would wearing pants would come to a realisation to wear skirts over time.
No-one has called me out on it as yet (2 years and counting), but I’m not convinced that the general view has changed much.
Is it too extreme to ask that the policy that only AP holders can prepare and pass the sacrament be changed? It would bring opportunities for visible service to our young women that currently only exist for men.
For those who might not be aware, preparing and passing the sacrament are not part of administering the sacrament. Administering the sacrament is scripturally prohibited to teachers and deacons. Apparently that only includes breaking the bread and saying the sacramental prayers. Preparing and passing are duties currently assigned to AP holders, but it seems to me that could change without any doctrinal problems.
Maybe it’s because I live in the mission field, but we do discuss consent with the youth. RE: Eliza Snow – why would you want to learn from a woman who was supposedly cheating with Joseph behind Emma’s back? On the one hand feminists rip on Joseph for his polygamy, but on the other hand want to model your lives after one of his “mistresses”? I don’t get it.
IDIAT, I’m no fan of Eliza. Personally I’d prefer Emmeline Wells, but we’ve had JS and BY so…
Moss: That could be part of it (why consent isn’t discussed). Mostly I think it’s just completely off the radar. It’s also contradicted by scripture in that women who are raped in scripture are said to be unvirtuous, meaning that the act sullies the woman, not her consent. To crudely paraphrase another scripture, not that which cometh out of a woman (her consent), but that which goeth into a woman (rape) defileth her. The scriptures are bad enough on this topic that the YW binders actually include a scripture from the BOM that describes women being raped as having lost their virtue. (Moroni 9:9) http://bycommonconsent.com/2013/05/06/dear-church-leaders-fix-this-now/
For my parents’ generation, consent wasn’t even on the radar as such. Girls didn’t go out in cars with boys or the boys would try to rape them and it would be their fault for “leading them on.” There is a completely different understanding of sexual dynamics in that generation. Getting them to comprehend consent might be too advanced a concept.
Moss: too many girls don’t know they’ve been sexually assaulted and blame themselves, too many leaders start the conversation with, “well what were you wearing?” and “you take responsibility for leading him on…” Can we teach both YW and YM that you may withdraw your consent at any moment, even if you’ve gone too far? And if the other person doesn’t follow your consent withdrawal it’s sexual assault? We teach youth to stay “pure” by telling them not to even go down the road….that doesn’t work for those who are already that far. Seriously both men & women should know you have no obligation to continue if you change your mind. Just by talking to family and friends my age they don’t think it’s assault or rape if it’s two teenagers caught up in hormones; they only think it’s assault if it’s violent/by force. It’s easy, consent withdrawn = assault. So you better be damn sure your partner wants to do what you want to do next.
AM – I agree that deacons passing the sacrament is an assignment and not a duty of the priesthood/actually administering. I would support the change, but think it’s too radical for most orthodox mormons right now.
IDIAT – I got the same pushback from my bishop when I mentioned it… “wait he said, first you like her then you don’t then you do?” Well, the same could be said for every church leader, surprise! humans are complex beings and you’ll like some parts of what they do and despise others. Do we really have to put people in friend or foe boxes completely?
Hedgehog – ps I’m more of an Emmaline girl myself
I’ve gone on record as saying the concept of “consent” is complicated, and a huge reason why I believe it is critical to advise youth and adults to refrain from having sex outside of marriage. I’ve been married over 30 years and I still scratch my head as to my wife’s moods and desires. You certainly are at a disadvantage if you’re into one nighters or just in dating mode. And “no” can be nuanced. No. Don’t. Stop. as opposed to No, don’t stop. It is common these days for newspapers to have accounts of men accused of rape where he says it was consensual and the woman says she either didn’t give her consent or that she wasn’t capable of giving her consent (ie too drunk.) I teach the youth they had better stay as far away from the line as possible because the person who “wants you” on Friday night may just wake up Saturday morning with shame and guilt and suddenly, his or her memory of the prior night will be completely different.
Thanks so much for the shout-out to our work at Beauty Redefined! We are actually doing at least one stake or regional fireside a week all over these days. The response has been INCREDIBLE and we are filling stake centers all the way to the stage, which is so exciting. We did two regional firesides in Boston with a grant from the LDS Church Foundation a couple months ago and we’re headed to do a 13-stake regional fireside in LA on February 7. Based on our research, we teach how to attain body image resilience in the face of harmful cultural and mediated ideals about women’s worth and value, and we bring in valuable role models like Eve, our Mother in Heaven, and Emmeline Wells. The main message is that women are more than bodies to be looked at, judged, and fixed, and it’s time to be resilient against any message that would have us believe otherwise. We are capable of so much more than that. So please know that exciting things are happening for thousands of girls and women (and boys and men) in the church, and we are only five years into this. Great things are happening and we’re humbled and thrilled to be part of it!
IDIAT, I think that consent is only as complicated as you make it out to be. The first step is teaching no means no. We practice this principle at home with our children – if they withdraw their consent from playing, tickling, etc anything – we stop and tell them they must also stop if others tell them no. We teach from a young age that the word means something And they get power to decide their own bodies, we won’t force them into hugs/kisses with family members, etc.
The next step is to teach yes means yes. That means when egaging in sexual activities and they are unsure, they should express their uncertainty. If they are fully consenting they should express that. And that means you have the responsibility as a partner, to ensure you have positive yes consent.
The more we teach gray lines the more assault we have. We have to teach responsibility to give and receive consent, and a lack of doing so IS assault. Both parties can then learn to be more conscious of consent, because they don’t want to assault (which happens with pressure, coercion, etc).
So, surprise, we have different opinions about consent.
LOVE LOVE LOVE ELIZA R SNOW SUNDAY SCHOOL IDEA. that’s all
“The more we teach gray lines the more assault we have.” We have a failure to communicate. I never said to teach people to hang around the gray lines. I said to stay as far from that line as possible. In other words, if you’re single, don’t engage in sex because you might misinterpret consent. And if married, you still don’t want to engage in spousal abuse, but at least you have a better chance at fully comprehending whether your spouse wants to engage in sex. You see — even as we discuss something as simple as consent, communication is not clear. It’s even worse when two people are dancing around the act of sex. There isn’t a youth or adult around that doesn’t know what “No” and “Yes” means. That’s a given. But framed in connection with hormones, desire, flirting and so forth, the nuances and meaning can take strange detours. Alcohol impaired guy and girl have sex on Friday night. He wakes up and thinks “that was great.” She wakes up and thinks “that pervert took advantage of me.” Now some District Attorney gets to figure it out. Better not to have drank the alcohol, much less have engaged in a one night stand.
I did read about mothers being asked to say a few words after a blessing which I thought was a great idea.
On the modesty discussion, I suggest that activities like FSY, that have additional standards, return the the gospel standard. If you want maniacal attention to the outward appearance go to BYU – I.
Wonderful post Kristine A. Stab myself with a spoon..!!! Love it
IDIAT – we agree on most of this, of course it’s better to not get close to the line. But we have to teach what happens at the line – and that you can still stop it. I’ve heard too many personal stories (even from LDS) from girls and women that didn’t want sex but didn’t want to withdraw consent because they thought it was their fault for leading the guy on, so they blame themselves. I would say this is common. And from my interactions with LDS males they also point the finger to the girl for flirting, dressing, giving them unverbal messages, that they wanted him — girls who then refuse are treated so poorly. We have to break this psychology if we want our daughters to be empowered to withdraw consent. Who cares what happened before? Consent can be withdrawn
I have a tough time believing affirmative consent is realistic anytime soon. A few months ago I overheard some girls(mormon) laughing about how a guy asked if he could kiss one of them and how unromantic it was. One commented “jeez, don’t ask, just do it!” The girls are posting on twitter and tumblr meme’s about how they want a guy to surprise them by throwing them up against a wall. I’m not saying affirmative consent isn’t the ideal, but we need to take the incremental approach of stopping to glorify non-consent first. It isn’t just the guys job to make sure they have consent. We need a culture that stops making fun of those who do try to get consent and are being rejected for being that type of person.
BL – great comment. I do think it happens in steps (we need to teach no means no before we can psychologically get to yes means yes). I don’t think you have to verbally ask for consent for every thing you do. But if we teach that consent is the responsibility of both partners and it’s your responsibility to pick up on how affirmative their consent is and not to coerce or persuade anyone to do what they don’t want to do. If the other person seems uncomfortable, stop and check; “are we good?” instead of only stopping if you are forced to. Eventually affirmative consent means you only want to do something with someone who enthusiastically wants to do it with you back (I’m not avoiding saying sex, but there are so many things that consent covers – so I’ll use weird euphemisms, I suppose).
Is there a really good resource to be able to talk frankly about consent to my teens? I would like to talk about it, but I have weird experiences that don’t match what they are likely to have, and also, I like reference books/websites. I think the consent discussion is very high on this list.
Naismith, I highly enjoy reading your comments 99% of the time, but I simply have to cry “foul” at this one (#3):
Yep, how dare those feminists rock the boat and get the bigots all riled up. Honestly, this is the equivalent of saying, “In my town for decades blacks eating at the Woolworths lunch counter was pretty normal. It was only in recent years that it became imbued with a sense of “protest” or statement–and we can thank Dr. King and those civil rights agitators for that loss of choice.”
What a terrible, terrible way to blame the victims for the small-minded, bigoted backlash against them. I understand what you’re saying, but I beg you to re-think that.
I really like your list, Kristine.
You cry foul, I think yours stinks. I guess that makes us even.
I have no problem whatsoever with boat rocking. I do it all the time. Where I live, we have Activity Days every week, parity in funding for YW and YM, and my daughters have gone on great high adventure trips (whitewater rafting two states away) that are the equivalent of what scouts do. A lot of that was due to women in ward council speaking up and moms calling their daughters’ bishops and YW leaders to explain what we think might be a better approach. And it worked for us.
I resent being called a bigot because I have seen negative consequences from certain tactics.
If there was a town like that, was it the target of a sit-in? Or did they actually protest in places where it was needed?
If indeed blacks could no longer sit at the counter, would that not be true?
There are reactions to every action, it is a basic law of physics. Sometimes there are unintended consequences when an action is taken. Sometimes the benefit is worth the cost, even though someone is hurt. But if there are costs, then perhaps they should be recognized and counted as a true picture of what is happening.
Some women feel their concerns are being dismissed, or brushed under a rug. Is it not just as bad to ignore the negative consequences that others are experiencing as a result of certain actions? Or Actions?
AND YOU WONDER WHY NON-FEMINISTS AREN’T MORE SUPPORTIVE OF YOUR CAUSE? I get called out as a bigot for pointing out consequences?? Not questioning their righteousness, not telling them to leave, not calling them to repentance, but merely reporting how THEIR action affected MY LIFE??? Does my life matter less because I am not a feminist? “Ain’t I a woman??”
So the “victimhood” of MoFeminists absolves them from any responsibility for the consequences of their actions? Or???
I never heard anyone mentioning that women wearing pants was a problem until AFTER the protests. It was a reaction. Not on the day, because people didn’t know about it and we were still in the old mode. But when it hit national media, I heard women saying that they would make an effort NOT to wear pants, to avoid being aligned with the movement that had claimed that symbol.
I would also like to get back to a time where women can wear pants as a matter of course, but at least where I live, it will take getting over a hurdle that was created by the protests.
At least that is how it seems from my bigoted point of view.
Naismith: Personally, I have always thought of you as a feminist. I don’t think you claim the title, but you do believe in equality for women from everything I’ve ever seen. From there, I think it’s a question of disagreeing on tactics and strategy, and IMO nobody has hit the right formula to promote better gender parity in the church. If you’re not against women, you’re for us, and I agree with you that some of the feminist tactics and actions have backfired, unfortunately. When our incredibly conservative church feels threatened, they retrench. Nobody wants that. I don’t want that.
I have a lot of friends that feel the same way as you Naismith, I feel you. I was really frustrated that they attached that one meeting to that one time to pants every time since then…. and I told my friends the next two years stated purpose was to “celebrate inclusiveness of the Gospel” . . . and the women organizing that event tried to promote it and get news shared, but no one really cares about it if it’s not controversial . . . anyways, I spend a lot of time telling FMHers to make pants a normal thing that happens randomly just for pants…. don’t make it a thing, just make it an option.
“Where I live, we have … parity in funding for YW and YM”
I really doubt this is true. Funding for YM comes from far more than just the local ward budget. The church pays for all the boys scout registration fees that buys a whole lot of structural support. They have friends of Scouting campaigns. Those budget inequities exist even if you get an equal share of the ward budget and are allowed the same fundraising opportunities.
New Iconoclast (24) – “In my town for decades blacks eating at the Woolworths lunch counter was pretty normal. It was only in recent years that it became imbued with a sense of “protest” or statement–and we can thank Dr. King and those civil rights agitators for that loss of choice.”
What a horrible analogy and use of appropriation. Before the protests, there was never a time when blacks eating at Woolworths was normal. The protests did not cause even a perception of “loss of choice”, but had shown a mirror to the lack that was there.
The Pants movement suffered from a lack of direction from the start, no one being able to settle on what it was about. Showing welcome to those who might not share the culturally approved dress code and showing that there isn’t an actual “dress code” were both addressed before it happened, with the Church coming out and stating that all should be welcome no matter what they wear. Mission accomplished, let’s practice what we preach. Unfortunately, no one agreed on what Pants day should be, so the media and everyone else went for the big sell; “I wear pants because I’m a feminist and believe in womens ordination/taking over/etc”.
So now we get backlash of women who used to wear pants specifically not wearing pants because of this perception. Unintended consequences. Lesson hopefully learned. It’s going to take time to remove that perception. Trying to paint it as “these are the sacrifices we make”, or saying “well that’s -their- problem” does not help.
p.s. Love the post and continued ideas.
“Showing welcome to those who might not share the culturally approved dress code and showing that there isn’t an actual “dress code” were both addressed before it happened, with the Church coming out and stating that all should be welcome no matter what they wear. Mission accomplished, let’s practice what we preach.” I agree with this, and I wish that lay members really knew that the church had said that. Unfortunately, we had a kid in Idaho who said all feminists should be shot in the face at point blank range, and likewise, we had women coming out of the woodwork to shout down and shame women who might wear pants as “not wanting to be women” and “wanting to disrespect the church.” This is why we can’t have nice things.
what do feminists want to pray to Heavenly parents when the Scriptures specifically commands us to pray to the Father in the name of the Sun?
We’re praying in the name of the Sun now? Heavenly Mother seems so much less pagan…
All hail, Ra!
Thats funny
strange how one letter can change the entire meaning of something