Last year I wrote a post covering the European Women’s Meeting headed “Show Me Don’t Tell Me”. The title was a part inspired by my dislike of the pedestalisation of women within the church, and the lack of actual authority. I commented then “I find it hard to fathom how having GA wives, nice as that is, address an area-wide meeting specifically for sisters, in which the General RS Presidency appears to have no involvement, doesn’t somehow undermine the role of the general auxiliary presidencies and their boards.”
Both the Deseret News and the Salt Lake Tribune reported yesterday our female General Auxuilliary presidents have been assigned permanent places on committees to which they had been previously been only sometimes invited: Linda Burton, RS General President to the Priesthood Executive Council; Bonnie Oscarson, YW General President to the Missionary Executive Council; and Rosemary Wixom, Primary General President to the Temple and Family History Executive Council. That’s great news.
I was reminded of Chieko Okazaki’s interview with Greg Prince for Dialogue where she describes how the General RS presidency were frequently not consulted, even on matters that affected the RS directly, whilst discussing the role of women in the church. She described how they had known nothing about the new Teachings of the Presidents of the Church manuals to be used for teaching in both RS and Priesthood and the conversation continued:
“Greg Prince: Do you see that as perhaps coming from beneath? That as you have new generations of women who are the wives of bishops and stake presidents, and who are ward and stake Relief Society and Young Women leaders, that they are going to grasp the reins a little bit stronger than their predecessors?
“Chieko Okazaki: I have to say that, in my sixty-four years in the Church, I sometimes see a little bit of a change that the women themselves prompt, but most of the time, I haven’t seen women who would make that change possible. Wherever I go, I think that they already know their place. Maybe they’d be able to be more open if there were open-minded bishops or stake presidents who would listen to some of the feelings and the ideas of the women. But when women get the message that their job is to be supportive and just agree with the decisions of the bishop, they become clams.
“Greg Prince: Should the Relief Society president sit in on bishopric meetings?
“Chieko Okazaki: It would be a great idea. They are in the council meetings, but in many council meetings the person who is in charge is the only one who is talking. I’m on several community boards, and sometimes I’m the only woman there or one of two or three women. I’m on the YWCA advisory board; I’m on the advisory board for the University of Utah Graduate School of Social Work; and I’m on the Belle Spafford Chair board. If I got the message that I was supposed to just sit there and listen to the men, I’d quit that board. I’d say, “What am I here for?” I speak up a lot in all of these board meetings.
“In contrast, in 1995 when “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” was written, the Relief Society presidency was asked to come to a meeting. We did, and they read this proclamation. It was all finished. The only question was whether they should present it at the priesthood meeting or at the Relief Society meeting. It didn’t matter to me where it was presented. What I wanted to know was, “How come we weren’t consulted?”
“Greg Prince: You didn’t even know it was in the works?
“Chieko Okazaki: No. They just asked us which meeting to present it in, and we said, “Whatever President Hinckley decides is fine with us.” He decided to do it at the Relief Society meeting. The apostle who was our liaison said, “Isn’t it wonderful that he made the choice to present it at the Relief Society meeting?” Well, that was fine, but as I read it I thought that we could have made a few changes in it.
“Sometimes I think they get so busy that they forget that we are there.” [emphasis mine]
These new appointments are progress. These committees look to be concerned with what has been described as the three-fold mission of the church. I hope these sisters will speak up and be full participants in these committees.
I have two concerns however. Firstly, whilst both Salt Lake newspapers feature this wonderful news, as of writing the Church Newsroom, the lds.org news page, and the lds.org home page are silent. I haven’t been able to find even a whisper of the news on these sites. Secondly, the inclusion of the auxilliary leaders on these committees is being described as something that will bless families, and support the priesthood role of men:
“We met regularly with our priesthood advisers, who were members of the Quorum of the Twelve,” she said. “We met with the First Presidency. They gave us a vision of what they wanted accomplished.
“But with this change I sense something larger. I sense that this expanded role for the auxiliary presidencies will affect not just the women of the church, but that this will be a blessing to families, that there is going to be much more integration, that this will be supportive of the priesthood role for men in their callings because of the increased perspective of all that is entailed in these committees.” (Mary N Cook, former YW General counsellor)
“I was also very pleased to learn that the First Presidency has approved renaming the Priesthood Executive Council to the ‘Priesthood and Family Executive Council.’ We know Sister Burton will give valuable insight in this new position as she represents women of the Church around the world.” (Dallin H Oaks, Quorum of the 12)
I also hope that these women will be listened to on more than their perspective of how a particular policy or suggestion could affect families. I hope it will be more than being supportive. I hope they will be free to contribute more broadly. It’s a big plus that Elder Oaks describes Sister Burton as representing the women of the church on this committee.
And I did like the following:
“But to now have the Relief Society, Young Women and Primary general presidents assigned as standing members of these three major committees signals how invaluable women are at all levels of church government on matters affecting all members.” (Sheri Dew, former RS General presidency counsellor)
Discuss.
We have Ordain Women to thank for this!
#1 – We have the leadership of the Church, especially it’s head, the Lord Jesus Christ, NOT some gaggle of egotistical ninnies who are clueless as to how the Lord runs His Church.
These highest women in the church hierarchy are very accomplished women, but I would speculate that most of them are very good at bowing to “the priesthood” (men). I sure hope they have the guts, empowerment, and insight to occasionally stand up and say, “this seems quite silly to me. Can we not be more effective by …” My fear is that they won’t or can’t or if they try they will not be heard. I pray that I am wrong on this.
#2
YES. I can’t say that I have a lot of confidence that this will be more than window dressing. I certainly hope to be wrong. But there’s a whole lot of territory between putting them in seats in the meeting, having something to say and being heard.
Meanwhile, I don’t see anything that says they will have some such thing as an actual vote (depending on how these matters are decided).
It’s a needed baby step in a thousand steps that need to happen.
The fact that women weren’t already there indicates a problem, though it won’t be spun that way. And they do need to be there, but only putting one on each committee doesn’t create change. In Neylan’s book she quotes a study that it takes at least three women on a committee for benefit to happen. Three is enough to represent women as a diverse group, and not as a monithic bloc. So largely the move is symbolic and about optics, and until we get equal representation on committees nothing else besides optics will change. Every decision making committee that represents and decides for males and females should have equal make/femal representation….no ordination required. Women need to be *fully* folded into the decision making structure of the church (including chairing some committees), full stop.
#1 we have ALL Mormon feminists to thank for this
Well said. I suspect the Newsroom silence is because it is typically the provider of soundbites to the AP, and frankly this is an internal signal, not one the church is sending to “the world.” This is setting the example for local wards and stakes to involve women in decision making meetings. More will come. This is simply a small step in turning the Titanic.
Token! But a step in the right direction.
It will probably play very well to the privliged choir but the bone they were just tossed was hard earned by the pain of marginalized women! Will those handpicked privileged tokens actually stand up for the marginalized women to the men? Of course not! This is window dressing, but it’s a start.
I’ve always welcomed any policy that includes the talents of women that doesn’t absolutely require the Priesthood. IMO, many things we THINK need it do not in reality. Just saying “that’s how it’s always been done” won’t cut it anymore. But I’ll be content to let the Lord run things and not steady the Ark (II Samuel 6:1-8). When He feels the need to seek counsel of yours truly, I’ll be sure to report on it (once I’ve recovered from the faint and found my voice again).
In every PEC I have been a part of since the late 80’s,we’ve had the Relief Society President there. I do expect a corresponding name change to it on the Ward and Stake level.
I have seen other changes occurring at our Ward level. The Sister’s talks are being quoted with more frequency than before. Which is good because they are some of the best speakers at GC.
I am not going to join the Doubting Thomases of the blog because I think this group of Auxiliary Presidents is very good and have been highlighted in a number of training videos.
I think the tide at HQ has turned and more needs to be done at the more chauvinistic local level. The training will assist in moving the needle forward.
Does the formulation “Priesthood and Family Executive Council” rub anyone else the wrong way? I mean, both priesthood and family are important to the church but…ugh. Women=family? I have to admit, there was a lot of bitterness in my initial reaction to this news. I hope it’s a step in the right direction, rather than an attempt to forestall any meaningful change.
Why can’t it just be called the Ward Family Council? That name covers everyone in the ward whom it serves.
I’ve served as RS prez and never been invited to PEC Jeff. Obviously YMMV
It does seem that we’ve developed a case of Tourette’s Syndrome with the word “family.”
#7 hawkgrrrl, I see it has now been added to the Newsroom site (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/women-church-leaders-appointed-to-leadership-councils), and the lds.org news site (https://www.lds.org/church/news/women-leaders-called-to-executive-councils?lang=eng). Though it’s weird to me that it hits the newspapers first. It still doesn’t make the lds.org home page.
Surf40 #1, Kristine #6, Yes.
Douglas #2, we can live in hope…
A Happy Hubby #3, ” I sure hope they have the guts, empowerment, and insight to occasionally stand up and say, “this seems quite silly to me. Can we not be more effective by …” My fear is that they won’t or can’t or if they try they will not be heard. I pray that I am wrong on this.”
Me too. I want them to be like Sister Okazaki, not afraid to speak up, even if they are the only woman on the committee. I hope they won’t be the clams who just agree that she mentions.
alice #4 “I can’t say that I have a lot of confidence that this will be more than window dressing. I certainly hope to be wrong. But there’s a whole lot of territory between putting them in seats in the meeting, having something to say and being heard.”
and Kristine #5 “only putting one on each committee doesn’t create change. In Neylan’s book she quotes a study that it takes at least three women on a committee for benefit to happen. Three is enough to represent women as a diverse group, and not as a monithic bloc. So largely the move is symbolic and about optics, and until we get equal representation on committees nothing else besides optics will change.”
also Howard #8 “window dressing”
You may be right. I hope they’ll make a difference. I hope they can represent the women of the church on these committees, and in doing so not necessarily present only their own opinions. I hope they have the courage and the nerve to stand up and speak out.
It’s certainly an improvement on the previously expressed attitudes that the men get all the necessary female input from their wives. And it does make the auxiliary presidents more visible. They won’t be able to forget they’re there.
Jeff #10, I’ve read about RS president at PEC happening, but I’ve yet to see it practised where I am.
I hope you’re right about this group of leaders, I hope you’re right that the tide has turned, and that local leaders will see and follow.
senalisha #11, rockies gma #12
I’m with you there!!!
When I was the Elders Quorum President in my ward (2000-2006) all three Relief Society Presidents that served during this time attended and participated in PEC. There were two different Bishops, i might add.
I then served as Gospel Doctrine teacher for a while; and have been in leadership and attended PEC for the past few years and the Relief Society President is at every meeting.
I don’t see what has changed.
Here’s how I see this action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3JPa2mvSQ4
Ken #19 “I don’t see what has changed.”
Ken, if your local leaders have been doing this, great. But as has been mentioned in earlier comments, it hasn’t been like that everywhere. It should be obvious, as Kristine stated in her comment, that YMMV. What this does is set an example at the general level for local leaders to follow.
I think it partly depends on how ward PEC is used. If it is used only to provide coordination between the priesthood groups, that is fine. If it is used to make decisions that affect the entire ward, then RS needs to be there.
Since the new handbook, most wards around here are meeting in Ward Council more often as Rockies Gma suggests.
In the old days of Welfare meetings, our entire RS presidency was there.
I appreciate the gender-only spaces of RS and my female gym. I don’t want to deny men their male-only space, as long as it is used appropriately.
The general RS, YW, and Primary presidencies started regularly meeting together shortly after President Oscarson was called in April 2013. They came up for the idea of the General Women’s Session and presented it for approval to the FP and Q12. These women seem to be very capable of taking initiative. I don’t know where this idea came from, but I have no doubt that these women are respected for their viewpoints at HQ. I’m loving this news.
Douglas, the problem with giving the Lord Jesus Christ sole credit for this decision… does that mean that up until August 2015, it was the Lord’s will that NO women serve on these councils? And if He is eternal and unchanging, why this sudden change of opinion?
I don’t want to believe in a God who is sexist (or who was racist until 1978). Much better to believe that this policy change is the work of men, just like the previous, woman-excluding policy was the work of men.
In other words, I’d rather not throw God under the bus in order to avoid having to consider the possibility that a man-made policy was sexist and flawed.
It’s a baby step… but I am not a baby. The Church is not a baby. It might be time to lengthen our stride.
If Joseph Smith had restored the fullness of the gospel via baby steps, we’d still be waiting. (Then again, maybe we’d have fewer meetings.)
Okasaki’s comments about the Proclamation seem odd. The Q15 are “prophets, seers and revelators” and set doctrine for the Church, so on one hand, it seems appropriate that these 15 men put the proclamation together, rather than seeking input from those who do not have this gift or calling. On the other hand, the Church has recently been teaching that leaders receive revelation for the ward in Ward Council (not bishopric meeting or PEC), so perhaps this does represent a significant shift, not only in policy, but in doctrine.
Baby steps. Yeh, right.
Babies do not walk. (If I recall my children went from scooting to running in about 1 day).
The bigger problem in the LDS church is that the ability to lead and direct has been taken far away from the ward leadership many years ago and concentrated at the top. The church has been turned into a series of centrally-planned franchises with a very watered-down, bland and boring, but consistent menu. This is called the correlation movement and it has its advantages.
The women are never going to have much say at the ward council (WC) level because neither do the men.
Examples:
-What if a WC decided to have the sacrament passed at the end of the meeting instead of at the beginning because they decided their congregation needed the benefit of about an hour of good old-time Southern style preaching to bring their shortcomings to their recognition and stir some remorse. Then the sacrament might actually bring some resolve to change and some reconciliation with God?
-What if a WC decided to hold Sacrament meeting during the first instead of the last of the three hours?
-What if a WC decided that any lessons or preaching during the third hour (RS/PM) was not worth it and turned these meetings into planning sessions for service both within the church and the community?
-What if a WC decided to have a church lunch after the meetings every week, in a building shared with 4 other wards so that it created even more confusion and congestion?
-What if the EQP and RSP acquired a seer stone and started using it to help them make HT and VT assignments?
-What if the three WCs of wards all meeting in the same building got tired of the constantly rotating schedule and decided to have all the members of these wards pick the time that suited their families best. Families with young children might prefer the early session, families with teenagers (especially those sleep-deprived from early morning seminary) might pick the afternoon session and those who work on Sunday morning might pick the last session. The sessions would not all have to be even close to the same size, the last one might be much smaller?
-What if WC decided that 5% tithing was more appropriate considering the economic challenges in the ward and the WC took a 20% cut of that before sending it to Salt Lake?
-What if the WC decided to have a primary pet day once a month when all the children could bring their pets to church as long as the pet didn’t attack any other pets. A 10 year old boy from a less active family brings a 3 ft long alligator with its snout tightly taped closed?
-What if a WC decided to do scouting Australian style and invited all of the boys and girls to be cub scouts (called “joey scouts” down under) and then further integrated the rest of the YM/YW program into one organization that met together every week, selecting what the WC saw as the best aspects of both the YM and YW programs including camping and high adventures together?
-What if a WC decided to tear down the basketball standards in the gym and set up soccer goals on the front lawn. A few local Hispanic teenagers started playing there with loud music and the missionaries started spending several hours a day playing soccer with them?
-What if the WC decided to improve the music in church by having 4 mikes in front with 4 strong voices singing more contemporary arrangements of the traditional LDS hymns mixed with recent popular gospel songs borrowed from other religions?
-What if a WC in an isolated corner of rural Appalachia with mostly older members did a survey which revealed that 93% of the ward preferred bluegrass music . They sold the piano and organ and bought banjoes, mandolins, harmonicas, dulcimers and a big doghouse fiddle and created their own local arrangements loosely based on traditional LDS hymns mixed with some of the classic bluegrass gospel music? What if a grandson of an apostle married a vain Utah valley girl at BYU and they were later transferred into this ward?
My point is not to promote these or any other changes in the church. My point is to illustrate how little freedom we have as ward leaders to make our wards function better. Having women or men or both filling these positions is not going to change anything very much at all.
j. – by labeling the Church as being either ‘racist’ or ‘sexist’, you seem to elevate yourself up to judge it or the leadership thereof.
“I don’t want to believe in a God who is sexist (or who was racist until 1978)”. You don’t want to believe in God, period, and this is one of the lamest of excuses that I’ve seen.
The Lord IS in charge of His Church, but He doesn’t necessarily micromanage, NOR does He consult you or me on every matter (D&C 1:38). Just as you or I have to learn “line upon line, precept upon precept”, so do even the leadership have to exercise their own minds, and learn from experience. Part of me would say with regard to this ‘momentous’ decision, about friggin’ time, and perhaps consideration ought to be given about where PH is absolutely needed, else consider that perhaps the best ‘man’ for the job could be a woman? IDK why a woman couldn’t, for example, be an Institute director, but I’m not the GA(s) in charge, nor the head of the CES, so I don’t presume to judge one way or the other.
And if evidently you don’t believe in the divine mission of the Church, what difference is it to you anyway? Just another pathetic excuse to get your jabs in at an institution that you hold no regard for anyway? Seemingly a waste of your time and thoughts, sir (or madame).
Naismith #22, I take your point about male/female only spaces, though they aren’t something I personally hanker after. However when it is in male only spaces where matters of governance etc are discussed, I think that’s a huge problem.
Mary Ann #23, that’s great. Thank you for pointing that out. More reasons to hope.
j. #24 “I’d rather not throw God under the bus”
Quite!
Joni #25, Recalcitrant teen maybe? Stomps all over the place without looking first…
#26 The Other Clark
“it seems appropriate that these 15 men put the proclamation together, rather than seeking input from those who do not have this gift or calling.”
From everything I’ve read on the subject, it didn’t happen as you describe, for all the 15 signed it.
“the Church has recently been teaching that leaders receive revelation for the ward in Ward Council (not bishopric meeting or PEC), so perhaps this does represent a significant shift, not only in policy, but in doctrine.”
Another reason to hope. Thank you for mentioning that.
Mike #27, interesting list. Some of those things listed do happen however. I’ve attended plenty of wards where sacrament meeting is first. I’ve yet to experience leaders who felt comfortable making changes to music, but I’ve read of wards where interesting things have been done for musical items, if not congregational singing, so I don’t think it’s quite as bleak a picture as you’ve painted. But I’m all for more freedom at a local level (http://www.wheatandtares.org/13395/bringing-the-good/).
Douglas #28, “He doesn’t necessarily micromanage, NOR does He consult you or me on every matter (D&C 1:38). Just as you or I have to learn “line upon line, precept upon precept”, so do even the leadership have to exercise their own minds, and learn from experience.”
I don’t disagree with this. What I’m not getting is why it can’t then follow, that part of learning is learning to listen to those who have suggestions to make, questions to ask etc.
Hedgehog:
I based all of those ideas on a mixture of a few experiences and a lot of imagination. It is a fact that this year my brother’s ward was forced to switch schedules from sacrament meeting first to the sacrament meeting last. The bishopric had resisted it for quite a few years and was told it came from Salt Lake.
A sister missionary from a isolated Mormon town in Utah brought her mandolin along on her mission. It didn’t work so good on door appoaches and had mixed results during lessons with investigators. She and her copmpanion volunteered to sing a rest hymn in sacrament meeting and neglected to mention the mandolin. Granted, she wasn’t that talented but certainly well within the bounds acceptable currently in sacrament meeting. The bishop made them stop near the beginning of the performance and sing the song without the mandolin which did not improve it in the least. The mission president found out and the sister was told to send her mandolin home because it was a distraction. She moped around the ward and I guess she had recovered by the time of her transfer elsewhere. About the only hope of my ward straying far from the slow dreary drone of the organ is that nobody under the age of 75 can play the dang thing anymore.
It may not all be as bleak as I describe everywhere. It may actually be better in some places and WORSE in others.
My point isn’t where we are right now in any given ward but the direction we appear to be going. It is not uncommon for authorative organizations to retrench during times of perceived threat and hardship. Some claim the LDS church is hemorrhaging members and others say we have never been stronger.
I see mixed signals with retrenchment being substantial and concessions to more local leadership and freedom to largely be symbolic or trivial. The topic of this blog appears to me to fall squarely in the latter category.
My experience of decades of effort to nudge my obscure ward a little in the direction of: a) a more Christ-focused worship and instruction service and b) more discussion or activities with local flavor and less boredom have failed miserably. I could chalk it up to my obnoxious personality, that is quite possible. I have found that having any visible agenda at the ward house beyond complete obedience and compliance is highly problematic to most local leaders.
Time will tell if having women on these central committees and with more active roles in WC changes anything or not. Heck, for all I know having women with more of a role in leadership will make the LDS church even more straight-laced and buttoned-up with less freedom and spice.
I think it would be pretty distracting to have your companion bringing a mandolin around to investigators’ houses. I would enjoy a well done mandolin piece in sacrament meeting, but it sounds like she was conflating being a street performer with proselyting.
“Time will tell if having women on these central committees and with more active roles in WC changes anything or not. Heck, for all I know having women with more of a role in leadership will make the LDS church even more straight-laced and buttoned-up with less freedom and spice.”
That’s always possible! I’m hoping not.
Also, I didn’t realize that women weren’t on these committees yet. Women have served on various committees, perhaps CES governing board and something to do with welfare….
Years ago (at least 6 years because Julie B. Beck was general RS president and I was still serving in RS), President Beck came to speak at a regional women’s conference. One of the things she said that when we sit in council, we need to do our homework and speak up.
She talked about these general-level committees on which she served. Usually the notebook with materials was messengered over for her to review before the meeting. One time it was delivered by one of the other committee members–maybe a lawyer?–who wanted to be sure she had it because she had not spoken up much at previous meetings.
She said something about deferring to their priesthood and advanced degrees and he got angry and told her she was there for a reason.
She was sharing this with us to help us learn from her mistake and take our roles in council seriously. And this was before the new handbook and push to emphasize ward councils.
Does anyone doubt Heavenly Father is the Head Honcho? Things will never be a hundred percent equal. On some other blog a woman said something interesting because people had a problem with the temple rites of a woman crowned queen and priestess unto her husband.
1. Even the things are never equal in the eternities I still want to be with my family forever
2. Even if I’m forever in a support role I still want to be with my family forever
Naismith #35, ” One of the things she said that when we sit in council, we need to do our homework and speak up. … She said something about deferring to their priesthood and advanced degrees and he got angry and told her she was there for a reason.
“She was sharing this with us to help us learn from her mistake and take our roles in council seriously.”
That sounds very hopeful, assuming those attitudes are current, and I don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t be.
Ron #36, fMh are running a whole series of issues many women (and some men) have with the current temple practice. In some cases it certainly seems to have a negative effect on the relationship with HF – for some it really does come down to either something is wrong, or HF is responsible, and who wants that kind of a God… But with President Wixom now on the Temple and Family History Executive Council, perhaps she will be in a position to give voice to these very troubling issues. It would be wonderful if she could.
“Even if I’m forever in a support role I still want to be with my family forever”
Why does it have to be this way? Does the Lord know that if a woman has to choose between being unequal with her husband but still having her family, or being alone forever, she will most likely choose the option which doesn’t take away her children? Is it fair to use families (which are the basic building block of the Plan of Salvation) as a bargaining chip to get women to agree to conditions which are unfair to her?
And no, I have no doubt that Heavenly Father is the Head Honcho. Unfortunately, his wife/wives are nowhere to be seen.
Ron, those arguments are typically used to justify polygamy (in our church’s history and in fundamentalist sects). The church’s current teaching that husbands and wives are equal partners conflicts with the idea that women should expect purely support roles in the eternities. The distinction matters to some women, and not so much to others. Just because it’s not an issue for you (or your wife, I assume) does not justify dismissing it as inconsequential.
Joni and mari ann
Humans have zero control over what happens in the next life. If you want something you have to see what the rules are for getting there. somehow being a queen and priestess unto one’s husband sounds a lot better than living alone separately for ever and ever and ever
The payriarchal order
https://www.lds.org/ensign/1982/09/marriage-and-the-patriarchal-order?lang=eng
Patriarchal
#36
I doubt it.
And I would not want to be there if it required being subservient. No woman should have to do that, either.
Ron #41&42 “If you want something you have to see what the rules are for getting there.”
What many women *want* isn’t what is apparently on offer, so why would we/they be bothered about the rules for getting there. Aiming for the least worse option, or the lesser of the evils is one heck of a way below aiming for the stars, and it doesn’t feel heavenly.
That ensign article you link highlights the very problem the patriarchal order causes in marriage relationships, then tries to sweep it away as a gross misinterpretation, the only saving grace is the opening line where the author states: “These comments on the importance of the patriarchal order in marriage represent my personal views.” So hardly authoritative.
>>somehow being a queen and priestess unto one’s husband sounds a lot better than living alone separately for ever and ever and ever<<
Men aren't asked to make this choice. Only women. Why? Is it the original sin of Eve, or something else?
It sounds an awful lot like an abusive relationship. "Agree to defer to me forever, or I will take the kids away and never let you see them again." Hard to imagine that kind of statement coming from a loving God.
Of course, if humanity's current relationship with our Heavenly Mother(s) is anything to go by, even the most righteous, exalted woman won't get to have ANY contact with her millions upon millions of spirit children. She instead gets to stand by while they pray to and worship Her husband, and mention her existence maybe once a year on Mother's Day.
Hedgehog:
And FMH also openly supports goddess worship, abortion, and gay marriage. If you want to know in whose camp someone is in, look at what they support.
“somehow being a queen and priestess unto one’s husband sounds a lot better than living alone separately for ever and ever and ever”
To you perhaps. Your comments are a wonderful example of clueless male privilege.
Please understand that not all of us see it that way. I am not a feminist, but I have NO DESIRE to be subservient to my husband. I would not have married in the temple if I thought that was the deal.
I am a complementarian, I believe the work of women is equal if different to that of men. And I believe that priesthood is a form of servant leadership–a man can never righteously use it to stand on top of anyone, but only to serve others.
And really, if you have to reach back to 1982 to quote something at us, that is not very impressive or reflective of current church teachings.
Naismith
Maybe this is the only way it works.
Do women really want to choose their feminism over their exaltation and live separate and singly forever and ever and ever? I showed them. So there.
Eternity is a long long long long time.
Didnt President say to never take one’s eyess off the prize, that is, exalration?
One time fred ethel and lucy were trying to figure out how to win a trip to Hawaii on a tv show. Lucy wanted Ethel to go as her elderly mother and Ethel didnt want to. Fred said if it will get us to Hawaii Ill go as her mother.
Do whatever you have to do to be exalted.
Ron #49, “Eternity is a long long long long time….
Didnt President say to never take one’s eyess off the prize, that is, exalration?”
Indeed it is a long time, which is precisely why many women reject the patriarchal order paradigm, either by not believing that it is how things actually are, or by turning their backs to both it and a HF who apparently supports it. Exaltation as described in a patriarchal order isn’t an attractive prize for women. I’m not sure why you are finding that so difficult to grasp. It’s one thing for Fred (#50) to dress, and pretend to be an elderly woman in order to get to Hawaii (short duration), quite another for him to spend eternity as an elderly woman in Hawaii!
Of course, in that patriarchal order paradigm men cannot be exalted without their wives, so unless the wives go along with it you’re stuffed. Looks to me like an awful lot of men are going to have to agree to equality first. Unlike Naismith, I am not a complimentarian, but I agree with her that “I have NO DESIRE to be subservient to my husband.” Not now, and certainly not for eternity!
“Maybe this is the only way it works.”
And maybe it isn’t, if we read the church teachings of the last decade rather reaching back to a 1982 article (not even general conference talk) which preaches the false doctrine that a wife is a counselor to her husband. That has been explicitly debunked other places, replaced by the reality that the husband and wife are equals, operating through consensus.
And please don’t accuse me of “choosing my feminism,” because I am not even a feminist. Lots of non-feminist women do not want to be, nor expect to be, subservient to their husbands.
Hedgehog:
Humans have about as much of changing things in the afterlife as we do commanding the sun to snuff itself out. If the wives of someone don’t want to marry in the temple or abide by the covenants, doesn’t it stand to reason that the husbands will find someone who will or vice versa?
Ron. I think we have to agree to disagree on this one.
Naismith, I’ve loved your comments. Thank you.