Yesterday I began to notice a quote from Sister Margaret D. Nadauld, a former Young Women General President, getting shared on Facebook. It has continued through to today. So many of my friends (seeming independently) choosing to share the same quote, all without commentary. All of those friends women, who happen to be political conservatives.
Here’s the quote, from an October 2000 general conference address, “The Joy of Womanhood”:
Women of God can never be like women of the world. The world has enough women who are tough; we need women who are tender. There are enough women who are coarse; we need women who are kind. There are enough women who are rude; we need women who are refined. We have enough women of fame and fortune; we need more women of faith. We have enough greed; we need more goodness. We have enough vanity; we need more virtue. We have enough popularity; we need more purity.
So, a quote about how women of the world are tough, coarse, rude, greedy, vain, seeking popularity, fame and fortune…
…on a day of one of the largest protests in United States history, the Women’s March in Washington D.C., and dozens of “sister marches” scattered throughout the rest of the country (not to mention more than 20 countries abroad)…
…protests affiliated with anti-Trump sentiment, with many celebrities in attendance (even here in Utah).
What am I to think of this? How can I NOT see this as a self-righteous judgmental attack on those who participated in those protests?
Sisters, think about what you are saying. You are not attacking policies, you are attacking people. Some of the toughest, strongest women I know (women who served in the armed forces!) are suddenly saying it’s not okay to be tough. Women who can swear up a storm with the rest of them suddenly saying it’s inappropriate to be coarse.
You are calling your own sisters in this church rude, greedy, and vain. Do you HEAR yourselves? Many of you protested when your politically liberal sisters called you racist, sexist, and xenophobic for your Trump vote just a few months ago.
“We voted for his policies!” you cried, “it doesn’t mean we agree with EVERYTHING he said!”
“How can you call me these horrible things?!” you said. Well, now you know.
You want a church quote about womanhood? May I recommend this one from a later Young Women General President?
To be sisters implies that there is an unbreakable bond between us. Sisters take care of each other, watch out for each other, comfort each other, and are there for each other through thick and thin. The Lord has said, “I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine.”2
The adversary would have us be critical or judgmental of one another. He wants us to concentrate on our differences and compare ourselves to one another…
…Sister Patricia T. Holland once said, “The point is, we simply cannot call ourselves Christian and continue to judge one another—or ourselves—so harshly.”3 She goes on to say that there is nothing that is worth us losing our compassion and sisterhood over. We just need to relax and rejoice in our divine differences. We need to realize that we all desire to serve in the kingdom, using our unique talents and gifts in our own ways. Then we can enjoy our sisterhood and our associations and begin to serve.
The fact of the matter is, we really and truly need each other. Women naturally seek friendship, support, and companionship. We have so much to learn from one another, and we often let self-imposed barriers keep us from enjoying associations which could be among the greatest blessings in our lives. –Sister Bonnie L. Oscarson (“Sisterhood: Oh, How We Need Each Other”, April 2014 General Conference)
Sisters, we are better than this. Stop it.
Wheat & Tares 
Mary Ann,
Are you asking only the politically conservative (your term) sisters to stop it, or are you asking both those and the politically liberal (your term) to stop it?
I agree that there is nothing in politics that is worth losing our LDS sisterhood (or brotherhood) over. My state’s fourth Sunday Teachings for Our Times lesson today was from Sister Reeves, Oct. 2016. A good discussion ensued.
Ji, I believe it’s pretty clear that in this post I am speaking pointedly to my politically conservative sisters to please stop doing what they themselves protested was wrong two months ago. I have previously made it clear that while I do not like President Trump, I do not consider divisive rhetoric useful (including calling political conservatives racist, sexist, and xenophobes). That is why I sought to get a better understanding of why people might’ve voted for Trump in previous posts, which you are *well* aware of since you are a frequent commenter.
I get particularly angry when Relief Society sisters turn on each other, since that goes against the heart of what the organization stands for. And when people casually drop church quotes as a passive-aggressive form of judgment, it makes me doubly angry.
I have a lot of friends on facebook who are conservative member. I was shocked at their thoughts today. They had nothing but hate filled words for those who marched. Since my wife and I marched, I was one of those they attacked. And yet, they defended Trump on every point.
Oh yes and Liberals are just innocent and everything.
Ronkonkoma, clearly you didn’t read my comment. Don’t worry, Ji already took care of the insinuation of liberal bias.
Gee, Mary Ann, given the nasty things I’ve seen conservatives post, I just don’t think that sharing that quote is all that bad. In fact, it seems to me they might just as well be applying it to their rancorous sister conservatives as their enraged sister liberals. I have nothing against the march, but the central theme of the march is their hate of Trump. I don’t see any particular policies that they’re protesting. They just hate the misogynist. Or they just enjoy the solidarity of being with others who hate the misogynist. Obviously, that’s an oversimplification, but this post really comes across as one throwing rocks at people to get them to quit throwing rocks. In other words, more of the same.
Martin, venomous political posts are one thing. It’s the difference between, “I think you’re idiot and your position is wrong,” versus someone saying to you with a sniff, “Even the very elect shall be deceived.” The second one could be said about anyone, right? But what if I’m noticing a consistent pattern among the women saying the line, the *exact* same line. Do you think I might be able to tell what they are referring to? That’s what being passive-aggressive is all about. It’s saying things that, on the surface, could be considered quite inoffensive and acceptable. It’s the *context* that matters.
I grew up in a house with a parent who’d learned to both defend and attack using passive-aggressive statements. It’s something very common in Mormon culture. You *have* to call it out explicitly to have any chance of getting through to the individual. Otherwise they just counter, “Well, I never *technically* said that.” No, but that’s what they meant. Do you run the risk of looking easily offended, of looking hysterical yourself? Absolutely. That’s the value of passive-aggressive techniques – plausible deniability. The person gets the satisfaction of making a snide remark, and then they hide behind a sweet smile if you *choose* to take offense.
I have no problem with people saying that those protestors don’t represent themselves. They don’t agree with the pro-life/planned parenthood agenda. They don’t agree with the Democrat/liberal agenda. They don’t agree with the villification of Donald Trump. That’s not what this “innocent” quote does. It implies that those who participate or support the protest are “women of the world” as opposed to “women of God.” To me, that is a step too far.
Mary Ann,
Aren’t we in a pot and kettle mode here? You are targeting conservative sisters who use “passive/aggressive” quotes to try to make a point, yet seemingly giving a pass to some very hostile aggressive comments by people in the march? On the March Facebook page one person mentioned Kelly Ann Conway and the vitriol against her by most was not very nice to say the least. Disparaging comments were made about men, etc. It all needs to stop, on both sides.
Pointing out how wrong someone is, then telling them to stop it is not very fruitful. (And here I am telling you to “stop it” telling other people to “stop it.” We are all pointing fingers at each other. Let’s stop and just listen to each other and try to find common things that we can talk about and work together for.
I listened to some of the speeches by women celebrities in the March. They came across in different ways. Some angry and combative. Some scared but defiant. I paid particular attention to Madonna’s speech because of the attention grabbing headlines about “blowing up the White House.” I hope that people will listen beyond the headlines because she also said that would not work. Her conclusion was that we need love to triumph over hate.
We need to find ways to bring us all together. Men and women. I think that the women’s march sent a powerful message to Congress. That is where we need to concentrate our efforts, in my opinion. Trump is not well liked there either on both sides of the aisle. and he really cannot do a whole lot without the support of Congress. But we need to be able to find enough common ground that we can make a unified push, to send an even more powerful message to Congress. But we cannot do so by calling each other names.
Glenn
As someone who leans Co
Glenn, the march was political. I don’t like politics. The march was about people airing election grievances (which means almost entirely Democrat/politically liberal). The fact is that we have Relief Society sisters who would have agreed and disagreed politically with the statements at that march. I did not march. I would not have marched. That is not my method nor my political ideology. About half the women I saw post this quote call those protesters, any other day, liberal commie snowflake crybabies who can’t handle the outcome of the election. The other half of the women I saw post this quote were women who do not like to post political stuff, yet very clearly (because I *know* them) sympathize with that same conservative political ideology. What I refuse to give a pass to is women using church quotes to suggest that those of one political ideology are “women of god” and those of the other political ideology are “women of the world.”
As someone who leans conservative, I don’t really see the OP as liberal bias. It would take thousands of pages to fully document the injuries progressives and conservatives do to each other unnecessarily. It’s fine if the OP only does one of them. Conservatives are making a mistake if they can’t see that people are genuinely disturbed by Trump’s sexist approach to politics and instead attribute the weekend’s protests to hate.
That being said, I don’t think the march’s organization did itself any favors by exclusively focusing on progressive causes. They opened themselves up to the attack that the original quote represents and discouraged conservatives who could be allies in fighting for women’s issues in the next four years.
Thanks Mary Ann, I couldn’t work out the relationship between the post and Elder Uchtdorf-in the end I clicked the link. I’m glad I did. I am trying to stop it. I’m not sure how one calls out one’s political leaders when they speak threatening words and are intellectually dishonest, or indeed hold them accountable. It’s a tough call, and a functional part of democracy imho. But I will try to stop doing so with anger, and overcome evil with good.
Mary Ann, I understand what you are saying, but you are calling out just one side. And maybe, just maybe you are reading into that shared quote without comments something that is not there.
Maybe we all need a “time-out”
Mary Ann, maybe you’re right about the passive aggressiveness behind sharing the quote (I mean, I’m sure you’re right it some cases), but I think some of it might also be pushback against loud, angry, destructive protests. Some of the promotion for the march encouraged “showing anger”– perhaps that’s what your conservative sisters are reacting to that. I think Liberal Outrage probably helped get Trump elected. Conservatives are really disgusted by it. When compared to the liberal protestors outside of Trump rallies, the guy inside was less obviously repugnant. I also don’t think there would have been nearly as much pushback against Black Lives Matter if it weren’t for the TV footage of protestors vandalizing and rioting. Of course, those Tea Party patriots bringing guns to their rallies had the same effect on the liberals.
In any case, if loud, obnoxious protests were their concern, I think it turned out to be misplaced. At least in my city, the march was peaceful and the mood rather upbeat. Highly successful protest, imo. I don’t know what things were like elsewhere.
Glenn, I admit that may be possible.
Martin, it’s a good possibility. But like you said later in the comment, it’s still a statement against “liberal outrage.” That is pointed towards a particular political ideology. My experience in the church is that feminism (broader movement) is stereotyped as loud, angry women expressing masculinity as opposed to femininity. Growing up, I listened to a lot of Rush Limbaugh railing against “feminazis.” Again, attacking the form of protest (right now) is virtually indistinguishable from attacking the main ideology fueling the protest.
” It implies that those who participate or support the protest are “women of the world” as opposed to “women of God.” To me, that is a step too far.”
And, that is the problem with using the quote.
The seed that gave life to the idea of a protest was Donald Trump bragging about grabbing women without their consent.
What type of person thinks that, let alone says that out loud, let alone repeats that to a media personality? As many men stated, that is not normal or appropriate locker room talk. The men that I know also say, though they’ve been in plenty of locker rooms, they’ve never, ever heard that said in a locker room. And, as several Trump cabinet nominees admitted during recent hearings, such behavior can be classified as “sexual assault.”
Where was the outrage from conservative LDS women?
Shamefully, Trump was given a pass and many LDS members, including LDS women voted for him.
“Mary Ann, I understand what you are saying, but you are calling out just one side. And maybe, just maybe you are reading into that shared quote without comments something that is not there.”
This sums up my reaction. I don’t see any value in calling out just one side–not that there are only two sides.
Yesterday, I went to church dressed in all black, with only an American flag scarf to break up the mourning. Nobody said anything to me, but I hope that if any sisters were feeling pain over the last week of events, that they knew they were not alone.
And yet I totally endorse both of those quotes.
Naismith, I’d endorse the first quote in most other contexts.
For those who assume I believe it’s okay to accuse Trump supporters of racism, sexism, and xenophobia, please read this post I wrote a few months ago examining the reasons why Utah voters may have supported Trump: https://wheatandtares.org/2016/11/23/trumps-utah-win-mormon-rural-and-republican-factors/
I noticed the same quote in my feed on Saturday and drew the same conclusion about its intent. So, for what it’s worth, if the other commenters are right that you’re jumping at shadows, at least you aren’t alone.
I really struggle with that quote and it’s hard for me to not assume when I see it that the sister bringing it up isn’t trying to send me a not so subtle message about my righteousness. I have very rarely if ever seen it used as a tool for self reflection. It is almost always wielded as a judgment of other people. I don’t believe scriptures or quotes should be used as weapons by anyone.
I also hate the term “women of the world.” I recall uncomfortably the relief society lesson on the topic that devolved into listing on the board actual women who were women of the world. I took my leave.
Mary Ann, thank you for this post. I did march, and while I was there I felt the most amazing bond of sisterhood and support with my fellow marchers – the kind of acceptance I haven’t felt in a relief society meeting in a long time. And then I spent Sunday fielding hostile comments from and personal attacks from church members. I’m aware that all sides do this to each other, and I wish we would all just stop. Thank you for calling passive aggressive quote sharing what it is. I appreciate it even more knowing that the march isn’t your cup of tea.
I remember listening to Sister Nadauld’s talk and being impressed with how loving she was, I don’t believe she was setting this quote up to be a ‘gotcha’ for labeling the actions of others. I would suggest the following exceptions to her teachings for situations I have, unfortunately, observed while wearing different hats.
The world has enough women who are tough; we need women who are tender—unless that tenderness empowers another, for example, to abuse. There are enough women who are coarse; we need women who are kind—unless that kindness empowers another, for example, to pillage. There are enough women who are rude; we need women who are refined—unless rudeness is necessary to communicate to someone, for example, ‘no’. We have enough women of fame and fortune; we need more women of faith—though, obviously, these need not be mutually exclusive.
I have never understood why a woman being tough is considered b y LDS women to be a bad thing.
Rigel, well said.