I was recently reading an article on Politico’s website, politico.com entitled, Donald Trump’s Fictional America. The author, Andrés Miguel Rondón, grew up in Venezuela partially under the regime of Hugo Cháves. He discusses how Cháves created an alternative reality for the people and financially ruined the country at the same time.
“If you think the postfactual world is a recent development, then you should see how Hugo Chávez was and is still mourned in Venezuela. One can safely say that the Venezuelan revolutionary, who from 1999 to 2013 presided over the largest oil boom in history in the most oil-rich country in the world, and yet left behind a hungry, ailing, economically ruined society, was a downright catastrophe for his country’s citizens. A factual catastrophe, as it were. Yet many there, especially the very poor, who are the hardest hit by Chávez’s failed policies, still idolize him as a savior. Some have even set up a religious cult around him.”
Rondón states that the post factual concept is now invading the developed world. Of course, he points to our beloved President, Donald J. Trump, whose war against the truth is well known by now.
“Post-truthism is typically defined as some sort of illness of objectivity, brought on by a rise in subjectivity and sheer emotion. “The truth has become so devalued,” they say, “that what was once the gold standard of political debate is a worthless currency.”
Which brings us to the “blame game.” Why do we have this problem? Rondón goes on to write:
“Many people have been too eager to blame post-truthism and the rise of Trump on a deficiency of education. On sheer showmanship and “sentimental politics,” whatever that is. On the rise of new, data-driven polling and marketing techniques. Some even blame Hollywood. In short: A stupefied populace, prodded listlessly by social media and big data, voted for Trump precisely out of the stupidity of his rhetoric.”
He seemly dismisses the lack of intellect as an excuse, but does not ignore the blame game. His premise is the fundamental reason that Trump won (and this conclusion is not unique to this article) is to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, “ Are you better off now than 8 years ago?”.
For many, the answer is no. And to top it off, they themselves cannot be the reason for it. It must be someone or something else, mostly beyond their control.
“But modern populism in the vein of Trump and Chávez can do the same. When citizens ask these leaders why are they suffering, they too get a simple answer: “I suffer because of them.”
So, who do they blame in this post-factual world?
- Immigrants
- Countries taking our jobs away
- Politicians (typically of the opposite party)
- The media
- The rich and powerful
There does not seem to be any way to persuade these folks otherwise. Rondón again:
“Constantly trying to disprove, on a daily basis, what Trump says will only bait people into their confirmation biases.”
I see this phenomena in the Church as well.
Disaffected or less active members:
I’ve seen members who fall into a minimum of two camps:
- Uninterested: In the Ward, we usually have several of these folks. Not active in the Church, might accept a visit occasionally, might even attend an activity now and again. But, not really interested in participation in the Church, does not attend Sunday meetings, pay tithing, or wear garments, if endowed. Someone may have asked them why, maybe not. Bottom line: not interested, and in many cases, not even identifies as Mormon.
- The leave it, but can’t leave it alone group: In this group, they may still be members or have had their names removed. They usually have a litany of complaints against the Church and its leaders. Like the example Rondón, “I suffer because of ” They, may have some things in common with the Uninterested member, but cannot be quiet about it.
And yet, some of their complaints are likely justified, so much so, that we have seen a major shift in things like greater transparency in Church History presentation, More realistic view of past Church leaders and more information about controversial topics.
But for me, the bottom line is it is The Church is the Church of Jesus Christ, not Church of Leaders, Church of History or Church of This or That Policy. So, despite all these other things, I cling to the idea that in the end, our testimony of the Savior will win out over all this other stuff.
Women and General Conference
The other example, even more recent than the last election, was the lack of women speakers at General Conference this past week. Only Sister Joy D. Jones, Primary General President spoke during the Sunday Morning Session. This is a departure from the recent past where at least two Sisters have spoken. The General Women’s session is dismissed simply because it is a week earlier and a member of the First Presidency speaks. So, it doesn’t count. At least relative to the comments I have seen online.
The blame game was evident as the complaints came like a tidal wave. Like the post-factual world of politics, many reasons were speculated upon as to why this occured without any shred of why there was only one sister speaker. Most of the reason given by speculators surround the conspiracy of silencing the female voices in the Church and in the auxiliary leadership.
And yet, there is no evidence of a conspiracy. There was, a major change in the Relief Society Presidency, which may have played a role. Or it was just the luck of the draw this time. I suspect there is no quota of how many of the type or gender of speaker will speak at Conference. The only thing you can count on is the Quorum of the 12 all speak and the First Presidency speaks multiple times. I have no idea. I doubt it was a deliberate effort to silence anyone.
Yet, the comments and concerns, expressed that sentiment. In other words, “I suffer because of them.”
Maybe the blame game has always existed. Seems much worse to me these days.
What do you think?
Wheat & Tares 
I don’t think it’s as simple as you are making it out to be, and I’m not sure the two scenarios can really be compared, because only one of those groups has God at its head.
I wouldn’t exactly say I blame church leadership for my frustrations when it comes to, well, lots of stuff 🙂
I know that sometimes I’m confused and frustrated and it can be lonely. God is at the head of this Church. So actually, I guess I blame God. We’re wrestling at this point, Them and I. And I’m grateful because as hard as it is, it is honest and vulnerable and just really really real. I’m definitely a rough stone, and I’ve got lots of polishing, but I wouldn’t say I’m wasting my days away thinking of nefarious reasons as to why our leaders only chose one female to speak. I was frustrated by the lack of female speakers, even two just isn’t enough. I don’t know why we don’t have more, but I’m hopeful. I know the leaders pray for me and really love and care about me, flawed as I am. Do I think they could be doing better? Absolutely. Which is why I’m praying for them as well.
You give examples of complaints that are “likely justified” such as the historical issues in the Church that have led to greater transparency. Where do you think those changes came from? A revelation? The changing times and culture? Pressure from members? We cannot know for certain but there’s a good chance it came from a combination of these things. I like to think that members raising questions and concerns relating to the changing attitudes and culture in society causes our leaders to ask God for direction. But I don’t know and neither do you.
So how do you know that the next “likely justified” issue isn’t more women’s voices being heard by the membership (men and women) at General Conference? You seem fairly dismissive of people’s concerns being legitimate, evidenced by you references to “conspiracy.” I’ve paid attention to the dialogues as well and seen lots of frustration, but I’d say only a small percentage could be classified as actual conspiracy. There was also the sorta sarcastic way you talk about the General Women’s session. Did you watch the General Women’s session Jeff? Do you plan to? My guess is most males in the church won’t/don’t. I don’t plan on watching the Priesthood Session, so there’s that.
So yes, there was one female speaker heard by the our church family, which disappoints me. And I hope it disappoints you Jeff, because speaking as someone who has had her pretty much entire Church experience defined by scriptures, general conference talks, and proclamations written from a male perspective, I know what it’s like to learn from the POV of the opposite gender. In some ways it can be rewarding. And it can be frustrating when you just can’t seem to relate. It can make you stretch yourself beyond what is natural and comfortable. So really you guys just don’t know what you’re missing.
Maybee,
Thanks for replying. I’m not sure we are really in that much disagreement.
Yes, I think things have changed primarily because of the awareness brought about by members. It is not my experience that revelation or ideas or whatever you want to call it, come in a vacuum or when unexpected. I suppose they can come unexpected, but I’d say they usually don’t. So the members asking for answers was a huge driving force.
With regard to the Women’s broadcast, I usually watch it as my wife goes off the the Stake Center. I actually didn’t this time because I wasn’t home at the time. But I recorded all the sessions of Conference and will watch them again soon. Including the Women’s General Session.
Now, I am very supportive of the Sisters speaking in Conference. As long as they don’t speak in a Primary voice. 🙂 So I have no issue with having more. My point was that there was probably no vast conspiracy to have only one this time. I think it was just a question of who got assignments.
I also noted that this past year in our Ward, Sister Bonnie Oscarson was quoted as often as any GA. I thought that was rather refreshing.
Thanks for your response Jeff.
The tone of your response is much more generous than that of the original post. Being one of those people in the category of folks in your “disaffected” category (though I say that term very loosely, I’m finding my own way), it stings to be compared to Trumpites pointing fingers at others for their problems. Although like those Trumpites I may be unhappy with how things are, I think the comparisons can really stop there. The “alternative facts” problem in politics can be remedied by Truth, but sadly we’re in this crazy place where Truth doesn’t matter. But with our leadership, speculations can easily be remedied with more transparency. It’s up to them whether they want to communicate with us, and they rarely do on these matters, so I suppose we’re stuck with speculation. Which means re: one woman speaker at conference, you don’t know that it wasn’t a purposeful act, just as I don’t know that it was. Which means again those of us on the frustrated side of things have the burden (and blessing) of practicing charity yet again.
Ahhh, Primary voice. I wish we could get past that. Fortunately I think our female leaders are no longer feeling the need to speak in such a culturally acceptable voice to be heard. I wish we could think of female speakers and not think of the Primary voice. And you know what would help? More female speakers. If you really are supportive of that, watchful waiting isn’t necessarily the most effective method of obtaining your desire.
Maybee,
“it stings to be compared to Trumpites pointing fingers at others for their problems”
I took some pains not to lump everyone in that basket. Some people just walk away or change their views without fanfare or hubbub, There are others who have a difficult time looking in the mirror and saying, “is it me, Lord.”
“Which means re: one woman speaker at conference, you don’t know that it wasn’t a purposeful act, just as I don’t know that it was. ”
Trying to be logical about it and viewing the recent past, it seems unlikely to be a deliberate act to exclude. I could be wrong, but just trying to use common sense and recent history of being more inclusive to the Sister leaders, rather than exclusive.
I honestly can’t remember the last time I heard a primary voice speaker, female or male. Not to say we haven’t heard some condescending speakers now and again….
Personally, I think this post is pretty tone deaf, adding insult to injury. I haven’t heard of any women saying they felt like it was a deliberate snub or any sort of conspiracy that only one woman spoke. It’s actually probably worse: leaders likely didn’t even give it a thought. Women feel invisible, not even an afterthought. I imagine many people of color likewise felt the lack of diversity when the 3 latest apostles were called. Many people noted at that time that God only listens to upper-middle-class white men from Utah; he must shop for apostles at the Bountiful Costco. The people who are our go-between with God, who set the policies and create the culture, who are supposed to be our advocates in the church–they not only don’t hear from us as women, but they also tell us to “speak up” in E. Nelson’s recent talk (as if to say we aren’t heard because of our own inaction), only to show with their actions that they really don’t mean it, women’s voices are forgotten and excluded–oops. Feeling overlooked and ignored isn’t the same as blaming the church or its leaders for all of one’s ills in life.
I suppose my conclusion is that if so little input from women is sought or desired, then policies set without that input don’t apply to me. I’ll make my own choices based on my own personal revelation, making the church’s role largely irrelevant. I’ll work out my own salvation with fear & trembling and forget about whatever is coming out of the COB.
“Personally, I think this post is pretty tone deaf, ”
Because you chose to focus on only one part?”
No, because you are insulting those who feel injured or slighted by (ironically) comparing them to Trump voters and Chavez supporters. Ironically, because many of the women who feel that one speaker at GC = being overlooked also feel that our country electing a boastful sexual-assaulting misogynist instead of our first female president likewise = being overlooked.
You’re saying that women who think it matters that only one woman spoke at GC are whiners who blame others for everything, and you are comparing them to what’s wrong with our country right now. So, I’m going to stand by my assessment that the post is tone deaf.
“because you are insulting those who feel injured or slighted by (ironically) comparing them to Trump voters and Chavez supporters. ”
No, those are only examples of the issues discussed in the article. But, it appears you are in the same position by demonstrating your “conformation bias” without any evidence.
I am not saying that women who complain about it are whiners, just that they have no real justification for the charges they are making about the reason.
I have no lover loss from Trump and think he is already doing a terrible job and is a disgrace on the Presidency. But you knew that already.
“So, I’m going to stand by my assessment that the post is tone deaf.”
Certainly, your prerogative.
I second hawkgrrrl’s points.
I was at a training today where the question was posed “have you ever been told something was impossible or out of your reach because of who you are?”
Immediately I responded, “My entire life I have been told that I can never have any authority in my faith tradition because I am a woman.”
This is not a reflection of me being a “whiner.” This is me, stating the facts as concisely as possible.
And the lack of female representation in GC last weekend is yet another sad example of the messaging we women continue to receive.
Actions speak louder than words.
When you tell women to speak up but don’t provide opportunities for them to do so;
When you tell women you value them, but don’t listen to their viewpoints;
When you tell women they are more inherently more spiritual, yet don’t give them a chance to preach;
When you tell women they are unique and different from men, yet you don’t give them a chance to give their input or share their experiences;
You send a powerful message about how important women really are to the church.
You don’t mean what you say.
The message I have received throughout my life in the church is that the church doesn’t really support my development and growth. Not in the same way it supports men who receive opportunities that are unavailable to me. And sadly I don’t see that changing any time soon.
Kelly,
I would be difficult for me to respond to what you have said because I have seen both sides. As I’ve stated before, most people, men or women will never get the opportunity to be called to one of these higher level positions. They don’t fit the mold, they are not part of the “in crowd,” they are not that interested, etc….
Jeff,
My point is not that I cannot hold a high level position within the church. My point is that I cannot hold ANY position of authority. Even at the ward level, RS, YW, and Primary presidents lack authority over their organizations. As a woman I cannot be in charge of my own budget or activity without approval from a man. Period.
I’m changing my tune, Jeff. I suffer because of you and members like you.
I guess you had to find someone to blame. May as well be me. Doesn’t solve anything, but if it makes you feel better, go for it.
I’ll straddle a couple of viewpoints here.
It’s too late at night to do the stats, although off the top of my head the amount of female speakers at conference is probably greater (pro rata) than their representation. The problem is not how many speak. The problem is the amount in callings that speakers can be chosen from. Nine out of (whatever…..hundreds) is atrocious.
Fix the amount of women in leadership and the numbers that speak at conference will follow.
Will it happen. Unfortunately not….
Jeff,
I ask the following in all sincerity:
Who is to blame for the dearth of opportunities in women’s leadership and authority, if not the church?
I don’t remember voting on how many women speak in conference. I certainly didn’t vote for any represented leaders within the church. That’s not how things are decided around here. It’s a top-down patriarchal hierarchy. Decisions are made in SLC.By men. With little to no evidence that women are consulted at all.
In YW we learn about choice and accountability. We are free to make our own choices but must be accountable for the consequences of those choices. For whatever reason, the church made the choice to only include 1 female speaker. The church must now be accountable for the consequence. And one of those consequences is people pointing out that this is a continued example of marginalizing women. It’s not a blame game when people point out a gross gender imbalance. It’s stating the facts.
Boy, Jeff, you really are deaf, not just tone deaf. Several women have tried to explain something to you are you refuse to even consider their point of view. I don’t see why I should repeat for you what you refuse to even consider. But here is trying any way. Women do not think it is a conspiracy that there are so few women speakers. It is just that the male leaders are men who grew up at a time when married women were not full human beings even under the law of the land. So, they don’t conspire to neglect women, it is just their nature to neglect women.
And it is VERY insulting to compare those of us who are unhappy with the church because we see truth to those who support the Cheeto in Chief and don’t care about truth. From my perspective, you are closer to the supporters of Cheeto in Chief because there is truth in some of the issues that make people unhappy with the church that you are refusing to see, and even when pointed out to you, you would rather blame others than see your own rudeness.
My question would have been was there a message or a public relations angle or was it done with obliviousness to that.
Either way one wonders what will come next.
“From my perspective, you a re closer to the supporters of Cheeto in Chief because there is truth in some of the issues that make people unhappy with the church that you are refusing to see, and even when pointed out to you, you would rather blame others than see your own rudeness”
Yes, I saw this hypocrisy as well! He’s created his own post factual reality that strays from Truth, and points fingers at the group he disagrees with. We could go even deeper and suggest that the reason he is doing this is because the crumbling of the current patriarchal structure would make him “worse off than 8 years ago,” but I don’t think he would like that very much.
So really, he wrote the article for himself.
I remember his post “Is 2017 The Year White Guilt Ends?” was fairly controversial. Andrew, patiently, engaged with him. I was struck then how Jeff wouldn’t acknowledge Andrew’s very helpful and intelligent points, even as Andrew, a POC has greater insight into the matter. Same thing here.
“I guess you had to find someone to blame. May as well be me. Doesn’t solve anything, but if it makes you feel better, go for it.” So dumb. Nobody brought up the lack of women speakers to blame anyone. You brought up blame. The facts are the facts. We hardly hear from any women in Gen Conf, and then we are told we should speak up. Ergo, they don’t mean it. Of course it doesn’t make anyone feel better – or worse really – but as to solving it, as I would point out to E. Nelson, it’s not because the women are unwilling to “speak up.”
Jeff’s stance here is a great reminder of the difference between liberals and progressives.
What exactly do you think I disagree with?
That more Sisters should speak at General Conference. No, I don’t disagree with that.
That Sisters should have more voice in the the decision making withing the Church, both local and at HQ. don’t disagree with that either.
The only thing I said was you can’t extrapolate a reason why there was only one Sister Leader speaking during the General Session to all the things you don’t like about the Church Patriarchy. Because you don’t really know the real reason.
You want to call me names and subscribe my opinions and political beliefs, feel free. I can handle it.
“Nobody brought up the lack of women speakers to blame anyone. You brought up blame. The facts are the facts.”
You know that is not true. The finger was clearly pointed at the Male Church leaders as the reason. But you really don’t know the reason.
Aw, but can you learn from it?
And It is not true that the only thing you said was that we could not extrapolate. You compared the women who were complaining with out of touch with reality Trump supporters. That was what was so offensive.
Jeff, I echo Hawkgrrrl and other’s comments. I didn’t see a single woman argue for a conspiracy. No one said that the GAs were gathering around discussing how they could make LDS women feel even more bad. No one said that any GA consciously decided to exclude women. The fact that you claim ‘most’ of those who had a problem with women not being represented were arguing for a conspiracy, while offering absolutely no evidence for this offensive claim, is an embarrassment. You haven’t provided one example of a conspiracy-related response, much less proved that the majority of responses centered on a conspiracy. Thus, you have offered little more than a straw man, which, when coupled with your ad-hominem of likening these women to post-truth Trump fans, damages your credibility to the point that I wonder whether it is worth wasting time reading posts with your name on them in the future. To make matters worse, when commenters like Hawkgrrrl and others have pointed this out to you, you behave as if you have entirely missed the point. It would restore some of my faith in your ability to reason if you would at least acknowledge the point that no one (or almost no one) ever argued for a conspiracy.
What the women (and men) you are challenging were doing was arguing for two truths. First, there was only one woman who spoke in conference. I take it you agree with this truth. Second, that the extreme lack of women’s representation here and elsewhere in the Church can make women in the Church feel isolated, marginalized and confused about their earthly and eternal roles. This is also a fact, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. These women aren’t asking for GAs to stop some vast, cruel conspiracy; they are asking GAs to wake up and remember that more than half of the Church is female and women’s voices matter. Since you purport to agree with the fact that it would be better if more women spoke in General Conference, it makes me wonder why you have a problem with women saying the same thing, so much so that you have to construct a false narrative of the conversation?
In a way, I hope things don’t change. I have no objection to more women speakers, but inasmuch as speakers for General Conference are drawn from the general authorities and general officers of the church, it must needs be that the majority of speakers will be men (simply because within that population, most are men). Assuming for the time being that the pattern of church organization isn’t going to change, the only way to equalize the sex of speakers would be to draw in women speakers from outside the general officers of the church. Not that my opinion matters to the decision-makers, but I hope they don’t adopt that approach. I’m satisfied with drawing General Conference speakers from among the general authorities and general officers of the church. I thank all of them for their service.
ji: I would be fine with your suggestion if instead we simply had more women serving as church officers.
hawkgrrrl,
Would you recommend new positions to be filled only by women, or adding women to existing priesthood quorums?
The pool of speakers could equalize immediately if they were to treat General Authorities and their spouses as companions who are called and serve together. In Stake Conferences, we always hear from the wives of the visiting authorities (temple presidency, mission presidency, general/regional authorities). The precedent already exists.
I like Ranae’s idea. Why can’t wives of GA’s speak? No expanding positions, or adding to priesthood quorums necessary.
It sounds nice, but I’m not sure I agree with Ranae and MH.
If a woman is speaking GC solely because she is the GA’s wife, what sort of authority does she hold?
Without true authority and stewardship, I fear we are only exacerbating a big part of the problem. More women’s voices would be heard , sure. But they wouldn’t be coming from a position of any real power. Not a bad thing if you’re solely looking to hear more women’s perspectives and experiences, and I for one would love to hear more of this in GC. I long for more than this, though. I’ve been ruminating on a Facebook comment Gina Colvin made this week:
“We don’t so much need women to speak – we need women who will speak with inspiration from the feminine divine, and women who have the courage to speak to women’s theology, women’s hermeneutics and women’s contexts.
We don’t need more women speaking in a way that normalises the Mormon patriarchy.
Femininity has collapsed into the male identity in Mormonism. We currently are what men say we are. I think we need some time to speak ourselves into being first – then we can talk about a shared human experience.”
ji: The idea of women in a priesthood quorum appears to be a third rail (except in the temple of course). Personally, I don’t really care how it’s done. There are offices that don’t require priesthood. If women can serve missions without being ordained as priests, I don’t see why we can’t fill most of the general offices of the church with women. Just don’t give them the priesthood, but give them the responsibility. What’s the difference?
As for the idea of authority – I don’t really see what authority the 70 have on any of us, at least not in a practical sense. They are clearly the junior league of speakers at GC. I don’t know what the real hierarchy is, but in my mind at least, any of the auxiliary (HORRIBLE word) presidencies outrank members of the 70.
I took Ranae’s suggestion to be that couples be jointly called to GA roles. Maybe I misunderstood the suggestion. I don’t know about the 70 (as I said, who knows what they do anyway other than audition to become apostles in GC and share ill-informed opinions at mission conferences–I imagine a lot of meetings and boring talks), but I certainly think that mission president should be a co-president calling in which both wife and husband are mission presidents together.
Its the church itself that tends to play the ‘post-truthism’ game. A good lot of the church history I learned growing up is post-thruthism. A good lot of the understanding of scripture is post-thruthism (aka proof-texting). A good lot of everything is sentimental-religion.
I’d say that some of those that leave do it because they look at all the post-thruthism and reject it. I understand why they do. For me, it’s possible to look past the post-thruthism and find God, but I understand not all can. It’s a stumbling block the church itself created. So in your analogy, I’d say the currently disaffected members are Trump supporters who four years from now realize he was all hot air, they are worse off than they were pre-Pres-Trump, and are angry at him for not living up to what he said he’d do/be. I think there’s an important element of feeling ‘duped’ in this as well.
I don’t entirely disagree that some (note some, not all) women do look negatively at the church leadership for their choices in how women are represented. I don’t think they then pin their own problems on that though. For one thing, the women that watched conference and felt the dearth of female speakers, watched conference. How disaffected can you be if you are willing to sit through 8 hours of conference? So perhaps one of your starting points should be understanding the women who are opening their mouth on this. Ask them if they are disaffected. Ask them if they blame the leadership or pin all their problems on blame. Ask them. And then repeat back to them what they said until they agree you have a correct understanding of what they are saying.
Otherwise, you come off as pushing your view of their experience rather than their actual experience. (And frankly, I don’t see a lot of excuses for doing that. There are no lack of women commenting in this post with explanations of their experience.)
“Otherwise, you come off as pushing your view of their experience rather than their actual experience. ”
Boom Shakalaka.
(I would have said mic drop, but it’s become overused)
Hawkgrrrl , you understood me correctly. Wives ARE called to the work when their husbands accept high level responsibilities in the church, they just aren’t always asked, given a title, or recognized for what they do. Speaking in public would provide some recognition and bring their voices and perspectives to the front.
I’m curious if Jeff learned anything or found anything to think about by way of this entry.
Ranae, I agree that the wives of higher offices such as GAs and mission presidents need more recognition. I’m not familiar with the specific types of responsibilities the wives of GAs currently have, but I imagine they are well traveled, have met many people in the church, and have their own unique experiences to share. I would like to hear more from them. But again, if these ladies speak in GC, it’s solely because they are supportive of their spouse who was the actual person called. He is a leader, and she is a wife. Him = power. Her= support. I’m trying to teach my daughters that who they are matters, that they deserve to be supported. I don’t really want them seeing this organization at GC.
GAs and their spouses being called together is a novel idea. If they were, do you think the inspiration to extend the call would come because of the wife? I doubt it. It would be like mission presidents, the husband called and the wife called essentially because he was. Or are you envisioning a model where the call is extended to the couple, to fill the position together? Would they sit in on meetings as a couple, make decisions as a couple? Hold authority together?
Somewhat related, I remember recently a member of I believe it was the general Primary presidency was released. She had only served a very short time and I found out the release happened because her husband had been extended a call to become a mission president. This discovery caused me a lot of discouragement. We only have 9 female general presidency positions in the church, and even being that high up still doesn’t trump a mission president.
Ranae and Hawkgirl, over all, I like the idea of the wives of the 12 speaking in conference. It has some real advantages, but some dangers if they were to speak in conference without being officially called as general authorities themselves. The advantage is at least we would hear more from women, and we know they are good righteous women because the men would never get the calling if they did not have outstanding women as wives. And it doesn’t take restructuring the whole church as some other options would.
The disadvantage is ….well it might even be an improvement on the current situation. Where women who are Mrs GA do a lot of the work in supporting their husband, but are completely invisible, given no credit, glory or authority—-sort of like Mrs. God, totally invisible. At least it would make them more visible. But the disadvantage would be that women are already seen as appendages of their husbands and giving them speaking assignments in general conference would just reinforce that without solving the problem that they do half the work and get no credit, recognition, title, or authority. I don’t like the idea of women being just a part of their husband’s identity. They lose their individuality and become more a subset of him. They need to be given a calling equal to GA, rather than just serve as the wife of. And the church would have to come up with a title other than “wife of.” But, even without full equality of calling, it would be an improvement in that it would officially recognize the pattern of men and women serve together. And it would be a step toward actually seeing the couple as both serving and at least a step toward giving the women credit and titles.
Maybee, your point about the release of a Primary presidency member is paralleled by the recent announcement of Sister Cristina B. Franco who was called to fill a vacancy in the primary presidency and will assume her responsibilities after her husband finishes serving as a mission president in July. Those examples don’t bother me as much as a story that was told in conference once about a man receiving a call during a lunch break from work and his wife not finding out until later in the day. In the first instances, they recognize these callings require the full support of both spouses to be properly fulfilled. In the second instance, the wife is an afterthought who is expected to accommodate whatever is necessary without even asking her.
If they were called as a couple, I don’t see why they can’t work out between themselves how to divide the responsibilities of the call. In some cases, the wife may want to pick up the difference in watching over the home and family while her husband travels, in other cases, a wife might be the better partner to attend meetings or give talks. How to attend to the responsibilities of the call would vary according to the circumstance and talents of each particular couple, but it would reflect the unity of the call to both of them, acting as a unit. The model now tends to put the needs of the husband within the church as taking priority over the husband and wife as the primary unit of the family, and the family as the primary unit of the church. It would also reinforce the concept of counsels, listening to women, and equal partners which the church has spoken about, but never visibly demonstrated in a public arena.
I know this has been addressed, but I’m going to say it again — the idea that we should accept the low number of female speakers because it is proportional to the low number of female GAs is exactly backward. It’s suggesting we accept the symptom because it is proportional to the severity of the illness. I’m not objecting and feeling overlooked because one conference forgot to pass the Bechtel Test; I’m feeling overlooked and I’m raising my voice about it because women. Are. Not. Represented. In. Church. Leadership. Yes, we are guaranteed to hear from the Q15 and the Q15 only, but shouldn’t it raise a warning flag that the most “diverse” member of that body is an educated, middle class, white man from Germany? Nothing against Germany or it’s people (love you!), and I am truly sorry to bring up this terrible chapter in history, but if the most diverse member of our leadership is literally someone who lived through actual Hitler’s regime because he fit actual Hitler’s eugenic ideal, we need to work on inclusion. We can’t expect to meet the gospel needs of a global and diverse church with only local and homogenous perspectives guaranteed to be represented. So yes, I’m angry and disappointed that only one woman was asked to speak in a general session, but I’m heartbroken and outspoken because it’s a discriminatory pattern. I similarly doubt that it’s deliberate or malicious, but factually speaking, it is there.
Alice,
“I’m curious if Jeff learned anything or found anything to think about by way of this entry.”
I am not sure I actually learned anything new, but the following has been reinforced to me:
1. Many people do not read carefully.
2. Some people are snarky, unkind, name-calling and dismissive.
3. Some people are not interested in a discussion, but like to get on their soapbox.
4. Some people like to impute motive, education, and other negative attributes to someone they don’t even know.
5. Some people like to hijack a post.
Which is one of the reasons I seldom post here anymore.. It’s not much of a discussion
I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone refer to themselves as “some people”. And yet here it is. Four times in a row no less.
Jeff, you did manage to stir the pot. It hasn’t been as controversial around here without you.
Jeff,
You made generalities about a group of people to which you do not belong, and when members of that group told you that your assessments were way off, and in fact offensive, you failed to make any concessions whatsoever. It’s beyond frustrating. So why engage with you further?
Maybee,
Since your first post, which was quite nice, I have been met with name-calling, condensation, and other negative words, simply because I might not agree with other’s opinion. I do not need to be lectured to. I have the right, as do you, not to agree with someone else’s opinion.
I have made concessions, as you call them. I’ve said that I like to hear women’s voices at conference, that I thought there should be more Sisters speaking, But those comments were ignored in favor of raking me over the coals because you and others disagree with what I wrote, while only focusing on one part of the post.
Again, in a free society, we all have that right, thank goodness.
MH,
“Jeff, you did manage to stir the pot. It hasn’t been as controversial around here without you”
I’m not sure if that is good or bad….
“The blame game was evident as the complaints came like a tidal wave.” While I too saw complaints about the lack of women speaking, I didn’t see many if any comments that were “blaming.” The lack of women speakers speaks for itself. Editorial comment: when you use passive voice like this (“was evident”) be sure you can back it up with the actual evidence that you claim was so evident. It wasn’t evident to your readers, as we’ve said repeatedly.
“Like the post-factual world of politics, many reasons were speculated upon as to why this occured without any shred of why there was only one sister speaker.” Again, this wasn’t what I saw in the discussions. Who was speculating? Show us what you saw. I didn’t see people speculating about reasons. They were just appalled at the fact that we went from 2 speakers (aside from the Women’s Meeting) down to ONE. Nearly all the speculating I saw was from those defending the lack of women speakers who speculated that the speakers are chosen by Jesus himself or that maybe someone was sick at the last minute, etc. Nobody who was disappointed about the lack of female voices was speculating as to why from what comments I saw.
“Most of the reason given by speculators surround the conspiracy of silencing the female voices in the Church and in the auxiliary leadership.” You claimed this, and nobody here saw the comments you are talking about that claim that there was a conspiracy. None of us saw comments like this, so your claim that you did seems . . . questionable.
You’re the one who used the terms “blame,” “post-factual,” and “conspiracy,” but you haven’t cited any evidence (e.g. quoted comments) to illustrate these things happening. You claim that you saw those in comments on other discussions. Your post didn’t provide evidence to support your offensive claims. Women were sad that their kind of people are not considered important enough to speak in General Conference, and you turned that into a post saying that they are blaming others, ignoring facts (what facts are being ignored?), and enlisting in conspiracy theories–like Trump voters. So obviously it should come as no surprise that when called on it, you resort to sulking and shrugging and saying that now people are blaming you for their problems.
Jeff,
It’s a bold thing to write a post criticizing a marginalized group to which you don’t belong. You should be sure your arguments are on point, many of us with our lived experience are saying they are not. In fact they stray from reality. But that doesn’t seem to matter to you. Which is even more offensive, adding insult to the injury of the lived experience. So yeah, things get testy. Not unexpected.
“Some people just walk away or change their views without fanfare or hubbub, There are others who have a difficult time looking in the mirror and saying, “is it me, Lord.”
This was a turning point for me in the conversation, I had given you the benefit of the doubt but this comment caused me to realize the sort of person I was dealing with. Talk about condescending. I see no concession in a statement like that. I should walk away, change my views, or look inward. How do you think those options sounded to black member struggling during the priesthood ban?
Hawkgrrl:
I realize in the long run, this is not a useful discussion because you and the others have your views, which you are entitled to. You seem unwilling to let anyone else have theirs. But here are some examples of generalizations that you and the others have made that, I’m sure you would admit, do not apply to every woman in the Church. So, I might in fact have an outlier view of this, but you and the others Sisters here may as well:
Hawkgrrl: Women feel invisible, not even an afterthought. I imagine many people of color likewise felt the lack of diversity when the 3 latest apostles were called. Many people noted at that time that God only listens to upper-middle-class white men from Utah; he must shop for apostles at the Bountiful Costco. The people who are our go-between with God, who set the policies and create the culture, who are supposed to be our advocates in the church–they not only don’t hear from us as women, but they also tell us to “speak up” in E. Nelson’s recent talk (as if to say we aren’t heard because of our own inaction), only to show with their actions that they really don’t mean it, women’s voices are forgotten and excluded–oops. Feeling overlooked and ignored isn’t the same as blaming the church or its leaders for all of one’s ills in life.
I suppose my conclusion is that if so little input from women is sought or desired, then policies set without that input don’t apply to me. I’ll make my own choices based on my own personal revelation, making the church’s role largely irrelevant.
Kelly: Ironically, because many of the women who feel that one speaker at GC = being overlooked also feel that our country electing a boastful sexual-assaulting misogynist instead of our first female president like
And the lack of female representation in GC last weekend is yet another sad example of the messaging we women continue to receive.wise = being overlooked.
Anna: It is just that the male leaders are men who grew up at a time when married women were not full human beings even under the law of the land. So, they don’t conspire to neglect women, it is just their nature to neglect women.
Maybee: We could go even deeper and suggest that the reason he is doing this is because the crumbling of the current patriarchal structure would make him “worse off than 8 years ago,” but I don’t think he would like that very much.
Rachel: Second, that the extreme lack of women’s representation here and elsewhere in the Church can make women in the Church feel isolated, marginalized and confused about their earthly and eternal roles. This is also a fact, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
Anna: Femininity has collapsed into the male identity in Mormonism. We currently are what men say we are. I think we need some time to speak ourselves into being first – then we can talk about a shared human experience.”
Maybee:
“Some people just walk away or change their views without fanfare or hubbub, There are others who have a difficult time looking in the mirror and saying, “is it me, Lord.”
“This was a turning point for me in the conversation, I had given you the benefit of the doubt but this comment caused me to realize the sort of person I was dealing with. Talk about condescending. I see no concession in a statement like that. I should walk away, change my views, or look inward. How do you think those options sounded to black member struggling during the priesthood ban?”
Why is that condescending? It is a scriptural question we should always be asking ourselves. I’m sorry you don’t like it. We are born with a rebellious nature, which adherence to the Gospel tries to helps us tame. It’s never an unreasonable question to ask ourselves.
I had to reread the OP a few times, just to try and figure out where it went wrong. I think it was in trying to link “post truth” with the very, very minor arguments given by people that completely ignored the patriarchal structure of the Church, setting that aside with the easy go-to, “it’s set up how God wants it”.
It’s like concentrating on a set of people arguing the brightness of a candle while everything is bathed in full sunlight (which I hope comes through as an analogy; nothing seemed to fit right). The problem isn’t why we got 3% women speaking rather than 6% or even 11% rather than 14% when you don’t discount the women’s session. The problem is that we are no where near 50%, even in availability.
All of the suppositions, “a major change in the Relief Society Presidency”, “the luck of the draw”, “I suspect there is no quota of how many of the type or gender of speaker will speak at Conference”, are extremely weak sauce.
There’s much bigger fodder for “post-factuals” in and around the Church, but the major problem with the number of women speakers is that the Church is Patriarchal. You can’t really draw a line from “post factual” to an instance that is full of facts.
Jeff, “The finger was clearly pointed at the Male Church leaders as the reason. But you really don’t know the reason.” Okay, so the other options: point the finger at the Female Church Leaders, point the finger at Church Leaders (male and female), or point the finger at God. Which option do you suggest? Because blaming God for stuff is good – I can complain directly to him and he’ll listen. I’m just not sold that this one was God’s idea, even if he allowed it.
“And yet, some of their complaints are likely justified, so much so, that we have seen a major shift in things like greater transparency in Church History presentation, More realistic view of past Church leaders and more information about controversial topics.” This is the key, Jeff. Leaders have occasionally found room for improvement in the organization because members voiced complaints. While they don’t listen to the loud yelling on the outside, sometimes they will *note* the loud yelling and turn to someone they trust on the inside and ask, “What do you think?” Letting women pray in general conference came as a response to concerns raised outside the organization that were eventually deemed legitimate.
You just reference the church history changes. You don’t seem to grasp that the church has made monumental efforts in the last few years to boost the voices of women in the church – hiring specialists in LDS women’s history (resulting in the First Fifty Years of RS and At the Pulpit compilation of women’s sermons), putting women in the highest councils, and approving the request by the female general auxiliaries to have a joint Women’s Session (conducted by women). And, as has already been referenced, Elder Nelson made a specific plea to LDS women to speak up and make their voices heard in Oct 2015. Later that month, the women and priesthood essay was released which noted all the ways women contribute in the church, including speaking in general conference. The *church* has made women’s voices a big deal in the last few years. *You* don’t think it’s a big deal to go from 2 women speaking (and praying) down to 1, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a big deal. This cut the number of women’s voices in the general sessions in half – that’s the unfortunate side effect of working with small numbers. Even if there was a great reason underneath, on the *surface* it undermines the church’s claim to value female voices. That is a problem.
Jeff: From the comments you posted, I still have questions / areas of confusion:
1) you’re posting comments made in response to your claims, so they aren’t evidence of your claims in the post since they happened after the fact. I also don’t interpret them the way you did. How are they post-factual? How are they conspiratorial? How are they a “blame game”?
2) Someone made up the speaking assignments. That’s done by church leadership. Is that a fact or not? How is that the “blame game”? It’s an observation of fact that hardly any women are ever asked to speak. Saying women are overlooked in the speaker rotation is pretty obvious. You’re calling it “the blame game” why? Because women feel overlooked? We are in fact overlooked by those creating the speaker rotation. How is that a game?
Are you saying we should look at ourselves to see why women aren’t asked to speak? Nobody’s going to ask you or me to speak anyway – we are far too low on the totem pole. As I said, it just means that (in my personal opinion) most of what men say about women in GC is not worth hearing since women aren’t heard by those speaking. That’s my own conclusion.
Honestly, your logic is nearly impossible to follow here. “Blame” implies wrongdoing. Being overlooked isn’t “harm.” It’s just being completely off the radar / invisible. I’m not sure what you think people are being “blamed” for. Women aren’t being asked to speak. Whoever is asking them doesn’t value including them as speakers. That’s all there is to it. It’s not a conspiracy. It’s the way of the world, or rather the way the world has been historically and is no longer.
Mary Ann,
“You just reference the church history changes. ”
I was using those as an example that changes have and are changing. I should have stated more, if that would have helped the outcry. I have my doubts.
Hawk,
“you’re posting comments made in response to your claims, so they aren’t evidence of your claims …”
I didn’t post them as evidence of any of my “claims.” I posted them as I stated that they are just as generalized as the claims made of my post. Not all women in the Church feel the same way, so to say for example “Women feel invisible” is not true for all women in the Church.
“Are you saying we should look at ourselves to see why women aren’t asked to speak? ”
No, not saying that. All I am and was saying is that we have no idea why only one Sister spoke in the General sessions. We should be wait and see if this is a downward trend or an anomaly of scheduling before conclusions are jumped to.
““Blame” implies wrongdoing. Being overlooked isn’t “harm.” It’s just being completely off the radar / invisible.”
I would suggest that the comments made about “the patriarchy” and being “tone-deaf” are an implication of wrong-doing…
Wait and see if it’s a downward trend? Honestly, whether it’s 2 or 1 is little difference as Mary Ann points out–we are dealing with very small numbers. The “trend” is that women aren’t asked to speak much in General Conference, and the “trend” is over a hundred years. The issue is lack of progress. It’s tone deaf to tell women to speak up and then exclude them from the speaker list. That was E. Nelson who said that, so I guess if he was in charge of the speaker list, he’s the one I am calling tone deaf. If he meant what he said, he’s the one in a position to do something about it. I honestly don’t know why this isn’t obvious to people.
So if you insist on calling it “blame,” there’s no game. Whoever isn’t asking women to speak is to “blame” for women not speaking. It’s not some mystery.
I understand you don’t want to concede even an inch to me. That’s fine. Let’s have a session with only Women speakers. Oh, wait we have one of those. It doesn’t count…..
– We don’t have a session of women speakers. The women’s session always has a member of the 1st presidency.
– Even if we had a session of only women, that’d raise us to 5 women speakers out of 40.
– No one said it doesn’t count except those to whom it’s a compelling excuse or to mock (as you did), as if to say “see? We gave you so much! How could you not be happy?”
Frank,
So, you are agreeing with me that it doesn’t count, right? Not even if a majority of the women in the Church might want to hear from a member of the First Presidency?
Jeff, you seem to sincerely believe that you know these women’s motivations and beliefs better than they do their own. While I think the term ‘mansplain’ should be used very sparingly, your insistence on prioritizing your own extremely uncharitable interpretation of these women’s motives over what they are actually telling you is going on with them is textbook mansplaining if anything is. Would it be so hard to actually listen to women explaining their own beliefs and motives?
You have yet to offer any evidence that any women argued for a conspiracy (which, at this point, I think we all know is unlikely to happen), so you instead fall back on the weaker claim that women blame the male GAs. But you have to keep in mind that recognizing x is the reason for y is not the same thing as blaming x for y, and it is a still further step to claim that these women are speaking *for the purpose* of blaming GAs, rather than for the purpose of bringing about change. It is clear from past GA comments that there is some subset of GAs (perhaps only the prophet) who set the speaking schedule based on inspiration. (Let’s be honest here, it is not the female receptionist who decided who was speaking at conference.) So, in that sense, yes, one or more male GAs made a decision about who would speak, and this is the reason for only one woman speaking. But to recognize that male GAs would need to become more awake to these issues in order for Church-wide changes to be made, is not the same thing as trying to blame GAs for all our problems (which is quite literally the most uncharitable interpretation you can give for what these women are saying.)
Let me illustrate my point. Martin Luther King Jr. championed for civil rights and equal treatment, no matter the color of one’s skin. Were there some white guys who saw what MLK was up to and thought, “They’re blaming ME; they’re trying to blame white people. That’s so unfair!” (Because people in privileged positions too often love to make everything all about them, since they are used to being at the center of the world.) But, and I would appreciate it if you would answer me honestly here, consider if MLK could push either of two buttons: button A would cause black people to continue to be treated horrendously, but black people would be able to appropriately blame white people for all their problems; or, on the other hand, button B would cause black people to instantly be treated equally, but absolutely no one would blame or feel blamed. Of course MLK is going to go with what he had been advocating for for years, he is going to choose option B, because it brings equality, and equality, not blame, is what matters.
The same thing can be said for myself, and based on what I have read from Ashmae, Hawkgrrl, and others, for them as well. That is, if these women had a choice between blaming the brethren while things stayed the same, or having there be a magical change that instantly made women more equal in our Church but without any blame, most (all?) would chose the latter without blinking an eye. This illustrates that the primary purpose of all of this dialogue is what it purports to be, that is, it’s about advocating for change instead of about placing blame. And that is exactly what women here keep telling you, but you would rather take imaginary offense on behalf of the brethren and yourself. (Which is to say, you might want to take it easy on all the self-pity and wound-licking. It is really not a good look.)
“Jeff, you seem to sincerely believe that you know these women’s motivations and beliefs better than they do their own. ”
No, I don’t
“While I think the term ‘mansplain’ should be used very sparingly, your insistence on prioritizing your own extremely uncharitable interpretation of these women’s motives over what they are actually telling you is going on with them is textbook mansplaining if anything is.”
So, does that mean that all the comments here trying to get me to see the light is “womensplaining?”
I’ve not told anyone how they should feel, whether they are unjustified, I’ve not said that one Sister Speaker is enough, I only made an observation for which the folks who made comments disagree.
Jeff,
I’m saying that it doesn’t matter if it’s counted or not; the ratio of women to men is still extremely low. I’m saying that if you discount both the women’s and priesthood sessions (which would be the balance), then the ratio goes from bad to worse.
I’m saying you can’t start with “Let’s have a session with only Women speakers. Oh, wait we have one of those” and follow it up with “a majority of the women in the Church might want to hear from a member of the First Presidency” because you’re changing the argument to try and score rhetorical points.
You’ve made a tenuous link in your OP, saying that people who dislike the patriarchal system we have are just wanting to blame “them”; God, Church leadership, etc. I agree that we should be looking inward more than outward to solve what we see as wrong. but in doing so, you’ve fallen into your own trap. You’ve made the people who disagree with you into the “them”. You’ve remained fixed on the motes you see, unmoved by the beams others see.
I’m not really sure where the conversation can go from here. I only added my comment in a somewhat vain (as in serving my own vanity, not “in vain”) attempt to see if I could help you look at this a different way.
Jeff,
The fact that we are talking about WOMEN’S issues and you are a man, and the majority of commenters disagreeing with you are women, makes this a mansplaining and not a womansplaining scenario.
The post is not about Women’s issues. You folks have been trying to Womensplain one part of the post to me since the beginning instead of address the overall premise.
“So, does that mean that all the comments here trying to get me to see the light is “womensplaining?””
No. Because they are describing their own female experience as a woman.
You are manslpaining because you are describing a female’s experience from the perspective as a man (assuming you are a man). And you are telling them they are wrong in their own lived experience.
And yes, there are lost of women who love the conference the way it is, feel no lack at the dearth of women, and likely agree with you on many of your points. But that isn’t who you are speaking to here. Your op addressed the women who do struggle with the dearth of women speakers. Those very women showed up to dialogue with you on how you got their perspective wrong. If you don’t want to deal with how those women feel, why even post in the first place? Just to rile people up?
The overall premise is based on the idea that women disappointed by the latest conference are ‘Blaming.’ I can’t see how trying to explain that ‘Blaming’ isn’t going on isn’t addressing the premise. If your examples don’t hold up to scrutiny, then the premise is flawed (or at least not well founded).
I noticed you didn’t bother to my criticism of your metaphor on those that leave the church….
“The overall premise is based on the idea that women disappointed by the latest conference are ‘Blaming.’”
Actually no, the overall premise was “I suffer because of them.” Starting with Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and his followers, transitioning to Trump and his followers. I also remarked that some disaffected members feel that way and that some women feel that way because of one Sister speaker at GC. It was only a part of the whole post and certainly not a premise but an example.
” noticed you didn’t bother to my criticism of your metaphor on those that leave the church….”
I think I had already addressed that in the post itself.
“You are manslpaining because you are describing a female’s experience from the perspective as a man (assuming you are a man). And you are telling them they are wrong in their own lived experience.”
Except I didn’t do that. I didn’t say anyone was wrong, I didn’t try to explain their feelings or negate anyone’s opinion. I merely stated my own observation based on my read of the Internet blogs and articles I’ve looked at since Conference.
Me: “Jeff, you seem to sincerely believe that you know these women’s motivations and beliefs better than they do their own. ”
Jeff: “No, I don’t”
**********************************************
Me again: Great, so you are willing to concede that we actually understand our own motivations better than you do. That’s good news. Now, since you recognize that we are in a better epistemic position than you about our own beliefs and motivations, and we are saying we are motivated by the desire for church-wide improvement rather than blame, can you now have the humility to acknowledge you were wrong? Because I don’t see how you can rationally acknowledge that we know our own minds better than you do, and yet still insist that your contrary view of our motivation is more accurate than our own, all with zero evidence.
BTW: Maybee and ReTx, you’re exactly right about why no ‘womansplaining’ has been taking place.
“I also remarked that some disaffected members feel that way and that some women feel that way because of one Sister speaker at GC.”
What many posters here have been trying to say is, I don’t feel that way because of one sister speaker at GC. I feel looked over because of a lifetime in a faith tradition that doesn’t see me, and I spoke out because I saw a concrete and current example in the lack of female speakers this conference. The misunderstanding is in assuming that this one conference is the source of the frustration.
Jeff, “I didn’t say anyone was wrong, I didn’t try to explain their feelings or negate anyone’s opinion.” Good heavens, you went into how the followers of Chavez and Trump are living in a post-factual alternate reality where they refuse to take any blame for their own suffering and instead irrationally point to sources outside their control. Then you lump in all those who are bothered by the lack of the normal female representation at conference. How do you *not* see that as negating their opinions?
“Then you lump in all those who are bothered by the lack of the normal female representation at conference. How do you *not* see that as negating their opinions?”
You know there have been many blogs, comments and postings on the Internet from some Sisters who have pointed the finger at the church Leadership, both general and local, called them out of touch, too old, unaware of women’s issues, keeping the Auxiliary Presidencies in the background, don’t include them in decision-making etc.
While I think that is likely a minority of women in the Church, they might fit that situation as I explained it. It was up to the reader to decide…. I did put it out there.
“I spoke out because I saw a concrete and current example in the lack of female speakers this conference. ”
It added fuel to an already existing fire.
“Great, so you are willing to concede that we actually understand our own motivations better than you do.”
Never believed that in the first place, so very easy to concede, as you put it. More womenplaining, I guess.
Dude, why is it so hard to say, “I uncharitably cast your motives in the wrong light based on no evidence that I can offer. I accused those who wanted equality of being people who want to play the ‘blame game’ and unfairly lumped you in with ‘post-truthers.’ Thank you for sharing with me that what you wanted was not to blame, but to advocate for change. I am sorry that even after many of you came here and explained your true motivations, I continued to insist that my view of your motivations was the accurate one. I have now learned not to rush to judge a group of people’s motivations without trying to really hear what they are saying?”
I mean, really, basic decency and the principle of charity require you to defer to the people whose action you are tying to explain if you truly want to understand their motivations for acting (unless there is powerful evidence that they are lying.) I am sure that you are a decent person but you make yourself look so much worse by continuing to defend this mean-spirited view of your sisters.
Rachael you put it so well. But I think Jeff has shown repeatedly he doesn’t care to understand.
Elizabeth St Dunstan FTW:
if the most diverse member of our leadership is literally someone who lived through actual Hitler’s regime because he fit actual Hitler’s eugenic ideal, we need to work on inclusion.
I wasn’t sure if this was going to cause me to laugh out loud or if it would bring tears to my eyes, but it is the pithiest, truest, most to-the-point thing I have read in some time. Sister St Dunstan, you are magnificent.
One other thing, I know that I have been snarkier in my comments than I should have been and I regret that and apologize for that. But I keep seeing, both in the way many in the Church responded to the women who marched in the Women’s March, or who generally advocate for more equality in the Church, and even in the way that some Church members saw black people during the civil rights movement and the BLM movement of today, there is this pattern of ‘otherizing’ these people. That is, rather than trying to understand why these things are so important to our brothers and sisters, rather than trying to understand their view from the inside, there is this pattern of placing them on the outside, misjudging their motives, and generally casting them as a dangerous, misguided, or unrighteous ‘other’.
If we are to build Zion together, this cannot be happening. We cannot become one without bearing one another’s burden. The practice of ‘otherizing’ is always a practice grounded in contention and separation rather than love and unity. If we could love this ‘other’ as we love ourselves, would we still be so eager to cast them in a bad light?
All of the women in church leadership are chosen by the men in church leadership. I don’t always find their insights awfully insightful. An example is Elaine Dalton’s speech to the Salt Lake area YSA after the Women’s Marches. Many of the comments to the Deseret News report on it demonstrated so much more depth than Sis Dalton had.