The title of this post might seem crazy (of course women are people!) but I ask it with all sincerity. I don’t believe that the institutional Church, or its top leadership, actually sees women as people. Do you?
I was reminded of this when reading about David Archuleta’s interviews with Good Morning America and Jennifer Hudson, during which Archuleta reported that an LDS apostle that he spoke with (some speculate it was Elder Ballard; Archuleta performed at Sister Ballard’s funeral four years ago) advised him: “You just need to find yourself a good girl.” That’s right–in 2022, top Church leaders are advising gay men to marry women to “cure” themselves.
Not only does this demonstrate a total lack of understanding about sexual orientation by leaders who are creating policy and proclaiming doctrine about how we are to deal with sexual orientation, but it also reveals a stunning lack of empathy and respect towards women. I don’t want to ignore the first problem (the way the LDS Church treats sexual orientation), particularly during a week in which an LDS person opened fire in an LGBTQ nightclub, killing five and injuring seventeen. I am mourning with my queer friends and family. I hope you are feeling supported. But in this post I’m going to focus on the second (the way the LDS Church treats women). Actually, those two issues are related–a huge component of the LDS Church’s aversion to homosexuality is, in my view, its own sexism that is terrified of seeing men “act like” women. In any event, here are some thoughts on why the statement is problematic with respect to women.
First, it infantilizes women–Archuleta is 31; I hope that the three women he was engaged to previously were women, not girls. If it was Elder Ballard who told Archuleta this, we’re talking about the same man who advised women in a YSA Stake: “You beautiful girls – don’t wander around looking like men. Put on a little lipstick now and then and look a little charming – it’s that simple. I don’t know why we make this whole process so hard.”
Second, this suggestion assumes that women are tools to be used by men to become who they want to be. Women are appendages to support men, to bear them children, and to cure or mask their sexual orientation, or at the very least to let them check a box they need to check to get into the Celestial Kingdom. It is really not that different from ancient Greek and Roman views–views that heavily impact Western thought and Christianity–that women are merely deformed men. The male is the ideal human; the woman is an aberration.
In some ways, this attitude from Church leaders shouldn’t be surprising. There are many examples of Church practices and teachings that treat women as appendages to men. I’m only listing a few off of the top of my head here:
- D&C 132, our foundational text on (plural) marriage, treats women (virgins) as objects who are “given to” righteous men.
- Men can be sealed to multiple women, but women to only one man.
- Heavenly Mother is just a silent, potentially plural partner for Heavenly Father.
- In the temple, men covenant to become priests and kings under God. Women covenant to become priestesses and queens unto their husbands. (Yes, they changed the language to “new and everlasting covenant,” but it’s the same thing–that’s just a sneaky way of saying (plural) marriage.) Previous to changes several years ago, women didn’t even directly covenant with God at all but instead through their husbands, who take the place of Jesus Christ for women.
- Women have zero institutional power in the Church. Really, zero. Influence–sure. Power? None.
- Women are still being taught that we need to have children early and often, and examples of women who sacrifice their own wishes (and even health!) to bring more children into the world are venerated.
- Women are called walking pornography and told they are responsible for guarding men’s chastity.
- Wives of apostles and mission presidents give up their own callings to accompany their husbands on theirs.
- During sustainings of general authorities and in many other organizational examples, women are lumped with children while their teenaged boys are “before” them.
Still, it’s confronting to be reminded of this attitude after lulling ourselves into a sense that we might be people too.
Third, it is callously puts a woman in a position where her husband is unable to be romantically or sexually attracted to her. Don’t women deserve that? Don’t we deserve fulfilling sex lives? Thinking about this reminded me of Josh and Lolly Weed’s story–for those who aren’t familiar, Josh and Lolly were in a mixed orientation marriage for many years. In 2018, they announced their divorce, which resulted from the extreme mental and emotional toll that their marriage was taking on both of them. Because I’m focusing on a woman’s experience here I’m not including Josh’s account, but you can read it yourself. Here’s Lolly’s:
For me, giving my whole heart to Josh while knowing that he did not love me the way a man loves a woman has always been devastating. We were best friends, but he never desired me, he never adored me, he never longed for me.
Josh has never looked at me with romantic love in his eyes. He has never touched me with the sensitive touch of a lover. Whenever he held me in his arms, it was with a love that was similar to the love of a brother to a sister. That does eventually take its toll on your self-esteem. No matter how much I knew “why” he couldn’t respond to me in the ways a lover responds to a partner, it wears a person down, as if you’re not “good enough” to be loved “in that way.” And what I didn’t realize is that as human beings, we actually need to feel loved in that way with our partners.
This deficit started to mess with my self-esteem. I almost felt if only I could be thinner, prettier, sexier, maybe it would be enough to catch Josh’s eye, to help him want me in the way we need to be wanted by our attachment partners. In reality, Josh was GAY and it had nothing to do with me. This is where it doesn’t make sense. I knew he was gay. I didn’t think his sexual orientation was going to change. I could have been the hottest woman on the planet and he still would not have felt any different toward me. No matter how clear I was on the technicalities of this reality, it was impossible not to internalize his complete lack of attraction toward me. Subconsciously, it was a constant message. You aren’t attractive. You aren’t wanted. You aren’t beautiful. You aren’t a good enough woman.
It was making me unhealthy. I gained a lot of weight. My self-concept was diminishing over time. What was worse, I knew my little girls were watching me as their example of what a woman can be, of what healthy womanhood looked like–and they were also watching my marriage. I knew they were getting messages and concepts from me that were not setting them on a path of self-esteem and self-actualized womanhood. It was breaking my heart to see this.
I know this is kind of a downer post for Thanksgiving, but I just couldn’t get it off of my mind. I guess for Thanksgiving I am grateful that I have learned that women are people. That motherhood is a role not an identity. That no one presides over me but me. That I matter.
I didn’t always believe that. Let’s do better.
Questions:
- Did you listen to the Archuleta interview? What are your thoughts?
- Are there are other ways in which women aren’t treated as people? Are there other groups the Church treats this way? How much of this is our theology verses how much of it is our culture? Are there ways in which the Church improves upon the culture?
Wheat & Tares 
Although many people were disappointed by Elder Renlund’s talk about Heavenly Mother at the Spring 2022 General Conference, I actually found it relatively modest for this reason: rather than sloppily putting together some half-baked folkloric explanation for a lack of knowledge about her (like the curse of Cain, curse of Ham, or the “less-valiant” justifications for the priesthood ban), he just said, “We don’t know much about her at the moment. So in the meantime, pray to the Father in the name of the Son.” Is it ideal? No, but it’s certainly better than how the priesthood ban was justified in the last century.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I didn’t know the shooter was LDS. I think it’s important to know that.
I agree that women are often objectified as being the precious tools of men rather than being seen as people in their own right with their own missions in life beyond supporting the mission of others. Not to down play the value of supporting others, but any person’s mission in life needs to be determined by themselves (and God if they are spiritual).
As much as I love my church, I have come to see that it is set up by men for men. Men make all the final decisions. As a woman, I can have influence, but I suffer at the whims of whatever man who is bishop. I have come to understand that it isn’t the church that gave me such a wonderful church experience when I was younger, but the good men who ran my ward. Women often suffer under less skillful and understanding men in positions of leadership.
While women are also imperfect leaders, we should have the same opportunities to improve as leaders that men have.
Bringing women into full equality in the church could have many benefits for men as well as women, and for the entire church. It’s hard to visualize, but I think women preforming recommend interviews, and making decisions at every level of the church, would bring many blessings to our entire church.
@southern Saint, I agree that it’s better than fake doctrine. But I think it was still an incredibly awful talk and thing to do. And I think there are plenty of explanations for it, rooted in “doctrine” about fundamental differences between men and women that mean that men are in charge and women are silent. He didn’t have to say that part out loud for the message to come through loud and clear.
So I’m just not willing to give Renlund a pass here. But I detail my response at length in another post on this blog so I’ll leave it at that.
@Elisa, this is a great post and demonstrates the gravity of several issues with top church leaders. When you listen to Archuleta’s interviews and hear him retell the conversations he’s had with LDS apostles, their projection (i.e. psychological projection as a defense mechanism) is stark and obvious. This is the same problem with Renlund’s conference talk. There is the problem of what wasn’t in his talk, but for me the problem is more with the timing of the talk; it was so obvious he was motivated out of fear and the threat of female empowerment that was blooming at that time. The talk’s purpose seemed designed to throw a bucket of ice water on discussions about Heavenly Mother because, you know, women were getting out in front of the brethren and we can’t have that.
Archuleta is a powerful voice of conscience and virtue. Hopefully his popularity and guileless personality will help entrenched LDS leaders (and members) reconsider their priors regarding what it means to be queer and the place our gay brothers and sisters *should* hold within the church. I know within my family, David Archuleta is seen as a hero, particularly among my Gen Z children, in ways The Brethren never will be.
It is a sad day when women feel cheated because they can only inherit the universe with their husbands.
Yes I did watch the Hudson/Archuleta segment and it’s heart breaking. And it’s a very clear indication of how out of touch this apostle is (and I suspect many of them are) with the lived experience of those different from their own. And yet these church leaders know better than the rest of us apparently, and if we don’t agree we’re on a slippery slope. Could they as heterosexual men see themselves living in a marriage with another heterosexual man? Of course they couldn’t. It just boggles the mind. And such disregard for the partners consigned to a mixed orientation marriage.
It should be noted that the Church is not set by men for all men. More accurately, it is set up for a specific type of men. The vast majority of men don’t stand a snowball’s chance in heck of leading or gaining much voice in the Church. The churchmen and their spouses and children gain more of the benefits of church membership. Benefits (callings, ordinations, prestige, opportunities for growth) are limited in the institutional church and are doled out by the men in charge. It is not a merit-based system. It is not a need-based system. It is a hierarchy.
Jack, it’s ‘through their husbands.’ At least it was until recently. And perhaps still is. Let’s not pretend it was (and perhaps still is taught) otherwise.
Brian, what’s the difference? If you inherit the universe–by whatever means–then you own all that there is. There can’t be anymore than that.
The great irony is that of all days (Thanksgiving) we should be grateful for all the God is willing to give us–and not get fussy about the exact method of transaction.
Yes, women are not people to the church. You can’t claim someone is a child of God and will receive all the blessings He has, and then say well not really because you’re a female child. One of the great truths of the gospel is the divine potential of each soul, a potential that is supposed to be exactly the same for all, and only based on a person’s faith and actions, not limited by their sex.
We have two different exaltations in the church: one for men (possibly involving multiple wives, a role in a godhead of some sort, the ability to create and govern the cosmos to a degree) and one for women (possibly involving an unfaithful husband for eternity, possibly involving ceaseless pregnancy and birth, no involvement in a godhead, no communication with earthly children, no clear role in creating or governing the cosmos).
If the church thought women were people, then they would diligently seek revelation and would reinterpret scriptures that have been used to dehumanize women for millennia. Instead they use such scriptures to support their own misogyny. Why do they insist that Genesis is a template for men presiding over women when humans are not supposed to be punished for Adam and Eve’s transgression?
If the church valued women, it would use the example of the woman who anointed Jesus with oil before his burial as evidence that women should be performing ordinances, and not just hidden in the temple or only on other women.
If the church valued women, it would believe Jesus when he says that miracles, like healing the sick, are gifts of the spirit, available to all who believe on his name. Instead the church robs women of their divine gift to heal and bans them from giving blessings.
If the church valued women, it would look to how Jesus cared for his earthly mother as a sign of how we should cherish our Heavenly Mother.
The church isn’t interested in revelation or in sound doctrine relating to women. Its main focus is in sustaining a patriarchal power structure, where women are useful when necessary.
Old Man: “The churchmen and their spouses and children gain more of the benefits of church membership.”
If you’ve been anointed like David of old then you have received a priceless benefit of being a member of the church. That’s the only thing that really matters–that and helping others receive the same blessing. Everything else is busywork–comparatively speaking.
Mary: “The church isn’t interested in revelation or in sound doctrine relating to women. Its main focus is in sustaining a patriarchal power structure, where women are useful when necessary.”
That’s one way of looking at it. On the other hand, there was a time when the church might have been considered radical in its views regarding women. The idea of a fortunate fall and women becoming exalted with their husbands was miles ahead of the prevailing doctrines. Funny thing is: it’s *still* miles ahead of anything the world has to offer today. It’s just that we can’t see it because of a fundamental shift in values–away from power in eternal things and toward power in worldly things.
Jack: all of the scriptural examples I mentioned and the very premise of the gospel, that all (bond and free, male and female, black and white) are joint-heirs with Christ is all about eternal values and truth. The church was once amazingly radical towards women in some regards. Why has that stopped? The church often talks of eternal truths, right and wrong, in strict binary terms. Yet it won’t apply this same standard of truth to itself. Either women and men are equal partners in marriage or men preside. Either women and men have the same eternal potential or they don’t. Either God is a respecter of persons or He isn’t. Either women are human and children of God or they’re not. These statements are vitally important spiritually. Women deserve to know themselves, their potential, and how they relate to God. Wanting to be treated as a full human being, with an eternal destiny and purpose, as an agent to act and not an appendage to be acted upon is not a wordly desire. It’s a holy desire that recognizes the worth of each soul is great in the sight of God.
@jack, I have neither the time nor energy to debate about whether polygamy hurts women. There are many, many other places you can go to learn about that.
A start is Carol Lynne Pearson’s “The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy,” which addresses modern sealing practices, and Todd Compton’s “In Sacred Loneliness,” which addresses the early Church history practice. Or you can listen to Lindsey Hansen Park’s “Year of Polygamy” podcast, or if you’re really pressed for time, the Faithful Feminists did an excellent podcast series about D&C 132 which I’ll link below.
I just won’t debate polygamy without people who haven’t done at least some level of research to inform them of how it has actually impacted women. If you haven’t done that research, your opinion is simply an unfounded knee-jerk reaction to justify anything and everything the Church has done and currently does, and that reaction isn’t very enlightening to most readers here who want to grapple with issues from an informed perspective.
Polygamy resources:
http://www.thefaithfulfeminists.com/2021/11/polygamy-in-pieces-part-two-text-of.html?m=1
http://www.thefaithfulfeminists.com/2021/11/polygamy-in-pieces-part-3-participation.html?m=1
http://www.thefaithfulfeminists.com/2021/11/polygamy-in-pieces-part-4-consent.html?m=1
http://www.thefaithfulfeminists.com/2021/11/polygamy-in-pieces-part-5-resistance.html?m=1
http://www.thefaithfulfeminists.com/2021/11/polygamy-in-pieces-part-6-current.html?m=1
https://www.yearofpolygamy.com
https://atlastshesaidit.org/episode-028-the-other-p-word/
https://bycommonconsent.com/2021/10/08/o-god-where-art-thou-dc-121-and-132/
https://bycommonconsent.com/2021/10/15/amen-to-the-priesthood-or-the-authority-of-that-man-dc-121-and-132/
https://bycommonconsent.com/2021/10/23/without-compulsory-means-it-shall-flow-unto-thee-forever-dc-121-and-132/
https://bycommonconsent.com/2021/10/28/she-shall-believe-or-she-shall-be-destroyed-dc-121-and-132/
https://bycommonconsent.com/2021/11/04/virgins-are-given-unto-him-dc-121-and-132/
https://bycommonconsent.com/2021/11/11/i-the-lord-restore-all-things-dc-121132/
@mary, good points. I also think the Church takes too much credit for how “radical” it was on women’s rights. Joseph Smith didn’t come up with much or anything that was truly new; he brought a lot of things together. But if you study the history of Christianity with a healthy dose of respect (instead of assuming Mormonism is better) you’ll see plenty of good around.
IMO it’s uninformed and arrogant to give ourselves too much credit on this front.
Such a moving post–I didn’t know the Josh/Lolly story, and it made me do a deep dive into the importance of romantic attachment to a healthy, holy life. I think every thinking person, with a heart full of love, is starting to understand the pain of gay friends and family in OUR Mormon community (because the community doesn’t belong to one gender orientation). The lay church is not without power–the institutional church will respond. Of course, the patriarchal geriatrics can seem all powerful, but they do blink sometimes. Let’s push them (with love of course). Back to romantic attachment, it made me reflect on our many life long single brothers and sisters, who remain celibate because they do not find the idealized, only in the Temple, heterosexual partner, and have convinced themselves that this denial is essential to their salvation, while wondering if this exaltation thing is really going to work. The soul crushing “Miracle of Forgiveness–read the book and it’s a miracle if you can be forgiven,” should go the way of Mormon Doctrine. Doesn’t everyone deserve romantic attachment and a fulfilling sexual relationship? Those who follow their heart and marry outside the church are treated like 2nd class citizens (I know, my dad wasn’t LDS, although he fully supported our activity in the church). Imagine how a child feels to hear they won’t be with their families in the eternities? The singing of Families are Forever should be banned. The bone they throw to the single, or not married in the temple folks–“you will find someone worthy (usually not always a woman) in the next life is just as hollow and callous as it sounds, to both gay and straight alike. Only RMN could be more callous with his new “Sad Heaven” (which one might think is an oxymoron) so that even the folks sealed for time and all eternity will find an empty seat at the table–if one’s spouse or children step away. His Celestial dining room table will be very crowded with his 2 wives, 12 children, and countless grand and great grandchildren. If Brigham Young’s is nearby, it will be quite noisy–not conducive to meaningful conversation. I’m going to pass on the eternally pregnant, nameless, one of many wives populating planets–if it’s true you can “visit down” from higher kingdoms, you will find me in the Telestial Kingdom, I’ll be the one holding a green iced tea.
@bigsky, I agree re Archuleta. I’m not a super fan but I did watch his American Idol season and have followed his journey. He comes across as kind, guileless, and pure hearted. He has written some beautiful worship music and seems to have a close relationship with God. I went to a Christmas concert of his a few years ago and he sang a song that he had just written that sounded an AWFUL lot like someone who was struggling with sexual orientation. It was heartbreaking. I hope his story is compelling for people.
Re Renlund, the good news is I really don’t think his talk worked. Maybe for some women, but for many, they just started talking more.
@englecameron, I followed Josh and Lolly’s story the whole way. From the Unicorn post to the Bat post. I appreciate their humility and willingness to share.
I wish it was astonishing how comfortable Mormon men are telling women how they should feel about the sexism at church. They don’t even have the shame to change their screen name to a female-sounding one to try and dodge how bad it looks. It’s like their entire life they’ve been taught that they’re in charge of women or something.
@not shocked I needed that laugh. Thanks.
Elisa, I’m not here to talk about polygamy–though I think a better place to start would be here for those who are interested:
https://deseretbook.com/p/lets-talk-about-polygamy-ppr?variant_id=191612-paperback
What concerns me most is our inability to appreciate the blessings of the temple because its liturgy doesn’t conform to the modern social standards of the West. While I believe that certain elements ought to be updated and made more accessible to the concurrent culture–that’s not to say that everything must be changed because, forsooth, it’s based in a patriarchal order. Patriarchy in and of itself is not evil. Men are evil. And that means that patriarchy-as it is-must be cleansed–and matriarchy exalted. But it’s not likely to happen in a way that’ll be pleasing to the world. There are wondrous things in our temple theology having to do with the complimentary relationship between men and women–things that are difficult to talk about. But, when understood by the Spirit of Truth they far exceed in excellence, glory, and joy, what the academy has to offer with respect to its antidotes to the social ills of the world.
@jack:
(1) you can’t talk about the temple without talking about polygamy. The entire temple endowment and sealing is tied up with polygamy. Once you see you cannot unsee. Claiming that women get all of the same things men do and “it doesn’t matter how they get it” overlooks the ways that women are subordinated along the way (including but not limited to polygamy). Besides, this post isn’t really about how women will be treated in the eternities. It’s about how they are treated right now, which is the only reality we are currently living in. I don’t much care for excuses that women will get their reward in eternity to justify mistreating them now.
(2) Nash is interviewed in one of the podcasts I mentioned. I am familiar with her work. If you’ve read the book (have you?) I don’t think polygamy comes off terribly well in it. I am not sure why you’d argue it’s a “better place to start” than the sources I mentioned. Is that because it’s published by Deseret Book? Unless you’ve reviewed the other sources I don’t know that you have any basis for that recommendation.
(3) you don’t get to tell women how to feel about the temple. I know many women who were traumatized by the temple to the point of having actual panic attacks.
The temple liturgy teaches women that their husbands have direct access to God whereas their access to God is mediated by their husbands (one term used to described men’s status according to the temple is “husbandgod”, which is disturbingly accurate). Until 2019, women covenanted not with God but with their husband and were placed under covenant to “hearken” unto their husbands. This is incredibly blasphemous as it denies the power of the atonement–men are saved through Christ’s atonement, but that atonement apparently was not enough to save women, who are saved only through their husbands. It is false doctrine which suggests that Eve is being “punished” for partaking of the fruit (which LDS doctrine claims to celebrate as a necessary step in the plan of salvation!) and that all women are therefore subject to their husbands notwithstanding the atonement.
The structure of the covenant also tells women: Your husband has privileged access to God. You can access God through your husband. Rely on him spiritually. He is your way back. He is your savior.
While recent changes resolved some of these issues, serious inequalities remain: men are told they will become Priests and Kings unto God, and that they will rule and reign in the eternities. Women are told they will become Priestesses and Queens to the “new and everlasting covenant”, which means the plural marriage covenant. So we are not Queens and Priestesses to God but to our husbands. And priestesses officiate in ordinances of worship! Which again makes husbands Gods that we worship.
We remain eternally subordinate and separated from God, and only our husband bridges that divide. In addition, I am not aware of whether the veil ceremony has changed in which a man acts THE LORD for his (soon-to-be) wife and is given her new name (but does not give her his). I am also not certain whether the ceremony is still structured such that Adam first received tokens and then gives them to Eve (this is only visible in live sessions). Finally, I understand that the sealing language has been updated to remove the language whereby a woman “gives” herself to her husband but he does not give himself back–he “receives” her–but in a step backwards has added a promise that a husband “preside” over his family. Saying that men preside in an equal partnership is patriarchal double-speak and is gaslighting. The Church wants to put men in charge without totally owning that. It is not acceptable.
The temple liturgy is sexist. Full stop. I don’t really care if people are able to make it beautiful or meaningful to themselves – good for them. The text, the covenants, the structure, on their own terms, are all sexist.
(4) patriarchy is bad. There is no such thing as good patriarchy. Patriarchy was invented by men. The Church’s endorsement of patriarchy is the ultimate “philosophy of men mingled with scripture.”
I don’t have a Deseret Book recommendation on the topic, but Amy Allebest’s podcast “Breaking Down Patriarchy” is a terrific start, especially the first few episodes.
Patriarchy was invented by people. Not God.
Old Man, thank you for your astute clarification that the church is set up by and for a certain type of man. I agree, and I want to add that this affects women as well because our influence really mostly comes through our husband’s callings. A husband in leadership can give his wife opportunities to be heard. If he doesn’t have leadership callings, we have much reduced opportunities. Just look at Wendy Nelson. Her influence is much increased by her marriage though she has no official calling. Once again we only exist as an attachment.
englecameron, I agree “Families Can Be Together Forever” and “There is Beauty All Around” seem designed to rub salt into open wounds. Although I am a happily married woman currently, we went through years and years of difficulty in our marriage. It was extraordinarily painful and I was in emotional pain every time I heard these songs. When I served in the stake primary presidency I learned about children that break into tears during these songs, when their parents are divorcing. I have trouble understanding why we don’t try harder to mourn with those who mourn and comfort those who stand in need of comfort. Instead we seem so invested in glorifying a traditional family life that can make anyone who doesn’t quite match up feel very defective.
I know these are beloved comforting songs to many. It all depends on context and perspective. Often we have little understanding of the perspectives of others.
The humanity and divinity of women is antithetical to patriarchy. You cannot have both at the same time. No patriarchal organization treats women as fully human and children of God. If men do not love women as themselves, they’ve broken the greatest commandments. If men codify the subordination of women into a patriarchal religious structure, they’ve broken the greatest commandments. The foundation of patriarchy is male supremacy, which is antithetical to the gospel. Male supremacy is one of the oldest lies in the world and causes incalculable evil and destruction. Patriarchy is evil.
(Agree with Elisa re. polygamy.)
Gay LDS men being told by their leaders to just “find a nice girl” is so very wrong. A nice girl who will unwittingly give up on her lifelong dream of a healthy marriage in which she is desired
by her husband. A nice girl who will do anything to keep up appearances so that her husband can be kept in good working order church-wise.
My sister in law entered into such a marriage fifty years ago. I can understand why her husband was given such bad advice back then. But we know better now and should do better.
I’m glad Archuleta is speaking out about these conversations. It’s airing dirty laundry, but maybe that’s what it’s going to take.
Elisa, thanks for the response. There’s a lot there. And there are a few significant details missing–IMO.
The Lord desires to establish a kingdom of priests. What does that look like–especially when we’re talking about the kinds of priests (and priestesses) that are mentioned in the temple? These priests are after the order of the Savior–which means they are like him. Now imagine the woman being joined to such a man–an anointed one–sanctified and full of the love of God. And then remember that the woman is also anointed–and that both the man and the woman are promised the same blessings regarding dominion and government when they are sealed together. They are one.
That said, if we can imagine a Christlike person presiding–what would that look like? How do we picture one like Jesus “ruling” over his divine feminine counterpart–one who possesses all of the same Christlike attributes and perfections? For me, what it boils down to is the maintenance of sacred space. Both work together as coregents-like Adam and Eve-maintaining the garden (creation). And while both have their own respective duties much of it is overlapping. And it is where their duties diverge that we see what may look like an hierarchy of sorts. But it’s really a manifestation of an order that places the woman in the holiest of spaces–as bringing forth life places her at the fulcrum of eternity.
That is why the woman is protected within the stewardship of the man–so to speak. It is because her work (generally) requires her to occupy a space that is more sacred than what exists in the outer court. And that’s why (IMO) we know very little about Heavenly Mother at this time and place. The world we live in is on the outer edges of the sacred cosmos–and we’re not likely to learn much about Her (collectively) until the earth is cleansed.
The blessings of the temple infinitely excel all hopes the world can offer. Perhaps more of the language and forms can be updated to better speak to the current generation. But even so, if we can keep in mind that the process of ascent transforms the initiate into an exalted Christlike being then it doesn’t matter how archaic the language of the temple ceremonies is. The man will give himself for the woman as Christ did for the church.
Jack
There’s a book I found interesting. “When Woman were Priests” by Karen Jo Toriesen. It’s about woman in early Christianity. (and yeah, I dig the idea of a woman being joined to an anointed woman, full of the love of God)
I wonder how we conceptualize things.
Personally I think God wants a kingdom of people and their service dogs. A symbiotic relationship revealing the order of the Universe, a master and dog in a loving union, both working together. The fulcrum of eternal progression, different species working together for the ascent of humanity.
@elisa, great OP, and well organized. I’m familiar with the confusion and self-esteem issues you describe way up there.
And thank you for your thorough and decisive response to Jack’s first wordy comment. In fact, after reading the word salad of his second, the middle-of-the-nighter, I just referred back to your earlier response and found a ready response to the second as well. Especially the first paragraph, which I’d like to quote in its entirety here:
“(1) you can’t talk about the temple without talking about polygamy. The entire temple endowment and sealing is tied up with polygamy. Once you see you cannot unsee. Claiming that women get all of the same things men do and “it doesn’t matter how they get it” overlooks the ways that women are subordinated along the way (including but not limited to polygamy). Besides, this post isn’t really about how women will be treated in the eternities. It’s about how they are treated right now, which is the only reality we are currently living in. I don’t much care for excuses that women will get their reward in eternity to justify mistreating them now.” (close quote)
Indeed, (speaking to your first response to Jack,) there is a lot there, and it contains the pertinent details missing (also ignored and unaddressed, IMO) from that second comment, which I’ll stop now from responding to. But if you see fit to specify a counter to the false doctrines and the vague doctrines in the comments in a new form, much of which was already addressed in the OP, please do. I’ll enjoy reading it, I’m sure.
Jack, Why do you think the temple covenants for women changed; what is the effect of these changes? What is your response to the the idea that a gay man should find a “nice girl” and get married to her; what if your daughter was designated as this ‘nice girl? In what ways do these two aspects points not suggest that women have been/are considered less than men?
Here’s fun…
It seems that Elder/President Ballard has been playing the make up card for decades. When on my mission in 2003 we took an investigator (a woman in her early 20s) to a YSA fireside up at USU. At the fireside he said something along the lines of: “You young women. Look a bit more happy. Put on some make up. Some of you walk around looking like death warmed over.” The “death warmed over” bit is an actual quote. I’ll never forget that line. Our investigator was not impressed.
When I served in North Salt Lake we covered Elder Hale’s home ward (lovely man, liked my camera). We looked up the ward callings list in our area book. “Elder Hales: Apostle”; “Sister Hales: Wife of GA”.
How quaint!
I hope you all had a wonderful thanksgiving yesterday!
This hits very close to home. I have a sibling who entered a temple marriage without all the facts in the 90s. Twenty years and three kids later was a traumatic divorce. There were no winners as a result. I’m convinced watching this unfold in real time that these scars heal incredibly slowly if at all. My ex in law was told by priesthood leaders to get married and not tell my sister about his sexual orientation. Truly horrible advice. It feels like no one has been held accountable for the harm done to these five people.
A part of me wonders if the church had advance notice about Archuleta’s interview and the timing of support for RfMA was in response to what David had to share.
I hope we can do better. For women and for our queer members.
Regarding Jacks comments: in case you weren’t aware Jack was recently outed at BCC for using multiple handles on the same thread to sow division. I’ll let you decide if you think his comments are at all genuine and if a response is with your valuable time. There are other virtual sandboxes for him to throw hissy fits.
Another horrible thing in D&C 132 that we tend to overlook is the part where God says the only reason women even exist is to give birth to babies – specifically boy babies.
And when God is saying something to or about both men AND women, He almost exclusively refers to both genders as ‘men.’ And as women we are expected to just *know* when that applies to us as well (men are that they might have joy) and when it doesn’t (men hold the priesthood).
No, women aren’t people, not in His eyes. For me, my feminist awakening necessitated a complete reworking of my view of deity and I’ve found that I don’t particularity LIKE Him.
@jack, your comment is an example of exactly the problem. Women are appendages to men. I don’t care how well my husband treats me, I don’t want to be an appendage and he’s not Christ. That’s blasphemy. And mDearest is right, none of the “temple blessings are amazing” (which I disagree with anyway) addresses the problem of the way we treat women now.
@simon, great examples of the ways in which women are ornamental in our church. I like Elder Ballard. He’s given some great talks. But he’s a product of his time, and I really can’t stand people turning 1950’s cultural gender roles into doctrine. White heterosexual able-bodied wealthy old men need to stop creating God in their own image. It’s idolatrous.
@chadwick, that’s tragic. I know that was common in the past (including outside of the church; know non-LDS folks in the same position) but when we know better, we do better. The Archuleta interview shows us that top leadership hasn’t changed their thinking on this since the 90’s.
@joni, your last bit is part of why it makes me so angry that church leaders are creating God in their own image and continuing to legitimize patriarchy. Their purpose is to bring us closer to God, but instead, there are many people (pretty much everyone who doesn’t fit the mold) who this only alienates from God. So people are giving up on God because the version we are getting at Church is not a God we are interested in connecting with. Personally I think God is much bigger than what they describe, but I know many who’ve left the concept entirely and others who literally had go to therapy to process the trauma that the version of God we’ve been given and women we’ve been given so that they could start fresh.
Joni, your comment reminded me of a time nearly twenty years ago now, when I was in a different Stake, the wife of the Stake President was speaking in what must have been a Stake Conference. Basically she said she and her sister were so blessed that God had trusted them with to raise so many sons, future Melchizedek priesthood holders and church leaders. She also had a daughter and her sister one or two daughters. It was jaw droppingly awful. And I had to wonder how their daughters felt hearing this, and also the effect on the sons of that attitude. There was a strong vein of misogyny in that particular stake. That stake president was definitely on the fast track, and was invited to move to the US by church leaders, and served as an AA over there, and also then served as a mission president back here in the UK. .. .
Hedgehog, you don’t even have to go back twenty years to find that kind of thinking! RMN said basically the same thing when he became church president and that was only a few years ago.
Back in my 20s, I went on a blind date with a young man who had been described to me as spiritually strong, as well as having a number of other good qualities. I looked forward to meeting him, since a strong testimony was one of the attributes I was looking for in a husband. The date was odd. I felt like I was being interviewed for the role of Wife of a Future General Authority. Fortunately, I failed the interview and didn’t get a second date. A spouse should be someone you love and accept for who they are, not an assistant to make you look good.
Fiddler on the Roof does a great job of showing the difference between roles and reality. The opening song, “Tradition”, is all about teaching children to grow up to fill their roles in society – the father, the mother, the daughter, the son. Then the entire musical is about Tevye’s daughters stepping outside of those roles and traditions. The eldest daughter, Tzeitel, marries a poor tailor for love rather than rich butcher for material comfort. Hodel marries a revolutionary and leaves to join him in Siberia. Chava marries outside the faith. Those three daughters refuse to just be an appendage, to just fill a role. They want to be seen as full and complete people and loved as individuals, not just as someone who can fill a traditional role.
It’s odd that Mormons love that musical so much, and still miss that central message.
And to echo Chadwick’s warning about Jack – he’s been outed here as a troll. He admitted he only comments to get a response. He’s not engaging in good faith. Besides which, his whole idea is easily brushed aside. It’s like we should all be happy to be trophy wives of celestial glory. Women aren’t particularly happy to be a trophy wife, no matter how powerful their husband is. Things like respect and a good relationship matter more. Just ask MacKenzie Scott and Melinda Gates. I don’t imagine that women who get/stay married just to inherit thrones, kingdoms and etc. will be much happier in the long run.
“Women are appendages to men.”
When the scriptures say: “Neither is the man without the woman; neither the woman without the man in the Lord,” it implies that both are unified in the Lord. And there are wonderful things that the phrase “in the Lord” might mean to those who are willing to search it out–especially as it relates to marriage. As I say, women, because of their design, do much of their work in veiled space–much like Moses’ tabernacle. That’s not to say that their work doesn’t overlap with that of the men in the management of the outer court and the complex in general–of course it does. Even so, inasmuch as the bringing forth and nurturing of life is the most sacred work of all it draws the woman into the *center.* She is not merely an appendage to the man–but the center of the man’s inward parts and affections. They are one.
That said, I realize that my writing might be rather cryptic–but these things are sacred and not easily conveyed in words.
“. . .he’s not Christ. That’s blasphemy”
I’m not saying that the husband is Christ. I’m saying that our ascent through the endowment transforms us so that we–both man and women–become like Christ. And I’m serious when I say that it transforms women in the same way as it does the men. Both women and men receive all of the same gifts that enable them to receive further light and knowledge and therefore become the sons and daughters of God–the children of Christ.
“. . .the problem of the way we treat women now.”
Most faithful women in the Kingdom don’t view the church — including the temple — in that way. They may be concerned that some of their sisters are having difficulty with the design of the church and the male priesthood and so forth. Even so, I find it strange that our generation should be the most vocal of all. We live better than emperors of the past–with opportunities at our fingertips that former generations didn’t even know how to dream of. And if that weren’t enough, we have the fulness of the gospel which opens the door to receiving an inheritance of no less than everything the Father has. And, yet, some how that isn’t enough. Let’s be grateful this Thanksgiving weekend for the wondrous possibilities that God has made available to us. Not only is God great–he is good. He seeks our happiness and has provided a way for us to obtain joy by following in the footsteps of his Son–which marks the way of our ascent in and through his holy temple.
“. . . in case you weren’t aware Jack was recently outed at BCC for using multiple handles on the same thread to sow division.”
I’ve had to use multiple handles at BCC because I’ve been banned multiple times their. This blog has been much more tolerant–and I appreciate that.
Holy hell. Such disgusting misogyny. With opening comments about women–women!–feeling entitled and how ungrateful they are, it was not surprised. The filth was always going to come out.
Jack said “I’ve had to use multiple handles at BCC because I’ve been banned multiple times their.” (Sic)
I suggest you respect their ban and not comment using other handles unless their policy explicitly allows it. In most forums it would be considered inappropriate to get around a ban by changing your handle.
Jack: You don’t speak for Mormon women, and you have no idea about how most of them feel about the sexism in the church. How could you possibly know when you refuse to listen? You haven’t listened to a single woman on this blog. Your entire interaction has been hinting that you have some sort of sacred knowledge about women. You speak from a theoretical spiritual high horse and lament women’s lack of understanding about their roles. Women, who have lived experience you will never have, know far more about their roles than you could learn in a lifetime. While everyone will have their own opinions, you have no standing to lecture women on their roles and potential. Your interpretation of the temple is one women have heard before, and they have found it lacking and destructive to their self-worth and spirituality. If you want to understand the breadth and depth of Mormon women’s feelings about sexism in the church, then listen.
Chadwick and Janey, point taken about the trolling. And I’ll add my .02¢ about the grooming, in addition to the trolling this blog has received, past and present. (Grooming is when an abusive troll behaves insincerely in a manner that elicits the sympathy/empathy of their target victims. Examples may include: acts nice or commiserates over shared pain, without any intention of engaging in good faith with the topic, but instead continues to advance their personal agenda, regardless of how well done are any responses.)
Ergo, I repent. Mea culpa.
@Jack: tl:dr
@Elisa, you get a pass, both as OP and brilliant writer. That I enjoy reading.
@Mary, excellent comment. It resonated with me, and felt satisfying. One of the problems stated in the OP is that we voice our concerns about our lived experience, and per SOP, that gets ignored.
* Standard Operating Procedure
@jack, where’s your data for this: “Most faithful women in the Kingdom don’t view the church — including the temple — in that way.”
Is there a survey that I’m not seeing?
In any event, we aren’t living in the same reality. I don’t really mean that dismissively, I just mean that our fundamental understanding of how the world works is really different and we will not see eye to eye.
You’ve certainly outlined the way the Church tries to tell women they are equal. I think most of us are aware of that position. It’s just one that we don’t share.
I try not to tell queer folks or black folks or disabled folks how they should “feel” about the way they are treated and how they experience the world. I would recommend that you stop telling women how to feel. That’s not saying that we don’t tolerate different opinions on this blog (obviously we do) or that men aren’t allowed to talk about women and the church or whatever. But there’s a difference between describing how you see and experience something vs dictating the way others should do so.
Rockwell,
I should clarify: I outed *myself* after I mistakenly used the wrong handle because I wanted the other commenters to know who was talking. And as for respecting BCC’s ban–maybe you’re right. But I’ve been trolling these parts for nigh on 20 years now–and things change. Permabloggers change; attitudes change. So on occasion I’ll try again.
Mary,
“Your entire interaction has been hinting that you have some sort of sacred knowledge about women.”
I can see how that might seem presumptuous. Perhaps I wasn’t clear–I’m trying to share thoughts on marriage not on women per se.
“If you want to understand the breadth and depth of Mormon women’s feelings about sexism in the church, then listen.”
I won’t presume to know the lived experience of women. But I believe the women who do have that knowledge — my wife (for one) and my five daughters — who speak for themselves and others like them who love the Kingdom. In fact, I can say with full confidence that there are prophetesses in the church. Women who speak with the authority of sacred knowledge who often bear more powerful witness of the restored gospel than the men.
Regarding whether the church sees women as people I have a couple anecdotes. One, from a stake leadership training a few years ago. The visiting 70 asked the leaders to focus solely on finding and reactivating the wayward priesthood holders because “they bring their wives and children back with them.” I was incensed and wanted to tell him how demeaning to women I found his remarks. First, in failing to acknowledge women as autonomous individuals with agency, second in grouping women with children, and third in not recognizing women as worth reactivation attempts on their own. I didn’t raise my concerns because I had been recently called as a RS president and didn’t want to be summarily released. I now wish that I had spoken up.
This incident gave me flashbacks to my mission where for a time we were encouraged to only find and teach men because that was what was needed to build and strengthen the church. They had enough women! Men were needed to “man” the leadership positions. To actually make the wards function. No men, no wards. No women…?
Which reminds me that the key factor I have heard mentioned when they redraw ward boundaries is the number of active priesthood holders. Of course, I’m sure it’s more complicated than that, but that is the factor I have heard from people in leadership multiple times since I was a kid.
So, do I think the church sees women as people? Who knows. But our personhood is not as vital as men’s. It’s not even close.
Also, I was taught throughout my youth that I had one available life plan. To get married and have kids. That was the only righteous option for women. How can that possibly encompass the myriad individual strengths, goals, and desires of women? Women as individuals? Nope.
“. . . where’s your data for this: ‘Most faithful women in the Kingdom don’t view the church — including the temple — in that way.'”
I think the temple recommend interview serves as a pretty good filter–not perfect–but good enough to get a read on how most temple going women feel about the church.
“. . .I try not to tell queer folks or black folks or disabled folks how they should “feel” about the way they are treated and how they experience the world.”
Perhaps I’ve overstepped my bounds by suggesting that we should be grateful. Even so, when I think of the vast majority of human beings who have lived on the earth since the dawn of civilization — most of whom have been paupers, peasants, servants, and slaves — I cannot help but believe that the restored gospel would be wonderfully good news to them–even as administered through an imperfect patriarchal system. The gospel is good news for everyone. And though (yes) we should steer away from telling people how they should feel–we should not hesitate to tell them how good things might be for them because of the promises of the restored gospel.
@sadclown, I was told the same thing on my mission (prioritize finding men). When were you serving? I was 2003-2004.
And I’ve heard similar things re activation efforts. Can’t wait till they find out that if women leave everyone else will eventually follow. Including their budding priesthood leaders. (I addressed this in a post about women quiet quitting church).
“Such disgusting misogyny.”
Dear Brain, I’m old fashioned–and getting more so as I get older. I know that nowadays it can seem rather misogynistic for men to tell women how much they cherish them. I know some women don’t like to hear that–but IMO a man who doesn’t cherish women isn’t worth his weight in sand. And being old fashioned I can’t help but marvel at how the temple (in my estimation) places women at the center of creation.
That said, perhaps I’ve overstepped my bounds by reminding us to be grateful for the promises afforded to men and women in the temple. Even so, if my zeal for temple theology has caused me to elevate women in a way that seems misogynistic by modern standards–then so be it. I’ll proudly wear it like a badge.
Jack, it might be useful before posting if you did some reading. For example, felix culpa was a part of Catholic theology and ritual as early as the 3d century and probably before that. My first introduction was in reading and analyzing John Milton’s Paradise Lost (17 c). So, no, cotcolds didn’t come up with it.
vajra2,
The restored gospel is older than the earth–IMO. So I’m not surprised to see vestiges of it emerging from any number of different times and places.
Wow – you just can’t make this stuff up.
“Mormons – proudly bearing their badge of misogyny for 200 years and counting.”
Elisa, Northern Europe 2001-2003
If we do a little thought experiment and imagine a church where women ARE people—with female bishops, female apostles, female mission presidents, and full equality in rituals and rhetoric…
…is it really so scary? What possible harm could come from such a change?
I, as a man, love the idea of teenage-me-of-yesteryear getting priesthood blessings from my mom as well as my dad. I imagine her voice relaying words of wisdom and comfort with the same authority Dad would give them. It sounds wonderful to me.
I think of some amazing women who have been my bosses, teachers, and role models. I imagine sitting across a desk from one of them but now she’s my bishop. I would whole-heartedly soak up her wisdom and insight. Sounds wonderful.
Granted, if we kept our current system and just opened up priesthood and leadership to women, it wouldn’t fix everything. Plenty of stuff would still suck about church. We’d still have a racist BoM and a founding prophet guilty of lechery, deceit, and child abuse. We may well still have a suffocating, homophobic doctrine of families and an inability to apologize for the racism of the past and present. But maybe with the female perspective allowed full voice we might start to see some accelerating positive change!
But would the church become worse off somehow? I don’t see how it could. So I really don’t see why the top brass (and Jack’s ilk) is so scared of it.
You know, I am kind of glad that people tell jack how wrong he is, because there are men out there who think exactly like he talks. And there are women who still believe they are nothing in God’s eyes, because they are nothing but an appendage to their husbands. So, fighting trolls, even when we know they just want to stir up trouble is worthwhile because trolls voice how some people actually feel.
So, just keep talking jack as it proves how bad your kind of thinking really is.
As for your major premise, that women inherent and then share everything their husband inherits, well, that just proves that we are not children of God, but daughters in law of God. My husband inherits and then, if he is good and loves me, then he shares. Yup, I am nothing but God’s daughter in law. I was so sad when I found out that the church had lied to me all my life and that I wasn’t a child of God, but a daughter in law. God doesn’t love me at all. He just loves the men in my life and out of whatever generosity they have, maybe they share a bit of what God gives them. Big no thanks.
And like Joni above, I had to find a completely different version of God in order to stop hating the Mormon version of God. And I really haven’t succeeded in finding a version of God that I can really believe in and love. So, Actually, I don’t think I have recovered from feeling like God doesn’t love me. But I am happier believing in no god than I was when I was trying to believe in a God who didn’t love me. The business of trying to believe in a God who loves men but not women is hard and it makes a person hate themselves for being female. See, that is what Jack doesn’t get. So, jack, dear, it is called internalized misogyny. And maybe what he says about his wife and daughters is true, that they believe in this God. Because it took me some 40 years after going to the temple to admit to myself that I hated myself and God because I was trying so hard to believe in a God who didn’t love me, only my husband. There was something *wrong* with me if I didn’t accept this jerk for a god. So, I kept trying to fix myself. Now I know there was nothing wrong with me, but something wrong with what I was taught.
I just noticed that in the photo for the post, the “woman” is a doll. Creepy. Also, quite accurate for the way the church leaders view women: as objects. The new FSY pamphlet still says that people are made in the image of Heavenly Father when at least half of people are not male, one of David Archuleta’s recent interviews where he recounts an apostle telling him he just needs to “find a good girl,” being reminded every week that as a female I’ve been deemed too broken to even be able to pass bread and water to my fellow ward members. I have to stop there. It takes a toll to know that while I believe in an expansive God who loves me, my church leaders see me as not quite human. Chieko Okazaki was right when in her Dialogue interview with Greg Prince, she said that she thought that sometimes church leaders would forget that we (female leaders) were even there.
One of the main ways women are not treated as people is giving females an outline for their life that isn’t actually about them. Getting married, have babies, support your husband. The end. In this dogma, there is zero room for a woman to develop and grow as an individual.
I’ve mentioned this before somewhere that I enjoy doing family history, despite not liking the temple. My ancestry is pretty much all in England. One discovery that hit me between the eyes was so distressing. In some eras and parishes a child’s baptism would be recorded as the son or daughter of the father only, when all he did was provide the sperm. Not carry this child for 9 months a painful delivery and then provide sustenance in the child’s infancy. I’m with Joni – I don’t like god much these days.
Admit to changing my handle for this post
Jack, you constantly move the goal post so that wherever the ball lands you win. Nice try, but no banana.
vajra2, I see it more as revealing the length and breadth of the playing field. The church doesn’t have a monopoly on truth.
Years ago I read a blog post where someone mentioned the temple made her feel like God’s daughter-in-law. That really resonated to me.
In what I think are my healthy human relationships, the in-laws of both sexes are loved and welcomed, but still just not quite the same as the core (not even all biological due to step-relationships) family. Even when the church is “trying”, it still seems like embracing a daughter in law and not a daughter.
Anna, that is unspeakably sad. I hope that one day you’ll come to know of the Lord’s infinite love for you–and of deep empathy that the Savior has for you.
Jack, I want you to know that for 54 years I was pretty much like your wife and daughters. I had wonderful leaders that were always Christ like. I have always felt close to God and I love the church and temple even now.
About 10 years ago I was having difficulties which I was praying over and recieving answers about. My bishop observed my over emotional behavior and pulled me into his office. He told me things that were absolutely contrary to my personal revelation as well as the counsel of my husband. I came to learn for myself that leaders are fallible.
This was the beginning of my faith transition. I have always been a questioner, but this issue of women and the priesthood is one I never dared question or consider. After my experience with my bishop I just kept feeling like there was something just out of sight that I couldn’t see, that I wasn’t allowing myself to look at, or know. I had this strange feeling for years. It finally bothered me so much, to not allow myself to know what I was thinking that I just started writing a paper just to put my thoughts out there where I could see them. That was how I came to see that I was concerned about other women out there suffering unrighteous dominion under their imperfect bishops, while being silenced, not only verbally in the church, but to their own thoughts.
While I agree that there are great blessings in the church for women as the church is now, it really is not equal to the blessings available to men. Pretending that it is doesn’t make it so.
I feel so much much better just having the ability to admit to the reality I see, rather than forcing myself to think we are equal when we are not. It is very liberating to see and admit the truth. The taboos against doing so are very powerful, but spiritually, facing and accepting reality bears many spiritual gifts in closeness to Christ and our Heavenly Parents.
The church and it’s leaders are fallible and always have been. I really benefit from forums like this where I can honestly discuss these difficult issues.
Iws329,
Thank you for sharing your story with me. I believe you.
I went through my own crisis almost 20 years ago–but my difficulties were based in mental illness. So my story’s a bit different. I won’t bother you with the details–except to say that since then I’ve been able to regrow my faith in a much more healthy configuration (though some readers may wonder how crazy I must’ve been before). But the reason I tell you that much of my experience is so that I can respond with some degree credibility to your statement:
“While I agree that there are great blessings in the church for women as the church is now, it really is not equal to the blessings available to men.”
Because of my condition I live practically like a hermit in my cave–with long hair down my back and a long beard down my front. I rarely leave my house. I had to retire early–and my sweet wife is now the bread winner. But even so, during these past 20 years something wonderful has happened. And though I’ve had to strip away activities, callings, and finally steady work, out of my life in order to survive mentally–I’ve come to know God better than I did before I hit the wall of depression. And most of that knowledge has come whilst living in my cave and being a stay at home dad to my adult children (who are in need of counselling because of their own struggles with mental illness).
In my little cave I have access to good music and literature, the scriptures and the words of living prophets. And I have plenty of seclusion for prayer and meditation. And as a bonus–the young men bring the sacrament to my home every Sunday. With these basics in place I’ve learned far more about the gospel than I ever knew before–when I had the mental stamina to live a more regular life (if there is such a thing anymore). I know far more about the temple even though I may go only once a year–when my children are going through for the first time and getting married and so forth.
Why has this happened? I don’t serve in any callings–let alone any leadership positions. I rarely make it to sacrament meeting for that matter–even though I love the community of the saints. It’s happened (IMO) because of the gifts that are available to all of the saints–both men and women alike. The spirit of revelation is available to all. And to those who receive the ordinances of the temple is given the power — according to their faithfulness — to receive of that spirit until they can’t be kept from beholding within the veil.
That said, I come to my final point. I remember Elder Andersen (at a stake conference) practically pounding the pulpit when he said — more than once — “the Lord does not care about position.” I now know for myself that what he said is true. The blessings of officiating in the priesthood do not compare to the blessings that come to all of us *though* the priesthood. Men and women are on an equal footing with regard to the greatest blessings of all: which is to be transformed be the reception of greater light and knowledge until we are able to enter into the presence of God.
These are the things that really matter. Everything else comparatively speaking is logistics–necessary maintenance to keep the ship afloat.
Sister Ballard’s funeral four years ago) advised him: “You just need to find yourself a good girl.” That’s right–in 2022, top Church leaders are advising gay men to marry women to “cure” themselves.
This was 2018, before he identified as LGBT, bi, asexual, and gay, which he did in the subsequent years.
@jpv, the advice was not given to him at the funeral. According to Archuleta, the advice was given to him when discussing his sexual orientation with an apostle. The funeral is only mentioned as context for his ongoing relationship with Elder Ballard and conjecture that Ballard is the one who told him this. (But it really could have been any of them.)
I love that WT allows for dialogue instead of moderating for an echo chamber.
It lets the ideas stand for themselves.
Late to this party but came to say:
There is a second half of the second Article of Faith that no one says out loud but the church trains us to believe.
“We believe that men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam’s transgression. We also believe that women will be punished for Eve’s transgression.”
Being how sometimes “men” in the scriptures refers to both genders and sometimes it doesn’t, when I woke up at church I realized AoF2 is one of those cases where it’s not referring to both. My relationship with the church has never been the same since. Thank goddess for that.
jpv, I agree. Most folks here don’t agree with my socially conservative take on things. But the moderators let my comments stand–and some folks take the time to respond to my crazy ideas with well thought-out and meaningful comments.
So far as I can tell (with my limited lights) pretty-much everyone at WT is a good soul.
nice comments all – thx for sharing your various experiences. As for Bailey’s comment: the picture comes from “Lars and the Real Girl”; an excellent movie which featured an emotionally-impacted young man who had almost completely withdrawn within himself. As he contemplates ‘adult life’, he does see the need for a lifelong helpmate, companion, and friend, but cannot face that being a ‘real’ person. Thus he chooses a lifelife mannekin, and imbues her with all the desired personality traits.
Jack ,
Thank you for openly sharing your journey. I agree, the blessings of the gospel are not based on position.
There is growth that can come from leadership experiences however, that are more available to men than to women, within the church. Additionally, in my experience, leaders are only able to lead based upon the information the Holy Spirit can remind them of, from their personal experiences and study, when they receive inspiration. People who have experienced things themselves are much more likely to have a fuller understanding of how issues effect people in those individual situations.
Our leaders come from a select group and mostly for practical basic reasons, this group is exclusive of some groups of people. For instance, people who suffer poverty throughout their lives are less likely to become leaders. People like yourself that have struggled with mental illness are less likely to have an opportunity to bring the insights they have learned in their struggles to church leadership. People suffering from serious medical or developmental disabilities, and those who care for them are not selected to lead the church, and often have no understandable way to bring what they have learned to the leadership of the church.
It’s good to see the perspectives of people of different races and cultures entering bit by bit into the leadership of the church. I am glad to see more opportunities for the brethren to possibly hear from women, if the leaders choose to consider the women’s ideas as advisors. While I am hopeful this progress will continue, it is very slow progress and inadequate. We have a long way to go on this issue.
I came to a point in my growing spirituality and experiences where I saw had learned so much I over time. I long to share what I have learned with the church leadership. I long to help the church grow and be more inclusive and able to support the continued activity of more members from different situations. The church could be more successful with retention and missionary work as a more inclusive and less exclusive organization. I would like to contribute to these aims and I do what I can from where I stand. However, the opportunities for me to share these things are rare. Men (a certain type of man) are much more likely to have opportunities to share their experiences and spiritual growth and to influence and make decisions that can potentially improve the growth and retention of the church.
The church has set up a non communication loop. Local leaders just follow the handbook, and we are advised not to contact the First Presidency. While it’s true many men also do not have leadership opportunities, the perspectives of white married men are abundantly represented in church counsels at all levels. Women are a smaller group. We have been acculturated not to speak up and to accommodate men’s needs. It’s hard for us to speak up in a group when there are few women in a group of men, and the men have the final formal authority and we do not. As a result, even the lesser numbers of women involved in church leadership, may not have full opportunities to bring their ideas to even be considered by the men who make the final decisions.
It is something I grieve, even though I remain grateful for the glorious blessings of the gospel that are available to every member.
I would just like to echo the “women are only valuable if they are married” issue. Jack, All your examples are married women and mothers. If a woman is single, never married, and childless, like myself , what value does she have in this church? and God? Although Anna is married and feels unloved because she feels like the daughter-in-law, I’m single and feel exactly the same way. If was important to the lord I would have had a husband. Tying our value to our marital status and motherhood status apparently leaves all of us feeling like second class citizens. Before you tell me about all the blessings I’ll have when I die I’m staring down the awful cave of polygamy.
lws329,
I agree that service in the church can provide wonderful opportunities for growth. Even so, the gospel is a one size fits all sort of getup. It doesn’t matter what the size of our “allotments” may be (as per Neal A. Maxwell) whether we’re serving in stake callings or bedridden we can still learn the essential elements of the gospel that will lead us to perfection.
That said, I have some rather wild views about the church in the future–and some of them involve women serving as priestesses in the Kingdom. I’m of the opinion that as we continue to move across the broad threshold of the Millennium that we’ll begin to see women being called to serve in that capacity in the church. Even so, I don’t believe it will be a perfectly parallel priesthood to that of the men. It will be based (IMO) more on what we see in the temple. And there are vestiges of it even now–what with women being called and set apart as temple matrons and “mission matrons” and so forth. And we are seeing and hearing much more from the apostles wives who are spending a lot more time than they used to — or so it seems to me — ministering along side their husbands.
And so, IMO, this pattern will continue to grow in the church until — probably after the earth is cleansed — there will be a full flowering of a matriarchal order along side the patriarchal order–both being complimentary to each other. But the church — indeed the world — will be different in those days. The Kingdom will eventually subsume all political powers–and the whole thing will be built on a familial framework of sorts as it is in heaven. And then we will see priests and priestesses ruling together in righteousness. But the time is not yet–the world is not ready to receive it.
Lily,
I think because we are a “family” church that we sometimes forget that the fulness of the everlasting gospel is available to everyone with out respect to persons–men, women, and children. And the fulness is that dispensation of knowledge and keys that, by virtue of the atonement, enables us to get on the high road to eternal life. So even though things are uneven with respect to, not only service opportunities in the church, but life in general–there is perfect equality with regard to the opportunity of one day being clasped in the arms of Jesus.
Re: Staring down the awful cave of polygamy: Oh, I think you’ll run into some good single men during your cosmic travels.
Several thoughts:
“You just need to find yourself a good girl.” Dallin Oaks wrote that marrying someone of the opposite sex is not appropriate to “fix” homosexuality. People need to get familiar with “Goodbye, I Love You”, by Carol Lynn Pearson. I also get to spend some time with Carol Lynn Pearson, at a group that were mostly feminist Mormon housewives at her house. I was the only male, but I can understand all the different problems found in this thread. I mentioned that I felt a lot of talent of women in the Church is wasted, due to men calling all the shots, even in items not Priesthood related.
@Sadclown: It’s kind of strange that some consider women to be lesser, yet they are more willing to join the Church.
@englecameron: At the CLP meeting we had, some of the issues of “Miracle of Forgiveness” & “Mormon Doctrine” were brought up. I mentioned there was no solace for rape/abuse victims in them, from a family experience I had.
The whole idea of Women having to go through their Husbands to follow the Lord causes lots of issues. Even though the Temple teaching of this has been revised several times, damages has been done. Like, my sister in law used to think “My Husband has the Priesthood, so he should always have the final say.” This led to thing like their family being short on food, but Husband had money for business trips. Eventually he became a polygamist, at which point she divorced him.
What is the current guidance for a final interview of a missionary at the end of service? In 1992 I was told to make getting married a priority but decades later I am finally realizing the importance of the emotional connection component.
I have been wanting to post this comment somewhere (the recent divorce post or chastity) – will have to read the syllabus of my RM child who is currently taking Marriage Prep at BYU.
Wife knows my spiritual shelf has broken but we are trying to build other worthy foundations together.
Chet, I wish you all the best on your spiritual journey. I always appreciate your comments here and I know what you’re going through.
@chet, that’s a big topic. I agree that we don’t do a good job at teaching emotional intimacy skills (let alone physical intimacy …) and we encourage people to get married so fast that most aren’t out of the honeymoon phase (where our brains are literally flooded with dopamine) when they get married. In addition, we all tend to conflate “shared beliefs” with “connection”.
Many are now in the situation you describe where beliefs are no longer shared and they have to rebuild. The good news is that shared beliefs never really were a form of emotional connection. There are lots of pathways to connection. But that’s a hard thing to learn after many years of marriage.
@jpv, the last free space on the internet 😜
“Are Women People?”
Betteridge’s law of headlines is an adage that states: “Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.” It is named after Ian Betteridge, a British technology journalist who wrote about it in 2009, although the principle is much older (from Wikipedia)
Now to see if anyone has defined “woman” lately…
Reply to Kirkstall but maybe relevant to many:
(November 25, 2022 at 3:24 pm)
“If we do a little thought experiment and imagine a church where women ARE people—with female bishops, female apostles, female mission presidents, and full equality in rituals and rhetoric”
That kind of church is abundant in a town or neighborhood near you.
“…is it really so scary? What possible harm could come from such a change?”
I could make some guesses and it would start an argument so I’m not going to. I suggest instead that the church is organized the way it must be to survive the circumstances. It is not a democracy.
“But maybe with the female perspective allowed full voice we might start to see some accelerating positive change!”
Or just attend an Anglican congregation rather than trying to change mine.
It is likely my comment will produce the usual pile-on of negativity. THAT is what would happen in this wonderful church vision of yours. An endlessly shifting sand of moral purity combined with intolerance.
@michael 2,
“Or just attend an Anglican congregation rather than trying to change mine.”
Well gee Michael, I thought this was Jesus’s church.
And if it’s yours (in the sense that you’re a member), it’s also mine. And Kirkstalls. And a lot of other people who commented who’d love to see more leadership by women.
Research shows that corporations with strong female representation in leadership to better than those that don’t. So yeah I’m not really buying that some awful things would happen if men in our church decided to just, like, treat women like people.
Michael 2, still the same misogynist, biting, unengaging troll as ever. Like Jack, not one whose comments deserve attention because neither is really here to engage but to soap box.
Brian, you’ll find as you get older that soapboxing can be quite engaging. 😀