Back when I was in high school and college, I would sometimes try to figure out why I didn’t date. I could get to a second date, but there was never a third date. Worried, I asked several people if there was something I was doing wrong. The answer was uniformly the same: “you’re too smart; it’s intimidating.”
I tried to dial it down. I accepted what they told me. I’d had a huge crush in high school on a guy who came right and told me that it freaked him out that I was better at calculus than he was. Yes, this was my problem, I wasn’t dating because I was too smart [fn 1].
That’s how I ended up as an English major in college in the 1990s. I looked longingly at the sciences. I liked the preciseness of accounting. But no, these were typically male professions and I would be more date-able if I studied something that was typically more female. English Literature was appropriately feminine.
No one told me to do this. Not one priesthood leader counseled me to choose a female-dominated major. I came to the conclusion on my own, after a lifetime of hearing about how the most important thing I can do with my life is attract a man and get married. I had internalized the Church’s misogyny well enough that I could set limits on myself. “Teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves,” said Joseph Smith. That works for teaching incorrect principles as well. I governed myself right into a college major that wasn’t very useful [fn 2].
Now that I’ve got a law degree and work in a financial field, I’ve had to cobble together accounting know-how from continuing education courses, “Accounting for Dummies,” and long conversations with the CPAs that I work with. Not having that accounting background caused me problems. I had imposter syndrome – I worried that if I asked a question, people would realize that I didn’t belong here. I lacked confidence for several years to step up and volunteer for difficult assignments. An accounting degree would have helped my career a lot.
This is one of my few regrets in life. Rather than thinking, “well, if men can’t handle me being smart, then that’s their loss. I won’t dumb down for them,” I thought “gosh, I better pull back and change myself to be more attractive.” My purpose in life was to be attractive to men, not to play to my strengths. That’s the internalized misogyny – I agreed with Church teachings that the most important thing I could do was get married and have children, and I deliberately turned my back on things that actually interested me in order to prioritize my life’s purpose, as set by Church teachings.
Now, if I try to say something like that in an ordinary conversation, I get told I’m mistaken and I misunderstood what Church leaders were teaching. Church leaders encourage women to get an education so she’s got something to fall back on if, as in my case, she has to become the family breadwinner. I got it all wrong! This is all just a big misunderstanding because I can’t say, “one specific priesthood holder warned me against taking accounting classes.”
So … was avoiding accounting classes a self-inflicted injury? Or do Church teachings have to take some of the responsibility?
—-
[fn 1] The reason I didn’t date was not my IQ. Plenty of smart women date and marry, and to suggest otherwise is misogynistic and also insulting to men. I’m asexual and aromantic, and my vibe doesn’t lend itself to dating, but people who were trying not to hurt my feelings about not dating (which was a very sensitive topic for me) didn’t want to say something like, “you are pathetic at flirting” (which is absolutely true). I know many women who are as smart or are smarter than I am who are also happily married.
[fn 2] English Literature is a respectable degree, and I’m not dissing anyone who studied it. I knew that, for me, I wasn’t choosing it because I really wanted an English Lit degree, but because I was afraid if I got a business or science degree, I would intimidate men.
—-
Questions:
- Are there any Church principles you internalized and then made a decision based on those principles? Did you later regret that decision?
- Do you have any regrets about unquestioning obedience to Church teachings? Or were you blessed by obedience?
Wheat & Tares 
To respond to one of your tangents, I really think lessons in flirting would have really been appropriate and helpful to have a class entitled “How to talk to girls” in YM or its opposite in YW.
Additional Anecdotal experience…
My parents met at Rick’s College. My mother had dated a couple of men that ultimately didn’t work out, and yes, it was pretty explicit that part of their problem was that it was her stated desire to be a MD. (She was the only women in her physics and chemistry courses)
My Dad? “That’s a great ambition. I’d be on board with that and support you.”
I do not quite knwo how to write my comment Janey.
My experience as to being blessed for my obedience is that my life went better when I listened to what the Spirit told me which was sometimes conrary to what the church leaders said females were to do.
And I did what I thought was right for me.
I was very blessed and very happy.
I suppose readers can take that for what they want here.
My answer to your #2 question is I have no regrets to my “disobedience” to the man made church teachings that have nothing to do with Gods commandments and my salvation or spiritual growth.
This comment would be too long for me to go into detail.
I will say how sorry I am that you gave up your love for math.
I see that lot in female LDS lifers.
At least you did not smother your intelligence for ever and coninued on in your education and Brain Training.
Being a convert and not getting the subtle pressure like you during my growing years, I continued on with my love for math and science and my formal education when young.
This was an excellent article, than you so much.
To answer your questions:
1) Yes absolutely. Specifically in the realm of dating in college, I wish I had both dated more people and dated longer than I did…which was slow in BYU undergrad terms, but still fast AF in the real world. There was definitely pressure that “marriage is the most important thing”, but also the more acute pressure of impending damnation if things got too steamy with a given dating partner. The increased speed and social pressure made good decision making difficult.
2) Both for sure. There are many times when unquestioning obedience kept me out of real trouble as a teen – several close friends had their lives irreversibly altered by things like drug addiction and teen pregnancy. It gave me something sturdy to lean on when I was facing major peer pressure. My best friend died of a drug overdose, and it could just as easily been me without the church to lean on. However, my views now have greatly matured and become more nuanced. There is a lot of value in many core teachings, but sometimes the letter of the law overshadows the more important principles.
squidloverfat – I don’t know if Church would be the right place for those lessons, but something more than what teens see on shows and Youtube about how to communicate with someone you’re interested in would be a great idea. People whose parents have a good relationship have a real advantage at this. For most other people, we’re gleaning info from reality shows and friends. The internet is where I found out about asexuality. A flirting class would have to cover different sexual orientations, that’s for sure.
Mike Sanders – wonderful anecdote, thank you for sharing.
Chloe – your attitude is one that I wish I had learned for myself sooner. There can certainly be a difference between what Church leaders teach and what the spirit prompts us to do. I didn’t have that understanding in college. I learned it later in life, and relied on the spirit to make decisions about filing for divorce in spite of what Church leaders were encouraging me to do. I got there eventually.
Pirate Priest – thanks for bringing in both sides. I had some situations in which I was blessed by obedience too. It isn’t all one way or all the other. My decision in college wasn’t great, but other Church obedience helped me out.
My sister, a beautiful tall smart RM doing a masters program at BYU, was having a hard time getting second dates and had several priesthood leaders there advise her to play dumb to not intimidate the guys. She would say she was majoring in English instead of doing the TESOL masters program she was in. Fortunately the man she finally did find and marry likes her for who she is (and he now supports her running a multi-million dollar business she started as a stay at home mom).
Oh, wow, so much my life. Only the major is different. I went into social work.
The dating, well, I didn’t need to be told what the problem was. No boy in any of my classes except orchestra ever asked me out, and OK, I sucked at orchestra but loved it. If I met them out in a hallway, or when I was with another guy at a dance, or even church (my husband) then I might get asked out. But never if I had a class with them.
And as for choosing a career, I was top student in math in Junior High, and always in the very top classes in high school. My Junior year I decided my teachers were sexist pigs because I got told things like, “you’re pretty smart for a girl.” And “too bad you will never use your math skill for anything but doubling recipes.” And, “you sure intimidate the boy when you get top score on a test.” And the boy would study together, but us two girls were avoided. My senior year I was in a class that only 5 students qualified for. That was the year that I decided I wasn’t going to be treated like that the rest of my life because the boys in the class were just horrible to me. No, I wasn’t going to have a career in math and get treated like I had something deadly and contagious. And although I loved the science classes I had taken, I figured it would be the same.
But I still thought I could do anything I wanted because I knew I was smart. So, I thought maybe psychology or even better psychiatry. I talked to the college counselor and asked about the two. Her reaction to the idea of psychiatry was sheer horror. “But that takes getting a medical degree.” She might have said “there’s no way in hell you could get through med school.” Her reaction said it all. So, my brother went through med school and I got a double degree in psychology and social work, because by then I was married and he was military and social work was more practical for moving all over.
And all of this was in 90% Mormon Provo, Utah, so my teachers and all were Mormon. So was the college counselor. She had garment lines.
When people treat you like you are doing something wrong by being smart, it does something to you inside. You get both praised and punished, insulted, and shunned. It makes you hate part of yourself. For me, I hated being female and hated being smart. But didn’t know how to hide the being smart.
Now, I’ll go read all the other comments.
Bishops weren’t responsible for the people that I dated or for the person that I married, or for my college major(s), choice of graduate school, choice of employment, number of children, laundry detergent to buy, etc. I never asked a bishop, as these matters aren’t in his lane. If a bishop sought to counsel me in these matters, I would not have listened to him.
Misogyny was (is) not just a church thing. It permeated our society. Lots of non-LDS colleges with no LDS professors had no or few women in their STEM programs until fairly recently–and as one poster posted above, the peer pressure against women was from other students, not from professors. We can’t blame this on the church. Some women in science made great achievements and men got the credit, which is bad, and this was at NASA and at great universities, so hardly a uniquely or a particularly LDS problem.
I don’t blame the church for its misogyny. That was societal, not church specific, and the church’s misogyny reflected society’s misogyny. Doesn’t make it right, but it was baked in all over the place. Where I might blame the church, or the church culture, is for teaching YM and YW (and it seems to have particularly stuck with YW) that bishops have the answer to each and all of life’s questions. That is something that we probably did teach, though I never drank that Kool-Aid. We now reject that teaching, but it did its damage and we still feel the effects.
In the Church today, I rarely see misogyny. No question, it’s there, but I think most husbands and fathers love their wives and daughters beyond masculine ego.
The problem is that jackass men in the Church erroneously equate priesthood with fraternity, which is fundamentally Satanic: the error arises from foolishly modeling priesthood from Masonry. True patriarchy opposes fraternity, but gets a bad name because when LDS men get into positions of authority, they assume their “power and authority” comes from being a man, rather than from the reception of the Spirit.
Georgis, I don’t recall one poster saying anything about asking a bishop for advice in this discussion. I most certainly didn’t ever talk to my bishop about any of these topics. In my generation we didn’t have yearly youth interviews with the bishop so, I talked one one one with a bishop exactly twice before I got married. Once was my baptismal interview and the second was my first temple recommend. This particular discussion has nothing to do with going to a bishop for advice, but the overall culture of Mormonism and the pressure on girls that the most important thing is get married and have babies. I had 40 or so lessons stressing the importance of marriage and babies. We were told that we should not work outside the home, and that a career was only a back up plan in case of our husbands death (divorce wasn’t a consideration in the 60, because it was still rare, being as you had to prove adultery.) This discussion is more about the decisions made based on the lessons we were taught and I ended up picking my college major because social work was flexible and something that fit well with a family. And actually I dropped out of college when I got married and didn’t go back until I was rebelling against the church’s teachings.
This topic and comments like Georgis’ have me so worked up I can’t think straight. The internalized misogyny Janey references dictated every decision I made about my schooling, career, and marriage.
As a teenager in a conservative Mormon community in central California it seemed every other YW lesson promoted temple sealing and motherhood as our highest goals. The proclamation came out when I was in high school. We were taught that women were expected to stay home with their kids except in tragic circumstances. A woman’s highest calling was as a wife and mother. Ezra Taft Benson’s talk To the Mothers in Zion was frequently referenced. Women were shamed for working to provide “luxuries”.
Georgis is correct that no bishop ever told me or my friends what to major in. But a recent prophet and our church leaders told us repeatedly that a good Mormon girl’s number one priority was to get married in the temple, have kids, and stay home with them.
Some of the unsurprising effects of these teachings: women prioritizing finding a high-earning husband over educational achievement and career development, women forgoing educational opportunities to support their husband’s educations, women dropping out of school once they are married, women choosing careers with lower barriers to entry than men such as nursing rather than medical school.
Here is how those church teachings influenced my life. I had the grades, scores and resume to attend most elite colleges. I didn’t apply to any school other than BYU because that is where your chances were highest to marry inside the church. A small liberal arts college would have been a much better fit for me than BYU. I majored in a subject that was interesting but unmarketable. I didn’t worry about majoring in a field with actual job prospects, because jobs are for husbands!
I attended law school at BYU after graduating from BYU because well, I was still single, plus it was relatively inexpensive. During law school, I spent way more time trying to get hitched than I did studying. It worked, I guess, because I got married right after graduating.
Side note: While in law school, someone left a note on many of the female students’ desks that basically said you are taking a slot away from a potential provider. I didn’t actually see the note because they were removed once discovered. But technically, according to what I had been taught, and what a lot of Mormon youth were taught, the guy who left those notes was right. And a misogynist punk.
I gave up the law firm job I had lined up for after graduation because my husband’s graduate school was in a different state. I frittered away the couple years before my first kid was born, and have stayed at home since then. So far things have worked out for me according to the LDS script. I have been lucky.
But as I watch my non-LDS friends (and some working LDS friends) flourish in their careers AND marriages AND families, I know that I have missed out on important things. I have missed the sense of competency and fulfillment one gains by using one’s intellect and talents to bless the wider world.
And contrary to what Georgis argued, that is not a result of general societal misogyny. That is a direct result of the teachings of the church that I never questioned as a young adult and the choices I made trying to do what was expected of me as an LDS woman.
For your two questions:
1. Are there any Church principles you internalized and then made a decision based on those principles? Did you later regret that decision?
2. Do you have any regrets about unquestioning obedience to Church teachings? Or were you blessed by obedience?
The answers would be Yes, yes, yes, and no not really but it did shape my life.
Maybe you can relate but one of my problems was that I wanted to be a people pleaser. I didn’t think or do something for myself but did it so others would think good of me. When I turned 60 I realized that no one cared. Most people were caught up in their little circle of life where they were at the center and everything and everyone else was supposed to circulate them because I was also part of that belief system. I then changed my paradigm to one where I was in a parade and had my time to shine but eventually moved on and would be forgotten except for maybe a few who liked the display. I then began to reflect on all the decisions I made in life, my career, my wife, my ex-wife, and where I lived. I realized I could have done things completely differently, and had very different results. That was a shock and wondered what I could do. I couldn’t turn back time or change old decisions, all I really could do was try to support others into not following blindly as I did without serious reflection.
Finally something about misogyny in the church. Yes, it’s there, we usually don’t confront it, and it hurts both men and women. It’s usually communicated in the halls more than the pulpit and much more than in a bishop’s office but it can really be in any of those places at any time because it permeates the culture. We also have very few places where we can actually talk about it with anyone in or around the church. That includes our friends or other members we know because it’s usually something that we wake up to individually and alone at least in our wards. That’s why becoming part of a community like Wheat and Tares is important. You can at least vent and test your thoughts and ideas.
Anna and Sleeper – thank you for your replies to Georgis. You said it better than I could. I don’t think Georgis even read my entire post, because I have a paragraph specifically about NOT asking a priesthood leader about these decisions, and how people say I misunderstood Church teachings because no bishop ever told me what to do. That’s exactly what Georgis did. Thanks Georgis, for illustrating the problem so well!
Anna – this line hit hard: “I hated being female and hated being smart.” Exactly that. I felt like a conundrum. I’m supposed to be a wife, but God also made it so I wasn’t attractive to men. I didn’t know how to deal with that confusion for many many years.
Misogyny has a broader definition than just being mean to women. Misogyny is the label for the entire system that keeps women in second place and subordinate to men. Even if men love women and treat us with respect, they still meet the definition of misogynistic if they believe women should submit to men. The patriarchal order in the Church is, by very definition, misogynistic, even when a man believes the patriarchal order blesses women. It’s about power.
My wife heard the same messages, and she got a marketable degree in her chosen field and had a great career. She made more money than I did at marriage and continued to do so until she dropped out of work for health reasons. Sister Renlund, just to name someone that I heard at a stake conference recently, heard the same talks, and she went to law school and practiced law after marriage, and her husband is now an apostle. Neither woman was disobedient. Both Sister Renlund and my wife heard the same messages that Janey mentioned, and they did what was right for themselves. They heard, and they chose. Janey and Anna and Sleeper heard, and they also chose. None disobeyed or sinned. Here is the beautiful thing about the gospel: we each get to choose how to make it real in our own lives. We choose for ourselves, but too many people want to do what they’re told to do. Then they can blame someone else when they’re unhappy decades later. I don’t want to do that. I might say that if I had my life to live over again I might make different choices, but I won’t blame others for my choices. I’ll own them and make the best of them, without bitterness. That is what works for me, but not for everyone.
This post targets my PTSD, but it obviously doesn’t resonate that way for everyone. I approve Janey’s bluntness in using the term ‘misogyny’ as the descriptor for misogyny. And the effects of church misogyny show up within only 14 comments, and we have a gender difference between those who take it seriously and those who offer ways to excuse it, or otherwise minimize it.
1. Are there any Church principles you internalized and then made a decision based on those principles? Did you later regret that decision? Yes and yes.
2. Do you have any regrets about unquestioning obedience to Church teachings? Or were you blessed by obedience? Yes and both.
I’m reluctant to share my experiences because some of the consequences were so damaging that at some point I know from experience that I will be blamed for making such obviously bad decisions. And that — being blamed — is something to which I’ve developed hypersensitivity. Be warned.
Internalized misogyny is alive and kicking for people like me; I spent much of my life blaming myself for things that harmed me then and hurt still, while also choosing harmful behaviors prescribed for me from church sources. It’s only recently after examining this with others (therapists and peers) and with shifted perspective as I’m aging, that I can see how institutional church misogyny played into in my specific experiences. The fact that this blight is also widespread in world cultures doesn’t absolve accountability for the church as the delivery system of institutional harm for so many of us women. We made ourselves vulnerable to it by our unquestioning obedience, thinking that this was the most correct way to be a disciple of Christ. And the regrets are often too much to process. It almost can’t be processed, only grieved. The only women who escaped the worst effects were those who, without encouragement from institutional sources, followed their gut when it conflicted with harmful teachings.
I suppose I should help all y’all who don’t see this with some specifics, so without ripping off my own bandages for your perusal, here’s an incomplete list from my perspective, of principles and teachings (or de facto principles/teachings) that harm women:
• Women’s most important work is as a mother. Plan your life accordingly. Knowing what you want from life is not as important as training for service as a wife and mother. Don’t delay your pursuit of this part of life.
• You must dress modestly because men/boys will see and they’re weak and creepy, but important, so don’t tempt them with your body on view.
• Lose yourself in service. Serve the priesthood. No sacrifice is too great.
• Have the highest of standards, and when you make mistakes, be ashamed and never talk openly about it. Observe the group taboos.
• When you’ve committed serious sins, especially sexual ones, you must repent by confessing to an older, male priesthood authority, untrained in female sexuality and ignorant of the gauntlet of hazards women and girls must navigate, but inspired by God to guide you. Or punish you, if you deserve it, but not label it as punishment.
(This list is incomplete, you may add to it. )
Unquestioning obedience is a two-edged sword, probably for everyone. On the one hand, I didn’t become an alcoholic, which is a common coping mechanism run amok in my family, because of strict WoW obedience. I look at my own attendance at church ans a good discipline, and the effort I made to read and study the scriptures in faith as a net positive as well. But when the principles harmed me, when I was influenced to make poor decisions without examining them thoroughly, or at all(!) it created chaos and traumatic damage, much of which is permanent. Critical thinking should be taught, encouraged, and modeled by leaders, especially women leaders, as the primary lens by which to apply all other principles.
And you guys (you know who you are) who insist on spinning every woman’s reply to Janey’s OP and questions, so that it appears that the church is innocent of perpetuating misogyny, should STAAAHP! Already. Stop that gaslighting. You inspire me to scream. Maybe at you.
Ruth Lybbert (When did she add Renlund? You might notice she’s the only apostle’s wife with a full maiden name listed and in her Utah Bar listing she’s just Ruth Lybbert, at least last time I checked) went against a number of trends. When I first learned of her one of my questions was how she managed to have the courage to get a law degree and become partner in a firm. She came from a place of privilege since her father was a general authority. I’m guessing she was privy to some behind the scenes conversations most of us didn’t hear from high up church members /leaders discounting Ezra Benson’s talk where he minced no words about the harms he saw in women’s working. It never made it to the print version, but Benson went so far as to say that women should *not* work after their children were grown because the church had need of their [unpaid] service. So for the next 30+ years women policed themselves and each other as they tried to be obedient to what they saw as necessary prophetic counsel. If you weren’t in relief society meetings you may not have heard all of the messaging that woman received. It was strong and it was clear and it was reasonably harsh. Women who worked without a need to provide were stigmatized, judged, and sometimes even scolded and talked about behind their backs. Young women were advised in lessons at church not to go for careers where they might earn more than their husbands. Not in the manual, maybe , but definitely in many of the lessons taught by women trying to survive in a patriarchal society. Sometimes it’s good to listen to peoples lived experiences.
Anon (and all), please read this interview with Ruth Renlund before making false assumptions about her. It’s from 2010 before her husband was called as an apostle, but he was already a 70 and they were living in Africa.
http://ldswomenproject.com/interview/just-call-me-ruth/
A few key points:
“I had an early interest in the law, but was discouraged by my father [a lawyer] from pursuing it. He had a low opinion of women lawyers because he felt that the time demands were too high for it to be compatible with raising a family. This was in 1976, so I finished my undergraduate work at the University of Utah quickly and then went on for another year to get a teaching certificate… I married Dale Renlund after college and planned to teach until he finished medical school. Then I’d raise our family and after that I planned to return to some kind of graduate work.” However, when their daughter was only 16 months old, Ruth was diagnosed with ovarian cancer and underwent chemotherapy and two surgeries. She and Dale considered adoption but “prayed for guidance, and at that point we knew our family was complete. I was impressed to go to law school and fulfill a deep-seated desire.”
As the mother of one child who worked for most of my life, I was extremely moved by this interview (she also mentions the criticisms she received for only having one child). Unfortunately, Sister Renlund to my knowledge has never publicly discussed any of this material–dealing with life-threatening cancer at a young age; praying and receiving inspiration to not try to add to her family but to pursue a legal career; managing career and family; coping with LDS expectations of many children; etc. All of this would be so beneficial to young (and old) women today.
This post really resonates with me. I was shocked when I moved to Utah as a young adult and discovered that my math skills made me unattractive to Mormon men. That discovery did not drive me away from studying the sciences, but it did help drive me toward feminism. And it made me very cynical about the idea of marriage. If I had to pretend to be dumb to be attractive to a man, it was much better to remain single. I felt like it was a sign when I finally met a guy who seemed interested (instead of repelled) by my science career and degrees., and I married him.
I do think that Mormon culture has changed a lot over the last decade or so. Camille Johnson would never give a talk like Julie Beck’s “Mothers Who Know.” I love seeing so many prominent female attorneys and businesswomen in the Church nowadays. I hope there will be more scientists and doctors. Are female math skills still such a turnoff for Mormon guys like they were 30 years ago?
Both my parents were teenage converts. I guess I somehow skirted the anti-math, anti-science messages. In the first place I wasn’t in Utah, in the second place neither of my parents were graduates, but my mother had more qualifications (maths and sciences A levels, and early fortran) than my father (none), and I would see her reading popular science books she borrowed from the library.
But I did get a lot of the same messaging in the YW curriculum conference talks and seminary videos about wife and mother that Janey and others described. And whilst my mother worked with a computer for calculations designing lenses up until I was born (the eldest), she was then an SAHM until the youngest (7th child) was in school, and double digit interest rates on the mortgage made it necessary. So working only out of financial necessity was a pretty strong message.
I chose my subjects of study based on the idea I had that I wanted to learn everything because that would benefit my future children, and maths and sciences were the subjects hardest to study alone. In the UK we begin to narrow the field of education at 16. So I chose pure maths, physics, chemistry and German. Even then I felt some criticism outside of family from some quarters. My 17th birthday interview the bishop wanted to know why I didn’t have a boyfriend, and did I want to finish up a nun! I was outraged! That pretty much put the lid on any respect I might have had for priesthood leaders. I went on to get a BEng and PhD. I met my husband whilst at university. He’s a convert, so wasn’t raised with all rubbish in the curriculum. I finished up being an SAHM too, for far longer than I had anticipated with just two children. My choice of education, and educational experiences was hugely beneficial to my kids.. Both have MEng degrees, and the youngest was awarded prizes as the best student on her course (aeronautical engineering), and best engineering student overall at the university.
I am mostly content I think. Would I have made different choices. I don’t know. Would they have been better choices. Hard to say. I was influenced by the prevailing culture, but managed to avoid the worst of the harms because of my background.
As a male, these questions haven’t affected me as much, though that’s not to say Mormon thinking about “ideal” family life doesn’t have any effect on men at all. I had a college roommate who questioned his decision to major in music because he felt pressure to choose something that paid better. This wasn’t a problem for me because I was naturally drawn to engineering.
I married someone who is pretty feminist and had big ambitions from the start. I cared about her being able to achieve her goals so I supported her, despite feeling a bit uneasy about it at first, in a path that diverged from Mormon cultural expectations a bit. It was the best thing I/we ever did, and I’m glad we didn’t give into the cultural pressures. Have we been “blessed” (or otherwise) for doing so? I’m not sure what “blessed” even means anymore, but yes, we’ve been “blessed” with a degree of prosperity and security, and more importantly, two spouses both being happy with their path in life. Surely the authors of the Family Proclamation might have thought that to be a desirable outcome, right?
As for the question of “obedience” and what it is that we’re supposed to be “obedient” to, I would point out the inherent contradictions in a phrase frequently invoked by members and leaders alike in the church: “obey prophetic counsel”. Let’s consider what that means. There’s a claim of authority coupled with a hedge word that implies that what they say isn’t actually commandment, preceded by “obedience”? It’s all rather absurd when considered that way. Maybe it’s time the church become a little more humble and spend more time teaching obedience to the two great commandments, and remind us that everything else is just advice that could be worth listening to, but that we’re ultimately all responsible for making our own decisions.
Yes, to both questions.
One church teaching I find harmful is to marry in the temple. That alone narrows one’s choice in a marriage partner. It places the institution before yourself. It doesn’t assist in recognizing traits and characteristics compatible with your own. It eliminates really good people. It is not useful in finding out what makes a really good person.
Many lovely loyal lds women (mostly) have never married because of this endogamias emphasis. Many of those were underprepared to support themselves because of the teachings on marriage. The church lost out on the lovely children they could have had, had they married.
I tell my children I would much rather they marry a really good person, than an lds person in the temple.
We’ve all seen examples of people who chose either way.
Not to just join the ranks of women this affected, but…me too!
I chose a teaching major (math, though, cuz I couldn’t give that up) because it would allow me SAHM hours. It was a choice made with the assumption that I wouldn’t need to work unless tragedy struck.
I started that career while my spouse finished college. I have remained the primary breadwinner ever since and had to jump ship from teaching pretty quickly to make a living wage. Teaching, as a historically “female” profession, doesn’t pay enough to be a sole family income.
At one point in college I learned about actuary science. It sounded very interesting to me, but I didn’t pursue it. I am now studying for and taking tests to become an actuary, and I wish desperately that I would have taken myself more seriously in college when I first heard of it. I didn’t know I was allowed to take myself seriously! I do now, though, thank God.
Growing up far away from Utah culture (the first Mormons I met who were even from Utah weren’t until I was 17), this anti-math / girls should play dumb messaging only came to me through the vestiges of American cultural sexism, not a church lens. My own proclivities were always toward the humanities anyway, although I enjoyed practical math, science fiction, and computer programming. In fact, I won a national programming contest in high school. It was one of those situations where you write the program, lift your head to look around, see that literally nobody else is even close to done, assume you probably did something wrong, go back to your program and check through the entire thing, look back up and see that *still* NOBODY is done, and finally you just go to the proctor and sheepishly say, “I’m done.” Only a few others in my graduating class finished the program before time ran out. I was shocked at how easy it was. But…I got a degree in English. My true passion was reading books and having opinions.
Despite not really hearing anti-ambition views at Church, when I got to BYU, the message was loud and clear, or maybe I should say the message was deafeningly silent. The unspoken assumption was that I was there to get married, and if I had any interests or ambitions, these could be relegated to hobbies and beautifying the home. My lot in life was to be someone’s “plus one.” How did I clue in to that? Because men I met at BYU talked non-stop about their own interests and ambitions, and were not interested at all in mine; they made it clear that they didn’t think, as a woman, that I had any career aspirations or if I did, that was “cute.”
Quentin, you raise a valid point. Counsel is not commandment. Most of what we get at general conference is not commandment. Instead, people of a good disposition give advice and counsel that they think will help us. For example, a few years a former prophet counseled the members to grow gardens. Some people took that as a commandment, and they criticized and judged their neighbors who didn’t plant a garden. The second part is sin, in my opinion. But did the members who didn’t plant a garden commit sin? Were they disobedient? I am not sure that they were. Suppose I had planted no garden, then rough times came, and I died from hunger. Yes, I would be dead, but would I have sinned in not planning a garden? In other words, was my eternal salvation (not my happiness on earth) lost because of sin? I think not. Most of what we get at conference is counsel, not commandment. Maybe all of what we get is counsel, because we already know the commandments.
President Nelson recently spoke strongly about YM going on missions. Commandment? Yes, to the YM whose bosom burned as the HG testified to him that Nelson was talking to him as an individual. Maybe no, to others who might not have received the same confirmation from the HG. I think I read somewhere that none of the current big 3 in the FP served a mission. War, one might say, prevented them. Wait–if mission is a commandment, then is war an excuse? Maybe serving a mission is good counsel, but each member decides in his own circumstances whether he will serve. A lot of counsel has been given on how one should proceed to have a happy marriage. Did Lydia, a seller of purple from Thyatira, sin by working outside the home? She was a merchant, a seller of purple-dyed clothing and fabrics. Paul didn’t give her the label of sinner, and neither will I.
Almost everything that we hear from our pulpits is counsel, not commandment. If it is commandment, they should be reading the commandment from the holy writ. I heard a talk recently where we were almost commanded to go to the temple at least monthly. I see that as wise counsel, not as a commandment. There is also no commandment to keep a budget, or to pay tithing on gross before paying other expenses, or to have the proclamation on the family framed in the living room, or to read the Book of Mormon every day. What? If I read in the evenings, and one evening I am late home because I took my sick child to the hospital, and when I finally got home I plopped in the bed and went to sleep, do I sin because I didn’t read? Do I sin because I didn’t pray on my knees out loud, once with the family, once with my spouse, and then by myself? I think that sin is real, but there is a lot that is not sin that people call sin, especially when they see it in others. And that is sin!
When I was in seminary in the mid Nineties, there was a video showing (approvingly) a girl turning down a full ride scholarship to study biology because she might want to have babies someday. Really. And even after GBH telling young women that it’s okay to take out student loans, that video was still in the curriculum when I was teaching seminary in 2007ish. Me and my chemistry degree (from a non church school, where about 2/3 of the science majors were female) just opted to pretend that video didn’t exist.
Thanks for all the stories. NYAnn, thanks for sharing that information about Sister Renlund. I’d never heard it before. Those types of stories aren’t told publicly. It would help if they were.
Georgis – that’s neat you know so many people who were able to brush off Church counsel and make different decisions. The existence of those people doesn’t change the fact that there are many of us who followed Church counsel and came to regret it. One of the things that makes the other path so tricky to find is that no one is really allowed to tell a story about making a different decision. To draw from your 2:29 comment, let’s say a healthy young man listened to Nelson’s call to serve a mission and felt prompted to continue his education and not serve a mission. Could he speak about that in sacrament meeting? Give a talk about personal revelation and say that was the reason he didn’t serve a mission? I wonder if the bishop who closes that meeting would thank him for his talk, or would add a few words to make it clear that healthy young men should go on missions.
Janey, your question is fair. President Nelson has told us that we need to learn to get revelation for ourselves. Does he mean it? If yes, then a young man could get revelation that a mission isn’t necessary for him. If President Nelson means what he said about people getting revelation, then we have to honor that man’s choice in his own life. I don’t think that the young man in question should have to explain his decision to the ward, but I understand that he would be gossiped about mercilessly if he didn’t. And who would do the gossiping? Why, the most faithful, the most good, the most pious men and women in the ward, who check all the boxes–wolves in sheeps’ clothing, who destroy good people with their wicked and poisonous words.
I’m OK to give that YM the room to make his own choice, but I also know that many are not, and that brings me to my most basic problem with the way we live the gospel. Jesus taught people to accept His message personally: each of us, individually, must accept Christ as our savior. He told us not to obsess ourselves with worrying about the mote that is in our neighbor’s eye while we have a beam in our own. We are far too judgmental as a people. If young Brother Brown says that he prayed and determined that a mission isn’t right for him, I’ll respect him in that decision. Too many church members would condemn young Brother Brown as getting his answer from the wrong place, and they would then proceed to tell this to everyone they know. Snakes among us.
If we honor the prophet, we have to give space for his words about personal revelation to work, not only in our own lives, but also in the lives of our fellow believers. What should matter most for me is how I live the gospel, not how I can tell you can live it better. We need to quit judging others so quickly (write I, as I judge others!), especially people who are trying. I know that you get this, but too many in the church do not. We need to build up and edify each other, and not criticize and demean and destroy. That’s why we need to move away from obsessing about individual works. Faith and belief are key, and if we have the right kind of faith, good works will naturally result. Your good works might differ from my good works, and that’s OK–nowhere are we told that our works must be identical.
My wife is smarter than I. She has a sciences degree while my degrees are in humanities. I didn’t grow up in Utah or in the Church, so a woman with ambition, intelligence, and skills didn’t intimidate me. Maybe more people should move to the “mission field”–the church sometimes more true out here than in Zion.
Georgis, your comment that you didn’t grow up in the church explains a lot about your comment. You simply can’t appreciate the cumulative effect of a childhood raised in the church, constant emphasis on obedience and church leaders being God’s mouthpiece. That’s heavy stuff! I was seen as a rebel in my attitude by my peers, even out here in the “mission field”. I didn’t share my reasoning or motivation with anyone.
Joni, I remember that video from the mid-80s or something similar. We were shown it during a Super Saturday seminary meeting. Definitely included a biology qualification and a discussion between mother and daughter. I’m appalled it was still there 2007! Just thinking about that video makes me feel pretty ragey even now. It felt so wrong.
Edited for clarity and grammar.
I realize that I am late to this discussion, but it has always baffled me that we expect the parent who has the most contact with the children, and who has the “divine” calling to teach them, to be poorly or barely educated. Why you want your kids raised by someone who at best was a college dropout is a mystery to me.
I learned how to read, how to count, and many other useful things before I even started school because my mother had her college education, a degree in education. And once we kids were old enough, she worked outside of the home, teaching night school as part of the local continuing education program.
I’ll take you at your word that you were told those things or told to believe those things, but I’ve never seen it in my life. I’ve never once encountered someone in rhe church who was told education is something to “fall back on” or to “dumb down” anything. And I’ve never encountered a church leader who said those things or encouraged them in actions or deeds.
What I have encountered were a few women in my dating life who were very bright and very ambitious who looked for misogyny everywhere. And when they were passed up for dates or not invited to things they screamed it from the rooftops. The truth was, they were just insufferable. And they constantly tried to one-up people. And it got tiring and so most of us stayed away from them.
I come from a very large LDS family. In my family we have multiple successful female business owners including one of the largest construction firms in Utah. We have doctors, accountants, a scientist, high level educators and two that sit on boards for large banks. None of them have ever revealed these were things they had to deal with. I’ve never heard of anything but positives from church leaders.
Wow, LegNon. The mocking tone of your comment is over-the-line harsh. Your assertions insult the integrity of Janey’s experiences she relates in the OP, as well as us commenters who shared similar things. Do you think me a liar because I don’t live in the idyllic world you describe?
If I took you seriously, I’d feel abused by your verbal bashing, and wouldn’t care to engage further, lest I become the “insufferable,” “screaming” harridan ”who couldn’t get a date,”seeking misogyny where it doesn’t really exist, at least according to your perspective.
Our mileage does vary. And we needn’t be bullied for it. That stuff really happens and not the way you tell it.
Legal Nonsense: I agree with the second half of your chosen name; your comment is nonsense. “I’ve never once encountered someone in rhe church who was told education is something to “fall back on” or to “dumb down” anything. And I’ve never encountered a church leader who said those things or encouraged them in actions or deeds.” You wouldn’t be the first man who has been oblivious to sexist messages at Church. You might want to consider whether that’s simply a byproduct of not being their target. I know I tune out anything anyone says as soon as the word “priesthood” is brought up. After all, that’s not for me.
Personally, I agree with the idea that the messages we receive in society and at church and in our families are just one part of the equation, that ultimately we have to make and own our own choices, but that doesn’t mean that those messages don’t exist, and they do affect people differently based on their own support networks. I was in a RS meeting over a decade ago in which the “Mothers Come Home” talk was being discussed. Three of us in that room were highly successful business executives, and we each stood up and said that we had received our own personal revelation that our path was our choice, despite the messages we’d heard throughout our lives about the only path for women. With tears in her eyes and a shaky voice, the meek bishop’s wife raised her hand and said, “I didn’t know I was allowed to ask for anything contrary to what the prophet said.” Now, you can certainly say “Play stupid games, get stupid prizes,” but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t women who took those limiting messages to heart.
Some of these comments that are just outright denying that this type of thing happens are really frustrating to read. Sure, everybody has things they look back on and “what if” about or regret, etc., but when those things are the result of the church-related cultural conditioning that you experience when you are too young and naive to recognize and meaningfully examine, there’s an extra sting there. This is especially true where the premise of the particular conditioning is just so transparently BS in hindsight, but was characterized your whole life as God’s will.
@LegalNonsense…your second paragraph reads like, “Bro, I dated some smart, ambitious women once…they were insufferable.”
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn’t intend it that way, but that’s how it came across…but then the blindness of your third paragraph makes me wonder.
The truth is that there is a whole pile of YM and YW hearing, “Marriage > education for women.” There’s a whole bunch of them on this thread alone saying that message impacted them negatively. So dismissing them with, “I know some women…they seem fine” is absurd.
I have personally heard many youth leaders say verbatim, “a woman should get an education to have something to fall back on. A man should get an education to be able to support their wife staying at home.”
Now that I’m an adult I can see that many leaders were really trying to say, “PLEASE girls, don’t place all your chips on that bet. Get an education too.” But the church ideal remains, and that’s not how the message is received for many youth in the church. There are also the zealots out there that don’t mean it that way.
That message comes across like this to an undeveloped prefrontal cortex:
Teenage boys – “Your ideal partner should only be going to college until they can find a husband to support them. So date those ones…also you’d better be able to support a big family alone.” (Then they find the smart/ambitious ones intolerable).
Teenage girls – “If you prioritize that career, you might miss that precious marriage and children window…oh, and there’s no spinsters in heaven. Also, you’d better be a virgin…so career also means no sex. Boys find smart/ambitious girls to be intolerable.”
Take normal kids with big dreams, then add salvation anxiety about being able to check all their Celestial Kingdom boxes. That messaging then gets amplified as YW/YM get to college age because that’s when they’ve been told to start checking those boxes.
It’s not a big leap to see how this sort of thing could cause serious problems for many people.
Ah yes, the old chestnut of commenting on a blog about sexism by claiming sexism doesn’t exist while insulting women.
Classic.
Georgis – finding out that you weren’t raised in the Church helps me understand your perspective more. If everyone understood personal decisions the way you do, life would be easier. However, I was raised in a strict LDS home and I don’t remember being encouraged to make my own decisions. Everything was about following the example and the teachings of the Church leaders. We had different experiences. Mine are no less valid than yours.
Legal Nonsense – your comment was rude. Clearly, you haven’t listened to the counsel and teachings directed at women. Thank you to pirate priest and Andrew and Margot and MDearest for your responses.
Angela C – that story about the meek bishop’s wife admitting she didn’t know she could ask for permission to do anything besides what the prophet said was heartbreaking. I understand her. Yes, these were my decisions, but I wanted so badly to be obedient and faithful. My life goal wasn’t to develop all my potential; it was to be blessed for my faithful and meek obedience to the prophets.
@MDearest- you seem to not like the response because it’s not a response you want or like. It’s not mocking. It’s called observation. I’ve never seen it. I’ve never come across a woman in the church who felt it or heard it either. I’ve never had a friend, relative or associate ever say or imply they were under the impression or told anything other than to pursue their goals and look for a worthy partner in the process. You don’t like the answer, move on. I never said all bright and abled women were insufferable. Stop putting words in my mouth and read it again. I just pointed out there were some I came across in my days that said the same types of things you were saying and they almost all had the same thing in common when you got down to the root of it.
And if you were subject to bullying by anyone it’s wrong and I hope you didn’t seriously consider the message.
@The Pirate- I married a very intelligent and motivated woman who has her own career and goals and never once did we discuss marriage and family as the end goal. Since I happened to be lucky with a headstart in my career as I rushed through college and grad school and didn’t serve a mission while she chose to travel a bit, I suggested giving up a successful and financially secure career so she could pursue her dreams, if and when we wanted kids. Ultimately we worked together to find something that worked for both of us. But I wanted (and still want) her to do what makes her happy.
I have a daughter in her last year of college. She has never been told anything about this topic either. And her dear old Dad has always told her to pursue what she wants. Get married or don’t. Have a career or don’t. Have kids or don’t. Buy or rent or travel. Whatever. As long as she is happy and never settles for less.
@Angela C- you assume I’m not a target but how do you know? I’m a very unconventional member. Covered in tattoos. Not afraid to speak my mind. Questioned about many choices. I dont live an ideal or “normal” LDS life. And I’ve defended horrible people in my practice early on to boot. And I am fine with that. I’m just simply making an observation about what I’ve seen or should I say what I haven’t seen. Take it or leave it.
I run into a lot of the same defensive comments on this blog because truth be told, there’s an undertone on this site. And that’s ok too. Se la vie.
Georgis,
“Maybe more people should move to the “mission field”–the church sometimes more true out here than in Zion.”
I agree. As time goes on, the more I am convinced that there is an inverse correlation between the density of local LDS membership and their wisdom and righteousness, yes I said righteousness.
@Legal Nonsense.
Maybe you just missed part of the OP – Janey explicitly said that nobody told her outright to make changes to her college and career trajectory. Rather, it was the internalized social and religious pressure regarding marriage and that prompted her to move into a lane that might make her more likely to find a spouse in the LDS sphere. She’s retrospectively questioning those choices and asking who else has had similar experiences. This isn’t a case of screaming about misogyny from the rooftops, as you put it.
The whole point is that nobody told told her to do it. The fact that you haven’t heard anyone say it either is more evidence in favor of her point – it’s not necessarily someone explicitly telling people to act this way. The relentless pressure surrounding marriage, traditional families, and chastity creates immense pressure; pressure that can cause people to sideline their goals in pursuit of stereotypical Mormon ideals.
While you and Janey may not have heard it said explicitly, I have…it makes it much worse. One religious zealot of a YW leader caused a lot of damage in my childhood ward with her opinions taught as doctrine.
There’s scientific evidence that men are intimidated by women who are smart, highly-educated, and ambitious. Obviously not ALL men…but a whole lot of them. It’s logical that this could encourage some women to alter their life choices when trying finding a mate. It’s throwing gas on the fire when you add on religious pressure about needing to be married to get into heaven and the emphasis on abstinence before marriage.
I’m glad I’m glad that you aren’t someone who subscribes to those ideas. I’ll believe you, but the tone of your initial comment did not come across that way.