ANOTHER UPDATE: The comments disappeared for most of today but appear to have been restored. I imagine someone screenshotted a bunch of them and if I find a repository I will post. In case you didn’t get to see, I will put broad themes of the comments below.
On Sunday (the same day that a group of women planned a protest against Church policy excluding women from sitting on the stand during meetings), the Church social media team made a post that simultaneously managed to insult every other religion in the world AND thousands of LDS women.
For those without Instagram, it’s a painting of several women with this quote in caption & an abbreviated version of the quote in another screen: “There is no other religious organization in the world, that I know of, that has so broadly given power and authority to women …”.
Honestly, I’ve got nothing to say about this that isn’t already in the comments, which you should read if you are interested. Largely, the comments fell into these categories: (1) people pointing out other churches who give women much more authority than ours (i.e., Community of Christ is about to have a female prophet; Jewish and many Protestant congregations with female rabbis and pastors and priests, etc.); (2) ex / post Mo women commenting on how ridiculous it is to claim that the LDS Church gives women a lot of authority and how their lack of authority and influence led them out; (3) current Mormon women explaining how hurt they are by the Church’s marginalization and exclusion of them (i.e., people describing how in “leadership” positions in the Church they still always, always had to answer to and get overruled by a man); (4) people listing out the myriad ways that women do NOT have equal standing in the Church; (5) people defending the Church & the statement (some of these were honestly the best and craziest comments – “all these angry women are why Jesus was right to put men in charge!” Literally, thought some of those comments were satire and they were not.
I literally do not care what any Church leader says about gender because they have nothing new or interesting or informed or inspired to say. Apparently they also have nothing interesting or informed or inspired to say about other religions. So I don’t really have much to say on the topic besides, I guess, this:
The Church is sexist. It’s pretending it’s not. It’s ridiculous. I hope anyone who holds out hope for change recognizes that change is pretty unlikely considering that the Church thinks it’s doing better than literally every other religion on the planet when it comes to gender equality.
They’ve got 200+ billion reasons not to bother changing.
Wheat & Tares 
When someone can make me understand how a husband and wife are equal, but the husband presides, I’ll publicly declare that the Church is no longer sexist. 
The other problematic aspect with her comments were the Mormon exceptionalism coupled with absolute ignorance. If she had talked to literally ANYONE she would know that the church is not empowering women on par with many many other churches. It’s kind of like the church claiming it has the “gold standard” for handling abuse or that BYU is the “Harvard of the West.” Sure, buddy.
The church is only progressive for women in that it’s no longer practicing active polygamy, but you know for a fact that they secretly wish they could, and they will never disavow it as an eternal principle. The bar is LOW. So yeah, church leaders are being less awful to women than their predecessors were and than they wish they could. Hurray.
It’s very frustrating but not at all surprising that the women in leadership roles are cheerleading this gaslighting nonsense, but if they didn’t, they would not be elevated to these roles. And Oaks literally made that doctrine up VERY recently about women having “borrowed priesthood power” from men. It was like ten years ago, which is basically yesterday.
It’s appalling. But to make it worse, the defenses of church members are as cult like as they come, telling women they don’t get it, they should quit focusing on differences, they lack commitment if they complain, get out if they don’t like it, and they are under Satan’s power.
So I’m with you, Elisa. That’s a big no thanks to all that BS.
I suppose that if one held to the belief that TCOJCOLDS is the only true church on the face of the earth and that it is the only religion that has God’s authority to perform certain rituals and those rituals/ordinances are absolutely necessary to return to Heavenly Father, and that men are given God’s authority to save women through these rituals, and women are allowed to give talks in front of the congregation by assignment from the men, and women can be asked by men to serve in the Church under the men’s supervision, and women can do women’s work in the home under the presiding authority of their husbands, then yes, in a certain way, one could claim that women in this organization have more power and authority than women in any other church, because any other church has no authority in the first place, and members of other churches are only “playing church” (thank you, Bro. Wilcox) anyway. I suppose.
I suppose that if one held to the belief that TCOJCOLDS is the only true church on the face of the earth and that it is the only religion that has God’s authority to perform certain rituals and those rituals/ordinances are absolutely necessary to return to Heavenly Father, and that men are given God’s authority to save women through these rituals, and women are allowed to give talks in front of the congregation by assignment from the men, and women can be asked by men to serve in the Church under the men’s supervision, and women can do women’s work in the home under the presiding authority of their husbands, then yes, in a certain way, one could claim that women in this organization have more power and authority than women in any other church, because any other church has no authority in the first place, and members of other churches are only “playing church” (thank you, Bro. Wilcox) anyway. I suppose.
Could we hope that this is finally the tipping point for women to say “We’re not going to take it!” and actually mean it? Let’s face it, unless millions of women decide to no longer attend church, the leaders will just wait until the storm blows over. That’s what they expect to happen. I read the SL Trib and have never ever seen so many angry and disgusted comments from women. Usually it’s just the same men who have an axe to grind or who love to pontificate on pet subjects. This was something new and very refreshing.
What irks me most is the fact that the leaders and TBMs always respond with the same lame tropes about how Satan has taken hold of the person heart who’s angry’s or hurt, or how dare we misunderstand the Q15 and General RS presidency when they tell us that “we are already are equal with men”. What ever happened to mourning with those who mourn and actually listening to understand rather than condemning them outright before giving them an opportunity to express their feelings? Stopping people from speaking their truth because you don’t want to hear it is cult like behavior.
And then there’s the “we’re better than everyone else” gloating about how much better Mormon women have it in comparison to women of other faiths. I’m not sure which bothers me more, the “we’re better than you because we have the capital T TRUTH and you don’t” attitude or the finely honed Mormon persecution complex. Neither is a good look, especially if you want to convert people to the church.
Between this and the news that the BYUs will now require all incoming students to take a new BYU 101 class where they have to read and defend Holland’s infamous musket fire speech and be indoctrinated into how to be socially and spiritually acceptable at BYU I’ve had it. 
@poor wayfaring stranger–I have zero, ZERO hope that enough LDS women will vote with their feet to make a dent. Seems there’s always someone new to take our places. That said, I agree, I was pretty surprised by the response to this. Have honestly never seen anything like that. Yes, plenty of the women commenting were exmo’s so not a lot to lose–BUT a lot of them were not. I was surprised to see some comments from friends of mine who I know are fully active, and plenty of other comments from women describing themselves as active (RS presidents etc.). To do that, often in their own name, on the Church’s official account? Pretty unusual IMO. So maybe I have .0000000000000000000000001% hope now that LDS women are waking the hell up. 
Thanks for sharing this. I read through a lot of the comments. They were impressive. But nothing that a ton of money and a lot of arrogance can’t solve. And unlike ecumenical literacy, -those- are never in short supply at 50 E North Temple.
Like you say Elisa, a church with as much money as they’ve got has no need to listen to its people. In fact, writing us all off as heretics bolsters their own chosen-people bonafides.
100% agree, Elisa. And you’re exactly right—they have money, more keeps coming in, and the women show up to do the work. So no need to change a thing.
By the way, the Deseret News closed comments on their story.
My jaw dropped to the floor upon hearing absolutely tone-deaf statement. I’ve had over 30 years of inter-faith experience. In that time, I’ve seen the church evolve from “be careful they might want us to blend our doctrines or accept each other’s sacraments” to a rather robust acceptance and cooperation in the interfaith community. Likewise, the larger Christian community has evolved from “We’re not sure Mormons are Christian and can be involved in ecumenical dialogue” to full engagement. I was involved 30 years ago with the formation of the local interfaith organization and currently serve on the board. My wife previously served on the board as well. We’ve had great supportive local LDS leaders. I know and am friends with many women pastors, in our community. We’ve broken bread together. The last two years the annual membership meeting and fundraiser was held at a local stake center.
As I listened to the comment I thought, “NO! This sister has likely never had any engagement outside her bubble with women pastors of other faiths.” The irony is that the last two Episcopal bishops of SLC have been women. Talk about living in a bubble. I had hoped her comment with be downplayed and fade away, but nope it was lauded. A very bad look and extraordinarily dismissive to our interfaith sisters.
Was this a quote from the meeting whose flyer was recently doing the rounds? The one where Nelson’s head is 3x the size of the other heads, and he got a title/ first name/ middle initial/ last name in bold print and the women’s names don’t appear anywhere? (Full disclosure, I saw that flyer on Reddit, but I did confirm that it’s the same one on the church website.)
This is like when Patricia Holland died, and the church Instagram listed her husband’s full name, current title, past titles he’s held but never called her by name.
The church has shown us over and over that women are meaningless. A lot of us women are starting to take that statement at face value.
It seems 8,000+ comments were deleted from the Instagram post and the church’s account is periodically sweeping through to sanitize things.
They also commented,
”The church’s social media team acknowledges the numerous comments that have emerged in response to this post. Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts, feelings, and experiences. Your comments will be shared with Church leaders who follow these issues. We, like you, strive to follow the example of Jesus Christ in our interactions, including conversations online.”
So, are they saying Jesus would have frantically deleted thousands of comments because he didn’t like getting ratioed?
I also wonder who the “Church leaders who follow these issues” are. Maybe they forward all these comments to Elder S. Cape Goat whose calling is specifically to absorb excess flak from social media snafus so they can say they passed it on to someone.
NOthing screams patriarchy like closing/deleting comments that attack the patriarchy. Whoever made that call just gave the middle the middle finger to everyone who commented. Par for the course: institution loyalty first, men second, women not even on the list.
One of the many, many reasons I no longer call it my home.
Nothing screams patriarchy like deleting comments questioning it. Whoever made that call just gave a big middle finger to everyone who commented. Par for the course: institutional loyalty first, men second, and women not even on the list.
One of the many, many reasons I no longer call it home.
I’m glad you posted on this and I will be back later with a real comment, but I have a technical note. Linking an Instagram post doesn’t show the actual post. Since I don’t have an Instagram account, I can’t see the post. I know what you’re talking about, because I’ve seen the quote elsewhere. But if, when linking an Instagram post, you could put in an image id, that would be really helpful. I’ve run into this same issue with not being able to see Jake C’s Instagram posts either. An image ID goes like this:
[image id: an Instagram post showing a picture of whatever. The text says whatever. End id]
I’m told that also helps people using screen readers.
thanks!
Appeasement is sometimes good and necessary. Sometimes we need to reduce the temperature in the room with conciliatory words so that calm discussion can proceed, with that discussion about grievances hopefully moving us to understanding and maybe even to reform.
I’ve wondered if the new doctrine that women possess, hold, and exercise priesthood authority power is more in the way of appeasement or reform. As Angela C points out above, this is a relatively new teaching that was unheard of just a few years ago. Some doctrine is revealed line upon line, but some doctrine (dictionary definition, meaning that which is taught as true by a church) is reactionary. Reactionary doctrine can be dangerous and even wrong. (E.g.: Before 1978, church leaders created and taught doctrines why people with Black blood were excluded from the priesthood and temples, and post-1978 we now reject all of those doctrines as false.)
I would prefer an “I don’t know” answer over a “women exercise priesthood power every day” answer. Did peasants share royal power because the king entrusted them to grow crops and pay taxes, and because he fought his wars with their son’s bodies and blood (dulce et decorum est pro patria mori)? When things got bad and peasants were on the path to revolt, medieval kings and their bishops would sometimes address the people, to appease them: to tell them “we understand your plight and we’re working on a solution, now put down your pitchforks and go home.”
I am not sure that this message (women hold/exercise priesthood authority/power) persuades anyone. It doesn’t satisfy the feminists who want ordination and office (power), and the non-feminists know that women did great things before they held/exercised priesthood authority/power; this new teaching doesn’t give them anything that they lacked previously. Is our current doctrine about women holding priesthood power reactionary, or is it line upon line knowledge being revealed? I fear it might be the former.
I checked in on the post to read the comments and there were many thoughtful comments from active members expressing frustration and pain at the gaslighting. In addition, so many women listed great examples of the ways in which women are marginalized and powerless in the church.Â
 Â
I just went back to read more comments, and THE COMMENTS HAVE BEEN DELETED! (Some people are saying this is because of an instagram outage – I don’t know if that’s correct)
If the comments have actually been deleted it wouldn’t shock me. It would be right in line with the church’s habit of trying to obfuscate and hide the truth. The truth is that women are tired of the unequal treatment we receive at church. When you tell us we have more power than women in other churches, we KNOW you are not telling the truth. We know this, because we actually DO have real power in our professional work lives and it is easy to see that we are not afforded the same opportunities and respect at church.
Is the leadership blind to this because of age? It’s bewildering!
Malcolm Gladwell did a podcast about correcting racism in Ivy League schools and concluded that the best way to effect change is to vote with your feet by leaving – and make it public, as painful as that would be. Just sayin. 
Also encouraging 18 year olds to attend the temple without addressing the lack of informed consent is troubling. “Let’s lock in these vulnerable young women even earlier” is what I hear.
I second Janey’s comments about the Instagram link. I see nothing, but I’ve been made quite aware of what’s going on via other social media. The problem is I feel like I missed the party because the whole thing played out on a social network that I don’t belong to and am not interested in joining. But, it doesn’t take much imagination.
The frustration felt by current and former Mormon women is real. The Seventy who made the boneheaded decision to take away something from women that was apparently regarded as normal and routine in one part of the church seems to have stirred up something bigger than I would have expected. (Mistakes of that magnitude are no longer small local decisions in the internet era.) I don’t know what to expect from this. I do have hope for change in the long term, but not particularly in the short term. I think there are men in leadership who understand the problem and may even have some ideas for what to do about it. I think there are also men in leadership who don’t get it and seem pretty hopeless about ever getting it. One of them happens to be president of the church. In the church we measure the distance between the present and possible future progress in funerals, and we may still be a few funerals away.
Is it possible to access the comments somewhere, now that they’ve been deleted? Maybe someone made screenshots?
Can someone elaborate? “The Seventy who made the boneheaded decision to take away something from women that was apparently regarded as normal and routine in one part of the church…” I don’t know the story. What happened?
It looks like the comments may have been restored. (Ongoing restoration indeed!) I see nearly 11,000 when I go to the post.
Georgis: I’m guessing this is a reference to the recent crack down on women sitting on the stand in Northern California. I didn’t find a W&T post about it (I spent about 20 seconds looking) but there’s plenty of other commentary out there.
https://bycommonconsent.com/2023/11/26/women-%CC%B6o%CC%B6n%CC%B6-off-the-stand/
https://exponentii.org/blog/women-on-the-stand/
Kirkstall, the committee that deals with such comments that all the names and comments have been referred to is called The Strengthening the Members Committee, and church love counsels will be addressed shortly. 
I also could not see the instagram picture, but it was displayed on Exponent II, so I figured that was what it was about.
It is way past time that women stopped accepting this kind of gaslighting. not only do women have less authority in our church than other churches, we have less authority now than we did as women when we actually controlled Relief Society. The priesthood took that away when they wanted everything *under* the priesthood, so they did correlation and took away what little real power or authority women had.
As far as Oaks new doctrine, it is similar but less than what was taught 100 years ago. Back then, women believed and the men seemed to agree that women jointly held the priesthood of their temple sealed husband. Women who were endowed used that priesthood to give blessings with priesthood authority. the right to give healing blessings was taken away in 1930s. Then McConkie announced that whole idea as totally false. Now, under this new doctrine, we not only don’t have any power or authority of our own, or shared jointly with our husbands, we just get to “borrow” priesthood from whoever sets us apart in a calling. Really belittling.
Georgis,
DaveW is right. As I understand it, a protest movement had developed around the debacle in California, and there was some kind of planned walkout for last Sunday, which coincided with the Relief Society’s anniversary. Coincidentally (or maybe not, we can only speculate), there was an official Relief Society event last Sunday, in honor of the 182nd anniversary. A blurb from a talk given by one of the women leaders who spoke at the event became the Instagram post that generated all of the comments. So that’s the chain of events as I understand it, where one link in the chain might or might not actually be linked.
I participated multiple times on the church’s FB post which quoted Emily Dennis on how we Mormon women have more priesthood power than everyone else.
In one instance I responded in depth providing multiple scriptural and other references to one woman who said that no women have any authority in the Bible so why do we expect that the church would provide any.Lots of information on that topic showing women did have authority in Christ’s church.
Someone liked on my comment but when I clicked on the notification and tried to link back my post had disappeared.
So the church is afraid of women actually studying the scriptures and reading about Huldah, Deborah, Junia, Phoebe, Mary and Thecla. They don’t want us to actually read the Joseph Smith papers where Emma and counselors were ordained.
Hiding from the truth is unsustainable. The internet shouts this information from the rooftops.
Our leaders are stuck between the same rock and hard place that they were with the Blacks and the priesthood. They’ve spent decades reminding deacons that their priesthood is so important that John the Baptist himself delivered it, complete with the keys of the ministering of angels. But there was no analogous visitation by Miriam or Deborah or Anna or Mary to bestow authority on Emma, and now our leaders trying to figure out how to convince women that they aren’t missing out on anything important.
This is the plight of those who discriminate based on race, sex, or sexual orientation. In the end, the only way out is to make priesthood and marriage available to everyone.
It feels like this Instagram post was ghost-written by Brad Wilcox.
The Church claims its women are the best women and then they wonder why other religions don’t want to play with us. 
As they say, never read the comments. I hope in this case someone is reading the comments and feels what needs to be felt to really improve. Here’s hoping.
Chadwick, wasn’t the instagram post quoting one of the talks that one of the sister’s gave at the special conference that was for people to pay attention to instead of the protesters angry about women don’t even get to sit on the stand because they are SO important in the ward. But it sure did sound exactly like Brad Wilcox. Maybe Brad in drag? I mean, I wouldn’t have recognized any of the sister leaders to be able to really say it wasn’t Brad in drag.
Thanks for providing the description.
It’s all rather Orwellian, isn’t it? In George Orwell’s novel 1984, doublethink was all the thing. War is Peace. Slavery is Freedom. Ignorance is Strength. Redefining terms to mean their exact opposite is a sign of authoritarianism. In the LDS Church, “power and authority” when given to women means something very different than when “power and authority” are given to men.
Male power and authority includes making decisions and being the speaker. Female power and authority includes supporting men and raising the next generation of priesthood holders. I bet some of the comments in support of this quote are doing this – redefining power and authority because it’s different for women. Doublethink. Of course women have power and authority! It’s just different than men’s power and authority. Why? Because God loves us so much.
I second Lizzie’s reference to having power and authority at work. I’m in a position of authority, one of the few women who is. The men I work with aren’t bothered by it. I’m treated equally and I really really like it.
@Janey – love the insight of “you have power and authority because we’ve defined women’s power and authority as X and you have X. [Ignore actual dictionary or common-english definition of power and authority.]”
@Anna yes there is a @mention in the post to whichever female said this (to prove the point made on the Jubilee episode about Mormons vs non-Mormons, I have no idea who she is even though I can probably still name the 15 men by heart). I merely meant that reading it took me back to Brad Wilcox mocking other churches for playing church while also mocking his daughters for pretending they could administer the bread and water.
If this happens to come up in conversation with my awesome TBM daughter, I’ll try to, as gently as I can, ask how it would be if all institutions followed the church model.
Sheri Dew said something very similar to Sister Dennis’s statement over 10 years ago in her What Do LDS Women Get talk…
link didn’t show up so here it is: https://youtu.be/8EZYlEpBbIk?si=UedtZ39vEXTBuXHJ
It wasn’t convincing then and it’s even less convincing now
We really need to stomp out this trend of LDS speakers trying to make the Church and LDS faith community look better by denigrating the faith and religious practices of others. To put it simply, it is less than charitable, and violates the Lord’s commands to “love thy neighbor as thyself,” not bear false witness and not judge others. By today’s standards it is highly ethnocentric. 
I have been cared for by Catholic nuns in a hospital, worked with social services provided by many faiths and visited multiple congregations and religious leaders. I count some of these people as cherished friends. It never once crossed my mind that the faith and desire to approach the Divine was somehow lesser by those practicing faiths other than my own. God bless them all!
Eliza R Snow, as a RS leader in Utah, advocated against women’s suffrage. Yes, you heard that right. The woman who wrote the invocation to heavenly parents and preserved that beautiful truth, shot her fellow sisters in the foot about suffrage.
Her arguments were eerily similar to the recent church post and talks. Essentially- “worldly” feminism and suffrage is misguided, LDS women already possess true equality with men (from the temple rites) and therefore inherently carry more privilege than all other groups of women. Voting was superfluous. She argued that LDS women need not follow the worldly feminist ways- our peculiar way is better.
Today, I think most devout LDS women would argue we are still pursuing not the progressive leftist way, or fully aligned with the right-winged way, but follow a higher- better- “third” way. It just needs time to evolve.
Eliza actually wielded tremendous power, much more than today’s RS General Presidents. She ate breakfast daily with Brigham, lived in his house, and served as one of if not his most trusted advisor. That was power. She and seven other wives essentially led women’s ordinances not as wives of temple presidents, but as overseeing and corrective implants from Brigham himself. They led the women’s organizations for decades, and founded and operated the LDS hospital system. They founded and then sat on the boards for emerging universities, stake academies, and other church and local schools. Additionally, they managed a much greater portion of the church’s welfare system, managed their own granaries, oversaw the building and Maintenence of RS buildings across the west, and independently raised and managed large coffers. They wrote their own curriculums, published their own magazines, and did so without the correlation committee or the micromanagement of the brethren. Granted- these activities occurred under the church umbrella (led by a man), but they were executed with a type of independence that compares with nothing we know of today.
This western colonizer, Eliza the organizer, viewed voting as a relic of the wayward government that actively fought against the saints (Missouri Mormon War).
I love Eliza, the poetess prophetess, dearly. As a survivor, poetess and spiritual leader, she is my heroine. But, sadly she was blind to her privilege, deaf or disconnected to the great suffragists of her time like Elizabeth Cady Stanton. She actually shared a great deal in common with Anthony and Stanton (who also taught of an heavenly mother), but sadly, Eliza discounted them.
But just because Eliza wielded unparalleled power (for a man or a woman at that time) doesn’t mean that the average women she served did. As a matter of fact- Eliza was dead wrong about throwing away their votes and, used her power to do her sisters a tremendous disservice . Sadly, I have to admit that turning the Mormon sisters into a voting body democratized many issues that she and the inner circle were perfectly happy controlling themselves.
I think today’s women in the red seats are similarly blinded by their privilege (cough cough Sheri Dew), and potentially threatened by the idea of fully empowering the LDS sisterhood. At the very least, they perpetuate the myth that some sort of godly alternative will grow that surpasses the “worldly” feminist ways. But, just keep waiting and (whew!) no change is needed or happening today.
The RS has been:
*pro polygamy
*anti-suffrage
* anti-ERA
*anti equal pay and women in the workforce
*pro Trump
* anti- Worldwide Women’s March of 2017 (a protest against the Trump administration and reproductive, civil, and human rights)
*grossly silent when pivotal women’s and family issues arise across the world
*anti LGBT
*anti-reproductive health and choice
*anti female ordination (even from the Kate Kelly days)
*complacent and participatory with minor and even cosmetic, but insubstantial support for women
*anti women attending the priesthood session of conference
I’m saddened and frustrated by its leaders choices and the collective sisterhood’s compliance with ways that do not forward our millennial goals or acknowledge our divine nature.
I vote with my feet and don’t attend these RS meetings, although I delight in the company of my sisters. I know I will be patronised in them and withdraw my permission for someone else to do so, and do not accept their right to have an opinion on my life and choices.
I have also been wondering, what actually is priesthood? I don’t acknowledge it’s right to control my life, and don’t ask for it’s permission.
Mortimer, agree with most of your post, but the reality is Mormon women were for suffrage.
Utah was the first state with the women’s vote (and yes, it was partially to give Mormons more voting power than the non/ex Mormons).
I would love to see the next step as women reclaiming the authority Eliza already has as you outlined.
@jpv – it was to give Mormons more votes to preserve polygamy. Mormon women were then as they are now used as tools to meet male leaders’ aims.
yep.
I happen to think more of my Mormon (metaphorical) foremothers.
jpv and Eliza, I though Wyoming was the first state to grant the vote to women in order to attract women to settle there.
Yes, despite Eliza R Snow’s apathy and even derision of suffrage, it went forward. Just sharing her personal beliefs about suffrage.
@jpv, I just resent the way the history is twisted to try to show Utah was somehow forward thinking when it came to women’s roles—let’s be real about what was going on. Utah is a shit place for women. That’s not a knock on the women themselves.
Wyoming was the first to permit votes for women, but Utah had an election before they did, so were the first where women cast their vote (assuming I remember correctly). The RS president asked me to prepare a lesson on the topic a lot of years ago now. I do remember saying to her that I wouldn’t be able to do so without talking about polygamy, and that was okayed.
Just saw that the Instagram post and subsequent reaction made the New York Times. What a spectacular PR fail for the church.
Utah was one of the first states that gave women the right to vote… but then they TOOK IT BACK when they wanted statehood. As far as I know, Utah is the only state that did that.
I love this about the deleted IG comments in the NYT article so much: “In a comment on the post and in emails to The Times, the church blamed an Instagram glitch. A spokesman for Meta, which owns Instagram, said there was no issue that had affected comments.”
It’s so satisfying to see them run so catastrophically and totally into the limits of their power. They can gaslight their IG followers and members. But the NYT can sort out those lies in a phone call and twenty-four syllables.
It’s almost like they no idea what they’re doing.
*they’ve
President Camille Johnson says the deleted comments were restored. She promises to read every last comment. (I think this was posted at the top of the FB comments). I wrote her a long letter in the FB comments. I also had a great time reading and supporting lots of realistic comments from women explaining why Emily Dennis’ comments claiming LDS women have more priesthood power than other women was false and hurtful.
I enjoyed responding to many people pushing back on these women and providing some information on Joseph Smith papers and Relief Society history, Biblical history on women and other issues. Maybe no one’s listening. But I had a good time expressing myself, and lots of other women did too. Way more fun than sitting in silence.
I am writing in regards to the mistaken idea that Utah was giving women the vote before any other territory.
Several commentors have pointed out that Wyoming and also Colorado had given women the vote before they joined the Union as a state when then the women lost their voting rights.
Utah had a huge problem with polgamy in that the residents of Utah applied for and were refused Statehood as long as they engaged in this sexual behavior, it kept them from joing the Union.
The Utah politicians finally had to give this embarrasing sexual behavior the boot in order to finally become a State.
It is pretty funny to me, a convert, to watch the now Mormon church leaders either not talk about polygamy at all or to still try to make it look as if it is a God given Christian teaching and belief and the rest of the Christian world is far behind in not accepting this but will eventually come to see the wisdom of polygamy.
Never ever going to happen, the Mormons will be the odd one out until they finally admit that their sexual behavior in the early church was man made and forced on the members.
I could be in the minority here but I don’t think it will be too long (20ish years) before the tides turn for the church. There just won’t be many women left to put up with the patriarchy. Gen X and older are fully baked into church practice and thought. Though more and more of us Gen Xers are not falling in line anymore as evidenced in social media. My four daughters (one teen and 20’s) are all owning the way they interact with the church. They’re not putting up with the tired lines the church is teaching about women. Most of my BYU student’s roommates hang at Starbucks and are at BYU for the education and not religious indoctrination. The majority of my daughters’ friends don’t attend church or believe in the same way anymore. I guess the men can staff all these new temples because I think the active females will be in serious decline.
@lws interesting. Camille is a smart lady. There is no way she is not already aware of these complaints.
I’d be more impressed if someone said that Nelson was reading them.
Yeah. I think she was just trying to help us feel heard, which is worth something.
I am not convinced the men listen to the female leaders anyway. I mean they don’t have to with patriarchal structures. It’s their prerogative to do what they do and veto what they don’t like. If they listen to the female leaders it’s purely unnecessary benevolence.
I can’t help but feel the women leaders are mostly just ornamental cheer leaders. Really women’s leadership and organization is under the control of their bishops and other women leaders are superfluous. At least that’s what I came to feel in my stake primary presidency. I hope it’s different for Camille
Unfortunately, understanding the church as a collective motivation’s and policies makes a lot more sense as seen through the prism of organizational power, authority, and “relevance” then it did back then.
To my mind, the end goal of all these conversations is validation of Deborah Tannen’s “men tend to talk in hierarchy, women tend to talk in social networks” theory. I feel that the church policy is overbalanced with “talking over” the needs of the members in part because of the organizational balance. And I feel that way in part because I am biologically female and I have learned how to “talk in social networks” even though it isn’t an innate trait that I personally have.