There’s some chatter in online Mormonism about this leaked video of President Oaks speaking in Belgium and saying not much has been revealed about Heavenly Mother, or mothers, for whatever reason.
First of all, this is why in the past 10+ years in LDS feminist spaces, I’ve told women really hoping and seeking further revelation on Heavenly Mother to not ask our current leaders for their ideas on the matter. These are men whose parents were alive during polygamy and lived through the bumpy path of ending polygamy in this life. I believe most of these leaders don’t want to talk about Heavenly Mother because you can’t talk about her without talking about polygamy–and that’s something they’d like to leave in our past. Their current public stance is that it’s an old, ancient thing we have no association today. Yet most of our leaders DO have sealings to multiple women and look forward to those eternal relationships. I also think most of them believe that the central gender role for women is reproduction. So not only would a discussion of heavenly mother veer into polygamy beliefs immediately, but with embodied gods we’re also getting into race and heteronormativity, etc, and it all veers quickly to messy issues they’d like to ignore.
I also want to be clear: I am not against multiple sealings between women and men. This is one of the things that frustrates me the most: the church leaning into what I consider weak apologetic arguments for polygamy in the past (increased fertility/population numbers have been debunked, folks) and then trying to gaslight us into thinking we don’t believe in it at all today. It was just a temporary blip in our existence. We actually have reasonable justification for multiple sealings: we believe that our relationships on earth will mirror our relationships in heaven, and we want those to be sealed by the Holy Ghost, permanently linking us to the eternal family of God.
I have a direct ancestor who married her high school sweetheart as a teenager. He died in a train crash at 19 when she was pregnant with her second baby. She eventually married another widower who also had his own kids. They went on to have three children together. She wasn’t sealed to either man while they were alive, and near the end of her life, she decided she wanted to be sealed to one and have some of her kids be sealed to her in this life. Everyone knew that when she passed on, the sealing rules allowed them to perform the sealing of the spouse and children of the second group, but she still had to choose only one now. The group that was left out had the bitterest-sweet experience of watching their mother be sealed to some of their siblings — but not them. This was an entirely avoidable situation if our sealing practices were equal and fair. I absolutely believe in the next life this yours/mine/ours family will have their love and relationships honored. I believe these four men and women will have bonds that echo the love and complicated lives they lived on earth, and that God will not require my ancestor to choose only one of these men to be sealed to.
I also believe that it’s good that Elder Oaks wants to be and will be sealed to both of his wives in the next life, as long as he has consent. He would never want to choose, and shouldn’t have to, nor should a woman. It’s perhaps 1) a lack of imagination, or 2 ) not putting himself in a woman’s shoes, or 3) even not wanting to change long-held teachings of leaders before you, or 4) a mix of all three …..which keeps our unequal gendered sealing policies we live by in this life. I don’t see the harm in equalizing sealing practices and allowing men and women to have multiple sealings while alive, with the same clause stating that “everything will be worked out in the next life, and no one will be unhappy.”
The only reason we cannot do that is that we still believe and live by a polygamous hierarchical order in the next. Men can be sealed to multiple women if one has passed away, but a woman cannot. A woman gets only ONE sealing to a man in their lifetime–the only way for a woman to have a second sealing is to obtain a cancelation, and traditionally, those have been nearly impossible to come by and usually only with undeniable evidence of abuse. (There’s some anecdotal evidence this has lightened up and is easier to achieve?) Men can be sealed to multiple living women with a divorce and a clearance from the First Presidency, and they don’t need to have consent from their ex-wife.
When I took a Family History class from Doug Ladle at Ricks College, he explained our Polygamy practices by discussing the roles men and women have: men’s role is to GOVERN, and women’s role is to NURTURE. That’s why polygamy works in the order of heaven (and here he drew it out on the board like a pyramid MLM): men can fulfill their roles as governors over multiple women, but women can not have two governors over her. That’s the internal logic of our sealing practices, even though we have morphed our public beliefs (see the classic Chicken Patriarchy essay) about parents being “co-equal” leaders–our practices and policies are built on old doctrine and beliefs. We did change our sealing wording from where women give themselves to men, but men did not give themselves to women (bc polygamy). Still, when our leaders made that change, they ensured that a paragraph was added about how men are presiders over the family unit. There are also other places in the temple where wording differs by gender, allowing for a husband/god over multiple wives being “unto” him. We’re holding and living both teachings at the same time; there is no other reason for them not to change our sealings or temple wording to make them equal and equitable.
I am only interested in a doctrine of Heavenly Mother who is co-equal in power and not defined by reproduction. I’m not going to claim that I know anything about the next life (and wish more people, including leaders, would adopt the same stance), but I’m not convinced that eternal “creation” happens in the same way we think of human reproduction. And if any part of Doctrine & Covenants 132 is in the LDS Celestial Kingdom, I’d like to nope out to somewhere else. Please reread 132 with a lens of being someone who has never heard of the church, and you have no natural inclination to defend or try to soften its edges. Then get back to me.
It is okay to not be okay with this LDS version of the afterlife. It’s okay to have a different idea of how heaven is structured.
For example, I’d like to share a story that begins when I was the receptionist in President Bednar’s office at BYU-Idaho. He was also an area authority who visited stake conferences, and I helped by sending information about how he wanted the stake president to structure the meeting (the unwritten order of things, a nod to Elder Packer). Included were instructions that women not speak last in any of the Stake Conference meetings (also, they could only offer one of the prayers, I forget which one we were banned from). I had a stake president call me back a little flabbergasted, saying he was so surprised because he’d always assumed these gendered speaking/praying things were rogue folk practices. “I guess I was wrong,” he said.
Fifteen years later, I, a pants-to-church woman, moved into the Rexburg ward where Elder Bednar had lived. It took me a while to realize and pick up on it, but they did not allow women to speak last. The one time they asked me to speak, it was on Mother’s Day. With my background of infertility and experiencing my share of painful Mother’s Day talks, I was excited I could give one based on Eshet Chayil (Hebrew for Woman of Valor) that I learned from Rachel Held Evans: it’s not a woman’s role, but their character that makes them valiant. And then I would share stories of married, single, and infertile women who were Eshet Chayil. I asked the bishopric if I could speak last to have enough time to deliver a talk that I hoped would not hurt anyone in the pews that day. My bishopric was so disturbed by a pants-wearing woman requesting the last spot, they said they’d only let me talk if I cleared the whole thing in person with one of them first. I was very hurt, but was convinced that being able to give it was worth it. FYI they woke up on the day of and still insisted that the bishop provide closing remarks. I let it slide, and the stake presidency member there said it was one of the best talks he’d ever heard.
A few years later, I was called as bulletin coordinator, and it started bothering me to the point I reached out to an acquaintance in the new stake presidency to ask them to address women not speaking last in a training meeting. (Keep in mind, asking for women to speak last is CRUMBS) I’d recently brought another idea to him, and the stake presidency responded with a new policy that allowed for it. He encouraged me to reach out again because they believed revelation worked from the bottom up, too. Instead, he emailed back asking to meet with me one-on-one. Not knowing what I was walking into, I left my temple recommend at home just in case he wanted to revoke it (?!). My husband thought I was ridiculous for risking my good standing by advocating at all (for women). Apparently, the leader felt the same way, because he chastised me for being prideful enough to think I could correct a leader. He told me that even if my leaders are wrong, it’s not for me to disagree but only to submit and follow. He also suggested I stop speaking evil of the Lord’s anointed. He said that I cared too much about women’s issues and not the Lord’s issues, that heaven/patriarchal order are based on submission and I should do well to work on my own.
Now, at this point in my faith shift, I have rejected the order of submission that Umbrella Theology is based on. After years of questioning and studying church history (and US history, the civil rights movement, Black womanist theology, etc.) I feel that the spirit confirmed to me that heaven is built on interdependence. Most of you would not be surprised I did not accept all of this, and I gently pushed back by responding:
- Aren’t women’s issues the Lord’s issues?
- I don’t believe heaven is built on a system of submission, but rather on one of interdependence.
- Aren’t we all the Lord’s anointed (who have gone to the temple)?
He wasn’t pleased with my inability to simply accept and submit to his gentle correction (I actually have gentle negotiation skills on heated topics in tricky situations), but we both ended the meeting amicably, though with a warning; he was worried about my pending road to apostasy. Honestly, people can think what they want. In my faith journey, I had enough development of independence and understanding of a personal relationship with. my Savior / God I knew (and know) that no one in an organization can disrupt that–even if he revoked my recommend, that didn’t make me less worthy or have a lesser faith or discipleship or relationship with God. I work out all of that on my own.
This is a really long way to say: the way we conceive the order of heaven has a lot to do with our beliefs in the role of women, polygamy, and the LDS doctrine of Heavenly Mother.
Joseph Smith taught and clumsily practiced (to put it mildly) a concept of a weblike network of relational sealings that mirrored the various types of relationships we have in this life, including romantic, friendship, platonic, and other forms of relationships. It was later that leaders spoke about how men collecting wives and children adds to the greatness and glory they can attain in the next life.
The challenge leaders face is that they’re currently teaching more of an egalitarian gendered practice, with a ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ it will all work out, and “Let’s not talk about Bruno (the polygamy we actually believe and practice with our policies).” They know this is a pain point, even if some of them have made it a punchline in general conference, and with statistics showing Gen Z women’s rates of leaving are higher than men’s — they certainly would like to let the sleeping dog (heavenly mother(s) lie.
Post Script, in case it’s clear as mud: I’m not sure I believe in embodied gods in the next life, but if I do, it is not one where men are in a gendered hierarchy over women in a one-to-many relationship. A many-to-many network of sealings? A council of mixed-gendered eternal beings deciding and creating (no viviparous spirit births!) together? Sure. But if our current leaders are referring to heavenly mothERS, that’s not at ALL what they mean.
Wheat & Tares 
Maybe the translating is throwing him off but he’s not sounding good. That was all just very weird.
It’s so ironic (actually it’s not) that Oaks made this little slip the other day given his 2019 GC talk in which he dismissed a woman’s concern about what eternity was going to look like. So he dismisses that concern publicly in 2019 and then six years later gives this same woman a reason to worry about “mothers” i.e., “wives”. Good job Oaks.
in the instagram comments at LDSChangemakers someone shared he spoke to a group of YW last year in Arizona and he made the same mention of Heavenly Mother or MothERS. So it seems like it’s more than just a slip up and he has purposely made a pattern of mentioning it.
One result of these comments by Oaks is they ‘prepare’ those who hear him to prepare for/expect it–to think about it more. Maybe he’s hoping to reinstate it if/when he gets the chance to be ‘unleashed.’ Of course, it would have the opposite effect on those of us who are apalled by the inequality of it all. But I’m not sure the leadership cares much about those with concerns on the matter (cue the clip with the laughter), as the OP noted. Disturbing that’s what I say.
I really don’t think they’re interested in reinstating it — it would risk all of their conservative Christian alliances at a time of crackdown on anything not kosher with those types. Nelson’s been really hoping for mainstream acceptance from protestants, as we’ve generic-ified ourselves in a lot of ways.
I see it more likely Oaks thinks he’s planting seeds for future leaders to build on, IF he believes it’s coming back…. and not just nostalgic for both of the wives he’s loved and can tell he’s close and looking forward to getting heaven with them both.
John Dehlin says polygamy makes women pennies to a man’s dime, and he’s got that right. I mentioned on another post that Victorian politician Virginia Hull said that when men reduce women to our reproductive capabilities, they see us as animals, not humans. Humans have thoughts and minds. Animals just reproduce. That was her perspective. Women aren’t people to these polygamists, and that certainly includes Oaks. He sees us as a whole different species.
Either Oaks is the most arrogant tone-deaf church leader alive today, or he’s whistling past the graveyard with this one. I suspect that he does in fact believe that polygamy is every (righteous) man’s reward in the eternities. How could it be otherwise? He’s already got a head start on his own harem.
Of course Oaks believes in eternal polygamy. He probably still believes polygamy will be brought back, maybe not in his lifetime, but for sure his grandchildren’s. Those of us over 70 grew up in a church that openly taught that polygamy would be restored on this earth before the second coming, or maybe just after, but we would all be walking back to Jackson county and we might as well plan on polygamy because most likely the US government was going to fall apart or be destroyed, and our economy would collapse, and we would all be walking back to Jackson county about the year 2000, so plan on it. The Saints would set up and build a temple and all things would be restored and polygamy was a big part of that. Oaks, yeah he was probably teaching it in Sundayschool in the 1960s. Back in those days we were still proud to be a peculiar people and emphasized the big differences between us and those other nasty Christians who belonged to the Great and Abominable. We didn’t try to cosy up to Protestants and convince them we were really Christian. We looked down our noses at them and were so proud that we were nothing like them. I remember in seminary the teacher was going on about how it wasn’t going to be long before some vague disaster would happen and we would all have to put our food storage into handcarts, so make sure it is portable, and that you know how to cook over an open fire. And most of the men would probably be dead because of that scripture that says in the last days 7 women will grab onto one man, and so polygamy would be brought back because the women would insist. And at that point in the lesson all the boys were sure they would get 7 beautiful girls, not that they would be the dead ones, and they were all gloating about how we girls would be throwing ourselves at them. Very gleeful about the polygamy idea, looking at us girls like we were ice cream in July. And us girls were, “I’d rather die.” I remember this and Oaks is 20 older than I am. It was a different church back then.
By the 60s the church was trying to end speculation about the return of polygamy and they got real quiet about it like they were ashamed of it. By the 70s and 80s the church stopped pushing so hard for food storage and started cautioning people that we really don’t know when the second coming is going to happen and got embarrassed over being associated with the FLDS kept insisting “we are not them,” and embarrassed over the whole looking down on other churches. By the 90s they had even pulled the evil preacher out of the temple ceremony and were trying to convince the Protestants that we were not evil by being very nice to them.
Elisa, he also spoke that evening at a Europe-wide broadcast from Brussels. He did seem significantly frailer.
I wouldn’t be surprised if, after RMN and DHO are “released” from their current callings, a successor decides to do away with multiple posthumous sealings altogether, and I would welcome it. Aside from the current top 2, I am unaware of any LDS apostle in recent memory who has chosen to remarry after losing his wife.
At any rate, I still find the practice abhorrent, since it conveniently sidesteps consent. Dantzel Nelson and June Oaks certainly didn’t get a vote.
And we really need to keep talking about Heavenly Mother(s). Eventually the Church will have to come clean and make a definitive doctrinal pronouncement on the subject, one way or the other.
Men and women can be equal but different. A tree has branches and a canopy–both elements are very different. Which is more important?
Jack, yes, men and women can be different and still be equal. But there is no way that 47 wives can be equal to one husband. Or is your math REALLY that bad? Or do you not know the definition of equal? Or do you just parrot the church crap no matter how illogical and stupid? Never mind, I think I know. Allowing men to be sealed to multiple women and not expecting them to have to choose between is NOT equal. Talking about “heavenly mothers” being careful not to capitalize as if they are deity is NOT equal. It is saying the male is God and the female is a concubine because that is the definition of a wife of much lower social status.
So just stop repeating the church’s stupid idea that 2 through 5,000 equals 1 and presided *over* is still “equal.” There is no way in Mormon theology that women are “equal” unless your definition on of equal is “very unequal”.
The interesting thing about conversations about polygamy accidentally become conversations about what sealing individuals together for the afterlife and marriage really mean. Part of this is that there was an evolution in the theology that Joseph Smith was teaching that led into how later prophets thought and taught about it intertwined with cultural and legal ramifications symbolized by the U.S. government’s intervention.
A sterile interpretation of polygamy is just a divine team project with interchangeable team members providing impersonal services in the realm of project creation and project management. This reduces the sealing process to a security key card/social club access that technically doesn’t require any additional interaction between individuals once team roles are assigned. But this isn’t the functional framework narrative that anyone was selling about polygamy (except hinted as a defense tactic by some individuals).
The obliquely spoken expectations around marriage have intensified over the last few years as family structures became the nuclear structure we know and love. There are so many more executive functioning requirements for living a life in terms of education, employment, location, care standards, ect. AND so many competing voices about how to go about them. Narrowing down family relationships to the nuclear family husband-wife duo has increased the expectation that men and women provide emotional support to their spouse (and the stakes have raised because either side can actually leave through divorce).
Even our language around “creation” revolves around the association of creating children is usually a very good experience for men and a variable level of enjoyable experience for women. Add to the next levels of “creation” being the female body’s mysterious way to expand to produce and feed children (romanticized to remove some of the pain of it), and how women seem to mysteriously be able to “create” what people need easier then men (giving a care and training oneself how to serve others will do that for an individual) continues the creation myth.
The uncomfortable truth about taking about polygamy without authorizing polyandry means that women are put in competition with each other to provide what a man needs (companionship, sex, executive functioning, whatever) in an environment primed to reduce and dismiss the needs of women prior to imposing that expectation onto them. Assuming that the women do not compete with each other and do not fight, their collective organizing power means that they will manage the man as an object within their relationships (which is also omitted from our general conversation).
In that leaked video Oaks said something to the effect of, for reasons unknown to us the lord has not revealed much about Heavenly Mother.
James 1:5 “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.” This verse is a rather famous one within LDS vernacular, claiming that Joseph Smith learned something as he stumbled upon this verse in the book of James, that revelation begins with a willing curiosity. Is Elder Oaks suggesting they have asked, but God is withholding information from them, that his supposed liberality has morphed into a right-wing stinginess. Or is he admitting they have failed to adhere to the same verse in James that launched the “restoration”? Either way, the finger seems to be pointed squarely at God for our lack of acknowledging the spiritual Mother of all mankind.
There is also a polarity between external and internal authority. When Oaks talks about revelation, he seems to completely outsource decision making to an external power. When does the burden shift from waiting for an external command and listening to the God that dwells within? My question to Oaks or any of the LDS leaders would be, do you believe it’s wrong to exclude equal time to our divine Mother figure? If the answer is Yes, then what are you waiting for? The revelation has happened and its now waiting for you to adhere to it. Does God ever expect us to actually use “Agency” and exercise some discernment in the face of moral incongruency? The tension that exists between obedience and agency has all but been destroyed by the obsession with external authority as the primary objective. H L Menken put it this way; “Obedience is doing what you’re told regardless of what is right, Morality is doing what is right regardless of what you are told”. Oaks and all of us will likely posit many more ideas about Heavenly Mother the second we give attention to her. The reason we profess to know nothing is not because God has gone dark on the subject, it’s because we refuse to remove the blinders so we can see what is already available.
It seems juvenile, but saying the reason we know very little about Heavenly Mother is because God hasn’t told us yet is akin to continuing to abuse cocaine because nobody has told me to stop. Now, much like addiction, changing course often requires intervention because willpower has been swallowed up by cognitive automation. This is not a judgement on those who find themselves in addiction, I have been there myself, it’s meant to say LDS leadership is addicted to their own way of thinking and seems unable to exercise their own God given power to choose, requiring other brave souls to step up and provide some assistance.
Oaks seems to be waiting for the cosmos to scream “Jump”, and forgetting that “the still small” voice, the one poking from the inside out, is being silenced by an expectation of some bolder external manifestation.
First, let’s celebrate a post by Kristine. This should happen every week.
Second, LDS leaders have fiddled around a lot with sealing practices over the years — and they will certainly continue to do so. Just imagine a few million dead Mormons getting to the pearly gates and inquiring of the guardian angels posted there about who they can be sealed to (making up for lapses in earthly life, as we are now told will be done in heaven) or what earthly sealing will, in fact, be honored in heaven. It seems inconceivable that Brother Admin Angel would say, “What year were you sealed?”, then look up in the Great Handbook in the Sky what sealing regime applies to the inquirer. If there is justice in heaven, everyone will get equal treatment. God is no respecter of persons.
In other words, if there is a One True Set of Sealing Rules, it’s not what we have now or had in the past, because it will all change again. So while it matters emotionally to people in the here and now who they are sealed to, and even who deceased grandad is sealed to, objectively we don’t know what the Final Set of Rules will be or how we will be treated under those rules.
That’s the insider perspective — if you are believing LDS and have a strong conviction that LDS sealings actually control who you can associate with in the hereafter. If you are an outsider, none of this really matters. If you are living on the fringe, I guess you get to decide whether you wring your hands over this or that sealing, or whether you just roll your eyes and try to focus on living a good life and helping those around you.
Responding to toddsmithson:
In the OP, Kristine states that “I’ve told women really hoping and seeking further revelation on Heavenly Mother to not ask our current leaders for their ideas on the matter.” I wholeheartedly endorse her advice, although not necessarily her reasoning. Even if polygamy (which seems to be driving her advice) is off the table, gender roles will always be on the table and in the eternities, those must be negotiated, not imposed. A revelation about Heavenly Mother coming through a man will always carry the taint of imposed gender roles, no matter the actual content of the revelation. (To date, however, I am no more impressed by the ideas about Heavenly Mother coming from women than I am in the “too sacred to talk about” argument coming from men.)
The “negotiated gender roles” idea made an appearance in Hawkgirl’s “Choosing the Bear” post from a couple of weeks ago. As I stated in my very unpopular comment on that thread, I am in favor of such negotiations and I believe they could lead to a highly functional result, but I see no way short of eliminating the size and strength advantage of men, that they could achieve true equality.
Jack,Jack Jack
To quote Animal Farm–“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”
This brings to mind the theory that the rise of Animal Husbandry led to woman being treated as breeding stock. In the age of automation and AI overlords, it beyond asinine the doubling down on gendered nonsense. But then how else is control maintained. but by hierarchy and othering people. Just give some people the blessing to persecute other people.
@Jack, it seems like you might easily have made this similar statement back in 1977, “Black and white people can be equal but different. A tree has branches and a canopy–both elements are very different. Which is more important?” That explanation for why black people couldn’t hold the priesthood or enter the temple obviously would not have aged well. I suggest that this same explanation for why women can’t be sealed to more than one man, can’t be the last speaker in Church meetings, can only give one prayer in Church meetings will age just as poorly.
“A tree has branches and a canopy–both elements are very different. Which is more important?”
I can’t help myself here. Can a tree have a canopy without branches? Can a tree have branches without a canopy? According to Google AI, the answers are no and yes, respectively.
So it would appear that branches are more important. But who are the branches and who are the canopy? Asking for a fellow apostate.
What toddsmithson said. It blows my mind that God cannot/will not answer questions about our mother or give our queer community a theology that isn’t deeply depressing but is more than eager to answer questions about church length, ear piercings, temple spire heights, sleeveless garments (ok that’s important), or equity investment strategies. Either God isn’t so great after all or our leaders are still asking her the wrong things.
“Eventually the Church will have to come clean and make a definitive doctrinal pronouncement on the subject, one way or the other.”
Where God has not spoken, I prefer for men not to make definitive doctrinal pronouncements.
I differ from some (many?) Latter-day Saints. They seem to look beyond the mark, towards Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother(s), and to think of creating worlds in the next life. But I think this is unnecessary and maybe even, well, looking beyond the mark. To me, Jesus is our exemplar and our savior, and I want to look solely to him. One day, I hope to be a joint heir with Jesus in all that the Father has. That is sufficient for me, even though I don’t know what it means and I reject what most other Latter-day Saints say about it. After all, we aren’t called The Church of Heavenly Parents of Latter-day Saints.
I understand and endorse a little wondering about mysteries, and friendly discussion of possibilities in family or non-official-church spaces, but I prefer for official church doctrine and teachings to be simple and based on scripture and revelation. I am okay with God revealing whatever he wants to reveal, but I am hesitant to hope for church leaders to make pronouncements without revelation but nonetheless with the claimed or implied imprimatur of revelation — I simply don’t trust men to get it right by themselves.
I acknowledge that heavenly mother(s) is within our discussion space legitimately because our own leaders (without revelation) have put it there. I wish they hadn’t put it there — it was included in the family proclamation, but I wish it wasn’t.
I realize my thoughts will be problematic both for conservative Latter-day Saints as well as for more progressive Latter-day Saints, albeit for different reasons. I don’t want to anger anyone (everyone?) by sharing this here, but only to allow for another perspective.
It is great that some of you are saying just focus on Christ and don’t worry about the rest. But then, why be Mormon? The church certainly doesn’t focus on Jesus, but spends 90% of the time on temple, covenants, tithing, gender roles, priesthood, obedience and not morality, and other topics that are not really about living a Christlike life. Sure, Nelson has tried to increase the focus on Christ, which is why it is up to 10% Christ focused instead of the 3 to 5 percent it used to be. The church focuses so much on all the other crap that I found it really hard to even remember my focus on Christ. And when I realized that I spent most of my brain power on not hating the sexist a**hat Mormon God, that I really struggled with anything else.
This is what Mormon men don’t get when they laugh off things like polygamy, or say to just not worry about it. The huge focus on all this other stuff which is highly sexist makes Mormon women distrust God. Does Mormon God love his daughters. You wouldn’t think so if you really pay attention in the temple and know that they have changed it from very very sexist to only slightly hidden sexism. I really struggled to even trust God, let alone feel loved. I didn’t feel half safe. I finally had to throw out everything Mormon to even find Jesus Christ buried under all the obedience, temple, covenants. Polygamy matters because if God loves his sons but not his daughters, then how am I as a female supposed to trust him? I can’t just focus on Jesus unless I know this sexist crap is false and I have been hurt too badly by the sexist crap to relax with “just trust me” kind of placating remarks. It feels like a trap. Relax my guard so the church can smash me again, no thanks. It matters what the church *really* believes because it is a trust issue.
I found I could not trust Mormonism and their view of God, so I got out to protect myself. This stuff does matter if it makes it so you cannot trust God.
lastlemming: “Even if polygamy (which seems to be driving her advice) is off the table, gender roles will always be on the table and in the eternities, those must be negotiated, not imposed. A revelation about Heavenly Mother coming through a man will always carry the taint of imposed gender roles, no matter the actual content of the revelation.”
to me, the crux is gender roles (hierarchies). I stated I did not mind polygamy if it’s practiced without hierarchy and role. My problem isn’t polygamy per se (as evidenced by my support for my grandmother’s multiple sealings), but all of our current leaders (and most members) cannot conceive of gender in this life or the next without hierarchy/roles …. so a discussion of polygamy will trigger my (and many women’s) ick factor.
I find myself in a new and strange space of agreeing with both
JI: “I understand and endorse a little wondering about mysteries, and friendly discussion of possibilities in family or non-official-church spaces, but I prefer for official church doctrine and teachings to be simple and based on scripture and revelation. I am okay with God revealing whatever he wants to reveal, but I am hesitant to hope for church leaders to make pronouncements without revelation but nonetheless with the claimed or implied imprimatur of revelation — I simply don’t trust men to get it right by themselves.”
AND Anna: “This is what Mormon men don’t get when they laugh off things like polygamy, or say to just not worry about it. The huge focus on all this other stuff which is highly sexist makes Mormon women distrust God. Does Mormon God love his daughters. You wouldn’t think so if you really pay attention in the temple and know that they have changed it from very very sexist to only slightly hidden sexism.”
Today? I want to leaders to be general and bland and not make any statements of their current thoughts in a way that will take years/decades/generations to ignore and play them down and change direction. If we had different leaders maybe I would be asking for more revelation, but from what I’ve seen so far the last 44 years? I’m good with their silence.
And YET? If we can’t do some weeding in our own gardens and pull out the harmful old beliefs and structures our traditions are built on? Yeah I don’t trust that either. It’s all one big mess of chicken patriarchy, where they can claim any position to any audience and … be right. Cling to the old stuff silently, while building on top of it with new shiny words. What a shaky foundation.
Apostle L. Tom Perry (died 2015) remarried after his first wife died. A Seventy whose name I don’t recall remarried a former COB secretary; they both spoke at a stake conference when I was a teenager. She was full of “Oh, I’m so happy I’ve had this opportunity!”
I served in an RS presidency where the president was adamantly opposed to widowed LDS men quickly remarrying. Once she made a negative comment about one of Richard G. Scott’s talks and her husband said, “Oh, you should like him, he’s refused to remarry despite pressure from other GAs” (Scott’s wife died in 1995 and he lived another 20 years). According to the husband (who had some upper-level connections), widowed GAs were strongly encouraged to marry worthy single women (no divorcees or widows) so the (poor, lonely) women could be eternally sealed to a righteous man. And, probably, to support, encourage and stand by the GAs in all their “heavy” responsibilities and make them happy.
Both Nelson’s and Oaks’ second wives are the same age (or close to) their oldest daughters, yet another “ick” factor.
We’ll all be better off when Dallin has “passed over”. He has been (and is) a horribly divisive person; and really does speak with a “forked tongue”.