Mormon Expression: General Conference April 2010

I participated in a Mormon Expression Podcast recap & analysis for the Saturday AM Conference session. We signed up for sessions in advance without knowing what the topics would be (obviously), so I suppose it’s a happy coincidence that I got the session with not one, not two, but three talks centered around gender. Or an unhappy coincidence, if you dislike hearing my views & rants on that.
The Podcast:
If you’re too impatient for the Podcast, here is a summary of my thoughts on the topic.
Boyd K. Packer Lops the Head Off of Chicken Patriarchy – Believe it or not, I’m not as upset about this talk as you might think. You see, I never saw chicken patriarchy as “progress”; I saw it as a smokescreen, a facade to make people think that the church had made concessions to its egalitarian faction when, in reality, it continues to be a patriarchal institution to the core. I prefer patriarchy-patriarchy to chicken patriarchy much as a heroine prefers to fight bad guys who are easily distinguishable by their pointy horns or black hats over bad guys who buddy up to the heroine and pretend they’re her best friend. So I welcome the death of chicken patriarchy.1
You might say to me that there was plenty of good stuff in the talk that aimed at getting men to act responsibly that men needed to hear, and I agree. I’m glad the church is exhorting its men to use their superiority responsibly.
If you’re a Defender of the Status Quo™ and what I’ve just written upsets you, take it easy. Might I recommend a nice snog with your husband presiding authority instead of lambasting me?
The other point of interest for me in Elder Packer’s talk was his concession that the church is but a tiny fraction of the world and will always be small. I can remember many a narrative from church leaders using the church’s rapid growth as evidence of its truthfulness, so this is an interesting shift.
Julie B. Beck Gives a Talk Aimed at Women That’s Actually Pretty Decent – On the Podcast, John Larsen said that he considered this talk to be “Mothers Who Know II,” while I said there were some things in it that I found exciting. I went and listened to it again, and I stand by my dissent: it wasn’t a bad talk at all. Quite possibly one of the better talks aimed at women that I’ve ever heard from an LDS leader (which, sadly, wouldn’t take much). Granted, she didn’t do anything overtly bold and stereotype-breaking like use a mother with a career as one of her examples. She didn’t speak of women as leaders or people in positions of authority, and there are a few vague hints of “women need to be homemakers and mommies.” The line about having to avoid the temptation to have greater ease and independence was probably the most offensive part, and that still wasn’t that bad.
What I loved about the talk was that she quoted Joel 2:28-29, an egalitarian favorite. And since women have historically had an easier time gaining access to charismata-based avenues of authority over institutional ones, I think encouraging women to seek empowerment through the Spirit is a baby step in the right direction. She also quoted a female LDS leader (Eliza R. Snow) as a source of spiritual insight and authority, which I applaud.
It was a bit works-focused, but come on. That’s just Mormonism in general.
M. Russell Ballard Goes After Flip-Flops – What I’m not offended at: his gender essentialism (“men can’t hope to replicate your unique gifts”). If he’s talking about pregnancy & childbirth, then poo on him. I’m sick of my “unique gifts” coming down to what I can do with my uterus. If he’s talking about gender complementarity in general, I’m down with that, and since he didn’t specify, I’ll be charitable and assume the best.
“As you approach the time for marriage and young motherhood” — who says they have to be mothers when they’re “young”? And why is there always so much emphasis on young women preparing for marriage [in the temple] and motherhood, not going to college, preparing for a career or serving a mission?
OH NOES, not the flip-flops in Sacrament meeting! PWN’T!
It probably comes as no surprise that I think exhortations for young women to be mommies and be modest (especially coming from men on the latter) are way overdone in the church. They aren’t necessarily bad in themselves; they are bad when you hear them over and over again. I’d like to hear more exhortations on the other divine callings of women and the other challenges they face.
Finally, I think it’s a good thing that he tells mothers to talk to their daughters about sex. That not every girl has this ideal of the “noble LDS mother” sort of hurts his counsel, but it’s still not a bad thought.
There’s my thoughts for the one session of Conference I caught this year. Hope you enjoyed ‘em.
[1] Bonus points if you know what episode of what television show I’m alluding to here.

Comments

Mormon Expression: General Conference April 2010 — 53 Comments

  1. Hahahaha! I totally missed the flip flops in church thing. It’s probably good, because I was making an EXTRA EFFORT not to be judgeful and that would have sent me right over the top.
    Resolved: to wear flip flops and a jean skirt every effing week this summer.
  2. Aw man. I’m disappointed. When I heard those talks in the first session, I immediately thought, “Oh snap! Jack’s going to have a field day with that!” So then I waited for your blog post with baited breath and after all that you’re being nice and congenial and stuff? Why you gotta be so Christ-like, Jack? Talk about a let-down…
  4. Well, we can at least be grateful he said flip-flops and not the word I grew up using for those kinds of shoes.
    Jack, I’d really be interested to hear from you what you think unique female gifts are.
  6. To kind of echo what Jondh said, since I knew that you (Jack) were going to be doing the podcast, as I watched Saturday’s sessions I kept on thinking, Jack’s going to cringe at that. It looks like I was partly right, but less than I might have expected.
    And I missed the comment about flip-flops.
    On the issue of exhortations toward modesty, I much appreciated what President Monson had to say about that during the priesthood session as he summarized For the Strength of Youth. I don’t have the exact words, but in essence his counsel (for both males and females) was to dress in such a way that it brings out the best in you and the best in others.
    I wouldn’t complain one bit if the counsel were left at that. I think it’s a good way to look at things (not that I have the foggiest clue what that means on a practical level, being the fashion-impaired guy that I am).
    I relistened to Boyd K. Packer’s talk yesterday, and I’m not sure it’s quite as patriarchal as many have suggested. OK, maybe it is, but I usually try to interpret things in the best light possible, and sometimes that tendency might act like blinders or rose-colored glasses (I’m not awake enough yet to avoid the cliches, sorry). But in my view, whatever role the husband/father has as the “patriarch” has to be viewed in the light of the “equal partners” language of the Proclamation on the Family and by D&C 121:41-42. I didn’t hear anything to suggest those teachings no longer apply.
    As someone with egalitarian leanings, my concerns were less with what might be gleaned from Packer’s talk but by the repeated conflation of womanhood and motherhood to the exclusion of much else. I’m happy to be married to a woman who is a great mother and sees that role as her first calling, but that’s not all she is or does, nor should it be for any woman.
    It was a bit works-focused, but come on. That’s just Mormonism in general.
    I wouldn’t deny there are those tendencies. But aside from the “motherhood is great” theme that was present in many talks, the other thing I heard repeatedly throughout the weekend were references to the Atonement, and that no matter where we are in life or what we’ve done we are invited to repent, accept forgiveness and get back on the path. Some speakers even used the word “grace” in that context. And there were quite a few exhortations not to judge others. I see this as quite positive.
    I also found it interesting that Joseph Smith was barely mentioned during the conference outside of the standard testimonial mantra. I’m not sure that means anything, but I did find it interesting.
  8. Jack, I don’t know in what capacity you watched conference sessions, but did you notice that after Cheryl Lant gave her talk, President Monson got up and explicitly thanked “President Lant” and her counselors?
  9. Resolved: Continue to use the term “thongs” (with careful use of the plural) to describe open-toe heelless footwear. “I see that Katie L. has been wearing thongs to Church all summer this year; so stylish.” If it short circuits the brain of a teenager for a few minutes, so much the better.
    The best part of Conference was the Tabernacle Choir singing, “He Sent His Son”; Mabel Jones Gabbott delivered the most incisive sermon of the 10 hours in less than four minutes.
    And then, “I Feel My Savior’s Love”. Let’s forget the Mack Wilberg “sustain triple-forte for 90 beats” and just sing Primary songs pls k thx!
  11. When I hear the term “young motherhood” I think of women who are mothers for the first time, and therefore are young in terms of length of being a mom, rather than it being in reference to the age when motherhood begins.
    But that may just be me being exceedingly charitable toward terminology.
  12. Rob, I am firmly convinced that if you talk about noticing that a woman in your church is wearing thongs, you will be labeled a creepy man. Even if you think it’s funny.
  13. #4 Mark Brown ~ This may be disappointing, but my answer to your question is, “I don’t know.”
    I struggled a lot with the question of gender differences this last year, and I think my comments on different blogs reflected that. So often it happens that DotSQ barge into a conversation on gender bleating “MEN & WOMEN ARE DIFFERENT!!!1!ONEOEN”, as if that alone is sufficient to make their case for them. Whenever I would ask them to list some of these differences, the answers were very deer-in-headlights-esque. People could list generalities, but there were always exceptions to those generalities. These essential gender differences were a thing of mystery.
    However, as I wrestled with this issue this past year, I’ve come to believe that there are differences, even if I can’t specifically point out what they are. A huge part of this for me is theological. In the beginning it was man and woman, and I don’t see why God would even bother to make two different types of sexes if there weren’t differences between us. There’s also the biblical prohibitions against homosexuality. Prohibiting homosexuality makes sense if something spiritually essential is being lost by a pairing of two people of the same gender. It makes little sense if there are no essential differences and men and women are virtually interchangeable.
    I no longer feel threatened by the idea of gender differences just because the concept has been used by male headship advocates as a cudgel for subordinating women; in fact, I see the idea as highly beneficial to feminism. If there are no differences between men and women, then we really don’t lose anything by having all-male leaders and whatnot, since those are just women with more facial hair or something. If women have unique gifts to contribute, then something valuable is lost by marginalizing them.
    Sorry for the rambling thoughts; I hope that makes sense.
    #5 & #7 HLS ~ Welcome to the blog, and I’m glad you figured it out. I suppose I should have linked to this blog post here:
    #6 Eric ~ I wish I could be as optimistic and charitable as you are, but I just don’t think there’s much room for egalitarianism when the man has been designated as “the presiding authority.” Or should I stand by for chicken patriarchs to start arguing that “authority” doesn’t really mean “authority”?
    I tend to agree with Kaimi’s assessment of the language of the Family Proclamation: it contains language advocating both hierarchy and equality. Those who have egalitarian leanings focus on the “equal partners” and ignore the “preside;” those who prefer patriarchy focus on the “preside” and ignore the “equal.” BKP seems to be the latter.
    I appreciate your thoughts on this as always. I didn’t watch all of conference myself, just this first session.
    #8 jondh ~ I did not know that. I just went back and found where he did: “President Cheryl Lant“. Good for him. It’s a start. (It’s within the first few minutes of that recording if anyone else wants to hear it.)
  15. Nope. They would fall under the heading of first century soft patriarchy. I do think some egalitarian arguments to re-define “head” as “source” bear some resemblance to LDS arguments to re-define “preside” as something else.
  16. I do think some egalitarian arguments to re-define “head” as “source” bear some resemblance to LDS arguments to re-define “preside” as something else.
    Yeah, that’s what I was kind of getting at I think. What is the difference between “soft” and “hard” patriarchy?
  17. Yeah, that’s what I was kind of getting at I think. What is the difference between “soft” and “hard” patriarchy?
    About 2 to 4 inches on average, I think.
  19. No worries, Jack.
    It is a little problematic though, at least for me. As you noted, we Mo’folk tend to be works-oriented, so when leaders in whom we place so much confidence stress eternal attributes and the divinely appointed roles which result from them, but never get around to telling us exactly what those attributes are, it frustrates me.
    There is also another funny part to this. Don’t you think we spend an incredible amount of time and effort counciling/advising/helping/hectoring people to do something that is supposed to be innate?
    Finally, everybody knows that there are exceptions. I think it is hard to map gender attributes onto the biological binary of male/female.
    All this is a long way of saying that I think we disagree. But I hope we did it agreeably, since being agreeable is part of my eternal manly nature.
  21. Don’t you think we spend an incredible amount of time and effort counciling/advising/helping/hectoring people to do something that is supposed to be innate?
    Ha, this is a great point. Because I couldn’t nurture if my life depended on it.
    I’ve downloaded the podcast and am looking forward to listening to it tomorrow on my run, Jack. :)
  22. Tim’s blog has been slow lately, so I guess the penis jokes had to migrate over here.
    TYD ~ I’m going by memory since I don’t have any of my books on women in first century Palestine here in Washington state with me, but by “soft patriarchy” I mean that the system spoken of by Paul is much gentler than was typically commanded of wives under household codes and marriage contracts of the first century. In both Colossians and Ephesians, Paul instructs wives to submit (ὑποτάσσω) whereas children and slaves are specifically commanded to obey (ὑπακούω). The wording in those passages seems very deliberate, and ὑποτάσσω seems to be a softer command than ὑπακούω. He also gives husbands reciprocal commandments to love their wives, provide for them, and not be harsh with them. IIRC, this reciprocity was not present in Roman household codes, where the entire family was commanded to obey the pater familias and that was that.
    I wouldn’t call all that a chicken patriarchy because Paul never asserts that it is also equality; I read the text as Paul softening and rechristening the patriarchal household codes of the day into something Christians could use that would still have appeal for the patriarchal norms of the time.
    Mark Brown ~ Don’t you think we spend an incredible amount of time and effort counciling/advising/helping/hectoring people to do something that is supposed to be innate?
    I pretty much made this same point on the Podcast, Mark. I said something like, “If gender differences are truly essential, then there’s no need to police them.”
    Our disagreement seems to be an ideological one, not a functional one. I think gender differences are intrinsic and therefore there’s little need for heavy policing. You think gender differences probably don’t exist and therefore there’s little need for heavy policing. Am I reading you right?
  23. I immediately ran into my wife’s closet and threw away her flip flops after hear M. Russ’s instructions. And my daughter’s too.
    I don’t want them to even be tempted.
  24. Don’t you think we spend an incredible amount of time and effort counciling/advising/helping/hectoring people to do something that is supposed to be innate?
    I don’t know. Practice and motivation always make an innate aptitude more refined and developed. So just because God gives women and men innate gifts and characteristics doesn’t mean we don’t have agency to use them. If many neglect what is innately theirs, perhaps they really do need encouragement.
    This is not to say, however, that women in the church are neglecting their innate gifts. In fact I’m with those who think that they could use more gratitude and appreciation for often filling both male and female roles whether it comes innately or not.
  25. Honestly . . . flip flops? Honestly??? I’m wearing a pair next time I go to church just to be contrary to such a trivial, puritanical moral command. I remember a similar crackdown on the flowy pantsuits that came into fashion in the late ’80s. Can’t have the ladies in anything that resembles menswear. We don’t want them to be comfortable in those freezing chapels — they need skirts so that cold chapel air can keep them distracted from unrighteous thoughts about equality.
    I like the term “chicken patriarchy.” It’s very transparent when somebody sets up a feminist straw man and then claims that they see women as having equal value. Saying you don’t think women should be beaten by their husbands doesn’t make you a feminist. I agree that I’d rather have a patriarchal institution just admit that it treats women inequitably, rather than confusing them by saying they are equal and treating them as second class.
  26. Jack, I’m not sure I agree that ὑποτάσσω and ὑπακούω are that different.
  27. It will take far more than this to slay a beast as tenacious as the Patriarchal Chicken. I predict that it will be spotted again, six months from now at the latest.
    And besides, everyone knows that anything said on saturday is quasi-doctrinal at best. 8)
  28. Jack – I enjoyed the Sat. Morning commentary from you and the panel. Considering there was a lot that you all disliked – I thought you treated it with a great deal of evenhandedness (pointing out even the slightest positive).
    More female speakers? Sure – I agree. But will that really make a difference in content? Our female leaders have a history of being some of the most patriarchal of the bunch. And Mormon feminists have a history of lambasting them for it. A couple years ago, Pres. Beck was given enough wrath to fill up a lifetime of Pres. Packer talks. Maybe he’s more easily dismissed – I don’t know. Regardless, women should have a more active role in our teaching and worship – but I don’t think that hinders patriarchy (on the contrary…)
    I’m still wrapping my head around this…
  29. @CJ — It seems that if the women reinforce the patriarchy it would be smart of the “Brethren” to have even more women speakers. Then they could say, “Look the ladies dig the system — they’re all talking in conference and reinforcing what we’re saying…”
  30. I’m following your logic Elder – which leads me to believe that the disparity of women speaking in conference has more do to with the fact that there just aren’t that many in general leadership positions in the first place (its actually proportionately fair) – than a fear that their messages will be too egalitarian.
    All I am saying is – more female speakers would be good – but it reminds me of pulling up weeds with a lawn mower.
    I’m also placing the request for more female speakers next to the common complaints about female speakers (from the same people) – and scratching my head.
    Or I could be making no sense…
  31. 23 – I’ve often heard people try to separate out parts of the scriptures attributed to Paul. Some of the scriptures are very difficult for many people to reconcile. Is it not possible to pick and choose what to believe (that he/Paul wrote) and focus more on other parts of the New Testament? I mean this with no disrespect, just as a question.
  32. CJ brings up something I have wondered about numerous times… Has anyone ever done a serious examination of how the women of the LDS church feel about the patriarchal system as it exists? I have informally asked the women I know (my wife, friends, family members) and all of them have no problem with it. Unfortunately, my circle of friends is a pretty narrow slice of things, and I am pretty certain that we all fall in the “soft complementarian” pool.
    But it does make me wonder… do the women of the church, by and large, want to see a change? Or are they some of the strongest Defenders of the Status Quo™ ?
  33. Aerin asked:
    Is it not possible to pick and choose what to believe (that he/Paul wrote) and focus more on other parts of the New Testament?
    In my opinion, nearly all of us choose what parts of the scripture we want to believe and/or deal with, whether we admit it or not.
    I’m not sure how important authorship is to whether something is scriptural. With the exception of Hebrews (which wasn’t written by Paul, despite what it says in some Bibles), all of the epistles ascribed to Paul probably represent his teaching and thought even if he didn’t actually pen the words. Christians have seen the epistles as part of the canon basically ever since there has been a canon, and evidence (even if credible, and I’m not taking a position on whether it is or not) that certain portions aren’t Pauline isn’t going to change that.
    Alex asked:
    But it does make me wonder… do the women of the church, by and large, want to see a change?
    My circle of LDS friends is probably narrower than yours is, but among the few I’ve talked with about such issues, none are pressing for change.
    I’m married to someone who considers herself a feminist (and is willing to use that word, even in LDS circles), yet having an all-male priesthood doesn’t bother her (and she probably wouldn’t change it even if she could, while I probably would). As to other aspects of the “patriarchy,” sure, there are changes she’d like to see, although most of those are cultural in nature rather matters of formal church teaching. And she’s always encouraging young women that she has an influence over to get an education and/or develop a career path before marriage.
    In practice, our marriage and that of many of our friends is de facto egalitarian or close to it.
    As to my adult daughter, she’s pretty much following the footsteps of her mother. Her (fairly new) marriage seems to be de facto egalitarian. I can’t speak for her (and she’s not available at the moment, so I can’t ask her), but based on what she has told me, the things that bother her most about the church (although she’s a faithful member) have more to do with judgmentalism and behavioral rigidity than they do with patriarchal sorts of issues.
  34. do the women of the church, by and large, want to see a change?
    It’s always a dangerous thing to take a survey wherein the respondents are self-selected.
    What I mean is, women who are LDS choose to become LDS and remain LDS in part because they find ways of being “okay” with the current system. Those who are not okay with it are much more likely to weed themselves out by never joining the church or by leaving it. So if we only ask Mormon women if they want change, of course we’re going to get a lot of “I’m fine with it” answers.
    The correct way to determine whether or not this system is really acceptable is to take a survey of women both within and without the LDS church. “Is it acceptable to you for a religious organization to bar women from ordination based solely on their sex?” My guess is that a strong majority would say “no.”
    In fact, I would say, don’t even make the survey about religion. Ask this question:
    The town mayor holds a Christmas tree lighting ceremony wherein he decrees that only men may come forward and light up the tree. Would you be okay with this?
    If the answer to that question is “no,” then tell me why it should be acceptable when the LDS church does the exact same thing with religious ritual.
    I’ll get back to the other comments later today, gotta take my daughter to the park.
  35. What I mean is, women who are LDS choose to become LDS and remain LDS in part because they find ways of being “okay” with the current system. Those who are not okay with it are much more likely to weed themselves out by never joining the church or by leaving it.
    Undoubtedly true.
  36. The correct way to determine whether or not this system is really acceptable is to take a survey of women both within and without the LDS church.
    Is that a serious argument?
    I’m sure that if we asked people if it is acceptable that only Christians go to heaven, the vast majority would say no. Yet that is what many evangelical churches teach.
    While I disagree with what many evangelical churches teach on that matter, I wouldn’t leave it up to a majority vote to determine whether it’s “acceptable” that they do so.
  37. Seems like the correct experiment when the question is whether or not women are okay with such a system. We don’t need to ask Mormon women if they’re okay with it. For the most part, they’ve already answered that question in the affirmative with their membership.
  38. I feel like maybe I should back up a bit and explain myself.
    What would be the point of surveying Mormon women to find out whether or not they desire change in this department? What is the point of pointing out that most Mormon women are okay with it, which a number of Mormons from Gordon B. Hinckley to BYU professors have done on a regular basis?
    If 90% of Mormon women responded that they definitely want the priesthood and are disappointed by the current system, is there any chance at all that the policy would change?
    Or is the point in pointing these things out only to make Latter-day Saints feel better about a policy that they can’t change anyways because they believe it comes from God?
  39. What would be the point of surveying Mormon women to find out whether or not they desire change in this department?
    I can’t tell you why Alex asked the question (and I assume that he can explain himself just fine), but if I were to ask the question, it would be out of curiosity only. Call it the scientist in me, or the journalist in me, or the researcher in me, or the cat in me if you will. Regardless of what the percentage is, the issue raises all sorts of sociological and psychological questions.
    I have no agenda in being curious about such a thing; in fact, I’d be curious to know the same thing as it pertains to Catholics or the Mark Driscoll strain of evangelicalism. It’s just an interesting question to me. That’s all. Seriously.
  40. Thanks Eric. I’m not trying to speak for Alex either.
    I ask because, if the question of the feelings of Mormon women on the matter are at all relevant to whether or not it gets practiced, then of course the feelings of ex-members and non-members on the issue should matter. Those are potential members and the policy on women could be one of the things that keeps them out or drives them away.
    If their feelings are irrelevant, then there isn’t much point in learning whether or not Mormon women are okay with it anyways. The only functions I can see to it are curiosity (like you said) and making Mormons feel better about a doctrine that’s unattractive to outsiders.
    I get plenty of objections to the evangelical doctrine of hell, but I’ve never even thought to respond by pointing out that most evangelicals are okay with it. I think hell is a reality and a truth taught by God through the Bible, so the feelings of Christians and/or non-Christians isn’t very relevant to whether or not we teach hell. It’s not going to change.
    In general though, I’m just not a big fan of how anyone “feels” about policies, practices, religious truths, etc. These things shouldn’t be decided by popularity contests, they should be decided by what comes from God regardless of how people feel about it. Palatability is one of my least favorite notions in theology.
  41. #27 jondh ~ Jack, I’m not sure I agree that ὑποτάσσω and ὑπακούω are that different.
    How so?
    I keep in mind that Ephesians 5:22 actually says bupkus about ὑποτάσσω or ὑπακούω. The verb there is supplied from the participle in v. 21, where Paul commands Christians to mutually submit to each other. Whatever ὑποτάσσω means in v. 21, it also means in v. 22, and since it’s something Paul expects all Christians to do to one another, it’s probably not a harsh patriarchal command.
    There is 1 Peter 3:5-6 where the author pretty much equates ὑποτάσσω with ὑπακούω in relation to wives, but that’s another passage and author entirely.
    #28 Kaimi ~ I predict that it will be spotted again, six months from now at the latest.
    Srsly. Incoming talk about how equal husband and wife are this October. But at least I have that handy “presiding authority” sound bite now.
    #29 CJ ~ More female speakers? Sure – I agree. But will that really make a difference in content?
    It absolutely would not. I don’t think any single one of the changes I desire to see in the LDS church’s treatment of women would be guaranteed to make a difference in and of itself.
    But it’s still a step in the right direction. Enough of those steps taken together will make for change.
    Our female leaders have a history of being some of the most patriarchal of the bunch. And Mormon feminists have a history of lambasting them for it.
    Feminists are equal opportunity crime-fighters, just like Batman. ;)
    If women who affirm patriarchy get treated more critically than men who affirm patriarchy, it’s probably in part due to a feeling that the woman is a traitor to her kind. It’s not exactly a rational reaction, but I understand why it happens.
    #32 Aerin ~ Well, no one can stop you from picking and choosing which scriptures to believe, regardless of the consensus on Pauline authorship.
    Pretty much all but the scholars who adhere to a conservative Christian view of the Bible have concluded that a number of the epistles attributed to Paul weren’t actually written by him. Both Ephesians and Colossians are among the disputed texts. What people do with that information and how they view the inspiration of the text in light of that data is up to them.
    I personally accept traditional Pauline authorship myself. I try to remember to label my comments “the author of Ephesians . . . “, but I slip up a lot and just say “Paul” because that’s what I believe.
    I do not, however, think Paul wrote Hebrews, which is internally anonymous. Traditionally it’s been attributed to Paul though, and the D&C says that he wrote it. Just food for thought.
  42. Why did I ask this question? Purely out of curiosity. I like to know what people think about things. I am getting the feeling, at times, that Eric and I are secretly the same person. ;)
    I was talking with a friend about this subject this evening, and he pointed out something that I hadn’t thought about. He said that if you were to ask Mormon women how they feel about the system as it stands, they would most likely say they felt fine. He suggested that the real question is, “Should Mormon women, especially those in leadership positions, have more responsibilities in the day-to-day activities of their wards/stakes?” To this question, he suggests you would have an overwhelming majority. I think agree. I haven’t quite had time to think it all through, though.
  43. We’re definitely not the same person. You’re younger and much better looking.
  44. In general though, I’m just not a big fan of how anyone “feels” about policies, practices, religious truths, etc. These things shouldn’t be decided by popularity contests, they should be decided by what comes from God regardless of how people feel about it. Palatability is one of my least favorite notions in theology.
    I would argue that most TBMs in the church don’t want to argue priesthood, patriarchy and women because they believe it comes from God. This is how God wants it. So many religions feel exactly this way. How can you down play what they assume is from God? I guess I just don’t understand where you are coming from. You’re right as an Evangelical and thus every other religion is wrong in their theology and doctrines? That is exactly what TBMs believe compared to everyone else….
  45. Welcome to the blog, kaylanamars.
    I would argue that most TBMs in the church don’t want to argue priesthood, patriarchy and women because they believe it comes from God. This is how God wants it.
    That’s fine by me. If that’s the case, they really ought to stop pointing out that most Mormon women are okay with it though. If it’s all from God and our feelings are irrelevant, then I don’t see why it matters whether or not Mormon women are okay with it.
    (That is not directed at Eric or Alex, btw.)
    I, however, do not believe the church’s treatment of women is from God, so I have no problem pointing out how it harms women.
    You’re right as an Evangelical and thus every other religion is wrong in their theology and doctrines?
    Not really. I’m not right as an evangelical while everyone else is wrong; I just believe I’m less wrong than other religious systems. To me, it’s a spectrum of wrongness and no one has it all right. We’re all sinful and broken, so we’re all going to get some things wrong to some degree or another.
  47. Thanks for clearing some things up! Your blog is great and love reading what you have to say. Just wanted to get a little more info on your perspective. Thanks again!
  48. To me, it’s a spectrum of wrongness and no one has it all right. We’re all sinful and broken, so we’re all going to get some things wrong to some degree or another.
    Actually, I agree with that.
  49. The printed text of Monson’s remarks changed it from “President Cheryl Lant” to “Sister Cheryl Lant.”
    I think you just witnessed a Church leader acting alone where he could, as compared with the correlated and unified result. Either that or he spoke different text than was arranged to be printed. Pres. Monson went “off script” a couple of times this time around, as I recall.
    If that’s the case, they really ought to stop pointing out that most Mormon women are okay with it though.
    In the company of people likely to reject the notion that “God sez” one thing or another, many of us fall back on other standards for why things are the way they are, probably out of a concern that a friendly conversation isn’t possible otherwise.
    But, fine, if that’s the way you want it: Jack, God wants Mormons this way for the time being. When He wants them different, He’ll let us know. That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it. :-)
    Meantime, though, I’ll working to get the Activity Day girls invited to participate with the Cub Scouts at next year’s Pinewood Derby and Bike Rodeo.
  50. #8 – Something I just noticed — it’s not just the women who spoke in conference that do not have their respective titles listed, it’s also the Young Men General President, David Beck.
  51. Jack that is SOOO lame. But it is good to know from zehill that it’s also the Young mens leader who’s title was removed. His priesthood must not count in GC either. Or maybe, he just has the wrong last name…
Categories:

Related Post:



0 коментарі:

Post a Comment

ClobberBlog | Mormonism, Evangelical Christianity