You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby! Mormon Edition

By: hawkgrrrl
April 9, 2013

In January 2012, I did a blog post about topics women in the church were discussing.  I identified 10 practices that some women saw as unnecessarily discriminate or that were in other ways causing women to question their value in the church.  This was in response to a request Pres. Beck made of Mormon Mommy Bloggers (of which I am not one).  As Virginia Slims likes to tell us while promoting carcinogens:  “You’ve come a long way, baby!”  OK, not that long a way.  But “You haven’t stood still, baby!” isn’t going to sell ciggies.

I’ve heard the caution from those who are suspicious about feminism that if you participate in events like wearing pants to church, you’ll be promoting things that you may not believe in personally because the aims might be broader than your own.  Well, no duh!  Unity of thought is an illusion.  I’m not chasing after it.  But dialogue with diverse opinions is a worthy aim.  If I have 3 LDS feminist aims, they are:

  1. Feminist butts in seats at church (of both sexes).  Since Jesus was obviously a feminist, I’m not sure how it came to be such a dirty word.  I suspect Sonia Johnson threatening to sue the church didn’t help.  However, most of the feminist bashing I see is straw woman argument.  Real LDS feminists bear little resemblance to the caricature.
  2. Women encouraged to invest in the church and themselves and be full individuals in their own right without regard to the roles we play in the family.
  3. Break down sexist practices in the church, particularly at the local levels, that are often fostered by attitudes from the top down.  This only happens when we are having open discussions, listening, and reflecting.

If there are any church members who can’t get behind those three aims, I suggest you sit down and think it through and then come back.  These are not revolutionary aims, just practical, common sense ideas.

Those are some long skirts! Hope they don't intend to ride a bicycle in those.

So, what’s happened in the 14 months since I wrote that blog post titled Ten Questions LDS Women Think About?  Quite a bit!

  • Temple menstruation is deemed OK. Thanks to a policy clarification campaign, the church has officially stated that females who are menstruating are still permitted to do baptisms for the dead.  Some temples were prohibiting this, resulting in walks of shame for teen girls.
  • Mission age has changed for both men & women.  The biggest change is that a 19-year mission age for women will de-stigmatize and normalize missions for women, unlike the mustachio’d spinsters that served when I was a missionary at the ripe old age of 21.  (That is a joke, people.  I used Nair.)
  • Women wore pants to church, and church HQ yawned.  A few stalwart and misguided members cracked a fruitie (Aussie slang for blew a gasket), but that was about it.  The world didn’t end.  The church officially said it didn’t matter, and all are welcome.  And our new YW president’s daughter even participated in the pants movement!
  • The BSA / LDS connection was threatened. In fairness, nothing actually happened except testing the effectiveness of a few homophobes’ anti-perspirant, but if the church dumped BSA, there would no longer be any justification for differences in YW / YM budgets.  We can still address this inequity regardless, but it was an interesting almost moment from a feminist concerns perspective.
  • A woman prayed in General Conference. Even better, it was apparently determined prior to the LWP movement.  My conclusion is that it suddenly dawned on someone that they had forgotten the existence of 51% of the church membership.  Women now exist!  Our invisibility cloak slipped off (although our shoulders remain covered).
  • Mission councils were established to involve female input.  On the downside, it’s still a women can lead women only, men can lead and teach everyone limitation, but it’s better than it was for sure.  This is the nose of the camel, not just table scraps; at least that’s my rosy view.
  • Faithful LDS women launched an Ordain Women site.  Nobody’s been hauled in to HQ over this, and there’s no huge retrenchment, beyond the BAU trenchment.  Kirby’s got a line on what’s really making men nervous about female ordination:  men will be seen through and called on their B.S. by those discerning females.

Here’s a quick scorecard of the Top 10 List from 14 months ago:

  1. How do we get an entirely male leadership to understand the perspective of all women in the church when the diverse perspectives of women are not represented in all leadership councils, both at HQ and local level? Underway.   The “councils” approach is a definite step in the right direction.  This really only happens with time, now.
  2. Why is it necessary for the Primary President to be female (but teachers can be either sex) but the Sunday School president cannot be female (but the teachers can be either sex)? No change. But I will add to this list of nonsensical sex distinctions positions like membership clerk and financial auditor.  A female CPA cannot be a stake auditor, but a man is apparently qualified, even if he can’t add his way out of a paper bag.
  3. Why does CES discriminate against mothers, implying that a woman who works while her children are under age 18 is unworthy, although she is able to hold a temple recommend? Why are our seminary students presented almost a solely male perspective in seminary as a result? No change.
  4. Why are women with children under age 18 prevented from working in the temple, but their husbands, also parents of young children, do not have the same restrictions? Shouldn’t they be at home helping their wives? No change.
  5. Why, after being raised in the church her whole life, did my 9 year old daughter never hear once at church that she has a Heavenly Mother? Her answer when I mentioned it was “Well, I never heard of her!” (I accept my own responsibility for that also). No change, despite many missed opportunities in Gen Conf to refer to “Heavenly Parents” rather than “Heavenly Father.”
  6. Why can’t we entrust women with the care of our YW without priesthood oversight? (YW are often uncomfortable with male leaders showing up at events like girls’ camp, and may also have issues with being asked chastity related questions behind closed doors by a male leader.) No change.
  7. Why can’t women open or close General Conference with prayer? Why do some wards still restrict women from opening a sacrament meeting with prayer or from speaking last in Sacrament Meeting? RESOLVED.
  8. What can be done to counter the belief among young people that boys are more important than girls in the church because their priesthood milestones are celebrated and their scouting programs and achievements are funded by the church? No official change. Some wards are more equal in budgeting and recognition than others.
  9. How do we teach chastity without loading the girls down with excessive modesty rules and a belief that they are responsible for the actions of the boys? How do we create individual commitment and accountibility for selves (rather than others) and healthy sexual attitudes and body image among our women? No change. This one really only comes with more female representation in councils and time.
  10. Can we get more diverse and common sense female design input for the garment? No change. I’ve heard the latest garment design is actually worse.  Apparently our belly buttons are now believed to be around armpit level, and our knees fall somewhere mid-shin.  Plastic surgery may be required, but I think you can take it as a tithing deductible.

Bonus item:  YW manuals out of date. Improved greatly, but still preserved sexual stereotypes by writing the YW manuals passively and encouraging action and leadership from YM at the same time.

Second bonus item:  Advice to the young women to  marry young, that education is “nice to have,” that the husband as sole provider – only preaching the so-called ideal can have disastrous side effects. No substantial change, although I wonder if the mission age change will have downstream impacts to this.

To this list, I would add the following:

  • Even more mission equality.  With the mission age change, now women are wondering why the remaining distinctions exist:  women 18 months at 19 years old vs. men 24 months at 18 years old as well as men being considered “mandatory” in terms of how encouraged they are.  Personally, I’d like to see men given a similar level of flexibility as women.  Allow either to go at 18+, and let them default to 18 months with option to extend to up to 24 months.  Additionally, should we have more integration in mission leadership – women over both men & women in some positions?
  • More equal speaker representation at General Conference.  Seems like a no brainer as a next step.  Sure, the Q12 are going to all speak which covers a lot of the slots, but what about more of the women who are serving with them in councils?  What about their wives (as they do at regional conferences)?  But please, hold the primary voice, and try hard to pass the Bechdel test.
  • More female participation in support of Priesthood rites. Suggestions for YW to be ushers as their male counterparts use their budding priesthood to administer the sacrament seem reasonable and not too scary.  Likewise, women holding their children as they are blessed or being allowed to perform the role of witness at baptisms of their own children don’t seem too far out there.
  • Female ordination.  This is definitely being discussed by Ordain Women, although there is a claim that 90% of women don’t want to be ordained.  I would counter that 90% of members would support whatever the church decided to do.  Even Will wouldn’t leave over this one (sorry, man – love ya).  But before that can happen, my view is that the next one is even more important . . .
  • Reduce hierarchical, competitive-style Priesthood structures.  I’m with Pres. Uchtdorf that many men feel marginalized by the existing structure, particularly those who aren’t getting “promoted” in the ranks or who are in EQ past the age of 40.  As a woman, I don’t feel drawn to this kind of structure.  Don’t get me wrong – I kick tail in that kind of structure at work – I just think it’s not that spiritual or conducive to the best decision making.  It feeds (and conversely wounds) pride and egos.  And it’s actually much more hierarchical and competitive than a work environment because it is not gender integrated today.

What do you think of the progress (or lack thereof) in the last 14 months?  What do you think is next?  What would your top priorities be?

Discuss.

Tags: , , ,

36 Responses to You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby! Mormon Edition

  1. Howard on April 9, 2013 at 6:30 AM

    Thanks for the progress review!

    Ordain Women site…Nobody’s been hauled in to HQ over this… Well it probably doesn’t hurt that Kate is a faithful member, there’s been press attention and oh by the way, also a global human rights defender attorney! Very well executed Kate!!!

    Thanks for the list!

    Why? Embedded male chauvinism and misogyny probably much more subconscious than conscious these days aided by a blind TBM belief in the church and it’s leaders as infallible (ok, almost) and the way God wants it (ok, almost) and complicity in this discrimination by one down but otherwise privileged mainstream “women who know” but can’t somehow just can’t see (see The Help and The Stepford Wives).

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  2. Howard on April 9, 2013 at 6:44 AM

    Also due to the success of the Adversary the 1950′s Father Knows Best family model is dead and has been for a long time but don’t wake our octogenarians they don’t know it yet!

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  3. Will on April 9, 2013 at 8:58 AM

    ” Even Will wouldn’t leave over this one ”

    WTH…Thrown under the bus yet again. I would be fine with women holding the priesthood if that revelation were received. I still think their best work is within the home. Call me old fashion, but that model works and the decay of our society is largely due to children being raised by the village and not their mothers. And; no, stay at home dads are not the same. God knew what he was doing when he set those family roles.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 4

  4. hawkgrrrl on April 9, 2013 at 9:21 AM

    Oh, Will! We tease the ones we love.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 5

  5. Jeff Spector on April 9, 2013 at 9:45 AM

    There is certainly a lot of ego associated with positions in the Church much like the corporate world, where accomplished people feel like they are owed something for their accomplishments other than a job and pay. And yet, most of us in that world will never attain the upper levels of management and control, whatever gender.

    I wonder if the same holds true in the Church as well. We all know folks who assume leadership roles and humbly serve, both men and women. And then there are the other kind.

    I was perusing the bios of the General Presidencies of the auxiliaries on the Church website. They tend to be very accomplished women of high education and in some cases, positions outside the home. Yet, they support the current hierarchy of the Church, at least publicly.

    If occurred to me that the majority of complaints coming from women who are seeking higher authority in the Church are also quite accomplished in their own right, either academically and./or professionally.

    Could there be a correlation related to ego in the corporate/academic world and the Church?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  6. Howard on April 9, 2013 at 10:24 AM

    Will wrote: …the decay of our society is largely due to children being raised by the village and not their mothers. I agree with this. But it certainly doesn’t have to be that way.

    My 9 year old daughter went to Montessori as an infant and Lutheran private school from 1st grade on because there doesn’t happen to be a Mormon private school near us, chances are there isn’t one near you either. Her education, socialization and exposure to Christian values has been excellent as a result. As you know I’m not a materialist but the dual income family is now the norm and largely required to achieve a similar standard of living that the previous generation enjoyed. Isn’t it time we accepted this and provide guidance for alternatives?

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 9

  7. Gina on April 9, 2013 at 10:55 AM

    #5 Jeff,
    Ego is one possibility. Another less cynical possibility is that women who are accomplished in the corporate/academic world spend five days a week working alongside men and women as equals, superiors, and employees. They find it normal that they contribute their ideas, experience, and talents to an endeavor as equals. They have spent years developing leadership and management skills. The observe men and women working together yet not having sex all the time. They note the different and valuable perspectives their colleagues bring to an issue. All of these experiences might make them optimistic that things could really work if women were given more substantial opportunities to contribute to their ward, as well as more aware of the opportunities that are lost by the status quo.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 20

  8. Sherry on April 9, 2013 at 11:07 AM

    agree with Gina…

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  9. Jeff Spector on April 9, 2013 at 11:58 AM

    Gina,

    I do agree with you 100%. What I am speculating about it whether or not there are women who already contribute in that way in the roles they have. In my experiences, I have seen it firsthand, with my bishops and Stake Presidents and their auxiliary leaders. I realize my own experiences are yet a small sample.

    But, in my corporate career, I have also seen that and also experienced those who complain because they think they should have a more important role.

    Because they complain, does not mean there are not those already contributing in their areas at a very high level.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  10. not in my world.... on April 9, 2013 at 12:20 PM

    When I served in a Stake RS Presidency a few years ago, we were invited to monthly Stake High Council meetings. We were to arrive 30 minutes after the start of the meeting, and while the Stake Council sat around a large round table, with the Presidency at the head, we were seated on folding chairs at the back of the room, balancing our books and notes on our laps. We gave our various reports and feedback, and then were dismissed while the men continued their meeting.
    Yes, others mileage may vary, but I will wager not by much.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 16

  11. LDS Anarchist on April 9, 2013 at 2:45 PM

    Why, after being raised in the church her whole life, did my 9 year old daughter never hear once at church that she has a Heavenly Mother? Her answer when I mentioned it was “Well, I never heard of her!” (I accept my own responsibility for that also). No change, despite many missed opportunities in Gen Conf to refer to “Heavenly Parents” rather than “Heavenly Father.”

    There is no mention of a heavenly mother in the scriptures. So, this is an extra-scriptural theory.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 5

  12. wreddyornot on April 9, 2013 at 3:30 PM

    There is no theory in observing that the scriptures and hierarchy have discriminated against women and still do. And it’s not extra-scriptural at all; its laid out for anyone to read and study.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  13. KT on April 9, 2013 at 3:54 PM

    I really like this post. It is important. I love the way you break it down.

    These two items in particular stand out to me:
    3.Why does CES discriminate against mothers, implying that a woman who works while her children are under age 18 is unworthy, although she is able to hold a temple recommend?
    4.Why are women with children under age 18 prevented from working in the temple, but their husbands, also parents of young children, do not have the same restrictions?

    The main reason these 2 stand out to me is because there seems to be absolutely no basis for them. To me, the only explanation seems to be that leadership think they should be telling women how to organize their families, their values, and/or their lives. It makes no sense.

    The one thing I would like to see addressed more on this topic is why OTHER WOMEN in the Church (who are not supportive of these causes) seem to be even more threatened by all of this then the men….?! Why is it threatening to them? What does it make them feel? Why are they fighting actually against Mormon feminists?

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 8

  14. el oso on April 9, 2013 at 5:30 PM

    KT,
    CES and Temple worker discrimination is a major difference in some areas, but an afterthought in others. Fifty percent of local seminary teachers are women and I do not know a local man with young children who is a temple worker. If we had released time seminary and were less than 1 hr from the temple this might be different.
    The church really does want to emphasize the 1950′s model family. This seems to be not only a feminist or gender role issue but also a (IMHO) bigger class issue. Women married to rich men are the only ones who seem to enjoy the SAHM status. Middle class women are much more likely to take a few years off of work when kids are young and then go into the professional workforce.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  15. hawkgrrrl on April 9, 2013 at 8:38 PM

    CES discrimination only applies to PAID positions. Women are permitted to teach seminary on a volunteer basis even with young children at home, just not to be compensated for it (or do it full time).

    KT, why are women sometimes threatened? I’ll go out on a limb. If a woman has completely bought in to the idea that her entire identity is SAHM and that this is the highest ideal God has for women, she is not prepared to face it when other and more contributions are valued. In fact, if you go back to the beginning of the “I’m a Mormon” campaign, there was a woman whose post said she worked as a nurse (IIRC). There were SAHMs at that time who were absolutely outraged that a woman who was sinning by working full time to support her family would be featured in the campaign. That’s a fear of the loss of status. The problem is that being a SAHM should not have been made such a privileged status in the first place. To el oso’s point – it’s also a very classist privileging.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 8

  16. KT on April 9, 2013 at 10:04 PM

    hawkgrrrl,

    Thanks for shedding some light on this for me. I truly have never really understood what’s behind this.
    I guess I just genuinely see the value in the SAHM gig and in having a career outside the home.
    I agree “that being a SAHM should not have been made such a privileged status in the first place.”
    And very true el oso, it IS a very classist privilege. Of course it seems to me that there are also some lower to middle classers who ‘sacrifice’ to have a SAHM, and then if others don’t do the same, they tend to be looked down upon for placing more importance on ‘worldly’ things…

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  17. Jeff Spector on April 10, 2013 at 6:37 AM

    “The church really does want to emphasize the 1950′s model family.”

    I know this is a popular thing to say but I wonder if this is really true or that the so-called 1950s model conforms more to the ideal family set up, where possible. The funny thing is while some women seem to be the ones complaining about, it actually puts more pressure on the men to be the sole breadwinner. But, of course, that’s not important. It’s really all about female fulfillment.

    Why not revert back to the even older model when three or more generations all live in the same house, where the Grandmother takes care of the children. Or a model where a servant takes care of the children.

    Then everyone is free to do what they want. that is no better or worse, is it?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  18. mh on April 10, 2013 at 7:25 AM

    Why not revert to the original Mormon model: polygamy? Mothers could work too help support the family and Brigham Young encouraged women to go to medical school.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 10

  19. Howard on April 11, 2013 at 6:27 AM

    The thing about the 1950s model is it seems to be applied to the family as the ideal, to church management and to the COB! Was the 1950s somehow God’s sweet spot for how the world should be run or are the brethren stuck in the past of their youth?

    WWII galvanized the nation as those now in their 80s were coming of age and the post war 1950s prosperity was beyond anything seen before or since. As a result many of that generation who are now in their 70s and 80s romanticize the 40s and 50s as the ideal

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  20. Hedgehog on April 12, 2013 at 7:17 AM

    “A woman prayed in General Conference. Even better, it was apparently determined prior to the LWP movement.”

    Yay. So, it looks like I can be an optimist, a little bit perhaps, quite an alien feeling…

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  21. Rigel Hawthorne on April 12, 2013 at 1:58 PM

    “What can be done to counter the belief among young people that boys are more important than girls in the church because their priesthood milestones are celebrated”

    I’m at a loss as to why local leaders don’t step in more and recognize the milestones (or at least the age-related movement between classes) in a more equitable manner. Program changes to create more singular milestones may have to come from top down, but a Bishop has the prerogative to recognize any youth accomplishment. How can a Bishop just sit on the stand and watch his young women grow up and leave the ward without awareness that the great things the young women are doing may not be known to the ward as a whole?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  22. Douglas on April 13, 2013 at 12:20 AM

    (All) – there is nothing I find more annoying than any discussion about the alleged “injustice” done to our sisters by (lack thereof) virtue of not bestowing the Priesthood upon them. Folks, take it up with Heavenly Father (and Mother, and She is not myth or rumor) and ask THEM. I’m not in charge, and as I’ve said ad naseaum, I can find no general characteristic of the fairer sex that ought to preclude them from same. It’s a matter of what is the Lord’s will, and if He (and His “Co-Creator”) will that women hold the PH, at least in some fashion, I am certain that I and the other brethren will be on board with it. I do agree that some restrictions seem more hidebound practice than actual doctrine (ex:WHY Sunday Schools presidencies MUST be men). But again, it is so important to sacrifice ones (usually liberal but conservatives fall prey to this fallacious attitude also) that we disregard the wisdom of the Brethren who have in most cases given up profitable and prestigious temporal occupations to serve the Lord? When you’ve given as comparable of yourselves as they have, THEN feel free to judge, else I say (with hopefully more respect) what Boris Badenov would tell Natasha when he’d had enough of her lip.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  23. hawkgrrrl on April 13, 2013 at 1:19 AM

    Douglas, wow, where to start. First of all, the top leaders are financially compensated. Second, because women don’t make any policy decisions in the church, the only way to get things changed is to bring them to leaders’ attention. When Pres. Hinckley said in 1997 that women were not agitating for female ordination, implying that therefore the brethren need not seek any revelation on the matter, this essentially told women how to seek change.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 5

  24. Hedgehog on April 13, 2013 at 2:31 AM

    Rigel #21, Just last week I attended an English-speaking ward in Tokyo (they get conference the following week:time zones), where the bishop called up one the the YW to the stand, to announce to the congregation that she was progressing to the laurel class after having turned 16. He told the congregation he’d interviewed her, and she was a great YW. The first time ever I’d seen that done. It was cool (just a pity the Personal Progress programme isn’t structured for class progression and she could have got a certificate or something – my view).
    During the testimony meeting that followed, one of the speakers mentioned what a great guy the bishop was, and that they’d probably all heard he’d been called as a mission president – a great blessing to all those new sister missionaries who’ll get to be under him, I thought.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  25. Douglas on April 13, 2013 at 9:22 AM

    #23 (THE Hawkchick) – and if agitation from some or even many of the Sister DID exist, either in 1997 or now, would it matter? Is THAT how the affairs of the Lord are decided? What ARE we talking about? Either we have a Prophet who is concerned about doing the will of the Savior and serving the varied needs of the nearly 15 million members of the Church, let alone the world at large, or we’re just discussing the politicking of yet another man-made organization. If the latter, then for all practical purposes there is little need for this blog, save that disaffected members and former members have a forum to vent. I’d be more concerned about how the needs and righteous desires of the 51% nominal (and about 65% active) membership that constitutes our beloved sisters are being addressed. From the tone of your OP and your comments, you leave the impression that you speak for a great majority of the sisterhood in that you feel ignored and marginalized. Well, I would hope that your viewpoint is actually in the scant minority, but I don’t possess a mind-reader’s license. I can’t speak for every brother, both relatively unremarkable as myself, and certainly not they in high leadership positions, but I would hope that they would be as concerned for their sisters as am I. Somehow, I’ll wager that in both perceptiveness and sensitivity, the majority of the GAs are far better than I.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  26. Rigel Hawthorne on April 13, 2013 at 1:54 PM

    #24
    I remember one Bishop inviting a young woman to come to the stand to announce that she had received the “Mountaineer Award” at camp. Haven’t seem much since then other than awarding occasional Young Women’s recognition awards or an announcement that a young woman has graduated from primary. I like the example you cited very much!

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  27. Jeff Spector on April 13, 2013 at 2:30 PM

    “she could have got a certificate or something”

    The Church does have Certificates of advancement for the YW as their move from class to class.

    We just found out about them, order them and presented them to the YW for about a year back of advancement.

    I think the Bishop plans to award them in Sacrament Meeting for the new advancement.

    However, the YW so far have not shown up on time.

    We always recognize when a YW achieves the YW of recognition award and the Bishop always equates it to the Boy Scout Eagle award.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  28. KT on April 13, 2013 at 7:57 PM

    19-Howard, That’s interesting. I hadn’t heard it put that way before, but I can definitely see that being the case.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  29. hawkgrrrl on April 13, 2013 at 10:16 PM

    Douglas 25 – I don’t think anyone is saying that women asking for a revelation about female ordination intends to change the process by which that revelation is given (from God through the prophet). In fact, from all I’ve read and heard, every person (men and women) associated with ordain women desires for that change to come through the prophet via revelation, not as a gift from the male leaders of the church in response to social outcry. The membership would accept no less, and these folks claim belief in the restored gospel.

    But ordaining women is just one area of inequality in the church.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  30. Douglas on April 13, 2013 at 10:46 PM

    #29 – and likewise I’ve complained that PH holders (e.g. active adult males) can scarcely break wind w/o drawing a discplinary council, while the Sisters get away with “moider”. And if it’s entirely correct, so what? It comes down to the same question: Is the Church indeed of Christ, and it is led by divine inspiration? If so, then it’s quirks, real and/or perceived, are inconsequential. My sense of “justice” and your sense of “equality”, in the grand scheme of the Stone carved w/o (mortal) hands rolling on and covering the Earth, do not matter. The whole PH thing likely rankles you because you can likely out-manage any given 99 out of 100 brethren, and likewise such talent ought not to be wasted. So, how to assure that there is yet a way that your mighty talents can be fulfilled, else than to kick against the pricks?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  31. hawkgrrrl on April 14, 2013 at 1:01 AM

    Coincidentally, “Kicking Against the Pricks” could be the next feminist movement.

    Actually, my own view – I’m not sure about female ordination; it doesn’t rankle me personally. I definitely believe an all-male PH creates some problems in that policy is written from such a male perspective (modesty is a HUGE problem as is, so is how men often talk to women in the church). I also encountered sexism on my mission from time to time because men felt women were just a pain to deal with and preferred the company of men. Many religions (most) are very sexist: Hinduism, Buddhism, most sects of Christianity, Judaism.

    What I am sure about is that the arguments against female ordination are far worse than the fact of it.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  32. Hedgehog on April 14, 2013 at 3:00 AM

    #27 Jeff
    The certificates you mention don’t appear to be available to order online. Are they are new thing? A welcome development.

    #31 Hawkgrrrl
    “What I am sure about is that the arguments against female ordination are far worse than the fact of it.”
    Agree absolutely.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  33. Jeff Spector on April 14, 2013 at 8:15 AM

    Hedehog,

    08564000 Laurel Personal Progress Certificate
    08565000 Mia Maid Personal Progress Certificate
    08563000 Beehive Personal Progress Certificate

    They’ve been around awhile.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  34. Douglas on April 14, 2013 at 2:27 PM

    #31 – We don’t need D&C 121 to know that some “pricks” NEED to be kicked. Holding the PH doesn’t of itself make men better or smarter, although righteous exercise thereof ought to help!

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  35. not in my world... on April 15, 2013 at 9:30 AM

    Yesterday in Sacrament Meeting two YW were presented with advancement certificates. The Bishop always tells the congregation what each youth wants to do when they grow up. One of these YW wants to be an interior designer, and the other, a fashion designer.

    Then today I get this email:

    “We will be playing ” Who’s Who” at our May 7th Women Who Know Conference.

    We encourage all of you to participate. We are looking for 2 to 3 items about each of you. These items could include a baby picture, hobbies, favorite sport, where you were born, favorite color, favorite book, latest sewing project, a quilt you made, etc.”

    If anyone in my ward has heard about OrdainWomen, they are not saying a word.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  36. not in my world... on April 15, 2013 at 9:33 AM

    Clarification: The Women Who Know Conference is for the RS, not the YW. You know, have all the adult women bring their baby pictures and sewing projects — fun fun fun.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

Archives

%d bloggers like this: