Comments on: A Mormon feminist manifesto

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 04:08:24 +0000

pconnor, thanks for your comment. I think I see what you are getting at, but I think we need to be careful to project our situation today as the ultimate situation (though saints and the rest of humanity are wont to do so). The Proclamation on the family may very well be inspired, but it is not a revelation (nor for that matter are the rest of the proclamations issued by the church heirarchy). The last two revelations we have received (OD2 and D&C 138) are very different in nature.

That said, Woodruff frequently talked about going down to the river and being baptized for women and not having a recorder present and then receiving more light from the prophet on the matter. I think that we sometimes conflate current policy with more light, which I don’t necessarily see.

By: pconnor

pconnor — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 03:32:50 +0000

I’m an occasional visitor to this site and I’ve pondered this article for many days. I’ve never replied to a blog before, and perhaps my comments have are posted after the “expiration date”, but here goes…

I should probably make clear that the goal of seeking greater equality within the our homes, the Church and the world is imperative – though I think the word “balance” fits much better than “equality”. I am constantly striving for this and also for better understanding on how I can exercise and influence to this righteous goal.

I realize that there are practices that have been followed or taught in the past within the Church. Yet I am cautious when reflecting on those as a “better” or even preferred way or doctrine as compared to their practice or teaching today.

The Lord has seen fit to refine and improve our understanding of doctrines and practices as we progress as saints. Whether it be the Word of Wisdom, sealings in the temple or how the Gospel is preached to the dead – as our understanding has grown, we have moved forward and been blessed.

Not to make light of the serious need for balance in our homes and Church, I do believe that none of us long for the times when we could chew tobacco and be temple worthy or be sealed to someone other than our loving wives or husbands in the temple. I don’t know where the practice of allowing non-priesthood holders to participate in blessings falls along the spectrum, but I believe it is worth considering.

Secondly, as I ponder this notion of balance and equality, I temper it with the great revelation we have received on the family. The Lord has revealed clearly that we are fundamentally different – even in the spirit world before coming here.

If we are different, with different strengths and roles, I wonder if sometimes as we strive by our own understanding for “equality” – if we would push past the Lord’s understanding and wish for something that is not in harmony with His vision of what we should be.

I believe this principle of aligning our personal goals and visions of ourselves with the Lord’s is a challenge for each of us – regardless of gender (though based on comparisons of Women’s Conf addresses to Priesthood Conf addresses – it appears we men are consistently more challenged.)

By: Joanne

Joanne — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 02:48:57 +0000

Matt W. — An idea is innovative if it invites us to apply the gospel to women in a fresh way. Not that the traditional way is bad, but itâ€™s using the same lens, and it doesnâ€™t challenge us to search, to be open to alternative interpretations to God and the world.

Sheri Dew has been extremely motivational, and her personal and professional background has positively colored her message and impact. But I think thatâ€™s different from taking a risk and exploring a change in message.

In fairness, I know much more about Presidents Jack, Okazaki, and Clyde than I do about subsequent leaders.

By: Space Chick

Space Chick — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 20:09:39 +0000

Matt, I read your comment 66 to mean that the general RS presidency doesn’t have more of a voice because they’re just an auxiliary, and no auxiliary gets that much of a voice at conference or in any other broadcast. But that still doesn’t justify the situation, it just pushes it back a level. If the highest office a sister can hold in church government in general RS president, and the general RS presidency doesn’t get airtime because it’s simply an auxiliary, then I would still conclude that women are themselves auxiliary, and not equal to men in church government. So either we make an exception for RS as a special case, or we put a woman into the FP or Q12. Otherwise, we’re not in a “separate but equal” position, we’re at “separate and not equal”. We keep protesting that women are treated equally, but the ground truth continues to contradict that. If the administration of the church can’t provide demonstrate equal treatment in action, then how can we hope for the rank and file to change, without an living example to guide them?

By: Matt W.

Matt W. — Sat, 03 Feb 2007 20:22:05 +0000

Joanne, I will certainly add this to my queue of books.

I am not sure what you mean by “innovative”.

By: Joanne

Joanne — Sat, 03 Feb 2007 15:38:51 +0000

I like Sheri Dew for her dynamic speaking style, but I didn’t hear innovative content from her. Her words just had different ethos because she’s a single career woman. On the other hand, Elaine Jack, Chieko Okazaki, Aileen Clyde were a dynamite presidency. Sister Jack made a point of celebrating diversity and launching the literacy program. Sister Okazaki took on racism and was a working mother herself for a time because she loved teaching. Sister Clyde is a feminist. She has spoken at Exponent II and she recently reviewed Martha Sontag Bradley’s book about Mormons and the ERA. I recommend “Women of Covenant: The Story of Relief Society” by Jill Mulvay Derr, Maureen Ursenback Beecher, and Janath Russell Cannon for a crash course on women from the beginnings of Mormonism. It ends with Elaine Jack’s presidency. It’s great!

By: Matt W.

Matt W. — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 20:08:58 +0000

Molly, Sister Okazaki is a great example. I believe she broke the barriers I am speaking of as well.

By: molly bennion

molly bennion — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 17:14:17 +0000

Matt, Regarding women publishing and speaking with power from something like the inside, early on, Emmeline B Wells and the whole Women’s Exponent group and Susa Young Gates, who had an office close to the leaders; more recently, Chieko Okazaki. Her books were big sellers.

By: Matt W.

Matt W. — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 16:31:23 +0000

Kristine N: Why don’t you feel women are similarly intellectually and theologically inclined to men? I feel they are. (As an example, My Favorite Teacher within the BYU religion dept. is Camille Fronk Olson.) I think the problem isn’t one of intellect or theological background, but of authority and audience. The Authority issue is one I don’t want to address, as I am of a mixed mind about it, but I feel the audience issue is more measureable. Women don’t typically precieve talked in Priesthood session as being written to them, and Men don’t generally perceive talks in RS seesion as being written to them, and no one pays attention when the primary presidency speaks. Personally, I think the General Primary Presidency should address the parents of Children every conference, because kids aren’t listening, and I would love to hear counsel on how to be a better parent or primary teacher from them. I want the RS president to address the husbands in conference, and I want the YW president to address the Bishops on the needs of YW. I think this change in who the women are addressing will be more impactful (there’s that word again) than taking the same old quotes from the same old leaders saying the same old things. Why was Sheri Dew so memorable as an LDS leader. Because she didn’t get lumped in with the stereotype of the Utah Woman with the voice of a mouse who’s just so tolerant and patient. And now she’s not in the RS presidency and in my opinion, is more impactful than any member of the RS presidency. For that Matter, besides Sheri Dew and Elaine Cannon, are there any other lds women who regularly published?

Ok, this comment is becoming a rant, so I’ll stop now.If it’s unintelligible, it’s because my self-editor is busted at the moment.

By: Molly Bennion

Molly Bennion — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 06:31:07 +0000

Kristine, the manual issue falls into the “you don’t know how good you have it until it’s gone” category for me. I was known to complain about the superficial quality and the predominance of quotations by men in the old manuals. But they were far superior. Yes, there were introductions to influential women in the church, issues and examples from women’s lives, examples of poetry, music and sculpture from non-member women as well as men, pictures of women serving, studying and praying etc. Back then, it never occurred to me women could be handed a manual virtually void of any mention of them–oh, and then another, and another…